shortridge

If you call national HQ, they might be able to help you out, and individual web searches can probably find the most recent ones. I can tell you that 1995 National Vice-Chief David M. Clark was from Nentego 20, but that's the extent of my knowledge.

I've never been through that, but one thing I'd recommend is that the historical documentation begin now. Put a good research team together to compile a lodge history booklet or report, to preserve the past of both lodges. That includes not just the official history - the lists of officers and chiefs, the membership numbers, the awards - but the traditions and stories, as well. Do some oral history interviews with old-timers and new-timers. At the time of the merger, invite past lodge chiefs back from both lodges for a public ceremony. Unless the councils are perfectly balanced in membership, one lodge and council is going to dominate over the other. That's a fact of nature. The new districts can help by working closely with the new chapter leadership to make sure everyone's in synch. Attention should be paid to all the council camps. Leaders from the current lodges should spend the next 18 months visiting all the camps, learning their history, traditions, layout, resources, meeting their directors and rangers, etc. Those personal relationships need to form now.

A list of conference chiefs and national chiefs, and the history of the position, is available on pages 37-40 of the Guide for Officers and Advisers: http://www.oa-bsa.org/resources/pubs/GOA-2010.pdf

Taserdoc, The Scouts' side of the story was presumably contained in the complaints they filed. Can you explain what information the SE would have gained from interviewing them that would have led to the SMs being kicked out? What specific things - not just the vague hypothetical mush you're peddling - would *you* have had the SE do to properly investigate? You haven't given us the faintest whiff of useful information to try to provide insight. The fact that people in this thread have almost unanimously come down on the SM's side should tell you that perhaps your perspective is the one that's skewed. And generally, if you're looking for allies, you may want to halt the antagonism and be a bit more polite.

But which troop is serving pie?

There are online services you can purchase that search public records. You punch in the name and SSN, and the computer does all the work. The SE and staff aren't doing it themselves. The DE probably didn't answer because he didn't know. My guess is it's handled by a clerk at the council office.

Can you recall any other words?

Put yourself in the position of this boy's parents. If you had a son doing something he shouldn't, and his Scoutmaster knew about it, and didn't tell you, would you be upset? Talk with the boy - hold an impromptu SM conference if needs be - and then talk with his parents. Explain your concerns, and then explain that even if his family allows it or tolerates it, it has no place in Scouting.

Are you sure they're directed at you and not misdirected texts? Talk to his parents.

One potential issue with having Scouts provide their own PFDs is that you have no quality control. A Scout who doesn't know any better might borrow a PFD from Mr. Jones next door, a clueless sap who stores his PFDs outside year-round, severely damaging the quality. If the unit owns them, your QM can make sure they're in good condition and stored properly. Another option would be to see if you can rent them from your council camp.

boomer - My home camp offered Horsemanship MB during the '90s. The camp director owned a horse, stabled across the road from his house and used by his daughter during the offseason and by campers during the summer. If memory serves, it was a VERY popular program for a year or two when the instructor was a female exchange staffer from the UK. But my understanding is that the costs were just too high to maintain the program. You can't just lock horses up in a shed and ignore them during the winter like you do boats and bow saws.

Does Irving give its OK for those to be distributed widely, especially without a copyright notice? I'm not familiar with that DVD. Is it designed for recruiting, and thus to be spread around?

Beavah, The "letter" was a flyer handed out to everyone, not just this particular ASM. According to Buffalo Skipper, he wasn't singled out. Sounds to me like an attempt at a gentle reminder. Nothing needs to be apologized for. I agree that this isn't a hill to die on, unless the PLC or CO want it to be. But this fellow should get a friendly, low-key sit-down chat. There's clearly something else here that we're not seeing (and Buffalo Skipper may not even be seeing).

There had to have been contact between the council and the Scouts/parents - otherwise, how were the complaints filed? It sounds like the SE took the information in the complaints, talked with the accused, decided he/she didn't need any more information, and made his/her decision. That's a pretty thin investigation, but it also strikes me as a reasonable approach. That's doubly so if we're talking about things such as bullying and emotional abuse, which presumably were not witnessed by a third party. It sounds like a he-said, he-said situation. But since all this is hypothetical and didn't happen, it doesn't really matter, right? I'm guessing that none of us are going to give you the answer you seem to want, Taserdoc. We're not a jury, and even if we were, juries don't adjudicate situations this vague.

Beavah, I'm not arguing the specifics of this case. I'm simply saying that I've known more than a few boys who would raise their eyebrows and ask some "impertinent" questions if they were members of this troop. The expectation - presumably set by the PLC or CO - is being ignored by a man the boys presumably respect and admire. They are smart enough to recognize the clear double standard. It may not matter to them in the bigger context, but at least one of them has thought about it. As for this stuff about how he should be left alone because he's a retired military officer - sorry, but that does not make someone exempt from a unit's expectations and standards. I've known many veterans in Scouting, and none of them would have even thought to make that argument. If you join an organization, you agree to follow the organization's standards. Going back to the OP - all this fuss over pants? Please let us know what this fellow says if you do a 1-on-1 sit-down.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By "offseason" I meant fall-spring, when the camp is not being used for summer camp programs.

