camping requirement for adult OA membership

[kahits]

Just a quick question. I was told by me DE, back in 06, that the camping requirement had been removed for adult OA membership. Now it seems that requirement never was removed? Was he mistaken, when he told me that?

[ScoutNut]

Yes, he was mistaken.

[kahits]

Apparently, he was referring to a district nomination, which can waive the camping requirement, but he spoke in the context of my being nominated thru my troop committee, which I would have been ineligible for, having been in the troop only 6 months. I'm going to NLATS, this weekend, and will no doubt learn more about a great many things. Thank you, SN.

[Oak Tree]

You may have been ineligible if you didn't meet the camping requirement, but I don't think the fact that you were a 6-month newbie would be a disqualifier by itself. You could easily get in fifteen nights of camping, including a week of summer camp, during your first six months with the troop. Most people don't, and I wouldn't recommend it, but the right go-getter might do it.

[kahits]

Actually, I checked. I had 13 nights in with the troop and 4 with the Venture crew, I started for my daughter. I don't think crew camping would count, since my daughter will never be eligible. Bottom line, I decided to wait and go in with my son, the next year, and it's been great.

[Secret DE]

If you look at the OA Guide for Officers and Advisers it clearly states that unit adults must meet the camping requirements. District adults can have the camping requirement waived. This year I am having my Chapter Advisor nominate one District Level adult for membership and he has all of his camping time.

 

I have only been a DE for about 19 months, but from what I can see it is rare to have the camping time waived. In my case as a DE I was nominated by the Supreme Chief of the Fire because he felt that OA membership was an important part of Professional Service.

 

SDE

[Oak Tree]

kahits, you probably made the right choice. As an observation, I think crew camping does count. It's certainly under the auspices of the Boy Scouts of America.

 

[kahits]

Thanks Oak,

I can't believe how much camping I did that first year, with me having to step up quickly to take my son's group camping in a troop that was in the process of aging out. Why the older boys no longer went camping was a mystery to me, but once I saw the rank requirements past First class, I could see where they may have not been encouraged to continue to camp. That is the legacy I inherited, and it's been pretty inert since then, but this year the troop is moving in the right direction.. finally. Now I have a fresh group of new scouts to take camping, and try to keep my son camping as well, as he completes his Life rank requirements.

[AvidSM]

Last year, my lodge became very strict when it comes to an adult being nominated by the troop committee. They make it very clear in their nomination form that it should not be for the purpose of adult recognition. They want adults nominated that through their scouting job, make the OA more meaningful for the in the lives of the youth.

 

We are also limited to one adult per year. And, yes, he or she must meet all camping requirement that the youth must meet.

 

My troop committee did nominate on adult last year and he did complete his ordeal. I had to write a letter of recommendation for him, listing his qualification as a role model for the youth of the troop.

[skeptic]

A good place to re-submit my thoughts on this requirement. I have been a SM for a very long time, and always had the ability to take personal vacation for summer camp. For me, with no kids of my own, it was not an issue. As for OA, I had become Brotherhood as a youth, so that only required proof and updating.

Back a few years now, I had a group of 4 adults all come in from cubs, along with their sons. They became trained immediately, went through first aid courses, did outdoor specific training through high adventure courses, and then proceeded to Trail Boss training and completion. They went camping for two and three day trips regularly, soon compiling well over 30 days and nights, without any summer camp. But, when we put the most active one up for OA the year after his son went through, he was declined, even with a letter from the committee explaining why he had not done a long term. He had/has two daughters and limited vacation on his job and felt he needed to use that limited time for his family vacation. One other had a job without any paid vacation, so could not get time off for a whole week. He finally went to camp, but only when he lost his job and attended between that one and his new one. But, he was never put up, due to the limit of one per year which was given to the other because he had more camping and seniority in the troop.

Now, the same year, I witnessed at least 3, perhaps more, adults tapped out and accepted from other units. Their camping, and contributions to outdoor activities was the bare minimum, and included that summer camp thing. None of them had anywhere near the training my ASM's had.

My point is that there should possibly be alternate qualifications to cover this type of thing. If, the OA's purpose is to encourage camping of high quality within the unit and council, then which of these men is the better candidate? Possibly, there could be an alternative time requirement, such as "or 20 (bit more?) total days and nights, not including a long term; or simply a specific ability of a committee to put someone up with valid reasons, such as this incident.

While he eventually was able to get the time for a summer camp, at the expense of his daughters not included, he came close to dropping out because he felt slighted and could not go to OA functions with his son.

Thoughts?? Please be reminded that I am not saying anyone should be accepted, only that there are extenuating reasons why an adult could possibly never be able to go to a long term without affecting his family or employment negatively. We have one right now who runs a pool business. He has helped keep our outdoor program running on weekends and so on, he is busiest in summer and cannot take the time. It does not make any difference to him, but he probably is more deserving than some I have seen at Ordeals.

 

Thanks.

[Gold Winger]

Life just isn't fair sometimes. Adult OA membership isn't supposed to be bestowed as an honor to the adult but because those doing the nomination believe that the adult has something to offer the OA. Sadly, that usually isn't the case and most adults in OA are like the youth and do little other than pay their dues.

 

 

[emb021]

"Sadly, that usually isn't the case and most adults in OA are like the youth and do little other than pay their dues."

 

Uh, we should be so lucky if these people paid their dues.

 

Many are what we call 'sash and dash', get the sash and flap, put the flap on their uniform, then be involved in the lodge or even pay their dues.

 

 

[Oak Tree]

I find the one week of summer camp an interesting requirement. We definitely want to encourage the boys to go - and if a boy is not going to summer camp, is he really an honor camper?

 

I think there is a good sense of fairness to having the adults meet the same requirements as the boys.

 

If we were to follow exactly the same requirements, then we'd require a vote on each eligible adult, and more than one could make it in. But having the boys vote on the adults would potentially leave some adults pretty unhappy. And I don't know that having the registered adults vote on each other would be much better. If we let the committee nominate however many that they thought were worthy, I think there would be a lot of pressure to nominate all eligible adults.

 

So the limitation on one adult per troop (of under 50 boys), I see as a way to encourage the committee to only nominate the most worthy candidates. And yes, if you have lots of worthy candidates, this can seem unfair. But there are limitations on how fair a process like this can be, given the diversity present in the BSA. Some troops have many great leaders. Others have few. It is hard to come up with a system that could meaningfully distinguish.

[WAKWIB]

It's pretty clear that the adult camping requirement is both very fair and very important to the theme of OA being an HONOR. Scouts and Scouters alike should never regard membership in the Order as an automatic thing that anyone can enter. I actually dislike the idea of adults being inducted through a district recommendation (especially if the camping requirement is waived!!). Candidates should only appear as the result of a Troop election in the case of youth, or the nomination of the adult by the troop committee. I believe that it is only in the operations of a Scout Troop that one can be justified of being worthy of the additional responsibilities of membership in Scouting's Honor Society.

[srisom]

Units are restricted to one each year, as long as at least one youth has been properly selected for the OA. Many units have more than one adult that is deserving. This can create problems, but the rules say only one adult.

As previously stated, many adults have trouble getting time off to do the entire week of camping. As far the camping requirement, I have seen it sort of bend in some Lodges. Adults have been allowed in if they camped at least half a week in each of two years. This did not get them six nights together, but it was determined that three nights one year and three nights the next year worked.

Might not be kosher, but that's how have been doing it.