Need help with Patrol "owned" items.

[Carter]

The troop has bought all the tents for the boys. This tent was a large 8-10 man tepee that was bought because they saw another unit using one at Trappers. This headache came about because one of the 2 remaining dads of the patrol was getting bent out of shape because dad in patrol C, whom he does not like, kid was going to get to use that tent "for free" while he (or his son) had to buy it. We had 2 unreasonable dads that do not like each other being little punks. I want to get a policy so moving forward it is spelled out what will happen with any equipment. With all the all the time and money this dad has put into scouting with his 3 boys, this was not about the $50 he spent 3-4 years ago

[jwest09]

I'd consider the property to be jointly owned by the boys who pitched in to purchase it originally.  I'd ask the boys in question simply what they want to do with it.  Ideally the boys would reach a consensus, and that would be a decision.  If there was disagreement, I'd probably encourage a vote with a simple majority deciding the outcome.  If some of the boys have left the troop, or just don't care, they can abstain from discussion and voting.

 

I disagree with presenting this specific case to the PLC - it's not their equipment, they have no say in what gets done with equipment that does not belong to them.

 

In terms of having a policy going forward - I wouldn't agree that you need one.  These kinds of situations aren't particularly common, and what tends to happen is, you do end up limiting and punishing a bunch of reasonable people because you had the misfortune of encountering a couple unreasonable people.  I personally think its a fine idea for patrols to have some ownership of patrol equipment, and I wouldn't want to see that get unnecessarily limited just because this one dad made a stink about something.

[Eagle94-A1]

One of the reasons why I like mixed aged patrols: as Scouts age out/leave, new Scouts take their place. My troop growing up had 2 patrols that started the troop. Each patrol receive gear from the troop, but as things needed replacing and/or Scouts wanted new gear, each patrol purchased it on their own. Some of the gear was purchased by Scouts in the patrol 10-15 years previous. 

 

As I mentioned previously, the PLC needs to make the decision, not the adults.

 

And upon thinking abut it, if you want to get technical and all legalese, since 2 of the 5 purchases are no longer involved, their shares of the property would go to the 2 remaining Scouts. So the 2 remaining Scouts should say what they want to do with the equipment.

 

 

And any adults complaining can take a hike.

[Snow Owl]

I fail to see why all the legal hoopla.  It all belongs to the Troop and in turn to the Chartered Organization.  It was bought or donated under the name of the Patrol, part of the Troop in the name of or for the purpose of Scouting.  Unless otherwise expressly stated (Like Mr. Smith is lending the troop these canoes for a year, or these tents etc.)  it became a donation to the troop as soon as the Patrol pitched in as a patrol as part of a Troop.

 

The example of the two scouts buying a tent to share together is different in that it is personal gear and they pooled personal money for a personal purchase. Very different than pooling money to purchase a PATROL tent

Edited October 11, 2017 by Snow Owl

[David CO]

The troop has bought all the tents for the boys. This tent was a large 8-10 man tepee that was bought because they saw another unit using one at Trappers. This headache came about because one of the 2 remaining dads of the patrol was getting bent out of shape because dad in patrol C, whom he does not like, kid was going to get to use that tent "for free" while he (or his son) had to buy it. We had 2 unreasonable dads that do not like each other being little punks. I want to get a policy so moving forward it is spelled out what will happen with any equipment. With all the all the time and money this dad has put into scouting with his 3 boys, this was not about the $50 he spent 3-4 years ago

 

The policy you need is simple. No personal property may be stored with the unit's gear. Make it short and sweet.

 

If the boys remove the property, and the unit no longer has physical possession, then the unit leaders will have no need to get involved in the "headache" of who owns it.

 

If the boys should choose to leave the property in the possession of the unit, then the unit owns it.

 

Let the 2 dads take their argument somewhere else.

Edited October 11, 2017 by David CO

[MattR]

This policy sounds like a mess looking to happen, and it did in the form of two dads.

 

There is gear each scout owns and pays for and takes care of and there is gear the troop owns and pays for and takes care of. There is nothing inbetween. Partial ownership rarely works out.

 

The idea of patrol ownership is great but a patrol is part of the troop. The troop could give a patrol a budget and they could buy what they want. If they run out of money then they could have a fundraiser, for their patrol. The scouts earning money for their patrol would be a much better lesson than the adults buying gear for partial ownership in a condo, err tent.

 

Disposal of gear is easy. The troop owns it and the PLC decides. The emotions will not be so high because the parents won't buy anything. They may make donations at worst but hopefully they will have encouraged their sons to earn the money.

 

Now, how you get to this is another problem.

[Back Pack]

Have the charter organization send a donation thank you letter to the families who bought the tents and copy the dads in question. My patrol bought gear all the time and when it became “patrol gear†it was understood it was now troop gear. As long as the patrol stayed together we got first choice to use it. After we split up the PLC decided how to use and share the gear. Why can’t the PLC decide? It’s their troop.

[jwest09]

I disagree with some of the prevailing wisdom here.

 

A patrol is the basic unit of Boy Scouting - a group of boys participating in the program together.  I see no reason why they shouldn't be permitted to purchase their own gear.  They are, in theory, a group of friends deciding what they wish to spend their own money on.  They wish to spend it on gear which they will use to participate in the Scouting program.  I can't possibly see how the troop can arbitrarily decide that the troop now owns that gear - any more than the troop could claim that they somehow own my own personal tent, hiking boots, water bottle, or other equipment.  The fact that the boys happened to use their gear while camping with the troop does not somehow magically make the troop own that gear.  The fact that the troop allowed them to store their personal gear in the troop's storage isn't relevant to me.  If the troop wanted to require them to donate the gear to the troop as a condition of storing it with the troop's gear, then that should have been discussed before the troop granted permission to store their gear. 

