Unit Recharter in Question

[ValleyBoy]

Was told at tonight's scout meeting that our CO might not recharter our troop & pack for next year.  Our units are sponsored by a church and the Deacon board of the church will recommend at the next church business meeting that the church ends it relationship with the BSA as of Dec 31st at the end of the units charter year due to changes in the charter agreement with the BSA due to the liabilities from the on going lawsuit. 

Looks like we will be trying to find a new CO to sponsor a new troop and pack when both units drop at the end of the year.  Not something that we as a unit wanted to happen but will just have to deal with.  We have not informed the scouts at this time only the parents.  We have several leads to approach as a new CO but will not start that process until after until after present CO business meeting on  Nov 21st.

 

Anyone else having to go thru process with there unit.  We do know of several issue that will come up in this process such as unit equipment and unit finances which the present CO has not contributed any resources toward.  .      

[Eagle94-A1]

Good luck with finding a new CO. And no you are not alone.

Besides the UMC churches, i know 1 church has given their units either until the end if the school year (mid june) or charter (next month) before they need to leave. The District Commissior and unit leaders have approached 2 possible COs, one of them wanting Scouting about 2-3 years ago. Both said no. I

So no, you are not alone. 

 

[qwazse]

Okay. Answer me this. How does ending a charter agreement absolve a CO of liability? Is there any victims’ attorney out there who said they will take a CO off their list of intended targets if they drop a charter?

[Eagle1993]

Just now, qwazse said:

Okay. Answer me this. How does ending a charter agreement absolve a CO of liability? Is there any victims’ attorney out there who said they will take a CO off their list of intended targets if they drop a charter?

It doesn’t but it prevents future ones.  We have a local Troop that is not chartered by the Methodist but are allowed to meet there for free.  That will likely change as the church wants to make it clear they support scouts but do not want any liability risk (or at least limit it as much as possible).  

For example, my Troop meets at a school.   When I send in the reservation forms, I pay for the rental and sign a form that says we have appropriate insurance and take liability for the event.   
 

If I was a lawyer for a CO, I would never have my organization sign an adult leader application nor charter org agreement.   Far too much liability going forward.  

[qwazse]

By that logic … if you were a CO … would you have a youth program AT ALL?

[Eagle1993]

42 minutes ago, qwazse said:

By that logic … if you were a CO … would you have a youth program AT ALL?

I would have youth programs that are run my own organization.  I wouldn't have youth programs that I am legally responsible for that are not run by my organization.  So, as a church, I would have Sunday school and church youth groups.  I wouldn't sign documents to say I approve the adults for separate youth organizations.  I would let them use my facilities for a fee.

Given how little most COs are involved in units, I'm shocked any sign off on adult leaders and charters.  Many times the COR doesn't even know the adult that is volunteering.  I haven't seen my COR at a meeting for 3+ years.  The only reason I saw my COR in the past as our COR was also our DE.  The legal liability could be huge once lawyers figure that out.  

Mr. COR, please state your name.  So, you signed off on Mr. X's adult application.  How do you know Mr. X?  Did you ever talk to Mr. X?  What process does your CO utilize to vet adult leaders that you are approving?  Let's now look at the charter agreement that you signed ... how often did you attend Troop meetings? Hmm... very interesting Mr. COR, I think we have heard enough.

[gpurlee]

I think that the reality of the full extent of potential liability is sinking in for many chartered organizations. As Eagle1993 states, many CO's have traditionally maintained a hands off distance from their Scouting units.  And that will come home to haunt some of them.

In our area, what we are seeing is that CO's are choosing not to move to a facility use model.  Instead, they are evicting Scouting units all together. It does not seem to matter if they are sponsored by the UMC, the Roman Catholic Church, Baptist. Units have been served notice that the CO will no longer host Scouting.  It appears that half or more of our local CO's are dropping their units like a hot potato. Add those losses onto the major membership losses due to the pandemic and the picture is sobering. I think we are likely in the middle of the largest threat to the survival of Scouting in its 111 year history.

I suppose that should not be a shock, when CO's are being advised by their denominational leadership that they should consult an attorney before rechartering so that they fully understand the potential risk.  For many CO's this is simply not an acceptable risk.

And. finally, there is a growing perception among CO's in our area, that the BSA is no longer a trustworthy partner. There is a concern that the BSA has reneged on its past assurances to provide insurance and legal protection to CO's in the event that an allegation of abuse is made.  Unless the BSA can act very quickly to address these concerns, the future of the program is in doubt locally.  

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by gpurlee

[elitts]

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

By that logic … if you were a CO … would you have a youth program AT ALL?

That's where the wide open SoL laws are going to go.  Regardless of the motivations of the lawyers in the BSA case, at some point, some of the law firms that see success in this case are going to get hungry again and they'll start targeting other programs with broad memberships.  When they could only find a few plaintiffs at a time I'd imagine the financials on pursuing a case were problematic.  But when you can go back through the entire life of the program, I have to think it starts looking more workable.

[MattR]

Not sure if this means anything but our CO was hesitant from the start some 15-20 years ago about liability. Consequently, our COR has always been both an active parent in the troop as well as active in the church as well. They have taken the position seriously. 

