Proud Eagle

This is really a nutty case.

So this radical guy goes to a homosexual event and intends to protest/preach then he is confronted by a mob of the homosexuals using whistles and foam. (I wonder how loud those whistles were? Could have a hearing loss related lawsuit in the making...)

So the police then asks the group who have been surrounded by another group to move.

They refuse.

The police arrest them.

Do I have that relatively close to correct?

There are a few details that are a bit unclear such as:

Was this guy interefering with an event that these other people had a permit for? (If he was across the street as one version suggested that would seem ulikely.)

Were the people with the foam and wistles breaking any sort of laws? It seems like surrounding someone, blocking off the area with foam, and blowing wistles at them would surely be a violation if what this guy did was.

If he was not infringing the rights of this other group, what right did the police have to make him move?

So while this guy may be a bit annoying and such, this case is quite disturbing. I find it difficult to see how this guy and his supporters were breaking any law, and if they were I find it hard to believe the group that surrounded them with the foam and wistles wasn't also breaking the law.

Oh, and the ACLU does sometimes defend Christians. This usually happens in cases that have nothing at all to do with religion, but it does sometimes happen. It is probably not very common in high profile cases.

I would however be willing to bet most Christians think the ACLU is anti-Christian. After all, most of its high profile cases are in some way in opposition to Christian values. (This doesn't make them anti-Christian, though they may be.)

I seem to remember hearing that ScoutNet only allows a youth to be registered in one Troop. This makes sense in a great many ways.

On the other hand, there is no reason a Scout could not someday decide to join a Crew or Ship, or even multiple Crews. After all, since a Venturing Crew can choose its primary focus, it would be possible to be in multiple Crews without repeating stuff.

However, one Boy Scout Troop (at a time) should be able to deliver the promise of Scouting. If the unit is not doing that, then that unit is failing its members.

Now, if someone who is a member of another troop wanted to go along on one of my troop activities I would be all for it. After all, that is a possible recruit. Also, multi-troop activities are not uncommon for things like Philmont. I know that when my troop sent a contingent in 2001 that while it was just my troop on paper, we also had 5 members of another troop that went with us since we had extra spots.

Perhaps someone who knows the registration policies and procedures, or who is more familiar with ScoutNet could clarify this.

In fact, wearing either sash on the belt is prohibited. The only way to wear either an OA or a merit badge sash is over the right shoulder. Only one or the other, never both, may be worn.

Many people seem to think that hanging something on your belt isn't wearing it. However, the BSA thinks it is.

I must say I agree with a good portion of what has been said here.

Back in the summer of 2003 I taught Pioneering to most of the guys in my troop. Most of the time was spent on knot tying. The guys mostly knew how to tie the basic knots, though they weren't fully comfortable with all of them. However, teaching the pioneering knots was a real chore. I enjoyed doing it mostly because it refreshed me on how to tie them. There was one Scout that could watch you tie a knot and be able to do it blindfolded without any practice. The rest took a bit more work.

Well, at the end of summer we had just gotten started on lashings, having finished the knots. Unfortunately I had to go back to school and was unable to see them finish. Later that fall I was back home for a troop dinner and on display were many pictures from their then recent Pioneering weekend. They had constructed a huge tower. I was quite impressed. I had my doubts about the guys, but they proved me wrong.

Now, if I asked them to build a tower on some weekend, I bet they could do it, but I don't think I would want to check the knots too closely. After all, most of them probably haven't had any reason to tie most of those knots in the last year or so.

That is the problem.

People don't use the old Scouting skills as much as they once did. You no longer need to know how to tie the tauntline to put up a tent. Instead the lines have those little things or are made of elastic or something like that. It makes setting up a tent much easier and a bit faster.

There is no reason to build towers or bridges. We don't encourage cutting trees. We have made safety rules that make using a monkey bridge all but impossible and makes building a huge climbing tower into nothing more than an engineering project. After all, you can't cross a monkey bridge over water and you can't climb a tower over, what is it, 6ft? The adenture in those projects was once in knowing that at the end of it you could climb up and look around, but no more.

