Jump to content

Major Change in Chartered Organization Relationship


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MattR said:

But isn't the problem of no ownership what caused this mess in the first place? If COs weren't doing their jobs overseeing units then how will making councils responsible for oversight solve that problem. Now, DEs have the added responsibility of unit oversight? This seems to me like a bandaid.

The responsibility belongs with BSA. It will have to figure out a way to provide supervision. Perhaps if it restructures to operate in a more business like, effective way instead of the dysfunctional scout way it has adopted, it will streamline some of its convoluted and archaic structures and processes in a way that will make it more economical and functional to run. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 301
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wonder why something like this wasn't in the Churchill project? Also the old form used to require an annual sit down visit with the CO.    Never happened of course so the solution is  let's just

The answer to pretty much all of your questions is yes, the Church can do and decide all of those things if that is how they want to run their troop. The Chartering Organization, the Church in yo

For the most part, there was nothing unexpected. Some of my impressions: (1) The United Methodist Church remains very supportive of Boy Scouting and endorses the traditional chartered organizatio

Posted Images

6 hours ago, MattR said:

But isn't the problem of no ownership what caused this mess in the first place? If COs weren't doing their jobs overseeing units then how will making councils responsible for oversight solve that problem. Now, DEs have the added responsibility of unit oversight? This seems to me like a bandaid.

It goes to the Girl Scout model.  There should be ownership of units.  Most charters do not have the capacity or desire to actually own the units.  Therefore, it should fall on the BSA through councils.  

Councils could ensure oversight by interviewing unit leaders (the CC & SM/CM).  Ensuring they are trained for their position.  Then allowing them to run the show with the rest of the leaders (checking on YPT).  Perhaps councils limit units based on area.  Perhaps they even have to limit # of scouts per unit if they grow too large vs the number of trained leaders they have.  

UMC & Elks are the start.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Catholic charters follow.  BSA will need a model on how to own units.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2022 at 2:34 PM, Eagle1993 said:

It goes to the Girl Scout model.  There should be ownership of units.  Most charters do not have the capacity or desire to actually own the units.  Therefore, it should fall on the BSA through councils.  

Councils could ensure oversight by interviewing unit leaders (the CC & SM/CM).  Ensuring they are trained for their position.  Then allowing them to run the show with the rest of the leaders (checking on YPT).  Perhaps councils limit units based on area.  Perhaps they even have to limit # of scouts per unit if they grow too large vs the number of trained leaders they have.  

UMC & Elks are the start.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Catholic charters follow.  BSA will need a model on how to own units.

So the Elks are not doing charters anymore? I used to be a member of a Lodge that had an active troop.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2022 at 10:33 AM, yknot said:

The responsibility belongs with BSA. It will have to figure out a way to provide supervision. Perhaps if it restructures to operate in a more business like, effective way instead of the dysfunctional scout way it has adopted, it will streamline some of its convoluted and archaic structures and processes in a way that will make it more economical and functional to run. 

You made a shiver run down my spine.

 

"Oversight", NOT "Supervision".  I've never had someone else installing supervision work out well.  If our council started trying to actually supervise troop activities, I'm sure it would result in constant arguments as the different "supervisors" all had somewhat different interpretations (including a fair number of straight up errors) of what the BSA's vaguer guidelines mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2022 at 2:34 PM, Eagle1993 said:

It goes to the Girl Scout model. 

This concerns me for a variety of reasons.

1. One of the reasons why many girls I have talked to left GSUSA is because of the mandatory cookie sales. They spend what, 2 or 3 months out of the years hawking cookies. And they get pennies on the box.

2. Limits on units. Will councils state that units can only camp on their properties? I have read here and elsewhere that councils do that by only have their camps approved for Cub camping.

3. What if the council neglects the units? I have seen units get ignored by council because they do not go to the council camp,  participate in popcorn sales, etc.

