The Current Charter Model

[dScouter15]

It seems like a topic of conversation that comes up a lot here involves the concept of the "Chartered Organization." This has gotten me to thinking: is the current CO system really the best possible system for all parties involved (namely the unit, the council, the CO, the greater community, and the unit membership)? It seems like a large portion of today's units have a very "hands off" CO, that provides minimal support, beyond signing the necessary papers and maybe providing meeting space. In fact, some units seem to prefer having a CO that doesn't really participate in the regular unit operations. More and more units seem to be exploiting a "loop hole" in the CO program by chartering units to a "Friends of Troop XXX" type group.

 

I understand the idea of a CO and a unit being of mutual benefit to each other. However, I have to wonder whether either party really benefits from the other in a large number of cases. I could see a potential CO having trouble committing to supporting a Scouting program with such specific, rigid and expansive goals and methods. I can also see where a unit, with its busy schedule and over-extended volunteers, may not appreciate the added level of overhead introduced by being forced to interface with a non-Scouting organization to keep their program "legal."

 

In short, I feel that the Scouting program itself is so expansive that trying to tie it into a non-Scouting entity in an effective way is extremely difficult, and that the headaches associated with trying to make such a partnership work well are not worth the potential pay-offs. As more and more units are being chartered to uninvolved COs, and "Friends Of Troop XXX" type organizations, maybe its time for the BSA to re-evaluate its current CO program, changing it into something that is more directly beneficial for individual units. Any thoughts?

[SSScout]

The idea of the Charter/sponsoring Organization is, I think, a good one. Compare to the GSUSA model, where the GS unit is "chartered" to the local Council, but the Leader(s) are the defining quality. After several years, that GS unit ceases to exist. The BSA unit, on the other hand, has some continuity. There are GS leaders that are seeeking to modify this reality, but that is another thread.

Of course, that continuity depends on the BSA unit Leaders and Scouts in recruiting and such. I knew a Cub Pack that was very successful for 20 plus years, and then could not drum up any Tigers or Wolves for three years straight and , poof, no more Pack. It happens.

As to the Charter Org being a "non-Scouting entity", I would think that most COs ARE truly Non-Scouting Entities. Just because the CO is a "Friend" of a Scout Troop, doesn't make it/them any more Scouty.

What the CO needs to be is "sympathetic" to the purposes and ideals of the BSA. This could be a Lions Club or a church or VFD or Mosque. The important thing is that , if the Unit NEEDS some help, the CO should be willing to give it. If the Unit appreciates a "hands off" CO, great, but that is not the real idea, is it?

""I could see a potential CO having trouble committing to supporting a Scouting program with such specific, rigid and expansive goals and methods.""

The goals and methods are hardly so "specific, rigid or expansive". Most COs in my experience do what they can for their units, or do very little, depending. It is a two way street. The unit can "require" and so can the CO. Or not. I knew a unit sponsored by a church where the Pastor actually DID NOT KNOW(!) they had a Scout unit until I called them (as a UC). Once the Pastor was more knowledgeable, the unit was much better off.

The Charter Agreement (check with your local Council for a copy) is, I would say, loosely specific about who does what. I always liked the first paragraph on the Council side, tho: "Respect the aims and objectives of the organization and offer the resources of Scouting to help in meeting those objectives". What exactly IS/ARE the objectives and aims of the "hands off" CO?

[moosetracker]

There are problems to be sure, but for all it's problems, it is better then being owned by the BSA org. Currently we have problems with DE's trying to control their district Committees, and Top level council exec's stealing the money that is to go into the scouting program for personal gain. If they owned the units, things could be worse.

 

Thing is that if the CO were involved they could put an end to this manipulation. But, if they were not there at all, there would be no controling them.

[AlFansome]

As a Chartered Representative for 5 units, here is my $.02:

 

- If the concept of a Chartered Org went away completely, the leaders of a large percentage of units wouldn't even notice or care. There are so many non-involved COs in my Council that COs aren't even engaged by Council staff whatsoever. I never get mailings, e-mails, phone calls or anything at all (literally) from Council about anything in my capacity as a CO for 3 pack and 2 troops.

 

- The CO model is a very good one when a CO is engaged since there is an organization (not just a bunch of volunteer leaders) who have ultimate control over the unit direction and focus. Too many "Parents of..." units collapse under the weight of leader's egos, personality conflicts and the like. At least with an (involved) CO, there can be a clear authority to set direction and deal with issues.

 

- As with everything, it goes both ways...a good, involved CO can only be a benefit to a unit as long as it's there to provide support, engage the unit in the CO's activities, and send a framework in which the unit's leaders operate. My units appreciate the financial support we provide and also the fact that I'm willing to back up my Committee Chairs and be the "bad cop" (if you will) when needed to "encourage" leaders to get trained, fill out Tour Permits, or whatever.

