Jump to content

Statement by the United Methodist Church


Recommended Posts

I believe that will be the normal question and response that a lot of units will hear. But not a surprise at all. I find it hard in good conscience why any other group would want to take on the risk with that as the answer.

It surprises me again to my why of thinking why if a CO takes on a unit why would allow them to meet somewhere else other than their location , it make no sense to allow them to meet where they have no control over. More risk no control.

Insurance is good but its always after the event. I not any legal expert but a policy that would cover all possible events would be cost prohibitive , and still may have riders and deductibles. Plus all the insurance in the world does not bring the event back to zero (never happened)

 

Edited by jcousino
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 209
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thanks for the welcome and encouragement! I was SM and Committee Chair for the church-Chartered Scout Troop and CM and Committee Chair for the Pack. Currently, I'm Chair of the church Trustees an

I've been lurking for a number of months on Scouter.com.  I finally took the plunge and registered. Understaffed LCs can't support the administrative requirements associated with an LC-sponsored

"Why is the world would any LC want to sponsor units? " My belief is that most LC do not want to. But with the current legal risk climate and BSA national history ,they will have to or have littl

Posted Images

43 minutes ago, PACAN said:

An unintended  consequence.   Unit asked a potential new sponsor about taking on the sponsorship.  Potential sponsor asked why the UMC was leaving.  Unit said liability.  P-sponsor says then why should we take on the liability?

Is "liability" the stated reason that UMC is changing the relationship with BSA?  People throw that word around having very little understanding of what it means.  Most people just seem to think it's a synonym for "danger".  

It's really important to be precise about these types of things.  If UMC didn't say it was liability than no one should put those words into UMC's mouths.  

I looked briefly through this thread to see if UMC gave a definitive reason for the changing relationship with scouts.  I couldn't find one, but it seemed the reason was more like BSA's bankruptcy left the UMC in a bad position for things that happened in the past, and the relationship soured.   

If asked, I would say honestly tat it's not entirely clear to me why UMC has changed, it certainly has something to do with the bankruptcy and things that happened previously, but as just the local guy trying to serve scouts my concern is helping these kids today.

I would be very up front about what being a CO means, and the responsibilities as well as rewards that can come from being a part of helping kids today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jcousino said:

It surprises me again to my why of thinking why if a CO takes on a unit why would allow them to meet somewhere else other than their location , it make no sense to allow them to meet where they have no control over. More risk no control.

 

Isn't that risk sort of inherent to both scouting and other youth activities?  By definition, a scout troop that goes camping is meeting at some place other than the CO's location.  But the same is true for all sorts of activities, sports teams are constantly playing in venues other than their homes.  Church youth groups do field trips and outside ministry.  FFA and 4H go to fairs, competitions, exhibitions.

The most important thing for a CO to understand is their responsibilities, they reduce their risks through their actions, and then unsure against the foreseeable and unforeseeable risks inherent as in all of life.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The desire to be a CO is still there, but there are some issues that need to be addressed.  As a CO, you have been told for years that you are covered under an insurance policy only to find out you weren't.  Then you are told that if you pay the organization millions of dollars, there is good probability they will extend coverage for you.  All of this is happening because of possible events that either took place away from your campus or took place on your campus but outside of your direct control.  Now you are being told to secure a COI from the organization, but you really need a copy of the policy to make sure it covers what they tell you it covers.  Then you get to wonder if the policy has undergone revision.  Being told to trust is difficult when violation of trust is what got us to this point in the relationship.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Isn't that risk sort of inherent to both scouting and other youth activities?  By definition, a scout troop that goes camping is meeting at some place other than the CO's location.  But the same is true for all sorts of activities, sports teams are constantly playing in venues other than their homes.  Church youth groups do field trips and outside ministry.  FFA and 4H go to fairs, competitions, exhibitions.

The most important thing for a CO to understand is their responsibilities, they reduce their risks through their actions, and then unsure against the foreseeable and unforeseeable risks inherent as in all of life.  

I think with the UMC in particular, what most scouters are unaware of is that the UMC is in a crisis on its own. Its whole basket of mission work, of which scouting is a small piece, is at risk. The bandwith for continuing any kind of future liability with scouting given the perceived lack of trustworthiness on the part of BSA is small for that and a variety of reasons. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BPUMC said:

The desire to be a CO is still there, but there are some issues that need to be addressed.  As a CO, you have been told for years that you are covered under an insurance policy only to find out you weren't.  Then you are told that if you pay the organization millions of dollars, there is good probability they will extend coverage for you.  All of this is happening because of possible events that either took place away from your campus or took place on your campus but outside of your direct control.  Now you are being told to secure a COI from the organization, but you really need a copy of the policy to make sure it covers what they tell you it covers.  Then you get to wonder if the policy has undergone revision.  Being told to trust is difficult when violation of trust is what got us to this point in the relationship.

If I was head of a CO or potential CO I would absolutely want to see, and have evaluated independently, whatever insurance policy purported to cover me, and I would make presentation of an updated policy a condition for rechartering.

For the UMC, once bitten twice shy.  Once you've had that breech of trust it's really hard to rebuild

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

An unintended  consequence.   Unit asked a potential new sponsor about taking on the sponsorship.  Potential sponsor asked why the UMC was leaving.  Unit said liability.  P-sponsor says then why should we take on the liability?

I honestly don't know how to answer that question for a potential CO.

I also don't really know how to answer a parent when they ask what does the $75 cover?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone else noticed a LC hiring boom. I checked three area LC's and in the last month they all hired staff. 

Like 15 FTE's between the three councils. Many of these positions were left vacant for years and some are new positions. 

Some positions seem like a response to UMC unit oversight by the council and the need to monitor all units more closely for YP standards. 

I feel like the council's have a sense the bankruptcy will go through and they are going all in to try and maintain and increase membership. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PACAN said:

@skeptic

I did not see this document posted on this thread.  It's dated August 26th.

The documents shared over time have been similar, but changed a bit.  The basic premise, is the same for a long time now.  Problems lie in that many councils seem to NOT want to do it if they are responsible.  We are looking at changing CO's, not to the Council, as ours does not really want to do it, and we are not comfortable with it anyway due to the asset issue.  The good news is that our local church wants us to stay with the useage agreement, just not the legal CO problem that is ongoing in the litigious atmosphere.  We can perpetuate our tenure though, which is the main issue for us, beyond the meeting place of decades with its history.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 8/26 document is much more specific than the 1 July one with more specific actions by the UMC/BSA/LC/Unit.

It was thought (maybe wished) that the latest agreement which both parties went back in session to discuss would have an option for the status quo for units but that is not in the 8/26 document.  The fact that the LC picks the unit leadership and provides the LC EIN to set up a bank account really means they are the sponsor.  

The UMC side has words like "generally" and "reasonably" support no "will".

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...