Proud Eagle

Check out the camp program and property guide. It has some info on the jobs and duties of key camp personel, including the commissioner.

I know in my experience the commissioner usually is responsible for:

Scoutmaster's meetings

campsite inspections

assisting in arranging for equipment and supplies for all units

arranging service projects for units with camp ranger

troop check in and check out procedures

be the first stop for leaders with questions or issues

assist the program director with camp fires, flag ceremonies, special activities, etc

provide information to units on opportunities and activities at camp

Also, the commissioner should be available to advise and assist unit leaders in improving their troops during camp. This could include anything from teaching some skill or even helping to set up a Patrol Leaders Council. Commissioners should be experts on Scouting Aims, Methods, and the Boy Scout program. They should make certain every troop leaves camp a stronger troop.

Almost all National Camp School training for Boy Scout resident camp staff is one week long. Training is done at several places on several sets of dates each year by each region. It should be noted the cost of each session is at least $300, perhaps more depending on when, where, and what classes (shooting sports is a good bit more, for example).

All of the information you need is contained in a handful of publications (OK, think really big three ring binder filled to bursting...)

I think my NCS materials are out in the trunk of my car right now, otherwise I would give you exact names and numbers for publications (but I only have those given to Program Directors, so there are materials specific to each job plus those given to everyone...)

Here is a rough idea of the sorts of materials needed to find relevant policies:

2006 National Camp Standards for Boy Scout Resident Camp

Camp Program and Properties Guide

Camp Health and Safety Manual

Council Risk Management Guide

Guide to Safe Scouting

First Aid Log Books (three per week if memory serves)

Staff Training Guide

also special books, manuals, and training materials for the Directors and staff of each of the following:

Aquatics

Shooting Sports

Climbing

COPE

Camp Director

Program Director

Camp Commissioner

there are also materials available relating to:

Nature

Outdoor Skills (Scoutcraft)

Trek (High Adventure)

Chaplain

First Year Camper Program

Oh, as to the definition of long term camping, that is a bit murky. However, if you are camping in the same place for 4 days or more, particularly if with multiple troops and on council property, you are going to have a very hard time convincing your council it is anything other than a resident camp. I should note that unless you conduct your camp under the "auspices and standards of the Boy Scouts of America" you can't count it for OA elections.

Another thing, you should contact the council camping committee. They could be a huge help with making this work properly. They could also cause you all some problems if they decide they don't like what you are doing. [Those renegade Scoutmasters think they can run their own summer camp! Well just wait until we throw the book at them! (Of course when they throw the book at you it will be the first time you have ever seen it before, because they didn't bother to share it with you...)]

Finally, I think what they did to you all was a shame. It is a scandal in my mind. I can understand a council deciding it can't run its own camp. However, it should at least arrange to run one jointly with some other council. That way all of you guys would still have at least a nominal home camp. I would be willing to bet my council would have been receptive to working with you guys to make something like that happen. As the most recent past Program Director at Camp Roy C. Manchester (2006 have not been hired yet because someone forced the council to write and adopt an official hiring policy first...) I personally think such a joint effort could have been a great success if done correctly. Our councils have a history of cooperation on a number of things, such as the previous and the upcoming Powder Horn courses (which that has now been put in some turmoil as well).

You wouldn't by any chance by from the Buffalo Trace Council and be reffering to the Old Ben Scout Reservation, would you?

I would encourage you to consider all of your available options. There are many fine Scout camps all over the country. Some have great facilities, some have great programs, some have great staffs, and a very rare few have all three.

On the issue of running your own all volunteer summer camp:

I imagine it would be possible for troops to get together and find enough good people to offer programs and classes of all sorts. The problem is going to be finding all of the other resources you need. After all, someone has to go up before your camp and set up the facilities, clean and prepare equipment, purchase and store supplies, etc. Then during camp you will also need people in supporting roles such as a medical staff. Finely, you really should follow all of the national standards for a Boy Scout resident camp. That is quite a pain in the rear, even if you have all of the trained people it takes. Yes, you must have National Camp School trained people for many key positions to satisfy BSA's standards. It is really too bad when this sort of thing happens. Often with some creativity a way could have been found to offer the program at a lower cost (such as finding more volunteer staffers...) Unfortunately this requires units and councils working together in ways that are really quite unusual for the most part. Oh well.

