Chartered Organizations - Where do we go from here?

[Gilwell_1919]

There are a lot of rumors and speculation about how Chartered Organizations (CO) are going to move forward with Scouting once the dust starts to settle. As a state liaison for a national-level CO, I'd like to hear from the crowd in this forum. I understand that the United Methodist Church and the Catholic Church have issued their opinions as to how local COs should affiliate themselves with Scouting (or not to affiliate themselves), but has anyone else heard how other COs are approaching Scouting (e.g., schools/PTAs, community groups/clubs, Legions/VFWs, et cetera)? Particularly, I am really interested how they are approaching re-charter that is coming up.

I'm asking because I have volunteered with my national-level CO to help improve the relationship between the local entities/groups and scouting units throughout 3-4 councils, but I am getting the impression that the local groups are somewhat ambivalent right now. They know scouting is important, or that it used to be, but there is a general attitude that it's just not worth the hassle or exposure to litigation. 

Any thoughts on this? I'm definitely open to suggestions or advice. 

[fred8033]

Cheap summary from my local area ...

• I'm amazed how few units / CORs / COs are taking this seriously.  Maybe it's not hit their visibility yet.
• My meeting with the CO executive was ...
  • Do you want to oversee the leadership selection and unit program?  Answer no.  
  • Do you see scouting as core to something the church elders want to oversee?  Answer no.
  • How is scouting perceived in the church?  Answer - It's a nice community organization supporting  youth that we want to support as a church.  BUT, it's not aligned with the church goals as the church already has it's own youth program with it's own youth pastors.  
• My recommendation
  • This is an opportunity to represent the relationship correctly.  CO was never guiding the program.  Everyone knew that.  Now, let's make the paperwork match reality.  The words we sign with our signature matter.  We need to get it right.  
  • WAS (and communicated) - Use the facility use agreement.  Do NOT sign the charter org.  
  • NOW - LONG TERM ... If I am asked again, I'd recommend CO's should not sign anything.  The CO supports many community organizations allowing them to use the space and have keys only using the church's registration form.  They will still do that and with scouting too ... The key is ... The CO does not benefit at all by signing a document. ... IMHO, the CO needs to have it's own insurance anyway ... The negative is signing the document represents a legal agreement that can be twisted into a liability.  ...  It makes no sense for the CO to sign any agreement.  It does not help them.

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by fred8033

[CynicalScouter]

2 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

I understand that the United Methodist Church and the Catholic Church have issued their opinions as to how local COs should affiliate themselves with Scouting (or not to affiliate themselves), but has anyone else heard how other COs are approaching Scouting (e.g., schools/PTAs, community groups/clubs, Legions/VFWs, et cetera)? Particularly, I am really interested how they are approaching re-charter that is coming up.

I would differentiate here.

The UMC's official national institution issued their very public opinion for all Methodist Churches.

However, the Catholic Church does not have a directly comparable entity. The closest thing, and it's not directly comparable, is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. As of this date, they have been publicly silent.

Moreover, at the bishopric level, the Methodists and Catholics have also reacted differently.

SO FAR the Methodist bishops have urged, encouraged, recommended, strongly recommended, etc. no rechartering past December 31, 2021 but to my knowledge no "orders" have gone out.

Several Catholic bishops/archbishops however have been much more blunt and simply ordered parishes to stop chartering NOW or in the recent past. For example in Fall 2020 the Diocese of Dallas in effect gave all parishes 90 days to get the scouts out. Other dioceses have given similar directives: scouting is out or move to facilities use by December 31, 2021. Where the Methodist bishops suggested, some Catholic bishops are simply ordering.

[Gilwell_1919]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

.... have urged, encouraged, recommended, strongly recommended, etc. no rechartering past December 31, 2021 ...

I think that is my present conundrum. I am actively trying to encourage scouting is all areas of my state... but with news articles sharing "de facto edicts"... it seems to be causing a level of ambivalence towards scouting that I've never encountered. 

