gpurlee

captkeating - welcome to the forum

I am encouraged. He has a work history that indicates he is innovative and has adapted to changing environments throughout his career. He appears to be talented at leading skilled staff members.  I do know that the Scouting organization will need outstanding leadership if it is to provide meaningful program amidst a lot of headwinds and challenges.  It is impressive that the organization sought leadership outside of traditional route of internal promotion. Yet his personal history suggests that he has an appreciation for the value of the Scouting program. 

I hope that we are reaching the point where we can focus on the future and reaching more youth with exemplary programs.  Time will tell,

Forbes has a good background article. Leidos CEO Roger Krone Looks Back On A Stellar Career, And Reflects On What He Has Learned (forbes.com)

A friend of mine has been on-site with the American contingent at the WSJ. Some of his comments include:

(1) The parts of the jamboree that they were able to participate with were very good. The interactions with Scouts from around the world were outstanding. Many made it a special point to visit the American contingent before they were bussed out.

(2) Communication with the BSA contingent participants and the top leadership was poor. They were disappointed that their input felt ignored and the perception was that decisions appeared to being made by officials housed in air-conditioned hotel rooms who seemed very removed from the actual site. 

(3) Conditions varied on site but were not as bad in their location as reported by the media. 

(4) While very appreciative of the military accommodations, they were crowded and uncomfortable. Participants were confined to base and there was essentially no outside communication available. Scouts remarked that the neckerchiefs should feature prison stripes.

(5) His perception was that the BSA contingency planning was really lacking and a there will need to be a lot of evaluation before another major jamboree is held. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of blame to go around. It clearly is an embarrassment to the WOSM, the BSA and the South Korean government leadership and certainly a disappointment to participants. 

(6) A lot of effort goes into trying to make these super events such as the National and World jamborees highlight experiences for the participants. It is clear that issues such as staffing shortages, increasing unpredictable weather patterns and growing expenses on organizations that are already financially strained make it more and more challenging to ensure not only the quality but perhaps even the safety of participants.  Are we on the verge of a major rethink of these super events?

It sounds like this is an unmitigated disaster that goes beyond the extreme heat and rests with poor planning and preparation.  Ultimately the host organization bears the primary responsibility for ensuring safe conditions and contingency plans. This unfortunately is likely to have a lasting impact on future jamborees when thousands of participants have a horrible experience. I am very sorry for those involved. There will be months of evaluation and review that will affect all future planning and decisions.

 I believe that the next world jamboree was scheduled for Poland but the war in neighboring Ukraine has led the world organization to look for other potential venues. This includes the Summit site. However, the cycles between the US national jamboree and the world jamboree are now identical.   It would take some major timing adjustments. And if the present world jamboree (or national jamboree for that matter) turns out to be a significant financial loss, then there will be even more hesitancy to host a future jamboree.

When I started this thread on December 4, 2020, I did not envision it would still be active two and a half years later. I did sense at that time that major changes were likely to occur in the relationship with chartered [partners. A two billion dollar plus lawsuit leaves a lot of wreckage in its wake.  And I suspect that we will continue to see a lot of damage to long established relationships. 

In our case, our United Methodist Church had chartered a troop continuously since early 1911. One of the oldest units in the nation.  We were a Scouting congregation with deep roots. It all came to an end at the beginning of this year. It was pretty clearcut to our church board when the conference legal representative advised that we sever the charter relationship not just due to liability issue but also the inability of our aging congregation to provide the high level of oversight needed. We were cautioned that a defense against even a fraudulent claim in the future could cost up to $500,000 and would be very energy and emotionally draining for the church to endure.

The good news for the troop is that it continues to meet in the facility and that little has changed in terms of what the Scouts experience. We are a supportive and benevolent landlord.  However, the Cub Pack soon collapsed and was incorporated into a neighboring pack which our troop has a good relationship. 

I heard that the negotiations at the national level were difficult and adversarial at times between the BSA and the United Methodist Church. I sense that a lot of trust was lost in the process that may take a long time to regain, if ever. I think that the local councils and congregations were essentially spectators in much of this process. I wonder if the chartered partner relationship will survive over the long haul or if we will totally shift to a new model.

It has been painful and heartbreaking to watch as this situation unfolded. For everyone involved.  And especially for those who were abused.

