Lawsuits and NCS Proposals Join Forces

I haven’t written all that much about the Middle Tennessee lawsuit other than one post last year and then a blurb back in March. From what I can tell, attorneys are still playing ping pong, and discovery is ongoing. I read online somewhere that the case would be heard in 2023, but I can’t find that reference now.

But recently, the Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana council submitted a proposal for consideration for the 2023 National Council Session agenda, and it’s related to the Middle Tennessee case. It involves an amendment to the GSUSA Constitution and the Credentials section in the Blue Book of Basic Documents.

If you’re unaware of what the Middle Tennessee case is all about, you can review my post from last year (highly suggested), or if you don’t feel like clicking through, here’s a brief summary. GSUSA began developing an IT platform originally called the Customer Engagement Initiative (CEI) back in 2014, and its purpose was to put all councils under the same IT umbrella. It was renamed Volunteer Systems 2.0 (VS 2.0) starting in 2020. I use the names interchangeably here depending on the time period I’m referring to. The thing is, CEI was never a good IT platform, and it can be argued that it’s gotten worse as the years passed and upgrades were implemented. It’s been fraught with bugs from the very beginning and is anything but helpful, and in some cases, it’s hurt councils like with last year’s major member registration issues. Claiming it’s operational might even be stretching it at times. Not to mention, councils have to pay large sums for licenses. So you might be thinking – why on earth would anyone use this platform?

Well, councils have to, under threat of their charter being revoked. In 2017, the National Board added a Standard 7 to Criteria and Standards for an Effective Girl Scout Council/Criterion II: Governance and Administration in the Blue Book which, in its view, mandates councils to use CEI:

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.

Last year, GSUSA notified Middle Tennessee that its charter would be pulled due to not using VS 2.0. In return, Middle Tennessee filed a lawsuit. Middle Tennessee refuses to onboard for a variety of reasons with one being that GSUSA has no place to threaten councils because the use of VS 2.0 is NOT a charter requirement and has never been established by the National Council as such. The National Council – not the National Board – sets charter requirements per Article VIII/Credentials in the GSUSA Constitution:

1.     The National Council shall establish requirements for certificates of membership, local council charters, and all other credentials.

So what can the National Board do? Let’s check in the same place in Article VIII/Credentials:

2. The National Board of Directors shall administer the requirements for the credentials established by the National Council, and may establish standards and issue standards, procedures, and interpretations regarding such requirements provided such standards, procedures, and interpretations are consistent with the requirements established by the National Council.

The use of a common IT platform isn’t listed under Requirements for a Girl Scout Council Charter in the Credentials section (pg. 24). The National Board can administer credentials and establish and issue standards, but it can’t establish requirements. Gosh, all this talk about who has the authority to establish what sure does sound like what that whole membership dues and Farthest North council thing was about, doesn’t it? Hmm.

Middle Tennessee also states that the use of CEI/VS 2.0 puts a burden on the council’s operations for a variety of reasons with one being the outrageous technology contract councils have to sign.

So back to the proposal from the Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana council titled “Constitutional Amendment on Credentials and Amendment to Credentials Section.” Here’s the proposal itself. Part A wants to add the wording in bold to the same place I quote above (Article VIII/Credentials in the Constitution):

2.     The National Board of Directors shall administer the requirements for the credentials established by the National Council, and may establish standards and issue standards, procedures, and interpretations regarding such requirements provided such standards, procedures, and interpretations are consistent with the requirements established by the National Council. If the National Board of Directors adopts criteria and standards for local councils that exceed the scope of requirements established by the National Council, then such criteria and standards may serve as guidance, but shall not be enforceable requirements for certificates of membership, local council charters, or other credentials.

The proposal also aims to amend the Credentials section on pg. 25 of the Blue Book by adding the wording in bold (Part B):

In accepting a Charter, a Girl Scout Council assumes the following obligations:…

• By agreeing to be guided by the standards of Girl Scouts of the USA, we understand that as a council we have committed ourselves and those affiliating with us to follow and be guided by the standards published from time to time by Girl Scouts of the USA, provided such criteria and standards for local councils do not exceed the scope of requirements established by the National Council.

