SMMatthew

Here's a somewhat related story:

A few weeks ago I had a Scoutmaster Conference with a Scout going for his Life rank. In the conference, I asked him about the merit badges he earned for Life. I asked what was the "hardest" merit badge he earned and which was the "easiest."

The Scout, without even stopping to think said the easiest badge he earned was Camping. I was a little taken back by this. Not only is Camping a fairly involved MB with many requirements and is a badge that is Eagle-required, but I was his councilor for it! I asked him why he thought it was so "easy" and he told me "well, because we only had to meet twice for like half-an-hour each time. We just talked about stuff and I had to write like one or two things down and then I got the badge signed off. It took me like an hour total."

I laughed. "It didn't take you an hour to earn the badge," I said. "It took you 3+ years of camping, and teaching skills at troop meetings and on campouts, and being active in the troop to earn the badge. All we did in those two meetings was sit down to review and check-off what you had already done, demonstrated and learned. That took you years, not a few minutes, to do!"

As Baden-Powell stated: “Advancement is like a suntan; something you get naturally whilst having fun in the outdoors.â€Â

But to go back and address the original post and situation at hand:

The SM is refusing to give him a blue card for it under the reasons that he believes that no one younger than a third year scout should earn the MB.

That right there is the problem.

The Scoutmaster may believe that no one younger than a third year Scout should be able to earn the MB. He may think that an 11- or 12-year-old won't be successful at completing the badge. He may wish that Scouts with the badge will hold a particular set of skills and abilities.He may encourage, or even try to strongly persuade, a Scout to wait until they are older (more physically fit, stronger, more mature, etc). But ultimately he cannot mandate or force a Scout to wait until he is 14 or 15 to attempt or earn the badge; BSA states "any Boy Scout may earn a merit badge at any time."

The bottom line is it's not up to a Scoutmaster to decide who can or can't attempt a merit badge, nor is it his job (or even within his authority) to approve or deny what "counts" for the requirements of the badge. It is the role of the registered, qualified and certified merit badge councilor to verify and approve if a Scout has completed the requirements. If the Scout worked with a qualified councilor, and that councilor says he completed the requirements, then he has completed the requirements. End of discussion. A Scoutmaster or troop committee can't veto or overturn the signature of a MB councilor.

​The purpose of the Unit Leader signature on a "blue card" is to keep the Scoutmaster in the loop and to allow the Scoutmaster to conference with the Scout. The Scout here kept the SM in the loop with his phone call (it's a shame the Scoutmaster didn't call back to offer his recommendations on the matter) but the Scoutmaster refusing to sign is not an option (he can give his opinion and recommendations, but he can't withhold the card).

The signature from the unit leader on the 'blue card' states: "I have discussed this merit badge with this Scout and recommended at least one merit badge counselor." It does not say "I authorize this Scout to start work on this merit badge" or "I certify that this Scout is qualified to earn this merit badge" or even "I feel that this Scout is ready to earn this merit badge"... it simply says we "discussed" it.

It doesn't matter if the Scoutmaster, or the troop committee, doesn't think the Scout should have been able to complete the requirements of the badge. Because, guess what? He was able to complete them! The signature from the certified councilor on the blue card proves it. Give the Scout the merit badge! He earned it.

What should I do?

I've been a look-out at aquatics areas. I've seen a 14-year old guard's immaturity get the better of him and the director come down on him like a hammer. Distraction yields danger. That's the mentality. I've said as much to SM's over the years. I'm sure other guards have said the same, hoping that sinks in. So along comes this 11 year-old jumping the gate wanting to be credited for something a patrol will count on when they set up an impromptu swimming hole. I can see why the SM is coming from.

 

So, Mom22, at your next family reunion, when everyone wants to take a dip in the pond, will you say "Okay, my son's got Lifesaving, everyone listen to him and we're good to go."? If so, then keep pressing for that patch. Otherwise, move on to support your boy for the next MB!

Yes, being a lifeguard takes maturity, experience, and strong physical fitness... things that come with age and things that an 11-year-old probably doesn't possess. It isn't something you can just knock-out on a Saturday. But we're talking about Lifesaving merit badge here. According to the BSA: "the main purpose of the Lifesaving merit badge is to teach Scouts the basic knowledge of water rescue techniques"... not to mention to BSA policies that "any Boy Scout may earn a merit badge at any time" and "you are expected to meet the requirements as they are statedâ€â€no more." There is no reason an 11-year-old can't earn Lifesaving merit badge. And there's no reason a Scoutmaster should arbitrarily decide to add an additional requirement and insist a Scout be "older" or "more mature" in order to earn it.

Earning Lifesaving merit badge is not the same as earning BSA Lifeguard (or another lifeguard certification).

Someone who has earned Lifesaving merit badge has to complete 15 requirements on the basics of lifesaving and water rescue. If the Scout did these things (explained what needed to be explained; and demonstrated the skilled required), he has earned the badge. Earning the merit badge does not give a Scout the authority (or even the implied ability) to be able to set-up an impromptu swimming hole on his own or serve as supervision and lifeguard when everyone at the family reunion wants to take a dip in the pond. He has a greater awareness and understanding of safety and water rescue for sure, but he is not an authority on the subject. The basics of Safe-Swim Defense and Safety Afloat (which are taught in the merit badge) tell a young Scout that he is not "qualified supervision" and that he isn't a certified lifeguard as a result of earning this badge (it's just an "introduction to" life saving). Just as someone who has earned Fire Safety merit badge isn't ready to start fighting fires or someone with First Aid merit badge isn't the equivalent of an EMT.

Someone who has earned BSA Lifeguard has to complete 26 requirements - including an age requirement, more intense physical fitness tests, proficiency on a written test, and they must complete supervised experience as a lifeguard (showing maturity and ability). They may be able to set up a safe swim area, and serve as a lifeguard when people take a dip in the lake (with other lookouts and safety measures in place). And this is something an 11-year-old can't simply earn by tagging along to a training session with some older guys.