Welcome to the forum.   Our troop is over 100 years old and we were able to purchase recreator's World War 1 uniforms on-line several years ago. Another troop had made replica period patches and shirt buttons and we were able to purchase some of them also.  One of the harder items to acquire were the red felt troop numbers. 

More clarity is emerging around the issue of the UMC chartering Scouting units, it appears. 

First, the official line from conference and national leadership appears to be that UMC congregations should use the new affiliation model or drop chartering all together and only offer a facility use agreement. While traditional chartering apparently still remains an option, it is very strongly discouraged.

The reasons:

Liability for adult selection - the BSA has resources beyond the local congregation to vet applicants including use of the ineligible volunteer files and national background checks. Let the BSA fully assume that responsibility and liability for adult selection which in many ways they are better suited to do.

Supervision - Congregations are legally responsible for supervising programs that they "own." Many of the local congregations which are aging and declining in membership simply do not have the resources to adequately supervise Scouting programs yet are being held responsible in the courts for doing so.

Insurance - several of the UMC providers are refusing to provide coverage to local UMC congregations that sponsor Scouting. After a billion dollars of losses in the bankruptcy case, this is not unexpected. This affects insurance coverage for all other UMC programs.

On another front, several councils appear to be (reluctantly?) adopting the affiliation model as an option while reminding units that the traditional charter is available. The reality is that local councils devasted by the impact of covid on membership are now confronted with the potential additional loss of up to 30% of their units if the UMC drops Scouting. How many additional large membership hits can the BSA take following the loss of the LDS church, covid impact, and negative publicity?

An observer has to wonder if other chartered partners are very carefully watching this unfold and if this UMC BSA affiliation model will be the wave of the future for Scouting in general?

I hope to start a conversation about high performing Scouting units. Any of us who have been around Scouting for a while can probably name a troop or a pack that really stands out in our area whether we define the area as a community, district or council. Those are the units that other units often look up to as the example of "Good Scouting."  The ones that they strive to become.  And often, year after year, they seem to stand out.

So, what is a high performing unit? For the moment, I am focusing on troops although many of the same qualities apply for great packs. Well ...  All of us can probably name some qualities. Perhaps good retention? Maybe great recruitment? Skilled and passionate adult leadership? Boy-led? Strong advancement? Tremendous high adventure opportunities? And what can we learn from these units?

While there is no rigid criteria, there certainly have been efforts such as the Journey to Excellence to focus on a few common key characteristics. In another posting, I hope to share what some research and some of the "best minds" in Scouting suggest. For this post, to begin the conversation, I want to pose a couple of questions:

(1) Have you personally observed a "great unit - pack or troop" (using your definition of greatness )?

(2) If so, what made it great?

2 hours ago, dk516 said:

Look at the two countries running high membership numbers above: both recently rebounded in almost 2-digit percentage numbers after years of losses. Scouts UK states "Our waiting list now sits at 90,000 young people". When have we heard about a waiting list for finding BSA units the last time? 

Switzerland just had its national Jamboree this summer after 14 years of absence. They managed to motivate 60% of their members to attend. Leading up to the event was a National Scouts campaign for 2 weeks spotlighting Swiss Scouts during national TV prime time every evening (not shiny marketing but real participants and volunteers over 3 generations). National media had their own onsite production outlet during the Jamboree with daily coverage. I think up to now I have heard about the 2023 Jamboree in national prime time TV once, and again in negative or political context rather than positive values.

Some observations about Swiss Scouting or Pfadi. We hosted a young man for a semester who was a Pfadi member (he is now finishing medical school). When we visited his family in 2014 he showed some of their Scouting program.

(1) Very community owned with many towns and villages supporting a scout house for meetings.

(2) Very much more youth led than in the USA with most of the unit leadership being in their 20's.

(3) Older (than in their 20's) adults were essentially relegated to fund-raising and board functions. Most of us would be on the sidelines.

(4) The Rover program (18 to 25) was very active in both leadership and activities. There was a high social aspect to the Rover program.

(5) Scouting appeared to be much more a part of the Swiss outdoor culture.

(6) Perceived by Scout age youth as being "cool". Neckers were the typical wear instead of uniforms.

(7) Almost totally volunteer operated with very few professional Scouters in the entire country.

(8) The majority of expenses were on direct youth activities and a very few limited regional Scouting facilities.  Summer camp often was in a farmer's field with high program ownership by the youth, and young adult leaders.

