The 2020 NCS: Proposals 2 through 4 – I Can’t Go For That (No Can Do)

The 2020 National Council Session (NCS) is coming up later this year, and as expected, authority over membership dues is at the forefront with a total of not one, not two, but THREE proposals about it! And there’s a fourth proposal about lifetime dues as the cherry on top.  This drama has been playing out since 2008, and finally (hopefully!) – it’s being settled where it should have been heard in the first place – and that’s the National Council Session.  When it comes to all of this, I believe it’s especially important to know the background to what’s gone on the past 12 years because there’s more than meets the eye at first glance.  There’s another blog post that goes hand in hand with this one called A Rabbit Hole, a NCS Workbook, and a Membership Dues Timeline Rebuttal, and it’s a response to the timeline GSUSA and the National Board present in the NCS Early Alert (EA) and the NCS Delegate Workbook (WB).  I don’t think it matters which one you read first as long as you read both of them at some point. 

This post is about Proposal 2 (Constitutional Amendment on Membership Dues) and Proposal 3 (Adoption of a Procedure for Communication on Dues Actions by the National Board) – and as collateral damage – Proposal 4 (Membership Dues Increase Restriction).  When it boils down to it, all three of these proposals are about the control of money.  And there’s a lot of it at stake.  A LOT.  As in, GSUSA took in $55.7 million in membership dues  in FY2019. Cha-ching!

Proposal 2 aims to amend the GSUSA Constitution so that both the National Council and the National Board have authority when it comes to membership dues.  I don’t support this.  But I DO support an AMENDED version of Proposal 2 – one in which ONLY the National Council has the authority.  I would like to present seven reasons why I believe this should be the case.  When I originally put this together, I listened to my 80’s playlist and found that Hall & Oates songs fit my reasoning perfectly.  Random?  Yes, but that’s the way I roll.

But before beginning, let’s review who and what the National Council is and why it’s important:

The National Council, according to the GSUSA Constitution, is “the coordinating head of the Movement.”

The GSUSA Constitution also states in its Preamble, “Responsibility for the Movement and the Democratic Process:  The ultimate responsibility for the Girl Scout Movement rests with its members.”

The democratic process in Girl Scouting is “a basic belief of the Girl Scout movement, defined as the various means or avenues through which the membership can influence decisions and activities in matters of governance and management, and have access to those responsible for decision-making.”¹  The National Council, made up of volunteers, older girls, council staff members, council board members, National Board members, National Board Development Committee members, past Presidents of GSUSA, and whomever else the National Council decides it wants, represents the entire membership.  And to fulfill its role as the coordinating head of the Movement per the GSUSA Constitution in Article V/Sessions of the National Council/Responsibilities, the National Council “shall determine the general lines of policy of the Girl Scout Movement and program by considering and acting upon proposals directed toward the fostering and improvement of Girl Scouting, by receiving and acting upon reports of its National Board of Directors, and by giving guidance to the National Board upon general lines of direction of the Movement and program.”

The National Council Session (NCS) is the embodiment of the democratic process in Girl Scouting.  It’s the only sure way the membership can access those who serve on the national level.  We don’t have to hope and depend on someone else inviting us to the table to hear our voice.

“All parts of the Girl Scout organization in the United States, which include the National Council, the National Board of Directors, and Girl Scout councils, are interdependent elements of a total organization. None of these elements are completely autonomous; all of them are dependent upon one another for sustaining their existence. The National Council is the major link binding Girl Scout councils and the national organization together. This relationship forms a solid foundation for collaborative action in the development and delivery of Girl Scouting in the United States, as well as for the involvement of councils in influencing major governance and management decisions made by the national organization.” – Implementing the Democratic Process in Girl Scouting: Combining Our Voices, pg. 32

So to sum it up, the National Council is basically the glue between councils, GSUSA, and the National Board. It’s critical to the success of our organization.  When it’s not a part of the picture, things fall apart.

WHY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL SHOULD BE THE ONE:  YOU MAKE MY DREAMS COME TRUE

1)   Asking the National Council for approval on membership dues ensures that THE MEMBERSHIP is engaged in matters and not just a select few.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the development of membership dues amounts and levels, the National Council hasn’t been a part of the picture since 2008 despite multiple promises.  Here’s how this has happened:

a.   In the 2008 NCS Workbook, the National Board first claimed its authority to raise membership dues even though it had always been handled by the National Council since dues were first implemented in 1915.  More about this can be found in the other blog post about GSUSA’s timeline version.  Regardless, there was a Question & Answer section included in the National Board’s rationale in which promises for collaboration were made:

Question: What can councils expect in regard to communications regarding a potential dues increase?

