shortridge

I worked with a first-year-camper program at a resident summer camp for several years, and found that many of the units were relying on the camp staff to teach their new Scouts the basics.

Aside from some very, very elementary skills - square knots, pitching a tent - we were starting from scratch, on everthing from campfires to folding flags. We also had to teach the patrol method, something quite a few Scouts had no experience with whatsoever, having recently crossed from Webelos. That really irked me.

However, we never signed off on any rank requirements ourselves. We were simply the instructors, and it was crystal-clear to everyone that it was up to the units to check the skills and sign off. Whether they did or not was out of our control.

To Eamonn's point about training: Because there were only 3-4 staffers working with the program, and 40-50+ Scouts involved, we asked each unit to send an adult leader to help - usually the ASM for the New Scout Patrol. Many were great, but we ended up having to teach some adults the basic skills, too - generally because the NSP ASMs had very recently crossed over themselves from their jobs as Webelos den leaders. IMHO, every adult leader who goes outdoors with Scouts ought to have a basic level of outdoor skills training.

What type of activities did you have going on at the recruiting night? Or was it just a show-up-and-sign-up thing, with a chance for parents to ask questions of the adult leaders?

To draw parents in, you've got to draw the kids in. To draw the kids in, you've got to have cool stuff - activities, items to handle, other kids to talk to and play with, etc.

Check out this writeup on Kudu's site. It's written for Boy Scouts, but is entirely adaptable: www.inquiry.net/adult/recruiting.htm

I dislike that sort of stuff too on general principles... but do you necessarily want someone with an undisclosed history of bouncing checks and overdue accounts in a position of responsibility over, say, unit finances?

If the ability is there to check for that kind of background, an organization would be irresponsible these days not to do it.

(This message has been edited by shortridge)

Are you talking about the Google ads at the top of the screen? I don't believe siteowners have much control over what pops up there.

And you should have no resaon to expect that the owners want your opinion.

But in this particular case, the owners do, as evidenced by the council's open call for comment on the Internet.

The COL report makes it clear that this hasn't been a secret among TI supporters in the council. Unami Lodge was involved from the start, since last October, and folks have been spreading the word and holding open discussions, including a "Support the Home Team" promotional campaign.

I'm sure they want to get feedback from more folks in the council. But they also seem very cognizant of TI's historic status in regards to the OA.

John-in-KC,

Thanks.

... or have an interest in the history.

BW - that's also key to my argument.

Of course, people who live in the area are not directly analogous to the Scouts and Scouters who support Cradle of Liberty. Just because I live next door to a 200-year-old house doesn't mean I have any more say in its disposition than the guy who actually owns the property. I haven't paid taxes on it or mowed the grass or fixed the plumbing. I *do,* however, have a vested interest in the neighborhood and the community - as do folks who may live in the next town over but research and document historic homes.

If every property owner (or council) followed the line of thinking that you suggest, there'd never be any common ground or compromises reached. No one would listen to each other, because the "I-can-do-whatever-I-want-with-my-property" argument would win out every time. The property owner is under no obligation to listen to anyone else. In fact, there are often compromises reached. I think the analogy holds up.

Preservation debates aside, I don't think anyone here is saying that Cradle of Liberty should be dictated to by people who aren't involved in their council. Rather, folks are simply arguing there is a greater purpose to be served by keeping Treasure Island open, and the council should consider that.

They're not looking to order COL around, but simply express their opinions - just as the council asked when it cast a wide net: "Scouters can e-mail campinginfo@colbsa.org to express their thoughts and opinions." Nothing there about it being limited to COL Scouters.

In the end, as you say, it will come down to money. If a group of OOC Scouters can pull enough money together to purchase TI, then I'm sure the council will be more than happy to sign the sale contract. With the flooding history and limited access, it doesn't exactly seem like a prime piece of real estate for anything other than a historic camp site or a nature preserve.

$79 will buy you 31 scrapple-and-cheese sandwiches. Now THAT's a breakfast!

A wise man once told me the difference between a volunteer and a professional Scouter - a professional gets paid to do Scouting, while a volunteer pays to do Scouting.

