Problems with Charter Organization

[Fat Old Guy]

"The unit funds belong to the unit not the CO. And if a unit dissolves the unpaid bills are paid & the rest of the money belongs to the council. The gear if not owned by an individual stays with the CO."

 

Ed, that part about gear is arguable since the BSA policies mention money and property.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

BobWhite says:

 

NJ are you honestly a lawyer? If you read my post you had to have noticed that I did not "imply" anything. I simply quoted a passage from a BSA resource that pertained to the topic.

 

How do get that I implied anything from that?

 

Bob, I might ask whether you can read, but that would be almost as un-Scoutlike as your question to me about whether I am "honestly a lawyer." I do not wish to stoop to that level. So I will simply say that anyone who can read would know that I did not say you were implying anything, I merely asked whether you were implying something. The Scoutlike answer would be no, you were not.

 

I will leave it to the rest of readers to determine whether you were implying anything, since the last sentence of your post states exactly what I wondered whether you were implying.

 

Don't you think it is odd, by the way, that the text of what you quoted does not use the word "ownership" or any synonym for ownership, while the heading does mention "ownership"? (Unless, of course, you omitted some of the text.) Well, actually, you probably don't think it's odd. Since it is in a BSA publication, you probably think that automatically makes it clear, unambiguous and well-written.

 

By th way does the CO and the council "basically" co-own everything? Yes.

 

That's interesting, because I count three times in this thread alone where you said the CO owns everything. Now you are saying the CO and the council "basically" co-own everything. Which of your statements are correct, and which are incorrect? And don't try to say it's the same thing, because it isn't. And, again, which BSA publication supports what you are saying? The one you quoted does not.

[Bob White]

"Are you implying that supervision of the custodian equals ownership of the assets?"

 

"I did not say you were implying anything, I merely asked whether you were implying something.

 

I withdraw my question...you're a lawyer.

 

If you really believe I may have omitted any text perhaps you should actually read it from the source. I gave you the book and the page number.

 

It seems odd that a lawyer would render an opinin without researching any facts. You want me to find you the resources? Don't you do research before you determine if there is a case? By now you know the resources of scouting. Which ones did you read before making your decision on this topic?(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[NJCubScouter]

Bob, if you want to admit you were wrong (about an ever-increasing number of things in this thread), you can just come out and do it, you don't need to hide behind smirky remarks.

[NJCubScouter]

Bob, my last post was directed toward the original version of your last post, the one-line version. Now that you have edited it to add more substance, it doesn't really apply, but I can't edit my posts.

 

Once again, I did not say you omitted any text. I said "unless." If you cannot tell the difference between different types of statements, that is not my problem.

 

Actually I did not think you had omitted anything. My point was (and is), assuming the text was complete, it doesn't make complete sense given the heading. The heading says "ownership" but the text does not deal with "ownership." How do you explain that?

 

As for "render an opinion" or "making a decision," I have not done either on the subject of who owns the funds and equipment. I am just commenting on your answers, both those you give yourself and those you quote from publications. The answers are not consistent, and in the case of the Cub Scout Leader Book, not clear.

[Bob White]

Here is what that particular quote tells me.

first that the committee is not the owner of the assets, but is given custodial responsibilities of it by the CO and the Council.

 

It tells me that, because it recognizes the CO and Council as "supervisers" over the committee.

 

Why should they be the supervisors? By contract. The unit only exists as an activity of the CO whose Institution Head signs an annual contract with the BSA. The members of the committee and unit leaders are also shared members of the CO and the Council. They also agree as a condition of membership to follow the programs methods and policies of the BSA. This would make the unit and its members answerable to the two parent organizations.

 

To expand based on experience and knowledge of the program and as found in various resources of the BSA such as trsining syllabii, charter kits and program handbooks.....

The Co is in many ways a franchisee of the BSA which is represented by the council as a local licensor. The unit leaders are in a way the employees of the franchisee who agree to the conditions of the franchising company as a condition of employment.

 

It would be unreasonable to assume that in the case of the employees leaving the company, whether individually or in group, that they would be entitled to the assets or properties of the owners or franchisee. The fact that these assets were gained during their employment does not give them the rights of ownership.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Fat Old Guy]

Bob, it all depends on the agreements in place. I used to have an extensive technical library that was paid for by my employer but was mine to take with me when I left (it went out of date so it went into the trash can).

 

If the committee said, "You are allocated this much of the troop's money to spend on Scout stuff," that is one thing. If they said, "You raised this money, it is yours to spend on Scouting expenses" that is a different matter altogether.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

pdunbar says:

 

Today, we found out that all money and equipment will be turned over to the Nnew CO.

