KublaiKen

Delaware Valley Orienteering Association?

I think his question was directly to the person he quoted? It's late my time, so maybe not.

This is what we received from NCAC:

1 hour ago, Mrjeff said:

I think the real issue is why someone who has completed the Ordeal not want to be in good standing.

1. For us, a complete lack of OA in the Troop for many years. We didn't have elections for three years before 2019. And there was almost no interest, because:

• the Chapter meets on the same night as our Troop meetings.
• the older guys who were Arrowmen said, "All they they do is eat ice cream at the Chapter meetings." And this is blatantly not true!

2. All they do is eat pizza at the Chapter meetings.

3. Our Ordeals are completely uninspiring. They can barely drag four Scouts into the principal roles. That the parts be memorized or seemingly even read through sometimes seems out of the question. One of the reasons ceremonialists are hard to come by, in addition to the practice time, is that even now there is too much of #4.

4. The same old 800-pound gorilla: the Native American stuff. Guys around here are embarrassed by it and want no part of it. They're kids and young men, but they see which side of history they feel it belongs on, and they don't want to be associated with it. Many never complete their Ordeals, and the sash-and-dash rate among those who do has to be astronomical.

I find any rule that says my status as an Arrowman is terminated when my dues aren't paid to be at odds with the permanence of the Obligation. To be clear, I wouldn't wear a flap or attend a function without paying dues, but I am fairly certain the ties of Brotherhood are everlasting, and not ended when the roll of quarters runs out.

So disturbed as to why the election team had asked me about strikes after the vote, I asked about this, and after a delay brought on by Klondike, I have an answer. It turns out this is NOT how our Chapter conducts elections, and this was an error on the part of the newly-pressed-into-service election team, that will now  be corrected. I thought it might be one more new thing.

So my apologies for confusion g the discussion with my incorrect information, and thanks to all who helped me fix it.

We will be having two this year: the first on 2/12 with the UMC that was our CO for 72 years, and the second on 3/5, at our new CO. They weren't ready for us for today.

13 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

That kinda depends on what you consider to be "olden times"  I think it was a SMC until '73 then it became a PGAC.  I'm not sure when it switched back.

Yes, I guess there is nothing more relative than "olden." 😁

When did it switch to SMC, anyway? In olden times it was a Personal Growth Agreement Conference.

While AOL and Scout appear identical, there is actually a universe between them. They may be doing the exact same things, but the first time it was signed off by a grown-up and the second time by another Scout. I don't think that step should be diminished or lost, because it probably really helps the new Scout understand the seismic shift. And while I know the SMC is by no means contingent upon advancement, I do like that one is required right out of the gate. Not necessary, but then maybe it is for some.

I'm confused by your comment, @jcousino: the article never claims that all 1000 nights were spent that way, only the one thousandth itself (though others may have been spent that way as well). Did I overlook something (a common occurrence).

By 2030 we should be seeing in utero trips to the fire station.

That is pretty darned cool. Literally, at times.

1 hour ago, GrubKnot said:

Have to agree with Eagledad.  Wolf, Bear & Webelos is enough. Make AOL rank for motivated, high achieving scouts.

In other words, exactly how it was when I was in, 1975-1978.

4 hours ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

All else equal, suburban moms would probably prefer that suburban dads are the ones to take their children camping.

I'd wager that's very true, and that most would agree with you. I'd also contend that it's a radically different statement than what you opened with, which was more akin to that they won't allow their children to camp with anyone but suburban dads, and didn't deal much with preferences. I'd likewise contend that the "all else equal" doesn't ever (often?) exist.

But I don't disbelieve your point that your wife is not unique in her concerns, not by a long shot. I'm not a Millennial, my wife and I are Gen X, and "late to childhood" in some cultures and areas of the country, but my wife certainly had concerns with the BSA when my son was Tiger age in 2014. Our friends recruiting us for the Pack led with safety measures, so I know we weren't unique, either.

I guess the next thing is, what do we do about it? I see three certain avenues of approach:

1. BSA bans adults (male? female? who cares?) who don't have children active in the program/unit/whatever, or bans them from overnight camping. We understand from posts here that this will mean the certain failure of some units, quite likely a bunch since so many are dependent on this type of volunteer. Certainly District and Council operations could be hindered (sit on your fingers, Lads!) if this demographic can't attend overnight at camporees, summer camps, etc.

