Frequently Asked Questions
Is the board of directors to blame?
At first they weren't.
The board could not be held accountable for what they did not know. But once they were made aware, things changed.
It is very difficult for board members to believe that a fellow board member could be supplying them with mis-information. But since the future of GSNEO is at stake, board members need to question, to read the reports, to ask for proof. Board members are vulnerable to those who frame the issues for them .
Most of the directors probably started out with good intentions. They are volunteers. They put a lot of time into their work on the GSNEO board ( as well as whatever other boards they may belong to) on top of their day jobs. Most were not Girl Scout volunteers prior to their work on the board, so they don't have personal experience with the program. They have to work with the information they are given.
The board depends on the CEO to provide them with that information. But CEO Daisy Alford Smith had never been a Girl Scout herself prior to being hired as CEO. She was dependent on what GSUSA said. GSUSA had adapted a new core business strategy and was rolling out a new leadership development program designed to appeal to all girls. Camping and outdoor experience for members would still be around, but greatly de-emphasized. In addition, Dr. Alford Smith described her only camping experience as one of the "most miserable times" of her life. Given these factors, it's no wonder that the camps were not high on the management priority list.
There was a property committee that began looking over the assets early on. But it was with the view that girls no longer wanted to camp. When the board made the first round of camp closures in 2009, they probably honestly thought they were doing the right thing. They were taken by surprise by the membership reaction. At a council -sponsored meeting with the Friends of Crowell Hilaka in July 2009, the board members in attendance said they hadn't known about the problems that troops had in finding out information about the camps. They didn't know about the dysfunctional reservation process. They didn't know that troops were being turned away from empty campsites.
Soon afterwards, the Vision 2012 process was initiated to give the members a voice in the property decision. So far, so good.
Every non-profit has to deal with many complex issues. There is too much for every board member to become an expert on everything. So they divide up into committees. The committee members delve into the available information on their area, consult outside experts, discuss options, and make recommendations to the full board. The rest of the directors can ask questions and veto any committee recommendations. But since the committees are the experts, their recommendations are usually accepted.
Vision 2012 was under the direction of the property committee. The property committee was first led by Fred Cash. He was succeeded by Roberta Uhrich and Brent Gardner as co-chairs. Vision 2012 started work late in 2009 and presented its final report at the 2010 annual meeting in October. (The problems with Vision 2012 are detailed elsewhere on this site. However, it's a moot point because the property committee paid little attention to Vision 2012 except to use its existence as a prop to justify its actions. )
The GSNEO property committee meeting on Jan 11, 2011 started with a welcome from Brent Gardener (Click here for the complete minutes.):
"Vision 2012 Phase One demonstrated a need for a new type of facility to serve the girls' needs of the future. It needs to address our needs for developing tomorrow's leaders, and teaching science, technology, math, business development, while still having fun! We realize these facilities need to no longer stay focused on just camping. We learned the word camping is a hinderance to some girls and funders. Phase two must create the Master Plan that will provide our organization with Premier Leadership Development Centers that appeal to our girls, funders, and our alumni. No alumnae will give up a camp without a phenomenal new opportunity. These Girl Scout Leadership Development Centers can and will be Phenomenal "
The phenomenal thing about Brent Gardner's presentation is that it appears to be completely made up.
There was no such finding in Vision 2012 that showed we needed a new type of facility. There were no negative associations with the word "camp” . There was never any indication of a need for something called a Leadership Development Center. Yet Mr. Gardner brazenly assured the property committee of all these "discoveries".
When these and other "facts" were presented in Brent Gardner's authoritative voice, it all seems to make perfect sense. It's no wonder that the board went along.
The Camp Liquidation / Premier Leadership Center plan was announced in April 2011. Not only did members react with emotion, they reacted from a basis of experience. Questions were raised about the driving distances, camp capacity, the rationale.
Members of the Vision2012 committee were there and knew the "facts" presented were wrong. And they said so.
Evidently some of the board members were concerned because on June 7, 2011 a staff member from GSUSA call in to assure the board that they made the right decision. Among her statements: "People who are against the sale of the camps don't want change. They want the girls to have the same experiences they had. The opponents don't want to accept times have changed and the needs of the girls have changed. " . (For the entire minutes of this meeting, click here).
It is truly fascinating that the rep from GSUSA was able to dismiss us so adroitly. After all, if you make the opposition seem stupid, uniformed, and emotional, then it makes perfect sense not to listen to them. This is the organization presenting women's leadership initiatives? Is it possible to be any more ironic?
GSNEO staff then presented points that were technically true, but grossly misleading:
"Delegates in all regions support the decision". This works because there was at least one delegate in each region that supported the plan. But the wording makes it sound like it's the vast majority
"Delegates in the North (camp supporters) are frustrated that they do not have more supporters" Yes, because 100% would have been better than only 75%.