 

On the other hand, an overbearing CO or one that doesn't "get" the BSA program can clearly be a detriment to a unit...no question about it.

 

- The Girl Scout model fails IMHO not because of the lack of COs but because of the typical single-grade focus of the troops. When a GS troop draws from one grade only, there is no new blood (leaders or scouts) to take over via a succession plan. As a result, as girls age, leaders get tired of leading, girls have little chance to mentor younger scouts, etc... My daughter just joined a multi-level Cadette troop (6th-8th grade) with 44 girls that's been around for 25 years. A multi-level troop looks much more like a CS pack or BS troop, since new, fresh leaders and scouts are always entering to take over when the current leaders' girls move up.

 

 

[boomerscout]

Don't discount a CO just providing meeting space. Rent & liability insurance on the building are a line item expense.

Our official CO is the mens' club of our church. Some of these men are also our Scouters, and some just thought the church could help in setting up programs for the children.

Other than also paying for the lights and winter heat, we don't expect any other financial assistance. Especially in this down economy, the church is hardpressed to fund its welfare type social programs. If we need money, we raise it

As for council owning the troops -- I hope not. They seem to have enough work running council camp

 

[WAKWIB]

This is one of those: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of things. With occasional exceptions the standard CO/Unit relationship works well.

As noted in other posts the benefits of a stable meeting place are substantial. Having a Scout unit meeting in an established facility gives the Unit a sense of security and credibility in the mind of folks. A Scout unit can provide a ton of good things for the CO in terms of service projects both "in-house" and in the community at large where the Unit, in a way, represents the CO.

I think overall it is a win-win. The fact that the CO is the owner as opposed to being owned by corporate BSA probably has many benefits that others could address better than I can.

[TNScoutTroop]

We're aware that starting a troop with a close relationship with its CO, as we've done, is controversial here.

 

However, none of us have had to work closely with our DE before. Doing so has been enlightening. We've seen the comments that suggested DE's were number driven, but we had no experience with that.

 

Well, we do now.

 

It has become crystal clear that our DE lives or dies by the numbers. Our impression is that this something they didn't choose. But regardless of where it came from, it's what drives them.

 

And, it's what drives their relationship with us.

 

Currently, there's some fairly low key tension because we have a large recruitment opportunity we're not exploiting. (We could add 30 - 50 Cubs overnight.) Our DE is well aware that we're not ready to handle that effectively, and hasn't really pushed us. But, it's pretty clear what choice would be made if the Council was our CO.

 

We gather that, like many large organizations, employee performance is gauged by metrics set corporately. And for our DE at least, that's those metrics are new units, new Scouts, and retention rates. So if it was left up to our DE, we'd go for the recruitment numbers, and not worry so much about whether it was a successful program.

 

We can't say how typical this is of DEs and Councils elsewhere. But we'd guess it's not that uncommon.

 

TN Scout Troop

[dScouter15]

It sounds like most so far think that the only alternative to the current CO system is a setup where the council owns each unit. But, what about a situation where each unit is essentially chartered to a "Friends of Troop XXX" type group. Or, in other words, the unit "owns" itself. In such a setup, I wouldn't think that the unit's relationship to the council would change drastically. However, the unit would no longer be in a position of having to march to two drummers. It's mission and priority would only be to carry out a quality BSA program, without needing to worry about its place in the mission of a third-party non-Scouting CO.

 

Furthermore, in this model, the unit would retain the option of maintaining a close link with other community organizations, if they so chose. For example, if the unit decides to closely affiliate with a particular church, Lions club, etc, they could do that; and both groups could support each other similar to the way the current CO system works. The difference would be that each group would be an equal, independent entity, rather than one being "owned" by the other.

 

I'm sure there are some drawbacks to this type of system, but could it potentially be an improvement over the current system?

[moosetracker]

Kindof is the current system - Since you already have units doing just that and that is acceptable, under the current system.

 

If it was was promoted as this was the preferable way to set up your charter, but you could also form an allience?? You still have the same system, but with more "Friend of XXX"... Well then have other stated, you may not have a secure facility to meet at, may or may not be no different for those who have CO with totally hands-off approach that don't even offer a facility.

 

But for those with a good working allience, they will be poorer for the lack of support. At least that's my opinion since we have a good allience with our CO.

[Beavah]

We can't say how typical this is of DEs and Councils elsewhere. But we'd guess it's not that uncommon.

 

Yah, I nominate this for da understatement of the month award .

 

You're learnin', TN.

 

But, what about a situation where each unit is essentially chartered to a "Friends of Troop XXX" type group.

 

Yah, I hate those units. They tend to be far less stable, more prone to melt-down or being fly by night. The BSA has pretty good data on that, too, which is why they discourage the "Friends of..." charters. Of course, da DEs and SEs still let 'em go through even when it's not prudent. See "driven by numbers" above

 

Beavah