As for map and compass skills, I would be willing to bet that I could complete a Philmont trek without using a compass. I would need the map, but not the compass. After all, the trails are all clearly marked. There is no busting brush cross country or anything like that.

So, it is only natural that basic Scouting skills have begun to fade. After all, if you don't use a muscle for a long time it will weaken. If you don't use some knowledge for a time it will be forgoten. There is a reason that not just many Scouting skills but also much of the lore of Scouting, the stories and songs told around campfires, and yes some of the fun and adventure too, are now passing into memory or into the pages of history books rather than living on.

Change has a way of being both good and bad. We want some change to bring new good things in and take out some of the old bad things. However, in the process some of what was good will be lost, and some things that will be bad shall come into being. It is the nature of change.

Many schools offer many different types of scholarships. Some of them are paid for by private money, others by public money.

The key is who is paying.

Now, there is a way around this for Maryland, or so it seems to me. They could create a system that gives free tuition to anyone that recieves any number of different types of awards. As long as there are awards on the list available to aethiests I think it would probably fly. I personally have no idea what award there is that an aethiest can earn that is even vaguely like the Eagle, but I am sure there is one out there some place.

I should say that I personally support the idea of scholarships being made available to Eagle and Gold Award recipients. I would also support scholarships being made available to those that recieve a variety of other major awards from both private and public entities. The currently short an narrow lists of GPA, SAT scores, and athletics are not very well rounded lists of reasons for awarding scholarships. Awards given for showing leadership and citizenship would seem to me to be a good start in expanding the offerings.

As for the idea of BSA disavoying this, that would be very uncharacterist. After all, this is not a benefit being offered to BSA, so BSA has no right to refuse it. It is a benefit being offered to certain individuals who once were or still are members of the BSA. BSA has no right to turn something like this down on their behalf.

Oh, one last thing. As to the issue of race based scholarships, there are still institutions that grant preferences by race in publicly funded scholarships. There are even (insert selected race here) scholarships that are only available to a particular race that are at least partially backed by public funds. In one case I even know of a scholarship being made available that is available to everyone other than white people, again with at least some public funding involved. People can think that racial discrimination in the name of affermitive action is right if they want to, but I think it will one day be seen the same as racial discrimination that has been carried out for many other reasons.

Sorry, I forgot one thing I wanted to bring up. What about disabled people and athletic scholarships? If a person has a physical dissability then they are not going to be able to compete (in most cases) at the same level as others in athletics. So giving out athletic scholarships, while certainly discriminating against many less than great athletes, discriminates most harshly against those people with permanent dissabilities. It seems like someone would be making that into a crusade. (What benefit is there to society from athletic scholarships anywase? Do those that recieve them go on to be great researchers, or leaders in business and the community or anything like that?)(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

Adults should wear the uniform as an example to the youth. If the adults are not going to set the example then who will? If it isn't important for adults why should it be important for youth?

Adults should ask the youth to wear the uniform to appropriate events and functions. If you wonder why no one is in uniform it may be because no one asked them to be.

Most importanly the adults need to make certaint there is a good scouting program. If there is a good program then as Eamonn says, the uniform will be worn.

Put on a good program, set a good example, and encourage good uniforming. If that doesn't work then I don't know what to say.

As to the militaristic comments, I would suggest you ask your local council what a volunteer should do if they have ideas about improving the uniform. Then provide this information to those individuals and tell them that if they think they can do better they are welcome to submit a proposal through proper channels.

I should note that not only do the military have uniforms, but so do fire fighters, police officers, sherrifs, EMTs, rescue squad members, and a variety of others types of people that provide valuable services to the community. I wonder if they realise that when there is an emergency chances are the people who will respond are going to be in uniform? Would they turn away a fire truck driven by a person in uniform if their house was on fire? Would they turn away the ambulance driven by a person in uniform if they were having a heart attack? Would they turn away the help of trained and dedicated citizens helping to shore up the levie with sandbags during a flood just because they happen to be citizen-soldiers in a military uniform?

I can not help but have some serious doubts about any person that believes the BSA is too militaristic and wants to get rid of the uniform because of it.

