Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan


Recommended Posts

For some direct and less paranoiac info from the main Methodist group.  https://www.facebook.com/MethodistScouting/posts/576502677088897?notif_id=1626798180694932&notif_t=page_followed_contents_awareness&ref=notif

 

I spoke with our local minister yesterday, and we are in So Cal, the heart of the liberal church, and she assured me that Methodists in most of the country are not pushing to throw us out.  But, she also said that there is a smaller segment, mostly in what we might call Red states, that make that noise.  Anyway, read the link above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 993
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

(deleted)  Sorry, but I am simply tired of the BS of somehow thinking money can cure everything.  (deleted).  Just my opinion, and I understand you suffered considerable based on what you have shred. 

Hello All.  New here-first post. I read these forums for hours and hours, and signed up to post this. So, as I understand the upshot of it all: 1.  That National initially indicated tha

IMHO, has been passed over may be more accurate or maybe I missed the judge's ruling on which National properties were restricted and the whole J.P. Morgan shell game. Locally, the prospect of s

Posted Images

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

... 20 years ago. 

Now, I can do remote desktop screen sharing using cell phone from most camps in my state.  Often, I'm lucky enough to have reasonably high speed data inside the tent.  ... real question now is "why"

Today No Wi Fi = No Adults = No Camp LOL

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

For some direct and less paranoiac info from the main Methodist group.  https://www.facebook.com/MethodistScouting/posts/576502677088897?notif_id=1626798180694932&notif_t=page_followed_contents_awareness&ref=notif

 

I spoke with our local minister yesterday, and we are in So Cal, the heart of the liberal church, and she assured me that Methodists in most of the country are not pushing to throw us out.  But, she also said that there is a smaller segment, mostly in what we might call Red states, that make that noise.  Anyway, read the link above.

I am just trying clarify a bit... 

Does this mean nothing is certain on Jan 1, 2022?

4) It has been recommended that we charter up to Dec. 31, 2021 to allow for space to work together. We will have more answers and a stronger way forward before then. Do not throw out the children in the church (Scouts), this will harm them and the church. Two deep injustices do not make justice, even for a lawyer!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skeptic said:

You do realize that the COR has had the right to sit on the Executive board for decades do you not? 

I think the OP was talking about the national board. If I recall there were Catholic, LDS, and Methodist members of the national board. 
 

It is my understanding that the CORs were automatically members of the district committee, not the council board. 

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

You do realize that the COR has had the right to sit on the Executive board for decades do you not? 

I think the OP was talking about the national board. If I recall there were Catholic, LDS, and Methodist members of the national board. 
 

It is my understanding that the CORs were automatically members of the district committee, not the council board. 

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

You do realize that the COR has had the right to sit on the Executive board for decades do you not? 

I think the OP was talking about the national board. If I recall there were Catholic, LDS, and Methodist members of the national board. 
 

It is my understanding that the CORs were automatically members of the district committee, not the council board. 

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

You do realize that the COR has had the right to sit on the Executive board for decades do you not? 

I think the OP was talking about the national board. If I recall there were Catholic, LDS, and Methodist members of the national board. 
 

It is my understanding that the CORs were automatically members of the district committee, not the council board. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I am just trying clarify a bit... 

Does this mean nothing is certain on Jan 1, 2022?

4) It has been recommended that we charter up to Dec. 31, 2021 to allow for space to work together. We will have more answers and a stronger way forward before then. Do not throw out the children in the church (Scouts), this will harm them and the church. Two deep injustices do not make justice, even for a lawyer!