 

Congratulations to you and the boys, pdunbar! It would be interesting to know whether the old CO just came to its senses or whether some "pressure" was applied by the DE or other council representative.

 

This would seem to indicate that this was not a situation in which the CO intended to keep "its" unit going with new boys and leaders. It sounds like the CR was just being difficult and that someone convinced him (or made clear to the IH) that the purpose of the money and equipment was to allow boys to get the benefits of Scouting, not for the benefit of the CO.

[Twocubdad]

Bob, your use of the "employee" analogy is interesting and relates back to what NJ's original post on how contract law applies. What inducements has the CO offered its "employees" to get them to work? Are the "employees", both adult volunteers and Scouts there simply to enrich the CO? Or was there some understanding that by selling all that popcorn and washing all those cars that the proceeds would inure to the benefit of those earning the money?

 

In the case of the Scout accounts, the answer seems clear that the proceeds were to directly benefit the individual Scouts by the amount in their accounts. These accounts are clearly "obligations of the unit" the committee is responsible for settling prior to turning the assets over to the CO and/or Council. The ownership of a Dutch oven purchased by the troop 20 years ago is a little more difficult to determine. The boys who earned the money for it are long gone. But the policies quoted here plainly say that the assets must be used by the CO to reorganize the unit or otherwise to the benefit of Scouting. The idea that the CO "owns everything" -- which has been floated in these forums many times -- doesn't jive with the policy.

 

Here's a real-world example. A new troop was formed in our district and each family was asked to contribute $100 seed money for equipment. Very quickly new COR and SM butted heads over how the troop was to be run and the unit found that the CO couldn't provide the meeting space they had promised. The unit leaders found another CO to charter the the troop and moved en masse to the new unit, taking all the equipment purchased with the parents' donations. The COR started making noise about filing theft warrants. Fortunately the IH stepped in and said that fair was fair and that the Scouts should keep the equipment.

 

There are points to be made on both sides, but the crux of the case was that the parents made the contributions with a clear expectation that the money would be used to the benefit of the Scout troop and their sons. The COR was on pretty shaky ground to claim that the money was a simple, unencumbered contribution to the church to be used as the church saw fit. At best, the COR could have pointed to the BSA policy and held the unit's assets in anticipation of reforming another troop. But given the facts of this particular situation, that would have been a bit tenuous as well.

[Bob White]

First as the barrister would point out, I said in a way, not in all ways. At no time did I compare the youth members to employees. they are in this analogy the customers, the end-user of the product or service.

 

The inducement is the opportunity to serve the customer. Any leader who does is not motivated by that should not have been selected for employment.

 

The council/CO/committee and leaders are there to serve the youth THROUGH the Charter Organizations.

 

In your real life case the CO broke the contract. As any lawyer learns, there is no justice, there is only law. What you think is fair is always dependent on your vantage point, the rules are meant to be benefit each party providing they all stay within the rules.

 

For a charter organization to not provide for the responsibiliteies it agreed to is a violation of the rules. In such rare cases the BSA has interceded to urge the CO to fulfill its responsibilities or lose the charter. The BSA has the right to claim those assets since they were gained using the name and symbols of the BSA intended for the use of their members. A new or existing charter organization is found and the members offered the opportunity to transfer and the NEW CO gains ownership of the assets.

 

In turn, if members decide to leave the Charter organization much as the way employees change employers, the CO has the choice to maintain a scouting program and select new leaders and members. In this case the exiting adult and youth members are due nothing unless the CO chooses otherwise.

 

Nowhere will you find a reference in scouting to the unit "belonging" to the committee or the leaders. If the unit and the scouting program do not belong to anyone other than the CO and to the BSA, then neither do the assets of that unit.

 

The charter organization concept has been a unique identifier of the BSA since the early 1900s I am amazed at the number of posters who seem oblivious to its existence and purpose.

 

The State rests its case your Honor.

 

 

 

 

[pdunbar]

Bob White

 

In our case all of the parents and boys left the old CO because they did not fulfill their duty as CO. We did not have a functioning committee, despite the fact that we had at least 8 adults ready to fulfill committee positions. The CR did not allow new members on the committee. Furthermore, our committee chair was also from the CO. His attendance in two years was a grand total of 3 meetings. He had no excuse for this. To compound the issue our Cr was also our tresurer. We felt that this was inappropiate but our CO would not relieve him of this position. At meetings, he never gave us a tresurer's report.

