2017 National Council Session Wrap Up: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I walked in the door from the 2017 National Council Session and Convention a little after midnight Sunday night, and it will probably take me a number of days to recover.  Things are still a blur.  Plus I’m old.  😉

At first, I had planned on combining both my convention and session experience in one post, but I realized they each need to stand alone.  I was also going to let a week or so pass in order to let things settle in my mind.  However, I believe I need to at the very least get the business out the way first so that my recollections are as fresh as possible.  Feel free in the comment section to add to this commentary or correct any mistakes you come across. 

A few thoughts before I begin – I’m presenting the facts and also my personal take on the events of the National Council Session.  As I’ve stated before, I became a national delegate alternate late in the game, and due to a turn of events, I was bumped up to a delegate status after lunch on Thursday.  It is my hope with all of my blog posts that I come across as rational and somewhat diplomatic, especially on a national level.  I realize I walk a fine line because of my being a national council delegate/alternate.  My blog in no way represents my council delegation’s opinions or decisions, and they should not be taken as such.  That said, I sincerely hope I do not cause anyone embarrassment or trouble because it is not my intention to do so.  If anything, I hope my blog can open dialogue on both sides because it is sorely needed if our organization is going to move forward.

National Council Session, October 4th – 7th, 2017 (Columbus, OH)

I am mostly going to cover the proposal voting and results including the motions with the exception of the results of the Call For the Questions.  I wish I had included those now, so if you have them, let me know.  If you need a refresher as to what each proposal entailed and to read the National Board’s rationale, you can find them in this document: GSUSA 2017 Workbook. I also plan on updating the recap of proposals since 2008 post with a summary of the voting.  I’m not including anything from the Stewardship Report.

MORNING SESSION:
Note – main motions like a vote on the proposal itself that modifies a constitution or bylaws require a two-thirds majority vote.  Subsidiary motions such as “move to amend” only require a majority.

A motion was made to reorder the agenda to hear Proposal 2 before Proposal 1.  This passed.  I didn’t catch the number of votes or percentages.

PROPOSAL 2 – Establish the National Board Development Committee As a Committee of the National Board of Directors:

• Proposal 2, Part A:  To amend the Girl Scouts of the USA Constitution, Article XII, National Board Development Committee, Nominations, and Elections.
  • Voting results:  476 (46.4%) FOR vs. 550 (53.6%) AGAINST
  • Action taken:  DEFEATED
• Proposal 2, Part B through H:  These parts would have amended other parts and sections of the Constitution and Bylaws to reflect changes from Part A
  • Action taken:  NOT CONSIDERED BECAUSE PART A DID NOT PASS 

PROPOSAL 1 – Reducing the Size of the National Board:
To amend Article X, Section 2 of the Constitution of Girl Scouts of the USA by striking the number “25” and inserting the number “15.”

• Motion to amend the number from 15 to 21. 
  • Voting results:  521 (50.7%) FOR vs. 507 (49.3%) AGAINST
  • Action taken:  PASSED
• Motion to Postpone Indefinitely (would have stopped this proposal from being voted on and wouldn’t have allowed it to be brought back up during the current session.  Here’s a more in-depth explanation)
  • Voting results:  281 ?? (26.9%) FOR vs. 764 (73.1%) AGAINST
  • Action taken:  DEFEATED
    
• Motion to Reconsider (reset the amended number from 21 back to the original number of 15)
  • Voting results:  521 (50.7%) FOR vs. 507 (49.3%) AGAINST
  • Action taken:  PASSED
    
• Voting results (original number of 15): 537 (51.7%) FOR vs. 501 (48.3%) AGAINST
  
• Action taken:  DEFEATED
  

AFTERNOON SESSION:

Discussion on the topic “Engaging More Girls: What does Girl Scouts need to do to reach more girls and increase impact?” occurred.

Board of Directors vote:  Gayle Garrigues was nominated from the floor.  The original slate passed.  Here are the results of the vote.

