Death Spiral: Governance Edition

Last June, I wrote a post called Death Spiral which discussed signs pointing to a council that could potentially fail – or one that’s already on its way.  The signs included the disintegration of the service unit structure leading to isolation of troops and volunteers.

There is another sign of a failing council, and it’s one that comes from the governance side of things.  It’s the failing of the democratic process.  This unfortunately probably speaks for a great many councils these days, and it isn’t a good sign for the long term health of the Girl Scout Movement. 

So what is the Movement and how does it tie into governance?  It’s been referenced since the beginning of Girl Scouting, and Juliette Gordon Low used the term quite often.  It’s defined in our collection of governance documents called The Blue Book of Basic Documents.  If you go to the GSUSA Constitution located in the Blue Book, the Movement is defined in the Preamble:

BELIEFS & PRINCIPLES OF THE GIRL SCOUT MOVEMENT IN THE USA

We, the members of Girl Scouts of the United States of America, united by a belief in God, hold that the Girl Scout Promise and Law is the cornerstone of our Movement,

And inspired by the Founder of the Girl Scout Movement in the United States, Juliette Low, and by the aims of the Founder of the Scout Movement, Lord Baden-Powell, attest to the following:

MISSION

Girl Scouting builds girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place.

SPIRITUAL FORCE

The motivating force in Girl Scouting is spiritual. The ways in which members identify and fulfill their spiritual beliefs are personal and private.

OPEN MEMBERSHIP

The Girl Scout Movement is open to all girls and adults who accept the Girl Scout Promise and Law and meet membership requirements.

PATRIOTISM, CITIZENSHIP, AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

Local, national, and global service and action are core elements of the Girl Scout experience.

DIVERSITY AND PLURALISM

Girl Scouts advance diversity and pluralism in our Movement and in the communities in which we live.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MOVEMENT AND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

The ultimate responsibility for the Girl Scout Movement rests with its members. We govern by an efficient and effective democratic process that demonstrates our leadership in a fast-changing world.

GIRL/ADULT PARTNERSHIP

Adults partner with girls to guide and inspire growth and achievement. Volunteers are essential to the strength and capacity of our Movement.

WORLD ASSOCIATION OF GIRL GUIDES AND GIRL SCOUTS (WAGGGS)

We are active partners in a worldwide sisterhood through our affiliation with WAGGGS. We work with WAGGGS to address the needs of girls and to build a network of global citizens.

COMMUNITY PARTNERS

We take an active leadership role and are collaborative partners in the community.

VOICE

We are a premier voice for girls and an expert on their growth and development.

Recently I came across two monographs from the late 90s called Governance and Management in Girl Scouting (1997) and Implementing the Democratic Process in Girl Scouting (1999).  These monographs were written by GSUSA and based on a National Task Force report regarding the Democratic Process which was delivered at the 1996 National Council Session.  Your brain might have shut down when you heard the word “monograph,” but just bear with me.  From here out on unless otherwise noted, page numbers and quotes refer to those in Implementing the Democratic Process.

There are three key areas of the core beliefs of the Movement as defined in the Constitution relating to governance:

1. Voluntary leadership: “Volunteers are essential to the strength and capacity of our Movement.”
2. The democratic process: “We govern by an efficient and effective democratic process that demonstrates our leadership in a fast-changing world.” and
3. The responsibility of volunteers: “The ultimate responsibility for the Girl Scout Movement rests with its members.”

The first and third areas are self-explanatory, but what exactly is the democratic process?  “In Girl Scouting the democratic process is defined as the various means of avenues through which the membership can influence decisions and activities in matters of governance (policy) or management (operations), and have access to those responsible for decision-making at the individual, troop/group, service unit, council, or national level.” (pg. 9)

The democratic process has three primary functions (also found on pg. 9):

• Meeting the legal requirements of the council
• Providing effective ways to actively seek input from the membership and encourage the free exchange of concerns, issues, and ideas among all segments of the Girl Scout membership and the community
• Ensuring that decisions affecting the membership are made in ways consistent with and in furtherance of the purpose of the organization

The democratic process has been around since the beginnings of the organization and is an integral part of the program itself.  Girl Led and Cooperative Learning are two key components of the three processes of the Girl Scout Leadership Experience (GSLE), so it would make sense that it would extend itself all the way up to the governance level.

There are two groups that are integral to the democratic process:  decision-influencers and decision-makers.  Decision-influencing is defined “as the process by which the opinions and feelings of a variety of groups are sought and considered by those who will be in a position to make a decision.” (pg. 13)  Decision-influencers can be council delegates, service units, older girls, the council’s nominating committee, board committees/task groups, members of the community, and whoever else that is directly affected by Girl Scouting.  Decision-makers are obviously the ones who make the final decisions – which for governance matters is the board of directors.  Operational (or Management as referred to in Governance and Management in Girl Scouting) decisions are handled by the CEO and council staff.

