Methodist Church telling Churches to Not "Recharter" Scout Units

[fred8033]

13 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

It is a national mechanism on the national forms site. So, your SE is either not telling the truth or ignorant of the alternative process. 

Annual Council Unit Registration Agreement

https://www.scouting.org/resources/forms/

 

 

 

Interesting that form still has references to charter organization and charter org representative.  Is that a council signature or are they looking for a "Parents Of" organization. 

[Jameson76]

We appear to be having a meeting / Q&A session next month with the Council, Scouters, Clergy to ask about the "evolving" relationship between the BSA and UMC.  

As noted the "Parents of XXX" would be fraught with liability and not a good path forward.  Unless the BSA agrees to insure and indemnify the CO, not going to work.  Of course with the track record of bankruptcy and tossing CO's under the bus, no CO will really take the BSA at their word.

Sad that an organization can have a great local reputation and a parent org that seems to not really follow their own Oath and Law.  Self preservation for the higher ups trumps doing what is right I guess.

Assumption is facility use agreement and some sort of Council Charter.  Or we pack our tents and sadly exit the campground.

[vtcchokie92]

3 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Interesting that form still has references to charter organization and charter org representative.  Is that a council signature or are they looking for a "Parents Of" organization. 

I had the same questions when I saw this on ScoutBook forums.  The exact words our SE used was that they do not plan to directly charter any units at this time.  The implication is that they have no contingency plan either when, not if, this becomes a reality for more Troops/Packs than ours.

[vtcchokie92]

2 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

We appear to be having a meeting / Q&A session next month with the Council, Scouters, Clergy to ask about the "evolving" relationship between the BSA and UMC.  

As noted the "Parents of XXX" would be fraught with liability and not a good path forward.  Unless the BSA agrees to insure and indemnify the CO, not going to work.  Of course with the track record of bankruptcy and tossing CO's under the bus, no CO will really take the BSA at their word.

Sad that an organization can have a great local reputation and a parent org that seems to not really follow their own Oath and Law.  Self preservation for the higher ups trumps doing what is right I guess.

Assumption is facility use agreement and some sort of Council Charter.  Or we pack our tents and sadly exit the campground.

Another issue that came up, other than the liability, is the tax implications.  A Scout Troop and Pack will lose it tax exempt status if they are not Chartered by a Church or other non-profit community organization.  Probably won't have a big impact for the most part except for donations, possibly popcorn sales/other fundraisers.

[skeptic]

4 minutes ago, vtcchokie92 said:

Another issue that came up, other than the liability, is the tax implications.  A Scout Troop and Pack will lose it tax exempt status if they are not Chartered by a Church or other non-profit community organization.  Probably won't have a big impact for the most part except for donations, possibly popcorn sales/other fundraisers.

Not accurate if the discussed option is in place, as the CO becomes the local council and they do have the tax status.  However, this discussion is skewed in that not ALL the Methodist churches are represented by the people that published the noted letter.  Again, refer back to the link already shared here from the main part of the Church, the Methodist Men, that indicate continued support.  The the title might be more accurate if changed to "Some" Methodist Churches.  

[vtcchokie92]

2 hours ago, skeptic said:

Not accurate if the discussed option is in place, as the CO becomes the local council and they do have the tax status.  However, this discussion is skewed in that not ALL the Methodist churches are represented by the people that published the noted letter.  Again, refer back to the link already shared here from the main part of the Church, the Methodist Men, that indicate continued support.  The the title might be more accurate if changed to "Some" Methodist Churches.  

Thanks.  Good point on the title - whomever started the thread could change that.  Unfortunately, our Council does not plan to serve as a CO for any Troops/Packs/Crews.  From my understanding though, the tax exempt status is extended from National to the Councils and their Trust Funds, but does not extend to the individual units no matter who their CO is, including Council.  Don't have that in writing from National, only saw it on another forum and another Council's page.

[skeptic]

3 hours ago, vtcchokie92 said:

Thanks.  Good point on the title - whomever started the thread could change that.  Unfortunately, our Council does not plan to serve as a CO for any Troops/Packs/Crews.  From my understanding though, the tax exempt status is extended from National to the Councils and their Trust Funds, but does not extend to the individual units no matter who their CO is, including Council.  Don't have that in writing from National, only saw it on another forum and another Council's page.

It is my understanding that each Local Council is its own NP in the state in which it resides.  They are separate NP corporations.  If someone can show me where that is not accurate, please do.

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, skeptic said:

It is my understanding that each Local Council is its own NP in the state in which it resides.  They are separate NP corporations. 

