Abel Magwitch

Narraticong, Here is a thought. Ask your COR to find an answer for you. They are a voting member of both the district and council committee. The COR and the rest of the district committee and anyone else who voted in the district slate should be given an answer.

 

Not working Eagle, Here is my email AbelMagwitch100@gmail.com

So in other words, in council planning meetings, the SE made his own policies that may have been contrary to national policy. This begs the question - Did the SE have the authority to make his own policies even if it went against the National Policies for council operations that are available at the Scout store?

 

Please Eagle, tell more.

 

As I said in my last post, we are without a District Chair currently. The reason that was given was that her term had ended at the end of the year. Funny thing though, the rest of the District committee officers still have their positions. Their terms are being allowed to continue till March when the district business meeting is planned.

 

 

On another completely different note, the word is that supposedly my council has been purportedly misreporting their membership numbers. And purportedly our council was recently audited by national. There was a significant overnight drop of some 4,000 youth members. But an interesting development has occured since those youth members were dropped - A traditional membership report has been handed out to the district commissioners in the council comparing the 2009 membership figures to the 2008 figures. And even though there was a major drop in membership after the audit team left in late autumn, the council is boasting it made gains in 2009. How you may ask? Well it's simple. Council simply discounted some 4,000 members from the 2008 totals claiming that these Scouts though registred were no longer active.

 

 

There are funny things happening in our council as of late.(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

BadenP states: "Abel, I agree with you and that is why I left professional service after five years, disgust over the type of training we received at National with such topics as , "How to Manipulate your Volunteers", "How to exploit all your district resources, people, service organizations, and companies to make your FOS campaign a sucess", "How to get rid of problem volunteers with little effort", to name just a few."

 

 

Are you serious BP? Those were the actual names of some of the topics?

 

We have had an interesting situation develop in my council. Our district failed to have its annual business meeting in January. Back in December, I inquired of our District Chairman why our district was not taking nominations for the upcoming year; why the district nominating committee was not identified to the district. She replied that the district business meeting had been moved to March of 2010. After doing some digging, I found out the reason why these things were happening was that the Director of Field service (a professional) would not approve the DC's nominating committee. This of course brought up other questions - what business did the professional have in approving the nominating committee? The council president (the volunteer) is supposed to approve the nominating committee. Needless to say, my district currently does not have a District Chair. In fact, all the district officers from 2009 have been relieved of their positions with the exception of the district commissioner. Currently, the district only has a key 2 running the show.

 

 

I tried to send you BP a private message, but apparently the private messaging is not working. I wanted to know if you were being serious about the professional training topics you mentioned and wanted to know what other interesting topics you were required to take concerning the management of the volunteers.

 

 

The Blancmange writes:

 

 

"who would you rather lose, a scouter who wants to make up the rules as he goes along, or a scout who plays by the rules?"

 

 

Great Post!!!

 

 

A Scout should do the requirements, no more and no less. And no council, district, unit or individual has the authority to add to our subtract from advancement requirements.

 

Get with your commissioner and District Advancement Chair if all else fails.

Does anyone know of the final outcomes of this scandal? Was Dr. Willis allowed to get back into Scouting?

In my council, Cub Scout recruiting is held at the public libraries. When potential cubs show up, they are immediately encouraged to pay their registration fees. Then they are given a list of Packs in the area to visit. There are some who are shocked to find when they visit a Pack that there are additional dues to pay. Then they never really join a Pack. But as far as council is concerned, they have another member on the books for the fiscal year.

And let's not forget there is an ongoing metamorphosis of the urban programs.

 

In the 90's, there was the Urban Emphasis program which later morphed into Scoutreach.

 

And now Scoutreach has been dissolved as a national division of the Boy Scouts of America. The Multicultural Markets Team will now encompass some of the core elements once supported by Scoutreach, along with expanding its service to more specific populations. ( http://www.scoutreachbsa.org/ under message from the multicultural markets).