Just because supply division sells a book of Eagle COH ceremonies that includes an OA themed COH with the names in it doesn't make it right.

I personally thought the OA themed one seemed a bit hoaky to put it mildly. I was the chief of my lodge at the time I recieved my Eagle. I didn't even seriously consider using the OA themed one, in part because of the issue of the principles, but also because it is a COH conducted with my troop, not an event of the lodge. Heck, I don't even like it when people wear an OA sash to a COH unless their is some special reason.

Of coarse some people think I am one of those book thumping, rule quoting, overly technical types that are never any fun.

If this were a safeguarded discussion there are also several other reasons I would mention not to use the names of the principles. If you are big into ceremonies you can probably think of some of the same reasons I am thinking of. (Some people could even think of more I am sure.)

In any case it is clearly spelled out in policy, so no need to get into the symbolism and such in the first place.

So, am I the only one that finds it somewhat hypocritical to say that you can represent Scouting at a Scouting fundraiser and drink if you are in civilian cloths but if you put on the uniform you can't drink?

So the clothing you are wearing determines what is right and wrong? I though ideals and values and all that should apply both in and out of uniform.

If it isn't right to do it in uniform, then anyone who is representing the district/council at such an event shouldn't do it in civilian cloths either. If I go with my troop on a camping trip, it doesn't matter if I wear the uniform or blue jeans and a T-shirt. I am still an Assistant Scoutmaster in the troop and should be expected to perform and behave as such.

Now, I personally don't really see anything wrong with the guy in uniform having the drink. I probably wouldn't drink in uniform, but then I don't really drink in the first place.

Actually, come to think of it, I have consumed what is chemically speaking alcohol while in uniform, while at several Scouting events, most of which were while I was a youth. In all cases their were other youth and adults in uniform present. I am not going to mention the exact circumstances, I will leave that to everyone's own imagination.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

I just used this story as the basis for an adviser's minute at a meeting tonight. It went over pretty well. I basically tied it in with that shoot for the moon land among the stars thing. I told the guys if one cub scout can do this, then the members of Scouting's National Honor Society should be able to achieve even greater things.

Eamonn,

While I would not be comfortable drinking in uniform in public, I don't know of any place it is technically outlawed, so to speak.

I know you can't serve alcohol at an event with youth.

I know there is no alcohol allowed on BSA property (I wonder how they handle weddings at such at places they rent out their facilities to the public?).

However, I know of no specific provision on drinking while in uniform, off property, in a more or less private setting with other adults. If it is a Scouting function it should not make a difference if he is in uniform. If it is right to be wearing civilian cloths and drinking while representing Scouting then it should be OK to be in uniform and doing the same.

This isn't to say that I think drinking in uniform is good, I don't think it is. In fact, I would have probably asked if he thought it was such a good idea. However, I would not have forced him to stop. (I know you didn't say you made him stop, rather you asked him not to. So I am not accusing you of being too forceful or anything such as that.)

What I am wondering is, have I missed something in one of the books that spells this out?

Oh, on the original topic of this thread, everyone that is a member of BSA is entitled to wear some form of the uniform.

I can understand setting out in writing that all Assistant Scoutmasters are expected to be in uniform.

On the other hand it is entirely backwards to denny members of the committee the right to wear the uniform. They are registered members of the troop and of the BSA. Let them wear the uniform if the wish.

I wonder how they delivered an order that large?

The troop's leadership should consider it their responsibility to explain what the significance of OA and elections are before the election team visit. I would actually say this should be something done during the year, not just 5 min before the election team arrives.

It is also the election teams job to explain the election process, including enough background to make a good choice.

The troop leaders must assume the OA will do a bad job and the OA must assume the troop leaders are doing a bad job, just to be safe. Besides, it won't hurt anyone to hear it again.

Now, as for the actual election team presentation here is what I would advise:

The election team should review the following materials- Election Team training video, unit election video, and LLD S48A Beginner Unit Elections, and the Unit Election script from the Guide for Officers and Advisers. These materials provide everything the election team (and it should be a team, not just a solo act) must know. For team leaders, committee chairmen, or others providing leadership and planning for elections session 48B and 48C from LLD could also be useful.