But I see no reason for this Scoutmaster to limit who can earn Lifesaving merit badge.

So Tommy Scout asks SM for a MB card. He plans to work on yet another merit badge with his Uncle Miltie, Aunt Bee, Mr. Easy, or Mrs. Alldone. The SM says he has already earn 3 from that MBC why not try another person (Adult association method). No thanks I will stick what works for me. Hrrrumph. Against his/her better judgment, the SM is required to sign the card. Hands are tied.

So Tommy Scout asks SM for a MB card. He plans to work on several/all Eagle MB's with his Dad. Against his/her better judgment, the SM is required to sign the card. Hands are tied.

Back in the day, my SM asked about my grades before issuing a card. And yes he said NO a couple of times. I guess that would be considered child abuse now.

There is a difference between mentoring/guiding a Scout through the advancement program of the BSA and forcing/controlling a Scout to take a specific path.

There are rules. BSA writes them. And BSA allows a Scout to earn all their MBs with the same councilor (assuming that person is registered as a councilor for all the badges they're signing-off on). And that person can even be the Scouts mom or dad. It is 100% "legal." You (and I) may not like that, but it's the way it is. BSA does discourage it, but they do not outlaw or forbid it.

So, if Tommy Scout comes to you and wants to earn a 10th merit badge with his Uncle Miltie (assuming Miltie is a registered MBC for the badges), Tommy has the right to do that. The SM can't say "no, you have to use a different councilor." But his hands aren't totally tied; he doesn't have to just sit there any accept Tommy's choice without a fight. When Tommy Scout comes for that 'blue card,' you can talk with him -- encourage him to try working someone else; find out why he always goes to Uncle Miltie and no one else; recommend some new and more exciting councilors and different MB opportunities; go encourage a buddy or two from his patrol to try to get Tommy to work with them on a MB together with someone else; maybe even go talk with his parents and/or Uncle Miltie about the benefits of having Tommy work with someone else on a badge or two.

But, yes, ultimately it's the Scout's decision. It is "legal" for him to earn all his merit badges from "Uncle Miltie" or "MBC daddy," and a Scoutmaster can't make a new rule that says a Scout can't. If you think these rules are wrong, then work to have them changed; don't just create your own rules (a Scout is obedient).

As a Scoutmaster, if a Scout came to me and asked for a MB card, I may ask him about his grades (just as your SM did). If he's flunking all of his classes, and I feel that he'd be over-extending himself and neglecting his schoolwork in favor of taking on a 6th or 7th merit badge, I may tell him to slow down and focus on school first. We'd talk about ways to balance Scouts and school and whatever else he may have going on in his life; maybe I'd help him get back on the right track. Hopefully I could persuade him and get him to 'buy-in' on the idea. But ultimately, the decision is the Scouts. Hey, at least I had the opportunity as his SM to conference with him and discuss ways to fix the problem. Simply withholding a 'blue card' because he had D's and F's wouldn't have solved the problem (heck, it may have made it worse). And not having the opportunity to check-in with the Scout before he took on badge #7 would have been a missed opportunity.

Well the good news is I am not a SM as I would not sign anything if I thought it was the wrong thing to do. I believe as adults we can say NO to children if that is our best judgment.

It is the job of the local council to approve (or deny) who is a qualified MB councilor for Scouts; it is not up to the judgment of an individual Scoutmaster to "approve" or "deny" who they think is "qualified" to be a MB councilor for a Scouts. If the individual is registered and approved by the council as a MBC, then they are a MBC. Period. End of discussion. A SM can't add extra requirements to the badge, and can't overrule the authority of a MBC.

A Scoutmaster doesn't have the right or the authority to accept some MBCs and not accept others based on his own personal opinions of how he thinks a specific merit badge should or shouldn't be taught. The BSA's merit badge program does not fall under the jurisdiction of a SM, and it is not up to a SM to decide who can or can't be a MBC; that's up to the council to decide and administer. Scoutmasters can give their guidance and recommendations to Scouts on which MBs to work on and which MBCs to work with (they can share there their two-cents and steer Scouts towards who and what they think would be best for them); but ultimately they can't veto or overrule the authority of, or the judgments made by, a registered MBC.

If a SM doesn't think a MBC is qualified or suspects they aren't following the rules or requirements, he should bring it up to the council to have the person removed as a MBC. But a Scoutmaster doesn't have the authority to override or undermine the authority of a registered MBC when it comes to how to teach a badge or who they can (or can't) work with. Scoutmasters don't control merit badge councilors and nor do they have the authority to decide what is acceptable or not for a specific merit badge (that's the MBC's job).

Well that depends on your perspective. A PD wanting 100% pass seems unrealistic to SM. A SM wanting his scout to know and complete 100% of the MB seems unrealistic to PD.

As a former PD, I can say the "pass/fail rate" of a MB class was never important to me, as long as those "passing" deserved it; and those "failing" deserved it. And from the camps I go to today, there doesn't seem to be an emphasis from the PDs on "100% pass" either (I get numerous "partials" at the end of a week, and I'm okay with that...in fact I appreciate it). The quality of the experience is always what comes first. But again, it may be that the camps I go to are an exception, and not the "norm."

So, as they say, "your mileage may vary." I'm sure there are camps that strive to crank out as many "completes" as possible (even if it means cutting corners or bending requirements to the breaking point). I can imagine that there are some camps (or councilors) out there that measure "success" based on the number of completed blue cards they sign. Those camps are missing the mark. Quality of badges given, over quantity of badges given, is what matters.

