Frequently Asked Questions
Wasn't the successful real estate resolution a "non-binding" action ?
The resolution: 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. A. There is no such thing as a "non-binding resolution" in the GSNEO code of regualtions ( bylaws) .
If the chair accepted the resolution onto the agenda, and if the resolution was properly seconded and debated, and if the full assembly voted on it, what is it that would classify it as "non-binding" ?
It was not an amendment. Amendments are long term policies. It certainly would have been better if the companion amendment had passed. But it didn't. We acknowledge and accept that fact -although we have some concerns that the delegates may have based their negative votes on Brent Garders scare tactics [see "the 30 million dollar lie" ]
But not every resolution has to be an amendment. Compare to the United States government. Not every law becomes an amendment to the constitution. Compare to the GSUSA national conventions. Not every action voted on becomes part of the GSUSA bylaws. ( Blue Book, article VI , part 2)
The first real estate resolution targeted an immediate crisis: irreplacable camps poised to be disposed of without adequate evaluation.
Proposed action: cease and desist from this activity. Criterion spelled out for when the activity can resume.
You just don't put a cease and desist amendment in an organization's bylaws. It wouldn't make sense. It's not a long term policy.
Joan Villareal testified in court that the word "request" in the resolution meant that the delegates were asking "Mother, May I?'" -style, and that the the board's answer was no. This is splitting hairs. We're Girl Scouts. We try to be polite even when we are very serious about something. We even referred to all the letters that were collected as "requesting" a special meeting. But after all the hoops we had jumped through to get there, calling it a "request" was a polite, but clearly understood, fiction. It was a mandate.
Interesting story on the wording of the real estate resolution:
the original wording spelled out that a re-evaluation was required and what it needed to include. But someone came up with an absurd scenario: What if the board agreed to a re-evaluation, but came back 30 minutes later and announced they had re-evaluated and the decision was still the same? It would be an outrageous violation of the spirit of the resolution. But it would be theoretically possible.
So what happened instead? When delegates demanded to know how the board intended to respond, the board chair set up a listening session. And guess what happened there? The board spend a half hour re-evaluating the property plan and decided their decision was still the same! If this had been a sitcom, we'd be laughing.
The resolution: 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. A. There is no such thing as a "non-binding resolution" in the GSNEO code of regualtions ( bylaws) .
If the chair accepted the resolution onto the agenda, and if the resolution was properly seconded and debated, and if the full assembly voted on it, what is it that would classify it as "non-binding" ?
It was not an amendment. Amendments are long term policies. It certainly would have been better if the companion amendment had passed. But it didn't. We acknowledge and accept that fact -although we have some concerns that the delegates may have based their negative votes on Brent Garders scare tactics [see "the 30 million dollar lie" ]
But not every resolution has to be an amendment. Compare to the United States government. Not every law becomes an amendment to the constitution. Compare to the GSUSA national conventions. Not every action voted on becomes part of the GSUSA bylaws. ( Blue Book, article VI , part 2)
The first real estate resolution targeted an immediate crisis: irreplacable camps poised to be disposed of without adequate evaluation.
Proposed action: cease and desist from this activity. Criterion spelled out for when the activity can resume.
You just don't put a cease and desist amendment in an organization's bylaws. It wouldn't make sense. It's not a long term policy.
Joan Villareal testified in court that the word "request" in the resolution meant that the delegates were asking "Mother, May I?'" -style, and that the the board's answer was no. This is splitting hairs. We're Girl Scouts. We try to be polite even when we are very serious about something. We even referred to all the letters that were collected as "requesting" a special meeting. But after all the hoops we had jumped through to get there, calling it a "request" was a polite, but clearly understood, fiction. It was a mandate.
Interesting story on the wording of the real estate resolution:
the original wording spelled out that a re-evaluation was required and what it needed to include. But someone came up with an absurd scenario: What if the board agreed to a re-evaluation, but came back 30 minutes later and announced they had re-evaluated and the decision was still the same? It would be an outrageous violation of the spirit of the resolution. But it would be theoretically possible.
So what happened instead? When delegates demanded to know how the board intended to respond, the board chair set up a listening session. And guess what happened there? The board spend a half hour re-evaluating the property plan and decided their decision was still the same! If this had been a sitcom, we'd be laughing.