 

There is also In School Scouting. This is done mainly in the urban areas where rosters from schools are obtained and the kids are registered in school units. In my council, you do not ever see these Scouts, yet their membership numbers are included in the traditional membership counts.

 

And of course there is Learning for Life. In our council, the LFL classes are given Troop, Pack and Venture unit numbers.

 

Eamonn writes - If a District is not operating as it should and not doing things by the book, I would hope that any DE worth his or her salt would do everything in his or her power to change things and bring it around to where it should be.

 

 

My DE is aware of the shenanigans going on at the professional level, but is unwilling to make any waves. She told me that her family really needs the money and she cannot afford to lose her job.

I have to go with BadenP on this one. His words reflect my own council to a tee. Are there good council's out there? Most likely. Are there good professionals and volunteers who are in the program for the sake of the Scouts? Undoubtably. But there are council's out there that reflect BadenP's own experiences. I am part of one.

BadenP,

 

If the "right way" is not being followed, and if is "common practice" by the professional to not follow the written policies and procedures of this so called volunteer organization, then this organization has become a salaried organization under the guise of being a volunteer organization.

 

Voluneers spend money to be trained. Volunteers read and learn the policies and procedures. Volunteers don't get paid to work with youth. But from what you have stated, perhaps it's time for the volunteer to quit spending money and reading BSA literature. Perhaps it's time to quit wasting time and money on training. Why should a volunteer give of his time and money to learn the program only to be told by the professional that council doesn't do things that way.

 

Your namesake, Baden Powell stated in his last letter to the volunteer leaders:

 

"Don't let it become a salaried organization: keep it a voluntary movement of patriotic service."

 

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

Manipulation. You nailed it. I have been noticing recently that in my council, the volunteers are in fact being manipulated.

 

I have been in this program awhile now. I have found that if one actually reads the books - the district, the council, advancement policies and procedures, etc, to see how the program is supposed to work, you can really see the manipulation.

 

Should you mention that things aren't being done correctly and try to implement things the way they are suppose to work, you really run into some major resistance by the professional staff who were happy with the way things were being manipulated.

 

Case in point was how my council's summer camp is now being managed.

 

Our council had a DE who quit after three months. The reason? He didn't like how the professionals were manipulating the volunteers.

 

I won't speak for any other councils, but in mine, the professionals are in charge and they do an incredible job of manipulating the volunteer.

 

By the way, I am a COR who takes his position very seriously.(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

BadenP, dc handpicked by the de? What happened to the policies and procedures? What happened to the nominating committee? Hmmmmmm. District nomination and election procedures, the de is simply an advisor. I thought that this was a volunteer program, but what you are implying is that the professionals are running the show.

Shortridge, you are correct. Apparently your council is doing things right concerning its summer camp.

 

Bottom line - youth instructors can assist the MB counselor but not actually counsel merit badges. This national policy is in no way followed in my council.

 

In our council, the area directors are the merit badge counselors for every badge in their area. Our council professional staff dictates to the advancement committee that NCS is all the area director needs to be qualified as a MB counselor for all the MBs in his area. Our council is not willing to let the council advancement committee do their job. The council gives a list of area directors who will be the sole MB counselors at summer camp to the advancement chair. Council then demands that the council advancement chair to simply sign off on the area directors as MB counselors so council can pass their summer camp inspection.

 

The problems began when the Advancement Policies and Procedures book was actually read and the advancement committee tried to actually implement the policies and procedures written in the book. The professional staff in the council did not like a volunteer committee telling them how things were supposed to be done. Council only wanted a figure head advancement committee so they could do things their way.

 

Again, the area directors were not able to manage the instructors in their area they had their own merit badges to counsel and had no time what so ever to oversee their youth instructors who were counseling the majority of the camp merit badges. The area directors job at the end of the week was to simply sign off all the blue cards at the end of the week without ever actually working with the Scouts let alone ever having the chance to even oversee a single class that the 15 year olds were counseling.

