No more "Parents of" Charter Orgs

[Oak Tree]

So the quote from the Orange County Council web site is "After 2 years of advocating the change, BSA set December 31, 2012 as the last day for Parents of charter partners."

 

How can this possibly be true if this is the only place it has been announced? It doesn't say that it's true only for their council, although I suppose that's a possible (albeit stretched) interpretation of what the statement says. It seems to imply that BSA is eliminating all of these organizations on a national basis and doing it by the end of the year. There is just no way that's going to happen, especially since it's already half-way through April.

[AKdenldr]

OTN-- I don't think our situations are alike....

 

Well, under my "what if" if the big civics organization sponsored pack wanted to provide all the planning etc for a big pack experience great we might participate.

 

We are magnet school that pulls across a large area. Parents like the after school meetings and pack events in the evening are limited. So I wouldn't know if families would really want to participate in a pack evening program somewhere else.

 

We've had really strong den programs -- but recruiting an active CM and committee on the long term has been problematic. Usually Bear and Web den leaders push the pack program also (recruit special event volunteers, do advancement for their den, write the pack meeting script, set camp dates, plan summer hikes, recruit tiger dens, write the budget.) Getting rid of all the pack administration issues would be terrific!

 

But, is there an advantage to the receiving pack? Taking on 20 extra families?

 

But.... isn't there a discussion right in the forum now about troop sizes getting too large for the typical volunteer skill set....? Wouldn't this also correlate to packs?

 

Anyways, we've seen no action or communication from our council or district about getting rid of friends of in the last 2 years. And, I have heard new DE is having a lot of trouble trying to find a sponsor for the Pack he recruited during fall round up at the school a few blocks down.

 

-- AK

[BadenP]

 

Even back in the days I was a DE our council would not allow parent groups to be a charter organization. As Horizons letter stated there is a lack of continuity and accountability as the parents and their kids move out of the program. It would not surprise me to find out there are several pending cases for missing unit assets among some of these parents groups, and the ones left holding the bag are screaming lawsuit. Since the council approves all charters they could be held accountable, but that is for the courts and the lawyers to decide.

[Twocubdad]

Thia doesn't make much sense to me.

 

The instability of "Friends of" COs is a suspicious rationale. How many units were chartered to churches which wake up to find the a new minister who sees Scouting as competition to the church's youth programs or that the demographics of the church has shifted to older members without children who wonder why they put up with all these kids running through the building and stomping down the azaleas? How many COs have been signed on with a promise that "we won't be any bother, we just need a place to meet" and having absolutely no idea of their responsibilites of owning a charter. How many CORs and IHs really check out those adults for whom they sign applications?

 

The insurance/liability is a head-scratcher too. As Oak Tree points out, liability insurance covering the CO is on the BSA's side of the charter agreement. So what diff does it make if the CO is insured or has their own deep pockets for a potential plaintiff to dip into.

 

And how will they determine what a "faith based and community service organization" really is? As has been suggested, can "Parents of" simply change their name to "Community Youth Services"? Does the organization have to be an affiliate of some larger, national group? If so, which national organizations meet BSA's standards?

 

What is the benefit? Except for insurance from the national organization (I assume) our local Rotary Club meets in a local restaurant and the total of it's assets include a banner, a gavel and whatever cash is in its bank account. Seems rather judgement proof to me.

 

Gotta think there is more to this than the letter lets on and that we see. As someone suggested (can't find the post) it may be that the insurance carriers are balking at such arrangements.

[momof2cubs]

I don't understand either how this makes sense.

 

1. Continuity: Charter orgs change leadership ALL THE TIME. Our PTA for instance, which charters our pack, changes Presidents every school year. Churches change pastors/ministers/priests with some regularity as well. And "community" groups like Rotary elect new leadership periodically too. If anything, I would say a Parents Of organization would have a more stable leadership, as a parent will probably put his/her name down as IH for the duration of their son's scout career. Maybe even longer.