My advice, go find another camp. You always take some risk when trying a new camp or program. With an established camp that is a manageable risk. With some new experiement like this, it is a bit more of a gamble.

Oh, and last, but certainly not least -

Do the Scouts have any opinion about this? I would think they may have some ideas about what it is they want...

I am going to go out on a limb and say that supporting Cub Scouting is not a critical mission of the OA. Is it a nice thing to do when practical? Sure. Is it necessary? No.

If you look at the purpose of the OA you will see that it doesn't really have much of anything to do with many of the new initiatives being sent down from on high. While these programs are all great ideas, they don't all work well on a nation wide basis. I think what often happens with OA is some idea that has been made to work in one lodge is made into a national initiative without first finding out if it can be readily made to work in some other lodge.

I know we usually lag at least two years behind in actually getting most new initiatives up and running. However, by the time you are ready to give it a trial run, the national focus has moved on to some other newer program. So then the energy and attention starts to shift and pretty soon the program dies out without ever really having had a chance to live.

I don't know about other places, but I find we have trouble just getting the basics working right around here. If we can help out the Cubs, I am all for it. I probably won't get personally involved, but then again I am tottering on the edge of Scouting over-load most of the time in any case (as are most other lodge, council, and district level Scouters now that I think about it). Also, I don't really find much of anything to enjoy in Cub Scouting, and my personal skills and experiences make me far more valuable serving parts of the program other than Cub Scouts.

Something I have always noticed is that at NOAC training there is stuff for small lodges and large lodges, but very little targeted at mid-size lodges. Most lodges I know of in this area are in the middle in terms of membership, but cover geographic areas that are quite large. The lodges are too spread out to administer without chapters, but most chapters don't have enough members to function very well. It is a constant struggle. About the time we have chapters up and running, then council changes its districts. Of coarse since we never know if district changes are permanent or temporary, we then sit around with chapter and district lines that don't come even close to matching for months on end. Then about the time we change chapters, districts change yet again. I can only imagine what it is like in some of the places out west where population densities and numbers of Scouts are even lower while geographic areas are even larger. However, things are looking up. We have a first class Scout Executive now, our council volunteers are being reorganized, and the councils finances are stabalizing. For the lodge we have new officers coming on board and a new year about to start fresh (OK, I won't exactly be any fresher come Jan. 1, nor will the staff advisor, but oh well).

All that being said, I think it is perhaps a bit of an exageration to say:

There is a systemic failure if the Lodge *ISN'T* supporting Cub Scouting, whether it be Arrowmen in the Troop reaching back to the Pack, the Chapter reaching back to Day Camp, or the Lodge reaching back across the Council camping program.

Let me suggest something no one else has:

Many Scouters don't know how to say "No" when asked to do something.

When asked to do something we instinctively say "yes" because it is the helpful... thing to do.

I know I have a hard time saying "no" amd I usually feel guilty about it when I do. It would almost be easier to quit entirely than say "no" to specific things.

Generally this causes people to become involved in things they don't want to do, don't believe they are qualified for, or simply don't have the time and resources to do. This is especially true when asked to do several things.

I think every major BSA training should include a section on knowing your own limits and how to say "no" when you have reached them.

"Hi, I am Proud Eagle. I have a problem with always saying, 'yes'."

Does anyone know what would happen if an ASM from a unit was a member of an Eagle BOR for that unit?

I can't see requiring the Scout to complete a second BOR, that seems unfair (unless there is reason to belive it was done as part of some sort of conspiracy to influence the board).

I also can't see faulting the ASM, particularly if they were invited to sit on the board by the District Advancement Chairman (as is the norm in my council).

It seems the fault should be placed on the district/council for not ensuring that they had trained and knowledgeable volunteers in key roles and failing to provide the resources needed to support them.

The reason I ask is that I was invited to serve on an Eagle BOR and one of the candidates being considered is from my troop. I also happen to be the OA Lodge Advisor. It so happened that the Scout was not prepared for the BOR on the night scheduled, so it did not make a difference in the end. Now the District Advancement Chairman is relatively new to the job, so they may not yet be fully up to speed on the policies and procedures. Also, there is a relatively small pool of experienced Scouters in my community who are usually called on to do these sorts of things, so it may have been done at least in part out of necessity.