(9) While the international Kandersteg is in the Swiss Inter-Lochen region, surprisingly few Swiss scouts seemed to attend. I guess if it is in your own backyard, it loses some of its fascination.

(10) Much less structured and regulated (at least when we visited).  It is worth noting than the culture is very different. It is very common for a 15-year-old to jump on the train (excellent, cheap public transit) and travel with friends across the country or into a neighboring country for the day or weekend (good hostels are available). 

So, there are significant structural, cultural and program differences. Hard to compare in some ways but definitely some ideas worth considering.

Wow. I suspect that this case will be studied for years to come in business and law schools, perhaps around the world.

In speaking to persons directly working on the settlement, a common theme is the need for tort reform in our nation.  

2 hours ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I wish that would be communicated officially.  I had rather not find a new CO to then find it wasn't necessary.

We were told to expect an official announcement by the end of the month.  The person telling us, who has been a very reliable source, stated that it was in the final national review process, awaiting final approval by both the BSA and the UMC.

In our case, our units have made contingency plans regardless of the direction this process takes. Our UMC sponsor of 111 years definitely wants to maintain a strong relationship and involvement. Just not quite sure what form this will ultimately take.

3 hours ago, yknot said:

That's LDS. I think the $30 mil from UMC is still in it. The promise to help fundraise an additional $100 million was I believe dropped from the side deal regarding rechartering between the BSA and the UMC scout committee. 

I believe you are correct. And that other UMC conferences are expected to follow the lead of your conference and assign assessments to local congregations. Yes, for many UMC congregations, even paying apportionments for conference and district expenses is beyond their financial capabilities. Unfortunately, this assessment is likely to leave a lingering concern about the wisdom of chartering a local unit(s). 

We continue to be told that the traditional charter will be an option from both top-level council and conference sources. And that the insurance coverage will be strengthened and broadened even more in the future.

Our troop offered a weeklong aquatics camp as an option this summer. It was one of three weeklong opportunities offered to our approximately 25 active Scouts.  Several of our older youth attended the national Seabase program. We also had a well-attended session at our local council camp. The aquatics camp was more aimed at the younger and middle-aged (13 to 14-year-old) Scouts but had surprisingly good attendance from several of the older Scouts. Many of the Scouts attended two of the three options. The aquatics camp was based out of our own troop camp, so expenses were minimal (less than half of the council camp fees). For the first four days, Scouts journeyed to a nearby lake using canoes rented from the council as well as our own kayaks to work on canoeing and kayaking skills. Lots of instruction and fun water events. In the evening were other fun activities, a movie night and a presentation by a K-9 officer who is one of our Eagle Scouts. The camp wrapped up with a canoe trek on a nearby river.  We were very pleased with the adult support and turnout with an average of seven adults present on a daily basis. BTW, we have excellent lodging accommodations available for the adults at the camp which certainly helped encourage some parents.  Scouts tent camped by patrol adjacent to the main bunkhouse. 

8 hours ago, EEEagle74 said:

fter thinking about the concept of the Charter Organization a lot over the past 40 years (I've got a few stories that helped form my opinions!), I've concluded that the safest and least risk approach to supporting UMC Scouting units comes from the traditional charter agreement, new BSA insurance provisions, and a congregation that incorporates the Scouts into the church's ministry and takes its Charter Agreement responsibilities seriously.  YPT (and adherence thereto), coupled with the UMC Safe Sanctuary program ably address - but can never eliminate - CSA concerns.  However, a church that can't take an active role in the life of its units shouldn't be a CO!  And thinking an LC would be anything other than a disaster as a CO (the Affiliation Agreement approach) is just foolishness.

Excellent points! I am going out on a limb a bit and speculate that we will see some significant revisions in the possible options before the end of this month. First, I think that a revised traditional model will be an option with expanded insurance coverage and a caveat or expectation that UMC chartered organizations must play an active role with their unit(s) including active oversight. 

Second, I think we will also see a revised affiliate model offered that will attempt to address some of the concerns of the councils. While I am not sure what form this will take, I believe that the national BSA will strongly encourage local councils to be receptive to this option. First, with the current dramatic drop in membership, national recognizes that it cannot afford to lose the support of yet another major sponsor of Scouting.  This has major implications not only in terms of membership (for some councils UMC units represent thirty percent or more of the council units) but also reduces a significant long-term donor base AND the credibility of the program. A mass exodus of the UMC units is likely to trigger second thoughts by other national chartered organizations.

