KMSR to Close

[Balding Eagle]

 

December 7, 2009

 

Dear Scouter:

 

We are sending you this special edition of the CNJC E-Scouter today because of a serious issue that has arisen affecting our camping operations. At its last meeting, the Council Executive Committee (consisting of the Key 3, the Vice Presidents and General Counsel) voted to send to the full Executive Board two motions, one to cease long-term camping (summer camp) within the Central New Jersey Council, and the other, to investigate the sale of Kittatinny Mountain Scout Reservation (KMSR). We are giving you a summary of the facts leading up to this decision, in order that you can submit your comments to the Executive Board prior to its December 17th meeting. (More on how to do this is discussed below.) At this meeting your comments will be considered while the Board will discuss and evaluate all options regarding future camping operations. Those options will include the recommended closing and sale of KMSR, moving summer camp operations to Yards Creek Scout Reservation as well as continuing present deficit camping operations.

There are three main reasons why we think these steps are necessary. They deal with:

Capital expenses;

Participation levels at camp;

Northeast Region / National Council findings, recommendations, and policies.

 

Capital expenses. Recently, we have learned of two major problems at KMSR. The first, a potentially significant problem with leakage of the dam on Lake Ashroe, is currently being investigated by an engineering firm to assess the scope of the problem and the cost of repairs. The second is the failure of the septic system serving the new Comfort Station, the Health Lodge, and the Dining Hall. Currently, we are only able to make band-aid repairs, as the definitive repairs on these two items alone would require a major capital campaign, something that has been unsuccessful in this council in better economic times. We add these two items to an ever-expanding list of capital needs at KMSR, including replacement of the dining hall, replacement of the water tank, refurbishment of the health lodge, replacement of the Rangers house, and a possible move by New Jersey to ban pit latrines. The cost of all of these items is well into the seven-figure range, which is out of our reach by all good estimates.

Participation levels at camp. Since 2001, we have made significant capital improvements to KMSR in the hope of attracting new troops and campers to the camp, and have consistently made improvements to the quality of the program we offer. It has been our long-term goal to operate six weeks of camp with at least nine hundred boys in attendance. We came close to that goal in 2003 and 2008, but we have never reached that elusive goal dating back to the merger in 1999. An analysis of our Boy Scout Resident Camp attendance shows that, on average, only twelve percent of the Boy Scouts registered to the Central New Jersey Council camp at KMSR in a given summer, compared with an average of forty-four percent of CNJC Scouts camping at out-of-council camps. These poor participation levels have generated a deficit every year to the point where the council is actually subsidizing the camping operation, and as a result is operating at a deficit each year.

Northeast Region and National Council findings. The Northeast Region, with the support of the National Council, recently conducted an in-depth study of camping operations throughout the region. As a result of that study, they developed a list of the fifteen traits of successful camps, dealing mainly with finances, attendance, and proximity of other councils properties. A no answer to any one of the items was a red flag that something needed attention. We had nine red flags on the list. Their recommendations, which were accepted and approved at the November Regional Board meeting, were that the Area leadership could conditionally approve a camp if the council ran at a deficit and the camping operation was also at a deficit, and the council had more than 16,000 total available youth per unit-serving executive. If this continued for two years, the region could refuse the councils request to operate a summer camp. We have effectively failed these criteria for the past five years and do not foresee this changing in the near future.

For these reasons, it was decided that we would recommend the cessation of our summer camp operations at KMSR and investigate selling the property. We did not think the option of moving the summer camp to Yards Creek was a viable option, because it would also require an outlay of capital money to bring the camp up to minimal standards, and there was no guarantee that attendance would improve, thereby continuing the deficit operation. We actually considered recommending the sale of both properties, but decided that it was important to preserve one property for district events, weekend camping, training, etc. In all, we considered six different options for the camps, and found this to be in our best interest as a council.

So, when will this happen? If approved by the Executive Board, we are planning to put the changes into effect immediately. However, we still plan on operating KMSR for weekend camping through June 2010, and possibly later, depending on how quickly we can secure a buyer and go through all of the legal issues of a sale. For units that have reservations at KMSR for the summer of 2010, we have already taken steps to find alternate camp reservations for them for the weeks desired. Of course, that move would depend on the results of the vote as to whether we cease long-term camping now, after the 2010 season, or never.

