Statement by the United Methodist Church

[1980Scouter]

On 7/22/2022 at 6:37 PM, 5thGenTexan said:

This is part of our flyer.....

 

 

They left an option out. #4 disband the troop and scouts wanting to continue can join nearby troops. 

At least in my area you could find another troop within a 20 minute drive. This would be an option especially for the small, struggling troops. 

It would be a hard option but one that at least allows the scouts to continue. 

And it saves the troop from option #3 which most seem to dislike.

[5thGenTexan]

Another day, another hurdle.  😅

Had my meeting today at the church.  Ended up being me, the IH, the COR, one of the SM, and one of the trustees on the churches board.

Of course, the church didnt know about Option1 (keep the charter as it is).  In fact, we got to be on speakerphone with the Bishop's office of the Conference our charter is actually in.  They haven't heard of what Oklahoma Conference is doing and not sure they can even do that.  They were clear, the Bishop's office, that the church who is our CO can not recharter and do things as they have been.  So...  I guess our Council is going to have to go back to the drawing board.

[PACAN]

Wonder what your council would say?

wonder if your conference will call Oklahoma and ask did they ask "Big UMC" if they are able to do #1.

keep us posted.  Nada from our council.

[5thGenTexan]

Got a letter from Council today regarding the issue.  Pretty much....  "Uhhh, that part about Option 1 we were talking about... forget that, thats not really an option.  You can sign an Affiliation Agreement or Facilities Use Agreement and that's all your choices"

It signed by Steven Schied and our SE.

Days like this I get dizzy from my rolling my eyes.  

[gpurlee]

11 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Got a letter from Council today regarding the issue.  Pretty much....  "Uhhh, that part about Option 1 we were talking about... forget that, thats not really an option.  You can sign an Affiliation Agreement or Facilities Use Agreement and that's all your choices"

It signed by Steven Schied and our SE.

Days like this I get dizzy from my rolling my eyes.  

The landscape around this issue keeps shifting. If indeed the traditional model (option 1) is no longer available (we were told by council and conference level officials that it will be) and option 2 - the affiliation agreement will not be accepted by the council (will this be a council by council decision?); then that leaves only option 3. Until option 4 appears, I suppose. 

[5thGenTexan]

I am not sure if this will work, but this is the PDF of the letter.

circleten_08_54_50_5583e0d50689838d4e959e887b5af597c048.pdf

[yknot]

1 hour ago, gpurlee said:

The landscape around this issue keeps shifting. If indeed the traditional model (option 1) is no longer available (we were told by council and conference level officials that it will be) and option 2 - the affiliation agreement will not be accepted by the council (will this be a council by council decision?); then that leaves only option 3. Until option 4 appears, I suppose. 

I watched the zoom meeting with UMC/BSA when they detailed the plan and it was pretty clear option 1 was not viable. However, councils and churches have gone rogue before so I wasn't surprised to read that some councils and churches were coming up with different interpretations. There have been several UMC COs in various places that have refused to drop their units although I expect a similar result as this. The UMC is having a lot of problems of its own. 

[PACAN]

I didn't see any update or change to the agreement on the methodist scouter website

[yknot]

51 minutes ago, PACAN said:

I didn't see any update or change to the agreement on the methodist scouter website

There is none but it seems some councils/conferences have had their own interpretations. It's very unlikely any of them will be able to go rogue longer than the October deadline. 

[gpurlee]

Some councils have stated that they will not accept the affiliation model due to a lack of staffing resources or other factors. I think that there is a real concern that if the UMC affiliation model is accepted, other chartered organizations will follow their lead. In addition, our council has suggested that there would likely be additional fees to cover the costs for council owned units. And that the council owned units would be expected to be model units with hints that would include strong participation in council fund-raisers, Friends of Scouting campaigns and other council projects. It is clear that council leadership would prefer units move to another chartered partner rather than an affiliation model. If the traditional model is no longer an option and councils balk at the affiliation model, that will essentially force the UMC out of Scouting, I fear. 

Can national pressure or force local councils to accept the affiliation model? Interesting question given the bankruptcy arguments that the local councils are essentially independent entities.  But nevertheless, ones that are linked with a common purpose and shared interests and are interdependent as the judge pointed out in her comments. National has to be hearing the concerns that local councils lack the manpower and resources (and desire) to adopt the affiliation model. 

[5thGenTexan]

I spoke to the DE the other day regarding our uhhh "options".  Told me it would be cleared by Monday.  He went on to tell me we would be council owned.  Of course, I suggested we would not be and already in talks with another organization to be our CO.  He told me "good look with that, we will see how long that lasts"

[Scoutmaster Teddy]

I have several UMC units in my district. As District Commissioner I had to tell them that having the Council as a charter partner was a "no."

Anyone else have this issue? 

[PACAN]

@gpurlee  Of course if Councils are the CO they are going to add as many fees and restrictions as they can and likely require attendance at their Summer Camp.  Follow the money.  Also seems like the UMC is forcing scouting out of the church all on their own.  Your 2nd paragraph is "funny"  National forcing councils to do anything.  Look how much input the councils probably had in coming to the UMC/BSA agreement.

 

@5thGenTexan  Your DE sounds like a typical piece of work

@Scoutmaster Teddy   Not surprised

 

If a new sponsor isn't happening and as unpleasant it might be to disband, get your scouts into another troop since they come first.   Their new units will welcome all they dedicated UMC leaders too.

 

JMHO.

[MikeS72]

3 hours ago, Scoutmaster Teddy said:

I have several UMC units in my district. As District Commissioner I had to tell them that having the Council as a charter partner was a "no."

Anyone else have this issue? 

That is also the case in my council.  We were informed last week that all UMC units have until Oct. 31 to complete the process of finding a new CO. 

[gpurlee]

What is becoming clear is that, at this moment, the councils are all over the board regarding the best route to move forward regarding the UMC and the affiliation agreement.

Our council just sent a letter to all UMC units that included this statement:

There are several options moving forward to support our partners that still includes the current traditional charter method.

This was sent out under the signature of the council executive and the UMC conference Scouting coordinator.