Statement by the United Methodist Church

[PACAN]

IMHO, The losers in this agreement are the units.   Give us your money and equipment, pay us for the insurance on your gear and the LC will sponsor you!   

[Eagle1993]

9 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

What a bureaucratic nightmare. This is a UMC specific Facilities Use Agreement and not the standard BSA one. Too bad they could negotiate updating the standard one that came out a couple of years ago.

Every LC should use this version of the charter agreement.  It provides much more clarity in terms of liability of the scouting unit.  I'm not saying it is better for units, just for LCs. 

[mrjohns2]

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Every LC should use this version of the charter agreement. 

Should? Can’t right now since it is UMC specific. 

[PACAN]

@Eagle1993Wouldn't it be nice if the true customer (the scouts) had it better than the LC or the UMC for once.

 

Any feedback from the UMC units would be of interest to the group.

[5thGenTexan]

1 hour ago, PACAN said:

@Eagle1993Wouldn't it be nice if the true customer (the scouts) had it better than the LC or the UMC for once.

 

Any feedback from the UMC units would be of interest to the group.

We are a UMC Unit...  in fact two Troops and a Pack.  Decades with the same CO in fact.

In a couple of weeks we are having a big meeting with leaders from all 3 Units to detail what is going on and decide on how to proceed.  Informal discussions show we are in agreement that being a Council "registered" Unit is not going to work for us.

We currently have a couple of options in our town that are not churches that we will work out something with.  Additionally, we are going to have some kind of facilities use agreement with the Methodist Church for the limited times during the year we use their building.  

 

[skeptic]

I spoke to our Minister again today, and he assured me that they want us there.  We are in our 101st year, and they are proud of their affiliation with us.  Three units, though only the troop is old.  Had cubs off and  on in the fifties, also a Sea Scout Patrol (not ship), Explorer posts, and a Venture Crew.  The sticking point for me is the ownership thing.  Ther rest is pretty much the same anyway.  They need to fix the concern about the LC being able to just take our stuff because they "own it".  The have the money separated it seems.  As I noted somewhre, maybe here, it would seem there could be a cluse that gives the units use of all the equipment and to have that use exclusively in impertuity or something.  It is not yet done I do not think.  Lots of concerns and confusion.

[PACAN]

@skeptic

That's great, and they should be proud of you guys, but I don't know if your Minister gets a vote.   I'm not sure how the overarching UMC has "control" over the entire UMC churches.  Your Minister knows the politics involved I'm sure.

 

The Council will be your sponsor which means in the BSA that they control all your assets.  We have seen lots of posts asking "who owns the trailer" etc and the sponsor does.  If your "council sponsor" decided to use the units assets, they can.

 

Good luck!

[GMarshMo]

We are chartered by a UMC and have multiple units.  Each units committee will be meeting soon to discuss how to proceed.  The primary concerns are councils control of funds, assets, fundraising, and leadership selection.  Each unit will decide whether to continue with council, find another charter (which is unlikely), or fold the tent.  There is no trust that council will be a good and faithful steward of the units or that they have the ability to handle the charter duties at all.  All agree that its a looming admin disaster on most every level.  Finding another charter seems on the surface to be the optimal solution, but very few organizations want the liability or headaches, and more importantly, once the legal council of the other charter organizations realize they can host and support scouting without being the charter and holding the liability, the affiliation agreement could and most likely will eventually become the universal agreement in scouting.  Behind the scenes, these current individually run units and charters have been the unseen organizational glue to scouting from almost the beginning.  The oversight may have not been proactive most cases and even non-existent in some others, but it was usually there when needed, and provided a subtle but steady influence and guiding hand.  This arrangement also provided units with a small but comfortable degree of autonomy from the very inefficient BSA whose objectives and actions were not always in the units best interest.  This change to a council charter is a foundational shift and the end result is unknown, but it will be large and impactful.

[PACAN]

Just was sent a Facebook link to a umnews.org article.

one statement was interesting that said they hoped to continue scouting in the UMC.  Funny way of going about it.

[5thGenTexan]

Our local American Legion Post is open to being our new CO.  One step down, next step is a meeting between our leaders and their folks.