Throughout Implementing the Democratic Process, it is stressed over and over that decision-makers consult with decision-influencers before making a decision:

“…after listening to volunteers about the pros and cons of the issues involved, the volunteer leadership of the board of directors (at both council and national levels) makes all Girl Scout policy decisions.” (pg. 11)

“The process provides for the solicitation, integration, and thoughtful consideration of all views that are central to the democratic process in Girl Scouting.”  (pg. 13)

“It is essential that governance and management decisions that have potential for broad impact not be made until the decision-makers have actively sought input from outside the decision-making body.” (pg. 14)

“Care should be exercised so that members of various groups, particularly older girls and lifetime members, feel free to participate.  Any issue should be heard, whether it involves an operations matter or a policy concern.” (pg. 25)

“Good two-way communications is critical to the success of any decision-influencing process… [and] is effective only when it works two ways.” (pg. 27)

In Governance and Management in Girl Scouting, this quote is highlighted in a block to stand out from the rest of the text on page 18 because it’s THAT important:

“It is essential that every board member understand and support the concept that the responsibility for making decisions affecting the lives of girls within the council’s jurisdiction is shared with other adult members.  To ensure that adult members have a voice in the governance of the council and fully understand board actions, it is essential that the board of directors carries out its responsibility for referring key issues to the policy-influencing groups it establishes and conveys information in a timely and clear manner. This process creates a membership that feels truly invested in the governance decisions that are made and simultaneously enhances the ability of the board to make more informed decisions.”

Unfortunately, the democratic process has been reduced to lip service or has completely fallen apart and disintegrated in a good number of councils.

What are some specific things being done in councils resulting in a breakdown of the democratic process?

• Little to no delegate orientation or training
• No updates on what the board of directors is doing between annual meetings
• No way to contact board members between annual meetings
• Little to no information given to delegates such as financial documents
• Board members springing major decisions on volunteers such as property sales without discussion or feedback
• No process for how delegates should submit ideas and proposals for consideration at annual meetings
• Council staff interfering with delegate elections or “assigning” volunteers to the delegate position
• No record keeping of delegate terms
• No dedicated Q&A and/or open discussion time during annual meetings
• Closed annual meetings
• Forcing volunteers to sign policies such as social media contracts that have the potential to be abused in order to silence dissenting opinions
• And worst of all, no delegate body

What are the signs that the democratic process is failing?

• The volunteer base having little to no knowledge or understanding of the governance structure and our governance documents
• Difficulty in finding people willing to serve as a delegate
• Lack of understanding about the delegate position and what it involves. They’re told in many cases, “All you have to do is go to one or two meetings a year.”  So the person agrees having no idea and never realizing the importance of the role they’ve just inherited.
• Delegates expressing frustration:  “What’s the point?  They don’t care what we think anyway.”
• Low turnout at delegate meetings.  There could be a couple of reasons for this:
  • The extremely large councils covering wide areas that were formed after the merger have made it hard for delegates to travel hours in some cases to attend an annual meeting for only a short period of time.
  • Frustration due to not being heard leads to delegates not attending meetings because they feel it’s a waste of their time.
  • Uninformed delegates not realizing that attending the annual meeting should be a priority.
• One way communication from the board of the directors to the delegate body.  This results in delegates turning into passive spectators.
• Delegates neglecting their duties and rubberstamping whatever is put in front of them without any consideration or study
• Extreme anger and frustration spilling over when major and unpopular decisions are made by boards such as camp and property sales

Here’s a illustration in a nutshell of exactly what happens when voices are shut down using a personal example.  Once I attended an event billed as something where we were under the belief that we would be able to voice our thoughts and ask questions in addition to receiving training in a particular topic.  The meeting started, and we opened with the training.  As it progressed, some of us would start to give our input and thoughts or bring up something related to what was being presented, but we were immediately shut down by the speaker.  Why, I don’t know.  It could have been from disinterest or lack of time.  Regardless, this happened a couple of times, and eventually, everyone’s body language changed because it was obvious what we wanted to discuss and our opinions weren’t important or relevant to the speaker.  Shoulders slumped, eyes glazed over, and faces dropped.  At one point, the speaker asked a question and sincerely wanted input.  We just stared in silence.  A few looked around, but when they saw that everyone else had either tuned out or grown apathetic, they looked down at the table.  She continued on and stopped again, hoping for input.  We still just sat there.  After the event ended and the speaker left, irritation, frustration, and anger came out from attendees.  Things were said such as, “That’s the last time I come to one of these,” and “I thought we were going to be able to ask questions and get answers.”  It created hard feelings, and it made an impression that carried over until the format of that sort of event was changed to be more inclusive.

There are very dire consequences when decision-influencers are ignored or silenced and the democratic process falls by the wayside:

• A disengaged delegate base cuts off or misrepresents communication to the service units they’re supposed to report to and represent, and in turn, volunteers become isolated and misinformed.
• Volunteers do not become invested in Girl Scouting.  Even if they are a leader for a lengthy amount of time, they do not see the value of continuing to stay in the program past their troop’s life or becoming a lifetime member.  These people are critical to the success of the volunteer base (see original Death Spiral blog post).
• There is a breakdown in trust and communication between the parts of the council – the board of directors, the staff, delegates, and the volunteer base.  These factions severely affect the health of the organization and therefore the girls and communities we are serving.
• When decision-makers sincerely need feedback, they don’t receive it or just get shallow responses leading to poor decisions based on bad information or a lack of knowledge.
• Girls do not get to witness and experience the democratic process.
• Dysfunction, or worse, the death of the council occurs due to poor decisions from an isolated and ineffective board of directors.