 

A 15 year old was simply put into a position to counsel a merit badge even if he had no real idea what he was doing. 15 year olds are cheap. There were less than a dozen adults on our program staff this past year.

 

What has happened at my council's summer camp over the years has been nothing but a mockery of Scouting.

 

Abel

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

Here is a follow up on my councils summer camp woes:

 

A meeting was held in September with some members of the advancement committee and the director of program service to address the advancement problems at summer camp. The professional informed those members attending on how things are done in our council and then brought up some unknown established council policies concerning how advancement would be done at summer camp in the council. I was just informed of the results of this meeting two weeks ago.

 

Prior to this meeting, another advancement committee member, concerned with the merit badge counselors at summer camp, realized that council had not registered any of the summer camp merit badge counselors as a code 42. The committee member implied that the merit badges earned at summer camp were actually invalid as none were signed off by a registered merit badge counselor. This was one of the issues discussed at the September meeting. One of the district advancement chairs who attended the meeting emailed me to explain the director of program services unknown policy concerning summer camp MB counselors. Here is what that district chair wrote: he [the director of support service] indicated that the counselors were not registered as such but asserted that the hiring process went farther into background and experience verification than the typical MBC candidate would see in the districts. Allowing that, he indicated the counselors were not registered as code 42 because in Council's view they were only approved for the summer camp session. That begs the question of registering them and then deleting them after summer camp, or for that matter just leaving them on the roster. It's fairly clear they will not be added to the code 42 roster.

 

It appears that the director of program service may have simply made up this unknown policy to justify the councils non adherence to what is written on page 34 of the Advancement book: The procedures for advancement in summer camp are established by the council advancement committee in cooperation with the committee responsible for summer camp, the camp director, and the program director. These procedures must be approved by the council advancement committee prior to the opening of camp.

 

Summer camp merit badge counselors must be qualified as merit badge counselors (**see page 13.)

 

**Page 13 - Merit badge counselors must be registered with the Boy Scouts of America. The must be 18 years old or older and recognized as having the skills and education in the subjects for which they are to serve as merit badge counselors.

**Page 14 Merit badge counselors (Code 42) are registered with the local council. As with all council members, their registration must be renewed annually.

 

Unfortunately, this unknown council policy was ever explained to any of the now former summer camp merit badge counselors when they were first hired as some of these now former summer camp merit badge counselors are still counseling merit badges long after the end of summer camp. Little do they know that they were only approved to be merit badge counselor for just the 4 weeks of summer camp. But since our council has its own advancement policies instead of what is already written, council has inadvertently created a new conundrum any merit badge a Scout has earned working with a former summer merit badge counselor after summer camp should be considered invalid. This is one example of how additional problems occur when liberties are taken to disregard national advancement policies and procedures. Also, the assertion by the professional that their process of hiring goes farther into the experience backgrounds of the MBC candidates than what is typically done at the district level is in my opinion, absurd. How would this professional know what is done at the district level? As far as I know, he has never discussed with any district advancement chair their merit badge counselor approval process.

 

The camp director was informed prior to hiring his summer camp staff that his merit badge counselors would have to be approved by the council advancement committee. It was requested of the camp director to have his hired merit badge counselors fill out a standard MB counselor application listing a candidates credentials. It was also requested that the hired merit badge staff come to the May advancement meeting to be trained and approved by the council advancement committee. Of course, these things never happened, and the few MB counselor applications that were received were incomplete no credentials were written. The qualifications that some of the hired summer camp staff lacked was most evident at summer camp where the rubber met the road.