 

Have the charter organization send a donation thank you letter to the families who bought the tents and copy the dads in question. My patrol bought gear all the time and when it became “patrol gear†it was understood it was now troop gear. As long as the patrol stayed together we got first choice to use it. After we split up the PLC decided how to use and share the gear. Why can’t the PLC decide? It’s their troop.

 

 

 

It's their troop, but its not their gear.  You can't just retroactively claim that you own someone else's personal property.  There's zero reason to involve the PLC in this debate.  The PLC's job is troop leadership and program. This is neither a program nor a leadership issue.

 

If I were in your shoes, I'd approach this not as a troop issue, but as a personal issue.  I'd offer to act as a mediator between the boys involved in the dispute, if the involved parties wanted my help.  My approach would be as I previously laid out: encourage all of the boys (including those not currently in the troop - it's still their gear!) to reach a consensus on how to proceed.  If a consensus can't be reached, I'd recommend a vote with a simple majority deciding the outcome.  

 

If you want a policy prohibiting storing personal gear in the troop storage area, that might be OK, but I don't think it would prevent you from having this situation come up in the future. 

Edited October 11, 2017 by jwest09

[qwazse]

If they will come and sing for it, let them claim it!

[CalicoPenn]

If I read this right, Patrol A has a teepee that the boys purchased together by pooling their own funds.  I'm assuming that it was personal funds and not "Scout Account" funds (get to that in a bit).  The Scouts that purchased it are all still together.

 

Patrol B had a teepee that the boys purchased by pooling their own funds (and not "Scout Account" funds) - but three of the boys have aged out.

 

The patrols have been storing their "Patrol Owned" (which in reality is personal owned) teepees with the Troops gear.

 

Ok - if that's correct then this is my take:

 

The Troop has no claim to the teepees - just because you stored it, doesn't make it yours.  Just because 3 members have "abandoned them" doesn't mean that the Troop owns them - you need to send them notice and give them the opportunity to get their property back

 

The boys of Patrol A who contributed money own their teepee.  The boys of Patrol B who contributed money own their own teepee.  The boys who aged out of Patrol B still have ownership interest in their teepee - they didn't give that up by aging out.

 

The collective owners (Patrol A being one collective and Patrol B being one collective) make the decisions together about what to do with the teepees.  If the Patrol B owners decide together that they will let Patrol C use the teepee, that is up to them.   This is the key here - it is up to them.  Not the Troop, not Patrol C, not Patrol A, not the parents - it is up to them.

 

In the meantime, you're stuck in the middle - your job now is to get the Troop completely out of it.  My suggestion - you write a formal letter to each "ownership" group - one to the 5 people who own Teepee A and one to the 5 people who own Teepee B (presumably, you still have the home addresses of the 3 lads that have aged out).  In it you explain that the Troop can no longer store personal equipment and that each group needs to make arrangements amongst themselves on who is going to store their teepee.  In the letter, you give them a firm deadline (30-days?) to pick-up their teepees.  You make clear that they are responsible for all decisions regarding the teepees.  LET THEM WORK IT OUT.  Let them know they are still welcome to use their teepees on select outings but that they are responsible for getting it to and from the campsite.   In a final line/paragraph, you tell them that if all five members agree - in writing (with signatures on the same page from all 5) to donate their teepee to the unit, with no compensation from the unit, that the unit would be glad to accept them. 

 

That is my take on it

[T2Eagle]

If you're looking for a policy going forward make it simple: equipment is either owned by the troop or owned by an individual boy. If it's owned by a boy then he takes it home with him, if it's owned by the troop it stays at the troop. Patrols are a perfect organizing structure for boys to have fun, but they have a short shelf life and cannot and will not exist outside the troop.

 

If you don't have this simple a structure you will inevitably have either conflicts or just administrative headaches about how to pass along gear. Even if the dads, or scouts, were willing to do all this amicably you would have ridiculous questions about how much is gear worth: what would it cost to "buy into" a patrol's gear, what is a scout owed when they leave, what if no one wants to buy into the used gear, of the three to five guys who helped buy it who gets to keep it at home, who has to keep it at home.

 

Sometimes, especially when parents are acting foolishly, you just have to put your foot down and say this is the way it is.

Edited October 11, 2017 by T2Eagle

[David CO]

Let's suppose that there is another complication to NJ's legal exam question. What if some of the parents itemized their deductions and declared the $50 as a donation to the unit. Is the unit now a part owner of the property? 

 

Joint ownership schemes have too many complications and causes too many problems. They should be avoided like the plague.

[jwest09]

Joint ownership schemes have too many complications and causes too many problems. They should be avoided like the plague.

 

Take a step back from all the legalese and what not.  Wouldn't this lesson be much more powerful if the boys learned this on their own?  Rather than having the adult leadership step in and arbitrarily prohibit it?

[NJCubScouter]

Let's suppose that there is another complication to NJ's legal exam question. What if some of the parents itemized their deductions and declared the $50 as a donation to the unit. Is the unit now a part owner of the property? 

 

Joint ownership schemes have too many complications and causes too many problems. They should be avoided like the plague.

 

Ha.  Well, I would have to say that if the world is a fair place, the answer would be yes, it makes the unit a part owner.  Legally, I'm not sure.  Now, if they ALL deducted it, I would say that is pretty conclusive evidence of intent to donate the tents.  Of course, their tax returns are confidential, so I don't know how anyone would know that, even if it were true...

 

As for "joint ownership schemes", I agree completely.

[NJCubScouter]

Take a step back from all the legalese and what not.  Wouldn't this lesson be much more powerful if the boys learned this on their own?  Rather than having the adult leadership step in and arbitrarily prohibit it?

 

But it sounds like it isn't the boys who are having a problem.