CalicoPenn

REI has a nifty ice cream maker for camping use - its a tetrahedron ball design - fill it up with the ingredients, roll it around and in about 20 minutes - fresh ice cream. "minor hijack response - the Girl Scouts have solved two of the 3G issues (substituting guys for girls). Does that answer the question? - hijack over"

Skeptic, If the building is in an older, less desirable area, then the lease rates in that area are likely to be in the $18 part of the range rather than the $22. The average lease amounts take in leases for the entire city, not just the prime areas. It may be possible to find some offices going for $10/sq. ft. but those will be rare outliers and shouldn't be used as a comparison. It's somewhat inaccurate to say the BSA gave the building to the city. Under the terms of a ground lease, which is what the BSA has, any structure built on the land automatically becomes part of the real property and is owned by the landlord. It's probably a bit more accurate to say the BSA built a building for the city. You're right though, it's highly unlikely anyone would do something like this these days. Ground leases these days are most likely going to be for cropland, not for development. An owner of undeveloped land who wants to improve it will likely want to develop it him/herself - there's money to be made on the development side. If it were to happen now, the city - if they agreed to be landlord, would likely build a build-to-suit building and would want to control some aspects of the building and build-out to retain residual value. As an example of that, they may agree to build your bathrooms in a specific spot in the building, but will limit the tenant to a choice of pre-approved finishes and fixtures so landlord isn't ripping out an ok bathroom built on the cheap to put in a new bathroom because he can't re-lease up the space unless he does so. That's the residual value of the building. Before we get lost on the whole "but the Scout's built it - it's unfair to them" angle that I sense this is going, let's also not forget that the money the Scout's spent to build the building has already been amortized out to "zero". Let's also keep in mind that the BSA did not have to pay property taxes on the land and improvements throughout this period which has more than made up for the money they spent in maintenance and improvements over the years. Many councils now are leasing buildings, and paying the property taxes - they may be tax exempt but their landlords aren't, and can't claim an exemption because a tenant is exempt. JoeBob - sure, it can be characterized as an attack. I can see that point. On the other hand, I can understand it from the other side. My understanding is this all started after the CoL Council told the city it did not discriminate, put together a new discrimination statement that was overturned by National, and then topped it off by revoking the membership of an 18 year old that came out (likely at National's insistence) which may have been interpreted as an attack against the City's values and rules by the BSA. Was it unfair for them to do this at meetings where the BSA wasn't invited? Perhaps - but then again, there apparently is no requirement that they had to inform the BSA of their plans in the first place. I think the courtesy would have been nice though. The more I think about this, the more it looks as if its a battle between the City of Philadelphia and the Boy Scouts of America, with the Cradle of Liberty Council caught in the middle - it's quite obvious the CoL Council wanted to do the right thing by Philadelphia, and Philadephia seemed willing to ignore National's policies provided CoL's policies complied with city code. Perhaps this should be the strong argument and rallying point for local option. Calico (This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

"The proposed rent the City asks ($200,000) is twice the most expensive office space in Philadelphia..." Wrong. The building (according to the Wall Street Journal) is 8,928 sq. ft. At $200,000 per year, that breaks down to a rate of $22.32/sq. ft. The most expensive office space in Philadelphia are Class AAA (New Construction) buildings. The per square foot rate for Class AAA is $32 to $40. So right away we can see that the statement is not correct. The next step are Class A buildings with market rents at $22-$30/sq. ft. Most Class A buildings are multi-tenant buildings with amenities which may include deli's, health club facilities, atm machines, security, etc. Given the size and that it's a single occupant building, the office building the BSA is in in likely to be classed a Class B Office Building. Market rents in Class B buildings in Philadelphia are running $18 to $22/sq. ft. At $22.32/sq. ft., the market rent being asked is slightly higher than market range average(though keep in mind that the amount was determined by market rents at the time this started - and the above market rents are from January 2009.) yet still not an unreasonable market rent for a Class B building. The $18-22/sq.ft. is an average range - there will always be buildings that are outliers of the range. Keep in mind too, that there could be an added affect of a ground lease - the BSA's original lease is a ground lease. The building, once it was built, becomes part of the land, and is now owned by the City, regardless of who built it. That's the way Leases and Property works. It's the same thing in your home - you put mini-blinds up in your house, they immediately become part of the real property - and remain with the property when sold. So - one "myth" (giving the BSA the benefit of the doubt, but if that figure came from their legal brief, then their lawyers are a bunch of lying scuzzbuckets), that the market rent would be twice the most expensive office rents has been busted as being untrue. Makes me wonder how many of the other statements made in the BSA's brief are factual.

