Major Change in Chartered Organization Relationship

[GrammaScout]

On 11/22/2021 at 7:31 AM, MattR said:

That is what the charter agreement says. Look at it from their perspective, if your troop makes a mistake the church is legally liable to clean it up.

I understand that you're frustrated with the changes and all. But I've seen this happen before. Another aspect of the charter relationship is, well, keeping that relationship healthy. It's working with the head of the church so you have someone on the inside defending the troop. Its doing service projects so members of the church know who you are, appreciate what you do and see that it complements the church. Every non-profit I've ever worked with has people that want to express power for no other reason than they can. They can make your life miserable. Learning to deal with them does take time and patience.

Anyway, it seems you have a few choices. Push for a facility use agreement, get in the good graces of someone with real power in the church or find another CO.

 

"This is all part of the belief that the Church:  OWNS, Operates, Manages, Directs, the Troop and every last thing it has or does. "... We do NOT find those directions in the Charter....manage?   Direct?  Operate?.... not

[fred8033]

18 hours ago, GrammaScout said:

"This is all part of the belief that the Church:  OWNS, Operates, Manages, Directs, the Troop and every last thing it has or does. "... We do NOT find those directions in the Charter....manage?   Direct?  Operate?.... not

Ummm ... The words manage, direct, operate, etc are not explicitly there.  What is there are words such as:  "The Chartered Organization, as a duly constituted organization that serves youth, desires to use the program(s) of the BSA to further its mission respecting the youth it supports."

The CO agreement says CO wants "to use the (scouting) program".  By use, it means it's running the program.  Further words are similar to that.  Then, each leader app requires a charter org rep signature.  The charter org selects the leaders and can setup the program as they want.   Those unit leaders are effectively CO representatives running the scouting program. 

Unit failures are CO failures.  Units that don't follow G2SS or leaders that don't get trained or ... etc do reflect CO negligence.  
 

[1980Scouter]

So we have heard about the Methodists response to rechartering. What are the Catholics, Baptists and others doing about recharter?

There are many units in these churches that have to realize the issue at hand. 

Protection of church assets would be front and center for these churches. 

[qwazse]

5 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

So we have heard about the Methodists response to rechartering. What are the Catholics, Baptists and others doing about recharter?

There are many units in these churches that have to realize the issue at hand. 

Protection of church assets would be front and center for these churches. 

Far from it. Preaching the gospel is front and center.

Our CO is rechartering without hesitation.

[yknot]

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

Far from it. Preaching the gospel is front and center.

Our CO is rechartering without hesitation.

That's truly admirable but others realize you can't preach anything if the doors are shut. Right now BSA's business model is hinged on failing COs risking closure to sponsor a unit. Churches can meet a mission of youth ministry without being part of BSA's business model. 

[Eagle94-A1]

Depending upon the diocese, Catholic Churches may or may not be rechartering. I know of 3 diocese that stated no more chartering of Scout units. Locally we have a unit about to fold, and the Catholic Church, which wanted to reestablish Scouting in the parish, now said no.

[skeptic]

This is simply sad, but also very frustrating.  The very organizations and groups that contribute so much to the betterment of our communities are now at the point of withdrawing almost all of their effort due to our misquided legal system.

We are looking pretty much at the ideal of "the good samaritan" conundrum.  Nobody will do what they can see needs to be done, or improved, due to fear of litigation that is rarely a direct result of their interactions.  

Bad people exist in society, and a few, find ways to sneak into a position to do harm.  But, if we are all afraid of the very slight possibility of being held accountable for actions beyond our logical control, we do not make the efforts.  It is a lot like the doctors that no longer paractice due to the high cost of trying to protect from mistakes, often of others in a procedure in which they are peripheral.  One oversight, or one misstep, neither intended, should not ruin the greater good done by programs, service groups, and churches.  And, if something does, legitimately happen, the larger umbrella institution should not be held accountable just because their subsidiary made a poor decision.  

We, as a century old unit in a Methodist church may no longer have a meeting place after this year due to this morass of fear and legal concerns.  The local church loves us, but now, the larger Church is recommending no further affiliation, and has told the individual churches that they are on their own if they choose to continue.  Since most churches do not have money to burn, and now insurance is either too costly, or simply  no longer offered, they are closing the doors.  Again, what is wrong with this picture?

What is wrong with this picture?

[Eagle94-A1]

39 minutes ago, skeptic said:

This is simply sad, but also very frustrating.  The very organizations and groups that contribute so much to the betterment of our communities are now at the point of withdrawing almost all of their effort due to our misquided legal system.

We are looking pretty much at the ideal of "the good samaritan" conundrum.  Nobody will do what they can see needs to be done, or improved, due to fear of litigation that is rarely a direct result of their interactions.... 

What is wrong with this picture?

Our legal system is in need of major tort reform. When it is cheaper to pay a fine than fight for your innocence, you need legal reform. When anyone can sue anyone without any penalty, you need legal reform.

Anyone heard of the MS optometrist who was sued by one of his dad's former patients? Dad was a "Sr."  and an OB/GYN that past away. Several years after dad died, Jr. who was an optometrist, receives notice that he was having a malpractice suit from one of dad's  former patients. Long story short, Jr. incurred heavy legal expenses because the plaintiff's lawyer refused to acknowledge he was not the doctor that performed on the patient. They went to court, and the judge dismissed the case. Plaintiff did not have to pay a dime. JR. had to pay all of his legal bills because the malpractice insurance only covered his patients.