 

We called out local coucil for help and recieved none. Had our unit commisioner meant with us we might have been able to resolve our problems. Our unit commisioner felt that the CO and CR could do what ever they wanted, ioncluding tyerminationg individuals without just cause. I was one of those individuals. I loev scouting. My belief isw give the boys an exciting program and they will achieve great things including being boy-led!! I was accused of making too many eagles!! I taught a total of 2 merit badges in the last seven years. The only thing I am guilty of is getting the boys juiced up about scouting. I believ scouting is based arounfd outings and using those outings to teach leadership responsibilities to the boys.

 

Now, why didn't we reciiev help from our local council? The Co was not fulfilling their obliagations. Without their help we had no choice but to leave. The troop would have died. Parents were all fed up. The same parents that busted their humps over the years raising money for their boys. Why should we not have had help? Why should we not have our gear and money?

[nldscout]

I know BW is going to quote BSA R&R. But when it comes to money and Equipment a lot of what happens is based on the state laws of the state you are in. If you have a question on Money and property find a lawyer that will talk to you about it. In NY where I am A troop is considered an entity and the CO may or may not have control of it money and equipment. In our troop the CO is not listed on Bank Account and has no say over the money because of the way the lawyers years ago set up the accounts.

 

So if there is an equipment and money issue find a good lawyer and talk to them see what they have to say about your state laws on property.

 

[Bob White]

pdunbar

 

We keep coming back to training. The COR has the authority AND the responsibility to select and approve ALL adult members. The COR has the responsibilty to select the CC. You speak of his actions as something he did wrong, and what he did you may not like, but he indeed has the authority as the COR to do those things unless the IH says otherwise.

 

I am sorry that the local district or council did not meet with the key members of the unit to help, they should have. But their mistake does not give the committee the right to take assets that they do not own.

 

Our unit commisioner felt that the CO and CR could do what ever they wanted, ioncluding tyerminationg individuals without just cause.

 

Your commissioner was 100% right. the IH and COR do indeed have the authority to do that. It is their unit and you are their at their approval to work with their scout unit.

 

"The Co was not fulfilling their obliagations." So far everything you have sited about the IH and COR are well within their authority.

 

"Why should we not have our gear and money?"

 

Very simply, because it is not yours. Not unless the CO decides to give it to another CO.

 

 

NLDSCOUTER

I would be interested in evidence of that statement regarding the unit being a legal entity in NY. I was a scouter in NY for several years until just a few years ago and that was not true at that time. I cannot imagine the BSA not fighting a court decision of that type. I believe you are victim of a rumor.

 

Do not think finding just one lawyer will help you. The CO and the BSA can show up with far more than that.

 

The better thing to do would be to have a good scout program and nurture the relationship with the charter organization. I have seen some units go through this, but never a good one.

 

I'm sure pdunbar feels differently in this case, but here is someone with 7 years experience who has never taken training, and has no knowledge of the roles and responsibilities of the CO, COR or IH. You have to wonder how many others in the unit are in the same situation.

 

So far we have heard about things Pdunbar doesn't like, but we have not heard of anything the COR or IH has actually done wrong. it sounds more like they wanted different leadership in their unit and were taken staeps to accomplish that.

 

 

 

 

 

[pdunbar]

NJcub

 

Several methods were used to place pressure on the Co. Our CO was a service club with 10 members. It would be very hard for them to do anything negative to the CR.

 

Bob White

 

Can you run a troop with a less than adequate committee? No!!!!!

Who is responsible for that committee? The CO. Were their breaking their contract with BSA by not fulfilling their requirements? Yes they were. Who should have helped us? The local council. Were we right in our actions? Yes we were. End of story!!!

[Twocubdad]

Come on Bob, your post sounds like Beltwayspeak from some politician caught with their hand in the cookie jar. "All activities are authorized within controlling legal guidelines."

 

Assuming pdunbars description of the situation is accurate (I'm sure there is another side to the story), as you point out the COR appears to have followed all the proper BSA policies and still done everything wrong. To appoint himself CC and then never attend committee meetings? Leave the committee positions unfilled? To serve as COR, CC and treasurer and not provide any financial reporting? Dismissing the SM with no explaination? Just because the COR may have that authority to do you think this is a good way to run a troop?

 

Apparently not as the unit has folded. Fortunately, the unit leaders seem to have salvaged the program for the boys and moved to another CO. But more times than not, a unit like this would have simply disappeared and the Scouts lost to Scouting.

 

You keep repeating the concept that the assets of the troop belong to the CO and are theirs to do with as they wish. But that's not what the BSA Rules and Regs Scoutldr leader say. Are you disagreeing with the published policies?