gpurlee

I would anticipate that the statement could be as late as the evening. I would not be surprised if some final work is being done on it at this very moment. I would also not be shocked if it is delayed a day or so if they are close to an agreement or trying to reach a consensus among the key UMC stakeholders and decision-makers. Remember, this is a self-imposed deadline.

At the same time, it may turn out to be a simple progress update. 

It will probably be issued out of the Nashville national UMC headquarters which is on central time.

So, stay tuned ...

Perhaps our legal experts can weigh in but I would think there would typically be no assumption of previous liability in the transfer of a Scouting unit by one CO to another.

Here is my thinking:

The term "ownership of a unit" is used very loosely. 

Individual Scout units typically (always?) would not be legally incorporated entities in and of themselves.

In most states, the change of ownership is a multi-step process that concludes with a filing with the Secretary of State's office. There is a very specific process that must be followed including filing fees.  In most cases, you must submit paperwork on an annual or bi-annual basis to the state. This obviously does not occur on the unit level with the exception of a "Friends of Troop xyz" group which has incorporated.

The only instance that I can think a new CO would be at risk in assuming sponsorship  of an existing unit would be  if they were negligent in some way in screening and signing off on the leadership or failed to maintain appropriate future oversight. 

But, I would welcome differing opinions from those who are more knowledgeable in this area.

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I could literally see something where they’re trying to mediate this well into tonight.

That would not surprise me either. A self-imposed reporting deadline has been set. There is a lot of pressure to reach a positive resolution for all parties.  A request for prayers was made on Friday for dealing with this difficult situation for the all involved including the victims, the BSA and the UMC.  Future historians may well look back at this weekend and say it was a pivotal moment. 

An interesting twist to all of this is that some local councils are sending a message to national BSA that they do not have the manpower to adequately supervise local units under a facility model chartering plan. This is compounded with significant membership drops in many councils due to the pandemic and other factors.  Several councils are not filling current vacancies or are laying off staff. 

Another interesting piece is that several councils are apparently planning on delaying the start of annual re-chartering as long as possible. They are awaiting more information and a clearer picture of what to communicate and how to proceed.

There is growing frustration at the council level in many areas due to their lack of information and direction. They feel caught in a state of limbo and under pressure from chartered organizations.

I expect that the statement will be released via multiple routes. The Facebook page for United Methodist Scouting would be a prime source.

Also, I would monitor https://methodistscouter.org/

This announcement will go to the local conferences who will then communicate directly with local congregations who have been told to expect further information and direction. 

It is worth noting the most recent posting:

 We cannot tell what the future will hold exactly. We do know there will be The United Methodist Church and there will be a Boy Scouts of America after the bankruptcy.

Our advice below to delay chartering past Dec. 2021, is not about leaving service with youth. It is about the space to get through the valley. We are working intently with BSA National and across the gambit of chartering groups. Our vision set is to look toward the future. We are looking above the horizon to the greater purpose and future.

On Monday, September 20, the United Methodist Ad Hoc Committee on the BSA bankruptcy has stated that it will provide an update on the mediations that have been underway for months.

The approximately dozen member committee is comprised of a team of legal advisors, representatives from the United Methodist Men’s group which oversees Scouting programs for the UMC and is headed by a bishop. Their goal has been to attempt to find a way forward that is fair to victims, protects the church and allows Scouting to continue as a ministry within the UMC.  Members of the ad hoc committee have described the issues as being very complex. They have been engaged in mediations with the BSA and its legal team that have been described as stressful and contentious at times.

 At stake is a 100-year relationship that has been exceptionally strong. The UMC has been one of the two foremost leaders among chartered organizations in the number of units sponsored and the number of Scouts. The endorsement of Boy Scouting by the Methodist Church in the time of James West was critical to its credibility.  Boy Scouting initially struggled to get a foothold established in many communities and the commitment by the Methodist church gave the new movement much needed credibility and momentum.

At question for tomorrow’s announcement will be whether the ad hoc committee simply provides a progress update of on-going mediations  or whether it establishes a clear position forward in terms of the denomination’s future relationship with the BSA.

 It is clear that this relationship is under serious stress. Many would argue that it is at a crisis point that will have profound implications for both organizations. The UMC has also been in communication with many other BSA partner organizations. It is very likely that many will follow the direction set by the UMC.

