CalicoPenn

Alien Gray Whales? I think Alien Gray Whales are just a figment of someone's imagination - apparently "Alien Grays" aren't enough for some people, now we have to worry about "Alien Gray Whales".

"Aspirational Goal"? Seem's rather redundant given that the definition of Aspiration is Goal. May as well say Aspirational Hope - oops, a definition of Aspiration is also Hope - another redundancy. I'd give real money to be able to corner the dope who coined this idiotic term - "aspirational goal" in a corner so I could slap him silly using a pair of soft deerskin gloves.

He is married and a father. He's charged with multiple counts of having sex with, at this time, 3 boys - ages 12 to 17, in multiple jurisdictions. Now that he's been arrested, I would not be surprised in the least if more victims come forward. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the victims are or were Scouts. In Missouri, the sodomy law covers certain acts if they are non-consensual or are with a minor. If the victim is an adult, the charge is sodomy. If the victim is a minor, the charge is statutory sodomy. I've said this in the past - the Boy Scouts is a hook for the news media - good or bad. There is an image of the Boy Scouts in popular lore - when that image gets pricked, you can bet the news media will mention the Boy Scout angle, if not lead with it. Consider this - the man arrested in Missouri was the captain of his town's police force - he was the top cop (equivalent to a Chief of Police), yet the first articles that came out were Boy Scout leader, who also happened to be the top cop in town, arrested. If he wasn't a Boy Scout leader, it just would have been a story about a cop arrested. He's blown away the image of a Boy Scout leader - and that is news to the media. When the BTK killer in Kansas City was finally arrested, there were a few headlines that essentially said Cub Scout leader accused in BTK killings. When Matthew Shepards killers were arrested, there were some headlines that essentially read Eagle Scout accused of killing Matthew Shepard. Why? Because it's a hook. I just try not to take offense - it's just the media being the media - and all we can really do is say that there are creeps and idiots everywhere.

Sounds as if you're looking for a family tent for car camping. Coleman's are good for that - get a dome, and get one that is at least 72" in the center - that way, your husband can at least mostly stand up. I use the Coleman Sundome 10x10 for car camping when I'm going to be in a site for more than a couple of nights. It's very large inside (it's said to be a 5 to 6 person tent) - almost large enough to set up my REI Quarter Dome inside. Yes, there is way more space than I need (I camp alone), but when it's raining, I have plenty of room to set up a chair and table, stretch out, relax, and not get tent fever. It has the "bathtub floor" which holds up very well and doesn't require a ground cloth, though I usually put an old blanket on the floor of the tent because walking on the floor is like walking on one of those blue poly tarps. The best part is that with a 72" center, I can easily stand up in it (being only 5'10") without hitting my head on the tent. The fly doesn't reach all the way to the ground, but on this tent, it doesn't have to as the fly does reach below the level of the screens. It's a bit pricier than sales tents at Dicks (about $129 - though I see Amazon has them for about $100)) but if you have a real old tent now, that tells me you expect a new tent to last more than a couple of years. The dome style is also much easier to set up than many of the other "family" tents out there. The Sundome requires two poles to set the tent up and one pole for the fly. One person can easily set it up if need be. Quest tents are the house brand for Dick's Sporting Goods, like Greatland's are the house brand for Target. I'm always wary of house brands for "big box" stores like Dick's, Target, Wal-Mart, etc. because you don't really know who has manufactured the tent. Quest tents are manufactured by a number of different companies for Dick's. Field and Stream tents seem to be exclusively sold by "big box" stores as well - I know Dick's and Costco carry them, and may be a "generic" brand. The only time I would buy a house brand is if I know the tent was manufactured by a known tentmaker (such as a hypothetical "Woods and Waters" brand tent that was actually made by Eureka or Coleman) or if the "house" is a known quality tentmaker selling their own tents (I would buy a Northface tent in a heartbeat from a Northface store) or is an outdoor gear store that is known for having a rugged testing process for their gear(for instance, REI or LL Bean). Coleman, however, is a very well known manufacturer of outdoor goods, and their tents and outdoor gear is sold throughout many different outlets. For some of the "big box" stores, Coleman's are their "premium" family tents - thats the tent a step or more above their house and generic brands. Eureka is comparable to Coleman in quality, reliability and affordability. I'm not meaning to knock Quests or Field and Streams - they have a definite place in the market. Most people who buy them seem to be the folks who go out camping one week a year at a local state park, or are just seeing if they like camping and don't want to spend a lot of money on a tent yet. However, getting replacement parts for these tents can be pretty difficult - break a pole and you may end up having to buy a new tent. Break a pole on a Coleman and you can get replacement parts from the company (unless the tent is ever discontinued - it happens). Same is true for Eureka - easy to get replacement parts. It's also tempting to get tents that are marked down considerably - that's a red flag to me - it generally means the tent is about to be discontinued or there is no value in holding over the inventory for later sales. If the company can afford to dump the overstock at such deep discounts, what might that mean as far as quality comparisons go? Just some things to think about.

