Heavy handed Chartered Organization

[AwakeEnergyScouter 247]

My NSO didn't have this CO structure, so I guess my mental model is hands-off by default. Perhaps not coincidentally, our pack is also very independent of the CO, and the CO also isn't a church. We have an active, outdoorsy pack with no drama so I'd say it's working well.

So the idea is that no religion is required for BSA membership, but BSA members can be barred from specific units on religious grounds?

[yknot 1338]

34 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

So the idea is that no religion is required for BSA membership, but BSA members can be barred from specific units on religious grounds?

Yes.

[fred8033 1593]

17 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

It seems against BSA policy to require either scouters or scouts to be members of not just a specific religion but an even more specific sect of that religion. I mean, they explicitly decline to define the words "God" and "religion" in the declaration of religious principle, which they kind of have to in order to not go against BP's example and the current WOSM constitution. If there really are churches doing this, they really shouldn't be. Part of why scouting can't be their youth program. Can't assume everyone agrees on religion.

It seems wrong only because so few units actually do it, but it's fully within the CO's right. 

Scouts really have two membership connections.  One to BSA.  One to the CO.  BSA has membership criteria.  The CO can also have their own separate membership criteria.  No unit is forced to accept any specific leader or any specific scout.  

IMHO, this should not be surprising.  The CO is chartering a unit and is accepting both responsibility to do well by the unit but also expecting to setup the unit to be compatible with their CO.  

[AwakeEnergyScouter 247]

What value is the CO supposed to bring? Free meeting spaces? I don't quite understand why they exist, it seems extra complicated with relatively little payoff.

[InquisitiveScouter 1656]

9 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

What value is the CO supposed to bring? Free meeting spaces? I don't quite understand why they exist, it seems extra complicated with relatively little payoff.

The Chartering Organizations are embedded in their local community.  They agree to use the Scouting program as part of their outreach in their community.  They also agree to provide support for the Troop, and be voting members of the council.  They are supposed to be the ones vetting leaders for the Scouting units they own.

Many did not, and many do not, take these responsibilities seriously.

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/04-113.pdf

[Eagledad 2779]

Anyone heard of LDS troops? There are a lot of COs that require church membership because the units are part of their youth program. I know of one Troop that only registered home schoolers because the Troop was the socializing part of their program.

I think it's a benefit for the BSA that Scouting can be a tool for programs that need an organize youth program. We are likely to see more of it since girls can be member now.

Barry

[fred8033 1593]

1 hour ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

What value is the CO supposed to bring? Free meeting spaces? I don't quite understand why they exist, it seems extra complicated with relatively little payoff.

The most important real role of the CO was scouting advocacy.  CO gets to boast they support scouting.  Community sees scouting in that CO.  CO feels like they should do something (space, money, consideration) for their scouting unit.  IMHO, BSA created the chartering model as tool to get support for scouting more than to oversee the unit.  It's more marketing than oversight.  

But it can also be a real youth program in the CO too.  

Edited August 24, 2023 by fred8033

[SSScout 1616]

"It depends"

Some years ago,  a fellow Commisher and I helped a local church (of un-named faith)  start a Scout Troop.  It was unabashedly a part of their "Sunday School".  

It lasted exactly three years and then decomposed....   The unofficial evidence was the religious leaders were too heavy handed in their goal of "conversion"....

[scoutldr 732]

We had a Sea Scout Ship that was all Muslim.  The troop that my Dad and I founded in 1965 recently folded because the Baptist Church CO could no longer abide the BSA policies that run counter to their moral teachings.

[Eagledad 2779]

3 hours ago, SSScout said:

"It depends"

Some years ago,  a fellow Commisher and I helped a local church (of un-named faith)  start a Scout Troop.  It was unabashedly a part of their "Sunday School".  

It lasted exactly three years and then decomposed....   The unofficial evidence was the religious leaders were too heavy handed in their goal of "conversion"....

Unfortunately, I've seen many heavy handed non-religious adult troops decompose. Sadly, one does not have to be religious to be zealot.

Barry

[SiouxRanger 491]

On 8/23/2023 at 10:41 AM, AnotherScouter said:

A lot of questions here, I will try my best to fill in where I can. Thanks everyone for your thoughts and insights. From what I can tell, this is all coming from the President of the CO and/or the board of the CO through the President. The unit is just a few years old, and I am one of the founders of the unit. Now that the unit has gotten bigger and the scouting program is becoming more successful, it seems the President of the CO wants more control over how the unit operates. 