Beavah, Exactly, kids are kids. And as KC9DDI's post pointed out, they have an innate and often unswerving sense of fairness. If a youth asks Mr. Pantsless point-blank why he's not in full uniform, the answer ought to be very interesting. The Scouts aren't going to accept "Because." But that said, it should be the youth driving the boat here. If the PLC doesn't care too much, the SM shouldn't waste a lot of breath on it, either. Now, if it's the CO's wish that all leaders wear complete uniforms, that's another issue entirely.

How much - if at all - does your unit use your council camp during the offseason? My troops were generally only there for special events such as Klondike or district camporees. I spent a lot more time there than most because of the OA and camp staff events. We were lucky to have quite a few state parks around, and did most of our regular camping there, for variety.

DeanRx, That is a massive and erroneous oversimplification of what LNT says about fires. There's nothing banning fires in a survival situation. There couldn't be, because LNT is a set of guidelines, not regulations. I don't know what a hasty fire is, but I can assure you there's no ban on it. Scouts can still build fires except in areas where there are burn bans - and they're due to local conditions, not LNT. --------------- Ah, moreincredibly defensive wisdom from Richard, as usual devoid of any specifics. As Beavah said, show us what you've got. Coming on here and tossing off a comment that suggests we're just not privy to the information that you are in Irving isn't exactly helpful.(This message has been edited by Shortridge)

The program should be whatever the Scouts want, and it should be delivered as advertised. From a basic facilities standpoint, I'd like clean latrines and showers, and tents and tarps in good repair. The first aid lodge should be up to date, and program equipment should be new or in well-maintained condition. Personally, I'd like a top-notch trail system with lots of remote outpost sites that are difficult to get to. All else is optional. A great staff can take a physically primitive camp and turn it into a top-notch program site with the right attitude and sufficient resources. And a camp with top-of-the-line facilities can be run by a staff that doesn't care, and makes the entire experience lousy for everyone. The worst possible scenario is if the facilities and equipment are not up to snuff and the staff is unmotivated and unqualified.

So he's bought uniform parts for Scouts, but says he can't afford them himself? Have you sat down with him, one-on-one, pointed out that discrepancy and asked him what the deal is? Do his sons wear the pants?

Suggest that the PLC hold a complete uniform inspection for the whole troop, youth and adults.

Eagle92, Sorry if any of my comments seemed anti-day camp. That was not what I intended - I loved day camp as a Cub (didn't go away to a "sleepover" camp until I became a Boy Scout). But running a day camp is not the same as owning a site or operating a permanent camp. That was the point I was trying to make. The thread began by focusing on owning camps, and in my experience, most day camp sites are not owned by the council. In my days as a Cub, each district ran its own day camp, usually at a county or state park, for a single week during the summer. My council has begun combining those operations so that now only a handful of districts run traditional one-week camps (at private campgrounds or other sites). There are now three multi-week day camps at three central sites - a state park, the fledgling new Scout reservation (largely under construction) and a Girl Scout camp. Cubs can go to any or all. I believe this is a reaction to years of parents complaining that they're not comfortable sending their kid off to a sleepover camp, but that they have a family vacation planned during the single week when their district scheduled its day camp for. It also may be an attempt to offer a camp program for the whole summer to compete with YMCA, Boys & Girls Club and state park programs that serve more of a "summer day care"-style purpose.

It seems clear that your troop *doesn't* have sufficient resources to run an outdoor program, given this: "On outings, there are usually ad-hoc patrols because of the limits on how much cooking equipment you can transport (and the Troop own without increadible expendeture)." Patrols exist for the primary purpose of going on outings. If they get chopped up and reformed for every outing, then they don't really exist. Fix the cooking issue, and the need for ad-hoc patrols will vanish.

Renting an entire state park sounds reasonable ... until you consider the rental and insurance fees the state will charge. Then look at the logistical challenges. A state park is not set up for large-scale camping by large groups. The swimming pool and waterfront may not going to be close to the camping areas (which are generally optimized for RVs). No digging holes for solar stills or pioneering tower posts. Restrictions on rifle, archery and shotgun use. State restrictions on lifeguarding, if applicable. It's probably not set up for cooking or food storage, so patrol cooking with ice trucked in daily would be a must. Just a few of the challenges facing these hypothetical camp planners ... A unit or two could do it, for sure, but nothing can replace a permanent camp to handle hundreds of boys at once.