Some Ideas I Intended to Suggest to Dorion Bible Camp
Upon Resumption of Duties
Presented Dec. 17/03

I give this context, because it is may be plainly obvious to the reader that the ideas below and also those here from MPC are related mainly to the surface of things. As such, they are only of limited value. The MPC ideas in some cases do touch on deeper issues of "ethos", which I understood to be the main issues re. DBC's "New Direction".

When I refer here and elsewhere to DBC's "New Direction", it is for the following reasons:

1) In my March 31/04 mtg with the Board I was told of their meeting at which a local Christian leader raised these questions of ethos with them and the impact that such matters can have on their constituency. As part of proceeding with our "reintegration" process, I was required to agree to this process of revamping. Based on prior conversations I had had with that leader, I felt I understood what the issues were and was happy to move ahead with addressing them.

2) Shortly thereafter I understood that local leader to confirm my understanding of the situation, that is, that it has more to do with underlying approaches to ministry and not just new ideas for games.

3) At the March 25/04 Fundraising Banquet a board member told the crowd of this process of reviewing "everything" about the ministry and making changes. I can't say for certain that the words "New Direction" were spoken. However, he referred to reviewing various aspects of which I remember "programme" and even "staffing". I am reading back into this announcement the information I gained in 1) and 2).

He affirmed, however, that the vision of DBCCC would remain the same. I would suggest, however, that the Vision Statement should not be seen as beyond revision from time to time. But in any case, a change in "direction" (or "approach", "ethos", "attitude", "style"?) does not necessarily require such a revision. It has more to do with attitudes and forms of implementation than basic goals.

[July 8/05: The recent newspaper article re. Mt. Lister suggests to me that the vision of the Conference Centre has indeed been changed -- which IMO is a good thing. Back c. 2000/2001 it was very clear in board mtgs that the C.C. was for Christian groups only. I was not happy with that but it was the established vision at the time. In addition to any philosophical questions I had, it didn't seem possible to maximize the CC's use drawing only on (Evangelical) Christian groups in the area -- without an extremely aggressive marketing plan to induce such groups to travel the distance and pay the cost. We had no such plan at the time, but even if we did, I still had my doubts as to how successful it could be.

The CJ article (unless it is inaccurate -- always a possibility!!) indicates that all sorts of groups are now being sought as potential users of the facilities for team-building exercises etc. I think that is a good and wise change.

Let no one dare say that "old" Richard wanted a Christians-only facility. Hey, I was there in 1986 when we rented the Camp to Canada World Youth and held a dance!]

When I heard a "review of staffing", even then I was a bit worried that this might later be used as a way to say that, as part of such a process, Richard had been found wanting and let go, possibly saying (inaccurately) that I was resistant to the New Direction. I did hear indirectly that one board member still described me as "resistant to change". I am no more resistant to change than the average person and I am certainly not resistant to the "New Direction" change. I trust the board member who spoke at the Dinner as a sincere man and would therefore hope that in the interests of fairness and thoroughness that the review of "staffing" has been applied to the same degree to the other staff. If all such talk of revamping, new direction etc. were to disappear I sadly couldn't help wondering if my fears re. "review of staffing" were not, in fact, valid, after all. I suppose they are welcome to change their minds and decide to stick with the tried and true. That would be a mistake IMO and I would think they should announce that decision as well.

(However, I was reasonable happy at the time because I was announced at the Dinner as DBCCC's P.D., one of the full-time staff went out of her way to wish me Happy Birthday and a volunteer told me that he had been told by another f-t-staff that yes, I would be at camp that summer. Well, of course, I would. I was simply on a Health LOA and had been declared healthy.)

4) I had actually been using the words "New Approach" (which I still think is preferable) until the July 9/04 article by Cathi Arola in "The Chronicle Journal" which used the words "New Direction". (BTW I appeared with Cathi in the 2003 One Act Play Festival.)

Thus I see the ideas I have below and elsewhere as existing primarily on the top layer and certainly such discussions need to take place. But more importantly below that are the questions of new direction, approach, ethos, management style etc. BUT even below that are spiritual, emotional, relational questions, which contribute to the overall health of the org'n which cannot be addressed by merely rearranging the surface. I have no doubt that every board member and full-time staff member would agree with that in principle, although likely they would disagree with me on the specifics.

So barring that possibility, I would suggest
1) Continued discussions with the local leader (and others). I believe that s/he is onto something and knows what s/he is talking about.
2) Involving some sort of Christian ministry/management consultant. Among many other pieces of info I believe s/he would need to see would be
     a) anything pertaining to the "New Direction" (including minutes of the mtg with the local leader, if any, and the minutes
        of my Mar. 31/04 mtg with the Board)
     b) my Dec. 17/03 report to the Board with my goals for smoothing my return (and IMO basically improving the functioning
        of DBCCC).*
     c) the counsellor's report and recommendations.**
     d) conversations with former board members.**

I think the consultant would benefit from the ideas found here and on the MPC page, too, just because I think they're worth something. Obviously there are many other opinions and suggestions which could be sought as well. Ultimately, the Board and staff have to sort through all of that (in focus groups, surveys, feedback forms etc.). I hope they will consider some of my ideas, even if they are unhappy with the source. And obviously I have no patent on these ideas!

