Jump to content

Major Change in Chartered Organization Relationship


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

??? Seems backwards, the renter specifies the terms of renting his/her facility.

Totally backwards.  My church has its own form.  Fees and availability are determined by the relationship with the parish.  Parish owned/run groups get the most favorable rates and have the highest priority.  Non-parish groups pay the most and get the lowest priority.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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

I have confirmed all of this with our denominational leadership. I don't think that the word has gotten down to the council level yet in many instances.  We are clearly heading into a tipping point, p

Posted Images

On 12/10/2020 at 9:06 PM, RememberSchiff said:

??? Seems backwards, the renter specifies the terms of renting his/her facility.

In a negotiation it depends who has leverage. My current rental arrangement reflects my leverage vs my landlord. 

In the case of the boy scouts and renting, the facility owner holds most of the cards, and all the cards that matter.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

This thing looks like the BSA is again trying to kill itself.  What sponsor is going to agree to this mess? It would be easier to shut down the BSA program and start a youth group.

I think it's probably a desperate move borne out of the fact that so many COs have dropped units this year in the wake of the bankruptcy filing. I think it was a rude awakening to many COs to find out they actually may have some liability for sponsoring a unit, especially for the many many legacy units where the role is already viewed as simply providing a place to meet and benign support. In some ways, the "rental" agreement isn't much different than reality. 

Where the problem is going to crop up is for those organizations that have utilized scouting as an extension of their individual mission, whether it's a church or a community organization like an AFL hall. BSA has always tried to give a lot of local latitude as to how COs run their units, with the extreme example being LDS that was really more of a tailor made program within a program. Under either type of CO arrangement, I don' t see how that could continue to be possible, so that would probably result in, as you say, a CO ditching scouts to simply run their own youth group.  Of course then they would be assuming full liability for their group and all the headaches that would entail. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

This thing looks like the BSA is again trying to kill itself.  What sponsor is going to agree to this mess? It would be easier to shut down the BSA program and start a youth group.

I finally got ahold of someone in my Council after I point blank asked about this (and the fact that ALL scout executives were sent a copy on November 23. but opted to hide it). They hit the same points as @gpurlee

1) The idea was not BSAs directly. Basically there were two groups. One group of COs said they would NOT be ok with rechartering due to the liability but are ok with letting scouts use their facilities. This addresses that. The second group simply refused to recharter and while the liability was not the stated purpose it was implied that was probably what drove it. This is being developed to address both needs.

2) Keep in mind for many of these COs they want to keep scouting going, but they have to balance that against their potential legal liability. Their risk-adverse lawyers are telling them to ditch scouting outright. This is being put in place to try and remove the risk and yet keep them available as a meeting place.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought: it seems that the size of the BSA, the infrastructure that supports all of the units, has become a huge liability. Not only is it expensive to keep, it's also a big target for lawsuits. Could an "open source" model work? Essentially, a small group of expert scouters keep a wiki that explains how to do scouting. All the nuts and bolts of running a unit. From program to training to liability and YP. That replaces all of national and all the camps. So there are no deep pockets. If people get unhappy with how merit badges are done they can fork off a new "code base" and roll their own. No more targets for lawyers, no more arguing about the best way to do things. If you have a better idea then try it. No more complaining. If people like your version you can create a patreon thing and get paid.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MattR said:

Essentially, a small group of expert scouters keep a wiki that explains how to do scouting. All the nuts and bolts of running a unit. From program to training to liability and YP.

This is what Trail Life and similar orgs have done.

They have to hoe a very narrow path. The Congressional Charter grants National the exclusive rights to much of this intellectual property. If you want to create a "Outdoor Adventure for Youth" (OAY) go ahead. But the minute you start using terms like "scouting" "merit badges" and the like, National is going to sue.

EDIT: I should also note Baden-Powell Service Association (United States) and any of the World Federation of Independent Scouts organizations exist.

There's nothing to stop you if you want to just throw up a wiki as long as you stay away from National's IP.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched some of this on the Methodist scouting page. Was anyone else struck by the guy's comments about youth protection that it's not just two deep that's needed but more like five deep? In a way, he's right if you want to be covered for all situations. That's pretty how we try to staff summer camp. But if that is becoming part of UMCs child protection policy then I guess it would have to also be adopted by the units. One of my churches is not a CO but we allow scouts to meet there with the understanding they follow the UMC YPT policy although it's currently largely the same as BSA's.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed the same comment. I think that is a valid comment but challenging to attain, especially when the activity is more challenging such as overnight backpacking  or winter tent camping which precludes many adults physically.  Some troops seem to address it in part by maintaining a corps of recently "graduated" Scouts who want to continue ties with the unit. However, many of them are not age 21 yet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Our Troop is chartered with our Church and when those unfamiliar with BSA policies, etc, saw the word 'own' in the prior Charters, some went ballistic and moved in the direction of 'Owned and Operated' by the Church...Long story, major distress.   So:  where is that Agreement with the word 'own' in it?   If outdated, when did that happen?  We are strong advocates of Boy Scouting.  Now I read here that there are many versions of the 'Charter Agreement' and am rather confused.  Isn't there just one?   I do not recall any memos coming regarding the 'changes' in the Agreement year after year.    Any explanations would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2020 at 7:29 AM, yknot said:

I just watched some of this on the Methodist scouting page. Was anyone else struck by the guy's comments about youth protection that it's not just two deep that's needed but more like five deep? In a way, he's right if you want to be covered for all situations. That's pretty how we try to staff summer camp. But if that is becoming part of UMCs child protection policy then I guess it would have to also be adopted by the units. One of my churches is not a CO but we allow scouts to meet there with the understanding they follow the UMC YPT policy although it's currently largely the same as BSA's.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello.  I am just curious as to how it works when the Church is not the CO but the Troop uses its facilities.

Did the Church refuse to Charter because of 'liability'?   We recently had a similar go-round with our Church and our Troop....we are strong advocates of both by the way...but Church leadership has not been given valid info, thus the discussion.

  • Upvote 1
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...