Clearly, the BSA needs to ban men with beards and men who smoke in their cars from serving as adult leaders.

For those worried that they would have to change tenting rules, or keep better control of buddy partners, etc., my question is "do you worry about it now, and if not, why not?". To put it bluntly, there are already gay boys in troops all over this country - and they are already tenting with straight boys. Anyone who believes their Scouts aren't experimenting when they get a chance (with sex, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.) is naive beyond belief. If you're that concerned about the possibility of gay and straight boys sharing tents and showers, you better start doing something about it now because it's already happening. Otherwise, you're just a bunch of ostriches with their heads in the sand justifying your blindness because the BSA "doesn't allow openly gay members".

Perhaps it was a poor choice of words to say a Den Chief could earn the Den Chief Service Award without really trying. What I was trying to convey is that a Den Chief who is diligent and takes the job seriously can easily, within the one year time frame, complete all of the requirements without ever having read the requirements.

There is absolutely no requirement for a Scout to work with a Webelos Den in order to get credit for POR time served. Absolutely none. Ask this advancement chair where s/he got this information - and ask them, nicely, to produce a written directive from the Boy Scouts of America that states that in order to get time in service for a POR, a Den Chief must fill out a workbook and serve in a Webelos Den. If I were the Scoutmaster and the Advancement Chair tried to pull this stunt, I would be confabbing with the Committee Chair on who will be replaced first - the Advancement Chair or the Scoutmaster. Schiff said "Maybe your SM is requiring completion of the Den Chief Service Award in order to grant POR credit. Not a big deal if scout did his job as den chief." I disagree - this is a "big deal". There isn't a single requirement for rank advancement that requires serving more than 6 months in a POR. However, there is a requirement that a Den Chief serve for one year in order to be eligible to earn the Den Chief Service award. Telling someone they must earn the Den Chief Service Award in order to use Den Chief as a POR effectively adds 6 months of service time for a rank advancement - precisely the kind of adding to the requirements that isn't allowed. However, I do think a Scoutmaster should strongly suggest that a Scout serving a second six month term as a Den Chief earn the Den Chief Service Award. As has been pointed out, a Den Chief who is diligently doing his position should be able to earn it without even knowing it.

Wait, are ya'll telling me that Daniel Boone was real and not just a fictional Disney character on TV?? Why am I just hearing about this now? Next, you'll be telling me that there really was a Jacques Cousteau and that those underwater adventures of his weren't just special effects.