 

Concerning the use of 15 year olds actually counseling merit badges on their own without the any direct supervision by the area director, (the area directors were busy counseling their own merit badges), the director of program service had this to say about 15 year old merit badge counselors at summer camp: It was agreed upon by those members of the advancement committee attending and the director of support service that 15 year old merit badge counselors should in the future at least have earned the merit badges offered in the program area to which they were assigned. So in other words, our council professionals will still use 15 years olds to counsel merit badges at summer camp, but at least next year the youth MB counselor has to at least have earned the merit badges he will be counseling. That will be the only qualification required by our council for a youth to counsel a merit badge. Again, the national policy of a merit badge counselor being at least 18 years old will not be followed. On a side note, the advancement committee is not allowed to interview or train any of the 15 year old instructors. The camp director will not allow it. Additionally, 15 year olds do not attend national camp school as they are too young to actually be a merit badge counselor.

 

As for adding age and rank requirements to merit badges at summer camp, the director of program service stated that they were not actually requirements, but simply a method to manage risk and scheduling. It was agreed that it was "strongly" written and will be modified in future years. Again, our professional staff has disregarded what has been written nationally and chose to instead make its own policies and then had the impudence to state that their requirements werent really requirements. A good analogy of this would be like telling Scouts that they wont get wet if they jump into the water in the pool. As for requiring Scouts to have earned certain ranks in order to go for a summer camp merit badge, nothing that I know of was addressed.

 

Even though I was a member of our council advancement committee I was not allowed to attend this meeting. It was the director of program service who insisted on this as he told the council advancement chairman that he would not meet with the advancement committee to discuss summer camp if I were present.

 

According to the council advancement chairman - after this meeting, the director of support service discussed with him that our council advancement committee would no longer allow members at large; only district advancement chairs would be allowed to reside on the committee. So I have been conveniently dismissed from the council advancement committee by this new council specific policy made by the professional.

 

I feel that I have truly wasted my time and efforts through many years trying to ensure that our council adheres to the national advancement policies and procedures which supposedly no council, district, unit or individual has the authority to add to or subtract from. It has become apparent in my council that it is the professional who is in charge and they alone decide which advancement policies and procedures our council will follow while adding their own policies and procedures to suit their needs when national advancement policies are to be overlooked. I should have seen the writing on the wall when our new council camp director told me prior to summer camp this year the advancement committee is just an outside group with no jurisdiction. I'm in charge of the camp and I make the rules.

 

In the end it is the Scouts who ultimately lose out on a quality advancement experience.

 

I have suggested to the national advancement task force that should publish a special edition of the advancement policy book specifically for our council that would again include the word guidelines in the title as well as an additional side bar on page 3 right next the last paragraph that would read: the professional staff of the council has the authority to interpret and supersede any policy and procedure within the book it so chooses.

 

Unfortunately, the lack of council troops who attend the council camp speaks volumes about the lack of quality of our councils summer camp program. My own Troop after three decades of supporting our council camp has decided to also vote with our feet and will be joining the majority of our council troops who have long abandoned our council camp.

 

Abel

 

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

Hello Beava,

 

I have to tell you that my DE along with several other professionals in my council have actually told me that the BSA is business. Funny, I always thought that businesses were out to make a profit.

 

I have a feeling that the times they are a changin somewhere in Irving.

I believe you hit the nail right on the head when you posted this:

 

National's policy make sense if you're sitting in an office in Irving and are trying to avoid conflict and keep your job easy. But it STINKS as a way to run a Scout troop.

 

The current definition of active though weak does allow for a Scoutmaster to use his discretion in relieving an inactive Scout from his leadership duties. (Eagle requirement 4: While a Life Scout, serve actively for a period of 6 months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility) and opening the leadership position for another Scout who will actively perform the leadership duties.

 

In this way, an inactive Scout can still remain a member of his troop. I believe that Scouting can still be a positive influence on even an inactive Scout who may only attend a Troop meeting once a month or less. But this inactive Scout will not be able to earn the Eagle badge as he cannot complete requirement 4 because he was relieved of his position because he was not able to do the job because he was not showing up.

