Need help with Patrol "owned" items.

[Carter]

Our troop buys most camping gear for the patrols. We have the shade tents, chuck boxes, kitchen items and enough 3 man tents for 12 boys. We have a couple of patrols, Patrol A and B,  that went in together with their own money and bought large Tepee tents. One patrol, Patrol A,  is still together and we have no issues. The second patrol, Patrol B, was down to 2 boys from the original 5 and the last 2 boys were put into a different patrol, Patrol C. Now I have a parent from Patrol B that states he is okay if the tepee goes to Patrol C, but the other boys need to pay for it (not sure who he expects the money to be given to), and I have Patrol C dad stating the money has been spent so it is just the patrols and the other 3 boys that aged out/left the troop never received reimbursement that the last 2 members are asking for. The boys each put in $50 to buy these, so not a ton of money. So who owns these tents? Are these property of the troop now since we have stored them with all the other patrol gear for 1-2 years, do they stay in the patrol until the patrol is dissolved, do the patrol members that pay for it get to dictate where it goes? I want to get a policy put together so this does occur again.

[jjlash]

That's an interesting dilemma - hopefully a lesson learned.  I dont think the Troop has any claim to the tents based on having stored them for 2 years.    

 

My initial thought would be that they bought the tents "for the patrol" and therefore they belong to the patrol.  Of course the patrol is part of the Troop which is wholly owned "department" of the Charter Org.  The funds contributed to help buy the tent would be considered a donation.  

 

I can also see the argument that the tents are owned by the Scouts who originally purchased them.  In that case, the remaining Scouts would need to contact the ones who have left and work something out between them.

 

Best things is for you (the adult leaders) is to mentor and guide the Scouts to reach their own decision.  Any answer coming from you will make you the bad guy.

[fred johnson]

A few random thoughts.

• First - Congrats!  I think it's great that patrols "own" gear.  IMHO, that promotes patrol identity, pride and commitment.

• I always cringe when I hear scouts were "put into" a patrol.  IMHO, scouts choose who they spend their time with.  IMHO, it would be perfectly fine to have a patrol of two if that is all that is left.  Even a patrol of one if he's the 17 year old scout and only scout left from his original patrol.   But then he cooks for himself, tents for himself and pretty much runs his own program.  He could function as a senior scout troop guide.  

• IMHO, those two scouts have no right to ask patrol C to donate money for it.  Where would the money go?  Who figures out the numbers?  Do you mail back the $50 to the previous members?  Do you pro-rate based on usage, wear and remaining life?  

• IMHO, the "parent" of the scout from patrol B has no say.  Yes, it's his son's gear.  He could be a pain and make things difficult.  But really, it would defeat how the program works.  

The main question is who owns the teepee.  Is it the scout's or the troop?  What was discussed when the teepee was originally acquired?

 

Personally, I like the idea of patrol gear.  I'd want it treated as their personal gear.  As such, I'd leave it up to the remaining original boys that purchased it.  IMHO, it's their gear.  If they agreed to spend their own money on it and use it for their purpose, it's theirs.  If they want to donate it to the troop, fine.  If they want to convince the others to purchase some "ownership" of the teepee, fine.  If they want to take it away from the troop and keep it for themselves, fine.  

 

The main question may be "who owns the teepee", but you also have a key question.  What lessons do you want to teach and what habits you want to promote?

Edited October 10, 2017 by fred johnson

[Carter]

The problem is not the boys, they would be fine moving it to the new patrol and leaving it behind when they leave, as the other 3 boys did. It is the parents that are the issue.

 

My personal feeling is that anything bought for a patrol, either from CO, Troop, fundraiser, parent or boy own funds is then owned by the patrol and default the Troop, and CO. Once the boys leave I feel whatever it was stays with that patrol. If the patrol dissolves that item goes to their new patrol, but ultimately stays with the unit. At this point the boys $50 over the 3 years is $16 per year and next year it will be down to $12.50. This is about the same cost as grub for a camp out - not really a money issue. The troop had no policy in place and then this came up and I want to get one now so we don't experience this again.

[Carter]

A few random thoughts.

• First - Congrats!  I think it's great that patrols "own" gear.  IMHO, that promotes patrol identity, pride and commitment.

• I always cringe when I hear scouts were "put into" a patrol.  IMHO, scouts choose who they spend their time with.  IMHO, it would be perfectly fine to have a patrol of two if that is all that is left.  Even a patrol of one if he's the 17 year old scout and only scout left from his original patrol.   But then he cooks for himself, tents for himself and pretty much runs his own program.  He could function as a senior scout troop guide.  