"Some delegates feel they are being bullied by those delegates who do not want the camps sold or closed." Unbalanced, unsubstantiated , secondhand slander of camp supporters. But it still gets reported to the board. .
November 2011. A dozen volunteers wrote to the new GSNEO board chair Joan Villareal, asking how the board intended to honor the resolution requiring a halt to camp sales. Joan Villarreal responded with announcement of a “listening session" for delegates only.
The most interesting thing about the invitation to the listening session is that Joan Villareal did not even make a pretense of answering the question. She could have said: “We have no intention of honoring the resolution. But if it will make you feel better, we'll let you talk at us for a few minutes and we'll pretend to listen." But people would have gotten upset. Instead, she deflected attention from the fact that the resolution had already passed. By implying that it was still an open question, and that they were magnanimously granting one last chance. The delegates jumped at the opportunity instead of demanding that the board comply.
As someone who was not a delegate at the time, I was not allowed to attend. But there were serious points that had to be made to the full board. With the council's credibility at risk, I decided to quit mincing words about the lies that Brent Gardner had presented to the Assembly in spring. Particularly his claim that it would cost us over 30 million dollars to bring the camps up to ACA standards. In leiu of attending the meeting, I sent an e mail to each board member.
From the December 2011 meeting minutes (For the full meeting minutes, click here.):
- Brent discused his concern of how we are hearing that the projection of $30,000,00 was false for updating the camps. He assured the Board that the work of his committee and the staff was correct.
- " ...those in oppostion of the camp sales do not think we need to fix the pools or be ADA compliant. This group also feels that the security is sufficient " [ this is really interesting. I do not recall anyone ever suggesting that we not be ADA compliant. I do recall FoCH offering to pay for repairs to the perimeter security fence at Crowell Hilaka.]
- " Brent also shared with the board comments that we are faking or not faking the numbers. Brent assured the board that this is not sure. In fact he reminded us that some of the members who are in opposition were part of the group who agreed on the methodology of the analysis in the beginning." Some of us questioned it, but we believed the board to be experts. We really didn't want to bother them too much or make ourselves look silly, so we backed down easily. We also believed the process was honest when we first started.
Joan Villarreal introduced the listening session to the board as being in response to the "non-binding" resolution at the special meeting. However, there is no provision for submitting "non-binding resolutions" in the GSNEO assembly. But by smoothly interjecting it into the sentence as if it were a given, most people will just accept it as a given. If Joan Villareal had said "we believe this is a non-binding resolution because here is the list of qualities that make a resolution non-binding" it would have invited argument and inquiry. Deflection - much like the entire listening session itself.
The delegates came in and presented their points. They were given a strict limit of five minutes apiece to speak. No power points were allowed. When one delegate was finishing her presentation, she hit the five minute mark . The Council chief operating officer cut the delegate's mike off just as she started to say "God Bless GSNEO" . The delegates were dismissed and the board meeting resumed:
" At this point, Mrs. Villarreal brought the discussion back to the Properties decision and reiterated the Board's decision to sell 4 camps using the net proceeds to upgrade the three remaining camps. She asked the Board members if they had heard any new information or viable alternatives during tonight's listening session " This is what we are doing, anyway unless there is an objection. Which was oh so civilized and polite, but not addressing the fact that the resolution had already passed.
" Candace Campbell Jackson stated she heard 3-4 new things, but not enough to rescind the decision .
" Theresa Beyerle stated that one of the delegates had stated the cost to rent a cabin went from $37 to $100. She was interested in when those changes took place." No answer is recorded.
" DIana Snider stated that we were comparing apples and oranges. For the members it is an emotional issue that wants their memories and heritage while board members have fiduciary and liability responsibilities.
Brent Gardner stated that when the Deferred Maintenance spreadsheet was presented, folks chose not to read the footnotes provided for each site.
Dr. Alford Smith shared that properties director Jim Kanannen had provided the needs of Camp Crowell Hilaka to the Freinds group. However, they only wanted to do limited chores while the roof was in need of repair { Link to FoCH letter to Board feb 2011, & board respnse]
The consensus is that the council had "communication" issues. But the camps had safety issues - and if a girl gets hurt, the liability could be devastating . Some of the board members did attempt to inject some realism. But the answers were almost a forgone conclusion because of the way Joan's question to them was raised: "did you hear anything new that would justify rescinding the decision?"
12 directors agreed to keep their decision 3 were opposed.
although they were voting on a question the delegates had not asked.
The delegates asked the board "how do you plan to honor the resolution?"
Joan asked the board: "were the delegates able to convince you to rescind the property decision?
If this is low on your priority list, not paying much attention, you could allow the board chair to frame the questions for you without questioning. YOU could accept all comments at face value
At first they weren't.
