No more "Parents of" Charter Orgs

[Oak Tree]

I can actually see the point that the council is making here, but it seems like it's being a little bit abrupt in the implementation.

 

I am curious how they will define the CO. If you rename your "Friends of Troop 369" organization to "Youth Opportunities" and say that it is a community service organization committed to providing opportunities for kids in the area, how is that different from any other community service organization?

[5yearscouter]

I guess BSA would have to check to be sure you are a "real" organization which I guess would mean being your own 501c3 or incorporated as a separate entity.

 

But more importantly, if they are worried about being sued, and wanting to be able to share that liability with the CO, then they need to make sure each CO has enough insurance to cover any possible lawsuits arising from chartering a unit.

 

I would think if BSA starts to ask each CO how much insurance they carry that would cover their packs and troops in case of lawsuit, that insurance question might run off quite a few CO's who start to wonder about the potential cost that could arise in case of a lawsuit. Where before they thought they were just lendin their name and a place to meet to the scout units. A LOT of CO's really don't realize they OWN the units, and thus are liable for them and their actions.

 

What if a "parents of" goes out and incorporates and gets a 501c3 non-profit status, but doesn't buy insurance? Buying insurance would be the smart thing to do of course, but what coverage amount is enough for a scout unit?

 

I think the scout lodge preservation CO that charters 3 units in our area isn't insured at least not fully--they expect each of their members to be BSA leader registered specifically in order to have that measure of insurance, but not sure how helpful that would be if they were sued. seems convoluted logic and of course the council insurance we have only covers a specific things.(This message has been edited by 5yearscouter)(This message has been edited by 5yearscouter)

[5yearscouter]

Groups of citizens

3,782 units

110,248 youth members

 

that's the impact number wise of the "no more parents of" chartered orgs from the numbers at dec 2010.

 

And if you look thru http://www.scouting.org/About/FactSheets/operating_orgs.aspx

 

you might question if they are all "real" organizations holding certificates of insurance to cover the scouting liability. They are certainly not all corporations, with corporate liability instead of personal liability.

 

There are a lot of scouts effected if you look at the athletic booster clubs, playgrounds and rec centers, community centers and settlement houses that may charter units in the US.

 

[fred8033]

5yearscouter ... agree with your comments ... I think it's less about insurance and more about "keeping things at arms length" ... BSA promotes the concept that BSA provides a program and charter organizations own the scout units.

 

It's a problem then because most "parents of" groups are just hollow shells only existing to run the scout unit(s) and have no organization providing oversight of the units.

 

I shake my head though because most charter orgs don't have a clue and provide zero oversight of their units anyway.

 

 

 

[Oak Tree]

One of the big things that the BSA tells the chartering organizations is that the BSA provides the insurance.

 

"Your $20 charter fee covers your organization

with the liability insurance provided by the BSA.

The general liability policy issued to the Boy Scouts

of America provides primary liability insurance

coverage for all chartered organizations and

participating organizations for liability arising out

of their operation of a traditional Scouting unit"

 

From http://scouting.org/filestore/pdf/04-515.pdf

 

At any rate, some of the parent organizations are definitely incorporated as 501c(3) organizations and I'm sure that some have their own insurance. I know one group that recently switched from a church to being a parents' organization and they incorporated. It's a little bit of a pain.

 

I suppose it might be slightly easier to claim you are a religious organization. Those don't have to incorporate.

 

First, though, I think it would be relatively easy to find some organization that would sponsor a unit. All the PTA units did it. Second, I do wonder if they would really go through with rejecting the charter.

[Eamonn]

I think that I can and do see where National is coming from.

I don't claim to know very much about liability.

We don't have any , as far as I know of these units in the area where I live.

We have in the past had a few spring up, but when the handful of people who were around that started the unit left the unit fell apart.

The units that will suffer because of this change might not have as easy a time finding a CO as it seems. While some community organizations are very pro BSA some have individuals at the local level who for whatever reason want no part of the BSA.

 

In my area nearly all of the units have been around for a long time. mostly with the same CO.

Like it or not most of the CO's don't play any part in what the units are doing and the idea that they play an active part is laughable.

If there is a weak link in the way that things are set up it is with these CO's.

My thinking is that when these Friends of units can't recharter there will be a scramble to find an organization that will if nothing else allow the unit to use its name.

We harp on about how the CO owns the unit and how the CO can do this that or the other. When we all know that in most cases this really is all twaddle.