Answer: Councils can expect to be included in a timely dialogue with the National Board. The National Board will use multiple means, electronic and otherwise, to communicate with councils regarding the financial status of the organization, and  to obtain input from Girl Scout council constituencies before taking any action. A full report would be made to the membership once action is taken well in advance of implementation of any change in the dues structure. 

Question: How would the National Board determine when a dues increase might be necessary?

Answer: The National Board would take prudent action if analysis of long-term financial trends reflects the need to make an adjustment. An increase would be dictated by circumstances, and not by a timetable.  At all times, input would be obtained in a timely way from Girl Scout council constituencies, and the membership would be fully informed throughout the process. 

Then, in the 2011 NCS Workbook (pg. 56), a discussion topic regarding funding was presented. One of the actions listed as already taking place was this item:  “The National Board is contemplating the timing of the next dues increase to take effect with the 2014 membership year beginning October 1, 2013.” However, it wasn’t one of the discussion points to be addressed during the NCS that year, since according to the 2011 Stewardship Report (pg. 24), the decision had already been discussed and made by the National Board.  And soon after that, in January of 2012, the National Board implemented the raise in annual dues from $12 to $15. In January 2016, the National Board voted to raise them yet again from $15 to $25. The 2017 Stewardship Report reported on pg. 46, “To fund our immediate strategic technology investments and program needs, GSUSA’s leadership team recommended to the National Board that we increase membership dues from $15 to $25 per year.” So when it came to both raises, council constituencies (which should include the membership) weren’t consulted as promised in the 2008 NCS Workbook, and this created major fallout that will be covered later.

b.   According to the 2014 NCS Workbook on pg. 36,  “During the 2011–2014 triennium, a task group composed of National Board and council staff members was charged with studying the current dues structure and membership registration processes to assure alignment with membership and program practices and processes.”  At the 2014 NCS, a council representative from this task group promised to include the membership in decisions:

“While authority for the establishment of any future membership or dues categories rests with the National Board of Directors,  recommendations will be developed via a co-creation process with councils and you, the membership, as we together seek to extend the benefits of Girl Scouting to an increasingly diverse communities of girls and families.”  (Early Alert pg. 19, 2020 Workbook pg. 59)

The National Board voted in April of 2017 to create an extended membership level wherein new girls who registered between May 1st and September 30th of a membership year could pay $35, and their membership would start immediately and run through the next membership year.  The next year, the National Board voted to include adults in this level as well.  Was there any involvement of the membership for these extended membership levels?  Some examples were given in the 2014 NCS Workbook (pg. 37), but the membership was not a part of the creation process.  Instead, “Many of these changes were based upon recommendations and feedback from Movement task forces.” (EA pg. 13, WB pg. 53)

c.   It’s claimed in the Early Alert that National Delegates were involved in the 2020 NCS proposal process.  They were – in part.  A NCS Advisory Team was created to provide guidance for the NCS agenda which “include[d] current and former national board members and council board chairs, current and former council CEOs, and two governance interns from the G-Team [a 26-member all-girl team].” (EA pg. 3, WB pg. 47)  The NCS Advisory Team then “surveyed delegates via the Girl Scout delegate official website to seek input on concepts included in the proposals.” (EA pg. 3, WB pg. 47)

However, there are a couple of issues with the last statement specifically when it comes to membership dues.  For a few months after the 2017 NCS, National Delegates for the 2017 term would receive an email announcing updates on the GSUSA National Delegate website encouraging them to log in and read the latest articles.   After a while, updates were made to the website, but the emails stopped.  So nobody knew updates were there unless someone took the initiative to check it on their own, and how many really did that?  The NCS Advisory Team’s survey was published on the delegate website in July 2019, but there was no special invitation to National Delegates to make sure they knew about this survey.  So was this a true representation?  Also – the survey did not include any questions or opportunities to share thoughts regarding membership dues with the exception of the Lifetime Membership dues proposal (Proposal 6) that the National Board ended up not recommending anyway.

