Heavy handed Chartered Organization

[AnotherScouter]

I have some questions about the role and policies of the Chartered Organization. Specifically, our chartered organization recently has become more interested in controlling certain aspects of our Troop. I am wondering if these policies are in the purview of the CO or if they are overstepping:

1. They are requesting the key 3 members to use email addresses that are registered with the CO instead of personal email addresses
2. They have put Unit funds into an account controlled by the CO and not the Unit, and all payments go to the CO but are earmarked for the unit. The unit's balance and funds are then reconciled by the Treasurer of the CO. They have even gone as far as saying they want to take funds from one scouting unit and give it to another scouting unit, without the scouting unit having a say in the matter. The only exception is rechartering fees which are paid directly to BSA. 
3. They have decided that the unit leaders will have fixed terms and the CO will select the next unit leader. Again without any input from the unit itself as to who that leader will be. In our case, the Scoutmaster. The troop itself was very happy with the current Scoutmaster, who is very involved in Scouting (Wood Badge, etc). But none of that mattered. 
4. They are asking the Scoutmaster to work directly with the CO instead of going through the CoR. 

I'm not sure if I want to raise a stink by escalating up to the Council or district, but I am still wondering if the CO is within their rights here as a CO, or are they violating some BSA policies? 

Edited August 22, 2023 by AnotherScouter

[RememberSchiff]

@AnotherScouterwelcome to scouter.com . 

[awanatech]

6 hours ago, AnotherScouter said:

I have some questions about the role and policies of the Chartered Organization. Specifically, our chartered organization recently has become more interested in controlling certain aspects of our Troop. I am wondering if these policies are in the purview of the CO or if they are overstepping:

1. They are requesting the key 3 members to use email addresses that are registered with the CO instead of personal email addresses
2. They have put Unit funds into an account controlled by the CO and not the Unit, and all payments go to the CO but are earmarked for the unit. The unit's balance and funds are then reconciled by the Treasurer of the CO. They have even gone as far as saying they want to take funds from one scouting unit and give it to another scouting unit, without the scouting unit having a say in the matter. The only exception is rechartering fees which are paid directly to BSA. 
3. They have decided that the unit leaders will have fixed terms and the CO will select the next unit leader. Again without any input from the unit itself as to who that leader will be. In our case, the Scoutmaster. The troop itself was very happy with the current Scoutmaster, who is very involved in Scouting (Wood Badge, etc). But none of that mattered. 
4. They are asking the Scoutmaster to work directly with the CO instead of going through the CoR. 

I'm not sure if I want to raise a stink by escalating up to the Council or district, but I am still wondering if the CO is within their rights here as a CO, or are they violating some BSA policies? 

Welcome to the forum. 

While most of that is not common, I think that all of it would technically be allowed as the Chartering Organization can have a lot of say in the day to day operations of the unit. I would be surprised if the District or Council intervened in any of those situations. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

12 hours ago, AnotherScouter said:

I have some questions about the role and policies of the Chartered Organization. Specifically, our chartered organization recently has become more interested in controlling certain aspects of our Troop. I am wondering if these policies are in the purview of the CO or if they are overstepping:

1. They are requesting the key 3 members to use email addresses that are registered with the CO instead of personal email addresses
2. They have put Unit funds into an account controlled by the CO and not the Unit, and all payments go to the CO but are earmarked for the unit. The unit's balance and funds are then reconciled by the Treasurer of the CO. They have even gone as far as saying they want to take funds from one scouting unit and give it to another scouting unit, without the scouting unit having a say in the matter. The only exception is rechartering fees which are paid directly to BSA. 
3. They have decided that the unit leaders will have fixed terms and the CO will select the next unit leader. Again without any input from the unit itself as to who that leader will be. In our case, the Scoutmaster. The troop itself was very happy with the current Scoutmaster, who is very involved in Scouting (Wood Badge, etc). But none of that mattered. 
4. They are asking the Scoutmaster to work directly with the CO instead of going through the CoR. 

I'm not sure if I want to raise a stink by escalating up to the Council or district, but I am still wondering if the CO is within their rights here as a CO, or are they violating some BSA policies? 

Point by point:

1.  This is unusual.  What is the reasoning behind the request?  What is the problem they are trying to solve with this?  Does the CO wish to monitor the emails?  What if the Key 3 get these email addresses and still keep using their personal addresses for "unit correspondence"?  Does the CO really want to read the hundreds of emails that go around amongst the Key 3?

