How Did the Board Decide to sell 5 camps?
The sources the board used included:
1. Input from Vision 2012 Committee
2. Acutal Camp Usage Data
3. Properties Survey
4. Site Visit From Property Consultant
1. VISION 2012
In the summer of 2009, the GSNEO Board of Directors established a committee called "Vision 2012" to evaluate the camps and their ability to provide programming for the girls.
Camp representatives of the Vision 2012 committee were not asked to submit a an opinion or make a recommendation, nor asked to vote on which camps should be kept, or even how many. The committee was not asked about expanded program options.
The committe did research data on each of the 7 camps, and provided comments on the draft to the final report.
Page 6 of the final Vision 2012 report lists the guidelines that were used, taken from the GSNEO Strategic Plan. Among other important considerations are these: “locate overnight camp sites to no more than one hour drive for troop camping. “ and “Recognize and maintain the unique historic and environmental qualities of GSNEO properties”. The final board proposal to sell 5 camps does not adhere to these guidelines.
The Vision 2012 report lists ways to maximize and expand usage among members and non-members. The Vision 2012 report concludes, “our camp properties are and forever should be the jewels in our Girl Scout crown”. The report was largely ignored. When it was mentioned by the GSNEO Board of Directors, the data from the report was twisted.
2. USAGE DATA
Under normal circumstances, the actual records of camp usage would be among the most important data. People can say anything they want in a survey. All of us can guess at the future. But usage reports show the " where" and "how" members spent their time and money. Unfortunately, there are many, many problems with GSNEO usage records:
-Records from the legacy councils are not available.
-During the first two years of the merged council's existence (2007 -2009), there was no campsite information on the GSNEO website. Many members did not know they were even allowed to camp outside of their legacy council sites. If they did know, the fragmented camp reservation system made it difficult to try. Getting any campsite, even a familiar one, was difficult because the application had to be mailed in - with payment. And then the confirmation, or regrets, were mailed back. If regrets, the leader had the option of trying again. And again, etc, until she/he obtained a site.
-In June of 2009, the relinquishment of 6 camps and the closure of 2 others (Crowell/Hilaka and Great Trail) were announced. It was said that they weren't being used. Only then did leaders begin to question why that would be. Many had tried to reserve sites at those camps, and been told they were full. We had no reason to question the lack of vacancies until we heard the claim that “hardly anyone was using" certain camps. Even more disturbing: some leaders who did not get a site on their first round, obtained a reservation for another site at the same camp on the same weekend and found their first choice site was open!
-To give GSNEO credit, the council office immediately began posting camp information on their website in June of 2009, once they realized this was a concern for the members. The full range of sites was finally described and available only from July through September 2009. Although during that time the registration system was still regionally based and via post office only.
-On October 1, 2009 half of Great Trail was closed, as was the central and southern parts of Crowell/Hilaka. Any campsite usage records from that time onward do not include these sites that members are not allowed to use.
-Some sites continued to be declared filled when they were actually available, while other sites were double booked. Brittany Zaerhinger worked diligently to correct these problems, but the results of the errors are still present in the usage records. Also, council programming taking place at a rentable site prevented any troop from using that site.
-There is no way of tracking how many requests have come in to use a site. The first one with a qualified application gets the site, the rest are told the site is filled to pick another site or another date . There are no records that track the most desirable sites, or how many troops go to non-GSNEO sites if they do not get one of their first choices.
3. PROPERTIES SURVEY
This survey conducted in 2009 ended up being a smaller sample than the GSNEO board had hoped. But the demographics of participants correlated surprisingly well with the demographics of the council as a whole. Assuming that the most motivated members were the ones who filled it out and were therefore representative, it yielded valuable results. However – the board plan does not seem to have many of taken many these results of these results into account, as the number one primary conclusion of the survey is that camping is essential to Girl Scouting.
4. PROPERTY CONSULTANT
A site visit from GLEN CHIN, Land-Use Planner and Property Management Consultant for GSUSA in 2009 resulted in Chin rating camps by his perceived importance. He also recommended hiring a year-round camp director, using creative marketing techniques, niche marketing for individual camps, creative marketing techniques, and using camps as a recruitment tool, none of which GSNEO has followed through with.
He also strongly recommended that when the first batch of camps were relinquished in 2009-2001 that the council keep track of whether there were waiting lists for the remaining camp space. This was never done. We know that many service units were shut out of camporee sites. We know that the needs were not addressed.
Chin stated, "The wonderful sites in North East Ohio's inventory make it difficult to sort and prioritize, and if resources were infinite the council would not have to make those difficult decisions." Resources are not infinite, but according to GSNEO reports, they are sufficient to keep all of the current 7 properties.