Maybe these changes will open a dialog of and about what's happening in the real world?

Ea.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

Well, now, it is true that the BSA has always discouraged "parents of" Chartering Organizations. In the aftermath of the public school pullout and some PTAs / PTOs in liberal communities droppin' charters, the local councils generally ignored that and took the lazy way of just chartering parent groups. I suppose it was necessary for National to push back on this, and I reckon I agree with the general concern although their communication of the legal issues is typically sloppy. I also reckon it's typical that they would announce an unrealistic deadline. December 2013 would give everyone a full charter year to go work da problem.

 

I think, though, that we need independent confirmation from a second source. RichardB, yeh out there, mate?

 

The issue of turn-over and instability of "Parents of" groups is real. The tort liability exposure issue for the parents is sorta real, dependin' on the state, but probably a bit overwrought. It may be that one of the BSA's insurers has gotten into this just because it makes who they're actually coverin' a bit fuzzy, and insurers don't like fuzzy. Honestly, the more likely issue is the more common-place one of financial misfeasance.

 

One thing's for sure, a typical cub pack, troop, or crew is not goin' to want to go the incorporation / 501©(3) route. It might make sense for a bigger troop, but only if yeh have some savvy leaders. Now in most states it's not too hard or expensive to establish an ordinary (non tax exempt) LLC. Dependin' on the state, registering an Unincorporated Association with similar protections might be possible. I can see those options as an easy work-around. Da trick is, there are some practical reasons why yeh want NFP status that relate to negligence immunity for volunteers, which both protects leaders and reduces the BSA's insurance exposure.

 

Beavah

 

[AlFansome]

Beavah-

 

I typically don't poke my stick in these types of fires, but it's not just stereotypically liberal areas in which PTA/PTOs are dropping charters. The Parent Of issue has gotten big enough to force National's hand, perhaps, or else risk having to move towards the GSUSA model of Councils/National owning and operating some/all units.

 

From April, 2011:

 

"Last month, the Missouri PTA issued a statement advising all of its 420 member units to cease hosting charters with the Boy Scouts because the agreements put them in legal jeopardy."

 

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_9c18d5ea-2557-5733-8262-efc6dc14fd91.html#ixzz1s1ptJ6qt

 

 

 

[Peregrinator]

Da trick is, there are some practical reasons why yeh want NFP status that relate to negligence immunity for volunteers, which both protects leaders and reduces the BSA's insurance exposure.

 

Another practical reason to incorporate as a non-profit would be to allow the chartering organization to solicit donations that could then go directly to assist the troop.

[ScoutNut]

Has any council, other than Horizon's, mentioned this at all?

 

Mine has not.

 

I can't find any mention of this on the BSA National website either.

[5yearscouter]

While the instability of parents of chartered orgs does exist,

there is certainly a lot of instability in other chartered orgs as well. The idea that BSA thinks knowledge and stability is coming from the chartering org is a bit laughable. Since LDS units are a majority in many areas, it seems wonderful that the church will always recharter a unit, except this year we saw many units drop by the wayside in the LDS Wards in our area. And with the leaders being called to service for 6 months in some instances, that certainly doesn't lead to any amount of stability at least not at the point that the scouts will see.

 

I think instead of getting rid of us parents of chartered orgs, BSA could give more guidance and assistance on how to insure leader stability. For instance, we are fairly stable since we became parents of chartered org because we require parents to become leaders and fill out the application. that gives them ownership. There could be more advice on how to pass the torch, with better training available, not just fluffy stuff online for units who self charter.

 

Legalities do need to be addressed. BSA financial sent out a letter a couple years ago, encouraging units to not incorportate and get their own 501c3 because they should be using their CO's stuff and it wasn't necessary. But perhaps that info should have included how to cheaply do your paperwork(with of course variation by state) for those units who do not have a non-profit as a CO.

[AKdenldr]

Okay, we have an 8 year old 5 den pack of 25 or so boys at a local public school. This is a "Parents of Pack". Approaching the parent organization at this school will likely create a huge discussion of G and G (and G) -- with the end result being "no".

 

Off the cuff solution -- not recharter -- take our 5 dens to another pack sponsored by a civics organization -- change out pack numbers and continue on as we have (den meetings at our school, 5 den pinewood derby on our track, 5 den planning, 5 den pack meetings, 5 den pack campouts, etc...).

