Statement by the United Methodist Church

[PACAN 220]

@gpurlee  Thanks for the education.  I would have thought that the FAQ would have been released with the agreement notification (oh well)

I'm unclear how the UMC would avoid any lawsuits if they had any involvement associated with scouting (even providing space).   The lawyers might say you are still involved in scouting and not being a sponsor now doesn't alleviate prosecution for a lawsuit when you were a sponsor.   Will they take the same approach for all their youth groups?

Also the UMC must know where the abuse was/is and take action on those churches not indict the entire UMC.

Maybe #5 option is to merge with another unit if #1-4 don't work.

 

JMHO...we will see how it works out. Hopefully the best for the scouts as they should be priority #1.

[PACAN 220]

Anyone seen any FAQ?

[5thGenTexan 504]

I have a meeting on Monday with our IH at the church.  Just to talk about what they have been told and see how it meshes with what I know.  Our council still is playing the crickets song.

[5thGenTexan 504]

Got a Key 3 letter from Council today.  Says everyone needs to get together and meet to decided what to do from these options.  This is the official notice from Council.

 

[PACAN 220]

That's interesting since #1 is not in the UMC/BSA signed agreement.

#3 is also interesting. Don't give up any assets until you transfer them to your new Charter Partner

 

[5thGenTexan 504]

7 minutes ago, PACAN said:

That's interesting since #1 is not in the UMC/BSA signed agreement.

#3 is also interesting. Don't give up any assets until you transfer them to your new Charter Partner

 

I figure its a result of Council not wanting to be in the business of chartering Units.  Also, possible something was worked out at the Council level so they assume liability so that option 1 is an option?

[MikeS72 436]

19 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I figure its a result of Council not wanting to be in the business of chartering Units.  Also, possible something was worked out at the Council level so they assume liability so that option 1 is an option?

Unless something has changed in the last few weeks the UMC was very upfront during the webinar with them and national council that there would be no exceptions to what was in the negotiated affiliation agreement.

As many councils do not want to go the council holds the charter route I am pessimistic about the future of scouting and the UMC.

[PACAN 220]

Wonder what your IH will say monday.

I have heard of no UMC units that want #2.   

Units are probably better off doing #3 on their own vice having the council do it.  New Charter might be in East oshkosh wisconsin 😜

 

[PACAN 220]

If #1 is true then the UMC and BSA have really jerked around their membership

[5thGenTexan 504]

2 minutes ago, PACAN said:

If #1 is true then the UMC and BSA have really jerked around their membership

It came directly from our SE on official council letterhead and everything. 

[5thGenTexan 504]

This is part of our flyer.....

 

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by 5thGenTexan

[PACAN 220]

The top part talks about 120 day transition period starting July 1st.

[5thGenTexan 504]

59 minutes ago, PACAN said:

The top part talks about 120 day transition period starting July 1st.

 Yeah, 120 days from July 1 to Oct 31 I think to get everything signed and ready.  But getting the info to us at the end of July I guess isnt a big deal. to them.  

[5thGenTexan 504]

I sent an email to our Council yesterday afternoon to clarify option 1.  He said the option for us is a result of decision by the UMC Oklahoma Conference.  He said the majority of UMC churches in Oklahoma have decided to keep things the same as they were.  Our Council has Units in southern OK, so they decided to also go this route.  

Thats my clarification from Council on the matter of Option 1. 

[PACAN 220]

Interesting..so it appears that the UMC the individual conferences can do what they want.   Confusing to the other C10 Texas units that probably go the same SE communication.