As for what could be considered an "unrealistic demand" from a PD's perspective would probably be things like this (and these are all the type of things I head as a PD from well-meaning volunteers):

-- "I'll need 7 or 8 'over-18' staff members to help me out an hour before each class and during the instruction." (sorry, I don't have that kind of manpower available)

-- "I'll teach Monday 9:45 to 11:00 and then well can meet again on Wednesday and Thursday from 3:00 to 3:30 and we'll finish up on Friday right after dinner." (sorry, that just doesn't fit with the camp's schedules or MB system; it's more of a disruption than an asset)

-- "I'll need 12-15 computers with internet access and a color printer and an LCD projector." (sorry, I don't have those kinds of resources available)

-- "I like small classes, I want to cap that class at 4-8 Scouts per week." (Ok, I'll make announcement and help you find 4-8 interested Scouts to work with, but I'm not going to advertise this as a "camp program" if it is only available to small percentage of the camp).

-- "I only want to offer this to Life Scout who are over 16." (Again, I'll put it out there to any interested Scouts to come find you, but I'm not going to advertise it as a "camp program" if you're adding extra requirements and it isn't open to a majority of the camp).

-- "I want to add/change/drop these requirements" (Sorry, that's against the BSA policy, I can't support that).

-- "I want you to give our troop a discounted rate for the week and guarantee our campsite for next year in exchange for my help with this badge" (sorry, I don't have the authority to do that)

-- "I'll help teach this badge but I can't really commit or give you details until my troop arrives at camp" (I can't publicize, promote or properly support a program with just 24-hour notice of if/how it's going to happen. Most troops and boys plan out their week at camp months in advance, you need to be 100% on board and organized sooner for the program to be successful).

Here's one thing that the camp that our troop frequents does (perhaps an idea to take back to your home camp)... They have their MB schedule and offerings, but they also let (and somewhat encourage) the adult leaders in camp advertise their MBC services too. For example, if you're a councilor for say, Radio MB or Communications MB or Fly-fishing MB, you could put an announcement out there for any interested Scouts to "come see Mr. So-and-so from Troop 123 in Campsite Whatever to set-up a schedule to work on the badge" or "come to the dining hall on Tuesday and Thursday evening at 7PM to work on the badge". Sometimes MBCs create their own classes or just work one-on-one (or in small groups) with Scouts. Scouts have the opportunities, volunteers can share their skills.... But, and here's the key to it's success, it's not directly tied to the camp's program, the camp's scheduling or MB system, it doesn't have to be every week of the summer, and it's not something that has to be locked-in-stone 6-months before camp to be published in a Leaders Guide or on a MB schedule. It's very clearly not a "camp program" it's a "that independent MBC working with Scouts program" (so the PD doesn't have to worry about quality control, or paperwork, or record keeping, or logistics, or 'blue card' issues, etc...that's on the individual MBC, although the camp staff is very supportive and often times will help out in any way possible with resources and even manpower, it's not an official "camp program").

Quality of instruction and completion of requirements. Instructors unqualified as in cannot do first aid, they just read from the merit badge book. Heed "Do no further harm". Eagle MB and so the class is usually too large.

...

Citizenship, for the parts that can be done at camp, a knowledgeable staff is not present. It is almost as bad as the Jay Leno "Ask the Man on the Street".

That is sad, and I'd be lying if I said I haven't seen my fair share of those types of situations over the years at camps and merit badge fairs. Heck, I've also seen them from "regular" MB councilors working one-on-one with Scouts. Sometimes people just cut corners or aren't the "expert" that the material of the badge requires or exploit loop-holes in the language of the requirements. It's sad, it should be addressed. It's a shame the CD, PD and SE fail to admit there is a problem and don't want to see their program and the experience for these boys improved..

A short "war story" for you... for many years our local camp had offered Citizenship in the Nation merit badge, however a few years ago the camp published its merit badge schedule for the coming summer and Cit. in the Nation was not listed. Some upset Scoutmasters asked at the pre-camp leader's meeting why the badge was dropped. The PD said, without hesitation, "we didn't have a councilor this year who we felt could do the badge justice and so we'd rather not offer it, which I know upsets some of you, than offer a piss-poor-program that would devalue the badge, undermine the program and upset even more of you." There was some slight grumbling from the badge-hungry Eagle-mill Scoutmasters, but after the meeting about 4 or 5 SMs (myself included) went up to the PD and thanked him for picking quality over quantity. A few leaders volunteered to help work one-on-one with any Scouts who may have really needed the badge during their week at camp, but the badge just wasn't part of the camp that summer. The next year, the camp found the "perfect" councilor (a spirited 19-year-old poli/sci major) and the badge came back and was probably one of the best MB classes I've ever seen. That's how a camp should do it. Don't put the cart before the horse. Don't promise or offer a badge unless you have a person (the right person) to offer it.

As has been stated, qualified adult MBC's are often available but are turned away.

Really?!? As a former program director, I am shocked to hear that a camp would turn away a qualified volunteer who wants to help.

Now if that volunteer isn't actually good or is unreliable or has lots of extra "baggage" or unrealistic "demands" attached to their helping then maybe, as well-intentioned as they may seem, they won't really be an asset to the program and so a polite "thanks, but no thanks" is in order... but to just say "no" to a ready, willing, able, and qualified person... that's just crazy! A Camp and/or Program Director who does that should be put out to pasture.

Our SM will not allow camp First Aid and Citizenship MB's. Previous complaints have been sent to Camp directors and SE and every summer it is same-old-same-old.

Just out of curiosity, what are the complaints? Are the Scouts not actually completing the requirements of the merit badge (as stated by the BSA)? Is the camp adding or deleting or changing requirements? Or does the SM just have a higher standard or preferred method that's different than what the printed requirements actually require and what the camp delivers?