- My gut says no, but only for this reason:  The COR is the "trusted agent" of the CO.  It is the COR's job to keep the CO informed of what is going on with the unit. The COR acts as a filter between the CO and the unit, often screening out the minutiae of the unit that would just be so much noise for the CO.  As a member of the Key 3, the COR is (should be) plugged into everything going on in the unit.  If this is not the case, then there is your actual problem to fix.

- If they do not buy the point above (and this is the COR's job to convince them), then go ahead and try it.  Then, the Key 3 can go into those accounts, and automatically forward all emails to their personal accounts if they wish.  Just make sure a "Reply" or "Reply to All" from the personal account reflects the organizational account.  Alternatively,  the CO could have a single "Key 3" account, and the Key 3 could do an email cc to this account on all their correspondence.  Cumbersome, in any case.  Anyone have a more elegant solution to this?

2.  Yes and no.  Again, unusual. 

- But, yes, it is within the prerogative of the CO to have oversight of the unit's funding.  Does the CO really wish to burden their Treasurer with keeping track of all the receipts and accounting?  This is difficult just within the unit itself.  All the Troop supplies, and camp fees, and advancements we purchase... hundreds of transactions per year... yikes. 

- NO, because the unit should have a separate account.  This is part of the Charter Agreement.  See II.B.4 

https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Annual-Charter-Agreement-Charter-Orgs_2023-2024-Year.pdf

- Hard NO, to taking funds from one unit and giving them to another.  This must only be the case if one of the units under their purview folds.  Then all funds and property should be used as the CO sees fit, but still for the purposes of Scouting, as per the Charter Agreement.

3.  Unusual. 

- Selecting unit leaders is well within the prerogative of the CO.  But, again, this is a primary role of the COR (the CO's "trusted agent").  That they do not get Troop Committee input (which would be more focused on the health of the unit, and all the interpersonal dynamics in play), would be a red flag.

4.  Hard NO.  This is the purpose of the COR.  If the CO (collectively) cannot find a "trusted agent" within its ranks to work with the units under its umbrella, then that is also a red flag.  Selecting a COR is one of the key points a CO agrees to in the Unit Charter Agreement.  See II.A.4. "4. Select a Charter Organization Representative (COR) to serve as a voting member of the council."

-----------------------------------------

There are details and history here that are probably factors in the CO making these requests.  Your Key 3 (primarily COR) needs to find out what the CO's concerns are, and work with the Troop Committee to find ways to address those concerns.

This all seems a bit heavy-handed and micromanaging.  I'd first try to find out who is driving this (this sounds like one, or a few, individuals) and have a discussion on why they feel the need to seek these restrictions on unit administration.

If you have a DE, put a bug in her ear about this.

Have an exit plan for you and your Scouts.  Begin looking for another unit.

Edited August 23, 2023 by InquisitiveScouter

[Wëlënakwsu]

The Troop is part of the CO... not overstepping

1) I think the organizational email is a good idea.  It adds 'authority' to the sender's messages and probably backed up in the CO server if subsequent review ever required.

2) Uncommon, but not unheard of.  My former Church CO started this in the 1980's.  Hopefully good practices will prevail like giving the Troop Treasurer petty cash and dues that Scouts pay stay with their own unit.

3)  Approval of leaders is a prime responsibility of the CO.  I'd encourage the CO to solicit the thoughts of the Committee Chair and other leaders about a SM to strengthen the Troop volunteers "buy in" and support of the SM.

4) I read this as meaning the current COR's 'term' is ending.  Whoever is the Chartered Organization's representative / liaison / decision maker for Scouts should be registered as the COR. 

Change is upsetting especially after operating with minimal oversight.  If executed well these changes could be for the better...   I've observed that Units with a strong connection to the CO are those most likely to pass the test of time and thrive.

[PACAN]

I'm sure there is a Paul Harvey "rest of the story" here somewhere.

Who does the CO report to?   These are all part of the need to have more direct oversight of their units that they CO is being told to make sure are being done to "protect" them  a.k.a liability from being sued into oblivion.  Some of this language is in these new agreements.

The only one I see as being a stretch is the SM going through the CO.  Where is the Committee Chair in this equation?  The SM works for the CC.

 

[fred8033]

2 hours ago, Wëlënakwsu said:

The Troop is part of the CO... not overstepping

1) I think the organizational email is a good idea.  It adds 'authority' to the sender's messages and probably backed up in the CO server if subsequent review ever required.