As most know, I counsel gay and lesbian teens and young adults in crisis. Most of these teens are runaways, throwaways and takeaways. Most of these teens express suicidal thoughts and many have tried to kill themselves. Most of these teens fall into crisis because of the way some adult has over-reacted to an event in these teens lives. When kissing a boy is a beating offense in a family dominated by some BS pseudo-Christian morality, and that causes a boy to want to kill himself, as far as I'm concerned, the parents have committed the worst sin, and the worst crime, in the world. A surprisingly large number of males that I've counseled were Scouts. An even more surprisingly large percentage are Eagle Scouts (I believe the current estimate is that 4% of Scouts become Eagle - I've kept track and 37% of the ex-Scouts I've dealth with are Eagle Scouts). I can count on one hand the number of these ex-Scouts who talked about having a sexual experience on a Scouting trip. I think I can safely say it happens, but it's not that common. Most of these kids have had sex in their parents home, when the parents were away - or in a tree house, or a fort in the woods, or the basement, when the parents were home. Anyone who reads the literature on adolescent sexual behavior is pretty safe to say that most experimentation takes place at someone's home - and usually not in an unsupervised party situation. There's also a significant number of teens (based on self-reporting surveys of adults) that experiment with the same sex at an early age - usually starting about 10 and ending by 13. Most people who deal with adolescent psychology consider this to be a normal and healthy phase of development - provided it isn't obsessional. Frankly, this whole folderol of whether two gay boys could share a tent, or a gay and straight boy could share a tent, is just an issue with insecure adults with their own deep-seated emotional and intimacy problems. And frankly, these kind of people should never be allowed to mentor, let alone parent, young people. I dream of being able to say that the need for my services is no longer there - but as long as there are parents and adults who project their own insecurities on their children, I'll continue to try to keep children from killing themselves because they got caught naked with another boy. Calico.

AMulls makes a great point - it may be much more about the ages of the Scouts rather than Boy Scouts in general. That 11-14 age group is one of the most conscious about what other people think of them. There's also a greater need in this age group to be identified with the right cliques and not the wrong cliques. The Cub Scout ages really don't think about it, and at about 15, people start to not care as much anymore about being in the right clique and start thinking about people as individuals. When you learn that the guy you've been pigeonholing as a science geek is planning on going to medical school, and is applying to Harvard and Yale and has a better than even chance of getting in, while you're wondering if you'll even get accepted at a state college, can be a real equalizing moment. Watching a 16-year old chess nerd take on 10 opponents simultaneously, with his back turned to the boards, and winning all 10 matches is something that can really shake the confidence of even the Varsity Quarterback (I've seen it - we had one of those chess wunderkinds in high school - it's even more fun to watch the spectators faces when the realization hits them that this kid is visualizing 10 different 3-dimensional chessboards and is keeping track of the movements of 32 chess pieces per board with a nearly infinite number of possible moves, all in his head).

I did wear my uniform to school in Cub Scouts (69 to 72) but never wore my uniform to school in Boy Scouts (graduated high school in North DuPage County (I mean western Cook County) in 1979). No one I knew wore their Boy Scout uniform in Jr. High or High School. I think it had less to do with geekiness than the simple fact that Troop meetings didn't start until 7:30 (that was pretty much the norm for all the Troops). And they didn't start until 7:30 because the high school's activities were done by 6:00 and everyone would have plenty of time to get home, have a quick dinner/shower, change, and be at the meeting on time (except those of us on the swim team - my school had no pool of it's own - we took a bus to another school - most of us didn't get home until 7:30 from November to March - we just came late). Maybe it was my school, or my school district, but there wasn't a big "geek/nerd" population - at least not in the way we think of it. The ones who thought Scouts was uncool were the burnouts and stoners - and they were on the lowest rung of the totem pole. Everyone in our school had something that could be pointed at as being "geeky" or "nerdy". Most of the people in my school were preparing for college and that meant some "geeky/nerdy" classes that had to be taken. There are still people who have a hard time believing this but my school district required, back in the late 70's, that we take, as one of our required mathematics classes, a progamming in basic course. Yep - we had required computer courses from 1975 on. My school offered advanced courses in cobol, fortran and RPG progamming as well. In a district that required 6 semesters (out of 8) of Math (at Algebra and above), 6 semesters of Science, 4 semesters of Social Science, 8 semesters of Humanities, 2 semesters of Foreign Language (with an exception for those who had foreign language from 3rd through 8th grade - I was in the last class that had required foreign language in elementary school), and 2 semesters of business, it was hard not to end up taking some kind of "geeky/nerdy" class. About 40% of graduating seniors had at least one semester of Calculus - I guess we were just all nerds (cue the ending to Revenge of the Nerds).