There is no reason an election team shouldn't know the job and be able to perform well. If they are underperforming it is for one of the following reasons-

1. They didn't bother to go to training

2. They don't care enough to put what they know to use

3. Their lodge/chapter did not make training and support available

If you are interested in this topic please take a look at the Order of the Arrow Guide for Officers and Advisers, specifically "Election Procedures" on pages 22 & 23 and "Election Ceremony" on pages 26 & 27. (page references for 2004 edition)(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

Count nights as actual nights. (Sleeping periods in other words)

Count days as something like a program day. For example, you may only get a very short period in on Friday, and may get less than a full day on Sunday. If you put the two together you probably get something like a whole day.

Another option would be to follow the national camping award criteria. That defines a day as being a 24 hour period. So a typical weekend trip is probably around 40 hours or so. I think most people would count that as two days since that is what it rounds to.

Many moons ago someone posted a link to a relatively good web page talking about most of BSA's older youth programs, when they were created, what their basic function was, and what they turned into later. If anyone happens to remember that link, or the thread it was in, that would be a good starting point for discussing this.

Who, exactly, did this offend again?

I must have missed that part.

While many people may not agree with this list, I can't really see any particular reason to be offended.

"but the world is full of idiots and probably always will be"

That appears to by a more or less true observation. Can anyone site evidence to refute it? I think the idea is that there will always be some idiot saying something stupid and offensive, and just because they are an idiot saying stupid and offensive stuff gives us no right to make them shut up. Sure, the person preaching about putting the wonders of segregation is an idiot saying stupid and offensive things. However, we have no right to make him stop talking.

The end where it mentions idiotic laws made by those confused by the Bill or Rights also seems to hold true. Idiotic laws are bad. (Though we all probably have a different idea of what is an idiotic law.) Giving power to make laws to anyone confused by the Bill of Rights also seems a less than great idea (though we all probably have slightly different ideas about the Bill of Rights).

While there is much in this list that a person could disagree with, or possibly refute, I don't see any of it as being particularly offensive. If you are being offended by the fact that someone is suggesting that something you feel entitled to is not actually a right, well then I guess you feel offended by at least 50% of peoples' political positions.

I don't agree with everything on this list. Yet I don't feel offended. Remarkable.

I don't think that I hurled any insults.

I did make some observations.

I did make some analogies (or is that simile or metaphor? to be quite honest I am too tired to think about that) that expressed my reaction to my observations.

I certainly never said anything I would have found insulting. Now I may have been incorrect, or my experiences may be non-representative, or I may have even made incorrect conclusions based on my observations, but I don't think it was insulting.

If anyone was insulted, understand that I certainly did not intend it that way. Sorry if anyone's feeling got dinged up, banged around, or otherwise injured.

I should note that a Venture Patrol has almost nothing in common with a Venturing Crew. The program that a Venture Patrol is most closely related to is the Varsity Scout Team. In most respects, a Venture Patrol in a Troop and a Varsity Scout Squad in a Team are nearly identical in terms of program and activities.

In fact, most of the Varsity awards can be earned by members of a Venture Patrol.

Keep in mind that despite its name, a Varsity Scout Team is not necessarily sports related.

Yah, there was this program full of great ideas and great people. It decided to go out on a wilderness trek. Unfortunately due to lack of focus, direction, proper support, and lack of materials, they didn't really know how to find the way. Now that program and the good people in it are lost in the wilderness.

That about sums up what I think has happened with Venturing. We constantly hear that Venturing is NOT SCOUTING, and yet that it is part of the traditional program. So what does that mean?

Well, Venturing does have ideals. Those ideals are loosely based on the Scout Oath and Law. (I have to believe some media consulting firm wrote the Venturing Oath and Code, though I like the Code better than the Oath.) However, just as Venturings ideals are a bit vague and non-specific, so to is the implementation of the ideals as a method of Venturing. Certainly some Crews do a wonderful job. However, others are just a club for teenagers with no real purpose other than what the Venturers decide to do. That runs directly contrary to the idea of it being part of the traditional program, and even conflicts with the Venturing Methods. Really the problem with Venturing isn't its methods, it is the Goals.

