In brief, the judge did NOT grant an injunction. GSNEO management IS permitted to sell all the camps.
This report is all from memory so may not be 100% accurate. Whent he court transcripts become available, everything will be on there.
Judge Reinbold first spoke with appreciation for all the girls who came and observed respectfully at any time over the last three sessions.
Next he explained that he would NOT be ruling on the merits of the case itself, only whether or not the plaintiffs (who have the burden of proof) have shown that there is enough reason for him to step in and call a halt on sales BEFORE a trial.
His ruling said basically 3 things:
The legality of the board election in October: He didn't see sufficient proof of any problem. He acknowledged that a jury may see it differently.
The cease & desist resolution: He says there is no legal precedent for something like this in the kind of set up the Girl Scouts have. He felt that given there was a VERY clear majority, the board should have done what the general assembly asked, but there was nothing that legally bound them to do so.
The 50% rule: The sales of the 4 camps in question would not total more than 50% of GSNEO assets.
He appreciated that we all want Girl Scouting to survive, but he said that the 6 plaintiffs are just a small minority, and GSNEO management showed sufficient evidence that keeping all the camps will cause GSNEO "irreparable harm"
My opinion: It is interesting that the court apparantly feels that GSEO is on shakey ground financially. They have always told us they were doing well. not sure what he real story is here. They have never said to us or in any minutes of the board meetings that they HAD to sell the camps because they needed the money. But that is the impression that the judge has. Even so, that does not give the board the right to mis-repersent facts to the membership. The story is NOT consistent. I was also surprised that the judge said the plaintiffs were a minority, given that the only way to tell majority opinion is by the voting process, in which we are in a vast majority.
As it stands right now, there is no effective democracy in GSNEO. If votes only count when the board wants them to, that's not democracy. Since Girl Scouting is about Girl Leadership, lack of democracy is a problem. If the council is in as bad shape as they claim financially, yet they gave the CEO a voluntary bonus in 2010, and have just created a new executive (high-paying position), I question whether we are really qualified to promote financial literacy either. We do not have enough open campsites to accomadate all our members - so clearly , outdoors is no longer a priority, either.
So what's next?
We can take this to a jury trial. The judge expects us to. I would like to , IF we can afford it. I have to double check the numbers, but it would cost possibly another 20 thou. on top of the 20 thou we already owe, and we need to have an idea of what we are going to do soon. Meanwhile, if the council sells the camps anyway, it may not be that easy getting them back. So would it be worth it?
If they sold the land anyway, the main reason to hold trial by jury is to uphold the democratic process in GSNEO The first pass through the court system did not hold the board accountable to the members. So my thought is this: if enough members want to pursue this, you can "vote with your wallet".