 

2. Liability: we SPECIFICALLY tell our COs that BSA has the liability insurance to cover any and all issues arising from any and all scout activity. How would the CO be responsible?

 

3. Oversight? I think here national is deluding itself. Most COs have nothing to do with the day to day operations of units. Our PTA barely knows we exist, except at recharter when our CC knocks on the the president's door to get her to sign the papers. I'm guessing most churches are the same way. And I bet the involvement of any "community" organization on the unit's operation is even lower.

 

Most units, also, don't really WANT the CO to meddle on its affairs. They keep their own schedules, their own budgets, their own bank accounts, their own activities all separate from the CO. So what difference does it REALLY make who is chartering a unit?

[momof2cubs]

This part baffles me to: "commercial business based organizations."

 

What does THAT mean? The Chamber of Commerce? The Association of Registered Accountants? Or Vinnie's Pizza Parlor????

 

I don't get it...

[SeattlePioneer]

 

 

 

When something goes bad, everyone in sight is going to be named in the lawsuit. If a chartered organization has liability insurance, I would suppose they would wind up paying off a portion of any settlement.

 

If the CO has no liability, I suspect the Council and BSA pick up the tab. I'm guessing they would prefer to have more partners available to split the tab.

[momof2cubs]

SP: if more COs knew that, no one would charter us. They assume they have no liability..basically because we assured them that BSA carries it!

[moosetracker]

Momof2Cubs - Anyone can be the CO, not just non-profit.. So if Vinno Pizza Parlor wants to be a CO, that is fine, someone on here said their CO was a timeshare condo buisness . I would "hope" BSA would say something about questionable CO's (like the topless bar in your neighborhood may be a questionable CO)..

[Peregrinator]

Considering the number of businesses that fail, and the number of community businesses that close when their owners retire or die, one would think that a "Parents of" organization would be no worse than "Vinnie's Pizza Parlor".

[qwazse]

Our Council exposure: "At last count 136 units need to be converted from Parents of units by December 31, 2012 or

approximately 5,840 youth will be without the Scouting program. "

 

That is a significant voting block. If you can coordinate the CORs and get them to a board meeting, a call to your council president that you wish to push a motion to postpone this action indefinitely might just demonstrate that this is not a group of leaders anyone wants to lose.

[Oak Tree]

So even if we can't figure out what it is, something is clearly driving this.

 

On the insurance side, I wonder if there is a potential concern about having it look like the BSA is really running the units. If the units are basically self-chartered, that seems like it puts a hole in the BSA contention that they are merely providing material for other organizations to use in their own youth program.

 

My understanding is that one reason the BSA does this is to protect the national assets of the BSA. BSA still provides the liability insurance for the CO, but those lawsuits go against the CO and would likely result in a much smaller settlement than if a lawsuit went against the national BSA organization.

 

As for the continuity and oversight, I agree that those are suspect reasons. I'm not sure that they are totally bogus, though. It's true that PTA leadership changes all the time, but the PTA continues to exist. Church leadership changes, business leadership changes (not that many businesses really sponsor units, though). But churches are pretty stable. There actually ought to be pretty good data on the continuity thing - what is the median life for a "parents of" troop, and what is the median life for other sponsors.

 

As for oversight, I do think it could be a benefit to the BSA that if the troop starts to go off the rails, there is some chance that there are some reasonable people one level up who might set things straight. I know that Scoutmasters do get fired by the CO more commonly than I would have guessed. Obviously there is no guarantee here, but I do wonder if there ends up being more political drama with "parents of" organizations.

 

I don't think there is any way we're going to see the real data behind this, but it's interesting to try to speculate.

[Engineer61]

Oh heck, now I see the liability issue...

 

Even though BSA provides insurance, the CO's are responsible for selecting/approving the adult leaders. The puts the CO's on the hook, regardless of the BSA's insurance.

 

 

[moosetracker]

Since no one else had heard of any other council doing this, I also would not be surprised if it ends up to be Horizon's council that is laying down the law, yet they tried to word it to pull some of the heat off of them and make it sound like it was coming from higher up.. After all in the statement "BSA set December 31, 2012 as the last day for Parents of charter partners" the word they used was BSA.. not National.. Well the council is BSA also. So if it is only a council rule, they wouldn't have lied, simply mis-directed.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmmm....