 

Perhaps national has written its definitions for active the way it did to thwart off any lawsuits that might be brought against them by disgruntled parents whose sons had failed their Eagle BOV because of somebody elses tough definition of what active should be.

Back in January of 2007, our council advancement committee gave a Scout an Eagle Board of Review on appeal for a Scout. The Scout had already been turned down by his initial EBOV. He appealed and was given a District level EBOV where again he was denied. The reason why this Scout failed his EBOVs was he was not active. The Scout had not been active for over a year. He did not show up for meetings; did not go on camps; did not show up for service projects or other activities. Why? The Scout was busy playing high school sports. He was required to be active by making all the practices and games. Consequently, he made his decision to be active in Sports instead of Scouting. But at the last minute, he finished the few remaining merit badges he needed (his project was already complete for some time). Every Eagle Board of Review this Scout had reached the same conclusions that the Scout was not an active participant in Scouting. And when the Scout was finally turned down by the Council Advancement Committees EBOV, he appealed to National.

 

On February 21, our Scout Executive forwarded to our council advancement committee this response from the national scout office:

 

Dear Mr. Scout Executive,

 

The National Advancement Committee met on Monday, February 5, at the DFW Marriot in Irving, Texas and considered the appeal for the Eagle Scout rank of Joe Scout

 

The committee voted to approve the Eagle Scout board of review for Mr. Joe Scout.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mr. National Advancement Professional

Boy Scout Division, Advancement

 

That was it the Scout was an Eagle. No explanations were given, just a message by the national advancement committee given to a professional at national and sent to the SE of our council to give to our committee. The national advancement committee remains anonymous.

 

As one of my councils advancement committee members, I replied to the gentleman who sent the response from the national advancement committee:

 

Dear Mr. National Advancement Professional,

 

I am in receipt of your letter our Scout Executive stating that the National Advancement Committees approval of badge of Eagle Scout for Joe Scout.

 

There was no explanation given by the National Advancement Committee on how they reached their decision. For training purposes, our council advancement committee needs an explanation in order to handle similar situations when they arise in the future in our council.

 

In order for our committee to better serve our council in the future, our council advancement committee also needs clarification and a definition of the word active from the policy writers in the national committee. For the rank of Eagle Scout, the word active is used in the 1st and 4th requirements. A clear understanding of the word active and how it is applied to the Eagle requirements would help prevent any further misunderstandings when our committee is confronted with similar situations in the future.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Sincerely,

 

Abel Magwitch

 

 

Mr. National Advancement Professional did reply. This was his reply:

 

From the National Boy Scout Advancement Committee:

 

Suggested BSA definition of active as it applies to Requirement #1 of Star, Life and Eagle advancement requirements:

 

A Scout will be considered active in his unit if he is:

1) Registered in his unit (registration fees are current).

2) Has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.

3) Informs the Scout of unit activities and events. (Scoutmasters conference, participation in unit activities, through personal contact, etc).

 

(Comment: This definition could be added as a side bar or box on page(s) 24-25 of the Advancement Policies and Procedures book)

 

Adopted and approved 2/7/05

 

I found this explanation fascinating. The National AdvancementCommittee had conveniently thrown the problemof active back at the volunteer.

 

I also found it interesting that this policy was adopted two years prior yet never made official by the national advancement committee.

 

So our council advancement committee came up with this response for Mr. National Advancement Professional to pass on to the national advancement committee:

 

Dear Members of the National Committee,

 

It is the belief of our Council Advancement Committee that the National Advancement Committees suggested definition of active is in error. It is not a definition of active; rather it is nothing more than a definition for what it means to be a registered scout. It also goes without saying that it would only follow that the definition of inactive could be a non-registered youth with no fees paid - essentially a non-scout.

 

The National Advancement Committees definition of active as applied to Eagle requirements

1 & 4 devalues the requirements for Eagle Scout.

 

Webster defines active as: Characterized by action rather than by contemplation or speculation; productive of action or movement; marked by vigorous activity; disposed to action.