2) Uncommon, but not unheard of.  My former Church CO started this in the 1980's.  Hopefully good practices will prevail like giving the Troop Treasurer petty cash and dues that Scouts pay stay with their own unit.

3)  Approval of leaders is a prime responsibility of the CO.  I'd encourage the CO to solicit the thoughts of the Committee Chair and other leaders about a SM to strengthen the Troop volunteers "buy in" and support of the SM.

4) I read this as meaning the current COR's 'term' is ending.  Whoever is the Chartered Organization's representative / liaison / decision maker for Scouts should be registered as the COR. 

Change is upsetting especially after operating with minimal oversight.  If executed well these changes could be for the better...   I've observed that Units with a strong connection to the CO are those most likely to pass the test of time and thrive.

I agree with previous leader who's name I can't copy because of special characters. 

#1 Email - My thought is it enables the term limits.  Scouts and families get used to emailing scoutmaster@mycharter.net.  When scoutmaster changes, the communication change is invisible to them.  It's a good idea.  

#2 Banking - Lots of extra work for CO treasurer.  "Account" can be interpreted many ways, but the CO agreement does strongly strongly infer a separate bank account.  IMHO, if the funds can be cleanly tracked separately, then perhaps it's okay.  I'd still strongly prefer a separate troop account and a separate pack account.  That separates the volunteers and the funds.  It lets the everyone have a strong trust that the money is going the right direction.

#3 Fixed terms & #4 Working with CO instead of COR - That's their right.  They could just name the CO Exec as the COR.  Or the CO senior elder as the COR.  At some point, it's a name game and preferred structure.  Key point is unit is under the CO.  Be friendly and work together.  

What I see is the CO is actually trying to make scouting part of the CO.  That should be good.  The perceived problems are because BSA and the unit leaders never really treat the COs as the unit owners.  BSA and the unit leaders prefer to give a wink and a nod to the agreement.  ... The problem is words matter.  Contracts matter.  The org is "chartering" the unit.  It's their unit.  They have real responsibility.  There will be growing pains, but work together.  

[AnotherScouter]

A lot of questions here, I will try my best to fill in where I can. Thanks everyone for your thoughts and insights. From what I can tell, this is all coming from the President of the CO and/or the board of the CO through the President. The unit is just a few years old, and I am one of the founders of the unit. Now that the unit has gotten bigger and the scouting program is becoming more successful, it seems the President of the CO wants more control over how the unit operates. 

1. Emails - they say it's for continuity when leadership changes. Of course this doesn't really mean much because 90% of communication happens outside of email. it just makes lives more difficult for the volunteers. Also raises issues because people still use personal emails for scoutbook and trooptrack. 

2. Banking - sounds like this is pretty normal (except for taking the funds part). Although the charter agreement does say the unit should have it's own Account. 

3. Fixed term and CO. Yeah I understand it is their right to choose the Scoutmaster. Feels odd to have no transparency and say "OK starting on X date, this is your new SM" without taking any input from the scouting leadership or even providing any insight into the decision making process. We don't know how the candidates were chosen or what criteria was used to choose the new SM. 

4. The CoR is very involved in the troop, he is also one of the founders, but the issue is that the President wants a direct line to the SM. Basically the President wants to bypass the CoR and CC and work with the SM directly. I've been told they chose the SM specifically as someone who would listen to the President and the Board of the CO. 

The micromanagement is a good insight. That is definitely what is happening here. And it's not good leadership. I agree the CO being more involved would be good if they were working with the volunteers who know how the scouting program works and what scouting is about. The issue is that the CO knows very little about Scouting, and care more about it being part of the CO, and being a religious program. I fear this is going to dilute the quality of the Scouting program. We have some very highly trained and passionate individuals who founded the troop (Wood Badge trained, etc) but their advice and goals seem to be secondary to what the President wants to see here. 

It sounds like this is all within the CO's right to run the Troop like this, so if I disagree I should probably find another Troop which is run with some more autonomy. My approach is going to be wait a few months and see how things shake out, then make a decision. Thanks all

Edited August 23, 2023 by AnotherScouter

[fred8033]

54 minutes ago, AnotherScouter said:

It sounds like this is all within the CO's right to run the Troop like this, so if I disagree I should probably find another Troop which is run with some more autonomy. My approach is going to be wait a few months and see how things shake out, then make a decision. Thanks all

Nice thoughtful response.  Thank you.

Perhaps some thoughtful open discussion over coffee and a scone would be nice.  Treat a few people to Caribou coffee.  Or just stay late after a meeting and chat.

