Predicting Nationwide Shutdown Continues to Sept.

[Cburkhardt]

2 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

OK, one more time, the BSA does NOT own the individual councils. 

Of course councils are independent, and my comments to not state or imply otherwise.  The bylaws each council has ascribed to locally do include a provision that if they go out of business all of their assets go to national, but that is it.  My only role now is as a Scoutmaster of a frequently-camping Troop, but I have been a council and national volunteer for 30 years (including as council president).  So I understand the relationship.  
 

I make no apology for having raised the tough program, governance and properties issues we are facing as an organization during a series of several very detailed postings these past several months that thousands of Scouters viewed and commented-upon.  The virus is now upon us and has made circumstances for many local councils several factors worse.  It is not inappropriate to suggest different options regarding how things may play out for councils and their properties under these circumstances.  If your council has the resources to ride it all out alone, it will be able to choose to do so.  I have a direct understanding that a large number do not and will need to seriously consider some of the possibilities I have raised.

[Cburkhardt]

1 hour ago, Mrjeff said:

By camp operations I guess you're talking about long term camping. 

By operations I mean all camping properties.  Long term camping operations are indeed costly to establish and maintain, and it is the dream of every council camping committee to own and operate one of these — sometimes even if the facilities are in poor shape, located 5 hours from council territory and operate only for a few weeks each summer.  Some of these operations require subsidies from FOS in the range of $200 to $300 per Scout attendee.  Some of these distant camps are located near similarly-stressed camps operated by other councils.  Heavily endowed councils can continue those kinds of things, but most cannot.  Short term camps in the form of small unimproved properties are low-cost and should be kept if local tax and insurance conditions permit.  However, even those camps often have buildings, utilities and similar things that can become an irrational drain if a council camping committee allows the situation to get out of hand.

[Mrjeff]

Thank you for your long time service and for posting numerous times expressing your opinion; and having numerous replies.  That does not change the fact that these decisions are the responsibility of the local executive board, and not an organization.  In reality, as a result of current affairs, it's up to each council to sink or swim without the hope of a life line.  I would also remind you that many council properties have a provision wherein if there is ever a change in ownership the property will revert to the previous owner or their descendants. Thank you for serving as a Scoutmaster as well as all of the other positions over the past 30 years.

[Cburkhardt]

On 3/26/2020 at 10:58 AM, desertrat77 said:

@Cburkhardt, would Summit and Philmont also fall in this category?

Sorry it took so long to reply.  My comment that heavily mortgaged camps might be first to stop operations is based on my knowledge that there are a good number of council camps that are significantly mortgaged.  More disturbing, there are some camps built or heavily improved in recent years that were done without a fully-successful capital campaign to pay for it up-front.  For example, a council west of Chicago improved a close-in property and has saddled successor council volunteers with a huge monthly mortgage to pay without the actual usage to generate activity fees to pay for it.  Those are the places that will go early.  
 

As for the Summit and Philmont, the bankruptcy process will largely determine their future.  Regardless of mortgage indebtedness, the  trial attorneys will try their best to argue that these are not essential to Scouting and should be sold to maximize claimant pay-outs.  I am without expertise to comment on that, not being a bankruptcy attorney.  The enthusiastic donor-backers of the Summit might be able to buy it out of bankruptcy and clear the debt that way.  They could own it and lease it back to the BSA for a minimal fee.  Loss of Philmont could be catastrophic in many ways, so I hope we are able to keep all or a substantial portion of it.  It should cash flow like it and the Sea Base always have, so I think we keep it under most scenarios. 

[PACAN]

I suppose under the reorganization banner, national could change the conditions under which a council gets a charter.