I would hope not, but much depends on the next few months.  There was a schism in the church recently, and there likely is also a difference in those views more locally.  Our own congregation and pastors are strongly behind us, but they are still tied to the Conference decisions.  Hopefully that will be easier by year end.  Almost all the troops over 40 years old in our council are Methodists, and ours is 100 in December.  The big thing is to NOT be chicken little every time someone says something that may suggest a change in view.  At least in my experience, more rational voices rise to the top, and review and adjustments move it all forward.  Scouting is still local.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I would hope not, but much depends on the next few months.  There was a schism in the church recently, and there likely is also a difference in those views more locally.  Our own congregation and pastors are strongly behind us, but they are still tied to the Conference decisions.  Hopefully that will be easier by year end.  Almost all the troops over 40 years old in our council are Methodists, and ours is 100 in December.  The big thing is to NOT be chicken little every time someone says something that may suggest a change in view.  At least in my experience, more rational voices rise to the top, and review and adjustments move it all forward.  Scouting is still local.

 

I would also say in many cases a switch from a chartering organization sponsorship to a facilities use agreement really won't change much of anything and in fact simply might formalize the status quo. Most of our relgious COs think they just provide space for us anyway and many are incapable of providing any kind of oversight -- the congregations are too small and/or too old. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skeptic said:

You do realize that the COR has had the right to sit on the Executive board for decades do you not?

I do. I also realize that nobody does, and the councils like it that way. If just a third of the CC's in my district voted on council issues there would be real feedback. They are the ones that have to deal with council, the CO's have no idea what council does.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

It is my understanding that the CORs were automatically members of the district committee, not the council board. 

In conversations with two different local Scout Executives (SE) many years apart, this is a misunderstood situation.  I believe that mrjohns2 is correct that Chartered Organization Representatives (COR) may ask and will be added to the District Committee.  Not certain about this though.

As to the Local Council Executive Board (CEB), being the COR or Institutional Head (IH) which is the CEO of the Chartered Organization (CO) that for a church is usually the pastor, senior minister, priest, or other descriptive term for the chief religious officer and CEO of the church does not allow one to become a voting member of the CEB.  It does allow them to attend CEB meetings but not vote.  Being a COR or IH allows one to ask to be nominated for the CEB but does not guarantee that they will be nominated and confirmed.  However, if a CO wishes the IH or COR to be on the CEB, it is highly likely that they will be nominated and confirmed at the next election that is typically in January every year.

There are very good reasons why just being an IH or COR does not grant CEB membership.  States have laws that govern non-profit organizations that usually require some sort of quorum to hold a meeting.  If all CO's could assign a voting member, it would be unlikely that the CEB would ever have a quorum to conduct business.

The CEB has a smaller subgroup called the Council Executive Committee (CEC) that is the officers and standing committee chairs.  The CEC makes proposals to the CEB as to actions to be taken.  Usually, the recommendations of the CEC are passed by the CEB [since I first joined my council's CEB in 1994 there has never been a time that the CEC recommendations were not approved though there have been times where there was considerable discussion].  Being a IH or COR who wishes to serve on the CEB will likely be asked to do so but selection of the CEC is more difficult to secure as business leaders are often selected for many of the positions and active volunteers for roles that are best served by active volunteers (Camping committee as an example).  Ideally, the CEC reflects sound business decisions and seeks to best serve the council's youth.

The National Executive Board (NEB) and National Executive Committee (NEC) reflects the local councils.  Typically, the NEB and NEC have representatives that also reflect the interests of the organizations with large numbers of CO's (United Methodist Church, Catholic Church, etc and formerly the LDS).  

Like all systems, it does not always work as desired but it was devised to represent the volunteers, CO's, and community.  Most have a second hand story of it not working well and some have first hand experiences but I have generally witnessed it working rather well when I had all aspects of an issue.

It seems that the relationship of the CO's, LC's, and BSA are evolving.  Remember that there were good reasons why things are done in the current manner.  Changing it may solve some problems but will likely introduce news ones.

If the CO's were to take a large interest in the units whom they charter and seek membership on the CEB where they would attend all or nearly all CEB meetings, I feel that it would be to the benefit of all.  It remains to be seen that if the CO agreement is only to provide space as to whether it would be so easy to become a member of the CEB.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ThenNow said:

 Or, this all was settled amicably and no one told us.

Yep.  The news broke first on Channel 43, Comedy Central.

