Unit needs new Chartering Organization

[Trevorum 24]

As a brand new UC, I have been assigned to assist one of the most problematic units in our district. Go figure.

 

The troop has several serious issues including lack of recruiting, poor rentention, and an anemic outdoors program. I believe I can offer them some good suggestions towards those issues. However, an underlying context is the Chartering Organization (CO). The CO is a neighborhood association which, while once supportive, has become uninterested and distant. The unit gets NO support from the CO and the CO is not interested in changing the relationship. The CC and SM have expressed an interest in finding a new CO which will be more supportive, might provide a recruiting base, and which the troop could actively support in return (service projects, ec.).

 

We are focusing on the immediate issues for now (starting with program) but my question to the forums is this: how does a unit go about finding a new CO? This is new territory for me and I appreciate your advice! Thanks!

 

-trevorum

[Bob White 20]

Technically, the unit doesnt.

 

You are putting the wishes of the unit volunteers ahead of the those of the unit OWNERS. Remember the charter organization is the contract holder with the council and the BSA, NOT the unit leaders.

 

So whether they are poor or not the CO is not required to relinquish the charter, the members are however free to transfer to another unit is they wish. But remember the assets belong to the CO, that means the money and equipment stays put, unless the CO agree to release them to another CO.

 

Your 1st responsiblity as a Unit Commissioner is to see that the scouts have an opportunity for a quality scouting experience. You have a charter organization that was once supportive, your job is to help re-establish that connection. Then help the owners of the unit be able to offer a quality program.

 

My recommendation is a 2 prong front.

 

Front 1: While you work witth The Co's Instiututional Head to get the CO back in step and realizing that this is THEIR scout unit and not just a scout unit that meets THERE. Also get an active Charetr Organization Representative in place and a healthy Committee.

 

Front 2: At the same time get the district training committee in there and fix the program. By that I mean train or re-train the Scoutmaster to get him or her in sync with the BSA program Methods, or have the IH and CR remove him and get a new Scoutmaster. Fixing the CO problem will not solve the poor program problem.

 

You need to get the SM changed. Either get the current one to change mentally or get a new one and change him physically.

 

When the problem is the program, then the solution is the program leader, in your case that's the Scoutmaster. He either changes of he gets changed. That is the only way you will alter the present condition.

 

Moving a poor Scoutmaster to a new location serves NO ONE.

 

IF THE CO IS WILLING TO RELINQUISH THE ASSETS...

and you can find a new CO, you still need to change the scoutmaster.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Eamonn 61]

Seems to me that you have things in order.

Helping to fix the problems with the program first.

 

While Bobwhite is right.

People and organizations do change.

20 years back a local volunteer fire company had a lot of people who were or had been involved with Scouting.

They (The fire company) were very enthusiastic about wanting to get involved and did become a CO for a pack.

Over time the people who were in the fire company, changed.

The new volunteers had different values.

Giving up the fire hall for Cub Scouts, which resulted in not having a bingo night!! Became a big deal.

The Pack ended up meeting in the local elementary school.

Sure someone from the fire company was willing to sign any papers that needed to be signed. But even that was at times hard work as the elected officers in the fire company changed from year to year.

Things came to a head when one year the elected Fire Chief contacted me (The then District Commish) and said if we (The Boy Scouts) didn't remove the Pine Wood Derby track that was stored in the fire hall he was going to send me a bill for storage!!

I did send the DE in to talk with him (He was after all the IHO /Executive Officer ).

The fire company was happy to allow the pack to move, keep the number and all the assets that the pack had.

With the help of the District Membership Committee a new CO (A local church) was found and everyone ended up happy.

When it comes to dealing with CO and the Executive Officer, this is best left to the DE.

The agreement that a CO signs is with the BSA, not the volunteers.

You might when you give your report to the District Commissioner want to bring this up, he will bring it up at a key 3 meeting and maybe the DE will contact the Membership Committee to see if they can be of help finding a CO.

Of course if the DE was doing his job and meeting with the CO every year, he would know what is going on.