Instead, input about membership dues was gathered via a Dues Subgroup of the NCS Advisory Team this way:

“In November 2019, the Dues Subgroup facilitated several Movement-wide leadership discussion sessions on the topic of membership dues at the Girl Scout council CEO and Board Chair conference.  The sessions invited council board chairs and CEOs to discuss their views, concerns, and ideas for approaches to dues setting. 203 Board Chairs and CEOs, representing 104 Girl Scout councils, attended the conference, along with 17 National Board and National Board Development Committee members.”  (EA pg. 14, WB pg. 54)

Sure, there were NCS proposals through the years that were related to membership dues such as the lifetime membership one in 2017, but they were presented because there was language in the Blue Book that only the National Council could modify in order for the National Board and GSUSA to implement what they had planned.  Other than that?  Nope.  The membership’s voice wasn’t a part of the conversation at all.  Now, some could argue that Proposal 2 & 3 are ways to do this, but I have to ask – would they have been presented if there wasn’t a question as to the legality of the situation due to the Alaskan Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Farthest North council for its lawsuit stating that the National Board and GSUSA acted outside of their authority in raising membership dues?  And as in past years, Proposal 2 requires a change to the Constitution – and only the National Council has the authority to do that.

Making the National Council the sole determiner ensures that the membership has a voice when it comes to this important part of our Movement’s direction.  This cannot be done when input is being given and decisions are being made behind closed doors.

2)   The National Council truly understands “the market” because it IS the market.

While everybody hates the use of the “customer” mentality in Girl Scouting, let’s go with it for a second.  Who knows “the market” best?  In other words, who knows what families can afford?  Troop leaders and operational volunteers.  They are the ones who work with and talk directly to families – and they also pay dues themselves!  So why not consult with the ones who know what the market can bear?  National Delegates represent these volunteers, and part of their duty is to engage the council’s membership to hear its point of view.  Leaving this voice out potentially opens our organization up to risky decisions due to missing pieces of the puzzle, which I’ll also cover later.

At the 2019 CEO/Board Chair conference mentioned previously, “a pulse poll was taken to gauge the Movement’s vision of the most important governance and structural considerations for dues setting in our Movement.” (EA pg. 14, WB pg. 54)  And after that, “They [the Dues Subgroup and the NCS Advisory Team] consulted with other councils and some delegates.” So basically, only CEOs and board chairs were surveyed (and a few other people), because apparently, according to GSUSA and the National Board, they represent the Movement.  But are all council board chairs and CEOs fully plugged into the volunteer voice?

3)   Shared authority won’t work.

The National Board states that since the National Council retains the right to act upon a dues proposal during the NCS, it’s okay to have shared authority.

If the National Board has the same authority, are they really going to bother to bring proposals about membership dues to the NCS?  And if the National Council was unhappy with the National Board’s decisions and exercised its right to modify membership dues at a NCS by lowering them after every increase by the National Board, the organization would be caught in a dangerous power struggle.  Shared authority doesn’t make sense.

4)   The National Board making decisions about membership dues doesn’t allow the National Council to fulfill its directed role.

The Constitution states that the National Council carries out its duties (emphasis added) “by considering and acting upon proposals directed toward the fostering and improvement of Girl Scouting, by receiving and acting upon reports of its National Board of Directors, and by giving guidance to the National Board upon general lines of direction of the Movement and program.”

If you look back at NCS Workbooks before 2008, reports were included with membership dues proposals that detailed past, current, and future financial positions, what the money would be used for, and a rationale as to why dues should be raised.  Here’s one from the 2002 NCS Workbook as an example.  Anyone, not just National Delegates, can download a NCS Workbook and read it.  National Delegates can also share these reports with whom they represent.  After doing so, volunteers and older girls can discuss their concerns and opinions with their National Delegates, who bring this voice to the National Council.  National Delegates, representing the membership, then have the opportunity to directly ask questions of GSUSA and the National Board in person. Not allowing the National Council to take action and instead just receive reports as both Proposals 2 & 3 offer turns the National Council into a passive spectator which flies in the face of its purpose.  And the democratic process, for that matter.

5)   The National Council controlling membership dues puts GSUSA on a budget, acts as a check & balance, and holds them accountable.

What’s GSUSA doing with $55.7 million in membership dues and are they using it wisely? Are we getting the best bang for our buck?

We were told the reason for the 2017 raise from $15 to $25 was due to the IT system we’re implementing across the Movement. This system consists of the Customer Engagement Initiative (CEI) platform, Volunteer Toolkit, and Digital Cookie among other things.  Development of this system cost $32.5 million from FY2014 to FY2017  and continues to be a major expense.  But is it only paid for by membership dues?  Nope.  To offset this enormous cost, councils are additionally charged large amounts yearly for use of a system they are forced to use due to their charters.²  For FY2019, GSUSA took in $5.8 million from councils for the use of the CEI platform.³  And the vast majority of councils use product sales to pay for operations, of which CEI is included.  And we all know who brings in product sales, right?  Is GSUSA doing its due diligence with the IT contractors and vendors and holding them accountable, or is it letting them slide by with things such as numerous bugs in the Volunteer Toolkit that should be fixed before being released?  Are we negotiating the best rate?  If the National Board has the freedom to raise dues as much as it wants, there would be no incentive to keep spending in check and making sure every dollar is spent wisely. Every other company and organization has to stay within its budget – and so should GSUSA.  This is a way to achieve this.