I really don't know quite what the harm in sitting on the board would have been. I have reasons to be both for and against this person's advancement to Eagle. However, I feel certain in this case I could objectively evaluate the candidate. Also, some basic knowledge of the candidate could be quite useful in the BOR. To be quite honest I sometimes fill a role in the unit that is probably closer to that of either a unit commissioner or committee member. I am an Assistant Scoutmaster simply because that is how I have been registered since turning 18.

Now that I know the policy, I will most likely decline to sit on the BOR when it convenes again to consider this particular Scout.

(On a mostly unrelated note, I know of a unit where several leaders are changing their BSA registration at recharter in hopes of being able to serve on the BOR of a member of that unit.)

Yikes!

That is horrible!

To my knowledge, nothing like that goes on in the troop I belong to. However, I could be wrong.

I do witness on a regular basis what happens in a unit with zero trained leaders that is run by a bunch of very good people with very little understanding of Scouting. It isn't real pretty, but it beats the heck out of what you described.

I don't really know quite what holidays have to do with this... but I guess if we can use the issue to beat someone we don't like over the head with it doesn't really matter if it makes any sense or not. (Ed my in fact have a point, but I have not yet seen evidence of it. Or perahps this has something to do with something on some other thread I did not read. In any case, simply because I have not seen evidence of Ed having a point as to the Christmas holiday thing, I don't doubt that he could in fact have one.)

As to charter organizations or leaders lying to the BSA, or anyone else, about following or violating BSA policy, I think that is wrong. When public schools chartered units while knowing they could not in fact enforce all of BSA's policies that was wrong. Those schools lied to BSA if they really thought that. (Alternatively they may have interpreted the Constitution in a way that seems at the moment to be different from the courts. In that case they did nothing morally wrong, they simply were incorrect from a legal point of view. Not a good thing, but not a terrible evil either.) In the same way it is wrong for any group to lie to BSA by claiming they will follow its policies when in fact they have no intention of doing so. (This becomes slightly more complicated if they only figured out the policy after agreeing to follow it. In that case the right thing to do is to stop carrying out the Scouting program once it is determined it conflicts with some other obligation or belief.)

As to the issue of BSA issuing charters to those it knows can not maintain their part of the agreement, that is simply foolishness. Why the BSA would ever do that I have no idea. It should not be done. It is not in fact dishonest in the since of it being a lie, but it could be construed as misleading or deceptive. The greater burden is placed on the party that agreed to do something they could not. However, the BSA still has some responsibility if the BSA in fact knew of the problem at the time of entering into a charter agreement. Though the official executing the charter agreement on the part of the BSA would also have to be aware, since it is hard to hold an individual responsible based on knowledge held by a corporate body. (On the other hand the BSA is not under any obligation to determine if a group if fully capable of keeping their part of the bargain. That is the obligation of the chartering organization.)

Finally, the agnostic thing makes even less since than what Ed said about a certain holiday celibrated on the 25th day of December.

Where can I find the rules, regulations, and membership policies tha prohibit all agnostics from joining BSA? I know of no document that has the force of official policy that states that. Something on a website, even an official one, is not necessarily an official statement of policy. Even if it was, the item being referenced does not in fact state what many think it does. It could be inferred from it, but it certainly does not state it in anything approaching a direct or absolute fashion.

NOAC information packets should be arriving in council offices any day now...

In the mean time some prelimary information I have recieved may be of interest to you all. While I don't have any special insider sources, this is what has trickled down through the system.

Conference fee for NOAC 2006 will be $345, $10 more than last time.

Lodges will be given a larger number of slots. Most NOACs have about 7,000 Arrowmen. 2006 slots will be based on 10,000. The university has room for 17,000 if need be. If you have more people than slots, request more and you will likely get them.

The 2 youth to 1 adult ratio used in the past is being relaxed to 1 youth per 1 adult. (Most lodges find they have many adults willing to pay and go, but not so many youth. Since the available space at the conference was normally quite limited most spaces were reserved for youth. This time around lodges can bring more adults without decreasing the number of youth they have traditionally taken.)