Good Luck

Eamonn.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, while BW is right, da reality on the ground is often not quite what the ideal is, eh? IMO the only really good CO's are ones that either run youth programs themselves (schools, youth ministry etc.) or have a unique and special place in their heart for Scouting (VFW, etc.). Neighborhood and informal parent associations and such don't really have a "mission" that includes youth development, eh? So while yeh might get some folks interested in that for a while, when they leave, so will that focus. It's not part of their core mission.

 

Practically speakin', work with your district key three to identify a couple likely targets. Chances are your district membership committee already has a few "prospects". Then as a team, go get 'em on board. While IH's are nice people and all, yeh really want to look for a youth advocate and a scoutin' enthusiast. For example, if yeh can find a district or council committee member who is at a church, and da church has a young or otherwise enthusiastic youth director, and a reasonable IH, you're golden. Da scouter generates the scoutin' talk and becomes COR, the youth minister gets aboard as a friend (and MC/Chaplain), and you bring a program that might be small but has some potential. You're off to da races.

 

It's far better thing to move and save a strugglin' unit than it is to build one from scratch.

 

Your DE can help yeh with the paperwork for the current CO signin' off on the numeral and equipment transfer, it's pretty straightforward. From da situation you describe, I don't reckon it'll be much of a problem at all.

 

Beavah

 

[Trevorum 24]

Thanks, guys. I will bring this up with my DC and DE. They may have some good ideas on a possible replacement CO

[John-in-KC 311]

Trev,

 

It's also important to close out the relationship with the current Chartered Partner on an up-note. Chartered Partners are the owners of record of the property and the accounts of the unit. You can have a situation where the people shift, but not the STUFF.

 

Not knowing the particulars of your community, I would recommend talking to the American Legion and the VFW. Both have National level mandates to pick up Scouting charters where other partners want to drop them. Look for opportunities to make the relationship a win/win over time.

 

Let us know how this turns out my friend

 

John

[Trevorum 24]

Thanks, John. As I suggested, this change will probably be down the road some months; the first order of business is to reinvigorate the program. The backstory (with which I did not complicate the CO issue) is that the CC has been excessively controlling all aspects of the unit for some time now. At the request of the new SM and ASM, the CC resigned last week (what a showdown that was!) and a new CC is ready to step up. Things are on the mend. The unit is down to 10 scouts, of whom six are Star rank or above, but the new leadership has a plan for recruiting.

[beardad 12]

It may not be so simple to change CO's anyway. Even if all parties want it, your council or district may not allow it.

 

My pack has been self chartered for years, and everytime we talk with our council exec to get a charter he wont let us. Short of disbanding our pack and restarting we just choose to stay self chartered. at least then we don't have to answer to anybody.

 

it's a nothing more than a numbers game to them. they don't care if a pack/troop is getting support or not.

[beardad 12]

Since I can't edit my above post. I meant disctrict and not council, and I also meant disctrict executive not council executive. sorry.

[BrotherhoodWWW 10]

Having been there once, losing a CO and almost changing with a different unit it is not as difficult as Bob White may make it seem. Regardless of what the charter agreement says the reality is that a unit is a collection of members and adult leaders. If the CO does not wish to be involved as seems to be so often the case then actual, although not legal ownership is with those whom are registered. If a CO does not want to lose the unit that folks want to lose they do get to keep the unit number but I'm thinking only if they can meet the minimun number of youth and adults to register. Ownership of the unit equipment may not be as clear cut and likely would depend on local interpratation. As it seems to be the case with the unit in question I doubt that you will have much problem moving the unit.

 

If the current SM is willing to change the program to make it better I see no reason not to help him move the unit to a CO that would be supportive of the program. Ideally you can find a church or civil organization that wants to pick up the charter and become an engaged partner. Short term you may just be able to find one htat will host the unit until an engaged partner is found.

 

When my son was in Cubs his Pack was chartered by a public school parent group. That group was forced by law to change it's name and about the same time no longer wanted to be a chartering org. We had to get a release from the CO's IH giving up all rights tot he Pack and its equipment. We also had to have the new CO fill out a new unit application. The transition was almost painless. We shose a local church which agreed to the request of the adult leadership at the time that all that was expected was a place to meet. At the time we had several adult leaders whose profession was attorneys of law. They, the law guys had no issues with the back room agreeement between the CO and the adult leaders. Furthermore since one of the lawers was also a member of the church and a deputy county prosecuter his legal opinion was secured by both parties. A CO may if it chooses to let the unit adult leaders fulfill the CO's responsibilities when it comes to running the unit.