[gpurlee]

7 hours ago, PACAN said:

Just was sent a Facebook link to a umnews.org article.

one statement was interesting that said they hoped to continue scouting in the UMC.  Funny way of going about it.

This has been a very difficult and painful process for the United Methodist Church which has more than one hundred years of history with Scouting. Many of the current UMC leaders have been part of the Scouting program as youth and/or leaders.  There is a real desire to continue to support Scouting among much of the UMC leadership.

At the same time, the UMC leadership is acutely aware that it potentially could face millions of dollars in legal costs with over 3,500 claims linked to UMC congregations.  The legal cost of defending a single claim is estimated to be well into six figures.  

There have been questions throughout this bankruptcy process raised about whether the BSA insurance is sufficient to provide adequate coverage for the chartered partners. This revelation in court documents was very unsettling at the very least to churches who believed they had been promised insurance coverage would not be an issue. There is no certainty that the UMC and other chartered partners will be approved as covered third parties in a settlement agreement.  This occurs at a time when the UMC church is facing the beginnings of an internal split and has significant financial issues outside of Scouting.

A team of more than a dozen top UMC leaders and legal counsel have worked to seek a positive solution for more than two years.  I personally know some of this team and know that they have worked diligently to both continue a Scouting relationship and to protect the interests of the church. This has been an incredibly difficult balance. Their conclusion is that there is significant potential risk in serving as a chartered partner. It goes beyond just insurance issues but also was shaped by the recognition that many congregations simply do not have the people resources to provide the level of support and supervision that is required.

The affiliate agreement was crafted as a means to continue a relationship with Scouting. Ultimately the final decisions will likely rest with the local congregations and the local councils. Even though our own unit with its 111-year tenure at the same UMC congregation faces an unknown future, I applaud the UMC for working to continue support Scouting at a time when other major organizations have chosen to walk away totally. 

 

[mrjohns2]

23 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

Ultimately the final decisions will likely rest with the local congregations and the local councils.

It seems as though, one of the options has been taken off of the table. It seems clear that congregations cannot continue to be CO's, no?

[gpurlee]

14 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

It seems as though, one of the options has been taken off of the table. It seems clear that congregations cannot continue to be CO's, no?

To my knowledge. the FAQ's that would answer this specific question have not yet been released. However, in the best of UMC tradition, I would guess that the final decision will rest with the individual congregation.  The local administrative board or another governing body will likely make this decision ultimately. While the task force is clearly recommending an affiliation agreement at this time, it is likely that there will be four possible options available to local congregations:

(1) Drop involvement with Scouting totally. To my knowledge, no official national UMC body has recommended this. However, some local congregations have already made this decision believing it to be in their best interest.

(2) Continue with a traditional charter agreement.

(3) Serve as a landlord through a facility use agreement while another organization serves as the chartered partner.

(4) Move to an affiliate agreement in which the local council "owns" the units, but the UMC congregation provides support which may include space use. However, the local council will have to agree to accept this responsibility. A (very) few councils have already voiced their reluctance apparently.  Most councils appear to be awaiting more information and guidance before publicly stating a position.

[mrjohns2]

1 hour ago, gpurlee said:

2) Continue with a traditional charter agreement.

In all of the documentation shared, this is not one of them. Not in the flow chart, not in the letters, or webpage. I don't think this is an option. 

[gpurlee]

10 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

In all of the documentation shared, this is not one of them. Not in the flow chart, not in the letters, or webpage. I don't think this is an option. 

Until we get the official set of FAQ's, we cannot be sure if the traditional model will remain. For a variety of reasons, I believe that it will be an option, but one that is very strongly discouraged.

I think that if it remains an option, very few congregations will choose it.

The task force has worked for two years to craft a model that will both protect congregations and allow Scouting to continue within the UMC. I know that our conference has issued some very strong warnings about the potential risks associated with Scouting with the advice to consult our church attorney before making a decision. How many informed congregations would choose to continue with the traditional model and the associated risks despite strong warnings from the national and conference leadership when there are safer options? Remember that this is not just a financial or insurance issue. It is also the ability of a congregation to provide the needed oversight. 

And this will put the local councils in a very challenging position. But that conversation deserves a different post.