Yes, there would have to be something that changed. The BSA would have to get rid of the bigoted, ignorant "leaders" who profess to be concerned for the well-being of the Scouts but only succeed in passing off their ignorant bigotry on another generation of young people.

It's been fascinating reading this thread - I've learned things, and scoffed at things - truly the mark of a good campfire discussion. I remember reading Crichton's rant went it first came out. I thought it was an interesting opinion - and I suggest we all remember that it is just one man's opinion, with some glaring flaws in it used to bolster his arguments. For instance, Crichton declares unequivocably that DDT does not cause cancer in humans so banning it was unneccessary. The twofold problem with his declaration is first, that there is some epidemiological evidence that DDT is a cause of liver, pancreatic and breast cancer in humans, and second and more importantly, even if DDT doesn't cause cancer, it, and it's by-products DDE and DDD (which come about as DDT "decomposes") are toxic to humans and animals. When did it become acceptabe to accept toxicity as long as a product doesn't cause cancer? That seems to be one of Crichton's arguments - "who cares if it's toxic, it doesn't cause cancer so it's not a problem". But beyond that, I say this. The origins of what we think of as environmentalism was in the fight for clean air and clean water in the late 60's, early 70's. Environmentalism as religion? I know this - I need clean air to breath and clean water to drink in order to survive. Environmentalism has helped and continues to help ensure that we will have these things. I don't need to pray in order to survive - and prayer isn't going to stop factories from polluting the air and water needed for survival.

"The Scout Camp in Chesapeake, VA had to be shut down for three years because of a gay ranger sexually harassing older scouts." I'm calling BS on this. There is no reason whatsoever for a council to be forced to close a scout camp for three years if they had a gay ranger sexually harassing older scouts. The council would fire the ranger, bring in a new ranger, and just keep the camp operating. It's not that difficult. Why would the council have to close the camp for three years? To disinfect the woods? To preserve some kind of physical evidence of harrassment? Please - get real. If the council closed the camp, it had nothing to do with their having a gay ranger. I'll see your good reason for not allowing gay males to be scout leaders with the recent story of a female Scouter in Illinois caught in a sexual relationship with a Scout, and raise with the statistic that 95% of all child molesters are straight men. I guess that leaves only lesbians as potential Scout leaders from now on.

Of course the BSA is a business. Most NFP's of any size are a business. Most NFP's that get into the most trouble are the group of like minded individuals that get together and create an NFP to offer some kind of benefit to society but fail to treat it as a business, thinking their mission statement is all they need to succeed. Occasionally an NFP makes the news because of the same kind of poor governance issues that some corporations make the news for. Is there really much difference between the financial shenanigans amongst the top executives at Enron and the financial shenanigans that took place among the founders of ACORN? Not really. NFP ststus isn't a designation of whether an organization is a business or not - it's a designation of how it's money is accounted for. One of two real differences between a for profit corporation and a non-profit corporation is that individuals can't financially benefit from a non-profit (salaries and benefits for employees, and travel stipends for board members attending meetings of the board or conferences which benefit the organization excepted). One can't be a "stockholder" of a non-profit and earn money off the investment. The other real difference is that non-profits, depending on type of non-profit status, cannot use their funds for direct endorsements of political candidates, and can use a limited portion of their funds (no more than 10% as I recall) on political advocacy for a party or referendum.

Really good NFP's don't give grant making organizations an opportunity to deny funding by not offering a clear separation between discriminatory organizations and non-discriminatory organizations. Sharing a building is one thing - sharing staff - red flag.(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

The real act of arrogance is Mitch McConnel lying on the floor of the Senate claiming the American people don't want it when polls show the majority of the American people want it.

The Scouts have a ground lease. When someone has a ground lease, they can build on the leasehold. When the lease expires, the building remains as part of the land - at no cost to the landlord. It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out in federal court - they don't typically get involved in disputes between landlords and tenants.