It sounds like vision is different.  You helped start the unit with one long-term view.  Now, the CO wants to make the units more part of the CO religious purpose.  Be open.  If it's not your view, then ask (and ask nicely) will there be a place for you and your scouts in the future unit.  Practice saying it nicely, but open conversation helps.  Let them know that their actions could cause a rift as existing members might have a different view.  The CO runs the unit, but the CO can't hijack the members to convert to the CO theology.  ...   I remember camping with one unit that was not the same faith as my family.  Every Sunday morning was the CO church service at camp.  All scouts were expected to attend.  It was okay once or twice.  Beyond that, it was not a good fit for my son.  

One key point ... Bypassing the CC is bad.  It adds a lot of work for the SM.  SM is to work with the scouts.  SM is not the end all be all of a unit.  A good unit committee is key and that committee is led by the CC.

As for banking, is the CO realizing they can have tens of thousands of dollars flowing thru their treasurer.  Lots of small transactions?   A solid troop can easily have $30k to $50k to way more going thru the bank account.  Keeping the funds structurally separate in a different account can really help.  Same with a pack.  Our pack in 2010 easily had $25k flowing thru checking.  $20k in fundraising gross.  Camp fees for 30 cubs.  Event costs.  Dues for 50+ cubs.  It adds up quick.  

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by fred8033

[T2Eagle]

Regarding the emails, in our Catholic unit it is a requirement that any email correspondence that includes youth has to include a parish email address so that there is a copy on a parish controlled server.  Rather than issue every scouter a parish email we copy a parish email on all troop correspondence.  Our pastor monitors that account periodically.  

Most scout sponsoring churches view scouting as part of their religious mission, how this manifests itself or how directly the church wants the unit to be specifically or overtly a part of the proselytizing of the church can vary, but is within the purview of the church as sponsoring co.  Some churches go so far as to require active church membership of all adults or more rarely of all scouts.  Some churches want to scouting to effectively be the church's youth group.  How comfortable you are with that is personal preference, whether that can be compatible with a successful scouting unit is going to be fact dependent. 

Everything you're describing is within the CO's purview, and no council or district is going to gainsay them.  I can live with the emails, and even some issues regarding money, but personally I want to be a scout leader leading a scout program that is consistent with the values of my religion, not a religious leader leading a church youth group.  

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

1 hour ago, T2Eagle said:

personally I want to be a scout leader leading a scout program that is consistent with the values of my religion, not a religious leader leading a church youth group.  

Heck, I am a (low-level) religious leader who used to lead a religious youth group, and in scouts I still want to be a scout leader leading a scout program consistent with my religion.

Scouting isn't religion, and scouting is always "mixed company". 

[AnotherScouter]

2 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

personally I want to be a scout leader leading a scout program that is consistent with the values of my religion, not a religious leader leading a church youth group

Yes I believe this is how the outgoing SM felt as well, which is why I believe he was replaced. It's hard to say for sure since he hasn't gotten a straight answer from the President as to why they decided to impose term limits and change Scoutmasters. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by AnotherScouter

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

3 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

Some churches go so far as to require active church membership of all adults or more rarely of all scouts. 

It occured to me that I was just writing something up for a Duty to God adventure meeting, and I copy-pasted BSA information about not requiring membership in any spiritual organization nor a declaration of specific faith. See for example https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/11/02/beginning-next-year-boy-scouts-will-discuss-duty-to-god-at-each-rank/

It seems against BSA policy to require either scouters or scouts to be members of not just a specific religion but an even more specific sect of that religion. I mean, they explicitly decline to define the words "God" and "religion" in the declaration of religious principle, which they kind of have to in order to not go against BP's example and the current WOSM constitution. If there really are churches doing this, they really shouldn't be. Part of why scouting can't be their youth program. Can't assume everyone agrees on religion.

[scoutldr]

Unusual, certainly, but it sounds like a CO who actually understands the Chartered Organization model and their rights and responsibilities.  Nothing I've read appears to be in conflict with BSA policy.  Few Scouters realize that the Unit and all of its assets belong to the CO and the adult leaders serve at the pleasure of the CO.

[jcousino]

We have been accustomed to hands-off which is the exact reverse of what should be happening. We have forgotten the that the CO owns the unit ,it does not have a life outside of the CO. We may belong to the unit but the unit is owned by the CO.

 

I have been surprised at times with some of the mix of beliefs from unit leader and the faith statement of the church CO.

 

BSa does not require a formal faith statement but the unit CO can.

 

Fr/ John