OFFICIAL NEWS RELEASE: Girls as Youth Members, All Programs

[Tampa Turtle]

As a former employee of the Summit Bechtel Reserve, I would like to clear up some misconceptions about the property.

The SBR is built to hold jamborees first, high adventure second, and scout camp third. The staff who work there are in a difficult position, needing to provide an experience on par with the other high adventure bases without the benefit of the "script" of tradition. Further, capital improvements to the site are governed by the needs of jambo. Everything is built to hold jambo, but also work for HA, etc. This makes the camp feel empty every week, as the facility does not scale nearly as well as national thinks it does. What I can say is that the summer programs grow by leaps and bounds every summer. The staff is dedicated to improving the experience and the facilities are truly world class. I'd be happy to answer any questions about it.

 

Thanks, that is what I figured. Hope it works out. I get the empty/full issue...like when they hold some non-profit athletic event on the field of an empty NFL stadium..

[Tampa Turtle]

I don't think that's correct, and I think @ianwilkins is correct.  BSA (national) is a non-profit corporation, but each of the councils is a separate non-profit corporation and operates the BSA's programs in its area, under a charter from National.  National owns assets (including the high adventure bases, and presumably the hq property in Irving) and the councils own other assets (including the council camps.)  There may be an exception here and there where a "council camp" is actually (or allegedly) owned by some kind of trust entity, such as that one camp somewhere that pops up in the news every couple of years because the trustees and the council are fighting over it.  But the one entity that does NOT own that camp is national.

 

I believe the council camps operate under guidelines handed down by national, and national does have some leverage over the council when it believes a camp should be closed, but the ownership is in the councils.

 

Just as curiosity what happens when a Council collapses...it seems the facilities get folded (at least for a time) into the neighboring council. Does the by-laws let them do that? 

[qwazse]

Just as curiosity what happens when a Council collapses...it seems the facilities get folded (at least for a time) into the neighboring council. Does the by-laws let them do that? 

As one whose council is more contorted after mergers than a PA gerrymander, that there are by-laws and formal agreements that need to be dealt with. Each facility has its own set of obligations. Sometimes they revert back to some donor's estate if council elects not to manage them. So, a council needs to decide what facility it's going to put money in, and which it's going to divest in.

[NJCubScouter]

Just as curiosity what happens when a Council collapses...it seems the facilities get folded (at least for a time) into the neighboring council. Does the by-laws let them do that? 

 

In the case of the Central New Jersey Council, their two camps remained the property of the council, which continued to exist as a non-operating corporation for the purpose of wrapping up its financial affairs, including selling the camps.  At least one of the camps (Kittatinny Mountain Scout Reservation) had already been closed by the time the council ceased operating, and both are currently closed.  I do not know whether either has been sold yet.  My council is one of the "neighboring councils", but as far as I know our council has nothing to do with those camps.  Our troop did camp at each one at least once while I have been with the troop.

[ValleyBoy]

Just as curiosity what happens when a Council collapses...it seems the facilities get folded (at least for a time) into the neighboring council. Does the by-laws let them do that? 

I will try and answerer this for you.  My local District that I am a member of way a Council until I believe 1991 when it became a part of our present neighboring council.  The Council that was collapsing was merged into the other Council by a merger agreement. between the 2 councils.  The new council received the old Councils Trust Fund that per the agreement only the interest earned could be used by the new Council and the principle could never be touched.  Also the new Council agreed to keep the old Council area covered as one of it Districts with the District name being the name of the old Council.  Also the New Council received the old Councils Scout Camp and agreed to maintain the Camp.  In the early 2000's  the new Council planned  to sell the old Camp  until they were informed by present scouters that were aware that the Camp was not owned by the Boy Scouts but held in trust by the Boy Scouts just as long as the Boy Scouts did not abandon the Camp.   

[Tampa Turtle]

So...it depends...and it is complicated. OK. 

[Col. Flagg]

As a former employee of the Summit Bechtel Reserve, I would like to clear up some misconceptions about the property.

The SBR is built to hold jamborees first, high adventure second, and scout camp third. The staff who work there are in a difficult position, needing to provide an experience on par with the other high adventure bases without the benefit of the "script" of tradition. Further, capital improvements to the site are governed by the needs of jambo. Everything is built to hold jambo, but also work for HA, etc. This makes the camp feel empty every week, as the facility does not scale nearly as well as national thinks it does. What I can say is that the summer programs grow by leaps and bounds every summer. The staff is dedicated to improving the experience and the facilities are truly world class. I'd be happy to answer any questions about it.