(Knowing what I do now, I'd quibble with the idea that scrambling after money, trying to start as many units as possible and pushing paperwork is "doing Scouting." It's important work, to be sure, but it ain't what I'd want to be doing.)

Sorry, I think I missed something here.

What is a punching contest? And how is slugging someone Scout-like behavior?

It's not YouTube. It's the people who put up the videos and create search tags.

You can do the same thing with an ordinary Web site - just put in the right keywords, and Google will sniff it out.

There's a whole online business sector devoted to "search engine optimization." I don't pretend to understand any of it, but I'm sure other folks here do.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

They can still do the big projects at unit events!

For what it's worth, I worked in a resident camp outdoor skills program area for five years, teaching or co-teaching Pioneering for most of those (and working as outdoor skills director one year). The biggest challenge I had was finding the time to work in the "big project."

The majority of the Scouts who came to the class barely knew their knots, let alone lashings. While there were some very notable exceptions, many needed basic or remedial instruction that ate up a lot of the class time. Splices in particular were a big problem - very few had splicing experience before coming to camp.

But it sounds like you're having the exact opposite experience, which is great!

The potential year-round market for summer camps has always boggled my mind.

While the economy's not great right now and businesses are cutting back, in good times, many BSA camps would be perfect for rustic retreats and corporate conferences - even meetings during the week. It might take some upgrades in the technology area (wi-fi in the dining hall?), but worth it. "Relax, rejuvenate, refocus" could be the slogan.

# # #

For many years in my council, there was a "resident camp director" who was both the year-round ranger (in charge of property management and maintenance) and the summer camp director. He did a pretty good job of keeping things running and getting them set up. But from what I gather, that's the exception to the rule.

He recently got promoted to a new job at council HQ supervising both camps. The new resident director (a friend and former co-worker) has more of a background in programming and recreation management. He also has the title of "Council Program Director" and coordinates some councilwide activities, does unit visits, etc. There's now a year-round ranger (non-resident) who doubles as the assistant camp director, in charge of food service and business operations, during summer camp.

Our other council camp has had a resident ranger for a long time, but he has no summer camp program or management duties.

# # #

Anyone know what the attendance numbers have been at Avery Hand, since that's the main reason the SE gave? Minutes from an Ohio county commissioners' meeting in 2004 suggest that it was host to 3,000 Scouts and 1,500 adults in 2003. With an 8-week session, that's 560+ people per week - not too shabby from where I stand.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

With smoking a social and Scouting no-no these days, I'm curious if anyone out there has developed or learned of an alternative to cigar boxes for cigar-box banjos.

Cigar consumption itself has been trending up, so I don't imagine there's much of a problem getting the boxes these days. More a question of whether they're acceptable.

Actually, there's nothing that restricts information to parents, family members, teachers or religious leaders.

From the Guide to Inductions (at oa-bsa.org):

The Order of the Arrow, recognizing the attractiveness of the unknown, utilizes the form of mystery. This shall not be interpreted, however, as justifying the withholding of any information regarding the order from any person legitimately interested in investigating its nature, purpose, or method.

The key words there, of course, are "any information" and "legitimately interested." Does "information" refer to attendance at a ceremony, or just reading copies of the ceremonies? Who determines whether an investigation is legitimate? There's a reason lodges have staff advisers who report directly to the Supreme Chief of the Fire - they get paid the big bucks to answer questions like those. (Minor snark on "big bucks" for the staff adviser, not so for the SE.)

The way I read the Guide to Inductions, you don't have to have a concern to be allowed to attend, or even have a connection with a candidate or member. Hypothetically, as a journalist, I could request access on the grounds that I was working on a story about hazing and secret societies. That would be a legitimate investigation in my book, and the lodge would certainly have an interest in showing that it's not doing bad stuff.

Doc: Please contact your lodge directly with your concerns. They're in the best position to put them to rest. They can also put you in touch with OA members on the local level - folks you probably know and have worked with in Scouting. No one is interested in hiding anything.

As far as point No. 7 in the Kleshinski letter - it's not uncommon, in my experience as a journalist, for nonprofits to get extensions for filing their Form 990s. It's not always a reflection of problems.