In other words, GSUSA and the National Board, stay in your lane.

I won’t go through the proposal’s rationale word by word because you can read it for yourself, but here it is in a nutshell:

The National Board has developed detailed “Criteria and Standards for an Effective Girl Scout Council” and some of these criteria and standards, while helpful guidance for the Movement, exceed the scope of requirements that the National Council has established for certificates of membership, local council charters, and other credentials. This proposal clarifies that criteria and standards outside the scope of requirements established by the National Council are not enforceable requirements, and, therefore, failure to comply with such guidance does not provide grounds to terminate or revoke a charter.

Between this and some other points about operations, it pretty much confirms Middle Tennessee’s case. From my standpoint, I’m really glad to see some other councils push back on this ridiculous IT boondoggle.

Does this proposal stand a chance to get on the agenda? Nobody can answer that except for the National Board. Since the proposal involves a Constitutional change, you have to refer back to section Article XVII/Amendments in the Constitution which states that the National Board has sole authority to determine if proposals involving Constitutional amendments are placed on the NCS agenda. If a proposal does NOT involve a Constitutional change and it’s backed by at least 15% of all councils (that makes 17 total), then it’s an automatic agenda shoe-in.

Could the Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana council have hedged its bets and only featured Part B which just amends the Credentials section? Yes. I’m not sure why they felt the need to include a Constitutional amendment other than to cement it in stone. But it’s more of a risk this way to leave it solely up to the National Board who I’m sure will not agree with it. If this is a popular proposal and gains a lot of council support, will the National Board ignore that and nix it anyway? That certainly won’t help council relations.

Even if it’s not selected to go on the agenda, it sends a very clear and direct message to GSUSA and the National Board that they have overstepped their bounds and not only should they respect the National Council’s authority to establish requirements, but they should keep their noses out of council operations as well. And when it boils down to it – if VS 2.0 was halfway decent, didn’t cost an arm and a leg, and didn’t have an egregious technology contract, all of this would be moot. GSUSA wouldn’t feel the need to mandate VS 2.0 anywhere in the Blue Book because councils would want to use it of their own accord. I suspect that Middle Tennessee would be on it, and in turn, no lawsuit would have ever been filed. Additionally, there wouldn’t have been the need for this proposal either.

It’s really a shame that it’s necessary to do this. GSUSA and the National Board have violated authority now in two major areas – membership dues and now charter requirements – in the last 14 years. This shows a total lack of respect for the membership and councils. Yes, we have new leadership and we should give them a chance, but we’ve been doing that for almost a decade now when it comes to CEI & VS 2.0. Unless attitudes change, I could see GSUSA arguing at some point that mandating the use of a common IT platform – or something else down the road – is “within scope.” Then we’re right back to where we started, and the dispute would need to be settled in a court for any true resolution.

I’d like to point out that there’s another proposal for consideration from the Greater Atlanta council that somewhat relates to this as well. It aims to add three council CEOs to the National Board due to a breakdown of communication and trust. And there’s yet another somewhat related proposal from SC – Mountains to Midlands that basically calls for an audit of the democratic process across the entire Movement. When looking at the big picture, an audit is really what’s needed. If the democratic process was fully implemented and respected on both the council and national level, NONE of this would have ever come up. Just think of the time, money, and energy that would have been saved. All three of these submitted proposals and the Farthest North and Middle Tennessee lawsuits speak volumes about where we stand as a Movement.

Well, I’m going to leave it at that. I said before that I wasn’t going to get as involved with National Council Session business, but I did feel it necessary to make everybody aware of the ties between the Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana council’s proposal and the Middle Tennessee case. Councils find out this October whether their proposals are selected, and then the Early Alert will be released in November.

Councils, may the odds be ever in your favor!