Back in the day... or at least when I put on my rose-colored glasses... when you said, "hey, the Boy Scouts need...." you were met with open arms with whatever your request was. Now, it seems like the answer is, "let me check with my insurance policy to see if we can do that..." 

Definitely making things more difficult. I can't speak for other national-level COs or how they are bracing for whatever is coming down the line... but there is definitely panic within the herd. 

[skeptic]

34 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Cheap summary from my local area ...

• I'm amazed how few units / CORs / COs are taking this seriously.  Maybe it's not hit their visibility yet.
• My meeting with the CO executive was ...
  • Do you want to oversee the leadership selection and unit program?  Answer no.  
  • Do you see scouting as core to something the church elders want to oversee?  Answer no.
  • How is scouting perceived in the church?  Answer - It's a nice community organization supporting  youth that we want to support as a church.  BUT, it's not aligned with the church goals as the church already has it's own youth program with it's own youth pastors.  
• My recommendation
  • This is an opportunity to represent the relationship correctly.  CO was never guiding the program.  Everyone knew that.  Now, let's make the paperwork match reality.  The words we sign with our signature matter.  We need to get it right.  
  • WAS (and communicated) - Use the facility use agreement.  Do NOT sign the charter org.  
  • NOW - LONG TERM ... If I am asked again, I'd recommend CO's should not sign anything.  The CO supports many community organizations allowing them to use the space and have keys only using the church's registration form.  They will still do that and with scouting too ... The key is ... The CO does not benefit at all by signing a document. ... IMHO, the CO needs to have it's own insurance anyway ... The negative is signing the document represents a legal agreement that can be twisted into a liability.  ...  It makes no sense for the CO to sign any agreement.  It does not help them.

 

Sadly, this is pretty much accurate, especially here in our screwed up legal system.  Until there is a major course correction in our systems, the problems will continue to show up and often play to the benefit of mostly the questionable legal people that prey on emotion and technical semantic manipulation.

[Jameson76]

UMC and the council of Bishops is recommending / strongly advising / instructing local churches to NOT sign the charters.  At this point it's not a NO, but remember that the ministers are assigned and are under the direction of the conferences that roll up to the main UMC.  As this moves along, a local UMC church may want to charter a troop but it may be not allowed in the book of discipline.  Side note: To actually update the UMC Book of Discipline would be a major thing, but you get my drift

Candidly, the BSA will need to get a path forward without the Charter Organization model.  The BSA (National) pretty much tossed the CO's under the bus during the proposed bankruptcy settlement.  No group will likely want to be a partner with BSA as the question is;  can they be trusted? 

Yes the January 21 CO agreement denotes insurance as a responsibility of the local council (note this is local council and not National BSA)

• Provide primary general liability insurance to cover the Charter Organization, its board, officers, Charter Organization Representative (COR), employees, and adult volunteers for authorized Scouting activities. Indemnify the Charter Organization in accordance with the resolutions and policies of the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America.
• “The general liability policy issued to the Boy Scouts of America provides primary liability insurance coverage for all chartered organizations for liability arising out of their sponsorship of a traditional Scouting unit. Evanston Insurance Company provides the first $1 million per occurrence coverage. Additional policies, all providing primary coverage to the chartered organization, have been purchased so that more than $10 million in primary coverage is provided. There is no coverage for those who commit intentional or criminal acts. Liability insurance is purchased to provide financial protection in the event of accidents or injury that is neither expected nor intended

However, will that be enough and once lawsuits against CO's crank up?  May be game over for the CO model

We, as a UMC troop are seeing what the landscape is and what out future may or may not hold.