As for good Samaritans, anyone hear about the SC lifeguard? This guy was at a lake that he did not work at, so he was on his own time. A girl was having trouble and went unconscious. He made the rescue,  began CPR, and when an AED arrived, he removed her bikini top to apply the defib pads on her to shock her. It worked and EMS took her to the hospital alive. Several weeks later, he gets subpoenaed for a sexual assault civil trial. I do not know how that went.

[ThenNow]

4 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Our legal system is in need of major tort reform. When it is cheaper to pay a fine than fight for your innocence, you need legal reform. When anyone can sue anyone without any penalty, you need legal reform.

I have only begun to study this in the last couple days, though I have familiarity with the craziness in Cook County, IL. I know how I think/feel going into it, but we shall see. Per a Reuters article, I will read Prof. Chamblee Burch’s Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multidistrict Litigation. If inclined, you can check out the site link below, which has a link to a study, and one dated essay. I often like to read older stuff then track it forward. I’m interested in the other attorney’s thoughts, as well as anyone else. I know what we have on out hands doesn’t seem so dandy...

https://www.atra.org/2021/12/07/nations-worst-judicial-hellholes-expand-liability-allow-frivolous-lawsuits/

Haven’t started this yet and there are many others. The link doesn’t seem to work, but you can see the title.

Edited December 11, 2021 by ThenNow

[qwazse]

14 hours ago, yknot said:

That's truly admirable but others realize you can't preach anything if the doors are shut. Right now BSA's business model is hinged on failing COs risking closure to sponsor a unit. Churches can meet a mission of youth ministry without being part of BSA's business model. 

@yknot, I’m just relaying facts on the ground. Perhaps this CO has very little to loose and is going for broke.

But, frankly, the cost of running an engaging youth program is very very high, and a parent  would be sorely mistaken to assume that their church’s youth program would train to the level needed for comparable youth protection. 

And, actually, you can preach a whole lot without open doors. File it under stuff my pastor friends have learned during a pandemic.

[jcousino]

 

Not sure i can call most church troops a a youth ministry under the current plan  (RC and Methodist)

(The one thing that Trail life does well)

no direct involvement by the youth ministers, no invitations to services or letter of welcome. no Christian teaching or prayer, no talk of any God and country awards.  In some settings the leadership not even of that church's faith 

They only provided was a meeting place (new plan) and a mostly unknown level of risk for the troop. (reason why some are not rechartering)

 

[yknot]

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

@yknot, I’m just relaying facts on the ground. Perhaps this CO has very little to loose and is going for broke.

But, frankly, the cost of running an engaging youth program is very very high, and a parent  would be sorely mistaken to assume that their church’s youth program would train to the level needed for comparable youth protection. 

And, actually, you can preach a whole lot without open doors. File it under stuff my pastor friends have learned during a pandemic.

My point is that there is no real upside for a CO to be involved in scouting. The upside is all on the BSA end.  

[DuctTape]

4 hours ago, yknot said:

My point is that there is no real upside for a CO to be involved in scouting. The upside is all on the BSA end.  

Not much upside for us volunteers either.

One might argue the COs have more upside than us mere volunteers as they can use their "sponsorship" of BSA as a marketing tool. Others might argue that giving back to the community by being a CO is (part of) the COs mission. 

Part of me is smh at even stepping into this discussion as I do not view everything as transactional; I do things without expectation of something in return. I would hope that the BSA slogan and other values are not isolated to the bsa but other individuals and organizations also do good things without reward or gain. Doing a good thing is its own reward.

 

[yknot]

3 hours ago, DuctTape said:

Not much upside for us volunteers either.

One might argue the COs have more upside than us mere volunteers as they can use their "sponsorship" of BSA as a marketing tool. Others might argue that giving back to the community by being a CO is (part of) the COs mission. 

Part of me is smh at even stepping into this discussion as I do not view everything as transactional; I do things without expectation of something in return. I would hope that the BSA slogan and other values are not isolated to the bsa but other individuals and organizations also do good things without reward or gain. Doing a good thing is its own reward.

 

I don't think the relationship has been at all transactional for most COs. Most of them have sponsored units for various altruistic reasons -- they want to support scouts or youth or the community. Most of the small church COs around here are sponsoring units where hardly anyone in the unit even goes to that church so its been for the greater good. I think it's presumptous for anyone to think that a struggling CO will risk bankruptcy itself for the privilege of continuing to sponsor a unit for BSA. BSA is treating the CO relationship as a business relationship and not a fellowship because at it's heart, that's what the relationship really is for BSA. COs aren't backing away from youth or their communities -- they are simply backing away from the BSA . 

[DuctTape]

46 minutes ago, yknot said:

I don't think the relationship has been at all transactional for most COs. Most of them have sponsored units for various altruistic reasons -- they want to support scouts or youth or the community. Most of the small church COs around here are sponsoring units where hardly anyone in the unit even goes to that church so its been for the greater good. I think it's presumptous for anyone to think that a struggling CO will risk bankruptcy itself for the privilege of continuing to sponsor a unit for BSA. BSA is treating the CO relationship as a business relationship and not a fellowship because at it's heart, that's what the relationship really is for BSA. COs aren't backing away from youth or their communities -- they are simply backing away from the BSA . 

I do not disagree.