So, what encouragement (pressure) can national exert on local councils? The local councils may be "independent self-governing" local organizations. However, the advancement opportunities for local council executives and other ranking council professionals are dependent in part in their being viewed as "team players" in order to be recommended for positions in other councils or national level opportunities.  It would be a safe bet that we will see a major consolidation of councils following approval of the bankruptcy settlement.  And this consolidation will limit the number of both existing and future high-level positions within councils or regional or national level positions.  So, yes there will be subtle or not so subtle encouragement to fall in line with the national position.

Pacan- at this stage things are in flux. I would not read too much in until we learn more. 
Also, the plural task forces referred to the BSA group AND the UMC group that are meeting together. Not sure if there are any other subgroups. Just to clarify.

Council Scout executives have received notice from the national territory (office) that UMC units will automatically remained chartered through the end of this year. Previously this extension was through October. 

The communication indicated that discussions continue between the UMC and the BSA task forces which may lead to modifications in the proposed affiliation agreement.

It is clear that the task forces have received a lot of feedback from councils, UMC churches and units and there is an effort at the national level to respond.

What is becoming clear is that, at this moment, the councils are all over the board regarding the best route to move forward regarding the UMC and the affiliation agreement.

Our council just sent a letter to all UMC units that included this statement:

There are several options moving forward to support our partners that still includes the current traditional charter method.

This was sent out under the signature of the council executive and the UMC conference Scouting coordinator.

Some councils have stated that they will not accept the affiliation model due to a lack of staffing resources or other factors. I think that there is a real concern that if the UMC affiliation model is accepted, other chartered organizations will follow their lead. In addition, our council has suggested that there would likely be additional fees to cover the costs for council owned units. And that the council owned units would be expected to be model units with hints that would include strong participation in council fund-raisers, Friends of Scouting campaigns and other council projects. It is clear that council leadership would prefer units move to another chartered partner rather than an affiliation model. If the traditional model is no longer an option and councils balk at the affiliation model, that will essentially force the UMC out of Scouting, I fear. 

Can national pressure or force local councils to accept the affiliation model? Interesting question given the bankruptcy arguments that the local councils are essentially independent entities.  But nevertheless, ones that are linked with a common purpose and shared interests and are interdependent as the judge pointed out in her comments. National has to be hearing the concerns that local councils lack the manpower and resources (and desire) to adopt the affiliation model. 

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

In reality, I think lawsuits against most COs will be very limited.  First, the lawsuits are limited to pre 1976 so victims are likely in the range of mid 50s to 90s.  Second, there will be limits from statue of limitations (yes, you can fight that, but it is tough).  Third, cases cost a lot of money to fight (on both sides) so lawyers will want to ensure a big pay day if they start a case (and given insurance settlements, may be wary).

I would concur with your assessment. This potentially could change in those states that in the future add a look back window in the state statute of limitations for compelling cases. 

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

We will have to wait and see.  Definitely complex.  While per the BSA the COs are protected going forward, I fully understand why some (Methodist & Elks) are looking to change their relationship to prevent any further risk.

And the United Methodists and the Elks will not be alone I suspect as more and more chartered organizations recognize the potential risks AND the demands of providing adequate oversight. I have to wonder how long the current model of chartering organizations can exist for a variety of reasons. 

11 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Got a letter from Council today regarding the issue.  Pretty much....  "Uhhh, that part about Option 1 we were talking about... forget that, thats not really an option.  You can sign an Affiliation Agreement or Facilities Use Agreement and that's all your choices"

It signed by Steven Schied and our SE.

Days like this I get dizzy from my rolling my eyes.  

The landscape around this issue keeps shifting. If indeed the traditional model (option 1) is no longer available (we were told by council and conference level officials that it will be) and option 2 - the affiliation agreement will not be accepted by the council (will this be a council by council decision?); then that leaves only option 3. Until option 4 appears, I suppose. 

38 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Big issue is Cub Scouts.  I would love to know that number.  It recovered some post Covid, but I think we will struggle with numbers as the Covid dip starts hitting Troops.  

In our council we took an almost 70% hit in Cub membership during the height of pandemic. Yes, that will play out over several years not only in terms of youth but also adult leadership. In addition, several units simply collapsed totally. Forming what is essentially a new unit is more difficult than reviving a struggling unit that still has some structure remaining.