The board could not be held accountable for what they did not know. But once they were made aware, things changed.
It is very difficult for board members to believe that a fellow board member could be supplying them with mis-information. But since the future of GSNEO is at stake, board members need to question, to read the reports, to ask for proof. Board members are vulnerable to those who frame the issues for them .
Most of the directors probably started out with good intentions. They are volunteers. They put a lot of time into their work on the GSNEO board ( as well as whatever other boards they may belong to) on top of their day jobs. Most were not Girl Scout volunteers prior to their work on the board, so they don't have personal experience with the program. They have to work with the information they are given.
The board depends on the CEO to provide them with that information. But CEO Daisy Alford Smith had never been a Girl Scout herself prior to being hired as CEO. She was dependent on what GSUSA said. GSUSA had adapted a new core business strategy and was rolling out a new leadership development program designed to appeal to all girls. Camping and outdoor experience for members would still be around, but greatly de-emphasized. In addition, Dr. Alford Smith described her only camping experience as one of the "most miserable times" of her life. Given these factors, it's no wonder that the camps were not high on the management priority list.
There was a property committee that began looking over the assets early on. But it was with the view that girls no longer wanted to camp. When the board made the first round of camp closures in 2009, they probably honestly thought they were doing the right thing. They were taken by surprise by the membership reaction. At a council -sponsored meeting with the Friends of Crowell Hilaka in July 2009, the board members in attendance said they hadn't known about the problems that troops had in finding out information about the camps. They didn't know about the dysfunctional reservation process. They didn't know that troops were being turned away from empty campsites.
Soon afterwards, the Vision 2012 process was initiated to give the members a voice in the property decision. So far, so good.
Every non-profit has to deal with many complex issues. There is too much for every board member to become an expert on everything. So they divide up into committees. The committee members delve into the available information on their area, consult outside experts, discuss options, and make recommendations to the full board. The rest of the directors can ask questions and veto any committee recommendations. But since the committees are the experts, their recommendations are usually accepted.
Vision 2012 was under the direction of the property committee. The property committee was first led by Fred Cash. He was succeeded by Roberta Uhrich and Brent Gardner as co-chairs. Vision 2012 started work late in 2009 and presented its final report at the 2010 annual meeting in October. (The problems with Vision 2012 are detailed elsewhere on this site. However, it's a moot point because the property committee paid little attention to Vision 2012 except to use its existence as a prop to justify its actions. )
The GSNEO property committee meeting on Jan 11, 2011 started with a welcome from Brent Gardener (Click here for the complete minutes.):
"Vision 2012 Phase One demonstrated a need for a new type of facility to serve the girls' needs of the future. It needs to address our needs for developing tomorrow's leaders, and teaching science, technology, math, business development, while still having fun! We realize these facilities need to no longer stay focused on just camping. We learned the word camping is a hinderance to some girls and funders. Phase two must create the Master Plan that will provide our organization with Premier Leadership Development Centers that appeal to our girls, funders, and our alumni. No alumnae will give up a camp without a phenomenal new opportunity. These Girl Scout Leadership Development Centers can and will be Phenomenal "
The phenomenal thing about Brent Gardner's presentation is that it appears to be completely made up.
There was no such finding in Vision 2012 that showed we needed a new type of facility. There were no negative associations with the word "camp” . There was never any indication of a need for something called a Leadership Development Center. Yet Mr. Gardner brazenly assured the property committee of all these "discoveries".
When these and other "facts" were presented in Brent Gardner's authoritative voice, it all seems to make perfect sense. It's no wonder that the board went along.
The Camp Liquidation / Premier Leadership Center plan was announced in April 2011. Not only did members react with emotion, they reacted from a basis of experience. Questions were raised about the driving distances, camp capacity, the rationale.
Members of the Vision2012 committee were there and knew the "facts" presented were wrong. And they said so.
Evidently some of the board members were concerned because on June 7, 2011 a staff member from GSUSA call in to assure the board that they made the right decision. Among her statements: "People who are against the sale of the camps don't want change. They want the girls to have the same experiences they had. The opponents don't want to accept times have changed and the needs of the girls have changed. " . (For the entire minutes of this meeting, click here).
It is truly fascinating that the rep from GSUSA was able to dismiss us so adroitly. After all, if you make the opposition seem stupid, uniformed, and emotional, then it makes perfect sense not to listen to them. This is the organization presenting women's leadership initiatives? Is it possible to be any more ironic?
GSNEO staff then presented points that were technically true, but grossly misleading:
"Delegates in all regions support the decision". This works because there was at least one delegate in each region that supported the plan. But the wording makes it sound like it's the vast majority
"Delegates in the North (camp supporters) are frustrated that they do not have more supporters" Yes, because 100% would have been better than only 75%.
