Throw Them a Bone
There was always a question if council management was sincere when they sought member input into the question of the camps:
The re-interpretation of the membership survey was especially acute. First of all, the board was advised multiple times that they'd get a much greater response if they provided paper copies. They kept insisting that online was adequate. Online was adequate because the council was subscribed to Survey Monkey. As long as they could find out what their members wanted for free, it was OK - but they did not trouble themselves to pay for a professionally done survey. But, in spite of the small sampling, responses came from all areas of the council - consistent with the population densities of the counties.
One of the questions was "what's your favorite camp?" The analysis counted the number of people who said a certain camp was their favorite compared to how many had been there, and came up with a percentage. The survey showed that Crowell Hilaka was the clear favorite of girls and adults who had been there, followed by Great Trail.
Crowell / Hilaka - girls 61% / adults 53%
Great Trail - girls 57% / adults 49%
Ledgewood - girl 45% / adults 33%
Lejnar - girls 22% / adults 11%
Pleasant Valley - girls 21% / adults 29%
Sugarbush - girls 38% / adults 43%
Timberlane - girls 47% / adults 34%
But here's what GSNEO reported in their website FAQs :
5. Why were Ledgewood and Timberlane chosen as the sites for the premier camp and leadership centers? Their locations, current usage and future capacities, amenities, and opportunities for year-round use made them the logical choices for these transformations.
Why did they bother to ask the question if they weren't going to pay attention to the answer?
Worst of all was the the Vision 2012 committee. Worst - because it looked so sincere. The meetings went on for over a year. Volunteers took hours away from their jobs, their families, to participate. Hours more went into the research: committee guidelines asked for flora and fauna surveys of the camps, lists of of features, program availability, program potentials, travel distances, demographics. Then we studied each others' results. We reviewed the charts, we helped to revise the final draft of the report. We did it because we believed in the process.
The results were ignored.
It was all window dressing.
It's bad enough to fake a chart.
But to play volunteers by wasting their time, and to KNOW that whatever they do won't matter.........that is deathly insulting.
The chairs of the sub-committees were sincere, but they were eased off the board. Still, it wasn't a total waste of time. The report we wrote stands witness to the work of the committee. The Vision 2012 committee never voted on a recommendation. However, we developed guidelines for decisions about the camps. Guidelines Numbers 5, 8, 9, 10, & 13 are totally trashed so far. The rest will follow when the membership numbers take a dive.
- When they encouraged the start of the friends' groups
- The membership survey
- The membership "visioning" meetings
- When Dr. Alford Smith asked camp supporters to address the board
- The last ditch "listening session"
The re-interpretation of the membership survey was especially acute. First of all, the board was advised multiple times that they'd get a much greater response if they provided paper copies. They kept insisting that online was adequate. Online was adequate because the council was subscribed to Survey Monkey. As long as they could find out what their members wanted for free, it was OK - but they did not trouble themselves to pay for a professionally done survey. But, in spite of the small sampling, responses came from all areas of the council - consistent with the population densities of the counties.
One of the questions was "what's your favorite camp?" The analysis counted the number of people who said a certain camp was their favorite compared to how many had been there, and came up with a percentage. The survey showed that Crowell Hilaka was the clear favorite of girls and adults who had been there, followed by Great Trail.
Crowell / Hilaka - girls 61% / adults 53%
Great Trail - girls 57% / adults 49%
Ledgewood - girl 45% / adults 33%
Lejnar - girls 22% / adults 11%
Pleasant Valley - girls 21% / adults 29%
Sugarbush - girls 38% / adults 43%
Timberlane - girls 47% / adults 34%
But here's what GSNEO reported in their website FAQs :
5. Why were Ledgewood and Timberlane chosen as the sites for the premier camp and leadership centers? Their locations, current usage and future capacities, amenities, and opportunities for year-round use made them the logical choices for these transformations.
Why did they bother to ask the question if they weren't going to pay attention to the answer?
Worst of all was the the Vision 2012 committee. Worst - because it looked so sincere. The meetings went on for over a year. Volunteers took hours away from their jobs, their families, to participate. Hours more went into the research: committee guidelines asked for flora and fauna surveys of the camps, lists of of features, program availability, program potentials, travel distances, demographics. Then we studied each others' results. We reviewed the charts, we helped to revise the final draft of the report. We did it because we believed in the process.
The results were ignored.
It was all window dressing.
It's bad enough to fake a chart.
But to play volunteers by wasting their time, and to KNOW that whatever they do won't matter.........that is deathly insulting.
The chairs of the sub-committees were sincere, but they were eased off the board. Still, it wasn't a total waste of time. The report we wrote stands witness to the work of the committee. The Vision 2012 committee never voted on a recommendation. However, we developed guidelines for decisions about the camps. Guidelines Numbers 5, 8, 9, 10, & 13 are totally trashed so far. The rest will follow when the membership numbers take a dive.
- Build a sustainable financial model for all GSNEO properties by reducing costs and increasing diverse revenue streams, while maintain affordability for GSNEO membership
- Exploit the full potential of GSNEO properties for all Leadership programming: Science, Technology, Engineering & Math (STEM), Community Engagement, Healthy Living, Financial Literacy, The Arts, and Environmental Awareness
- Take a leadership role in energy conservation and stewardship
- Modernize facilities to increase member and non-member utilization, and extend usage throughout the year
- Locate overnight camping sites no more than a one hour drive for troop camps and no more than a two-hour drive for resident camps
- Improve the ease and efficiency of scheduling and registration processes
- Expand marketing of outdoor programs to both members and non-members
- Develop and engage volunteers to support the outdoor program
- Explore community partnerships to offer a variety of opportunities
- Recognize and maintain the unique historic and environmental qualities of GSNEO properties, including significant water features and geographic buffers
- Provide sufficient land area for future program growth
- Streamline property holdings to be more responsive to future needs and economic constraints
- Structure property relinquishment to give priority to conservation easements, green spaces, Girl Scout and public use with one time proceeds held in a separate Board-designated fund.