 

 

[Gilwell_1919]

37 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

• My recommendation
  • This is an opportunity to represent the relationship correctly.  CO was never guiding the program.  Everyone knew that.  Now, let's make the paperwork match reality.  The words we sign with our signature matter.  We need to get it right.  
  • WAS (and communicated) - Use the facility use agreement.  Do NOT sign the charter org.  
  • NOW - If I am asked again, I'd recommend CO's should not sign anything.  The CO supports many community organizations allowing them to use the space and have keys only using the church's registration form.  They still need to do that.  ... The key is ... The CO does not benefit at all by signing a document. ... IMHO, the CO needs to have it's own insurance anyway ... The negative is signing the document represents a legal agreement that can be twisted into a liability.  ...  It makes no sense for the CO to sign any agreement.  It does not help them.

I like this approach. IMHO, not that my opinion means much, is that the LCs should be chartering the units and the community COs should be giving scouts places to meet. Seems simple to me and it creates a clear line as to which entity is responsible for oversight of the program.

I think national really needs to look at re-inventing the commissioner corps. I also think, the rising generation of adult leaders need to seek out the old-school scouters in their areas and find out how the program used to be, not what it has become. The problem is all these bright-eyed and bushy-tailed DE's that are trained to looks for any place to start a new unit. I get that we want to make scouts accessible, but the "assembly line of unit making" is too much for anyone to manage. I guess it is the age-old question.... "quality vs. quantity". The volunteers want quality while the professionals need quantity (volume). With the amount of units folding in my area... it is definitely highlighting how you can't keep cranking out units with no plan as to how they will programmatically support themselves. One unit with 60 kids is better than 12 units with 5 kids each. While you can tell deep-pocketed corporate donors... "look, we have 12 units in this particular area"... when you take a closer look... you can definitely see the difference between a solid unit and one that is being artificially held together by DE's.

[Gilwell_1919]

3 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

.... May be game over for the CO model

We, as a UMC troop are seeing what the landscape is and what out future may or may not hold.

 

 

This is what I am wanting to do. Propose that the LCs in my state just charter the units directly... and then we (our national-level organization) can simply give units a place to meet. Meaning, our organization could simply allow multiple units to meet during any given week (just on different nights). In larger cities, this could definitely help with the "space issue" if COs continue to turn away,

[fred8033]

5 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Candidly, the BSA will need to get a path forward without the Charter Organization model.  The BSA (National) pretty much tossed the CO's under the bus during the proposed bankruptcy settlement.  No group will likely want to be a partner with BSA as the question is;  can they be trusted? 

You don't even need to talk about BSA throwing CO's under the bus.  ... Times have changed.  The CO was historically more an honorary document the church could hold up to say: look at all the good we are doing.  They get their ribbon and certificate to display and get bragging rights.  ... NOW, decades and decades later ... guess what?  Those pretty words mean something in court now.  It's a liability that people have learned to exploit to the tune of million and millions.  ... Times have changed drastically.

Just now, Gilwell_1919 said:

This is what I am wanting to do. Propose that the LCs in my state just charter the units directly... and then we (our national-level organization) can simply give units a place to meet. Meaning, our organization could simply allow multiple units to meet during any given week (just on different nights). In larger cities, this could definitely help with the "space issue" if COs continue to turn away,

Scouts and parents would see zero difference.  Sounds like a good plan.

[David CO]

14 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

This is what I am wanting to do. Propose that the LCs in my state just charter the units directly... 

This is what council guys have always wanted to do.  The bankruptcy is an excuse for them to do it.  

[gpurlee]

In our area, we are witnessing a "paradigm shift" (always liked that term) in how chartering organizations view Scouting. There is little question that the UMC's have moved to "high alert."  Where the issue earlier in the year was the traditional sponsorship vs being a facility host, there is now very serious discussion on whether a congregation should be a part of Scouting at all.

Carefully scripted conference meetings have recommended that local churches may/should consult an attorney on the issues relating to sponsoring or hosting a Scouting unit. The emphasis is that there is significant potential liability and units should carefully consider the liability and commitment issues that are involved. 