"Some delegates feel they are being bullied by those delegates who do not want the camps sold or closed." Unbalanced, unsubstantiated , secondhand slander of camp supporters. But it still gets reported to the board. .
November 2011. A dozen volunteers wrote to the new GSNEO board chair Joan Villareal, asking how the board intended to honor the resolution requiring a halt to camp sales. Joan Villarreal responded with announcement of a “listening session" for delegates only.
The most interesting thing about the invitation to the listening session is that Joan Villareal did not even make a pretense of answering the question. She could have said: “We have no intention of honoring the resolution. But if it will make you feel better, we'll let you talk at us for a few minutes and we'll pretend to listen." But people would have gotten upset. Instead, she deflected attention from the fact that the resolution had already passed. By implying that it was still an open question, and that they were magnanimously granting one last chance. The delegates jumped at the opportunity instead of demanding that the board comply.
As someone who was not a delegate at the time, I was not allowed to attend. But there were serious points that had to be made to the full board. With the council's credibility at risk, I decided to quit mincing words about the lies that Brent Gardner had presented to the Assembly in spring. Particularly his claim that it would cost us over 30 million dollars to bring the camps up to ACA standards. In leiu of attending the meeting, I sent an e mail to each board member.
From the December 2011 meeting minutes (For the full meeting minutes, click here.):
- Brent discused his concern of how we are hearing that the projection of $30,000,00 was false for updating the camps. He assured the Board that the work of his committee and the staff was correct.
- " ...those in oppostion of the camp sales do not think we need to fix the pools or be ADA compliant. This group also feels that the security is sufficient " [ this is really interesting. I do not recall anyone ever suggesting that we not be ADA compliant. I do recall FoCH offering to pay for repairs to the perimeter security fence at Crowell Hilaka.]
- " Brent also shared with the board comments that we are faking or not faking the numbers. Brent assured the board that this is not sure. In fact he reminded us that some of the members who are in opposition were part of the group who agreed on the methodology of the analysis in the beginning." Some of us questioned it, but we believed the board to be experts. We really didn't want to bother them too much or make ourselves look silly, so we backed down easily. We also believed the process was honest when we first started.
Joan Villarreal introduced the listening session to the board as being in response to the "non-binding" resolution at the special meeting. However, there is no provision for submitting "non-binding resolutions" in the GSNEO assembly. But by smoothly interjecting it into the sentence as if it were a given, most people will just accept it as a given. If Joan Villareal had said "we believe this is a non-binding resolution because here is the list of qualities that make a resolution non-binding" it would have invited argument and inquiry. Deflection - much like the entire listening session itself.
The delegates came in and presented their points. They were given a strict limit of five minutes apiece to speak. No power points were allowed. When one delegate was finishing her presentation, she hit the five minute mark . The Council chief operating officer cut the delegate's mike off just as she started to say "God Bless GSNEO" . The delegates were dismissed and the board meeting resumed:
" At this point, Mrs. Villarreal brought the discussion back to the Properties decision and reiterated the Board's decision to sell 4 camps using the net proceeds to upgrade the three remaining camps. She asked the Board members if they had heard any new information or viable alternatives during tonight's listening session " This is what we are doing, anyway unless there is an objection. Which was oh so civilized and polite, but not addressing the fact that the resolution had already passed.
" Candace Campbell Jackson stated she heard 3-4 new things, but not enough to rescind the decision .
" Theresa Beyerle stated that one of the delegates had stated the cost to rent a cabin went from $37 to $100. She was interested in when those changes took place." No answer is recorded.
" DIana Snider stated that we were comparing apples and oranges. For the members it is an emotional issue that wants their memories and heritage while board members have fiduciary and liability responsibilities.
Brent Gardner stated that when the Deferred Maintenance spreadsheet was presented, folks chose not to read the footnotes provided for each site.
Dr. Alford Smith shared that properties director Jim Kanannen had provided the needs of Camp Crowell Hilaka to the Freinds group. However, they only wanted to do limited chores while the roof was in need of repair { Link to FoCH letter to Board feb 2011, & board respnse]
The consensus is that the council had "communication" issues. But the camps had safety issues - and if a girl gets hurt, the liability could be devastating . Some of the board members did attempt to inject some realism. But the answers were almost a forgone conclusion because of the way Joan's question to them was raised: "did you hear anything new that would justify rescinding the decision?"
12 directors agreed to keep their decision 3 were opposed.
although they were voting on a question the delegates had not asked.
The delegates asked the board "how do you plan to honor the resolution?"
Joan asked the board: "were the delegates able to convince you to rescind the property decision?
If this is low on your priority list, not paying much attention, you could allow the board chair to frame the questions for you without questioning. YOU could accept all comments at face value