I am really wondering about how exactly that statistic was developed. I don't doubt that the number of people who are faced with hunger or the possibility of hunger is in the millions in this country, but 13% seems a bit high. That is one out of every eight people. That means one member of every ideal 8 person patrol is threatend by hunger. That means 3 students out of an average elementary school class are threatened by hunger.

13% or one in eight people, is not in any way acceptable. I certainly hope that statistic is high. If not then we have some extremely serious problems.

I never really gave this any thought before.

Has anyone checked the new version of the Guide to Inductions? It can be found at www.oa-bsa.org if anyone wants to try to find any guidance. I have not yet read the current version of the Guide to Inductions, and I do not recall anything on the subject being in the previous edition, or in the Guide for Officers and Advisors.

Everywhere I have ever been to a ceremony those who came to watch sat if there was seating available, and stood if there was not. Most of the ceremony sites I have visited included seating of some form in the design.

As a youth I had the opportunity to take place in all of the induction ceremonies of our order at one time or another. I also had the part of each of the four principles at least once. I never had any problem with people sitting. It seemed the natural thing to do. After all, what else were the benches/logs around the ceremony sight for?

Looking back on it I still think it is perfectly fine to sit during the ceremony. The only real participants in the ceremony are the candidates and the ceremonial principles (and possibly Elangomats). The focus should be on them. So, how do we best ensure that the focus stays where it should be? That is obviously open to some debate and local interpretation.

I should note that in older copies of the current ceremonies (I think the current ones eliminated it) there was a diagram of the lay out of the ring. It included, among other things, seats of honor for the officers/advisors of the lodge. (In fact it showed three seats, and a list was provided to show who had priority in being seated in the place of honor.) So that would imply that at least some sitting is endorsed on a national level.

Also, check out the recent OA ceremonies DVDs released at the last NOAC. In this ceremony the candidates were seated for the legend. Obviously this indicates some sitting is OK.

There is also the practical aspect. How many members will skip going to the ceremony if they have to stand for an extended period? Consider also the issue of multiple ceremonies. Some lodges conduct a Brotherhood ceremony first, and then often follow it with two Ordeal ceremonies (n.b. there is a limit on the maximum number of candidates that can go through one ceremony). How many hours should people be expected to stand?

In truth it really doesn't matter much to me what you all do in your lodges. I see nothing wrong with either sitting or standing. However, I can see there being a strong argument for uniformity. It seems to me it would be better if everyone sat or everyone stood, and not a mix of the two. Again, this is a relatively minor point.

I would be overjoyed if such a trivial matter was my largest concern about ceremonies in the lodge. I am instead worried about ceremony teams that know the parts, keeping the regalia from falling apart, finding a dedicated chairman, getting an advisor with the right attitude, proper adhearence to the ten induction principles, etc...

I must have misread this post. I thought we were looking for a solution for the original poster, who says he is a chapter advisor. That would make him at least 21, and in fact it would also make him a member of the district's camping committee (though perhaps not registered as such).

Now if we need an option for a youth... find another unit, try that college reserve thing, or go the lone scout route.

You could always seek registration through your District. I would ask the District Chairman if I could be registered through the district, as part of the district camping committee. That should work out OK.

Wearing all camo and not carrying proper, easily reached, signaling devices in the back country is highly irresponsible. You should certainly carry both a bright colored item and something reflective to use to get attention if needed. Also, you should probably carry something that would enable you to make noise even if unable to speak for some reason.

alki,

Could you tell me a bit more about your new camping idea? It sounds interesting.

Actually, the camping requirement can be waved by the Scout Executive for District and Council nominees under certain circumstances.

Also, to be unusually technical, adults should only be nominated in their primary registered capacity. That is to say that if their primary registration is with a unit, only that unit should nominate that adult. If their primary registration is with the District/Council then they are eligible for nomination at that level.

Finally, Philmont is not in fact a Boy Scout Resident Camp, therefore it does not fill the long term camping part of the requirement.

It should also be noted some councils prefer a form other than the blue card for all merit badges.

I know Greater St. Louis Area Council uses the "White Card" and the Tall Pines Council uses some sort of green sheet.

What you need to make sure of is that you have documentation of what requirements were completed, when they were completed, and who signed off on them. A record of that sort should be kept by the unit and the Scout. It doesn't really matter if it is a computer print out, a carbon copy form, or a blue card. As long as it has essentially the same information as a blue card it should be fine.