* = I recommend this because it simply gives one POV into the state of the org'n at that point which impacted on its current state -- even though I am now gone. Yes, there are other POVs. Likely the truth exists somewhere in between them. The recommended process would have helped us work through those divergences of opinion. Some of my suggestions from that document are found here (re. "annual cycle" etc.).

** = Some might balk at items that appear to be "digging too much into the past" and not moving forward. At the March 31/04 I was told that "this" is the "the starting point". After some discussion I think I convinced any who needed convincing that learning from the past is valuable. However, in my mind the difference between that and holding the past against someone is clear (especially in an org'n of forgiveness). From where I stand now, it appears to me that that distinction was not applied in my case, after all.

I recommend c) and d) because they could help the consultant have a better idea of the present by seeing how they got there, and possibly what patterns existed in that past which need to be addressed for the future.

--Name tags
--Campers help plan campfires (pick songs etc.)
--Tuck included in fee (one pop plus one choc bar or chips)
--Cabin Covenant arrived at by campers and their cabin staff first night
--Fire Drill on the first night
--Year Logs (each camper or staff adds a particular log to his/her necklace coloured and decorated according to a pattern to depict year, week and role at camp. Ask Becky.)
--Brief Liturgical call and response worship elements on overheads
--Bible teacher takes questions and more or less goes with the flow of the questions
--Skits at campfire
--Everyone (including staff) signs a waiver re. swimming
--A different version of Staff Hunt
--More Bibles for lending
--Explain how to navigate around the Bible (& even how to open a new book)
--Sasi water available for all for drinking
--Different, larger, better (IMO) design for Schlockey
--Ring toss game
--Repeating certain meals (such as M.Y.O. sub sandwiches) during a week is okay.
--Cabin Staff (partial-)"Night Out"

From Round Lake

--Small compound bows (Ask Mark Arnold if he knows where they came from.)
--The week I visited they had a schedule arranged in such a way that on a rainy morning there could be a half hour sleep-in (in co-operation with the Kitchen). For us it would mean that our standard schedule would switch “Major” with afternoon games. Thus on a rainy day, we’d sleep in and morning games would be shortened by half an hour, but campers wouldn’t lose any of their activity time in the afternoon.

Generally (most of these have been on my mind to some degree for a few years)
--make our (formal) teaching times less school-like, i.e. more interactive and in small groups or cabin-centred. A recent Christianity Today article suggests that this is the approach of camps that are growing. I also have ideas for middle ground between the two views.
--In connection with the above idea, have 2 or 3 “speakers” a week who speak to campers in smaller groups, move among them during the day, making connections and being available to provide counsel (subject to child protection policies). They can help with activities and teams, too. This provides more “teaching” not less, but done relationally, not academically.
--Use Website more purposefully including for follow-up [in addition to promotion, news and camper/staff recruitment]. Recently I learned that CSSM policy does allow off-site linking.
--Equip the campers each week with what they need to break the power of secrecy, a “protocol” for reporting abuse by anyone (not focused on their cabin leader). [I believe the board decided that this would begin to be done in '03 and I think it was.]
--Do away with flag raising and free up ten minutes in the morning. [The morning is where the schedule is tightest.]
--Revise the summer schedule and ages radically to reduce staffing difficulties, especially for specialized activities requiring much supervision and knowledge. Suggestion: Two Skills Weeks --Senior (12 & up) and a Junior (12 & under). We concentrate on finding specialized staff for these weeks only. Then have 3 or 4 other age-based weeks where the activities offered are less intense and are only those for whom we have instructors. Revise or do away with the Eagle system.
--Design a logo that reflects the exciting message of the Bible rather than its physical shape.
--Use focus groups for this and other ideas.

Plus (listed in another doc)
--a suggested annual cycle of planning/evaluation meetings (including an annual discussion of job descriptions in order better to share tasks falling between the cracks).
--personality inventories of all full-time with mediated discussion to apply the knowledge gained in order to avoid pitfalls of personality clashes.
--more consistent of use of performance reviews.*
--clarification of how CSSM/DBCCC and the local church can co-operate in pastoral care for CSSMers. Though CSSM is supposedly and arm of the local church, there was NO attempt by them to involve my pastor/elders in their actions, supposedly undertaken for my good. My leaders were left in the dark as much as I was.

(It is my opinion that had we been making use of these four ideas consistently, we would have avoided our crisis.)

Back to "Life After Camp".

* = I greatly regret not insisting that my two immediate supervisors annually evaluate me in writing. Thus, when this LOA matter arose, instead of having an empty personnel file (except for two standard health forms), I believe I would have had a paper trail of generally good evaluations, possibly with clearly articulated shortcomings and goals for improvement and (I believe) an indication of improvement the next year in those areas. I would have known the specifics of what my bosses wanted. (I believe that CSSM is now mandating such a system.)

I never had major dissatisfactions with my Assistants and so I didn't use such a system with them. But this experience led me to plan to do so in the future, whether management above me practised it or not, for my assistants' greater improvement and (in the hypothetical case of dissatisfaction) to protect them and me and provide a known path for reconciliation/improvement.