It is. All councils are registered as 501(c)(3)s in their own right. For example Circle Ten Council is a registered 501(c)(3)  as "Boy Scouts Of America National Council 571 Circle Ten Council" which is a mouthful but gets the point across.

https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/750800615_201912_990_2021040217863611.pdf

 

[CynicalScouter]

 

8 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

Unless the BSA agrees to insure and indemnify the CO, not going to work.  Of course with the track record of bankruptcy and tossing CO's under the bus, no CO will really take the BSA at their word.

I really, really think this is going to be something where the language and loose language BSA used and the myths and legends are going to get cross-wired.

As I noted elsewhere, the argument that BSA is making is that the pre-1976 insurance policies covered BSA and BSA alone. Anyone who therefore thought they were covered (in terms of COs) are therefore morons or simply misunderstood.

The fact that COs are now coming back and saying "We, or more accurately people 50+ years ago in our seats, thought BSA said we were covered" won't matter much.

If the insurance policies did NOT cover COs, no amount of negotiation is going to suddenly make those policies magically retroactively expand to cover COs.

[yknot]

47 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

I really, really think this is going to be something where the language and loose language BSA used and the myths and legends are going to get cross-wired.

As I noted elsewhere, the argument that BSA is making is that the pre-1976 insurance policies covered BSA and BSA alone. Anyone who therefore thought they were covered (in terms of COs) are therefore morons or simply misunderstood.

The fact that COs are now coming back and saying "We, or more accurately people 50+ years ago in our seats, thought BSA said we were covered" won't matter much.

If the insurance policies did NOT cover COs, no amount of negotiation is going to suddenly make those policies magically retroactively expand to cover COs.

Most of the people signing agreements today wouldn't have access to those older documents. For anyone signing post 1976, most would just assume the same coverage had been in force. I don't think it's necessarily that they were morons or misunderstood. Isn't there some negligence, again, on the part of BSA if they knew they had an abuse problem and didn't keep COs informed before signing agreements so that they could make an informed decision on whether to recharter? 

[SiouxRanger]

24 minutes ago, yknot said:

so that they could make an informed decision on whether to recharter? 

"Fraud in the inducement" and "fraud in the execution."

It raises the question:  "The statutes of limitation were reopened so that abuse claimants would have enforceable claims, but were the statutes of limitation reopened so that the CO's and LC 's, who may have liability on account of National's acts or omissions, can assert their claims against National for indemnification?"

Probably no one considered that CO's and LC's would be claimants in their own right.

Ooops.

[CynicalScouter]

I am seeing more and more from Reddit, FB groups, etc. that last week's mediation was a failure and that a new directive may have gone out Monday night telling Methodist churches to not renew. Moreover, some churches are simply dropping their units NOW, mid-year, and not waiting for December 31.

To borrow a military phrase, it is turning from a retreat to a rout.

[Eagle1993]

57 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I am seeing more and more from Reddit, FB groups, etc. that last week's mediation was a failure and that a new directive may have gone out Monday night telling Methodist churches to not renew. Moreover, some churches are simply dropping their units NOW, mid-year, and not waiting for December 31.

To borrow a military phrase, it is turning from a retreat to a rout.

Yes .. the chatter is increasing and several are indicating immediate stops.  It doesn't sound national yet as some are indicating they haven't been informed and others have been told December 31 is the end date.  One individual is comparing the plans to the LDS exit if BSA doesn't change their path on bankruptcy.   I'm still thinking it doesn't get that bad, but clearly some units are feeling the pinch as we speak.

[vtcchokie92]

27 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Yes .. the chatter is increasing and several are indicating immediate stops.  It doesn't sound national yet as some are indicating they haven't been informed and others have been told December 31 is the end date.  One individual is comparing the plans to the LDS exit if BSA doesn't change their path on bankruptcy.   I'm still thinking it doesn't get that bad, but clearly some units are feeling the pinch as we speak.

We are and we are not supported by a UMC.  We are in conversations with a couple of UMC churches locally, but we are limiting our discussions to facilities use agreements only until we see how this pans out.  What concerns me is that our Council is unaware of the means to serve as a CO or unwilling - either way, if this does become more of an issue (and it probably will), they will be seriously behind the power curve and the Scouts will suffer.  That is unacceptable

[SiouxRanger]

In all my reading and study of history, that which governments fear most is the citizenry taking to the streets.  It is a simple question of math:

Gandhi: Yes. In the end, you will walk out, because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350,000,000 Indians if those Indians refuse to cooperate. And that is what we intend to achieve: peaceful, nonviolent, non-cooperation -- till you, yourselves, see the wisdom of leaving.

And so, now we have not only individual CO's, but large blocks of CO's "taking to the streets," figuratively, and refusing to stand in the line of compliance and acquiescence dictated by National regarding National's bankruptcy.