Interesting that you bring up the term consumer. Someone mentioned in another thread the "fair tax" idea being floated around. I read more about it and came away with a bad taste in my mouth. The "Fair Tax" is a tax on consumption - it buts the burden of taxation on consumers rather than spreading it out between businesses, corporations and individuals. Sure, a business who buys 10 reams of paper to consume in their copy machine pays the tax, but they'll build the cost of that tax into the cost of their products or services so the end consumer eventually gets hit with it. The scariest part is that there will be no taxes on raw goods or materials, only on finished goods the consumer buys. So this would mean there would be nothing to prevent a steel distributor from buying a roll of steel for $1,000 from a steel plant and selling it to a manufacturer for $10,000, pocketing a profit of, let's say $8,600, without being taxed on that profit and the manufacturer pricing the lawn mower they made from that roll of steel to reflect the $10,000 cost, so that we, the individual consumers, end up paying taxes on a proportionate share of the value of $10K of steel that was originally sold for $1K all so the steel distributor can pocket a profit of $8.6K tax free. Doesn't seem like much of a fair tax to me. Seems its a "consumer takes it in the shorts" tax.

Rant away - we're in issues and politics. You make a persuasive point about general welfare being about the country. If I may suggest a counter point. Social Security and the other welfare programs came from a period in our history where we were dealing with abject poverty on a massive scale, and at the beginning of this country's transistion from a rural to urban society. During the Great Depression, we recognized that having individuals living in deep poverty was as damaging to the country as the potential to have a submarine launching a missile off the coast of New Jersey into Washington D.C. Grand projects like the Interstate Highway System or the TVA, and government agencies like the CDC are great for providing indirect help to the people. However, providing direct help to the people, whether through a program such as the CCC, the WPA, Food Stamps, the WIC program, and Social Security can have a greater impact on our social structure, and the welfare and sercurity of our country as a whole. In my readings, I've not come across anything to suggest the Founders objected to government support of individuals and family when needed - during their time, it was much easier to provide for it on a local basis - but consider their population and size compared to ours.

"And, Calico, if a public park gives the BSA a discounted rate over another group, the issue is with the park, not the BSA." I agree, Ed - the problem is with the park. BUT, when someone points it out to the park authorities and insists that everyone be treated equally, some people say it's an attack on the BSA and not on the park's policies. If folks expect fairness and equitablity in public accomodations, they aren't attacking the organizations that are being treated better simply because they're pointing out that the organization is being given preferential treatment - they're still attacking the park's policies. Yet the strident among us still see it as an unwarranted attack on the BSA. The same thing happens when churches want to expand parking lots and the neighbors insist that zoning regulations be followed. Inevitably, the church insists that the neighbors are attacking the church when that isn't the case at all. Can't we agree that folks have good intentions to assure equal access for all when they challenge these policies, and aren't out to "get the BSA'? Oh, and the idea posited by Beavah that the BSA, or any group, may deserve preferential treatment because of all the hours it puts into service to communities is absolutely abhorent to me, and should be to any Scout, Scout Leader, and especially any Arrowmen. We don't do service to communities or organizations with the expectation that we will get something in return, whether it's a free lunch, a t-shirt, a mention in the newspaper, a medal to hang on our shirt, or reduced pricing at a picnic pavillion. We do it because it's the right thing to do. It's one thing to have the use of a picnic pavillion free of charge on a day when the unit is doing actual service at the park on that day and are using the pavillion as a staging point, and a gathering point at the end for a post service project party. It's quite another to expect that the unit should get a discount for the pavillion rental fee because the unit did some service project at a park sometime in the past.

There are approximately 306,318,616 people in the United States. Of that number, less than 100 are known or thought to have the Swine Flu. That's 0.0000000326% of the population. In Mexico, population of about 109 Million, less than 0.00000013 of the population has died of this flu. Let's not forget that the one fatality reported in the US was an infant who was here with parents visiting from Mexico. You'll have to forgive me for thinking this whole Swine Flu "pandemic panic" is media created hype to keep people scared and hyperaware. So the WHO is raising their pandemic status - if it weren't for the irresponsible media and their excessive hype, they probably wouldn't have had to. They are reacting to the media instead of the science. I would say that if healthy adults are cancelling an eagle project review board for a healthy Scout, that the hype is too much, and with no offence intended, would suggest that these folks shouldn't be allowed to take any Scouts anywhere near any woods if their judgement is so poor as to be influenced by the latest media-generated panic attack. Forget the Swine Flu impacting summer camp - we should start planning now for an asteroid strike - or maybe the moon being rocketed out of orbit by a nuclear explosion on the dark side of the moon (I see your B5 and I raise you S1999).