Venturing is perhaps the big tent program that is just a little bit too big. I don't have a problem with a crew focusing on model trains, but the question is does it still achieve the goals using the methods?

Venturing is supposed to be a defined program with set goals and set methods. The exact activities are supposed to be left to the Crew. However, I think it is being treated as a build-your-own-program program. People are picking and choosing the goals and methods they want, ignoring others, and inventing yet still others.

And can someone please tell me what sort of "High Adventure" a Crew focused on arts and crafts or some such thing does? "All right, everyone pack up your stamp collections, we are going to Philmont!?!?!?" So, maybe there is a problem with the methods.

Now, when it comes to Venturing, I only spent a couple months in a Crew, and it wasn't a very good Crew. However, the truth of the matter is there are plenty of real Crews that are just as lost as the one I was in. From the outside observers standpoint, Venturing is just a mess. That isn't to say it isn't doing lots of good for lots of people, it probably is. However, it is still a mess.

If Venturing were a person, it would certainly be an open minded one. I am afraid it might be so open minded that it is in danger of its brains falling out.

I certainly hope for nothing other than the best for the Venturing program. There many good youth and adults in the program and I am certain many of them are having a great time and running great Crews. However, there are plenty of others blundering along without a map or compass.

Oh - one last thing. Does anyone know for certain weather or not a Venturing Crew may mix and match the official BSA Venturing uniform? The insignia guide seems to say no, but many Crews seem to say yes. What is the real deal on this?

Does any one have a definitive source on wether or not a Crew can alter the BSA Venturing uniform? I understand that a Crew can choose a uniform of its own design, but I was always under the impression that if you chose the "official" uniform you couldn't mix and match. This isn't to say that many Crews don't do it, many do. It may even be the best, most practical option. However, I have yet to see anything which would over-ride the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, which clearly states (as reprinted in the insignia guide)

Insignia, Uniforms, and Badges

Article X, Section 4

Protection of Uniforms

Clause 4. Prohibition of Alteration or Imitation

(a) No alteration of, or additions to, the official uniforms, as described in the official publications, or the rules and regulations covering the wearing of the uniform and the proper combination thereof on official occasions, may be authorized by any Scouting official or local council or any local executive board or committee, except the Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America after consideration by the Program Group Committee.

The Venturing section of the Uniform and Insignia Guide 2003-2005 makes no mention of any option to alter the uniform. It just talks about the correct way to wear the official uniform.

So, can a Crew decide to use the official Venturing uniform with alterations? or must an all-or-nothing sort of approach be taken to the official Venturing uniform?

Someone can correct me if I am wrong but...

I thought if a uniform was ever official it still was. So if in the early days Venturing adults had an option, that would seem to indicate they still do.

As to the issue of Crews not being older age Troops with girls, I would agree they should not be. However, many are because they are being run by experienced Scouts and Scouters who carry over a good portion of the program. Also, many Crews recruit older youth from Troops by telling them they will do the same activities, have girls, not have younger kids, and still be able to earn their Boy Scout ranks. So, it isn't just the poor old SM who doesn't understand Venturing, it is also the way Venturing sometimes sells itself. It makes sense that they would use such a sales pitch, after all, Boy Scouts understand Scouting, but they don't really understand Venturing.

Perhaps at the national level all is well, but at the local level it is certainly not.

It may be that Venturing has moved away from both Exploring and Boy Scouting, but in my mind it still seems like it is stuck someplace in between the two.

OK.

I checked the Uniform and Isignia Guide 2003-2005.

On page 30-Venturing Insignia there is the following:

"Shoulder loops, green ribbon, No. 00678, Venturer and Venturing adult, on shoulder epaulets worn on the Venturing spruce green uniform shirt. Not to be worn on Boy Scout khaki uniform."

That seems rather clear. However it leaves several questions in my mind.

