Huh???????

[John-in-KC]

Brotherhood WWW,

 

Last year I had a chance to meet the young man who was the Central Region Chief. These are young men who care, and if you look at the National Advisory team, you will find many former Regional and National Chiefs.

 

I would hope if they got word that the St Louis Area Council was off the Reservation in policy (no pun intended), there'd be some words to the SE.

[TheScout]

I don't have copies of the Lodge Advisers Guide or the Elections Guide.

 

Did this Lodge's bylaws violate them?

 

Just because we don't like what they are doing does not mean they can not do it.

[mdutch]

Yes, the lodge by-laws do directly contradict the Guide to Officers and Advisors (GOA).

For example, they have added many requirements to the process of becoming a brotherhood member. The GOA says

"Brotherhood membership. Completion of Brotherhood membership shall be in accordance with the requirements in the current printing of

the Order of the Arrow Handbook and the Order of the Arrow Guide for Officers and Advisers."

The bylaws have added camping and service requirements which are not found in the OA Handbook.

Note: The GOA can be found at http://www.main.oa-bsa.org/resources/pubs/GOA-2006-Final.pdf

[emb021]

"Aren't local lodges allowed to make by-laws? "

 

Its "bylaws". One word, no hyphen.

 

Yes, lodge can and should have bylaws. They are properly called "Lodge Rules". Keep in mind that lodges are NOT independent bodies. They are subsiderary groups of the council, and must follow national and council policies.

 

The Guide to Officers and Advisors (GOA), which is available for download at the National site, provides a basic template for Lodge Rules. Please note, that part of this template is NOT to be changes by lodges. This is MAINLY the parts dealing with membership selection, as well as Brotherhood and Vigil selection. These are clearly to state (as has been quoted) that the lodge(s) must follow the policies stated in the National OA documents.

 

This is why CalicoPenn and others have stated that this lodge's bylaws are in violation of National policy.

 

 

 

[mdutch]

Ok, I am now even more confused about what is going on in the Greater St. Louis area council. The appear to have two OA Lodges (Shawnee Lodge and Anpetu-we Lodge). So now I am really confused.

[MarkS]

It's a big council covering both Missouri and Illinois from North of St. Louis to the boot heel. It is my understanding that the two lodges cover different regions within the council.

 

Remember, right now I'm just a potential ordeal member, with no standing in the lodge what-so-ever, who needs complete the induction process and learn how things work... so please, don't get me in trouble with this thread.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

[emb021]

Per National policy there is to be only one lodge per council. The only reason Greater St Loius has two is that the council recently merged with another council, and for a short time are allowing both lodges to exist. This should be rectified by the 2 lodges merging.

 

 

[MarkS]

According to this web site, http://www.honorpub.com/scout-e-zine/vol03/council_history/mo_history.htm, the council mergers took place more than 11 years ago.

[ney_a_ti]

I was a youth officer of the Ney-A-Ti Lodge (Egyptian Council) in southern Illinois when it merged with the St. Louis Area Council (forming the Greater St. Louis Area Council, or GSLAC) in 1995. Ney-A-Ti merged with Anpetu-we (the afore mentioned second OA lodge), and I served on the merger committee, as well as on GSLAC summer camp staff for three years, so I have a pretty good understanding and unique perspective of the situation in GSLAC. Since I worked on Summer Camp Staff, I worked with a lot of Shawnee members and units, but looked at it as an outsider. However, I am no longer a member of that Council, having moved away and joined a different Troop.

 

Previous to the Egyptian Council merger, the Southeast Missouri Council merged with SLAC in 1994. The agreement between these two councils was that Shawnee and Anpetu-we would not merge until the youth members of both lodges approved it. This was signed off on by National, creating two OA lodges in the Council.

 

When Ney-A-Ti came in, we were actually given the choice of which lodge to merge into. We picked Anpetu-we for many reasons, chiefly there is a significant size difference between them and Shawnee. Ney-A-Ti was a small lodge (about 200 members). Anpetu-we had about 400, Shawnee about 3000 or so. I think our choice surprised the GSLAC professionals, they assumed that we would go with Shawnee.

 

I would like to clarify some of Shawnee's practices. Those Troops that attend the council camps have thier OA elections conducted at Summer Camp, on the morning of the callout ceremony. The candidates will go through the Pre-Ordeal ceremony and do the night alone at summer camp. The remainder of the Ordeal is done at the lodge's two weekends (Fall Reunion and Spring Conclave). There is also a Pre-Ordeal and night alone at these weekends for candidates who weren't at summer camp or were at OOC camps. So CalicoPenn, the "Next two events" requirement is consistent with the year time frame set forth by National, but it is worded poorly.

 

However, I agree with the general mood here about Shawnee's bylaws; they are contradictory to the National Program. It says in the front of every Merit Badge book that requirements should not be added onto or taken away from, they should be done exactly as stated in the book. Why should the OA differ from this philosophy?

 

I think that the rule that says that a unit can't have an elsewhere election two consecutive years is daffy. If our troops are truly youth run, then the Council is immediately taking away some of thier authority. I know the biggest decision that my Youth Leaders make every year (or at least the one they spend the most time discussing)is where they are going to summer camp. We present them with several options, including our Councils camps, and they have picked an OOC camp every year. I understand that Councils want troops to go to thier own summer camps, but I believe that Councils should increase the quality of thier summer camp program to do this, and not punish Scouts. I was not aware of this rule when I was a member of GSLAC, but this is further proof that merging of Ney-A-Ti with Anpetu-we was the better decision, because many southern Illinois troops go OOC, and Anptu-we has no such rules.

 

Here is another daffy rule for everyone: before the election rules were changed in the late 90s, the Shawnee lodge had another rule, which I think was called the "Plurality Rule." As I recall, it stated that if less than 50% of the Scouts on the ballot were elected the OA, then the Scoutmaster could put them in if they met certain requirements. Here's how it worked: On the election form, the Scouts that weren't elected were listed on the bottom of the form in the order of votes recieved. If the first Scout on the list was in his fourth year of summer camp or more, the Scoutmaster could choose to put him into the OA. This procedure would continue on down this list until 1.) A Scout in his second or third year of summer camp was next on the list 2.) the Scoutmaster did not approve of a Scout being in the OA or 3.)50% of the candidates were elected/selected. This rule wasn't used very often, but when I heard about it, I thought it was pretty dumb. I'm glad the National change in election rules got rid of it.

 

Why does Shawnee/GSLAC do this? Because they think they are better than everyone else. This may be mean spirited, but it seemed like many, if not most, of the older Scouts and adults (both volunteer and professional) felt like the St. Louis Area Council was better than any Council out there, and therefore, they could ignore rules or make new ones. For instance, I believe that for a long time, GSLAC would not allow the use of gas stoves for cooking. The merger of the other two Councils changed this, as troops from these councils have been using gas stoves for a long time, but GSLAC decided to require a "toasted chit" card for stove training. Needless to say, many from southeast Missouri and southern Illinois ignored this, and continued to use stoves as they always had. I believe that this is the reason that they have two OA lodges, and are in no hurry to merge them. They feel that they can ignore the "one council, one lodge" rule.

 

It is my belief that the Lodge has this OOC rule because they cannot concieve of a Troop wanting to go OOC for two years in a row because they believe that thier camps can't be beat (and trust me, they can).

 

Certainly there is room for pride in one's Council and OA lodge, but there is a point in which pride become arrogance and smugness, and there are more than a few members of the Council that feel this way. Getting this Lodge to change its rules is probably like trying to move the immoveable object, no matter how contradictory they are to National's policies. Good luck, though!