1. Emails - they say it's for continuity when leadership changes. Of course this doesn't really mean much because 90% of communication happens outside of email. it just makes lives more difficult for the volunteers. Also raises issues because people still use personal emails for scoutbook and trooptrack. 

2. Banking - sounds like this is pretty normal (except for taking the funds part). Although the charter agreement does say the unit should have it's own Account. 

3. Fixed term and CO. Yeah I understand it is their right to choose the Scoutmaster. Feels odd to have no transparency and say "OK starting on X date, this is your new SM" without taking any input from the scouting leadership or even providing any insight into the decision making process. We don't know how the candidates were chosen or what criteria was used to choose the new SM. 

4. The CoR is very involved in the troop, he is also one of the founders, but the issue is that the President wants a direct line to the SM. Basically the President wants to bypass the CoR and CC and work with the SM directly. I've been told they chose the SM specifically as someone who would listen to the President and the Board of the CO. 

The micromanagement is a good insight. That is definitely what is happening here. And it's not good leadership. I agree the CO being more involved would be good if they were working with the volunteers who know how the scouting program works and what scouting is about. The issue is that the CO knows very little about Scouting, and care more about it being part of the CO, and being a religious program. I fear this is going to dilute the quality of the Scouting program. We have some very highly trained and passionate individuals who founded the troop (Wood Badge trained, etc) but their advice and goals seem to be secondary to what the President wants to see here. 

It sounds like this is all within the CO's right to run the Troop like this, so if I disagree I should probably find another Troop which is run with some more autonomy. My approach is going to be wait a few months and see how things shake out, then make a decision. Thanks all

When flow chart and operational discussion gets to this level, time to find a new chartering organization.

• General Taylor: Woah, Dick, put the brakes on. I wanted to wait until airman left to talk with you. Dick, I'm transferring you.
• Sgt. Major Dickerson: Transferring me? Where to sir?
• General Taylor: You're going to Guam.
• Sgt. Major Dickerson: Guam sir? There's nothing going on in Guam. Why Guam?
• General Taylor: Dick, I've covered for you a lot of times cause I thought you were a little crazy. But you're not crazy, you're mean. And this is just radio.

And a Scout Troop, as important as it is to the lives of the youth, it really is just a Scout Troop. Tiny finances, sparse adult leadership, huge burdens on the few adults who actually show up, tons of communications, phone, email, text…

And, frankly, in my 25 years of troop service, had anyone ever stepped up to help, what a Godsend.

And had anyone stepped up, only to get in my way and not help, well, "here are the keys, good luck…"

Most units don't need a minute's distraction putting on the program.

As one who grew up in the program, all ranks, cubs, scouts, Eagle, local camp staff, Philmont Ranger, when an interloper with no scouting experience seeks to disrupt the troop's operation, either they back off, or we all leave.

Some would blame Soros for this (by virtue of some convoluted conspiracy theory) but that blame tactic is long fore-shadowed by Cato the Elder whose hatred of Carthage was so deep, that he ended his every speech in the Roman Senate with, " Carthāgō dēlenda est ("Carthage must be destroyed").

And tell me how does hatred solve problems?

 

[rallybug 14]

On 8/24/2023 at 9:32 AM, Eagledad said:

Anyone heard of LDS troops? ...

Yup, adult leadership in an LDS unit was a "calling" for an adult member of that ward of the church, normally for a year minimum, I think. I know someone who was "called" to be the Webelos DL for a year.

[skeptic 997]

As someone hinted, this is a lean towards protection of the CO.  The legal black feathers continue to look for ways to go after CO's, and one of the issues that made the current legal problems so bad was/is the lack of involvement of too many of the people supposed to monitor.  Also, I was glad that one poster noted the CO owns the unit, so complaining about them taking some modicum of oversight is showing a lack of comprehension of the process.  

On the other hand, we are still trying to determine who our CO is.  We were pushed into the modified Methodist agreements, and our charter still says the church is the CO; but that is not how it was to be, and why we are still concerned.  Our church has made it clear they want us there, but the set up is not at all clear.  We almost moved to the Masonic lodge, but they chose not to after originally telling us yes.  So, we are back to, in theory I guess, having the council as the CO with the agreement.  That still concerns us, as that could bring us trouble, as this discussion has hinted at.