Should they be filed on time? Well, yeah - councils should ideally walk the talk. But it doesn't always happen that way with big organizations.

My concern is the very fine line between discouraging and barring.

Depending on who's doing the talking (i.e., someone with poor campfireside manner), sometimes there is no line.

Best way to handle it, as others have posted, is to kick it up the line to the lodge chief, adviser or staff adviser. They should be well-versed in addressing questions of this nature.

Congratulations on your new gig. That's a great job!

Please note that the question originally posed was not referring to resident camps, but to district or unit events.

For the question you now ask, it seems to me the best place to go would be to your NCS-certified camp director and program director. They should have the current resident camp standards on hand, and be able to interpret them to your specific situation. (If your camp sends you to NCS for outdoor skills certification, ask this question, point-blank, and bring diagrams of the structures you'd like to build. You'll get some great insight.)

That said, the resident camp standard (M-64) does seem pretty explicit to me, a layman with a pioneering (but not COPE/climbing) background. (All quotes from www.bsa-gwrc.org/2008_Standards.pdf)

M-64: "Scout camp structures such as monkey bridges, obstacle courses, and pioneering towers are expected to meet safety standards in equipment and supervision comparable to COPE, but do not require the employment of a COPE-trained director or instructor."

My interpretation: Okay, so you don't have to go to NCS to get COPE certification to build a tower or bridge. That's good. But you do have to use common-sense safety rules and techniques. Don't use rotten wood or frayed ropes, spot kids going across a monkey bridge, have a supervisory adult on hand at all times, etc.

M-64: "All high activities (6 feet or more above ground) must have a reliable protection system and back up system to protect participants."

My interpretation: If your feet go higher than 5'11", you need to have a protection system in place, plus a backup if that fails. Those terms could use some more definition, for sure. But see the final quote, below, for clarification.

M-64: "Equipment is checked at least every week."

My intepretation: Check your ropes and spars regularly, if not daily, and replace when necessary.

"Except for a COPE wall event or high beam activities, any time a camp participant is engaged in an activity that is 6 feet or more above ground level, the person is belayed. COPE wall events and high beam activities are carefully spotted."

My interpretation: If I'm climbing up a pioneering tower that takes my feet more than 6 feet off the ground, I should be on belay. Ditto for if I'm climbing a tree or walking on a roof. That goes for adults and youth.

Whether belaying is practical or not isn't the issue. That's the rule, and it's pretty clearly written.(This message has been edited by shortridge)(This message has been edited by shortridge)

I had almost the opposite experience of being vetoed - my Scoutmaster tried to put me up for election before I'd reached First Class.

His logic was that I'd done all the requirements for 1C except my conference and BOR. We were a brand-new troop with not many Scouts eligible, and I can only suppose he wanted as many as possible to join.

I spoke up at the elections and the team took me off the list. I was properly elected about two years later by my second troop.

If I'd been elected at age 11, I probably wouldn't have stuck with it. At 13, the OA was great.

That was you. Maybe your parents were enablers like so many post 1960s parents. "Don't worry, we'll get a new one." If it means something to the kid and his parents haven't stressed that nothing is important enough to worry about, he'll hang onto them.

Actually, my comment was a reflection on me, myself and I as a newly-minted Tenderfoot at my first summer camp. My parents are both pretty organized. But as a young Scout, I was interested in swimming, knots, firebuilding and survival, to the exclusion of almost everything else. Blue card? Yeah, I might have one of those somewhere. Did it survive camp? Probably not.

It wasn't permissive parenting, it was an obsession on my part with all things outdoors. I hope my daughter grows up to be half as obsessed as I was. There's plenty of time for learning how to file.

NeilLup has it right - the rule should be no surprises. If "keep your blue cards for life" was hammered in as part of the program from Day One - rather than just one line on the blue card itself, which as others have pointed out is optional - it'd be one thing. Instead, you've got your Handbook - my much-loved copy has been coverless and held together by red electrical tape along the spine since I was 13. And that's enough for everyone - except Bob's crazy council, it seems.

