Reevaluating Dated Council Property Plans
Opinions 2 Comments 
camping, camps, councils, gsusa, money, outdoors
Echo Reardanz, a member of the Central Maryland council, recently shared her thoughts about the recent news from Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana regarding their Long Range Property Plan involving camp sales. She posted this message in various Facebook groups, and I also received permission to share it here as well.
In 2009 Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana (GSGCNWI) started their Long Range Property plan and announced phase one in 2011 ….. Please note this is also the same time that GSUSA revamped all their badges, introduced Journeys. It was when GS programming moved significantly away from any outdoor focus. It was only in 2014 when at the GSUSA National Convention in Utah that GSUSA members demanded an outdoor journey and then the subsequent Girls choice badges where girl membership voted on outdoor badges (over other choices) that the realization started to slowly dawn on GSUSA that girls need and want the outdoors. In 2017 GSUSA launched the option of an outdoor journey at each level. This past summer GSUSA partnered with North Face to launch new outdoor high adventure badges. GSUSA now has 4 program pillars one of which is “outdoors.” GSUSA in its 116th Congress legislative agenda document stated that “in 2019 Girl Scouts will expand its historic Mariner and Trailblazer troops across the country. By participating in these specialized troops, girls seeking wilderness and nautical adventures will develop their technical skills in fun and unique ways.”
So a long range property plan put into motion 10 or so years ago when GSUSA and by default all councils to include GSGCNWI decided that the outdoors was not “important” probably has some pretty big flaws when looked at against the backdrop of GSUSA programming of 2019. There is a strong movement back to realizing the critically of getting youth outside as well as a demand from Girl Scouts to be outdoors.
If GSGCNWI sells camps where will this new and expanding GS outdoor programming happen? National, State, and local parks are becoming increasingly popular and thus crowded (some filling up on beautiful days and having to limit attendance) – Once sold the property will be lost forever. Now is the time to think outside of the box and partner with members (both girls and adults) and the community to find new ways to fund councils and camp upkeep, maintenance, and development. If GS councils’ only way to fund repairs to some camps is to sell other camps …. this is not sustainable, or fiscally prudent from an organization that purports to teach girls financial literacy. What happens when GS councils run out of camps to sell? How will councils support themselves when there is no property left to sell?
Now is the time to stop the sale of valuable member assets (i.e. camps) that once sold can never be regained and look to find new ways to fund the GS infrastructure needed to keep GS a strong and vibrant organization. Way back when, girls sold cookies to buy and then fund new tents, glen shelter, buildings and features (like pools) at camps – Now we are told that camps need to be “money earning – self sustaining” (not funded by girls product sales) and instead girls’ product (cookies and nuts/mag) profits are used to mainly to fund staff salaries, pension funds, urban offices, and software such as Volunteer ToolKit, sales force, GSlearn, CEI, etc …. It is time for this to change.
I agree with this article, once you sell a significant asset you can never get it back. I have seen this in my now merged Council. Most of our girls were within 45 minutes from one of our Council owned camps. Because more of our membership is in the eastern side of the new Council, there western camps were sold. They didn’t get enough use to be viable. Well when girls can drive within 1/2 hour to camp why keep the camps that they have to drive 1-1 1/2 hours to camp or do primitive camp. Now at least 1/3 of the Council needs to drive 1 hour to the nearest camp (if available). Most of the camps are more like 2-2 1/2 hours to our camps. Many troops use other camping sites now. It mays me that GSUSA made many Councils merge and in the process sell off camps and land that was viable but isn’t because the majority of the merged Council doesn’t use them enough. (But the troops don’t want to drive 1-1 1/2 hours to go camping, when we can drive less than 1 hour to OUR camp.) Someone always loses in this type of venture. WE ARE NOT A BUSINESS, we are here to help girls learn how to live and love the world around them. BUT NATIONAL HAS MADE US BUSINESS OF TELLING GIRLS AND ADULTS WHAT GIRL SCOUTS WILL BE. LIKE IT OR NOT. You can sell your products to pay for our salaries, pensions, computer programs and program ideas. REALLY, this is not the organization I joined many decades ago. Why ruin what has worked for so many for so long.
I am not a regular visitor to this page and just happened upon this discussion. I served as the senior-most volunteer officer of another large metropolitan Chicago youth service organization and know the territory and issues well. If we Chicago people were smart, we would welcome program activities at each other’s facilities while respecting the unique program requirements of each group. Camps are expensive to purchase, operate and maintain — and our volunteer executive boards are not typically equipped to fund and operate small “park systems”.
The youth servicing community in Chicagoland generally understands that GSUSA reduced emphasizing outdoor programming a number of years back. Perhaps it is to be expected that demand for camp use would diminish when the importance of sharing GSUSA program in an outdoor setting was downplayed. I congratulate those who have re-emphasized the value of the outdoors as a place where girls can grow in confidence as they master their lives in a setting that is simultaneously inspiring and challenging. After all, when a girl has the confidence and bravery to find her way along a darkened camp pathway, she is building a confidence and character that will serve her well when exploring her future.
When camp utilization is significantly reduced, there are not many options for responsible organization leaders other than to right-size property ownership. The cost to retain and operate a severely underutilized property can be catastrophic and overwhelm volunteer organization resources. But there are good solutions. My prediction is that in ten years the smart Chicagoland youth servicing organizations will have developed a sharing arrangement and will have probably reduced the overall quantity and cost of facilities — while significantly increasing usage and upgrading physical plants of the remaining properties. That’s how we do things best in our metropolitan area. Residents here have long cooperated to achieve big, significant things. We recognize and respect strong leadership that is skilled at balancing organization needs. Maybe that is what we need here.
If the GSUSA in Chicagoland has the wealth and operating person-power it needs to go it all alone with its properties, great. However, over the longer run youth service organizations could probably do better by pooling resources and efforts. We do best as youth service leaders when we make decisions by focusing on what is best for the current and future children in our programs. Finest wishes to all who care so much about advancing the prospects of young women in our area.