2. Educate people (your wife's peer group, at least in this concern) about how this works now, the safety processes in place, the necessity for experienced and trained volunteers, and how one's own active participation is the primary barrier to ANY problems, not just sexual abuse.

3. Tell her it's her hangup, and she can either get over it or get lost.

There are certainly more, at least by degree, right?

I wonder if there will be a challenge since BSA requires a belief in a god.

While YPT is required of all adult leaders, we also require it of any parent who camps with us. But I have heard that the 72-hour loophole might be disappearing as a result of the settlement, and I am hearing that some camps are already requiring any adult who stays the night to be a registered leader.

We and our "affiliated" Pack have found a new CO, the Episcopalian church a few doors down. For now at least we are under a facilities use agreement with our old UMC, but the plan is to move over to the Episcopalian church over time.

4 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

So, as I read this, all scouts who have met the OA qualifications are put on the ballot, and stand for election.

The SM does not exercise the SM's discretion to exclude from the ballot a scout that the SM believes should not be elected.

The doomed scout's name appears on the ballot and the doomed scout knows he was on the ballot. The doomed scout does not know he is doomed.

The scout electorate believes the doomed scout to be a viable candidate because he is on the ballot, and perhaps deems him worthy and elects him to the OA, not knowing that their vote won't count.

And what is the color of the Truth in presenting a ballot to an electorate when the "fix is in?"

After the doomed scout is elected, he is told that he was not elected.  (But he was.)

And what is the color of the Truth in telling a scout he was not elected when he really was elected?

Or maybe the SM has the backbone to tell the doomed scout that he was elected, but that the SM is denying him membership in the OA.  And how is that message delivered?  Such that the Scout has a path forward to qualify next year?. 

And how does the scout reconcile that his fellow scouts thought he was worthy, but the SM is the roadblock?

I agree. I can't imagine why I would have submitted a name on the ballot if I didn't intend to allow that candidate to be elected. I was pretty stunned when I was asked, especially because in my distant youth I was a Lodge Unit Elections Committee Chair at one point.

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

True, but if those who took an Obligation are not willing to follow it,  and fix the things that are broken, but instead are making the problems worse,  is the organization worth saving?

There comes a time when one is completely exhausted and overwhelmed by the problems that fixing them is not  worth it. 

Yes, that is a decision each of us must make.

17 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Maybe this is another reason for the OA to die? Why bother having rules if they are ignored.

True. But that could apply to any number of things in Scouting or elsewhere. Getting rid of roads because people keep speeding would seem extreme, right? 😁 It's in our nature to try to fix things, not throw them out.

Correct. But it isn't done globally. And given that the OP's Chapter told him he needed 20 for membership and seems to have neglected to mention Scoutmaster approval at all, I would be skeptical of their adherence to standard. Forewarned and all...

16 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

According to the Guide to Unit Elections, once the SM approves the eligibility of the, and the vote is take, the SM CANNOT (emphasis) change the election results. Page 17 specificily states

So f it is not global, then those chapters or lodges are in violation of OA policies.

Correct.

16 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

That should be true globally.  Once the SM has approved someone to be on the ballot and they are elected he/she CANNOT change the result.

From the latest version of the OA Guide to Elections:

"After the youths have voted, the unit leader cannot adjust the results of the election. The Guide for Officers and Advisers says that lodge rules must include this standard rule: Rule III.A. The requirements for membership in this lodge are as stated in the current printing of the Order of the Arrow Handbook and the Order of the Arrow Guide for Officers and Advisers. The “Induction: Election to Ordeal” section of the Guide for Officers and Advisers, details the procedure to be used for elections. Voting by unit leaders or adjusting the results of the youth votes is not part of the procedure and therefore is not allowed."

3 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Actually there is only one way, before. Once the SM approves the slate of candidates, it is a done deal. I had a SM try to intimidate an election team into changing the results after he approved the candidate. He then tried to intimidate me, cursing and yelling at me as the team and I left his meeting.

That isn't true globally; in our Chapter all candidates are on the ballot and the SM only uses a strike if the candidate is actually elected.

It is actually 15, not 20. I wonder why they sent 20? Additionally the long-term counts for five, but only five,  of the 15.