Frequently Asked Questions
How did the GSNEO board consult with the membership, and what were the results?
VISION 2012
After the protests from the first round of camp closures, the GSNEO board established the Vision 2012 Committee.
A grid called the Decision Matrix was developed to make property selection objective - not emotional. The Vision 2012 Committee was supposed to evaluate each camp for various characteristics and assign a score in the grid. Results would be tallied and the camps with highest scores would stay.
Committee members raised questions about the validity of some of the characteristics being evaluated. They suggested additional important factors that had been omitted. These questions and concerns were glossed over. As the subcommittes began trying to assign scores, other issues came up that were simply ignored. What appeared at first to be an objective process left a lot of room for subjective interpretation.
Membership Survey
The Vision 2012 committee's work was to be based on a survey of all GSNEO members. Separate questionnaires were prepared for adults and girls. The board's goal was to get answers from 3,000 girls. We told them that if they wanted to hear from girls, the girls had to have a way to answer the questions at troop meetings while they are thinking about it. However, this survey was only available online. Troop leaders asked if they could download questionnaires to give to their troops at meetings. The answer was no - the questions HAD to be answered online.
The outcome was not a surprise: just over 1,100 adults particpated; but far fewer girls. The GSNEO office ended up taking paper copies of the survey to cookie rallies in January 2010 until they had 500 responses from girls. Staff then entered the girls' answers into the online survey.
The results were that camping is essential to Girl Scouting. Many more girls wanted to camp than were able to. Because of various council practises, most members had not even had the opportunity to camp outside of their legacy council. The favorite camp of adults and girls was Crowell Hilaka.
Camp usage data.
GSNEO has NEVER never had full, accurate camp usage data
For the first year of GSNEO's existence, no usable data was collected.
During the second year, the registartation system was still not working correctly. Some troops were being denied reservations for available sites. Some sites were double booked. which meant that the second troop to get their confirmation was just out of luck.
During the third year, the same problems continued, but half of Great Trail and most of Crowell HIlaka were closed.
AFTER THE CAMP LIQUIDATION ANNOUNCEMENT, members had the following opportunity for input:
-Dan Bragg gave the General Assembly 15 minutes to ask questions immediately following the announcement. The board was not able to provide answers for the most pressing question: where are all of us going to camp next year. Dan Bragg told the assembly that they would have the staff figure that out.
- Most members who wrote to the board afterwards got a call or email from board member Joan Villareal. Many reported that Joan met them privately for coffee, told them she was talking with them just as a fellow Girl Scout, not as a member of the board. After listening to their concerns, Joan assured each that the issues had all been thouroughly studied, the opposition was "not telling the whole story", and that the sale of the camps was "a done deal".
- Delegates attempting to call for a special meeting of the General Assembly were refused contact information for other delegates
- A series of five informational meetings about the property plan was arranged for July/ August 2011. They were for delegates only. Delegates were given 7-10 days notice for these meetings. Delegates were not allowed to attend more than one meeting. Non-delegates who showed up were told they could not enter the meeting room, nor could they wait anywhere where it would be possible to hear what was said at the meeting. These meetings were larger versions of the private meetings with Joan Villareal. Concerns could be voiced, but then Joan would deliver her "done deal " message.
- Two "VIsioning " meetings for the entire membership were held at the Macedonia office. The meetings were held August 20 and August 27. Members were given 3 week's notice. The meetings were well-attended. Girls were separated from adults, and everyone further divided into small groups to brainstorm ( or the preferred term: to engage in "blue sky thinking") ideas for the camps. Girls report that their small groups were led by GSNEO staff who discouraged them from saying they wanted to keep the camps they already had. All small groups of girls and adults groups were reunited for the presentations of the blue-sky thinking to the full group.
The upshot was that members want to keep what they already have.
- At the 2011 annual meeting, Chairman Dan Bragg announced that each delegate would be permited to speak for only ONE minute. This was contested, but he kept repeating it.
- After the resolution to re-evaluate was passed, the board ignored it until pressed by the delegates. New board chair Joan Villareal arranged a "listening session" to be attended by delegates only. Only two delegates from each region would be allowed to speak for 5 minutes on any new information that the board would consider before making their final decision. Delegates had nine days notice of the meeting. Within that time, they had to decide among themselves who would speak, coordinate with each other to avoid repeating information, and prepare remarks. A girl delegate asked if she could use power point for her five minute presentation. She was denied.
The FAQ that can only be answered by the council office:
Were ANY of these serious attempts to find out what the members want?
Or was it just a half-hearted attempt to make it LOOK good?
If they were serious, why was so little effort devoted to making sure it was done right? When members spoke up, why didn't the board take them seriously?