 

(I laughed aloud when I first read the post and will chuckle for days to come-thanks.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

In conversations with two different local Scout Executives (SE) many years apart, this is a misunderstood situation.  I believe that mrjohns2 is correct that Chartered Organization Representatives (COR) may ask and will be added to the District Committee.  Not certain about this though.

As to the Local Council Executive Board (CEB), being the COR or Institutional Head (IH) which is the CEO of the Chartered Organization (CO) that for a church is usually the pastor, senior minister, priest, or other descriptive term for the chief religious officer and CEO of the church does not allow one to become a voting member of the CEB.  It does allow them to attend CEB meetings but not vote.  Being a COR or IH allows one to ask to be nominated for the CEB but does not guarantee that they will be nominated and confirmed.  However, if a CO wishes the IH or COR to be on the CEB, it is highly likely that they will be nominated and confirmed at the next election that is typically in January every year.

There are very good reasons why just being an IH or COR does not grant CEB membership.  States have laws that govern non-profit organizations that usually require some sort of quorum to hold a meeting.  If all CO's could assign a voting member, it would be unlikely that the CEB would ever have a quorum to conduct business.

The CEB has a smaller subgroup called the Council Executive Committee (CEC) that is the officers and standing committee chairs.  The CEC makes proposals to the CEB as to actions to be taken.  Usually, the recommendations of the CEC are passed by the CEB [since I first joined my council's CEB in 1994 there has never been a time that the CEC recommendations were not approved though there have been times where there was considerable discussion].  Being a IH or COR who wishes to serve on the CEB will likely be asked to do so but selection of the CEC is more difficult to secure as business leaders are often selected for many of the positions and active volunteers for roles that are best served by active volunteers (Camping committee as an example).  Ideally, the CEC reflects sound business decisions and seeks to best serve the council's youth.

The National Executive Board (NEB) and National Executive Committee (NEC) reflects the local councils.  Typically, the NEB and NEC have representatives that also reflect the interests of the organizations with large numbers of CO's (United Methodist Church, Catholic Church, etc and formerly the LDS).  

Like all systems, it does not always work as desired but it was devised to represent the volunteers, CO's, and community.  Most have a second hand story of it not working well and some have first hand experiences but I have generally witnessed it working rather well when I had all aspects of an issue.

It seems that the relationship of the CO's, LC's, and BSA are evolving.  Remember that there were good reasons why things are done in the current manner.  Changing it may solve some problems but will likely introduce news ones.

If the CO's were to take a large interest in the units whom they charter and seek membership on the CEB where they would attend all or nearly all CEB meetings, I feel that it would be to the benefit of all.  It remains to be seen that if the CO agreement is only to provide space as to whether it would be so easy to become a member of the CEB.

 

 

Here is the applicable wording from the BSA directly.  https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/511-421(16)_WEB.pdf

 

Note this specific statement: "In territory supervised by local councils, each chartered organization shall appoint a volunteer, other than the unit leader or assistant unit leader, as its chartered organization representative to represent it as a member of the district committee and as a voting member of the local council.”

 

The following official description of a chartered organization representative is found in the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America. Article VI., Local Councils, Section 3, Chartered Organization Representative, Clause 7. It reads: “In territory supervised by local councils, each chartered organization shall appoint a volunteer, other than the unit leader or assistant unit leader, as its chartered organization representative to represent it as a member of the district committee and as a voting member of the local council.” Following are additional requirements for service as a chartered organization representative: 1. The chartered organization representative’s primary responsibilities are to help units to be successful and to provide coordination between the chartered organization and Scouting. 2. The chartered organization representative is automatically a voting member of the council and the district upon selection or appointment by the chartered organization. The individual must be an adult, a U.S. citizen, and a registered member of the BSA during the period of time that the chartered organization designates this person as chartered organization representative. 3. The chartered organization representative is encouraged to become an active, participating member of one of the district’s committees.

Edited by skeptic
Link to post
Share on other sites

Council Body

The governing body is called the “council.” Because it carries the same name as the territory it serves, it will be referred to within the text as the “council body.” The council body is made up of chartered organization representatives who represent each organization chartered to operate units. Also serving on the council body are “members at large” elected by the council body. The council meets once a year, but special meetings may be called to handle special business.