• IMHO, those two scouts have no right to ask patrol C to donate money for it.  Where would the money go?  Who figures out the numbers?  Do you mail back the $50 to the previous members?  Do you pro-rate based on usage, wear and remaining life?  

• IMHO, the "parent" of the scout from patrol B has no say.  Yes, it's his son's gear.  He could be a pain and make things difficult.  But really, it would defeat how the program works.  

The main question is who owns the teepee.  Is it the scout's or the troop?  What was discussed when the teepee was originally acquired?

 

Personally, I like the idea of patrol gear.  I'd want it treated as their personal gear.  As such, I'd leave it up to the remaining original boys that purchased it.  IMHO, it's their gear.  If they agreed to spend their own money on it and use it for their purpose, it's theirs.  If they want to donate it to the troop, fine.  If they want to convince the others to purchase some "ownership" of the teepee, fine.  If they want to take it away from the troop and keep it for themselves, fine.  

 

The main question may be "who owns the teepee", but you also have a key question.  What lessons do you want to teach and what habits you want to promote?

Nothing was discussed about the ownership besides patrol. This is more 2 dads that don't like each other and are trying to measure tic-tacs. The old CC and SM dealt with this, but since I have taken over this past week as CC, I plan on setting a policy so no one can say anything. I just want to make sure I was not crossing a line.

[fred johnson]

Ok.  Then it really is "What lessons do you want to teach and what habits do you want to promote?" ... Think of it less of creating rules or guidelines or being clear.  Scouting is a game with a purpose.  So think of how to create lessons you want to teach.  Personally, ....

• If one guy bought something to use for scouting, I'd be okay if they kept it after.  
• If two guys pool their money to buy something they will use during scouts, I'd be okay with treating it was their own.
• If five guys pool their money to buy something, they will use during scouts I'd be okay with treating it was their own.

I like the idea that they really think it's their stuff.  

 

As for "ownership", was the troop involved in it's acquisition?  Did troop spend money fixing / repairing it?  The troop may have stored it for years, but I've seen tennis shoes stored in the troop trailer for years until the owner claimed them.  

 

Ideally, I'd hope the scouts decided to donate their stuff to the troop.  But I wouldn't force the situation.  Just because someone uses something as part of scouts, it does not automatically become owned by the troop.

 

One related thought ... Do you think this issue will really happen again?  Scouting is filled with quirky situations.  It's impossible to create rules and guidelines to handle them all.  Worse, sometimes the process of creating rules to address recent situations and incidents just rehashes frustration and cements tension between people.  

 

I'd let time pass.  If six months down the road you still think you need this rule, then address it then.  Scouting often works best when we minimize situations specific rules

Edited October 10, 2017 by fred johnson

[David CO]

I disagree with Fred. I think it is a very bad idea for patrols to buy their own gear.

 

My main concern is that a unit could end up with one patrol, made up of wealthy kids, who can afford to buy better stuff than the rest of the unit. I wouldn't have wanted my unit to be divided up into rich patrols and poor patrols.

 

My second concern is that a patrol might have a boy who really can't afford to contribute to the joint purchase, but who feels compelled to do so by social pressure from the other members of the patrol. 

 

My third concern is that collecting money for the patrol might negatively impact the unit's fundraising efforts. Why donate to your boy's unit when you could give the funds directly to his patrol?

 

The idea that boys should have to pay a premium over their regular fees and dues in order to get in to an elite patrol is offensive to me.

Edited October 10, 2017 by David CO

[fred johnson]

This is more 2 dads that don't like each other and are trying to measure tic-tacs. 

 

My experience is the adults are often the bigger issue than the kids.  

[Eagle94-A1]

What does the PLC want to do with the gear?  Thewy are the leaders in the troop, not the adults. They need to make the decision.

 

 

My experience is the adults are often the bigger issue than the kids.  

 

With all due respect, your sentence should be the following, "MY EXPERIENCE IS THE ADULTS ARE OFTEN THE BIGGER ISSUE THAN THE KIDS!!!!!"   

 

Seriously, that is true 99.9999999999999% of the time.

[blw2]

i agree with others...scouts "put" into a patrol raises some red flags

 

my take on the ownership question...

I think it not so different than considering what happens to the troop gear if the troop dissolves.    If a troop dies, the equipment and assets go first to paying off any troop debts, then the balance goes to the CO for future scouting use..... if deemed ok by CO and council, it can be given to a different troop, etc.....