JoeBob - perhaps you're right - it isn't a linear linkage from woman's right to choose to the characterization that there is a demand for government funded abortion. I suppose the reality is it was a two-pronged attack from the get go - the Democratic platform of maintaining a woman's right to choose was attacked with "whatever happened to personal responsibility" and "the Democrats want government funded abortion" both at the same time. As for the list: - Social Security - Where's that in the constitution? How about "Provide for the General Welfare". I think many people believe Article 1, Section 8 means those are the only things Congress can do when it really means those are the things only Congress can do - it's a restriction on the States, not on Congress. Article 1, Section 9 are the restrictions on Congress, and there is nothing in Section 9 that says they can't create welfare or social security programs. 2- Welfare - Churches and private charity do it better locally. If this were true, governments would never have had to do any of this in the first place. The fact is churches and private charity are overwhelmed and have been for years - they can never leverage the kind of money the government can to address these issues. 3- Food Stamps - Why work? Every have food stamps? I have - back in the 80's when I lived off campus while going to school full time, I got $81 per month. Folks don't get much more than that now per person and it doesn't fully meet the need. 4- Socialized medicine - Hasn't worked well anywhere else, so we need it here. Pass me a cigarette and a BigMac. The ER has to take me. The World Health Organization ranks the United States 37th on it's list of best health care providers. Most of the folks in the top 36 have some form of socialized medicine - kind of hard to believe that is isn't working well anywhere else when its working better than our system. 5- The War on Drugs - Talk about a waste of resources. Legalize drugs and tax drug use for rehab programs. Can't rehab? Die. I actually agree - legalize and tax drugs. 6- Earned Income Tax Credit - Here, take my money. At aboult $36 billion dollars, this is one of the least costly anti-poverty programs of the US Government. I'm willing to live with a few less B-1 Bombers to keep this program in place. 7- Gotta beachfront/riverside home? Don't worry about hurricanes or floods, the feds will rebuild you. I pretty much agree with you on this one too - but I'd only modify it slightly - couple the insurance on this with a maximum income level, and make sure it's a primary home, and I don't mind subsidizing the insurance. But a second home, or a home of someone making over $250K per year - let them pay he full cost of the insurance, and spend no federal money on it at all. 8- Bailout my Bank or pay my mortgage? Bailout the bank - there is a multiplier effect in play. We get more bang for the buck by giving it to a bank than an individual - but if we do so, get voting stock in the bank - it's taxpayers dollars so the taxpayers representatives should have a say in the corporate governance if the bank must be bailed out.

It's the same old merry-go-round once again. I get Merlin's point, and I agree with it. If Religious Organization A (we'll call them the BSA) goes to a public park district and asks to rent the parks pavilion and is given a rental rate of Ten Dollars and Non-religious Organization B (we'll call them Athiests of America) goes to the same public park district and asks to rent the same pavilion and is given a rental rate of Fifty Dollars, this is not fair and equal access - and is likely to be a violation of the establishment clause (remember, there is no "A" in the establihment clause, so it is a proscription against establishing any and all religions, not just a so-called "state" religion). Now it comes down to someone gets it or someone doesn't. It seems to me that the benefit of the doubt position when there is disagreement on the concept is that the person doesn't get it. But - if they do get it and still disagree, then there will never be a meeting of the minds on it. It means that the person disagreeing doesn't care if it is fair and equitable, as long as his/her favored organization is the beneficiary and when the favored beneficiary is told they will now be treated the same as any other organization when it comes to access, the person who doesn't care about equitability towards other organizations will howl the most in outrage.