For example, why does the adult uniform inspection sheet mention wearing green loops on the khaki shirt?

And could someone correct me if I am wrong, but I remember reading something in Boys Life or Scouting, or something like that about adults in Venturing being able to wear the khaki uniform.

(Obviously they can't mix a shirt from one area and pants from another, though I have seen a Sr. DE do that.)

Also, isn't the Boy Scout khaki uniform also the uniform of the BSA as an organization? After all, you never see the Chief Scout Executive in anything other than Boy Scout khaki (or at least I haven't). So are silver and gold loops authorised for wear on the Venturing uniform? Can a district, council, regional, or national level person choose to use either the Venturing or Boy Scout uniform?

It appears I may have been wrong about Venturing adults having an option, though it is obvious many of them think they do by the number that wear green loops on khaki shirts. This leads me to believe that at some point BSA did something to indicate that Venturing adults had a choice about the uniform they wore.

Adults can receive nominations from one of two sources, depending upon what their primary registration is. If a person's primary registration is with a unit, then they are only eligible for nomination at the unit level. If a person's primary registration is at the district level they may be nominated by the district. All nominees should then be screened by a selection committee and only those who will be able to in some way contribute to the program should be made candidates.

Backpacker, I must say I certainly did not say that Venturers don't live up to the ideals of Scouting. They certainly can. I would certainly hope they all live up to the Venturing ideals. However, the ideals of Venturing are not the same as the ideals of Boy Scouting. All you have to do is read the fact sheets on the BSA website to figure out that much. For the Boy Scout program the ideals are the Oath and the Law. For the Venturing program the ideals are the Venturing Oath and Code. Those are not interchangeable standards in my opinion.

You also did not address the issue of Scout camping and summer camp. Since Venturing has very little connection with summer camp, and some Crews do not even engage in camping, I see this as being a somewhat critical area in evaluating the appropriateness and feasibility of opening OA to all Venturers.

Add to this the various ceremonial issues, the logistics and planning, should make it clear that this is not a closed case.

Also, to conclude that because female adults have been allowed there is no turning back from full female participation is a crock in my opinion. If you try to apply that logic to almost any other situation you will find it is no justification. Now, in terms of it being a slippery slope argument (we want to do thing A which we think is good, but it could lead to thing B which may not be good) there could be some basis for that. I take it that by your reasoning it is only right that females also be allowed as youth in Boy Scout Troops, Varsity Scout Teams, and Cub Scout Packs?

Keep in mind also that each of the programs of the BSA has specific Aims and Methods. Each program is designed to fit the target audience as best as possible. (In the case of Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, and Varsity Scouting, the target audience is all male. Allowing females to be a member of the current program would be a disservice to them as they deserve a program designed for their needs just as much as the boys do. Now some will argue one generic program will do, but there is considerable evidence to support the idea that this will result in lower quality for both sexes compared to separate specialized programs.) So, what does this have to do with the Order of the Arrow? Well, it is part of the Boy Scout program (Boy Scouts, Venture Scouts, and Varsity Scouts, but not Cubs or Venturers). As such the OA is designed to fit the needs of supporting the Boy Scout program and its target audience.

Next, as to OA having changed, I can agree that change has taken place. However, may perspective is entirely within the time since females have become adult Arrowmen. I have seen a considerable shift in the candidates we are getting. I am also starting to see some changes at the officer level, though not so drastic.

Finally, I must say I don't plan on pulling my hair out (though I might if I had to worry about the 14 y/o girls hooking up with the 14 y/o guys on an OA weekend). I guess I am still young enough to not have to worry about hair loss (I hope). Also, considering how young I am to be a Lodge Adviser, I guess I can sympathize with the young candidates. On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining starting the OA experience at such a young age. After all, I entered the OA at age 15 as a Life Scout.

Eamonn,

One little correction about Venturing leaders and campaign hats.

The adult leaders in the Venturing program may either wear the green shirt/grey pants of the Venturing program or the may wear the tan shirt/green pants of the BSA field uniform with green Venturing shoulder loops. With that uniform the campaign hat would be appropriate.