[qwazse]

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Given how little most COs are involved in units, I'm shocked any sign off on adult leaders and charters.  Many times the COR doesn't even know the adult that is volunteering.  I haven't seen my COR at a meeting for 3+ years.  The only reason I saw my COR in the past as our COR was also our DE.  The legal liability could be huge once lawyers figure that out.  

 

23 minutes ago, MattR said:

our CO was hesitant from the start some 15-20 years ago about liability. Consequently, our COR has always been both an active parent in the troop as well as active in the church as well. They have taken the position seriously. 

Like @MattR, in mine or my kid's units, I have never experienced an absentee COR as you described. (As a youth, my COR introduced me to my Eagle project.) I think every COR who I worked with had a sense that among us might be a ne'er-do-well (let alone pedophile), so due diligence was in order. The word "liability" may not have even been uttered, but "keep our kids safe and leave the building tidy" motivated in the same direction.

The most egregious thing about UMC's action seems to me that diligent COs are bearing the brunt of those professionals who knew slack charter's were being signed, but pushed their DE's to generate quantity over quality (also a familiar theme here).

Blind rage is only that. If CO engagement really reduces liability, then we need real survey results with real numbers to back it up. It's too easy look at the blogged complaints of scouters here and generalize to the nation. But, supposing that's true. Then the worst thing litigants could do for our nation's youth is to discourage duly diligent CO's from engaging with them.

P.S. - I'm still friends with the kids of the DE at the time when I was a youth. It warms my heart to see their pictures of him and his wife.

Edited November 9, 2021 by qwazse

[yknot]

3 minutes ago, qwazse said:

 

Like @MattR, in mine or my kid's units, I have never experienced an absentee COR as you described. (As a youth, my COR introduced me to my Eagle project.) I think every COR who I worked with had a sense that among us might be a ne'er-do-well (let alone pedophile), so due diligence was in order. The word "liability" may not have even been uttered, but "keep our kids safe and leave the building tidy" motivated in the same direction.

The most egregious thing about UMC's action seems to me that diligent COs are bearing the brunt of those professionals who knew slack charter's were being signed, but pushed their DE's to generate quantity over quality (also a familiar theme here).

Blind rage is only that. If CO engagement really reduces liability, then we need real survey results with real numbers to back it up. It's too easy look at the blogged complaints of scouters here and generalize to the nation. But, supposing that's true. Then the worst thing litigants could do for our nation's youth is to discourage duly diligent CO's from engaging with them.

P.S. - I'm still friends with the kids of the DE at the time when I was a youth. It warms my heart to see their pictures of him and his wife.

I have never known a CO or a COR that isn't absentee or at very least hands off and I have been involved with two councils that would never force the issue for fear of losing units, membership, or FOS dollars. In many of the units, the COR is just a name on paper -- they do not belong to or represent the CO because there is no one available at the CO. Many COs around here are smaller churches with declining, elderly leadership. I think this is very different depending on what council you are in or part of the country. This is a problem BSA has ignored or played footsie with for years. The CO model has not worked at all in many places. 

 

[johnsch322]

16 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Then the worst thing litigants could do for our nation's youth is to discourage duly diligent CO's from engaging with them.

Are we blaming survivors once more?  When will it end?

[Eagledad]

I'm a ;little confused on this. Whether the CO works closely with the unit or not, the litigation risks are the same. It just takes one disgruntled parent who wants their pound of flesh. Oh, I know a consensus CO will reduce the risk, but we had several parents pull the litigation card to get their way.

So, is the real discussion here about the BSA shifting the cost of litigation insurance on to the unit? Anyone have an idea of that cost? 

Barry

On a side note, I am not surprised that quazse's and Matts unit CO's work well with the unit, I found that good unit drive the CO's to work close with them. Not saying they weren't good CO's anyways, but good units can drive good relationships.

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

It just takes one disgruntled parent who wants their pound of flesh. Oh, I know a consensus CO will reduce the risk, but we had several parents pull the litigation card to get their way.

What is it that parents want their pound of flesh for and what are they threatening litigation about?

[Eagledad]

42 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

What is it that parents want their pound of flesh for and what are they threatening litigation about?

Anything. One parent threatened litigation because their son heard an adult use a cuss word. I know the parent wouldn't have gone through the effort, but that was how he motivated the troop to take some kind of action. Another parent threatened litigation because the SM didn't tell them that their son was caught with a Playboy magazine on a campout several months previous. That threat came after a meeting with the parents over their son threatening another scout with his pocket knife. The learning disabled scout has a lot of social issues that was creating a lot of concerns, so we asked one parent to attend meetings and campout to help us with their son. The parents use the troop as break from their son and did not want to attend meetings. Threating litigation was how ended the discussion with a "no". Ask a DE for examples, they have many. 

My point is that quality of the CO or unit isn't really a factor if National is giving up their support of helping all units with litigation. No matter how the issue lays out in the end, I think the question is what is the added cost for a family to put their kids in scouting.

Barry

Edited November 9, 2021 by Eagledad