Distinction of election

[OldGreyEagle]

we know all brothers (and occasional sister) are equal,

 

some are just more equal than others, naturally...

[skeptic]

I would much rather they seriously look at the rules for adult selection. Over the years I have had two, at least, adults who were major pieces of a viable outdoor program, but who did not have enough vacation time to both go to camp and take the rest of the family on a family vacation. Because they did not go to a "summer camp", they were determined to not be eligible, even though they had spent well over 30 days and nights out on weekends, some of which were 3 or even 4 days and nights. When, after 4 years, I wrote a letter to the lodge on behalf of one; the lodge flat turned him down. While he eventually came to terms, and managed to get to camp the following year, at the expense of a "family" vacation with his wife and two daughters, he was approved. But, who is doing more? The ones who do the monthly outdoor activities of day hikes and overnights; who get outdoor training; who get certified for first aid; who take "Trail Boss"? Or those who go to summer camp once, and occasionally do an overnight; but refuse to get the training for whatever reason? National OA needs to look at this requirement and make an "and/or" clause for nights camping, and possibly outdoor training.

 

Just my opinion; but much more important than patch or sash distinctions.

[BadenP]

Good points all. I agree that distinctions within the OA is plain ridiculous and defeats the whole principle of brotherhood. The OA overall has not exactly been exactly flourishing in all councils, one lodge I have been part of has gone to the happy hunting ground because of lack of participation. As many councils merge or disappear so do their lodges. If the OA is going to continue to grow it must get rid of all those silly exclusionary policies, special patches, and seperation of members. nolescout, it makes no difference whether someone is elected or selected to the OA all should be made to feel welcome and an equal member of a great organization.

[jhankins]

Oi, Vigil selection for adults is a whole other headache. I submitted a name of a former chapter advisor, a guy who attends every ordeal he can (He's the CFO for a huge company and sometimes has to work weekends to rectify books), has run the district camporees, helps at every camp clean up he can (at least 4 a year), and is dedicated to supporting the youth leaders of the lodge with carpools for ceremonies and summer camp, and pushing OA at every commissioner's cabinet meeting.. I was told his Silver Beaver was enough. I was told that since he wasn't in front of the boys and at fall fellowships that he would never be approved and his application came back to me before it was even put to the committee. Then it was said that even though names aren't on the applications, they can tell who is who and it isn't really merit based, it's based on who you know.

 

I know that defies much of what is supposed to be done, but when I brought that up? I was told that as a woman my application would never make it to the committee, either.

 

Wow. All that came from just submitting someone I thought lived up to holding a vigil.

 

 

[Gary_Miller]

The only time the distinction is necessary is during the Vigil selection process.

 

Per OA Handbook Under "Vigil Honor".

 

"Because the Order of the Arrow is primarily an organization for youth, it is suggested that, in recommending candidates for the Vigil Honor, preference be given to those who became members of the order as Scouts rather than to those who were inducted into the Order as adult volunteers or professional Scouters."