 

End impact for us -- a little more communication with other folks. End impact for district -- DE has one less unit. Boys might end up changing districts (we're on a boundry line).

 

What do you think?

[OwntheNight]

So AKDL,

 

I just want to make sure I'm hearing you right. Please let me know if I'm off base, I'm really trying to get an understanding, I'm not trying to be sarcastic or condescending in any way. This situation is very much what we're looking at with the "friends of" pack down the hall. If this directive goes national, then we would be in a position to ask the FO pack to rejoin ours.

 

Would your pack just recharter with another unit and then not work with that pack in their efforts. Would you be just 5 additional dens added to their roster, but have no inclination to actually merge both packs into one. Kind of a .. They do their thing, we'll do ours, because it's convenient to do things your way, instead of actually trying to blend the two groups for the common good.

 

These are questions that my CC and I have come up with if this situation arises. Our goal would be to merge both packs, let them keep their den's intact, but having a merging of leadership. In other words, their CM could become one of my ACM's, their CC could be the Asst CC or Secondhand man to our CC, if they so desired. But they would be equal member's of our pack, and their input would be sought after, just as their MC's would be full fledged voting members of our committee. We would welcome them with open arms as another member of our family. We would perform pack activities as one pack, camping, summertime, PWD, and anything else.

[Eamonn]

The Sea Scout Ship is chartered by our local Elks.

When we first were offered a boat the donor wanted to take the tax advantages of donating to a charity.

The Elks said that while they were happy for us to meet at their hall and were willing to support us, they wanted no part in owning any boats. As they are in the center of out small town they really wouldn't have any place to store or keep boats.

The Council also said no.

It seems that the SE we had at that time had run into problems in another Council with people dumping boats that were just junk.

I went about starting a 501 ©. Even with my CPA not charging for his services it ended up costing about $1,600.00.

At the time we were from my point of view between a rock and a hard place.

I found out later that there were other Friends of ... who would have been willing to accept the donations and then allow us to use them but this might have caused a problem with me insuring them.

All of this happened at a time when the SE and little old me were not seeing eye to eye.

In fact I was really very upset with him. (Soon after he read the writing on the wall and moved on.)

As District Chair I had organized and ran a golf outing with the money going to the District. -Which of course was handed over to the Council.

I decided that I'd still run the outing but use the Friends of Ship ...

The outing had games of chance, alcohol. Along with the golf and a prime rib dinner.

It was held at the club where I'm a member and I was willing to pay for any losses that might happen. Everything was about the same as when I'd done the same thing in the name of the District.

The SE called me and informed me that we were not allowed to go ahead with the outing. I informed him that he was full of it and should go jump in a lake.

We were not getting anywhere on the phone, so we met for lunch at the club. I explained that our Friends of was no different than a church having bingo as a fund raising event.

He reluctantly agreed with me. He went on to say that he thought it was wrong of me to offer an event that people seen as a District event.

In an effort to be fair I said that everything would remain unchanged, but we would donate half of what we made to the Council. Which I did.

If the Council or the Elks had allowed us to use their numbers to accept donations none of this would have ever been a problem.

I now have half a dozen fairly decent boats on my property. They belong to the Friends of Ship.. and are insured and maintained with funds from that account.

Still the Elks are our CO.

Unless a unit is expecting some large donations, I really think that setting up a 501© is not worth while.

Ea.

 

 

[moosetracker]

Even if it is implemented by National, doesn't mean that they are not running a test pilot of this in Horizons council and maybe a few others..

 

So has any one felt that their DE's or Councils have been working for 2 years to get FOS groups to find different chartering Orgs???.. That to me is a curious statement, as I have seen nothing in our district committee meetings that had anything to do with following some sort of push for the last 2 years. It would have made more sense to me, had the letter just stated that FOS has never considered the "best" solution for finding a CO.

 

Unless National has found these FOS, is hurting their attempts to protect themselves from being sued in multi-million dollar lawsuits, by claiming that they only 'sold' the program, but it they are owned by Co's.. Sort of like the lack of training especially with Youth Protection. Forced them to immediately implement manditory YPT, and have them attempting to mandate other training.. I don't really see why they would not be truely trying to make a gradual change for a few years..

 

Did they? and since the DE's were too concerned with growing or keeping their membership numbers up, they just paid no attention to directives to find alternatives to the Friends of Scouting charters? I still would have thought we would have heard about it at a District Committee meeting, although it may have been more lip service then actually forming a well laid out plan and implementing it.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)