 

Boy, there's a lot of confusion here about insurance and liability. Let me see if I can help straighten that out a bit, with a sort of rough outline of general principles. For education's sake.

 

Generally speakin', a unit volunteer works for the Chartered Organization, not the BSA. The Chartered Organization has the hire/fire ability and is the responsible "superior" for da purposes of vicarious liability, not the BSA.

 

So lets' take da simple case of an official corporate NFP Chartered Org., whose Scoutmaster makes a bad call, fails in his duty of care to a boy, and as a result the lad is seriously injured. In that case, the family is entitled to be "made whole", eh? When we do somethin' we shouldn't have and it causes someone else to be damaged, we have an obligation to make that up to 'em.

 

Now the parent takes the matter to civil court, and names the Scoutmaster, the Chartered Org., and the BSA in the complaint. The BSA in such cases routinely files for and is granted dismissal from the case, because they don't supervise units and aren't responsible for the acts of the Scoutmaster. That's important to understand, eh? Lots of folks for some reason think that the BSA will be their co-defendant, and that's not usually how it works. The CO setup protects the BSA for the most part. As a volunteer for a NFP, the Scoutmaster likely has statutory immunity under federal law, so he too may be dismissed from the suit durin' pretrial motions. Leavin' the Chartered Org. as the defendant.

 

In that case, the BSA's relationship is as insurer for the Chartered Org. (and for the Scoutmaster, if he remains as a defendant). So just like your auto insurance would, the BSA and its insurers pay for the defense, as well as for any settlement or judgment, up to the limits of their coverage. If the CO has other insurance coverage (it likely does), then they may also assist with the defense, though the BSA is the primary insurer and the other coverage only comes into play if the BSA coverage is exhausted.

 

The BSA has an excellent reputation of standin' by its Chartered Orgs. and leaders, and has relatively deep coverage (made affordable by a large self-insured deductible). So under almost all circumstances, a CO should not really be concerned about this exposure.

 

The exception is a "nuclear" suit, of the sort which may arise from a case of serial molestation where the CO knew or should have known and allowed it to continue. I suppose one might also speculate on some other sort of grand catastrophe, like setting a fire during a burn ban that burns down a neighborhood and kills multiple people, but da real wildcard is the molestation thing. In that case, BSA coverage may be exhausted, and even the CO coverage may also be exhausted. Many Catholic Diocese have experienced that. At that point, the assets of the organization may be in jeopardy. For a "parents of" Chartered Org, dependin' on your state law with respect to unincorporated associations, that may mean the assets of those parents. The homeowner's or liability policies of the parents would be the last line of defense.

 

All that is extremely low probability and not worth spendin' time on. The BSA is a good partner and carries deep coverage, and that's a great resource. Da actual exposure here is less than what any of us incur by drivin' the carpool to soccer practice.

 

To my mind, da bigger issue for "Parents of" COs is the risk of ordinary financial exposure. Yeh don't mind the store, perhaps someone embezzles money, and the unit ends up owing a bunch of money to some folks. In that case, again dependin' on your state laws, the collective parents may be responsible for the debts of the "Parents of" organization. That's not a case where general liability coverage would apply, eh? There's likely no coverage in place, and perhaps no corporate veil in the way. Now is that likely? Well, far more likely than a serial molestation case. The dollar amounts usually aren't spectacular, but could get into real money.

 

So while none of this is what I'd consider a big deal, I reckon a "Parents of" CO would be well advised to make some efforts with competent local counsel to set things up a bit more formally in order to protect everyone.

 

Of course all of this is just da speculation of an anonymous internet fellow with a funny name, and should in no way be taken as legal advice or guidance of any kind. Especially when being read in different states and even different countries that the anonymous internet fellow has never even been to a bar in, let alone been a member of the bar in.

 

Beavah