I remember when CIT minimum age was 15' date=' it is now 13.[/quote']

Well this is a clear black-and-white violation of BSA policy, per the National Camp Accreditation Program (NACP) standards. The camp standards state in no uncertain terms that "resident camp employees must be 15 years of age or older... counselors-in-training (CIT s) and day camp staff must be 14 years of age or older." If a camp or a council is allowing 13-year-olds to work on camp staff (as "CITs," or "Den Chefs," or "volunteers," or "staff helpers," or whatever they want to call them) they are breaking the rules and should be called out on it and the practice stopped.

My premise in starting this thread is that too many camps recruit the staff they can attract/afford then assign MB classes rather than finding good counselors and recruiting them... ...there are an equal number of 16-y.o. "merit badge instructors" on camp staffs whose expertise is limited to having earned the merit badge at the same camp from another 16 y.o. three summers earlier.

many summer camp staffers teaching a merit badge are being assigned their area and given the book to study the day before they are teaching.

And there's the problem! But it really has nothing to do with age. Those camps are putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. You can't just recruit/hire a bunch of bodies and then try to force them into the various positions or programs you have at camp (especially if they don't know the subjects or know how to teach it well). If you need a Swimming merit badge instructor, you need to find a good Swimming merit badge instructor (whether they be 16-, 25-, or 60-years-old, it doesn't matter). If you don't have a good person to teach Communications merit badge, then you shouldn't offer Communications merit badge. You don't just put anyone into the Handicraft area to teach Basketry just because you need someone to do that and you've got some kid with nothing else to do. Yes, getting quality 16- or 17-year-olds can be challenging (but so can getting qualified and quality 30- or 40-year olds).

Proper training, mentoring, staff engagement, program development, and camp management cures these problems.... attracting older MBCs doesn't necessarily "fix" anything and having mostly young MBCs doesn't necessarily cause a poor program either.

This thread shouldn't be called "Attracting Older MBCs to Camp"... it should be called "Attracting Quality MBCs to Camp."

Bsa has turned a blind eye to their own advancement requirements and allow non-adults to function in the capacity as mbc in violation of bsa policy.

Well if a camp is allowing a 16-year-old to serve as a MBC and has them sign-off on 'blue cards' or blindly accepts their word on what a Scout has or hasn't done, shame on them! That should be stopped and addressed. An adult (someone over 18...even if only 19 or 20) should be serving as the qualified councilor in every case. An under-18 can serve as an instructor, facilitator, guide, bookkeeper, and/or aide for the badge or class... but an over-18 must give the final verification and sign-off on the final requirements. A 16-year-old may teach the swimming strokes, but that 18-year-old is testing and signing off that a Scout can do them. That's what the area directors or other 18-staff should be doing. If that's not happening, yes, the camp is breaking the rules.

As has been pointed out in numerous threads' date=' many mb's "earned" at summer camp are a joke. This is a result of trying to equate camp staff for what you describe (and I generally agree) with mb counselors. This isnt just a camp issue, it has permeated bsa councils and districts with the mb universities, etc... Some might be ok, a rare few might actually be quite goid. But by and large they are advancement mills designed and implemented to rush boys through advancement completely ignoring the real purpose and benefit of MBs.[/quote']

Again, shame on those camps (or other events) for offering poor programs! But I don't think the cure to the problem is simply to get "older" MBCs in there... nor do I think the cause of poor programs is necessarily due to "younger" staffs. I know many 16- or 17-year-olds that are amazing instructors and provide excellent merit badge programs; and I know many 45- and 55-year-old merit badge councilors that downright stink! Age doesn't cause, nor does it cure, a mismanaged and poorly-developed program, or an untrained and under-managed staff.

 

The way to "fix" a Cub Scout pack with a poor program isn't to replace all the Den Chefs with adults. Same with summer camp programs. If the program is poor, the solution isn't simply to replace the 16-year-old staff members with 30-year-olds. If nothing else, you've just made the problem (and the camp) a whole lot worse by doing so. Young staff members or instructors aren't the problem; untrained and unmanaged staff members (young or old) running poorly-developed or poorly-supported programs are the problem.

​Adult Association is not a 19 year old who knows everything. (Ask him!) Boys need to be exposed to adult men whom they want to emulate.

And that's why I (and the other Scoutmasters and Assistants) are there -- to provide "adult association" for the Scouts -- to be mentors, to be teachers, to be father-figures, to be Scoutmasters. But with a troop that is made up of Scouts (ages 11-17) and adult leaders who are mainly their parents or older (ages 35-70), it's nice to get a good healthy dose of 18-30 year old role-models into the mix.

I'm not saying camp should be totally "kid-run." Having an older camp director or a camp chaplain or commissioners or specific area-directors, is appropriate (actually encouraged), but I want my boys interacting more with SPL-types than SM-types. And the boys want it too!

​This attitude is either based in ignorance or good fortune. I'll assume a little of both.

I think it's more good fortune (but there may be some ignorance in there). In my time with as an adult leader, I've been to 13 Scout camp over 25 years. Our troop has one "home" camp that we go to every-other-year (in my opinion, it has an amazing program and an amazing staff...I've been going every even-numbered year since 1990 and it has it "right"), and I've been to 13 different camps in the odd-numbered "off" years in-between. Some are good, some are great, some are okay, and, sadly, a few have been awful.

​And you've obviously never been exposed to an old geezer who could swing an axe, roll a kayak, identify 30 kinds of moss, name every bird in your area by their song, and make their scouts hunger for more knowledge.

 

And this is where I start to understand your attitude. It sounds like all the adult scouters you know wear the bedazzled uniforms that we complain about at Roundtable. The overweight South American general types are giving the rest of us a bad reputation.