Several congregations are just now receiving the first notification of a potential claim. This is setting off a wave of angst at the local level. The full potential liability is sinking in. For those troops and packs that are not keeping in touch with national bankruptcy events, there may soon be a surprising and not so pleasant discussion with their chartered organization coming. This is not limited to the UMC units in our area by any stretch of the imagination. It comes at a very bad time when the program membership is under severe stress due to the pandemic.

The first point of the Scout law - Trustworthy - is a major issue. There is a strong sense that the BSA has reneged on its promise of insurance coverage and legal defense and is no longer a trustworthy partner. As a result, thousands of UMC congregations are now facing potentially crushing lawsuits. Just the defense cost, even when a church has not been derelict in its duties, would overwhelm many congregations. Witnessing this play out to a neighboring congregation or other chartering organization will shock many current sponsors to drop Scouting out of the fear that they might be next.

A very competent and committed UMC ad hoc task force has been working for months on this issue in mediation with the BSA.  They are attempting to hammer out a workable solution while maintaining Scouting as a ministry - and are facing strong headwinds at times.  Nevertheless, they are trying to find a satisfactory way forward that addresses many different concerns including victims, liability issues and continuing a hundred year old plus ministry.

There clearly is regular communication and coordination among many of the chartered organizations at the national level.  As the Methodists go, others are likely to follow. I think the CO's are committed to leveraging every bit of their combined negotiating resources which is significant if Scouting will emerge intact following the bankruptcy. And several local councils are quite clearly hearing this now.

If the CO model falters, it is not only the loss of meeting places but also the loss of a perception of the credibility and endorsement of Scouting in the community.

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by gpurlee

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, gpurlee said:

If the CO model falters, it is not only the loss of meeting places but also the loss of a perception of the credibility and endorsement of Scouting in the community.

Loss of CO model does not automatically mean loss of meeting places. 

[gpurlee]

6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Loss of CO model does not automatically mean loss of meeting places. 

You are absolutely correct. What it probably means is a shift to a facility use agreement for those CO's that wish to continue to support Scouting. A couple of thoughts:

The UMC (United Methodist Church) has developed a revised facility use agreement that is much more specific than the current BSA agreement. It is clear that our conference at least is recommending that one.

Second, the shift that I have seen in the past few weeks in our area  is that the discussion has changed from whether we should do a traditional charter or a facility use agreement to whether we should support Scouting at all. It is like a pebble has started down a steep slope and an avalanche is on the verge of starting.   It really concerns our experienced Scouts and professionals. 

Eliminating Scouting is not the goal of the national UMC leadership but there is a growing trepidation at the local level about Scouting.

 

[yknot]

17 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

 

Eliminating Scouting is not the goal of the national UMC leadership but there is a growing trepidation at the local level about Scouting.

 

Not at all. I think many of these traditional CO groups are struggling to get their minds around this. But they have been confronted with some appalling realities and if their survival is at stake or could be hampered by an involvement with scouting, they would be negligent if they did not take steps to protect their organizations. 

[Jameson76]

There was a call this week for our council area on UMC and Scouting.  To say that the input was muddled would be kind.

UMC has very real concerns and will not commit to anything until there is clarity from the BSA.  The BSA, at least locally, has no real plan.  Maybe units go find another CO, maybe not, maybe it will work out, whatever.

Sad truth is, at least in our council, the concern for the actual units that are doing Scouting does not exist.  Our feeling is they would be fine if we all just faded away, they could run the Scout units in the inner city neighborhoods (which are good thing and service that area), with the hired leaders (Scouting Program Specialist) and drive on.  They can still raise money, still have Scouts, but don't have to worry about the pesky troops out in the woods.  Do you have Scouts to be able to raise money OR do you raise money to have Scouts?  In our council it is definitely option 1.  Looks good on paper

When asked about what our next steps for recharter, no real input.  Maybe don't have any outings in January until this shakes out.  What a joke