Wed like to know what you, as volunteer Scouters think. We invite you to comment on the plan by one of the three following methods:

By mail to CNJC Executive Board, 2245 US Hwy 130 South, Suite 106, Dayton, NJ 08810-2420;

By fax to (609) 419-4186; or

By e-mail to cnjckey3@scouting.org

 

Please make sure that your comments are sent to be received by the close of business on December 15th; the comments will be tallied and distributed to the Executive Board members prior to their vote. Due to time constraints, only comments submitted in writing will be distributed to the Executive Board. We will not be able to include verbal comments in the tally and report. As always, we thank you for your service to Scouting and to the youth members of our council.

 

 

Yours in Scouting,

 

 

John K. Smith Marc C. Richardson Gerard G. Case

Council President Scout Executive Council Commissioner

 

[Oak Tree]

This strikes me as a pretty well-written notification. It lays out the issues clearly, identifies what would have to change and why that is unlikely, and overall makes it difficult to argue against the recommendation.

 

I suppose if I had more information it might be possible to make some other argument (if I were in that council and knew why no units went there, and knew why that could actually chang, for example.) But as it is, it sounds like there are lots of camps close enough that the troops prefer, so it's not clear that this camp is really useful in an economic sense. The great thing about capitalism is that people vote with their dollars, and they end up getting more of what they want and less of what they don't want. Apparently, not enough people really wanted what KMSR had to offer.

[BadenP]

I agree with Oak Tree and I doubt this came as any surprise to scouters in the council. When you don't support your council camp this is what you can expect will happen, and it sounds like it is way too late to try and save it now with all the problems the property has, the time for pointing fingers is long gone. This kind of thing is happening all over the USA in other councils, sometimes its due to poor council management, but in this case it looks like pure apathy on the part of the scout leaders was mostly responsible.

[Eagle92]

I hate to see a camp close, but know why it happens. For those units that do not go to your council's summer cmap on a regular basis, or even summer camp at all, this can happen in your council

[BklynEagle]

Though I feel sorry for you, Balding, at least CNJC had the decency to inform all of you that they're looking to close KMSR, unlike GNYC, which only put out a press release (and nothing more) regarding its hope to sell Camp Pouch (See: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=260032 - GNYC Seeks to Sell Camp Pouch). Additionally, I must applaud CNJC for offering Scouters the opportunity to make their opinions known on the matter, again, unlike GNYC. I guess it just goes to show that Manhattanites really are the scourge of all that is good and right.

[John-in-KC]

This looks far more transparent than many of the camp closures we've seen on this list.

 

Bottom line: You have to take care of your property and keep it in code. That looks to be the single biggest challenge here.

[emb021]

"I agree with Oak Tree and I doubt this came as any surprise to scouters in the council. When you don't support your council camp this is what you can expect will happen, and it sounds like it is way too late to try and save it now with all the problems the property has, the time for pointing fingers is long gone. This kind of thing is happening all over the USA in other councils, sometimes its due to poor council management, but in this case it looks like pure apathy on the part of the scout leaders was mostly responsible."

 

Sadly, there are some scouters out there (and you KNOW you've met these in your council) who seem PROUD of the fact that they DON'T support their council. They seem to think that donations to the council will JUST go to salaries, forgetting that it ALSO goes to support their camp(s), training events, and other things the council does.

 

They lose sight of the fact that WE are OUR COUNCIL. But I think some councils cause this themselves when they fill their board with just outsiders and not ensure their board includes some of the main volunteers in the council...

 

[shortridge]

Supporting your council camp doesn't automatically translate into attending it.

 

If the program stinks, the facilities are sub-par and the leadership poor, why should anyone go to a given camp? Scouts' summer camp experience shouldn't have to suffer just because of some misguided notion of loyalty. (The second part of the Scout Law does not require blind loyalty, folks.)

 

Troops and Scouts vote with their feet, as they should. This may be a case where it really *is* up to the professionals, not the volunteers, to strengthen and then aggressively market their camp as a destination. Strengthening without marketing or marketing without strengthening isn't going to get you what you need, which is a full camp.

[shortridge]

The Northeast Region, with the support of the National Council, recently conducted an in-depth study of camping operations throughout the region. As a result of that study, they developed a list of the fifteen traits of successful camps, dealing mainly with finances, attendance, and proximity of other councils properties. A no answer to any one of the items was a red flag that something needed attention. We had nine red flags on the list.

 

 

Additionally: Is anyone familiar with this study and its results, more broadly for NER? Or about the 15 traits of successful camps?