It's interesting how many independents and "libertarians" of a conservative bent use neocon Republican talking points to characterize the Democrats. I could never understand how people could actually get from the Democrat platform of preserving a women's right to choose to "Democrats are against personal responsibility" (somehow missing the point that the position seems pretty consistent with the Libertarian position on personal liberty) to "Democrats want publicly funded abortions" (when they Democrats have never said that). I'm thinking its because many just don't want to be bothered to look into all sides of an issue and prefer to take the easy way out and just repeat a statement that sounds as if it matches their philosophy or politics. I say let Texas secede - make sure to pull all US military hardware out of the new country, and when Mexico invades to reclaim it's territory, plant our military on the Oklahoma, New Mexico and Louisiana border to make sure the conflict doesn't spill over to the US, and to prevent "refugees" from fleeing the soon to be new Mexican state. Calico

I suspect those that hate the Red Beret are the same people who weren't skillful and competant enough to break in and wear the beret correctly. You know the ones - those that wore it as if it were a mushroom cap. They're probably the same people who have to have a different tool for every situation - folks for whom a hat is a hat, a potholder is a potholder and never the twain shall meet. Sure, the Beret's didn't keep the sun out of your eyes - but that's what mirrored sunglasses or aviator sunglasses were for (talk about looking sharp with a beret!). But they could be used as potholders, emergency bandages (I don't care who you are, if you have to try to stop a seriously bleeding wound, a non-sterile, probably dirty beret is better than nothing, and better than one's bare hands), a seat cover, an emergency bucket, a pillow (stuff the inside with something soft, it makes a nice little pillowcase), or a Frisbee. Try doing any of that with a baseball cap! Calico

I'd suggest a quiet chat with the Scoutmaster and Committee Chair - ask about the process for an adult to become a member of the Order of the Arrow. With just under 100 Scouts, as long as there is a Scout elected each year, your unit would be eligible to nominate two adults for membership. I'd give the other leaders the benefit of the doubt that they just hadn't thought of it - by asking about the process, you'll be telegraphing your interest and it might wake them up to the opportunities they are missing.

In an unrelated thread, I had suggested a copy of the requirements guidebook as something leaders should read. Might I suggest you grab this from the Troop's library next week and sign it out to this lad so he can start reading through some of those requirements? I know you suggested some websites, but some of those requirements may be outdated - and there is still something to be said about being able to curl up on the couch with the requirements book in hand. Whitewater has a prerequisite merit badge that needs to be earned - either Canoeing or Kayaking, depending on the type of vessel the lad wants to earn the Whitewater badge with (he can't earn Canoeing and not Kayaking then try to earn Whitewater with a kayak). I think the way you handled it initially was great - giving him the opportunity to think a bit more without slowing his enthusiasm - and without standing in his way and saying "no". I hope you'll make it a point to follow through at the next meeting and see if he's taken a look at some of those merit badges. You might even use Whitewater as a way to point out how he should read the requirements carefully - and that you're ready to give him a blue card for canoeing or kayaking whenever he's ready.

Al, What a great idea! May I make a suggestion on the lighting part? Unless you know someone is going to be regularly checking the kits, try to avoid battery powered flashlights. Batteries have a shelf life, even if not stored in the flashlight (and if you do use battery powered lights, the batteries should not be stored in the flashlight anyway). Try to get the crank or flywheel style flashlights if you can - a bit of elbow grease will provide plenty of emergency lighting.

Al, What a great idea! May I make a suggestion on the lighting part? Unless you know someone is going to be regularly checking the kits, try to avoid battery powered flashlights. Batteries have a shelf life, even if not stored in the flashlight (and if you do use battery powered lights, the batteries should not be stored in the flashlight anyway). Try to get the crank or flywheel style flashlights if you can - a bit of elbow grease will provide plenty of emergency lighting.