It is also clear that within the ranks of the UMC, that there is a sense of betrayal by the BSA and that it has been “thrown under the bus” as the BSA has worked to resolve the bankruptcy. A reading of the statements made by UMC conference officials is almost heart-breaking. A large number of the top conference leadership have been Scouts themselves and lament the position that the denomination now finds itself.  The revelation in BSA court filings that chartered organizations may have no protection or limited coverage of BSA insurance policies was simply stunning.  This flies in the face of decades of assurances by council BSA representatives (who I suspect were equally as stunned to learn this). 

Several UMC congregations have only recently learned that they were named in bankruptcy claims. The message is clear – “they need to lawyer up” and seek legal consultation concerning their specific situation. This has hit conferences and local congregations like a tsunami. Essentially every conference has advised congregations to cease renewals of traditional charters and halt the formation of new units until the issues around the bankruptcy are resolved.

Many local churches are not waiting for future conference direction. They see the sponsorship of BSA units as being too great a liability to risk future involvement. Even in terms of a facility agreement.

This has had real implications for local councils. In many cases desperate local chartered organizations have contacted their local council for advice and direction only to be told that the council leadership have essentially been left out of the loop in terms of communication from the national organization. In many ways, they are as frustrated as the local units and chartered organizations.

The UMC at the national level has frequently communicated that they view this relationship with the BSA as an important ministry and are seeking to find a way to continue it. However, the judiciary arm of the UMC has had many concerns. Unfortunately, this has sometimes resulted in mixed messages going out. The UMC leadership is working diligently to make sure that this does not reoccur.

It is important to remember that the UMC is decentralized in many ways. The national organization provides recommendations and information for the overall organizations. However, the denomination functions in large part through local conferences which are often built around state boundaries. The conference level leadership receives the national task force recommendations and then communicates them to local congregations. The conference leadership have a LOT of discretion to determine how they communicate this message and work with their own legal advisors to apply the specific state circumstances in the message to local churches. In other words, the message and tone in one conference may sound somewhat different than in another conference.

While it may be tempting to apply the recent direction of the LDS church to the UMC situation, they are very different in some key ways. The decision making of the UMC is based at the conference level and the local church level, not with a national board. The UMC finances are not centralized and the vast majority of the assets reside with local congregations.

The UMC is like the other mainline churches and has had declining membership for decades. Most of the bankruptcy claims go back decades to a time when downtown First Methodist Church had a membership that was perhaps four or five times larger than today. The major asset of most of the local UMC churches are in their (aging) church facility. Many of the (aging) congregations struggle to pay a pastor’s salary and to keep the lights on today (in full disclosure, I am a long-time UMC member).  They have few other financial resources in most cases. So the threat of incurring significant legal expenses and potential other costs has sent a shockwave to the local churches.

Also, keep in mind, that before the pandemic, the UMC was on the verge of an imminent internal split into what might be described as conservative and progressive wings. This was placed on hold and is now resuming. And could potentially affect how these decisions play out at the local level. At the national level, the UMC soon simply will have fewer resources.

 The BSA bankruptcy has placed the UMC church in a very difficult position in attempting to balance fairness to victims, protecting its own position especially at the local congregational level as well as its future relationship with the BSA. Tomorrow’s statement from the ad hoc committee will be closely watched.

I think it is very prudent to make sure that you have your own comprehensive personal insurance coverage. CO's thought they were additional insureds only to discover that was not the case. Do you want to risk your home and other assets on the belief that someone else is providing adequate coverage for you?

Also have a frank discussion with your insurance agent about what is and what is not covered.  For example, many Scouters believe that if they followed the safe Scouting guidelines and youth protection guidelines, they would be automatically covered under the BSA. This is not necessarily the case.  Even when you are covered, the BSA insurance represents the BSA first and others secondarily.  There are instances where the two entities may not share the same common interests.

With the recent bankruptcy abuse claims, several Scouters who have been accused of wrong-doing have discovered much to their dismay that they are totally on their own to defend themselves even if they believed that they had followed all guidelines.  Personal umbrella policies may have exclusions for coverage related to sexual abuse allegations.  Defense costs in a sexual abuse allegation can reach into the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.  

Also be sure to check the deductible amounts that you may be responsible for. Even when the CO's had coverage through the BSA, they learned that in some instances they were responsible for staggering deductibles. As an individual Scouter, your leverage to negotiate with the BSA after the fact is miniscule.  It is better to know in advance how to best protect yourself against risks!