All of these result in the Movement not being fulfilled.

How did we go from publishing monographs stressing the democratic process to where we are today in such a short period of time?  Why is this happening?  Power?  Money?  Arrogance?  The Core Business Strategy?

One reason could be due to what GSUSA stresses when it comes to governance.  In GSUSA’s Annual Review, councils are measured by a series of various questions.  However, NONE of them involve the delegation or the democratic process:

5 – Is our board engaged in its governance and resource development?

5.1 Are the board’s fundraising expectations in line with nonprofit best practices?

5.2 Is the board actively meeting fundraising expectations?

5.3 Do our board committees match governance best practices?

5.4 Is board attendance in line with nonprofit best practices?

What kind of message is this sending to councils?  Where’s the part about delegate participation and attendance?  Delegate education and orientation?  What about open questions on how the council fulfills the democratic process and what sort of engagement do they have with their membership?

Councils are also asked, “Are you engaged with the Movement?”  If possible, ask to see your council’s Annual Review Dashboard and see how they answered this question.  If there is no discussion about the parts of the Movement from the GSUSA Constitution or if their answer doesn’t mention the membership, then your council may not understand the context of what The Movement really stands for and what’s important.

All that said, there are some good signs coming down from on high.  GSUSA has stated it wants to engage National Delegates throughout the triennium (the three years between National Council Sessions), and it re-launched the GSUSA National Delegate website.  If you are a National Delegate, you can visit it here.  In it, you can find an email address set up specifically for National Delegates to communicate directly with the National Board.

Perhaps what happened during the 2017 National Council Session with two out of three proposals not passing was a wake-up call. I am attempting to ignore my cynical side that wonders if this is lip service or a way to influence votes for the 2020 NCS.

So what should we do about all of this?  Here are some suggested solutions:

1. GSUSA should modify what questions it asks during the Council Annual Review to include the democratic process and decision-influencing groups.
2. Republish the Implementing the Democratic Process and Governance and Management in Girl Scouting monographs and make them required readings for all council and National Delegates, council and National Board Members, and council and national staff.
3. Discover which councils are having success with the democratic process and use them as examples of what works.
4. Bring back the Leader’s Digest of the Blue Book of Basic Documents.  The last edition was published in 2006, which was about the time things started to fall apart.  Volunteers need exposure to our governing documents.
5. For councils that are large in size, alternative ways of attending and participating in the annual meeting such as electronic meetings should be researched and implemented.
6. Councils should ask their delegates the following questions (found on pg. 28):
   • Is the board of directors consistently seeking guidance from the membership on major issues and policies affecting the total council?
   • What decision-influencing structure that is flexible and meaningful to both the grassroots volunteers and the council board of directors is best for our council?
   • Does the system for electing delegates ensure broad-based participation and representation?
   • Is there a more effective way to implement the concept of representative government in this council?
   • Do delegates understand and carry out their corporate responsibilities?
   • Does the way the council annual meeting is conducted represent a wise investment of human and financial resources?
   • Is the council’s nominating process effective?
7. Periodically review the council’s atmosphere via a survey of the delegates and the board governance committee using this checklist on page 10:
   • Do councils have a truly democratic process as evidenced through the policy-influencing groups and the annual meeting?
   • Are appropriate topics discussed at council annual meetings?
   • Do councils make provisions for adult members to participate in decision-influencing discussions at times other than at the annual council meeting?
   • Do council delegates really know what the critical issues are that can have a positive or negative effect on the future of the council?
   • In discussions and debates, do we have respect for minority opinions? Do all parties have the opportunity to voice their opinions?
   • When a final decision on a major issue is made by the board of directors or executive director, does it reflect the predominant opinion as determined to be in the best interest of the Girl Scout movement in the United States?
8. National Delegates should be asked these questions:
   • Does the national organization provide a variety of ways for councils to communicate their needs and ideas other than at the National Council Session?
   • Is the National Council Session truly democratic in its ways of work?
   • Are National Council delegates well-informed and able to discuss critical policy issues with respect to the future of the Girl Scout movement in the United States?
9. Addendum 9/25/19:  Host a discussion topic about the democratic process during the 2020 National Council Session

In a great many blog posts, I have written about the vast divide separating all levels of our Movement.  As noted above, it’s a consequence of the democratic process failing.  I truly believe at this point, this divide and isolation starts at the top with the governance level and trickles down.  The condescending attitudes from staff and board members (whether local or national) toward volunteers and delegates have to be eliminated.  Respect toward the delegate body and its inclusion has to return.  Volunteers must realize they are also responsible for participating in the decision-influencing process.  Older girls should be educated about the democratic process and their voices have to be heard.  All of this must be fixed in order for the Movement to continue forward at our full potential, especially in this day and age of competition and societal trends.  Otherwise, we will enter a death spiral.

Be sure to read the follow-up to this post called Built-In Civics Education!