Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree that there is an inequity in Venture Crews not being able to elect members to OA. I don't see that this should be a reason why male members of a Venture Crew who are members of OA should not be able to wear a pocket flap if they want to. I agree that wearing a pocket flap appears to be optional.

 

According to my understanding of the rules, the only way a female venturer, youth or adult, could become a member of OA is to be nominated by the district committee based on service to the district. The unit has to elect at least one youth candidate during an election cycle for a unit to be able to nominate an adult candidate. Just as cub scout leaders are not eligible for OA at the unit level, so are venture crew leaders ineligible, since no election for youth candidates can take place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple solution to the original question...if the Scout does not want to wear the flap, he just needs to quit paying his Lodge dues. The SM has nothing to say about it.

 

Seriously, the SM needs to get a life and quit harrassing the kids over things that are not important. I have a bigger problem with the 75% of "Arrowpersons" who are elected, go through their Ordeal, and then we never see them again...but continue to wear the flap as if they are active members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"..if the Scout does not want to wear the flap, he just needs to quit paying his Lodge dues."

 

I think that you're joking. The issue isn't his membership in OA, he just doesn't want to wear the flap.

 

All this talk about nomination brought up another question. I thought that there was time requirement before an adult could be nominated but last year, our newly minted female DE was "called out." Is this one of those political exceptions?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not aware of any "time requirement" for adults to be nominated from the district. As far as I know, both the rank requirement that applies only to youth, and the nights camping requirement that applies to all candidates coming out of a unit, do not apply at the district level.

 

A few years back I noticed a new DE, who happened to be a young woman in her 20's also going through an ordeal. I inferred that all professionals were put through this process. I could be wrong about that, and I did not ask. Perhaps the Man of Steele can shed some light on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has to wear a Lodge flap at any time under any circumstances. It is an optional item.

 

On the other hand ONLY active, dues paying members of a Lodge may wear its flap. No other person may wear the flap of a lodge, no matter what stupid and/or ignorant excuse they offer.

 

Someone earlier stated they believed that OA was part of the Boy Scout program. That happens to actually be the truth. The same committees that oversee the Boy Scout program at the National, Regional, and Council levels also have authority over the Order of the Arrow. (These are usually the Camping or Boy Scout Committees, depending on local organisational structure.)

For that reason it would make no sense to (and probably be organisationally impossible to) allow Packs or Crews to hold elections, even if some alternative form of eligibility could be created. OA is an outgrowth of the Boy Scout program and Boy Scout summer camp. It is now Scouting's National Honor Society. Hence why Scouts, not Venturers, are elected as candidates. If someone wants to create an honor society for Venturing they can feel free to do so.

 

Now as to not wearing the flap on the Venturing uniform as some sort of protest, I think that is silly. If that attitude is correct then you should not allow any ranks, awards, and recognitions from other programs to be worn on the Venturing uniform.

 

 

Why are Venturing Crews allowed to conduct Boy Scout advancement, but Boy Scout Troops are not allowed to give out Venturing awards, even to members of Venture patrols? Is there some supperiority about Venturing that makes it capable of properly carrying out its own program and that of another seperate program within the BSA?

 

I always hate it when these sort of double standards pop up. Its like the way the courts say the parents aren't allowed to know about certain health decisions of their children and yet are still fully responsible for the child's health and safety. Its like trying to put matter and antimatter in the same place. Its just not a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why are Venturing Crews allowed to conduct Boy Scout advancement, but Boy Scout Troops are not allowed to give out Venturing awards, even to members of Venture patrols? Is there some supperiority about Venturing that makes it capable of properly carrying out its own program and that of another seperate program within the BSA?"

 

As a Venture Crew Committee Member, I agree that Boy Scout Advancement has no place in Venturing, I dont see Venturing as Superior, just different

Link to post
Share on other sites

"As a Venture Crew Committee Member, I agree that Boy Scout Advancement has no place in Venturing,"

 

As Bob White might say, those who make the decision obviously feel differently. Boy Scout advancement was part of the Explorer Scout/Exploring/Explorer/Venturing program since its inception.

 

I don't think that girls or women belong in any BSA program above Cub Scouts but that's not the way the program exists today so I just have to suffer during estrogen laden campouts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are Venturing Crews allowed to conduct Boy Scout advancement, but Boy Scout Troops are not allowed to give out Venturing awards, even to members of Venture patrols? Is there some supperiority about Venturing that makes it capable of properly carrying out its own program and that of another seperate program within the BSA?

 

In my opinion it is because Venturing has multiple "functions." One is as its own program, and for that function it has its own advancement program. But another function -- and maybe this is not "official" but it clearly is true -- is to provide a program for older Boy Scouts to go into when they don't want to be in a troop anymore. They get the option of being in a different kind of program (all older boys, coed, more emphasis on the activities they want to do, more options, etc.) but they also get to continue with their Boy Scout advancement if that is what they want to do. Maybe this keeps some boys in "Scouting" who would otherwise drop out. I am not saying that this is a rational justification for allowing boys in Venturing to do Boy Scout advancement -- I am really not familiar enough with Venturing to give an opinion -- but it is a pragmatic reason.

 

I also have to wonder whether this may also be influenced by the way the LDS Church arranges its Scouting program. I do not say this to be controversial or offensive to anyone, and if I have my facts wrong I hope someone will tell me. But it is my understanding that in LDS-chartered units, a boy must leave the troop at age 14 and join a Venturing crew. Is that right? Or maybe it is a Varsity team at age 14 and a Venturing crew at a later age. It doesn't matter which, or what the exact ages are. The point is that if a boy could earn Boy Scout ranks only as a member of a Boy Scout troop, and had to leave the troop at 14 (or whatever), that age would in effect become the deadline for Eagle -- four years earlier than in non-LDS troops. So that would be a reason, at least in LDS units, for wanting Venturers to be able to continue with Boy Scout advancement.

 

Assuming that what I am "wondering" is correct, I am not suggesting which way the "cause and effect" may have gone. I also am not suggesting there is anything wrong with any of this. It is a matter of pragmatic choices prevailing over what may seem logical or consistent, but most of life is that way, why should Scouting be any different?

Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ brings up a really good point. If the mandatory Venture transfer is true (it does correspond with what I have seen), then it is a likely contributing factor (cause?) of the rank option. I would like to hear about this from one of the unofficial BSA experts on the board. Perhaps it should be posed in a new thread...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...