Council Executive Board

The council body, in addition to electing officers, elects the “council executive board.” From a practical standpoint, the council executive board is the governing body of the council, empowered by the council body to act in its stead. Among its responsibilities are the following: • Exercises all powers of the council body between meetings of the council. This does not include authority to change or amend the articles of incorporation.  • Approves the program and plans of incorporation. • Selects and employs a Scout executive. • Establishes a budget and raises funds adequate to achieve the objectives of Scouting.

Source:https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/mission/pdf/33071.pdf

See below for explanation of what this means in practice.

Edited by T2Eagle
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

It is my understanding that the CORs were automatically members of the district committee, not the council board.

At one contentious Executive Board meeting some years ago, COR's voted and there were no objections.  My understanding is that COR's were voting members of the Executive Board, at least 20 years ago.

I don't recall reviewing any documents from National or the Council that COR's were voting members of District committees.

(In my state, I believe that COR's have the right to walk into the Scout Office, and as a matter of right, be entitled to see any documents in any file cabinet then and there;  not-for-profits are not privately held corporations. (Good luck getting that done, however.))

May have changed. Having served on the Executive Board for some years, I don't recall a single COR appearing, except at that one meeting.

The district and council bylaws are rather "stock" and "legally infirm" in my opinion. Not custom crafted for District and Council operations and practices and therefore ill-suited to permit balanced governance.  In fact, they seem designed to preserve control to professionals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a COR, what the  verbiage in my previous post means in practice is that I attend the annual Council meeting.  At that meeting various proposals concerning the By Laws, Officer Appointments, council and board membership, etc. are voted on.  

The real action however happens in the monthly Executive Board meetings.  So, I attended the annual meeting at the beginning of the year, where I was briefed on the then state of the bankruptcy, LC Ad Hoc Committee, etc.  Since that time the executive board has met monthly, but I and the other CORs are not part of that meeting; so I've received no direct information about how much my LC needs to pay into the trust, or how they plan to do that.

To truly take control of the council, the CORs would need to get together at the annual meeting and force themselves or their desires onto the exec board.  This happened a decade or more ago at the Chicago area council, but I haven't heard of it at any other time or place.

Edited by T2Eagle
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, skeptic said:

2. The chartered organization representative is automatically a voting member of the council and the district upon selection or appointment by the chartered organization.

And, there it is.

I am not sure, and nearly certain, that my Council does not invite COR's to Executive Board meetings.

Nothing of consequence happens at District meetings that a COR would likely have interest in.  (Like allowing a U.S. Senator to vote at  local sewage district meetings.)

The nuance of COR's being invited to and attending an  Executive Board meeting is more intriguing.

Executive Board members are generally selected from professional and business elite.  Some have Scouting backgrounds, many don't.  Primary goal is to flatter them and obtain donations:  the pay-to-play model.  Many invited to the Executive Board are flattered and happy to build their "community involvement" resume.  But many know little of Scouting.  (I saw this pattern time and again on my Council's Executive Board.)

Most telling, in my humble opinion, is that about 20 years ago, my Council (and perhaps all, or many?) switched Executive Board meeting frequency from monthly to quarterly.  This drastically restricted the information flowing to the Executive Board members, and diminished its influence.

By contrast, the Executive Committee (of about 4 or 5 senior volunteers-largely hand-picked by the Council Executive) made all the important decisions.  The decisions of the Executive Committee were unlimited and unrestricted with the sole exception that the Executive Committee (of 5 or 6) could not countermand a decision of the Executive Board (of about 45).

Sound like "good governance?"

Well, for the Executive Board (big) to control the Executive Committee (small) the EB had to ANTICIPATE a future action of the EC (impossible, mostly), or the EC (small) would beat the EB to the punch and the few would prevail over the will of the many.

(I'm placing a mat here in the dining room because Junior will spill his cereal here in 4 days.)

Trustworthy...

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...