VISION 2012
After the protests from the first round of camp closures, the GSNEO board established the Vision 2012 Committee.
A grid called the Decision Matrix was developed to make property selection objective - not emotional. The Vision 2012 Committee was supposed to evaluate each camp for various characteristics and assign a score in the grid. Results would be tallied and the camps with highest scores would stay.
Committee members raised questions about the validity of some of the characteristics being evaluated. They suggested additional important factors that had been omitted. These questions and concerns were glossed over. As the subcommittes began trying to assign scores, other issues came up that were simply ignored. What appeared at first to be an objective process left a lot of room for subjective interpretation.
Membership Survey
The Vision 2012 committee's work was to be based on a survey of all GSNEO members. Separate questionnaires were prepared for adults and girls. The board's goal was to get answers from 3,000 girls. We told them that if they wanted to hear from girls, the girls had to have a way to answer the questions at troop meetings while they are thinking about it. However, this survey was only available online. Troop leaders asked if they could download questionnaires to give to their troops at meetings. The answer was no - the questions HAD to be answered online.
The outcome was not a surprise: just over 1,100 adults particpated; but far fewer girls. The GSNEO office ended up taking paper copies of the survey to cookie rallies in January 2010 until they had 500 responses from girls. Staff then entered the girls' answers into the online survey.
The results were that camping is essential to Girl Scouting. Many more girls wanted to camp than were able to. Because of various council practises, most members had not even had the opportunity to camp outside of their legacy council. The favorite camp of adults and girls was Crowell Hilaka.
Camp usage data.
GSNEO has NEVER never had full, accurate camp usage data
For the first year of GSNEO's existence, no usable data was collected.
During the second year, the registartation system was still not working correctly. Some troops were being denied reservations for available sites. Some sites were double booked. which meant that the second troop to get their confirmation was just out of luck.
During the third year, the same problems continued, but half of Great Trail and most of Crowell HIlaka were closed.
AFTER THE CAMP LIQUIDATION ANNOUNCEMENT, members had the following opportunity for input:
-Dan Bragg gave the General Assembly 15 minutes to ask questions immediately following the announcement. The board was not able to provide answers for the most pressing question: where are all of us going to camp next year. Dan Bragg told the assembly that they would have the staff figure that out.
- Most members who wrote to the board afterwards got a call or email from board member Joan Villareal. Many reported that Joan met them privately for coffee, told them she was talking with them just as a fellow Girl Scout, not as a member of the board. After listening to their concerns, Joan assured each that the issues had all been thouroughly studied, the opposition was "not telling the whole story", and that the sale of the camps was "a done deal".
- Delegates attempting to call for a special meeting of the General Assembly were refused contact information for other delegates
- A series of five informational meetings about the property plan was arranged for July/ August 2011. They were for delegates only. Delegates were given 7-10 days notice for these meetings. Delegates were not allowed to attend more than one meeting. Non-delegates who showed up were told they could not enter the meeting room, nor could they wait anywhere where it would be possible to hear what was said at the meeting. These meetings were larger versions of the private meetings with Joan Villareal. Concerns could be voiced, but then Joan would deliver her "done deal " message.
- Two "VIsioning " meetings for the entire membership were held at the Macedonia office. The meetings were held August 20 and August 27. Members were given 3 week's notice. The meetings were well-attended. Girls were separated from adults, and everyone further divided into small groups to brainstorm ( or the preferred term: to engage in "blue sky thinking") ideas for the camps. Girls report that their small groups were led by GSNEO staff who discouraged them from saying they wanted to keep the camps they already had. All small groups of girls and adults groups were reunited for the presentations of the blue-sky thinking to the full group.
The upshot was that members want to keep what they already have.
- At the 2011 annual meeting, Chairman Dan Bragg announced that each delegate would be permited to speak for only ONE minute. This was contested, but he kept repeating it.
- After the resolution to re-evaluate was passed, the board ignored it until pressed by the delegates. New board chair Joan Villareal arranged a "listening session" to be attended by delegates only. Only two delegates from each region would be allowed to speak for 5 minutes on any new information that the board would consider before making their final decision. Delegates had nine days notice of the meeting. Within that time, they had to decide among themselves who would speak, coordinate with each other to avoid repeating information, and prepare remarks. A girl delegate asked if she could use power point for her five minute presentation. She was denied.
The FAQ that can only be answered by the council office:
Were ANY of these serious attempts to find out what the members want?
Or was it just a half-hearted attempt to make it LOOK good?
If they were serious, why was so little effort devoted to making sure it was done right? When members spoke up, why didn't the board take them seriously?