Oh, I have been exposed to such "old geezers." I know several old guys (myself included) who can keep up physically (swinging axes and rolling kayaks) and mentally (identifying mosses or birds). We can run circles around the younger guys who think they "know everything" and teach skills and give Scouts a hunger for more knowledge... but these kinds of guys really are the exception--not the norm--when it comes to older Scouters on a camp staff.

For the record -- I'm not against "older" Scouters on camp staffs... if the Scouter is good. The summer camp I frequent has a 50-year-old aquatics director who has that magic spark, knows his stuff and makes the learning fun and meaningful (and he could swim circles around even the toughest Scout or leader in camp)... however the rest of the aquatics staff is a bunch of 16-25 year-olds (and they blow me out of the water even more with their teaching ability and skills). If the whole waterfront was run by a bunch of 40-60 year-olds (even if they were all "great"), the camp would not be as good or have the same atmosphere.

And, from a management standpoint, it is much easier to get 50 good "twenty-somethings" together than find one "old guy" with the magic spark it takes. And even then, no 40-year-old can connect socially with a 16- or 17-year-old around the campfire the way a 19- or 20-year-old can.

I guess I just don't buy into the overall premise here that "younger" staff members or instructors are a problem.

The Camp Facilities Evaluation Tool looks at the physical property assets, and, yes, it can become subjective or biased and also manipulated (if you really want to see the end of particular camp for whatever reason... or if you really want to keep a stinking camp open)... but NCAP's Intent to Operate and Declaration of Readiness require much more analytical data from the council (especially in regards to financial sustainability).

Overall, sure, a council could play games to make a property look better on paper than it really it and thus keep it accredited (and open) a bit longer, but they would have to be intentfullying doing that (and a Scout is trustworthy). So if a council is hanging on to a property that is a liability, they are doing so because they are choosing to be willfully delusional or negligent about the decision (whereas before they may have been doing it out of an unexamined or unknown ignorance of the bigger picture and impact).

NCAP was not developed with a goal of shutting camps down or closing properties, but rather it was developed to be a tool to help councils evaluate and understand their decisions and make sure all BSA properties as assets to Scouting and not liabilities (both physically and financially).

If a camp doesn't break even but the council is able to cover that with income from donations, endowments, profits from other properties etc. then the deficit spending on the camp is not a reason in and of itself to close it. Likewise, just because a camp is making money, if the council isn't otherwise able to sustain operations then maybe the camp needs to be sold in order to endow the rest of the program.

Oh, absolutely, and NCAP does look at the "big picture" (including multiple years worth of data, and the council's overall finances, size, revenue sources, etc.). The key is to make sure camps (and councils) are sustainable. There are many councils that struggle to scrape together enough money each year to cover their multiple properties (or worse, they take on debt or neglect other programs as a result of their properties).

NCAP strives to make sure that council properties are not liabilities to the council (i.e. they are safe and they are financially sustainable). The money doesn't have to come from just camper fees and rental revenue; but there has to be reliable and adequate sources for financially supporting a camp.

Sadly there are too many councils that have emotional connections to specific properties or feel obligated to keep a council camp (often the question is never raised because people think "well, our council can't not have a camp") or they're in denial thinking "things will turn around", and they hold onto a property at a detriment to their overall program or mission.

Quote

While I do beleive that camps need to be maintained' date=' not every scout camp needs to meet those standards IMHO. My council has some primitive camps that have minimal structures on it. They do not need welcoming centers, dining halls, etc.[/quote']

The goal of NCAP is not to close camps.

Primitive camps, short-term camps, and wilderness camps can still exist (and do still exist) under the NCAP standards. NCAP does not mandate every BSA property has specific facilities or even specific programs in order to operate. (It does have regulations, mainly safety related, on what is needed if you have such programs or facilities... and so the regulations for a Boy Scout Summer Camp program is much more involved than, say, just a weekend camping facility).

But the biggest thing that NCAP looks at in terms of if they grant an accreditation to a camp or not (aside from safety) is based on finances or usage. Basically, they want to know if the camp operations are making money (or at least breaking even) for the council or if the property a drain on the council budget (spending more on maintenance, utilities, ect. than it brings in). A lot of councils are holding onto properties for emotional and sentimental reasons when they are killing them financially. NCAP makes the reason to continue or close a camp black-and-white -- while also making sure the camp is safe.

Firstly, I think there is value in having "participation" recognitions (a patch or ribbon or certificate or something) that everyone gets just for showing up. By building a car and participating in the event, a Scout has truly "won" and should have something for him to remember the event and his participation. The purpose of the game of Scouting is not about creating cars that can cross the finish line first, it's about building character and having experiences. I have tons of meaningful patches in my collection from camporees and other events where my troop came in last place. We should commemorate events for all.

But I also agree that you need to recognize actual achievements. Otherwise the competition and the awards become meaningless. When you have a competition, you need to recognize those who actually do win (it's a race - someone finishes first and that's the goal of the "game"). The kids will see that - especially if the hard-working first place winner gets a trophy just as big and with as much celebration as the last place finisher.

So if you have a Pinewood Derby, everyone gets a patch, or a ribbon, or a special "drivers license" ID badge just for participating... but then the winners should get something else (a medal, a ribbon, a trophy, etc.) and recognition for their accomplishment. But keep it all in perspective - you don't want to create sore losers with resentment towards the winners, and you also don't want sore winners with heads so big and chests so puffed out that they can't fit out the door. It's just a Pinewood Derby, after all. A single "winner takes all" (especially with Cubs) doesn't work and isn't really fair. Having little awards (stickers, beads, etc.) for each individual race winner is much better than just giving out one big trophy for the car that wins some big pack-wide bracket of races. Have winners for each level or den and for the overall pack; have 1st, 2nd and 3rd place winners; give awards for more than just the fastest car (such as for creative designs or Scout spirit). If you have 30 kids in your pack, you shouldn't be giving out just 1 or 2 trophies on Derby night (but giving out 30+ is also somewhat ridiculous). I'm not saying everyone needs to win something, but they should all have a reasonable chance to win. And the focus shouldn't be on winning and on the winners, it should be about having fun and on all the Scouts involved.