42 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

667K seems incredibly low... 

Yes it does, especially considering that we were closer to two million members before the loss of the LDS and the pandemic.  However, our council has gone from 15,000 to less than 5,000 members in that time period.  It is very difficult for any business or organization to withstand that level of loss in that short of a time period without major restructuring and other adjustments. And I expect to soon see those changes occur following the approval of the settlement whenever that occurs. 

2 hours ago, PACAN said:

The UMC sponsors about 20% of all units and probably about 20% of the remaining membership.  With the church decision to no longer sponsoring units, what is the impact?  How many units will be able to fins a new sponsor and I've heard no one who thinks being sponsored by their LC is a good solution.  Any of you heard of how/if your LCs are going to do this?

 

In our council, UMC represents closer to 30% of both membership and total units. Our council is clearly reluctant to endorse the affiliate model. Their stated concerns are a lack of professional staff to oversee the process, increased costs such as accounting and auditing and a very undermanned commissioner staff to visit and monitor units.  The national guidance apparently indicates that it should be volunteers who approve leadership, ensure youth protection is in place and fulfill the other duties of a chartered organization. Their strong preference appears to be that UMC affiliated units seek alternative chartered organizations. Unfortunately, the council seems to be willing to walk away from more than a one-hundred-year partnership at this point despite urgings from the national council. If the affiliate model is forced upon them, council leadership has suggested that the "council units" may be assessed a (significant) fee to cover the additional expense to the council. 

Given the loss of many of the evangelical churches, the LDS Church, most schools, the Elks, several Roman Catholic churches (at least in our area) among others, one has to wonder how many chartered organizations remain willing and available to sponsor Scouting if the UMC is no longer a significant sponsor?

7 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

Why do we need a National Council? It takes so much money and you do not see much at the local level.

I have spent my career in not-for-profit management at the local and regional level. The organizations included Goodwill, Easter Seals and Volunteers of America.

All of them used a very similar model to the BSA of a national organization providing charters to local affiliates. Coincidentally, all were formed in approximately the same time period and this was the model that was being used at that time.

At its best, a strong national organization provides a variety of functions and services that would be very difficult for a local affiliate or collection of affiliates to replicate on their own. These include:

• Developing and enforcing consistent organizational standards
• Serving as a uniformed national voice for the public and other stakeholders
• Providing specialized legal and human resources that local affiliates could not afford on their own
• Developing a consistent brand and providing marketing expertise and resources
• Providing a training program or academy for professionals
• Collecting and sharing information such as statistics and the development of benchmarks for affiliates to assess their own performance
• Securing national grants and other resources that can be utilized by local affiliates.
• Conducting annual conferences and on-going workshops for professional growth
• Development and maintenance of a national website and social media presence
• Developing and promoting best practices.

In my experience, a strong national organization was invaluable to the local affiliates.  A lot of that work is invisible to the general public. 

Having said that, can a national organization become bloated and out of touch with the local situation? Of course. Can it fail to provide meaningful support and value? Absolutely.

I think that the BSA is at a point where it has to take a deep breath and look at the role and the value added by the national office. The world has changed markedly for the BSA. Financial pressures from the bankruptcy as well as deep membership losses from the pandemic, loss of chartered partners and other factors will necessitate that it makes adjustments. 

And this will not just be limited to the national level as local councils struggle to adapt to a very different future. We are clearly entering a major transition period where the old operational model may no longer function, and the new model has yet to be developed. 

So, hang onto your seats!

10 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

In all of the documentation shared, this is not one of them. Not in the flow chart, not in the letters, or webpage. I don't think this is an option. 

Until we get the official set of FAQ's, we cannot be sure if the traditional model will remain. For a variety of reasons, I believe that it will be an option, but one that is very strongly discouraged.

I think that if it remains an option, very few congregations will choose it.

The task force has worked for two years to craft a model that will both protect congregations and allow Scouting to continue within the UMC. I know that our conference has issued some very strong warnings about the potential risks associated with Scouting with the advice to consult our church attorney before making a decision. How many informed congregations would choose to continue with the traditional model and the associated risks despite strong warnings from the national and conference leadership when there are safer options? Remember that this is not just a financial or insurance issue. It is also the ability of a congregation to provide the needed oversight. 

And this will put the local councils in a very challenging position. But that conversation deserves a different post.