I could be wrong, but can't all adults registered with BSA wear the BSA field uniform (which also happens to be the Boy Scout/Varsity Scout program's uniform)?

Oh, EagleInKY, if you remember, let us know if the staff at your camp are in Venturing green this summer. It is my understanding that the national camp standards are being changed to prohibit Venturing Crews and Sea Scout Ships from attending BSA resident camp at the same time it is being used by Boy Scout Troops and Varsity Scout Teams. In fact, your council has information posted on-line indicating Venturing units are not being accepted at Camp Crooked Creek this year.

Perhaps allowing local councils to recognize the awards in some way would be a work around for the administrative problems. Or, perhaps BSA could figure out some way of passing on any administrative burdens to that faith community. I don't really know. There has to be some method of providing for recognition of the religious awards of small faiths without bogging BSA down in reviewing the awards of 10,000 little independent churches and such.

As the OA Lodge Adviser, I serve on our council's camping committee. The camping committee, among other things, oversees the operation of the summer camp.

I was also asked to attend the last meeting of the summer camp program committee.

I was on staff last summer and I intend on returning to staff again. (I would also be applying for Jambo staff, but since Jambo staff week overlaps with summer camp I don't guess that will be possible.)

At the recent camp program committee meeting we discussed what the approximate salaries should be for each position. Obviously the actual amount would be determined by the Camp Director, but the committee wanted to set out some numbers to serve as a guide for planning purposes. Now, I don't really think I should be disclosing the information discussed at that meeting.

I will, however, be glad to throw out some numbers I have heard from other sources. The highest staff salary I have ever heard of was $500 per week. That is the most I have ever heard of someone making. The least I have heard of a true staffer (not a CIT) making was $50. I seem to remember hearing that at Philmont pay starts around $200 weekly, but they deduct room and board expenses. (Recall that at Philmont, almost all the staff members are at least 18.)

As to who should be paid the most, I would say the pay scale should look something like this:

Camp Director, Program Director

Dining hall manager (orders food and supplies, plans menu)

commissioner, shooting sports director, aquatics director, high adventure director, COPE director, head medic, chaplain

other area directors, assistant ranger, medic, cook, trading post manager

dining hall steward, prep cooks, dishwashers, assistant medics, assistant commissioners, assistant area directors

sub-area supervisers (each shooting range, each section of aquatics)

instructors

program assistants

Obviously there are several categories that could be used to determine pay, such as:

summer camp staff experience

Scouting experience

expertise/training in area

responsibility for health or safety

critical functions (things you can't run a camp without)

management responsibilities

ability to independently execute their part of the program (do they require assistance or supervision?)

I know at my council's camp it was decided that fees should be increased and additional funds should be budgeted for staff and program supplies. This means staff may be paid a good bit more, though final figures have not been determined, it is possible it could be as much as double in some cases.

In any event, I know that last summer I lost money while on camp staff (12 month lease on an apartment, didn't really need 2 of those months), and I was one of the higher paid members of the program staff. Last summer we were really understaffed in many ways. We had more CITs than we knew what to do with but didn't have enough capable people to take care of everything. We wound up with cases where a CIT would have to cover a class for lack of staff, or the commissioner would have to go on a 2 hour expedition to buy food needed for the dining hall. It was really somewhat crazy.

I do think increasing staff pay is important. We should not expect people to donate their summer. On the other hand, we simply can not pay people a salary that equals the job they do. If we did we would need $500 per camper.

I also think it is even more important that the staff be treated well. It must be properly fed and housed. Opportunities for fun must be available while on breaks and such. Staff should not be beaten down with extra duties not related to their primary job (some of this is necessary, but it can really break people's spirits). Staff should not be stuck in one place from sunrise to midnight. Clear and high expectations need to be set for staff both in terms of job performance and in other ways. If one person is getting away with slacking off or with breaking rules the entire staff is demoralized. Some will work on despite the challenges, others will sink down to the lowest acceptable level of performance.

There are many variables that make a good camp. One of those is staff. It is probably the most important part and the most complex. I don't know exactly how to make a staff work properly, but I do have one or two ideas.