The most important quality that I want in a camp staff is their ability to be a strong role model and connect with the Scouts. I like camps where the councilors are more like "big brothers" and "friends" to the Scouts and less like "teachers" and "fathers." Sorry, but no 45-year-old, no matter how knowledgeable in a subject and dedicated to the program, can do that as well as an enthusiastic and spirited 19-year-old.

Basically, as a Scoutmaster and a parent, I want to send my Scouts to summer camp where the program is led by SPLs, not by Scoutmasters.

Maybe I've just been blessed and have gone to "good" camps that actually do have well-trained, well-managed, well-groomed and well-developed staffs and merit badge programs. The camps I've attended usually are able to do it "right" and provide quality instruction despite most of the instructors only being in high school or college. I'm a teacher and a parent, and I am constantly impressed with the quality, knowledge, expertise, techniques and overall professionalism of the staff I've encountered at camp and really look up to them (despite being more than twice, if not three or four times, their age). I've even learned things from these "kids" on subjects that I thought I was a pro in (and for badges I am a councilor for).

I've experienced and seen more way more "great" moments with 16-25 year olds teaching badges (even "hard" ones, like the citizenships, swimming or environmental science) than I've seen with the seasoned pros. Whereas, when it comes to summer camp merit badges, I've probably had more issues with older MBCs who make up their own rules, cut corners, are out of touch with current practices or techniques, can't connect with the kids, try to run a simple MB class like a college-level course, don't differentiate their instruction, don't make it fun, etc.

What would it take for you to be on camp staff for a few weeks of the summer? Better food? Accommodations? Pay? For the sake of argument' date=' let's put aside the obvious problem of vacation time aside.[/quote']

 

As a former camp staffer myself, I think there are two major factors at play here (one from the potential MBC's end and one from the camp management's end):

 

Firstly, I think the biggest barrier stopping more "older" adults from being MBC's at camp is merely the time commitment for the gig. The average person over the age of, say, 21 or 22 who lives in the "real world" and has a "real job" (and has bills to pay and a family and a house..), simply does not have the ability to take 5 to 10 weeks (depending on the length of the camp's season) to go be a on a summer camp staff. I don't know many people that get 10 weeks of vacation time or can simply take a 10 week leave-of-absence from their job. Not to mention having to practically abandon your family (your wife, kids, pets, house, etc.) for 2 months to go work at camp. Even the school teachers that I know who do get their summers "off", simply can't pack-up and leave for a 2-month summer job in the woods (they have families, summertime obligations to their jobs, a mortgage to pay, etc.) The main source for adult staffers is college students, school teachers, and retirees (and only if they're able to afford to work for the wages Scout camps offer, and often times only if they're single or they're able to bring the whole family).

 

Secondly, merit badge counseling is only one part of the job of a camp staff member. So, sure, a 45-year-old high school science teacher may make a better Environmental Science councilor than an 19 year-old college student. But that 19-year-old will be 1,000 times better at all of the other duties and expectations put on a typical staffer. The average camp staff member probably only spends 3-5 hours a day actually teaching merit badges; and another 10-12 hours doing other stuff (remember there's a lot more to camp than just merit badge classes). I found the "older" staff, while great at teaching merit badges, often lack at the ability to do all that "other stuff" as well as a good 15-25 year-old Scout can (especially when it comes to connecting with the Scouts on a peer-to-peer level, or doing hours of physical labor, or being enthusiastic, entertaining and relevant to a bunch of 14-year-olds). Overall, I (and the boys) would much rather have a camp full of spirited and enthusiastic young guys that give "good" MB instruction than one dominated by 40-year-old experts that give "great" instruction and keep detailed paperwork.

I wouldn't dwell on it or beat yourself up over it. Especially if you're not 100% certain you saw what you "saw"... perhaps it was just bottles of sparkling apple or grape juice

I had an assistant leader who overheard clanking glass and bottles opening and though he was about to "bust" a group of Venturers drinking beer in their tent at summer camp. It turned out it they just had a 6-pack of glass-bottled cream sodas. Boy, was his face red.

If you're saying "take of your hats" rather than "please remove all non-religious headgear" or "please assume a posture of reverence according to your tradition", you're doing it wrong.

Here’s a short story for you… within my district the common phrase used before a prayer or religious service had always been along the lines of: "I ask that unless it is against your custom, please remove your hats..." So, upon this request, pretty much everyone would remove their hats… unless they were, say, Jewish (which requires a headcover during prayers as a sign of respect toward God).

Now several years ago there was Jewish Scout in the district. While this Scout would often carry and wear a yarmulke for the religious parts of the day, there were times (especially on campouts) where his headcover during prayers or meals was simply a regular-looking ball cap or knit cap. He grew tired of getting dirty looks and taps on the shoulder "reminding" him that he had a hat on, and having to explain "I'm Jewish" to people who thought he was just being disrespectful. Most people didn't know he was Jewish and thought he was just ignoring the call to remove his hat during the prayer; and even after he explained that he was Jewish, some Scout leaders from other units would roll their eyes and think he was just some kind of wisenheimer saying it to get out of having to take his hat off in the dining hall of whatnot. So one day this Scout was asked to introduce the prayer at an event. He flipped the district's common introduction of "unless it is against your custom, please remove your cover" and said "unless it is against your custom, please put on a cover..." There was a slight murmur from the crowd but he continued with the prayer.