 

Requirement 2 for the Webelos badge is similar to requirement 1 for Eagle and has a more appropriate definition for active:

 

2. Be an active member of your Webelos den for three months. (Active means having good attendance, paying your den dues, and working on den projects.)

 

According to the National Advancement Committees definition for active, requirements 1 and 4 should be instead revised to read:

 

Requirement 1: Be a registered Boy Scout with all fees paid for a minimum of 6 months as a Life Scout.

 

Requirement 4: While being a registered Boy Scout with all fees paid, carry out a position of junior leadership, fulfilling the requirements of the position for a minimum of 6 months.

 

These revised requirements would better reflect nationals suggested definition of active that could be added as a side bar. Writing the requirements this way would help put to an end the many disputes between scouts, their parents, and their leaders concerning requirements 1 and 4 for Eagle Scout.

 

Our Council Advancement Committee is strongly requesting that these suggested policies be made official by publishing them in the Advancement Guidebook. This would be a responsible course of action by the National Advancement Committee that would help eliminate the confusion over these requirements.

 

In keeping with the spirit of the communications merit badge, the National Advancement Committee has an obligation and responsibility to ensure that these unpublished policies are more than just suggestions. They need to be included in the Advancement Guidebook, along with any other publication in the BSA where advancement is written.

 

These policies also need to be included in scoutmaster training and any other training concerning advancement. No volunteer leader at any level, unit district or council, can make an educated decision on whether a scout did the requirements, no more and no less, if the national committee fails to make official and publish their suggested policies used in granting appeals.

 

A scout in our council had recently been denied his Eagle at his initial Board of Review. The Scout had appealed and was also denied at a District and finally a Council lever Eagle Board of Review. In every case it was a tough decision to make for the members of each board of review. It was an unpopular decision, one that was not made lightly by the members of the various boards, but one made with much thought and consideration.

 

The scout did not have good participation in the program as a Life Scout and was in no way active in his troops program.

 

The district and council level boards of review based their conclusions using the only resources that were made available by the BSA to reach their unanimous decisions. One resource was the twelve steps to Eagle found in the Advancement Guidelines book. Number nine of the twelve steps states that the board should be assured of the candidates participation in the program.

 

Our Council Advancement Committee finds it unsatisfactory that these suggested national policies that are used to grant inactive scouts their appeals on the national level are not being published to the volunteer adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America. Keeping these policies in the dark has been instrumental in hurting the reputations, character and good name of some dedicated leaders in our volunteer ranks at the unit, district and council level. No volunteer should have to endure the slander or libel that sometimes comes from an unpopular decision made with the only written resources made available by the National Advancement Committee.

 

Our Council Advancement Committee believes in the importance of the Eagle Badge and does not agree with the National Advancement Committees suggested definition of active, but will adhere to it until if ever, it is changed. Understand though that Our Council Advancement Committee will take the responsibility to ensure that these suggested policies are carried out by making them known to the unit leaders of our council and any other council our members come in contact with.

 

No dedicated volunteer adult leader at any level, unit, district or council, should have to waste their valuable time with emotional boards of review for questionable scouts only to have their decisions overturned by some ambiguous suggested policy that the National Advancement Committee chooses not to make known. Especially disturbing is the fact that the National Advancement Committee did not have the courtesy to explain how they reached their decision on granting this scout his appeal to our council advancement committee.

 

Lastly, concerning the other suggested national advancement committee policy that encourages a troop committee to dismiss an inactive scout, we object.

 

Our Council Advancement Committee would never encourage a troop committee to dismiss a scout from his troop because he is inactive. Even if the scout attends one meeting a month, he may still benefit from the program in a positive way.

 

Our Council Advancement Committee will though encourage a troop committee to have an inactive scout step down from his office as junior leader. This way the scout can still remain as a member, able to benefit from the program when he does show up, but ensures that the inactive scout does not get credit for being a junior leader when he has not done the job.