Before proposal 3 was heard, there was a motion to reconsider the vote on Proposal 1:

• Voting results: 278 (29.4%) FOR VS. 667 (70.6%) AGAINST
• Action taken: DEFEATED
  

PROPOSAL 3 – Lifetime Membership Dues*:

• Motion to Postpone debate and vote to Friday morning
  • Voting results:  116 (11.5%) FOR vs. 895 (88.5%) AGAINST
  • Action taken:  DEFEATED
• Proposal 3, Part A: To amend provisions in the Credentials/Certificate of Membership/Membership Requirements/Lifetime Membership section by striking language.
  • Voting results: 937 (92.6%) FOR vs. 75 (7.4%) AGAINST
  • Action taken:  PASSED
• Proposal 3, Part B: To amend provisions in the Credentials/Membership Dues and Procedures for Registration/Lifetime Members section to reflect $400 rather than 25x multiplier.
  • Voting results: 941 (93.4%) FOR vs. 67 (6.6%) AGAINST
  • Action taken:  PASSED
• Proposal 3, Part C:  To amend provisions in the Credentials/Membership Dues and Procedures for Registration/Lifetime Members section by adding a $200 level for those under 30 who were alumnae.
  • Motion to amend to restrict $200 level to those between high school graduation and age 22
    • Voting results:  72 (7.2%) FOR vs. 924 (92.8%) AGAINST
    • Action taken:  DEFEATED
  • Voting results:  952 (94.3%) FOR vs. 58 (5.7%) AGAINST
  • Action taken:  PASSED

*Please contribute and/or correct me if I did not get the order right.  This part of the session became so chaotic at times that it was hard to follow.

Now my personal take on the Session.  Whew.  I am still processing it.  Since this was my first experience, I spoke with a few people that had been to multiple sessions to ask them how this one compared to past ones and got a mixed bag of responses.

THE GOOD

I thought the morning went well during the voting.  I felt like there was a lot of tension in the air, but overall, National Board member Sharon Matthews did a good job keeping things under control and even keel.  Her dry sense of humor eased some of the tension, and props to the cameraman who caught a few of her deadpan facial expressions which caused a few laughs.

THE BAD

This isn’t really a “bad” thing per se, but I wasn’t sure where to include it.  I missed about half of the discussion topic due to swapping out my credentials, so I can’t really speak to what was discussed as a whole.  Based on what I heard, there were several comments about low income/disadvantaged girls and opening up more opportunities for them and volunteer support.  A few brought up the increase in dues.  If someone took notes, I’d love to read them.

I also wish we could have gotten the Stewardship Report at least the week before the meeting in order to have more time to read it.  Perhaps it could be available as a download on the GSUSA website if it’s not already.  Addendum 10/11/17:  It looks like it was uploaded to the delegate website sometime in September.  Here’s a copy of it:  GSUSA 2017 Stewardship Report

THE UGLY

Where to begin?  Everything after the board vote in the afternoon was not just ugly, but fugly.  At the height of the chaos, I turned to our council’s board chair (who was probably just happy I was not standing at a microphone) and said how disappointing and embarrassing this was for our entire organization.

Before this all started, someone made a motion to postpone Proposal 3’s discussion and vote to Friday morning because we were already running late.  Someone on the board stated our schedule was too busy on Friday morning and the only way we could fit it in would mean starting at 7am.  That answer left a bad taste in my mouth because I felt like it caused a bias toward voting down the motion.  Sorry, but if there’s a choice between either rushing through a proposal or running late during a production number (even if it is Vivienna – love her!), then obviously taking our time for a proposal is more important.

I think the motion to end discussion for Part A happened WAY too soon and this was evident due to the high number of questions that were asked during Part B and Part C discussions.  I have to wonder why some council delegates were in such a hurry to get this proposal over and done with.  I realize we were running late due to how long it took to vote on board members (30 minutes), but it looked to me as if delegates were immediately getting in line to make a motion to end debate.