27 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And herein lies the rub because while the message they may want to be getting out is “hang in there” it’s coming across as a “abandon ship”.

And here is the conundrum: 

The Methodists do not march to the same beat or perhaps a better analogy would be that we sometimes sing on different verses in the hymnal ... much to the chagrin of the choir director.

The program ministry branch (United Methodist Men) is very focused on retaining a strong relationship. It has always been very community and socially minded - part of the denominational  "DNA".

The judiciary arm, on the other hand, is focused on protecting the conferences and local congregations. They definitely do not like the prospects of lawsuits whether they be past, present or future.

As a result, the messages are not always in sync.

Add to that, the Methodists work in dozens of semi-independent conferences that interpret and communicate issues differently.

And finally, for a "connectional church", we are amazingly stubborn and independent at times at the local level.

So, is it any wonder if there are mixed messages? And that the poor Scouting units are left spinning around?

Maybe the solution is to join around the table for a pitch-in dinner, something we all have seem to have in common as Methodists..

46 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Independent confirmation of what I had only heard rumored/suspected as the case:

UMC churches are telling units the no-recharter is explicitly (vs. implicitly) about putting leverage on BSA.

I think it is clear the UMC is using its leverage as the largest remaining chartered organization to attempt to resolve some major issues. And I think it is also clear that they are in communication and working in coordination with several other CO's.  All of them feel that there has been a very serious breach of the partnership in which the BSA has left them exposed to potentially millions of dollars in liability.

I know personally that members of the ad hoc mediation committee (composed of several chancellors (conference legal advisors), top members of the United Methodist Men's group which oversees Scouting programs for the UMC and headed by a bishop) are working diligently to attempt to negotiate a win/win solution for victims, the CO's and the BSA.  I also know that these have often been difficult and contentious negotiations.

The message to the local units from the ad hoc committee is to "hang in there". They are working rapidly to resolve these issues and to continue to support Scouting as a vital ministry.  

Unfortunately, this places both local chartering organizations and Scouting units in limbo. And one of the consequences is that we will likely see the exodus of some local chartering organizations. The mantra of the local CO's to the BSA at the moment seems to be "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." The BSA will have a lot of damage control to do. And a means to regain a sense of trust in the century old partnership will be essential.

A simple (?) question for today.

Assuming that the BSA successfully emerges from the bankruptcy in 2022,

What will it look like?

What will be the same? What will be different?

Have fun with this one ...

There is a lot of discussion and consternation today about whether we will see a mass fallout of community organizations opting to continue their association with the BSA through a traditional chartering model, a facility use agreement or perhaps no association at all.

 I am going to go back a few decades to a conversation that I had with the nation’s leading church consultant, Lyle Schaller. I think that it has relevance today. By the time he got around to our church following the aftermath of a devastating fire, Dr. Schaller had consulted with over a thousand churches. And he had already published over 40 books and countless articles. He had remarkable insights coupled with a sharp wit.

 Perhaps half of the churches with which he had consulted had or had had Scouting programs.  I still remember his conversation with me very vividly. His comments have relevance today as we look at an uncertain future.

 He stated that for the vast majority of churches, the Scouting program was only a community group housed by the church even though many of them proudly pointed to it as a part of their community and youth outreach.

 Perhaps less than ten percent of the churches truly “owned the unit” in terms of Scouting being a ministry of the church. So, what was his test?

 (1)   Did the church actively provide adult leadership, support and oversight to the Scouting program? In the past year, how many adult church members were involved with the program on a regular basis?

(2)   Were the youth of the church involved with the Scouting program? As congregations aged, churches had fewer youth and a disconnect of sorts occurred.

(3)   Did the church include the Scouting program in its budget similar to its “official” youth group, coordinate in annual program planning and regular church program committees and regularly have joint programs such as service projects, fellowship events, etc?

Clearly, by his standard, the “ownership” of Scouting as a ministry of the church required both an “informed consent” on the part of the church leadership of knowing what they were agreeing to do and a deliberate commitment of significant time, manpower and resources.

By Dr. Schaller’s test, the vast majority of churches were operating in what today would be referred to as a “facility use agreement.” The Scouting programs were not viewed as being “owned” by the church and key unit leadership often had no other connection with the church. It was not uncommon for a Scouting program to raise the ire of a church, usually by leaving the facility in an unkempt manner, and finding themselves soon afterwards seeking a new place to meet. The training and oversight provided to chartered organizations by councils and districts was often minimal.