 

[Eagle92]

Short,

You are correct in that you don't have to have blind loyalty to your camp. But I do have to offer a few comments

 

But do support the OA which helps maintain the camp. I've noticed that the troops that go OOC usually are not involved with the OA. And this does hurt the council camp

 

Attend your local summer camp once in a while and/or do one of the specialty programs. I understand if scouts love a certain summer camp, but variety can help break the monotomy. Also some camps that had earned a bad rep have been inproved since a unit may have last attended. Also a leader can take the best of Camp A's programs and facilities and offer these ideas to Camp B. One example I can give is the troop that hadn't been to the camp I worked at in 12 years, yep 12 years. Trust me the camp had changed alot in the 12 years, all for the better.

 

As for specialty programs, do take advantage of them. NYLT, high adventure programs, skills weekends, etc are ways to help the camp, help improve future summer camp program, and help the scouts.

 

And if see your camp having problems, COMPLAIN Seriously though, politely, that's the key politely, bring it up to people's attention and then offer ideas to resolve the problem.

[BadenP]

shortridge

 

If the camp program stinks then step in with the other scout leaders put the council camping committee on notice, and offer to help change it. A camp as a piece of land where you can bring your troop camping is a valuable resource just in itself, and once its gone its gone forever. This loss of council camps is becoming a nationwide epidemic which is very disturbing. Council boards look at selling camps as an easy way to get out of debt without ever considering the blood sweat and tears scouters and scouts have put in over the years to maintain it. IMHO a council camp is like a sacred trust to protect and nurture for future generations of scouts, not a disposable asset to use as collateral for a debt caused by fiscal mismanagement of council executives.

[scoutldr]

I never understood the "support your local camp" argument (for summer camp). If the facilities and program are competitive, you will get OOC troops to make up for the ones who go to other camps. I don't know of ANY troops any more who go to the same camp year after year. As I am fond of saying, the metric should be "butts in cots"...doesn't matter what CSP is on their shoulder. In fact, OOC is better, because we charge them more. We even have senior scouts and Venturers who STAFF OOC camps...because they are paid better and are treated better. If people are not staffing or attending your camp, look in the mirror and ask why, then FIX it. Don't blame the volunteer unit scouters.

[Narraticong]

Regardless the reason behind it, this is news which deeply saddens me. Kittatinny Mountain Scout Reservation was my boyhood camp. I served on Summer Camp Staff there as a young man while in college. It was never a very fancy camp, but it was mine. I take my screen name from the OA Lodge which had KMSR as its home. The thought of our very special cermonial ground becoming part of just another suburban backyard breaks my heart. Having lived in Michigan now for thirty three years, I have not made it back to that camp since the mid-80's. Looks like I'll have to make a trip soon and take one more hike through those beautiful mountains.

 

As to blaming the professionals, shame on us for doing that. The boys and the volunteer adults own these properties, not the professionals. If your camp is not up to code and does not offer what you want, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! The professionals work for us, not the other way around. Get active with your camping committee. Tell them what you want, and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! How many of you wear OA flaps but have not paid dues or done a single arduous task since your Ordeal? Labor is a huge portion of the cost of any project. I think it is safe to assume that every OA Lodge is chuck full of skilled tradesman who would/could help with upgrades.

 

Ken

[AvidSM]

KMSR is a victim of the ten year old merger between the T. Edison and G. Washington Councils. KMSR was Edison's camp, while YCSR was Washington's. The new Central New Jersey Council still has some of the old alliances left over from the merger, so getting full support for either camp was politically impossible. Now that there will be only one camp for the CNJC, perhaps they can put their full weight into getting YCSR into shape. Probably not as a resident camp, but for weekend camping, training and high adventure (the AT is just a short hike up the mountain).

[shortridge]

BadenP,

 

I agree with you on the "sacred trust" issue, 100 percent.

 

< smacks side of head > Did I just say I agreed with him? Must be getting senile. lol...

 

And I also agree with Eagle92 about how camps can change, and about support through the OA.

 

What I don't buy into is the overall mindset that castigates people for attending OOC camps. Offer a better program and communicate it in an effective manner, and you'll get those units back. And the communication is key - I get embarrassed when I see some camping promotions efforts ... lousy videos with 10-year-old footage, brochures that haven't been proofread or spellchecked, Web sites that don't have updated info and are hard to navigate. That's entirely in the pros' bailiwick.

 

After looking more closely at this case, it sounds like there are two major unanticipated capital projects that are just massive budget-busters (a leaking dam and failed septic system - ugh). I'm not sure how stronger attendance from in-council units over the last 10 or so years would have helped that, unless the council had built up a really strong camp maintenance fund or endowment. And whose council has done that?