It's good to see a business ethic book move that well in sales - but just because someone has bought the book doesn't mean the values will translate to real life. When we see real evidence of corporate values becoming aligned with Scouting values, then we can celebrate. Let's not celebrate the success of a book as the success of values without seeing the evidence of those values being lived first.

There are no "minimum" requirements. There are just the requirements. Developing Scout's into leaders is an admirable goal - and there will always be lads who can use more time in a POR to further develop - developing scouts into leaders doesn't stop when a scout earns rank - it continues. The whole concept of "minimum" requirements makes me cringe. It's this line of thinking that results in Scout leaders creating their own rules and requirements for ranks. Trying to couch this in the "Aims and Methods" is just disingenuous grasping at straws. If there is a failure in delivering the Aims and Methods, it's not a result of advancement - it's the result of failing adult leadership.

National Heritage Corridors are not maintained by the US Park Service - they are only designated by the National Park Service as National Heritage Corridors, which gives the counties, states, cities and private entities that ow land the corridor runs through access to advice from the National Park Service. National Heritage Corridors are usually created through a large corridor of land along a river. It sounds as if the Union is sending a shot over the bow of the City, making sure the City understands that they aren't to try to replace the laid off workers with volunteers. Their investigation would probably have been limited to a question of whether the city had planned this work and found someone to do the work for free, or whether it was truly the Scout's idea and the City never had any intention of creating new trail connections in the area. If the City had the intention of creating new trail connections - perhaps in some master planning document, the Union might very well have a legitimate grievance that the City just got work done for free that otherwise would have been done by employees. If the City never had the intention of creating the trail connections, then the idea was solely the Scout's. It may be a question of did the Scout approach the City with an idea in hand, or did he approach the City with a desire and was handed a list of projects he could do. If the latter, that would likely be a problem for the City because they could be said to be replacing employees with volunteers. I'm sure that's where the "no volunteer" warning comes from. If the City has always used city workers to plant flower beds, they will still have to continue to use city workers to plant the flower beds - especially if that's one of the tasks spelled out in the union contract - the union could argue that the city is using volunteers to bust the union. Frankly, if a city has to lay off workers, it shouldn't be planting flower beds at all, or setting up holiday lights - if they've got to cut expenses, they should be cutting those kind of extra expenses as well.