It could be argued that GSUSA would just create revenue in other areas such as raising insignia and uniform costs or charging councils more for CEI services in lieu of higher membership dues, but as it stands now, there’s no accountability in place anywhere.  Also, a raise in membership dues hits everyone – including low-income families.  Membership dues are required, so if you want to be a Girl Scout, you have no choice but to pay it.  At the very least, this would somewhat protect those who could least afford it.

6)   There’s no need to “establish a procedure” or issue promises when it comes to membership dues – because there’s already one in place.

Proposal 3 claims to set up a procedure for these reports (after a decision is made), but here are my issues with it:

a.  It’s too generic and general.  It doesn’t specify what exactly will be sent.  Just a “report.”  A “report” could be a one paragraph summary.

b.  Proposal 3 states that GSUSA will communicate and seek input from “local Girl Scout councils and National Council delegates,” but it has a history of creating hand-picked task groups for input as what’s been done for the past 12 years – and just like what was done for Proposals 2 and 3, for that matter.  Technically, using a task group for input will fulfill what‘s promised.  The wording is not specific enough, and it doesn’t say how many councils and National Delegates will be involved. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

c.  Proposal 3 promises that GSUSA will communicate with National Delegates after action is taken, but how?  Will they send out a direct mailing, or publish it on the delegate website with or without an announcement, or will they leave it up to councils to let their National Delegates know?  Many councils don’t engage their National Delegates after the NCS ends.  This procedure doesn’t ensure that the report will get to who it needs to go to.

d.  Input could be gathered, but there’s no real way to know if what’s being collected will necessarily be taken into account.  It could just be lip service.  Proposal D can’t ensure that two-way communication is happening because it’s not possible to know if the other side is really listening.

e.  There’s no way to hold the National Board and GSUSA accountable in the future if they don’t follow through, whether it’s because what they’re sending out isn’t satisfactory or they don’t do it at all.

And as mentioned before, detailed reports were already included in past NCS Workbooks when proposals to raise membership dues were presented to the National Council.  The best “procedure” is to bring a proposal to the NCS as our governance structure mandates and publish the report in the NCS Workbook for everybody to see.

7)   Using the democratic process via the National Council ensures that the best decision for Girl Scouting is made.

The National Board does act as stewards between sessions of the NCS, but they state “this stewardship should enable the board to be nimble, especially when it comes to critical issues like finances….” (EA pg. 12, WB pg. 52)  Using the word “nimble” insinuates that it has to be done quickly.

Past decisions that weren’t run by the membership have caused major fallout.  As mentioned before, the National Board raised dues from $12 to $15 in 2012 and then again in 2016 from $15 to $25.  This last increase was not well received, and according to the rationale in Proposal 4, it “posed a severe hardship for the councils.”  Councils dealt with angry volunteers and parents, and in some cases, had to cover the large financial burden of the 67% increase using their own funds for membership assistance.  Additionally, the Farthest North council filed (and won) a lawsuit against GSUSA stating it acted out of turn when it raised dues both times. Even GSUSA and the National Board (sort of) reluctantly admitted they didn’t do their homework:

“At the same time, not all parties were happy with the $25 dues increase. Some have expressed that there was insufficient collaboration in advance of the increase, given the understanding articulated in 2008 that implementation of dues increases would be done in consultation with and input from councils… Some voiced that a more collaborative communication, education, and evaluation process with councils in conjunction with this dues increase would have been beneficial.“ (EA pgs. 13-14, WB pg. 53)

As mentioned previously, the National Board voted in April of 2017 to create a $35 extended membership level for girls.  There’s no reason why this new level couldn’t have come before the National Council at the 2017 NCS that October.  It wasn’t rolled out until May 1, 2018 which would have left plenty of time for adoption following the NCS.  But right before the rollout, the National Board voted in April of 2018 to expand the extended membership level to include adults.  No mention of this addition occurred at the 2017 NCS either.  In fact, if this membership level had been a proposal at the 2017 NCS, it’s very possible that after careful study and discussion, it would have been realized that adults should be included as well as girls.  Instead, the National Board rushed through two decisions in a year’s time when one could have been taken care of by the National Council.