After all, unless you council works very differently than most, you probably just report the MB as being earned on an Advancement Report and that takes care of the thing.

However, back up documentation is critical. Never can tell when there will be a paper work glitch at your council office...

While such things as an 18 year old and say a 14 or 15 year old engaging in inappropriate activity during Scouting functions is rare, it can and does happen. The mere possibility is not reason enough to prevent co-ed activity, but it is a significant risk that must be properly managed. Merely providing co-ed adult leadership doesn't even come close to addressing this issue.

Basically the key element is very careful adult supervision. Unfortunately, as some recent tragic incidents have shown, adult supervision is not always on the level required.

While I think the Venturing system is set up in such a way to make the risks manageable, I don't think your average Boy Scout Troop is set up in such a way.

As I said before, the only evidence I have about this issue is anecdotal. However, it is enough to cause me some concern about co-ed situations.

Just as a side note, you will find that many groups that engage in co-ed activities have systems in place to minimize the risks of this form.

Risks can be managed, but it requires first recognizing that a real risk does in fact exists.

In larger society relationships between teenagers is, to some extent, socially acceptable. However, within the Scouting context it is completely and totally unacceptable and can never be tolerated.

As for what Exploring or the Explorer Scouts or any of the other older boy programs may have done in the past that is not relevant to the current day Venturing program for two reasons:

1. Exploring is now part of Learning for Life, and is no longer a BSA program.

2. Venturing is not the same as the Exploring of old, in terms of its purpose, program, or membership

Now on to that co-ed scouting issue in general. Boys and girls are not the same. There physical, mental, and psychological development takes place in different ways and at different times. Therefore a program optimized for one will not best serve the other. It also means certain sacrifices in terms of program quality must be made to create a full co-ed program that is equally good/bad for both. Now there are some that argue the inherent benefits of being co-ed, in and of itself, are greater than the costs of changing the program. That is a fine argument to make, but it requires a very, very careful cost benefit analysis. That would have to include not just economic costs, but other factors far more difficult to value in a numeric sense.

Now my personal view is that it would be logical for BSA and GSUSA to merge at the organizational level. The advantages could be substantial. Yet I don't think there is any real gain to be made from co-ed units at the younger age levels. That is purely personal opinion, but if need be I could rationalize it.

Oh, one final thing to think about:

statutory rape

The dirty little secret is many youth organizations have to deal with this and its similar and related legal issues on a disturbing frequency. Unfortunately all the evidence I have is anecdotal and within BSA, but I have from reliable sources it is a problem in almost any organization where such a thing is physically possible. This sounds horrible I know. Yet the compelling combination of hormones, adolescent immaturity, and the like makes for some bad things. If someone had made this argument to me a year ago I would not have taken it for anything other than the paranoid ravings of someone with a tendency toward exaggeration, however recent experiences have caused me to reevaluate.

PS

Bob White,

I don't think "Venturing Scout" is correct in the present tense. If my BSA history is correct there was once such a thing, but there is no longer. The only people in any way associated with Venturing who have "Scout" in their title are the Sea Scouts. Though my recollection may be incorrect. Oh, just to confuse things farther, there are Venture Scouts who are in fact members of a Boy Scout Troop. Notice that is "Venture", not "Venturing" or "Venturer".

PPS

I would pay a dollar if BSA could figure out a way to give some of its programs new names that don't begin with the letter "v".

Now the Alamo was that thing the Spanish blew up down in Cuba that started war with Mexico right...

"Down with the Alamo, to hell with Mexico!"

Hold it... something about that isn't quite right....

The call-out is something that the lodge has authority over. If the lodge wishes it can grant a unit permission to hold its own call-out. However, it would be proper to seek permission before doing this. Part of the reason for doing this is to make certain the lodge is aware of who these candidates are and that they have been called out. Lodges need to know these things.

Just to illustrate the point, as of this year, due to OA Operations Update 05-05 a troop going out of council must now have permission from the home lodge to have the out of council lodge do a call out at camp. To be specific, there must be a letter signed by both the lodge advisor and lodge chief for this purpose. Anything less and the boys from out of council can not be called out. Also, the lodge doing the call out must then follow up and inform the home lodges of who exactly was called out.