 

If only national would ever ask the "boots on the ground" how things REALLY work, they might avoid mucking things up as often as they do.

 

Thanks for trying to make something great with the barriers you have before you. Wish you success.

[ourlordbadenpowell]

If only national would ever ask the "boots on the ground" how things REALLY work, they might avoid mucking things up as often as they do.

 

Thanks for trying to make something great with the barriers you have before you. Wish you success.

The sentiment is at times too true, but one of the most interesting things about the SBR is that it functions as a laboratory for national to try out new things with the program.

On-topic for this thread, I was not surprised to hear the coed news when it happened. The Summit is run as a fully coed facility and program and it works without conflict.

[CalicoPenn]

BSA is a non-profit corporation and the districts function as departments in that corporation.  The assets all belong to the one legal entity.  The only time there is any question as to assets are those acquired by the franchise CO's, They are acquired under the tax id/exempt status of the CO. 

 

If one were to go back and look at who holds the deed to the campground land, it should answer the question.  I don't think that councils can actually hold a deed, not being a legal entity in and of itself.

 

Council's are their own legal entity - chartered under the non-profit laws of the states they are doing business in.  Council property is owned by the Council, not by National.  When a Council owns a camp outright (ie not in a trust), it can make the decision to sell or not to sell without any input from National.

 

State law will dictate what happens to a Council's assets if it shuts down.  As long as it merges with another council in the same state, it's generally not a problem.  But if it shuts down completely with no merger, the assets would not transfer to National but would be held in trust by the State until National certified that a new council or enlarged existing council was the proper successor and should get the funds or until the deadline to form a successor passed in which case the State would be able to divvy up the assets any way they felt appropriate provided they serve the purpose under which the assets were originally funded under the theory that funds raised for youth in a state should remain in that state to serve that state's youth.

[Stosh]

I did some more research on it and @CalicoPenn is correct.  And that would mean the councils are independent "franchises" of National and CO's are independent "franchises" of the Councils.   It was interesting a few years back a number of the councils lost their non-profit status because they didn't do the paperwork.  That could have gotten interesting. 

[Gwaihir]

Co-Ed 11-18 program will be coming and Chief Scout just let cat slip out of the bag. 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/opinions/girls-boy-scouts-surbaugh-opinion/index.html

 

We acknowledge and celebrate that boys and girls develop differently, and there are times that single-gender learning is most appropriate. That is why we have outlined a structure that enables us to continue providing single-gender environments -- like dens within Cub Scout packs and a single-gender Scouting program for older girls -- within a broader structure that will allow us to serve the whole family. It will be up to local Cub Scout Packs, parents and chartered partners to choose whether to include boys and girls in family packs or only serve boys or girls; we anticipate a similar structure at the Boy Scouts level.

 

No co-ed in 11-18 age girls is a blatant lie. 

Edited November 13, 2017 by Gwaihir

[Tampa Turtle]

but....but....but Hawkwin told me that there would be no co-ed and we were cynical crabby-cakes! 

[Gwaihir]

but....but....but Hawkwin told me that there would be no co-ed and we were cynical crabby-cakes! 

 

The Chief Scout Exec is apparently a master of the boiled frog approach. 

[Hawkwin]

but....but....but Hawkwin told me that there would be no co-ed and we were cynical crabby-cakes! 

 

 

Ya, and my 3rd grade English teacher told me that similar and same are not identical.

 

I also learned the definition of "choice" around that time too.

 

Your mileage my vary.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Hawkwin

[Gwaihir]

Ya, and my 3rd grade English teacher told me that similar and same are not identical.

 

I also learned the definition of "choice" around that time too.

 

Your mileage my vary.

 

So please tell me where the wiggling room is to go from this statement: 

 

It's up to the local pack and charter to decide if they want girls and boys together. 

 

to 

 

a similar program for the boy scout level.  Where do you see wiggle room that doesn't present the co-ed troop as an option at the troop level? 

 

now that we've got that, we were told, under no uncertain circumstances "NO CO-ED IN BOY SCOUTS".  firmly and blatantly, that is now being walked back.  

Edited November 13, 2017 by Gwaihir