2011 Jan 11 Property Committee Minutes

These minutes show a complete disconnect between what the members want and the conclusions drawn by Brent Gardner of the board property committee .

  • Gardner told the rest of the property committee that “phase I of Vision 2012 demonstrated that we need a new type of facility to serve the girls’ needs for the future. “    Impressive-sounding;  but completely fabricated.   There was nothing in the Vision 2012 report that suggested girls wanted a different type of facility.   In fact, the opposite was true: the report concluded that our camps are the “jewels in our Girl Scout crown”.   Mr. Gardner goes on to claim that “ the word ‘camping’ is a hindrance to some girls and funders”.   Nowhere in the membership survey was this ever mentioned.  One has to wonder which girls and funders Mr. Gardner is referring to here and why they seem to be taking precedence over the majority of our current girls and funders.  
  • science, technology, math, and business development are mentioned as the new focus-  even though in the property survey,  GSNEO members listed campfires, outdoor cooking, horseback riding,  swimming, boating, arts & crafts as the top-rated activities.
  • “we realize these facilities need to no longer stay  focused on just camping”.  This presumes that the camps have only ever been used to teach outdoor skills.  The reality is that the camps have been used to support a wide variety of programs, including science and technology.
  •  he subsidy that the council provides to the camps that is not covered by usage fees is just under $1 million.  The implication is that the camps are a loss or drain on the council budget.  The reality is that the council itself is heavily subsidized by the membership.  GSNEO has a yearly overall operating budget of about $11 million.  Roughly 75% of that comes from the girls selling products to benefit the council.    Less than 10% is being used to support camping - the most popular and iconic activity for the girls.