The National Board also claims waiting to raise dues every six years isn’t practical, but who says it has to be a six year period?  National Council Sessions are held every three years, plus increases could certainly be passed but not implemented until the fourth or fifth year.  Does GSUSA really need the ability to increase dues every one or two years?  Can finances not be managed and forecast within a span of three years?  The National Council hasn’t denied a proposal requesting an increase in dues since 1955, so it’s not as if there’s been a lack of support anytime in the recent past.

Making a quick decision might sound efficient, but if dues are raised past the point of what “the market” can bear, the consequences will be catastrophic.  There is no recourse.  The amount of dues potentially affects our membership numbers and puts financial pressure on councils, many of whom are already stretched thin, so it’s imperative that considerable thought and input are put into decisions involving dues before raising the amount or creating new levels.  Our numbers are at a critical point due to competition from other activities and organizations, and we cannot afford to make mistakes.  The key to avoiding these mistakes is making sure the National Council’s voice is part of the membership dues conversation as it once was throughout Girl Scouting’s history, and that must be done by bringing all membership dues proposals to the NCS for discussion and a vote.

While it’s true that the democratic process slows down the decision-making process, it results in successful decisions.  It ensures all points of views are heard and taken into account thoughtfully and thoroughly instead of making decisions in vacuums or based on assumptions.   National Delegates are advised to be “informed but not instructed,” and in addition to gathering input from local council membership, listening to all sides, and weighing the pros and cons of each, a delegate ultimately should be making decisions that serve the best for Girl Scouting. This can only happen within the National Council at a National Council Session.

IN SUMMARY

If you vote for these proposals as written, you are leaving decisions about membership dues in the hands of only twenty-five people and a handful of others who may or may not consult with some council CEOs and board chairs and maybe a few National Delegates (who technically could be some of the same CEOs and board chairs) who may or may not know their membership, and something that could be called a “report” may or may not be sent out to a select few, or maybe more than that, who may or may not share this information with their membership.  Also, if the National Board has control, then you can’t complain the next time dues are raised whether it’s by a few dollars or doubled.

To settle this once and for all, during discussion of Proposal 2, a Motion to Amend should be made to strike the following text noted in red:

Article IX (Membership Dues) of the GSUSA Constitution:

Every person accepting the principles of the Girl Scout Movement and desiring to be a member of the Girl Scout Movement in the United States of America shall pay annual, lifetime, or other applicable membership dues to Girl Scouts of the United States of America. Dues are only set by the National Council or the National Board.

The National Board shall implement procedures for communicating with and seeking input from Girl Scout councils and National Council delegates prior to any membership dues change by the National Board.

The Motion to Amend itself will need to be approved with a majority vote.  If it passes, the proposal at that point would read as it does above (without the text in red).  Then, the amended proposal would be voted on.  It will need a 2/3rd majority in order to pass.  If this amended proposal passes, per parliamentary procedure, the chair running the session should then drop Proposals 3 & 4 since they would no longer apply.

If for some reason, the Motion to Amend does NOT pass and instead, the original proposal (as written naming both the National Council and National Board) is what is voted on, then vote NO.  But even if Proposal 2 doesn’t pass, don’t be surprised if Proposals 3 and 4 still come to a vote.  Even though not passing Proposal 2 as written SHOULD make the statement that the National Council doesn’t support the National Board having authority, then just to make it clear, someone should make a Motion to drop Proposals 3 & 4 from the agenda.*  This motion would only need a majority vote to pass.  If that doesn’t happen, then also vote NO for Proposals 3 & 4.

If you agree with this position and its points, I encourage you to bring them up at a Town Hall or forward this post to your council’s National Delegates. And please additionally share as you see fit, because that’s the only way it’s going to get out there!  Thanks for reading!

* Apparently the National Board & GSUSA will not recognize that NOT passing Proposal 2 as written is a statement that the National Council doesn’t want the National Board to have authority.

P.S. And don’t forget to check out the timeline rebuttal!  It’s important to know the whole story!

P.S.S. Did you know there is a Hall & Oates Emergency Hotline?  Yes, it’s true, and it does work!

P.S.S.S. If you decide to re-read this, here’s a playlist for you!

¹ Implementing the Democratic Process in Girl Scouting: Combining Our Voices, pg.9

² Blue Book of Basic Documents – Standards & Criteria for an Effective Girl Scout Council/Criterion II: Governance and Administration/Standard 7:  “The council utilizes a movement-wide common technology platform with respect to membership, volunteer management, delivery systems and data analytics and reporting to better serve Girl Scout volunteers and members and enhance the Girl Scout brand.”

³ FY2019 Audit, pg. 4: Operating Revenues/Software Maintenance