2020 NCS: Not Passing Proposal 2 is Our Fail-Safe

The term “fail-safe” became popular during the Cold War when both the Soviets and the United States had tons of nuclear missiles pointed at each other, and you never knew when you might have to run down to a fallout shelter.  There was even a 1964 movie with the same name starring Henry Fonda and Walter Matthau. And a pre-I Dream of Jeannie Larry Hagman! Due to human and computer failure, an American bomber accidentally takes off to drop some nukes on the Commies. There was supposed to be some mechanism in place that shouldn’t have allowed this to happen, but it didn’t engage.  I haven’t seen the movie, but I did see War Games which kinda sounds like the same thing.  How about a nice game of chess?  Anyway, here’s the definition of a fail-safe in case you’re not familiar with it:

So moving from nukes to National Council Sessions, recently the National Board did an about-face when it comes to Proposals 4 (Membership Dues Increase Restriction) & 6 (Lifetime Membership Discount). Here’s its statement:

The National Board is committed to principles of transparent governance, to listening and engaging in dialogue, to honoring our long-term volunteers, and to ensuring the continued affordability of Girl Scouting for all girls who wish to participate. Since the publication of the original Early Alert and Workbook expressing the board’s recommendations on the six proposals on the National Council Session agenda, the board has considered the extensive additional feedback from delegates across the Movement expressed over the course of 21 virtual delegate webinars.

Having considered the additional feedback from delegates received regarding Proposal 4, and acknowledging the impact of dues increases on councils, delegates, girls, and communities, the board voted on September 2 to support the adoption of Proposal 4.

Similarly, having considered the additional feedback regarding Proposal 6, and acknowledging both the cost of lifetime membership and the importance of valuing the Movement’s long-term volunteers who form the basis of the Girl Scout Movement, the National Board also voted to support the adoption of Proposal 6.

The board is committed to working with councils and delegates via Girl Scouts’ democratic process through and beyond NCS to ensure the long-term sustainability and vitality of the Movement.

What does this mean?  Some wonder if this is just a ploy by the National Board & GSUSA to try to gain some popularity in order to ensure that the membership dues proposals (2 through 4) are passed. Or has there has been some sort of shift now that there’s been a changeover in leadership?  While I commend National Board members for listening and taking into consideration the voice of the delegate recently, I can’t help but wonder if this could have been avoided if they had gotten input and feedback from National Delegates last year via the delegate survey instead of only soliciting feedback from CEOs and board chairs at their conference in November 2019 like I mentioned in the Hall & Oates post. This is the perfect example of what happens when you don’t gather input from all sides and you leave parts out of the picture. You know, that democratic process thing that I keep harping about!

I was floored when the National Board originally came out AGAINST Proposal 4 when the Early Alert was released. I thought for sure it was a no-brainer after Farthest North won its case.  But I was wrong.  So is the National Board’s current statement some kind of olive branch? The Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana council wrote Proposal 4 most likely intending it to be some sort of quasi-compromise that could possibly end this 12 year saga.  In case you’re wondering, it was written and submitted to the National Board before the Farthest North ruling came out.   I see some mega-loopholes that could still cause issues due to it being limited to dues increases.

Even in light of this new announcement by the National Board, I’m personally still keeping with my belief that the National Council should have sole authority for my original 7 reasons. However, I can see where the National Board supporting Proposals 4 could sway some delegates to pass it.  Either way, Proposal 2 as written, which would name the National Board specifically in the Constitution as having authority over membership dues, CANNOT PASS, and here’s why.

Voting down Proposal 2 (as written) is our fail-safe.  That means if the National Board gets some authority only via Proposal 4 – even being handcuffed – then there’s still something the National Council can do if the National Board & GSUSA go on a power trip again. But Proposal 2 is a Constitutional amendment. If the National Board gains authority via the Constitution, then game over, and the National Council loses relevancy at that point. However, Proposals 3 and 4 only modify the Credentials section of the Blue Book. What’s the difference?

It goes back to how proposals end up on the agenda for the National Council Session. In Article VI of the GSUSA Constitution, the National Board, in its sole discretion, determines whether a proposal submitted by a council will be placed on a NCS agenda, “except that a proposal submitted by a minimum of 15 percent of all Girl Scout councils holding a charter issued by the National Board of Directors of Girl Scouts of the USA as of September 30 of the year preceding the regular session of the National Council shall be determined by the National Board of Directors to relate to matters which should properly be acted upon by the National Council.” So wait, could a council submit a proposal that could reverse these membership dues authority proposals, and could at least 15% of councils (17) supporting it override the National Board and force it onto a NCS agenda?  Yep.  In fact, that’s how Proposal 4 ended up on the agenda in the first place. Except there’s a problem when it comes to Proposal 2. It’s a Constitutional amendment. And when it comes to proposals that involve Constitutional amendments, the GSUSA constitution states in Article XVII that “the National Board of Directors, in its sole discretion, shall have deemed the proposed amendment appropriate as an amendment.” So there’s no override feature here.  Meaning if Proposal 2 passes, then there’s no way the National Council can reverse that – EVER. Because why would any National Board ever willingly give up power?

So just to review: If ONLY Proposals 3 and/or 4 pass, they could be reversed at some point in the future IF enough councils supported a proposal stating as such and overrode the National Board thereby forcing it onto the NCS agenda.  Councils could even write a proposal naming the National Council as the sole authority over membership dues in the Credentials section if they wished.   But if Proposal 2 passes, it can never be reversed.  Killing off Proposal 2 gives us options in the future if a National Board goes rogue at some point. Aka a fail-safe.

The National Board didn’t mention in its recent statement if it would back down on its claim of authority even if Proposal 2 doesn’t pass, so I’m assuming it still believes this.  Which is yet another reason why we should settle all of this by amending Proposal 2 to state that ONLY the National Council should have authority.  But that’s just my opinion.

But whatever you believe, DO NOT SUPPORT PROPOSAL 2 AS WRITTEN!  Please share this blog post with your delegates if you agree with this message.   It has to travel via grassroots to get to where it needs to go.

I’ve written a whole bunch of stuff about the 2020 NCS recently, so if you’re so inclined, you can read all of them here.