Jump to content

Methodist Church telling Churches to Not "Recharter" Scout Units


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

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.

My council is similar: we have gotten no word in recharter while our next door neighbor councils are. I was told part is that the new internet rechartering system and getting folks setup is slowing things down as well.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If a UMC is switching to a Facilities Use Agreement only relationship, then the unit will need a new Chartering Organization, such as a VFW or your Local Council.

I have been hearing of councils that don't want to serve as the chartering org as well. That's something for BSA to resolve though in its reorg plan I would think. 

Ours has already informed us that we will move to the facilities model.  Other than that, they assure us that they still consider us part of their ministry, just under a different format.  Since we ha

Posted Images

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

I was told part is that the new internet rechartering system and getting folks setup is slowing things down as well.

That is a funny statement. There is no "setup" since it is in Internet Advancement which uses the my.scouting / Scoutbook login. The training hasn't been released, nor has the sandbox environment, maybe that is what they mean? It won't be "open" for recharters until 10/15. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gpurlee said:

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. 

 

I have been hearing of councils that don't want to serve as the chartering org as well. That's something for BSA to resolve though in its reorg plan I would think. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

In keeping with the idea that "all Scouting is local", the BSA set the CO model with the idea that the local  Charter org would be in the logical place to know their leaders and (if they favored Scouting that much)  would therefore keep tabs on the soundness of their leaders' appropriateness (?).  

GSUSA , to my ken, never went that way.  The local GSUSA Service Area names the GScout Troops, and approves the leaders. Hence my never being a GS leader for my daughter's Brownies, and her not wanting to join, thirty some  years ago.

The BSA model is great "on paper", but it turns out  the CO can (has often) just say  "where do I sign, go away and have fun Scouting"  without  even trying to vet the Scout leaders they "okayed" by signing the papers.....

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

The BSA model is great "on paper", but it turns out  the CO can (has often) just say  "where do I sign, go away and have fun Scouting"  without  even trying to vet the Scout leaders they "okayed" by signing the papers.....

Until fairly recently, that's how most organizations worked.  Vetting was seen as a competency question and weeding out evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, gpurlee said:

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.

According to a reliable source, the Councils were warned to prepare for this eventuality and to make plans to serve as a CO, even if temporarily, to cover down on all units that may be displaced.  Our Council did no such thing or they elected not to inform our District, so the potential now is very valid that we may lose units.  Ridiculous!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vtcchokie92 said:

Our Council did no such thing or they elected not to inform our District, so the potential now is very valid that we may lose units.  Ridiculous!

To be fair to some councils (not necessarily yours) there have been massive layoffs in some of these councils. Having diminished staff AND being told to take on more responsibilities like this (something that runs counter to everything BSA has done for decades based on the CO model) is not something councils relish or are even prepared for.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SSScout said:

In keeping with the idea that "all Scouting is local", the BSA set the CO model with the idea that the local  Charter org would be in the logical place to know their leaders and (if they favored Scouting that much)  would therefore keep tabs on the soundness of their leaders' appropriateness (?).  

 

Another aspect of that was to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the community. BSA as a nascent organization had many competitors. The belief was that by partnering with local, established organizations to charter troops, they would have some credibility and legitimacy over the competitors.

 

2 hours ago, SSScout said:

GSUSA , to my ken, never went that way.  The local GSUSA Service Area names the GScout Troops, and approves the leaders. Hence my never being a GS leader for my daughter's Brownies, and her not wanting to join, thirty some  years ago.

One reason why GSUSA did not use the CO model was that they were piggybacking on BSA's name. The only serious competitor to GSUSA was Campfire Girls. One of the reasons why West was adamant about GSUSA changing their name to Girl Guides was because he did not want confusion. My how times have changed

 

 

2 hours ago, SSScout said:

The BSA model is great "on paper", but it turns out  the CO can (has often) just say  "where do I sign, go away and have fun Scouting"  without  even trying to vet the Scout leaders they "okayed" by signing the papers.....

At least in the units I was in that I did not know anyone prior to joining, I was being vetted. I had references checked, AND in one case a background check done, prior to my application being submitted to council for BSA's background check. Even with the one hands off unit I was with,  the CC or CM was checking references.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

To be fair to some councils (not necessarily yours) there have been massive layoffs in some of these councils. Having diminished staff AND being told to take on more responsibilities like this (something that runs counter to everything BSA has done for decades based on the CO model) is not something councils relish or are even prepared for.

True, and I don't know what their staffing levels are, but if they were told to come up with a plan, don't act like you weren't told.  Our Council has sponsored inner city Troops before as the CO

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vtcchokie92 said:

True, and I don't know what their staffing levels are, but if they were told to come up with a plan, don't act like you weren't told.  Our Council has sponsored inner city Troops before as the CO

That was/is the Scoutreach program and the unit leaders were Professionals/Paraprofessionals.  Not sure how successful it was.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will brag about how awesome our local fire department is. They are very community oriented. Our fire chief is extremely into community partnerships and outreach to the schools and other community groups.  They are also working to promote work as firefighters and paramedics, dispatchers, etc. They need good people in the future generations. 

I think that the only difficulty is that every troop in the metro area would want them as CO.  But talk about positive adult association.  It's possible that our PD's would also do this for outreach and community building. 

Our fire chief is in the business of safety. I am sure they would learn the training, get the YPT and they know how to do things right. 

And they're government. So  not as much liability sticks, at least as far as I can tell.  Everything has pros and cons but I cannot talk enough about how great our local fire department is. 

Edited by WisconsinMomma
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2021 at 10:28 AM, Eagle94-A1 said:

One of the reasons why West was adamant about GSUSA changing their name to Girl Guides was because he did not want confusion.

You mean change it back? They were first the Girl Guides. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

You mean change it back? They were first the Girl Guides. 

BP called them Girl Guides, and that is what they are still called in many places. Low, and others, used the term Scouts to piggyback  on the PR of Boy Scouts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is much to suggest part of the name issue also had to do with Low not having a great "fondness" for BP's sister, who was the developer of Girl Guides, though, Olave became more in control after the marriage, I believe.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Low, and others, used the term Scouts to piggyback  on the PR of Boy Scouts.

No, for the first year or 2, Low called them Girl Guides and then CHANGED to GSUSA. We have the official GSUSA sanctioned history. 

  • 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...