His logic was there are 3 groups when it comes to headcovers: (1) there are religions that require you remove your hat to show reverence towards God; (2) there are religions that require that you cover your head to show reverence towards God; and (3) there are religions that have no opinion one way or another on if you have a hat on or off. He felt like Group #1 was being promoted as the "default" and that Group #2 (which he was in) was treated like an asterisked exception. They were basically saying "everyone remove your hats!... well, unless you've really got to keep them on" (why not say "Keep your hat on, unless you've really got to take it off."?) The common practice of saying that Group #3 has to conform to Group #1's customs (just because Group #1 is the majority) is no less offensive than saying Group #3 to conform to Group #2's way of doing it.

Well long story short... now the prayers at district events start with a simple reminder to "please adjust you headcover in accordance to your faith." Some take their hats off, and some leave their hats on. I will admit that more a few more hats stay on now from Scouts who probably have no custom one way or another on the issues, but the Jewish Scouts get a lot less hassling and odd looks for keeping their hats on and they feel more included and respected. The little things, like the wording for a call to adjust your headcover, can make a big difference to a Scout feeling accepted or like a second-class citizen.

I enjoy when Scouts' Own services have many diverse faiths represented. That way everyone has a moment where they feel included, accepted and celebrated. It also educates other on our commonalities and the traditions and beliefs of others. Many times I feel that "Scouts' Own" services are just non-denominational Christian services that avoid using the word "Jesus." The style and overall point-of-view often mirrors that of a traditional Christian church service.

Also remember that we're dealing with teenage and pre-teenage boys here, attending a Scouts' Own service should be a fun and meaningful activity for them, not some somber and boring obligation.

Here's a passage written by Baden-Powell in 1928 about what a "Scouts' Own" service should (and shouldn't) be that I think is quite apt here:

For an open Troop, or for Troops in camp, I think the Scouts' Own should be open to all denominations, and carried on in such a manner as to offend none. There should not be any special form, but it should abound in the right spirit, and should be conducted not from any ecclesiastical point of view, but from that of the boy. Everything likely to make an artificial atmosphere should be avoided. We do not want a kind of imposed Church parade, but a voluntary uplifting of their hearts by the boys in thanksgiving for the joys of life, and a desire on their part to seek inspiration and strength for greater love and service for others.

 

A Scouts' Own should have as big an effect on the boys as any service in church, if in conducting the Scouts' Own we remember that boys are not grown men, and if we go by the pace of the youngest and most uneducated of those present. Boredom is not reverence, nor will it breed religion.

 

To interest the boys, the Scout's Own must be a cheery and varied function. Short hymns (three verses are as a rule quite enough-never four); understandable prayers; a good address from a man who really understands boys (a homily "talk" rather than an address), which grips the boys, and in which they may laugh or applaud as the spirit moves them, so that they take a real interest in what is said. If a man cannot make his point to keen boys in ten minutes he ought to be shot! If he has not got them keen, it would be better not to hold a Scouts' Own at all.

 

Seems to me the right answer is scouts should behave like scouts' date=' regardless of gender, and should be disciplined when out of line. There, no need for gender stereotypes at all.[/quote'] I agree, and I may have used some hyperbole in my last post there with the burkas and whatnot. The bottom line is that, regardless of gender, Scouts should be expected to behave like Scouts and they should be disciplined and given guidance when they fail to do so. I’ve seen it go both ways (with boys harassing and being inappropriate towards the girls; and also with girls harassing and being inappropriate towards boys).

 

But the excuse of "boys will be boys"; or disregarding or discounting some behaviors simply due to "uncontrollable teenage hormones" (saying “he’s only human, after all†or “hey, he’s just being a teenage boy, what do you expect?â€Â); or claiming that someone else started it or was "asking for it" based on how they dress or act is total baloney. Setting a higher standard for one gender over the other, or treating the minority secondary to the majority is nonsense too. Everyone is equal and everyone is accountable for their own actions.

 

If a girl is truly dressing or acting like (to use the originally quoted word) a "tramp" at camp then that should be addressed (inappropriate attire and behavior should be address, no doubt about it), but a girl dressing like a "tramp" never gives the boys the right to treat her like one. Ever. You may feel a girl’s shorts are “too short†if you want (and we can debate what is and isn't "appropriate attire" for a co-ed program), but you can’t blame that girl (or use her short-shorts as an excuse) for why a group of Scouts is demeaning towards her or objectifying her. That just doesn't fly with me.

 

However I’ve had female Venturers wearing the official BSA Venturing uniform (they had the official socks, grey shorts, and green uniform shirts on... no inappropriate short-shorts, exposed midriffs, tight fitting spaghetti-strap tops, or even flashy make up)… and they still get cat-calls from boys and I get complaints from other leaders saying that their mere presence in the camp is a distractions to the boys. The "boys club" attitude of the BSA still very much exists.

 

AND we should address the girl's actual behaviors when they stir things up intentionally rather than blaming boys for basically being who they are......

Oh, I'm not saying that females have never been at fault for inappropriate conduct in Scouting. I've experienced my fair share of girls that have crossed the line with comments about "cute boys", were caught ogling the "hunky" male camp staff members, or were otherwise intentionally stirring up trouble.

If two female Venturers show up at the waterfront in inappropriately revealing bathing suits and starts flaunting themselves and flirting with the male lifeguards, yes, that is inappropriate and those young ladies should be talked to and dealt with. But again, the un-Scoutlike or vacuous behavior of those girls still does not make it acceptable for male Scouts to ogle them, harass them, take advantage of them, or to be disrespectful towards women in general. The boys don’t get a “free pass†just because she “started it†or she was “asking for it†or because "well, boys will be boys." Both the boys and the girls have to be responsible for their actions.