I play Native American-style flutes and Native American flutes (the difference is that some are built by Native Americans and some are not). My understanding of the history of the flute is that it likely originated - at least in the US - in the Southwest amongst the Anasazi. It's probably not an accident that the traditional symbol of Native American flute players is Kokopelli, a stylized flute player that comes from the southwest. Through trading, it made it's way throughout all of North America. There is evidence of flutes amongst the mound building cultures and the city/state trading centers of the Cahokians and Hopewells in the midwest river valley areas. It is likely that the flute made its way to all corners of North America from these city/state trading centers as their fingers of trade were some of the most extensive on the continent - we know that in Cahokia, there was trading with the tribes of the northwest, southwest, northeast, upper midwest, southeast, mid-atlantic and plains peoples. At the time, most flutes were made of reeds though some bone flutes and whistles have been found. Early explorers and colonists from Europe have reported that the Native Americans along the east coast were playing flutes of some type. The "modern" Native America flute dates to sometime in the 1850's, and is believed to have originated with the Utes in Utah. It made it's way through the southwest and the plains to the northwest. The plains tribes would therefore have had these flutes before the northwest tribes had them. One could often tell the different tribes from each other by the style of sone they played. As an aside, heres an interesting thing I learned about the Kiowa. They were known to surround their foes the night before battle and play love songs to them on their flutes - an early form of psychological warfare perhaps. During battles, it's reported that the Kiowa could often be seen riding into battle carrying their flutes above their heads - as if it were the most potent weapon in it's aresenal. Most songs were passed from generation to generation without ever being written down. There are some music books out there (check out High Spirits Flutes - their flutes are very good for beginners because they tend to play well right away - start with the key of A) with some "traditional" songs on them - which are, like our folk songs, a written transcription of some particular persons interpretation of a song learned through the oral tradition. More modern musicians, like R. Carlos Nakai, have a reperatory of songs that they have composed to play. Traditionally, though - other than those songs that were handed down from generation to generation (or have been copied), flute playing was more free-form and in the moment. The player would play as the spirits moved him to play - often, there would be repetitious themes that might appear in the playing (I play this way, rather than trying to learn songs from a book or by copying) and that may sort itself into some sort of regular song (I can see this as well in my playing - I tend towards certain rythms and melodies when I play my "A" flute and tend towards different rythms and melodies when I play my "F#" flute). My suggestion is to get a good flute (a High Spirits "A" should cost about $100. Then learn to play the scales - read the book that comes with the flute - and if he's eager to learn specific songs, use one of their books - they will have a fingering chart that will make it easy to learn, and provide a CD so he'll know what the song is supposed to sound like. If you live in an area that has pre-1840's rendezvous, visit one or two to see if you can find a flute player to show him the basics - including some of the breathing techniques. Then just cut loose and have fun with it. Calico

Yep - was a CIT - back in 19brblbrblbrbl. Back at Ma-Ka-Ja-Wan Scout Reservation - first out-of-council CIT they had (so I was told). Assigned to work the first two week session - spent time at the nature center and the waterfront the first week. The second week, I was assigned to be a camp clerk - ended up staying the remainder of the summer as a camp clerk - with only one two week interuption when I camped with my unit at the camp on the other side of the lake (and was treated as an odd cross between a camper and staffer - a camper with staff priviledges like the midnight PB&J's). Wasn't paid the first two weeks but did get a small "paycheck" (actually, a cash stipend) for the remainder of the time at the reservation.

Hmmmm...... Eagle Scout....Yellow Rose Scout Eagle Scout....Yellow Rose Scout Yeah, I know I'd prefer to be soaring.

Here, in a nutshell, is what the concern boils down to - in my opinion: "as I do not see the litigants and their supporters doing anything of particular good for the community at large, other than things that are specific to their own needs and issues." Well this is true of just about any and every group. I'd say almost to a one, every group and individual, their supporters, and litigants, does things that are specific to their own needs and issues. The problem is that we can't agree - note I said can't, not don't or won't - on what is good for the community at large. And I said "can't" because in any population over 10, consensus is hard to reach - and the larger the population, the harder it is. For instance, there are folks out in my community, and in neighboring communities, that are advocating for trap, neuter and release of feral cats. They are well-intentioned folks who care about cats and think this is what's best for the community to keep the feral cat issue under control. I, on the other hand, would prefer that truly native species of birds and animals take precedence and therefore think the TNR folks are daft, that we should be trapping and euthanizing if the cats can't be adopted to prevent the continuing decline of our migratory bird species. From my perspective, and of the folks I know and tend to hang out with, this position is correct and best for the community and the TNR folks have a position that is detrimental to the community. Form the TNR folks perspective, my position is nonsense because they care more about cats than birds. They really hate it when I suggest they're wasting their money on food on the hoof for the local coyote population. Same is true here - folks on both sides of "the GGG issues" truly believe they are doing what is best for both their community and for the BSA. And we'll usually disagree with the other side.

And the ASM's son wasn't riding with him why???