 

All that said what Bob White is saying is the ideal and if at all possible really IMHO should be sought. It is for the best of the long term program stability for the unit, district, and council to have engaged CO's. Without engaged CO's units rise and fall with the strength of it's leader. With an engaged CO the quality of unit leadership is likely to be always high, well at least that is the theory. I've not seen it to be true in the real world, but I have seen Troops to rise and fall depending on the ability of the SM.

[Eamonn 61]

" A CO may if it chooses to let the unit adult leaders fulfill the CO's responsibilities when it comes to running the unit."

 

BrotherhoodWWW

I'm not sure what this means?

Be a pal and explain it for me.

Thanks

Ea.

[John-in-KC 311]

I'm with Eamonn. Please, explain...

[BrotherhoodWWW 10]

What I mean specifically is that if the CO so chooses to delegate its responsibility of selecting adult leaders it can. So the committee picks the CM or SM, DL/ ASM and CC and the CO confirms/ agrees to this with a signature on the adult application. In essence the CO just provides a meeting place for the unit. In the short term this might not present any prolems. Long term it may or may not depending on the quality of leaders that sign on board.

 

In the pack that I was involved with that had this arrangement woth our CO the DE was well aware of the arrangement and expressed no problems that he saw with it. It meant another chartered unit in his district. It is likely that if the CO were asked to fullfill the CO agreement to the letter and be an active participant in the Pack they would not have agreed to do so. Faced with the choice of no unit or a CO in name only which would you choose?

[John-in-KC 311]

I see your premise nowhere on the New Unit Application or the Annual Charter Agreement.

 

I'm looking at two BSA Forms online: http://www.scouting.org/forms/28-402.pdf , the New Unit Application (NUA) and

 

http://ozarktrailsbsa.org/downloads/annual_charter_agreement.pdf , a copy of the Annual Charter Agreemnt (ACA).

 

The words are see are:the Chartered Organization "The executive officer of the chartered organization, by signature, certifies that the organization approves the charter application. The executive officer also certifies that the organization has approved all registering unit adults. The responsibility for approval of unit adults can also be given to the chartered organization representative" (NUA) and "(The chartered organization head or chartered organization representative must approve all leader applications before submitting them to the local council.)" (ACA)

 

Here's another piece from the ACA: "Select a unit committee of parents and members of the chartered organization (minimum of three) who will screen and select unit leaders who meet the organization's standards as well as the

leadership standards of the BSA. (The committee chairman must sign all leadership

applications before submitting them to the chartered organization for approval.)"

 

The Comitte may, as part of the process, be delegated a portion of the process. If delegated, the Chartered Organization has to define standards.

 

At the end of the day, the burden is on the Chartered Partner, not the unit.

[BrotherhoodWWW 10]

John-in-KC I have read the documents you linked to, thanks btw for posting those. Perhaps what really happened is that the COR just always agreed with what the committee presented for approval, as a matter of SOP. The end result is that all leaders the unit presented to the CO for approval were approved even though the process may not have been exactly as it should have been. Since the BSA has no control over the inner workings of its chartered partners are they not free to use a process that works for them? The end result being that the CO approves each and every adult application. I'm not trying to advocate that units use the process as I've described. Yet if it is the only way in which a unit gets a charter why not. If the BSA required a strict process, which I'm not sure they could, how many units would fold? How would this serve the youth? My guess is a bunch and with that many youth would not have the opportunity for the program. In my sparsely populated county this would be 2 of 8 that would likely crumble plus 4 of the remaining 6 would be LDS, which IMHO would not likely pick up the youth whose units folded.

 

The OP asked how to find a CO. What I am advocating is keeping the options open. Sometimes that means having to reach a compromise in the process the CO uses to fulfill its obligations. Sometimes by starting with small demands on a CO over time as members of the CO become involved in the unit there can be a shift to the process as it should be.