However if two female Venturers show up at the waterfront in Scout-appropriate bathing suits to work on earning a lifeguard certification and all the boys just start drooling over them and making lewd comments about wanting to give them "mouth-to-mouth resuscitation" (whether the girls can hear them or not), well, that is inappropriate and those young men should be talked to and dealt with. A Scout camp shouldn't require all females to wear burkas when swimming or make the girls eat in a separate dining hall just because some boys can't seem to control themselves around members of the opposite gender.

I recommend checking out the Venturing Personal Safety Awareness training video (viewing it is one of the first requirements for any Venturer working on the new Venturing Awards). You can get it direct from the BSA here: http://www.scoutstuff.org/personal-safety-awareness-for-venturing-dvd.html#.VKFmlcBE4.

The video has a module on peer sexual harassment. By the BSA's own definition, sexual harassment is any unwelcome behaviors that creates a hostile environment. The training specifically says that Scouts should avoid any behaviors that "may make another feel humiliated, degraded, or threatened." The training specifically calls out "ogling," "staring," "whistling," "lewd comments or jokes," "questions about personal life," "repeated requests for dates," and "violating personal space" as just some examples of inappropriate behavior. The way someone is dressed does or the way they act does not give someone else the permission or the right to harass them. The training materials specifically state "You should not blame yourself for the harassment. This is not something you deserve or ask for. The harasser is the one who deserves blame."

The video also has a module on acquaintance rape, which also has some good material that could relate to some of the statements people have made in this thread too.

Now I wasn't there for any of the specific examples or situations cited in this discussion. I don't know the boys or girls involved in these specific situations nor do I know if the girls were truly inappropriately dressed (BSA does have standards in the Youth Protection guidelines for "appropriate attire" and I have seen both females and males at Scouting events that have crossed, or at least pushed, that line) or if some of the adults present were just being overly-sensitive prudes and the girls were dressed and behaving fine... or, as I suspect, if it was somewhere in between the two.

However the way a female presents herself does not give the boys (or the adults or anyone) the right to harass her. Period. Even if the girls were inappropriately dressed, making inappropriate comments towards or about them isn't okay -- two wrongs don't make a right.

So as for the guys involved here... as a Scout leader, I would make sure they boys are behaving appropriately (both around the females and behind their backs). Ogling or making comments to or about the girls is 100% unacceptable. Treating girls like "tramps" (even if they are dressed like "tramps", acting like "tramps" or even legitimate "tramps") is not Scout-like and is not acceptable. Just because you may feel the girls were "asking for it" with their behavior or appearance, it does not make it okay for the boys to behave any less than proper. I was on a Scouting trip once and we stopped at a McDonalds to use the bathrooms; the boys saw a group of scantily-clad, college-aged girls (who really were not dressed Scout-appropriate) and the boys made some objectifying and crude comments about the girls when we got back in the cars. It wasn't okay and the boys had a nice Scoutmaster conference and our SPL led a talk around the campfire about respect later that evening. The notion that “boys will be boys†is hogwash; we should be aiming to turn these “boys†into upstanding men with good and strong character, values, citizenship, respect, and personal fitness.

Now as for the ladies involved here... as a Venturing leader, I would make sure there were clear standards for what is appropriate dress (what length of shorts or shirts are appropriate, what can/can't be exposed, what type of bathing suits are okay, what type of images or language can be on t-shirts, etc.). Have a female leader talk with the girls about how they present themselves to the boys and the world. Just like many schools, there should be a basic dress code for the crew (and not just for the girls, but for the guys and adults too). Especially with teens, you need to establish clear guidelines for what is acceptable and what is not; the rules should not just be up to the whim or subjectivity of any random adult's mood on a given day. The girls themselves should have input and say in the rules and they should be agreed upon and clearly stated before the trip. If it’s okay for them to wear, say, a one-piece bathing suit, or a sleeveless top, or cut-off shorts with full-length leggings underneath, then they shouldn’t be penalized or looked down upon for wearing them. And, again, even if they do break the rules, it does not make it okay for the boys or anyone else to harass them. We also want the girls to develop as women of strong character, equal citizenship, and a good personal image and understanding of personal fitness – allowing harassment or shaming and blaming them for it isn’t how you do that; standing up to harassment, advocating equality, building self-respect and confidence, and empowering the girls is how you achieve that.

Just remember that the boys and the girls here are both equally Scouts and both deserve respect and support. We should absolutely guide the girls in the venturing program to dress appropriately and carry themselves with esteem and respect (we should do it for the boys too), but we should never shame or blame a girl when the boys don't act appropriately. We should address the boys’ actual behaviors rather than simply blame some innocent girls who may have unintentionally stirred things up just by basically being who they are.

And exactly how much is in the Boy Scout Handbook (or any other BSA material) about how a scout should carry himself around a scantily dressed and very friendly young lady? Maybe the boys thought it would be discourteous to not arrange to meet them someplace privately after hours. And it would be unkind to wake their SM after his very hard day!

Well... page 118 of the current Boy Scout Handbook says:

A Scout Is Chivalrous...He should be very courteous to women.

...and page 120 states:

True maturity comes from acting ethically in the following ways:True maturity comes from acting ethically in the following ways:

• Your responsibility to women: Whenever you like to be with someone you want the best for that person. A healthy relationship is supportive and equal.

and:

Girls you know are becoming young women. The are maturing physically and emotionally. Your relationships with them will become closer and more meaningful, both to you and to them. Sex is not the most important or grown-up part of a relationship. Having sex is never a test of manliness.

Camp Minsi (located in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania) is a great camp! Our troop has been going there every-other year for the past 2 decades... it's practically our home-away-from-home. A beautiful camp, a wonderful program, and an extraordinary staff.

One leader chimed up if you dress like a tramp you get treated like a tramp.

I don't care how the girls were (or weren't) dressed... courteous and kind are still two points of the Scout Law! A girl dressing like a "tramp" doesn't mean that those two principles no longer apply to how a Scout should carry himself.