I suspect if you ask for your lodge/chapters assistance in conducting a call out at a unit meeting or a troop camp out they will be glad to assist in some way. Maybe all they can do is giver their blessing and a copy of the call-out script your lodge uses. Or perhaps they can provide a team to do the call-out. You will never know unless you ask.

Now if I am remembering my unit elections procedures correctly, the candidates may be informed at any time after the election is complete. So there is nothing wrong with telling the candidates. On the other hand it is a bit questionable to have a true ceremony without the blessing of the lodge. (When I say ceremony I am thinking Native American regalia, drumming, torches, etc.,)

Also, if you do conduct a call-out you MUST FOLLOW NATIONAL GUIDELINES. For more on that see the current edition of the Guide for Officers and Advisors, and more importantly, the Guide to Inductions.

As a current Lodge Advisor let me share my thoughts on this matter.

First and foremost there is no "blood oath" in OA. In fact there is no "oath" at all. The only Oath for the OA is the same as for everyone else in Scouting, the Scout Oath.

On the other hand the Freemasons do, so rumors have it, take a blood oath. Since OA borrowed a few things from the Masons, I suppose it would be possible to think that was one of the things, but it most certainly is not.

Next, as to what you should or should not say about the Ordeal, I would suggest keeping it a mystery. Mystery is one of the methods that supports the Ordeal. There are NO SECRETS. My advice is use a need to know system. If a parents requires information before letting their son go through that is one thing. If a Scout just wants to know because he doesn't have the patience to wait that is another. I always make sure to tell a Scout what they will need to take to the Ordeal and what to do before going to prepare. I don't tell them why. That isn't my place. It will all be revealed in good time.

Finally, the issue of a Scoutmaster being in OA. The Scoutmaster is the most critical adult in a troop as far as the boys and the program go. Therefore if OA is going to be a success for the Scouts in the troop the Scoutmaster must be supportive of OA. To be able to offer the right kind of support the SM should be a member. The first adult to be nominated from a new unit should normally be the SM. Obviously there are exceptions to that rule, but that is what I believe should be the norm.

Can someone please tell me what part of an OA ceremony is talking about some sort of pagan spirit? I taken the part of all four principles at one time or another. I have also been a part of all of the ceremonies provided by national. Now what some lodge may do at a call out I can't speak to. In my experience there is nothing inconsistent with Christianity in the ceremonies of the OA. Recall the OA ceremonies were written by a Christian man who at other times in his life was a church youth minister, wrote Christian hymns, and even preached from many pulpits. The ceremonies of old actually contained numerous references to God. The current ones usually only make a passing reference.

Obviously if this is going to get into details we should probably move to the safeguarded area.

I do know that the Catholic Church once had a problem with the OA. That was mostly due to the fact that the Church does not like secret organizations or societies in the least. However, once the Church gained a better understanding of the Order they eventually decided it was OK.

Several other churches went through similar things. Generally after things like the ceremonies were shown to various officials it became clear to most that OA was OK.

Webelos in tan shirt and green pants/shorts should wear the blue loops.

Now another question-

Can silver or gold loops be worn on the Venturing green shirt?

So if the "activity uniform" is not in fact a uniform, why do we call it by that name?

If it is a uniform then it would seem the salute would be proper, just as a salute is proper for a soldier in mess dress, dress blues, class A, class B, or BDU.

Of coarse, that is just my humble opinion.

Also, I happen to be a member of the "it is OK to wear hats inside" croud... but then BSA caved on that one as well a while back, so I generally don't, just because if you do somebody will get up in your face about it. Heck I once saw a Camp Commissioner and a Scoutmaster nearly get into a fight in a dining hall over that. The SM was of the opinion that Scouts wearing hats indoors was perfectly fine. The Camp Commissioner was of the opinion that neither the Army nor the BSA thought it was fine. (though he seemed to be far more emotional about what they used to do back in the service...) Unpleasant moment all round.

The MB sash is intended for wear at more formal occasions like Courts of Honor or Boards of Review. Wearing it during a skit is not what it is intended for. If you happen to wear your sash to a campfire, simply take it off before participating in a skit. When worn over the shoulder it is very easy to remove the sash and then put it back on again if needed.