Ok, so the form hasn't been signed yet (I was unclear on that). With the additional info, things seem a bit clearer - I think we all assumed that time in rank was involved with the "5 months, 10 days is enough" statement, but that now doesn't appear to be the case - if he got his Life in mid-March, he's got his time in rank - 6 months from mid-March is mid-September. So if it's not time in rank, it's time in POR. If he's served as a Den Chief since mid-March when he earned Life, he would have his 6 months service done in mid-September. However, it appears as if he had less than a full 6 months of service in as new POR's were elected/appointed. I'm guessing it's dad that got the district poohbahs involved because the lad has 15 to 20 days left for POR and the unit wasn't willing to allow him to continue to be a Den Chief for the 20 days or less he still needed. Instead, the unit (or Scoutmaster) is forcing the lad to wait another 6 months in order to get a POR to complete the 20 days or less. Is that an accurate assessment? Ok, let's say you hold firm and say he's not going to have a POR until the next go round. What happens in 6 months if he isn't elected PL or SPL - do you wait another 6 months before the next elections rather than appoint him to a POR? Do you never appoint him to a POR again because you want him in a peer leadership role? What if he never gets elected as a PL or SPL - does he age out never getting his Eagle, after completing the project a few years ago because you didn't let him complete a POR? You offered him the position of OA Rep for 6 months - well, that's all well and good but the fact is that after 20 days of being OA Rep, he's got the time in POR. You can't add another 5 months, 10 days to the requirement - it's spelled out - 6 months, in any position or combination of positions, is all that is required - once he's fulfilled it, your job is to verify that he's served the 6 months time in on POR. That's part of what your signature affirms. Let's say he takes the OA Rep - he serves the 20 days needed - makes it well known to the district poohbahs that it appears his father got involved because his father has assessed that you have moved the goal post after the kick. On day 21, he resigns as OA Rep. You've got a dilemma - he's served 6 months - people know he's served 6 months - you can't force him to serve more time. Now what? Refuse to sign? What message does that send? What does that accomplish other than to make this Scout decide never to use his new status as Eagle to continue to help the Troop, and have him come away believing that his Scoutmaster was a world class crank - because that's the story he's going to be telling when he's meeting other Scouts in college - how his Scoutmaster was a crank who tried to keep him (or succeeded in keeping him) from earning the Eagle Scout rank). You mentioned you didn't know he would be a complete and out Scout - are you sure he was? If he wasn't then, I wouldn't be surprised if he's become one. I wonder if this is really a windmill you want to be tilting at. Eagle Scout rank only requires leadership in one context - the Eagle project. All the rest are Positions of Responsibility. With less than 20 days of POR time to go, most Scoutmasters would be bending over backwards to make sure a Scout had the POR to complete the time - and would be discussing what the next steps for the Scout would be - how many Palms he wants to earn, any special awards he wants to earn, how he can use his Eagle Scout rank to better serve the Troop - maybe by putting himself up for PL, or SPL, or Troop Guide. I'd be trying to keep the lad in - this can only serve to help push the lad out. Respectfully, if you don't have any major Scout Spirit issues (and what Scout hasn't had to have a few Scout Spirit discussions with their Scoutmaster), and the only sticking point is the 20 days, find him the 20 days and get on with it. If he leaves afterwards, you'll always be wondering if it was because he wanted to "get and git" or if it was because he felt as if he was getting the shaft. I think I'd have the "what's the future look like" discussion now too. Then just move on. I know there's a lot of folks talking about what their opinions of "Eagle Scout material" is. I don't have a personal opinion on what that is - I look only to the requirements as the statement of what Eagle Scout material is. Whenever anyone asks me what I think Eagle Scout material is, I tell them to read all of the rank requirements, from the joining requirements (Scout) through Eagle Scout requirements - and all of the requirements of the required Merit Badges - and once they've done that, they know exactly what I think Eagle Scout material is. If they've completed all of that stuff, they're Eagle Scout material. It doesn't matter what elective Merit Badges they worked on, or what their POR's were, or what their service was, or what their Eagle Scout project was - if they've completed those requirements, they have done many things - and should be awarded the Eagle Scout rank. I suppose my final comment on this is to you as a Scoutmaster wondering if you should resign over this. Recently there was a thread that brought up a similar type of issue - about quality of work in a POR and a Scoutmaster who signed off on it with a BOR that bounced it back saying it wasn't good enough. My answer was that I would have a cup of coffee with whomever needed it and ask them a compound question: What makes your judgement on the requirements better than the BSAs? Can you base your decisions on the requirements as they are written by the BSA? Answer those questions for yourself and follow you heart. I believed I ended by saying this - if you can't advocate for the Scout, it's time to move on. I know you have the best interests of the Scout in mind - the question is are those best interests also in line with the requirements as written? At the end of the day are you advocating for the Scout and the BSA or are you advocating for what you think is best? Calico Aside on the point Eagle92 makes about Den Chief and summer - as long as a lad hasn't been removed from a POR, he is considered to be serving actively - it doesn't matter if the Pack isn't meeting in the summer or isn't doing any activities in the summer, unless he's been removed, he is still serving as a Den Chief. This idea of trying to regulate time served in POR's based on what's going on with a unit is a record keeping nightmare, and should be anathema to Scouters - I see it only as a road block deliberately put in the way of Scouts by adults for no good reason other than the adults feel they can do it. Why should the Den Chief POR only be available 9 months out of the year when the other POR's are available 12 months out of the year? The BSA never set it up that way. I can see it now - a Quartermaster doesn't get credit for the POR in December, January and February because a unit doesn't camp so the Quartermaster doesn't have anything to do once he's stored the gear for the winter - would anyone really buy that argument? In the spririt of transparency, my POR for Eagle was Den Chief - in fact, my POR for all of my ranks was Den Chief - though I did serve as Scribe, PL (for a full year) and JASM as well, but I became a Den Chief at 12 and didn't stop until I was 18 - I consider Den Chief to be one of the 3 most important POR's in Boy Scouts because Den Chief's help perpetuate the Boy Scouts be serving as a living recruitment poster in a Cub Scout Pack.

