Democracy

Each Girl Scout council is chartered by the national organization: Girl Scouts of the United States of America ( GSUSA)

The criteria for re-chartering a council is listed in the Blue Book. Standard 4, Criterion 2 : Organizational Integrity is:

"The council actively seeks to strengthen the democratic process to ensure that membership is involved in direction setting and influencing major policy decisions."

GSNEO is in clear violation.

• The token committees and "listening sessions" do not cut it as democratic process.
• The delegates to the 2011 assembly did not want to demand that our council keep all the remaining seven camps.
• It would have been nice, sure. But the responsible action had to be about choosing the best balance between beloved camps and financial realities. The council had seemed to be on the right course with the work of the Vision 2012 committee. But then the board precipitously chucked all the previous evaluation away when they voted to sell five camps.
• The intent of the delegates was to insist on a re-evaluation. They wanted it to be honest and accurate. They wanted the camping program camps to be viewed as part of the entire package of services offered by GSNEO, not as an isolated entity. They wanted real member input into the decision, not token participation in a sidetracked process. And they wanted it to be transparent. The final results and decisions should come as a surprise to no one.
• The problem with writing noble sentiments as "honest", "transparent", "inclusive", etc. is that there is no criteria for making them stick. What if the resolution passed, and two weeks later, the board came back and said, "yeah, we re-evaluated with the honest, transparent, inclusive thing and the result is the same". Then what? The delegates kicked around various ideas for ensuring compliance: that the re-evaluation take 2 years. Or at least six months. That there be hard copy surveys mailed to each and every GSNEO member. But all of the suggestions seemed to be imposing a limitation that might not fit the need. Until the suggestion - simply - of assembly approval. 2/3 approval of any sale would guarantee that at least half of the delegates agreed. Yet supporters of a single camp would not be able to block its sale.
• It meant that the members would have an actual voice in the council. Up until now, responsibility lay with the board. But the web of lies they used to justify their decision disqualified them from the trust of the members. Requiring approval of the assembly would provide a reasonable balance.
• There were three resolutions with similar wording. The first was for immediate stoppage of property sales until re-evaluation occurred. The second two were long-term policy changes to be written into two different places in the by-laws. By-laws changes would require approval by 2/3 majority.
• This is the exact wording of the resolution which passed.
• " The present Membership Delegates will vote on a resolution requesting that the Board of Directors immediately cease and desist all activities in connection with the transfer of any real property held in the name of the Girl Scouts of North East Ohio, until such time as any such pending, anticipated or planned transfers may be approved by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the voting members of the General Assembly participating and voting at a meeting held pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the Code. "
• Technically speaking, it was only supposed to be the delegates voting. The purpose was to provide a clear statement of the will of the membership to the entire assembly. For reasons that are not clear to me, the board and the board development committee also voted on this. So rather than a separate request to the board of directors from the delegates, It was treated as a full resolution. Even with the board and BCD voting along with the delegates, the resolution passed by a 60% majority.
• A majority of the assembly was also in favor of the bylaws changes, but not the full 2/3 majority needed to pass. Still, the will of the membership had been clearly shown.
• When there was no forthcoming announcement about the re-opening of camps, a contingent of members wrote to the board chair to ask how they intended to honor the resolution.
• Joan Villareal responded by side-stepping the issue. Instead of honoring the resolution, she announced a "listening session" during which delegates would have the opportunity to present new information, if there was any. And then the board would decide - once and for all. It was as if a condemned prisoner were allowed a few last words before execution and counting that as pretense of fairness
• The board is required by their charter with GSUSA to respect the democratic process. Not to ignore it or subvert it. The fact that the delegates actually DID present new information was irrelevant. The relevant factor was that the vote of the assembly had already taken place. And they had voted for re-evaluation.