Contrast that with the “official church youth group” of that time period. It often had a paid youth director, a budget for supplies and activities, transportation being provided through a church vehicle, scholarships for summer church camp and refreshments provided weekly by members of the church. It was clearly “owned” by the church by Schaller’s standards.

So, when we talk about facility use agreements today, I suspect that Dr. Schaller would argue that type of agreement has in reality been the prime mode of operation for most chartered organizations for the past several decades. Only in the future, the terms and conditions of the signed agreement will clearly state that. And the role of many current chartered organizations will officially be relegated to one as a landlord.

6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Loss of CO model does not automatically mean loss of meeting places. 

You are absolutely correct. What it probably means is a shift to a facility use agreement for those CO's that wish to continue to support Scouting. A couple of thoughts:

The UMC (United Methodist Church) has developed a revised facility use agreement that is much more specific than the current BSA agreement. It is clear that our conference at least is recommending that one.

Second, the shift that I have seen in the past few weeks in our area  is that the discussion has changed from whether we should do a traditional charter or a facility use agreement to whether we should support Scouting at all. It is like a pebble has started down a steep slope and an avalanche is on the verge of starting.   It really concerns our experienced Scouts and professionals. 

Eliminating Scouting is not the goal of the national UMC leadership but there is a growing trepidation at the local level about Scouting.

As moderators we are charged with a responsibility to monitor the content of this forum. All of us are volunteers and have also been involved in Scouting for a number of years. We consider it both an honor and a responsibility to be asked to moderate.

We are sensitive to the fact that we have a wide variety of readers using the forum. And this may include young readers at times.  So generally we try to maintain a G or at least a PG level discussions when it is possible. This is challenging given the nature of the topics which are discussed here.

I think the general rule is to try to avoid explicit descriptions or terms. that are sexual or violent in nature.  It is a judgement call by the individual moderator.

Also, we attempt (often unsuccessfully) to keep the focus of the thread on the original topic (is there a merit badge in cat-herding?)

Finally, we try to maintain a positive, respectful environment that values diverse opinions. More difficult than it seems.

If there are concerns or if further discussion or clarification is needed, I think that any of the moderators would be glad to discuss further.

We appreciate everyone's assistance in making this forum possible.

And I thought the Amish mafia was bad.

Seriously, let's tone down this episode of Crime in the City (Council?). We have young readers in the group and this thread is bordering inappropriate. And perhaps well past the border into verboten territory.

Sadly, I still need to learn how to hide posts    I am afraid if I fool too much with the moderator controls this entire site might disappear at wrap speed. Where is Scotty when you need him?

In our area, we are witnessing a "paradigm shift" (always liked that term) in how chartering organizations view Scouting. There is little question that the UMC's have moved to "high alert."  Where the issue earlier in the year was the traditional sponsorship vs being a facility host, there is now very serious discussion on whether a congregation should be a part of Scouting at all.

Carefully scripted conference meetings have recommended that local churches may/should consult an attorney on the issues relating to sponsoring or hosting a Scouting unit. The emphasis is that there is significant potential liability and units should carefully consider the liability and commitment issues that are involved. 

Several congregations are just now receiving the first notification of a potential claim. This is setting off a wave of angst at the local level. The full potential liability is sinking in. For those troops and packs that are not keeping in touch with national bankruptcy events, there may soon be a surprising and not so pleasant discussion with their chartered organization coming. This is not limited to the UMC units in our area by any stretch of the imagination. It comes at a very bad time when the program membership is under severe stress due to the pandemic.

The first point of the Scout law - Trustworthy - is a major issue. There is a strong sense that the BSA has reneged on its promise of insurance coverage and legal defense and is no longer a trustworthy partner. As a result, thousands of UMC congregations are now facing potentially crushing lawsuits. Just the defense cost, even when a church has not been derelict in its duties, would overwhelm many congregations. Witnessing this play out to a neighboring congregation or other chartering organization will shock many current sponsors to drop Scouting out of the fear that they might be next.