When you sign the form, you are telling the Board of Review that you have verified that the Scout has met the requirements - all of the requirements - the objective and the subjective. You're telling the BOR that you have met with the Scout and he is ready to advance. It's a bit unusual for a Scoutmaster to sign a form then tell the BOR you have your doubts. The time to address the doubts is before you sign the form. If I were the DAC or on the BOR I'd be wondering if you were just trying to dump the issue on me, rather than take ownership of it, yet at the same time, I'll listen to what you have to say, because though it's unusual, it's not unheard of, particularly if there's been some kind of serious breach since you signed the form. It sounds like the 5 months, 10 days is a different issue - the UC is a twit if he told you that and I'd be on the phone with the District Commissioner demanding a new UC. If you signed the form too early, the Scout should have no problem with you telling him you're sorry, you screwed up, and there is still another 20 days to complete. However, if you signed the form once, and are thinking about using that 20 day delay to make a new case that the Scout hasn't met the Scout Spirit requirements (which sounds like this is the other issue), then I think you should go ahead and re-sign at the end of the 20 days and not use the opportunity for a "do over". I think you used up that window of opportunity with the first signature. There's another piece to this - You signed the form (forget that it was early), then you voiced concerns to the DAC or whomever - since you signed the form, you've moved the process along. You've got to let the next folks - be it the DAC or the BOR - make the decision from here. If they decide that a concern that to you is a big issue is just "making mountains out of a molehill", I think you've got to let it go and let them make the final determination - you've done your part, and you've done your best, you expressed your concerns, and it really is pretty much out of your hands at this point.

Your first impulse will be to toss the tent into a washing machine. Don't. It destroys the waterproofing and can damage the fabric of the tent. The first thing (after setting the tents up, of course) that needs to be done is to deal with the mold/mildew issue. Mildew (mold) is a living organism. Ignoring it won't make it go away, and just washing it off with soap and water won't kill the organism - you'll get rid of the surface spots, but you'll just annoy the creatures living in the fabric of the tent and make them grow bigger (ok, maybe you won't annoy them, but you will be giving them an opportunity for greater growth). The organisms must be killed - and the best way is to use a sterilizing solution. This may seem odd, but a good source is sterilizing solutions for baby bottles and breast pumps. Or you could use a dilute solution of chlorine bleach in water - pretty much in the dilution formula you might use for sterilizing dishes - that just enough balance of sterlization vs. making the next food you eat taste like bleach. However you do it, make sure to test it on a small part of the tent to see how the tent fabric reacts. The next step is to wash down the mildewed areas, and any other dirty areas, with a mild fabric cleaner and water solution. I recommend Nikwax Tech Wash, which is a non-detergent cleaner specifically formulated for outdoor and recreation gear. It's available at REI and should be available at other good camping gear stores (I don't think you'll find it at Walmart). You'll want to hand wash (esentially give the tent a sponge bath), rinse, then let dry thoroughly. After the tent is clean, I'd probably add some waterproofing, just to be safe - expecially where the mildew was located. Now that may (or may not) help with the odor. Unfortunately, I don't think Febreeze will help. One suggestion would be to open and check the tent in a month (after it's been dried and put away). If you still have a musty odor but are confident that there is no new mildew growth, consider tossing in a cedar block - the type used in closets as alternatives to moth balls to mask the odor. If there is no new mildew growth, the odor should go away eventually - it just may take a few camping trips out in the air (setting it up in the summer sun for a few days would help too). Edited to add: Oh, and don't forget to check the tent's stuff sacks. Check and clean if needed the tent stuff sack, the sack for the poles (if it has one) and the sack for the stakes (again if it has one). If any of these are infected with mildew, and they aren't cleaned, they could reinfect a tent with mildew like fleas jumping from a dog to a cat. (This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)