 

So what happens when a patrol dissolves?  Why not look at it the same way....it becomes troop property, to be assigned to another patrol at an appropriate time!

 

We have a system put into place long before my time, where the scouts pay $1 per week.  This was above an beyond the regular annual dues that "parents" paid... this was an adult contrived method to help teach these "boys" responsibility..... because the "boys" were not to be trusted with the real money.... so let's let them learn with $1.  Anyway, the adults would take this money every so often and either put it into the troop pot or buy something....  I pushed for the patrols to decide how to use this money.  If you want to use it for grub on the upcoming campout, fine....if you want to save it for a tepee, great!  If you want to donate it to charity.... I'm happy for you!  It never really took off for much so far.....

but the reason I bring it up is that in this way, the pot is clearly patrol money

however

I get the sense that in the OP's example, the parents feel like they (personally)  did the paying for this thing.

[NJCubScouter]

This sounds like a law school exam question.

The following is not legal advice and what I say may not apply to your state - and it may not even apply to my state, for that matter - but here is what I think.

 

Regardless of the exalted role that the concept of the "patrol" plays in Scouting, legally speaking, a patrol is not an "entity" that can sue or be sued.  I think that means that a patrol cannot "own" anything, or at least the patrol cannot enforce its ownership rights through the legal system, which practically speaking, amounts to the same thing.  So who does own it?  If six families bought it and paid for it, I think they own it, and I think they still own it even if their son is out of the troop.  Could one argue that by leaving the troop (and patrol) and not demanding their one-sixth of the tent (or its value) within a "reasonable time" thereafter, the family "abandoned" their ownership interest in the tent?  One could argue that.  I believe that in New Jersey the law would look to see what the "intent" of the part-owner was, and the law tends not to find that someone forfeited their property unless there is clear intent to do so.  Therefore, if there is no way to determine intent either way, I think the result would be that the families all still own the tent.  (I'm not positive about it, but that's what I think.)  Now, what about the fact that the troop has been storing the stuff?  I don't think it changes the answer - again, UNLESS there was a clear intent by the purchasing families to donate the tents to the troop.

 

To make it a little more complicated, the value of each family's ownership interest in each tent is not necessarily their share of what they paid for it, it is their share of what it is worth now, if it were to be sold.  If the tents were purchased new a year ago, the value may be close to the purchase price.  If the tents were purchased five years and look kind of worn out from frequent use, and maybe there is a hole patched here or a seam re-sown there, most of the value is gone.  The tents still "work", but in reality nobody is going to pay anything for them.  If that's the case, maybe the solution that will calm everybody down is for the folks in Patrol C to "buy in" for say $5 or $10 and call it a day.

 

Of course, reasonable people should be able to work out things like this without all of this analysis, but some people are not reasonable.

Edited October 10, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[fred johnson]

In my son's current troop, they are expected to have their own tents.  Often two scouts tent together for years.  As such, they negotiate who's tent to use.  I could see two smart scouts negotiating and splitting the cost of a single tent.  I would love to see a patrol do the same thing.  IMHO, that does not make it the troop's tent.

 

QUESTION ... Original poster ... Where do the other tents for the troop come from?  Do the scouts supply them or does the troop maintain an inventory of tents?  I think this greatly affects the conclusion of the original situation.  

[NJCubScouter]

My experience is the adults are often the bigger issue than the kids.  

 

Yes, and I would change "often" to "almost always."

[fred johnson]

"reasonable people"

 

Yeah, this is scouts and parents getting involved with their kid's activities.  Reasonableness disappears quick.

[blw2]

.....

 

Of course, reasonable people should be able to work out things like this without all of this analysis, but some people are not reasonable.

i think you bring up some interesting perspectives..... most of which, well.... while I find likely plausible, give me heartburn quite frankly.

 

If I had given my son some money (or better had encouraged him to earn money) because his patrol wanted to buy some gear..... I would not in a million years ever feel like I owned a share of it....or feel that he owned it either.  Maybe different if it were a group of five friends from the neighborhood not associated with some organized group in any way, but for a scout group..... I can't fathom not looking at it like a donation

 

I think your point is funny about people not being reasonable....and I think that if I were in this position and I had one or more parents belly aching about their share in some beat up old scout tepee..... I would deliver said teppee to their doorstep with a smile.  Let them work out fractional ownerships and whether or not the others abandoned it.

as for new scouts buying in....I personally would not want to touch that with a 10ft pole if that new scout were my son.... smells like buying into a stink-pot to me....so I wouldn't expect others to consider it.  It just smells bad on several levels.....