There was confusion about what we were actually voting on at times.  Was it a Call For the Question?  Or a Motion to Amend?  Or the vote on the original proposal language?  I hate to throw anyone under the bus, but whichever board member was running the show was ineffective and indecisive.   No direction was given.  Even the parliamentarian looked confused at times.  Responses to questions asked of the panel were unclear which caused delegates to ask for further clarification.  This is just my personal opinion, but I was really taken aback by Steven Gilliland’s bad analogy of Apple and how the stockholders don’t set the prices.  I was not the only one with this opinion due to the reaction it caused.  For what it’s worth, there shouldn’t be an analogy in the first place because the Constitution of our organization determines who sets “the prices” (hint:  not the National Board).

I also do not understand why a motion to reconsider the vote for Proposal 3/ Part A was ruled out of order when a perfectly valid reason of “confusion due to the panel’s answers later in the session” was given, but yet a motion to reconsider Proposal 1 after the break with just a vague “more debate is needed” was acceptable.

You could hear the room begin to get restless as time passed, and at one point someone actually said something to the effect of “We just want to get to dinner” over the microphone.  Really?  I was under the impression that it was the board member running the session, but please correct me if I’m wrong.  Regardless of who it was – wow.  If you’re THAT hungry, then go get something to eat and don’t vote or get someone else to run the session.  I’d rather you not vote than to say something so unprofessional to the entire delegate body.  I also heard someone say very loudly we needed to get this over with because the girl delegates had a long day.  Again, really?  You’re using the girls as an excuse because you’re impatient?  You’re not a delegate to go have dinner and be entertained.  You’re there to hash out issues and vote on them even if that means your dinner plans are inconvenienced.  Go eat a Snickers.

I sat next to one of the microphones, and there was chaos in that line as well.  It’s too bad there isn’t a motion to call shenanigans because I sure would have done it.  Maybe that can be added to the 12th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order.

And then Gayle Garrigues lost her cool at the microphone due to frustration from not being heard while attempting to get someone’s attention and being sent to multiple microphones.  Her microphone was cut off while she was speaking.  Awkward.

Now before anyone writes my opinion of “The Bad” off as sour grapes, I’d like to state for the record that I actually supported Proposal 3 and voted in favor of it.  I did NOT agree with the National Board’s rationale when it came to its claim of authority (as I explained in this blog post), but I consider the matter of authorization a separate issue from the amount of lifetime membership dues, which was what Proposal 3 was about.  But note that approval of Proposal 3 does NOT give the National Board the authorization to now modify lifetime membership dues as it sees fit due to the same reason it does not have the authority to raise annual dues regardless of its rationale in the workbook and during the session itself.  And what is that rationale, Amy?  Well I’m glad you asked.  I realize this sounds confrontational, but just because someone in leadership says something, that doesn’t mean it’s true.  If the National Board told you to go jump off a cliff, would you?  And don’t worry – this will set the stage for 2020.

All that said, I personally felt like both the National Council and the National Board left the session bloodied and bruised.  There is a deep distrust between many of the council delegates and the National Board (and GSUSA, for that matter) for a variety of reasons, and it has to be bridged if our organization stands a chance of surviving.  I think it will take crossing the aisle on both sides if this is to be solved.

I’m sure some might accuse me of speaking out of both sides of my mouth when I talk about reconciliation because many of my posts, especially the ones about membership dues, are seen by some as stirring the pot.  But I hope that everyone realizes I am not writing about this subject to rile everybody up but to bring to light what I see as extremely critical issues that are affecting the health of our organization.   Turning a blind eye out of loyalty or naivety will not fix anything.  It’s just ignoring it until it festers – and I believe we’ve gotten to that point as evidenced by this last session.

It is my hope that all people involved – delegates, GSUSA, and the National Board – can swallow their pride and drop whatever is blocking reconciliation.  Until trust between these three areas can be restored, we will not be successful in any of our common goals which are all focused on creating a strong foundation to support girls and young women.

All in all, attending my first session was eye opening.  It was truly a learning experience.  I’m looking forward to 2020! I’ll be following up this post with my fun experience with the rest of the convention!