4. What if  the council professionals have issues with a unit's Scouters, will  they have the ability to remove them. I know they can place them in the IVF as I have already seen 1 individual placed in the IVF for political reasons (I think he discovered some accounting discrepancies and questioned it, which led to his being placed in the IVF). 

5. Will they have the ability to  access funds, and requisition or sell equipment. I have seen  OA custodial accounts raided. I know of one council in need of a van for their summer camp program, would they be able to requisition a unit's bus? What about trailers? What about Sea Scout vessals?

6. What about Unit history? In the GSUSA model, units last as long as they have volunteers, usually no more than 10 years, and a GS troop is about equal to a BSA patrol. He have units been around 20, 50, 100+ years. Using the GSUSA model, will units have some type of stability?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to take a deep breath and see how it goes.  Our church has assured us they want us there; in fact we have more space than before for storage and such.  They have approved us turning the two main meeting rooms in the basement into partial museums, as we are in our 101st year.  My understanding is that other churches with longevit also are hoping to keep that tenure in place.  I need to check into it, but if we had to find a new CO, but kept the site, would the unit tenure transfer to the new CO?  That is the biggest concern if we needed to find another sponsor.  But, until we see how this works, and it will be a bit, just keep "doing our best".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, skeptic said:

 I need to check into it, but if we had to find a new CO, but kept the site, would the unit tenure transfer to the new CO?  That is the biggest concern if we needed to find another sponsor.  But, until we see how this works, and it will be a bit, just keep "doing our best".

 

If the current CO agrees to sign over the unit number, YES! (Emphasis, Ok, maybe a little screaming in joy for you ;) )

Troop I grew up in had 3 COs over it's 25+ year history, and got to keep it's tenure. there is a form that needs to be filled out, and the current CO has to agree to the transfer, and if they ever start a new unit, they get a new number. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back from summer camp.  I did a very unscientific poll of UMC units while there.  Sample size small.  None of them had heard about this, not surprising.   All said that if they had to have their councils be their sponsors, they might as well shut down and find troops for their scouts to transfer to as this would be just one more thing their council couldn't handle.    That was sad but they only had 10 scouts.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

So the Elks are not doing charters anymore? I used to be a member of a Lodge that had an active troop.

 

A letter from the national Elks organization went out in December telling state chapters not to recharter scout units. Some states ignored it, some individual lodges ignored it, but many lodges did choose not to recharter. Last I heard, there was possibly an effort along the lines of what UMC is negotiating to allow some kind of limited involvement again with scouting but I have not heard that officially or seen any update. Maybe someone else on here knows more. Around the beginning of the year, elks.org removed any reference to boy scouting from its site, as did my state chapter and several other nearby surrounding states. 

Edited by yknot
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How many units and scouts are affected by this decision?   A friend of mine thought there were around 50 units in his council.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2022 at 2:34 PM, Eagle1993 said:

I wouldn't be surprised to see Catholic charters follow.

In many council the Catholic Dioceses has already withdrawn from charterining units.  In my council units have been told that when the current charters expire they will not be renewed.  Many of us are hoping that something similar to the UMC agreement can be worked out with the Dioceses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PACAN said:

How many units and scouts are affected by this decision?   A friend of mine thought there were around 50 units in his council.  

If you are refering to the UMC units; a lot.  After the LDS exit the UMC became the largest charter partner in BSA.  I believe I read somewhere north of 2,000 units nationwide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@MikeS72   Thanks...I found a 2013 list where it showed 10K units and 350K scouts.  Clearly that is not the case now but how in the world are councils going to sponsor even 2000 units unless they provide the same oversight (read slim and none) oversight to them.  Another example where National is pushing workload to councils with no resources.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, PACAN said:

@MikeS72   Thanks...I found a 2013 list where it showed 10K units and 350K scouts.  Clearly that is not the case now but how in the world are councils going to sponsor even 2000 units unless they provide the same oversight (read slim and none) oversight to them.  Another example where National is pushing workload to councils with no resources.  

The Chapter 11 means that the National Council has no resources to send.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...