ScoutingforAnswers

Thanks for all the good replies you guys. This is such a can of worms for everyone that being able to help sort it out is going to be quite the ordeal I'm finding. The EIN is a real sticking point for them. The Boy Scout application for being a new CO does not ask the CO for its own EIN, so nationally and at the local council level, there is no tracking of the actual EINs of COs that own and operate units (which I kind of blame for causing this mess, since it basically means Local Councils on the other side of the contract have no actual confirmation of whether the CO on the other side of theACA is an actual legally entity). The unit's assets, checking, and determination of whether it is a non-profit or not is reliant upon what its CO's status is, not the Local Council or BSA National. The point of our CO is they are not, have not, and will never be their own legal entity. The EIN they use when they do their own business is that of the school district. So, when the president of the organization signs our charter agreeing that the PTO has responsibility and ownership for the unit, what legal entity is actually accepting ownership of the unit? It's not the PTO because they're not a legal entity, so there's no financial responsibility and no insurance coverage for non-scout related activities being provided by the PTO (since again not a legal entity). The only two legal entities that her signature can be seen as representing is either: 1) that of her as an individual (and therefore she's personally responsible) OR 2) that of her acting as an agent of the legal entity (school district) that her organization (the PTO) is itself operating under If the legal entity BSA views she's signing for is herself, then that should be unacceptable by BSA (since she's an individual not an organization). If the legal entity she's signing for is the school district then it is ultimately the district that owns this unit as well as the other 8 units that operate similarly in the district (using other school PTOs who also are not legal entities as the charter organization). Therefore, the actual owner of all of these units (school district) should have 1 seat on the Local Council going forward instead of the 5 PTOs that operate under its umbrella each having their own seat? Is there anything that is a counter to the viewpoint that the PTO is making?

That is the question that has come up now. For 70 years, its just been something the PTO signed off on. But now with having to make the CO decision on boy/ girl/ or mixed troop, the people in the PTO are asking that exact question. The president of the PTO is wondering if her signature on this document is as her representing the legal entity of the school district (which she is not authorized to do) or if it is her as a person committing to this charter agreement. She says those would be the only two legal entities that could possibly exist. And since they aren't a legal entity why can't the parent leading science club, or the parent leading robotics club sign it.

Thanks. It is a unique setup within our district as of a couple of years ago. While most PTOs in other districts are set up as their own 501(c)3 non-profits, schools in our district were given that option as well but there's a catch. A PTO can operate as a separate 501(c)3 and maintain your own checking account, but you can't use district facilities without paying a rental charge. The PTO in the schools are typically heavily reliant on district facilities for their events so they chose to join in with the district. They use the district's tax ID (EIN) when needed, avoid the facility rental fees, and have discretion over how their funds at the district's central office are used (buy chromebooks for 4th grade, buy new tables for 1st grade, etc). For them, the reimbursement is the only real drawback. For us, the drawback is they aren't separate from the school and we may be the tip of the iceberg since there are 5 other packs and 3 troops currently chartered to different PTOs in the district. I would rather figure out a solution for our pack and troop first, then help the other packs and troops that may be affected. The new membership non-requirements and the need for the PTOs to sign off on which type of units it wanted to charter is what opened this can of worms, but I do hope it can be a positive in the long term. If we do need to seek out another CO, I know Elks, VFW, and KofC already charter other packs. I know the Masonic Lodge has an award or designation it can give to its members for working with Scouts. Does anyone know of any others like that? While the PTO has been completely hands off, a CO that maybe has a similar incentive might generate a greater community support. Also, I know the PTO would be willing to sign off on the equipment being transferred as well as letting us keep our Pack and Troop numbers. With such a long history, I know former members would definitely be disheartened if the troop number were to be lost.

Thanks Fred & Dave, The PTO is not trying to play coy with the troop, they literally don't have a non-profit ID that they can provide. While I'm sure many PTOs have their own separate checking accounts at a local bank, this PTO does not. It has an account with the school district's central office who controls and must approve all of its transactions. For its own activities, the PTO members must pay for activities out of pocket and then seek reimbursement from the school district's central account. That allows them to operate without a non-profit ID and to not be an actual legal entity because their funds are commingled with those of the school. I think a big sticking point is with the group's being asked to grant more financial freedom to us than it itself enjoys. The troop has an EIN it obtained under a member of the scout unit's finance committee that allows it to operate a checking account for the troop from a local bank. For example, let's say both the troop and the PTO want to buy banquet supplies for 70 people at Wal-Mart. Currently, the troop uses its checking account at the local bank and writes a check for the expenses out of the organization's checking account. Meanwhile, if the PTO does the same thing, somebody from the group has to use their own money to buy the supplies (paying sales tax), then submit that receipt along with a request for reimbursement to the central office of the school system. If all items are approved by the central office, a check is cut and then mailed to the member in about 2 weeks. Friends in the organization have stated they sometimes have over $500 in outstanding receipts awaiting reimbursement from the district. Some of the members do not have the ability to pay that much out of pocket, so chairing their events is limited to just a few individuals who have the capability of having cash out of their own pockets for that long. When the troop was originally chartered, the PTO did have a separate checking account at the bank, but the school district has said they would be charged to use district facilities if they did not make the move to this reimbursement system. They're questioning how they can be deemed responsible for an organization that has the freedom they had to surrender a few years ago.

Our local troop and pack have been chartered by our school's PTO since the early 1960s. Until recently, the PTO has been pretty uninvolved as the CO and has had no involvement other than its president signing the annual charter recertification. The PTO, as it currently is configured, operates as a part of the school district and therefore does not exist as its own separate non-profit legal entity, does not have a tax ID number, file its own taxes or control its own money. All of their operations fall under the discretion of the school district. The PTO is now questioning how they can act as CO when they have no ability to provide equipment insurance or oversight of troop finances. Any help or advice anyone has pertaining to this would be greatly appreciated.