I'm going to disagree with Beavah here. Yes, the chartered organization has some input but the chartered organization has already agreed to provide the Boy Scouts of American program as provided by the Boy Scouts of America. You may be "working" for the Chartered Organization, but your work is delivering the Boy Scouts of America programming that the Chartered Organization has agreed to. You are providing the "Boy Scouts of the 15th Baptist Church of the Methodist Islamic Hierarchy" program here, you providing the Boy Scouts of America program - as written. The Boy Scouts is pretty clear on what active means - and that a percentage attendance metric is not a measurement of active. Does it make any sense at all then, for there to be some kind of allowable attendance metric is the performance of a POR? Of course not. Frankly, this kind of measurement is used by unit leaders too lazy to actually do the kind of work needed to mentor the youth. I'd like to see where in the literature it says it is ok to give partial credit on a POR that was held through term. We're not talking about someone being a Den Chief for 3 months then a PL for 3 months (as long as they aren't done at the same time, he gets credit for both - and that's 6 months - he doesn't have to serve the whole time in one POR). In fact, Den Chief is a great example of how the timing works, whether a leader likes it or not. A Den Chief gets 6 months credit if he's Den Chief for rank POR from April 1 to September 30 - even though out of that 6 month time period, he probably had only one Pack event per month in June, July and August versus up to 5 meetings per month in April, May and September. The lack of Den and Pack meetings in the summer doesn't affect his time in POR. If the Troop has left a non-performing lad in a POR though term, then shame on the Unit Leadership for not engaging the lad to find out why he wasn't performing, and for not propertly mentoring the lad - but despite the leadership's shame, the lad gets the POR credit - and you'll know next time to keep a closer eye out.

How do the other lads in the VP feel? Are they all feeling the same as your son? If so - I'd suggest they all take a unified stance and approach the SM and "patrol adviser (I really hate these types of positions) and lay it out - that the lads are not happy with the way the VP is going, and with the heavy adult involvement - and that either changes are made to benefit the lads, or the VP goes away. By any chance, was this a shakedown hike for this summer's adventure? You mentioned that all the adults on this trip are planning on going on the high adventure trip. Seems to me to be a very easy solution - only two adults go along - the rest can all get together and do their own thing - separately from the VP. Except for the ASM, there is no reason for the adults with no boys in the patrol to be going anyway. Lisa - I say go for it - bring the literature on the hiking group in - it may tick some folks off, but they'll also get the message.

Every year, I go to a local music festival where many people come to get instruction on playing their instruments from active performers, and many people come only to listen to folks performing. Every year, there is a Boy Scout Troop selling food, that they make, to the crowd. They're always pretty busy. None of them wear their uniforms - they all wear a red t-shirt with the unit's number on it and non-scout pants. Everyone knows exactly who they are and every one knows this is a fundraiser for this Troop, not for the BSA (I've overheard people say they won't donate to the Boy Scouts of America but will buy food from this group because the money supports this group of boys, this Troop, this visible presence - leads me to think people are quite capable of separating the policies of the BSA and the local units on the ground). If a unit is serving up food, it makes a lot more sense to have a t-shirt/polo shirt arrangement which the lads can get dirty than an official uniform.

Speaking of facts in evidence - allow me to bring another fact into evidence. This lad completed the leadership project for Eagle Scout. In order to do so, he had to get approval from his Scout Leaders to even start a project. It's highly illogical to approve an Eagle project if the unit is then going to deny both a Scoutmaster's Conference and a Board of Review for the Eagle Rank based on the grounds laid out by this Scoutmaster. If these issues were really that serious to derail a Scout from earning the Eagle Scout rank, it should have derailed it before the project was approved. I know folks want to defend this Scoutmaster and Troop Committe because we've not heard their side of the story. I have to say that as far as I'm concerned, their earlier actions of approving an Eagle Scout project speaks volumes about their sudden turnaround and I don't really need to hear their side of the story to know that they really screwed the pooch on this one. As an aside, I've known many Scouters who have held multiple positions at the district level that weren't necessarily respected. Tolerated perhaps, but not respected. It's a reality when you have positions to fill and need bodies to fill them. I get the feeling that this might be the case of this Scoutmaster if some of the comments that were relayed as coming from other members of this District are accurate.

Here's what the info at that link says - verbatim: "The youth must have experienced fifteen days and nights of Boy Scout camping during the two-year period prior to the election. The fifteen days and nights must include one, but no more than one, long-term camp consisting of six consecutive days and five nights of resident camping, approved and under the auspices and standards of the Boy Scouts of America. The balance of the camping must be overnight, weekend, or other short-term camps." It doesn't say you only count 5 nights of long term camp towards the 15 nights - it says you must include and can count only one long term camping experience - which must consist of six days and 5 nights - towards the camping nights. It seems to me that it defines what a long term camp is as opposed to a short term camp and is rather unclear on whether a 6th night in that single long term camp can or can't be counted. It seems to me it says you must have one long-term camp and the rest of the nights are to be overnights, weekends or short term camps. I'm still going with the Scoutmaster's judgment on this one because I can see it interpreted more than one way. Calico