1. Input from Vision 2012 Committee
2. Acutal Camp Usage Data
3. Properties Survey
4. Site Visit From Property Consultant
1. VISION 2012
In the summer of 2009, the GSNEO Board of Directors established a committee called "Vision 2012" to evaluate the camps and their ability to provide programming for the girls.
Camp representatives of the Vision 2012 committee were not asked to submit a an opinion or make a recommendation, nor asked to vote on which camps should be kept, or even how many. The committee was not asked about expanded program options.
The committe did research data on each of the 7 camps, and provided comments on the draft to the final report.
Page 6 of the final Vision 2012 report lists the guidelines that were used, taken from the GSNEO Strategic Plan. Among other important considerations are these: “locate overnight camp sites to no more than one hour drive for troop camping. “ and “Recognize and maintain the unique historic and environmental qualities of GSNEO properties”. The final board proposal to sell 5 camps does not adhere to these guidelines.
The Vision 2012 report lists ways to maximize and expand usage among members and non-members. The Vision 2012 report concludes, “our camp properties are and forever should be the jewels in our Girl Scout crown”. The report was largely ignored. When it was mentioned by the GSNEO Board of Directors, the data from the report was twisted.
2. USAGE DATA
Under normal circumstances, the actual records of camp usage would be among the most important data. People can say anything they want in a survey. All of us can guess at the future. But usage reports show the " where" and "how" members spent their time and money. Unfortunately, there are many, many problems with GSNEO usage records:
-Records from the legacy councils are not available.
-During the first two years of the merged council's existence (2007 -2009), there was no campsite information on the GSNEO website. Many members did not know they were even allowed to camp outside of their legacy council sites. If they did know, the fragmented camp reservation system made it difficult to try. Getting any campsite, even a familiar one, was difficult because the application had to be mailed in - with payment. And then the confirmation, or regrets, were mailed back. If regrets, the leader had the option of trying again. And again, etc, until she/he obtained a site.
-In June of 2009, the relinquishment of 6 camps and the closure of 2 others (Crowell/Hilaka and Great Trail) were announced. It was said that they weren't being used. Only then did leaders begin to question why that would be. Many had tried to reserve sites at those camps, and been told they were full. We had no reason to question the lack of vacancies until we heard the claim that “hardly anyone was using" certain camps. Even more disturbing: some leaders who did not get a site on their first round, obtained a reservation for another site at the same camp on the same weekend and found their first choice site was open!
-To give GSNEO credit, the council office immediately began posting camp information on their website in June of 2009, once they realized this was a concern for the members. The full range of sites was finally described and available only from July through September 2009. Although during that time the registration system was still regionally based and via post office only.
-On October 1, 2009 half of Great Trail was closed, as was the central and southern parts of Crowell/Hilaka. Any campsite usage records from that time onward do not include these sites that members are not allowed to use.
-Some sites continued to be declared filled when they were actually available, while other sites were double booked. Brittany Zaerhinger worked diligently to correct these problems, but the results of the errors are still present in the usage records. Also, council programming taking place at a rentable site prevented any troop from using that site.
-There is no way of tracking how many requests have come in to use a site. The first one with a qualified application gets the site, the rest are told the site is filled to pick another site or another date . There are no records that track the most desirable sites, or how many troops go to non-GSNEO sites if they do not get one of their first choices.
3. PROPERTIES SURVEY
This survey conducted in 2009 ended up being a smaller sample than the GSNEO board had hoped. But the demographics of participants correlated surprisingly well with the demographics of the council as a whole. Assuming that the most motivated members were the ones who filled it out and were therefore representative, it yielded valuable results. However – the board plan does not seem to have many of taken many these results of these results into account, as the number one primary conclusion of the survey is that camping is essential to Girl Scouting.
4. PROPERTY CONSULTANT
A site visit from GLEN CHIN, Land-Use Planner and Property Management Consultant for GSUSA in 2009 resulted in Chin rating camps by his perceived importance. He also recommended hiring a year-round camp director, using creative marketing techniques, niche marketing for individual camps, creative marketing techniques, and using camps as a recruitment tool, none of which GSNEO has followed through with.
He also strongly recommended that when the first batch of camps were relinquished in 2009-2001 that the council keep track of whether there were waiting lists for the remaining camp space. This was never done. We know that many service units were shut out of camporee sites. We know that the needs were not addressed.
Chin stated, "The wonderful sites in North East Ohio's inventory make it difficult to sort and prioritize, and if resources were infinite the council would not have to make those difficult decisions." Resources are not infinite, but according to GSNEO reports, they are sufficient to keep all of the current 7 properties.