Another issue is that blue cards don't always go from counselor to Scout. At the camp where I used to work, blue cards went in a packet to the SM at the close of camp. If the SM loses them, should the Scout be penalized? No.

what's wrong with encouraging our young folks to learn the art of record keeping and information management????

Eagletrek,

I didn't say this - in fact, I agreed with GW. I just said that with all the things that can happen to a small piece of paper - and especially recalling my own airheadedness as a young man - it seems silly to put this type of requirement in place.

The critical piece is that they have to "learn the art." The best way to teach them is to do it along the way, as the youth matures - not wait until the last minute to deny them a rank based on some made-up rule.

If this mindset were in place in all areas of Scouting operations, cloth badges wouldn't count for anything!

- Eagles would have to carry their award card with them at all times.

- OA Vigil Honor members would have to lug around their certificates to prove the triangles on their sashes were legit.

- Adult leaders would have to whip out their unit charters to justify their position patches.

- Anyone with a temporary camporee patch should be prepared to have a signed, notarized statement from three witnesses and a photograph proving they were actually there.

- And forget about wearing that Arrow of Light knot you earned as a young Cub... you'll now have to strap the actual ceremonial arrow to your backpack!

Turn it around - ask the folks in charge where they draw that authority from. They won't be able to back it up.

Check out Appendix 2 of the Guide to Inductions, available at www.oa-bsa.org. It states nothing about vetoing the results of an election.

The sample unit election forms also on that site have a space for the unit leader to approve nominees, but no space for a veto.

===

Serving in the OA and working camp staff kept me active in Scouting.

Unfortunately, lodges and chapters vary widely in quality - as do troops, teams, packs, ships and crews. As someone else said, you get out of it what you put into it.

So if the Scout moves and his box of blue cards vanish - but that never happens, right? - he can't earn Eagle? Or if there's a fire at his home? Or if they're accidentally chucked by an unknowing parent in the throes of a decluttering frenzy? Or if (as happened countless times during my childhood) the paper was reduced to a ball of flaky, feathery pulp after going through the washer and dryer?

All sorts of things can happen to a blue card. That's a stupid rule (leaving the point of validity aside).

General question: What other things does a Scout need to maintain for his "permanent record," other than his Handbook? And when is he required to produce them?

Why? Is it unrealistic to expect them to know that they have homework to do? Is it unrealistic to expect them to carry their drivers license? Is it unrealistic to expect them to go to baseball practice without you having to remind them?

GW - I don't disagree with you on general principles. But when we're talking about badges that can be earned over a 7-year span, yes, it might be unrealistic to expect a 17-year-old to still have the piece of paper he got for completing Swimming at age 11.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

No wonder the pack takes four days - a five-hour drive would wipe me out. I'd need a half-day just to recuperate.

Sounds kind of crazy, if only because it'd be really tough for parents to commit to that type of a schedule without planning well in advance (like a year). I'd be very curious what goes on at these campouts.

# # #

This might be heresy, but I wouldn't automatically put school before Scouts. As a former homeschooler, there were times when I got more out of Cubs or Boy Scouts than out of my formal lessons. My parents also used the Cub program as a launching point for study topics. And when I got into Boy Scouts, the time I spent outdoors and camping was like icing on the phys ed/natural sciences/leadership cake. Bottom line: Academics durn sure ain't everythin'.

I'd be extremely uncomfortable in a situation such as this, and that would be enough to make me politely excuse myself and any youth I had responsibility for.

Going back to ScoutDad's initial post - he referred to alcohol "likely" being served at the reception. Is that definite?

(To me, the big shocker in this thread came from John-in-KC. Your OA lodge serves steak dinners?? Who's your chief cook, and is he or she available for other opportunities to provide cheerful service?)

Well, sure - the program has to evolve over time to accomodate cultural norms (ditching tents, anyone?).

But stalking, tracking and trailing don't seem to fit that mold. There's nothing dangerous about those activities unless you get too close to certain wildlife, or are creeping through a forest in the middle of hunting season. They're not more environmentally destructive than backpacking or hiking. And they are applicable in a wide range of outdoor activities - from wildlife observation to search and rescue.