A very competent and committed UMC ad hoc task force has been working for months on this issue in mediation with the BSA.  They are attempting to hammer out a workable solution while maintaining Scouting as a ministry - and are facing strong headwinds at times.  Nevertheless, they are trying to find a satisfactory way forward that addresses many different concerns including victims, liability issues and continuing a hundred year old plus ministry.

There clearly is regular communication and coordination among many of the chartered organizations at the national level.  As the Methodists go, others are likely to follow. I think the CO's are committed to leveraging every bit of their combined negotiating resources which is significant if Scouting will emerge intact following the bankruptcy. And several local councils are quite clearly hearing this now.

If the CO model falters, it is not only the loss of meeting places but also the loss of a perception of the credibility and endorsement of Scouting in the community.

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

Kosnoff is looking pretty good right now.  I wonder how many times he laughed during the hearing. 

Be careful Eagle 1993 or you will end up on his Christmas card list lol.

Thank all of you for your ideas. I am sure that the moderators will read and discuss these among ourselves. We really do value the diversity of opinion on this forum and respect the wide range of views and information.  And just so you know, there is a diverse range of opinions among the moderators at times ... and I think that is a good thing.

Thanks for your input.!

This is also posted in the latest bankruptcy thread:

Dear Forum Members:

We are having a  discussion among the moderators and your input would be appreciated.

(1) We want to maintain topics and thread that are specifically focused on issues of the bankruptcy. We recognize that this is a very valuable source of information for many persons.

(2) We want to maintain a positive and safe environment for persons to express feelings, concerns and hopes.

(3) We want to ensure a respectful environment, recognizing that these are emotional issues for many of us.

(4) And we want to avoid constantly "cat-herding" to avoid numerous tangents that go off topic.

This is your forum. We need your ideas how can we provide the best possible forum experience for all of us. 

So, our question to you is:

How can we do this better? 

Dear Forum Members:

We are having a  discussion among the moderators and your input would be appreciated.

(1) We want to maintain topics and thread that are specifically focused on issues of the bankruptcy. We recognize that this is a very valuable source of information for many persons.

(2) We want to maintain a positive and safe environment for persons to express feelings, concerns and hopes.

(3) We want to ensure a respectful environment, recognizing that these are emotional issues for many of us.

(4) And we want to avoid constantly "cat-herding" to avoid numerous tangents that go off topic.

This is your forum. We need your ideas how can we provide the best possible forum experience for all of us. 

So, our question to you is:

How can we do this better? 

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS A SEPARATE FORUM TOPIC STARTED ON THIS ISSUE. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO RESPOND TO THAT TOPIC 

37 minutes ago, MattR said:

I don't believe the KKK was ever considered a noble organization. 

Our midwestern state in the 1920's was a hotbed of the KKK  that reached into the Governor's office.  In speaking years ago to people who grew up in that time period, I gained some perspective:

(1) The small rural communities were very insulated from diversity and "outsiders." It followed World War I in which "our boys" fought and gave their lives. People were suspicious of foreigners and others different from them.

(2) This was the period of fraternal and civic organizations with groups such as the Lions, Elks, Masons and Rotarians being very popular. In many of the small communities, joining the Klan was seen as similar to joining the Elks initially and was often the only "fraternal" group functioning in the community.

(3) In researching our church history (largest Protestant church in the county and considered progressive) , I was shocked to discover the record of a church meeting in which a robed Klansman walked in during a meeting down the center aisle carrying a substantial donation for the widows and orphans fund.  The Klan worked hard at developing an image of doing civic good and protecting "the values" of the community. There was some evidence that the Klan was supportive of youth organizations such as Scouting.

As the darker side became more obvious, community organizations and citizens began to distance themselves from the Klan and its influence in our area rapidly faded.

Me thinks that Cynical may have a follower ...  

11 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Curious.  I do not understand the significance of this.  Do we know if those meeting at the PTC are non-lawyer representatives of CO's, or legal representatives of the CO's?  And, are National representatives also meeting with those CO representatives?

Several of the CO's schedule annual meetings at Philmont for training purposes and to update stakeholders on various topics. The top denominational leadership is present. Often they are at PTC on the same week or share an overlapping weekend. In some cases, they may even share a session. There are always opportunities for them to get together during meal times or in the evenings to discuss common shared concerns.  The bankruptcy and its related issues certainly fall into the category of "shared concerns."

And yes, there have been and continue to be on-going mediations between the CO's and the BSA for months.  Most of the large CO's have had very active task forces meeting regularly.