 

It can be concluded from the national advancement committees suggested policies that the word active must have two accepted definitions; one for the 99% of scouts who do the requirements by being an active participant in his troop, and the other for the 1% of scouts who wish to circumvent those inconvenient requirements 1 & 4 because of a sports or other obligations the scout chooses to be active in, sacrificing his scouting obligations.

 

We look forward to the National Advancement Committees reply to our request of publishing and adding to advancement training its definition of Active. Our Council Advancement Committee is willing to lend its insights and collective experiences to help the national committee better define its advancement terms and requirements.

 

Sincerely,

 

Our Council Advancement Committee

 

Our council advancement committee never received another response. But is sometime after this letter was sent, the Advancement Policies and Procedures book was revised to include Nationals definition of the word active.

I believe the swimming requirements for the lower ranks need to be revised a bit. Just as a Scout has options when earning merit badges - Hiking and Cycling instead of Swimming and Lifesaving, a Scout who cannot swim should have some alternatives.

 

I live in an urban environment. I can tell you that there are many kids who do not have the opportunity to learn how to swim. Our city has some rec centers with only basketball courts instead of pools. And the city pools we do have are mostly outdoors and are only open for 4 weeks in the summer.

 

So does this mean that the Eagle badge can be unobtainable for some Scouts who do not live in affluent areas? Whose parents or (single) parent cannot afford to join a YMCA or other organiztion where swimming is available? Or the fact that an indoor city pool is too far away to walk to?

 

Currently the answer is yes - kids with few or no opportunities to learn how to swim cannot obtain the Eagle badge unless they complete their swimming requirements for the lower ranks.

 

I'm sure that there will be some who will post that the Scouts can learn how to swim during a single 40 minute instructional swim each day during summer camp. Good luck Scout in mastering your swimming skills in a pool full of Scouts. But whether you believe it or not, there are kids who do not have opportunities to swim in the big city.

 

I feel that the requirements need to be revised on this one.

Boomer, the OOC troops just lost their summer camp two years ago due to an EPA issue. That particular council no longer has a summer camp at all. But it just happens that our council camp is located within the other council's geographical boundaries. The merger is a coming boomer.

 

Prior to two years ago, we had as few as 40 units using the council camp for summer camp. During one recent year, there were only 5 troops in camp during the 4th of July week.

 

The problem is council is supplying the same number of staff members as they did back in 2006. They did not hire anymore to handle the new additional attendance brought in from the other council. It has been asked if the other council was sharing in the funding of our council camp. The questions were quickly evaded.

 

Shortridge - Council has yet to post the actual attendance numbers. What council did post were the numbers of units that used the camp per week.

 

The camp offers 17 sites and 4 cabins for summer camp use. Thats 84 sites over 4 weeks. Two troops formed a provisional unit and shared a site during one of the weeks.

 

 

First week 17 troops

Second week 14 troops

Third week 13 troops

Forth week 16 troops

 

Total of 60 troops. 33 from council, 27 from ooc.

 

At the pool, the aquatics director required all members of the BSA lifeguard class to be at the pool and the lake all day.

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

I would really like to see Roundtables function as they should by offering quality resources, knowledge, and skills to help unit leaders to deliver outstanding programs to their Scout troops. I would like roundtables to be fun and exciting while offering practical Scouting skills. I would like Roundtables to focus on the program highlights of the upcoming months.

 

Yes, that is what I want to see.

 

What I dont want to see is Roundtables being taken over by the training committees so the Roundtable becomes simply training. I dont want Roundtables to be taken over by the DEs when they use them for annual re-chartering. I dont want Roundtables to simply be a place to manage popcorn sales.

 

Hey fish, When I was writing my reponse to you, I was responding to your 3:02 post. I didn't realize you had posted another response at 3:12. I was in the middle of writing my reply. I didn't get your additional details from the 3:12 post until just now.

 

Happy Scouting!!!