Why It’s Critical for the Delegate Formula Proposal to Pass

This is going to be the second in an undetermined number of blog posts about some of the 2023 National Council Session (NCS) proposals. Last month, I gave my thoughts on the CEO Representation on the National Board proposal, and next up is the National Delegate Formula sponsored by everybody’s favorite council, Farthest North. If you haven’t read the proposal in its entirety yet, I highly recommend you do so that you know the specifics of the language within the GSUSA Constitution.

Before I begin my spiel, I would like to state for the record that I am a part of the Farthest North NCS resource team. So with this post, I am OFFICIALLY representing Farthest North and its proposal. What I hope to accomplish with this blog post is to go into a little more detail and answer some questions that we didn’t cover with our recorded webinar that you can view on YouTube and the National Delegate webinars.

I would also ask that if you’re a National Delegate to please read through to the end of this post. I realize everybody doesn’t have a lot of time and a blog post might turn some off because they want short sound bytes, but I cannot stress the importance of taking just a few minutes to read all of this because it should clear up misconceptions and answer some questions. It’s not that long, I promise.

But if you really want a short sound byte right now, here you go:

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
If you don’t vote in favor of this proposal,
The National Council will be in deep doo doo. 💩

Just kidding. And with that said, let’s get into it.

This proposal aims to do two things: first, it amends the Constitution to adjust the prescribed formula that is used to calculate the number of National Council delegates from 3,500 to 1,000 girls to better reflect current membership figures. It also adds language back that makes it clear that the total number of National Council members should stay as close to 1,500 as possible as originally intended by the 2008 National Council and the historical purpose of the formula.

PART ONE OF THE PROPOSAL

If you’re not sure how this all works, here’s an explanation. According to the Constitution, each council and USAGSO is entitled to receive:

• Two delegates
• One additional delegate up to 3,500 girls
• One additional delegate for every 3,500 girls after that

The 3,500 girl number is what’s known as the “prescribed formula number.” The Constitution states that this number can be adjusted by the National Board in order to determine how many additional delegates councils are allocated after the first two depending on how membership fluctuates. Let’s look at two examples:

Let’s say a council has 14,000 girls. Using 3,500 as the formula number, the council would receive 6 delegates:

2  + 1 (1 to 3,500) + 1 (3,501 to 7,000) + 1 (7,001 to 10,500) + 1 (10,501 to 13,550)

But from one NCS to another, the girl membership drops to 9,000. If we used the same formula number of 3,500, this council would only receive 4 delegates:

2  + 1 (1 to 3,500) + 1 (3,501 to 7,000)

So how do we fix this? The formula number of 3,500 is adjusted to a lower number when membership declines. So in this case, let’s use 2,000 to bring the council back up to 6 delegates:

2  + 1 (1 to 2,000) + 1 (2,001 to 4,000) + 1 (4,001 to 6,000) + 1 (6,001 to 8,000)

What’s the purpose of the delegate formula number anyway? Since this formula system was originally implemented at the 1960 NCS to limit the overall number of delegates, its intention is to act as a starting point to bring the number of National Council members as close as possible to whatever number the National Council sets in the Constitution.

So why does the current number of 3,500 girls need to be revised? In 2008, when that number was set, we had approximately 2.5 million girls, and using 3,500 girls as the number would have gotten us near 1,500 National Council members. Since then, we’ve experienced a 56% decline in membership, and we now stand at approximately 1.1 million girls. The National Board has used an ever shrinking formula number:

The prescribed formula number obviously needs to be revised because we are WAY far off the mark. Remember, its historical purpose serves a starting point to reach the number of members set by the National Council.

But wait – there’s more to this picture of declining delegates. The National Board has misused this formula number to wrest control from the National Council to set the number of National Council members below what was originally intended. They should have used lower formula numbers. This is a better representative of what the formula numbers should have been to get the National Council to 1,500 members each year:

So as you can see, it’s time to revise this number closer to the current membership. And this ties into…

PART TWO OF THE PROPOSAL

Now let’s review the second part of the proposal, and it has to do with adding the language “as close to but not” back into the Constitution. It’s very important to know the history of how we came about to where we are today.

The National Board brought a proposal to the 2008 NCS to revise Sections 4 & 5 in Article IV in the Constitution. The National Council voted to pass it, but not before amending it first. The proposal did the following (among other things):

• Lowered size of National Council from 2,000 to 1,500 members (original proposal was 1,000)
• Councils received 2 delegates from the start versus just 1
• Changed prescribed figure from 1,800 girls to 3,500 girls (original proposal was 5,000 girls)

But included with the proposal was a subtle change. Prior to the proposal passing, Section 5 read:

The prescribed figure of 1,800 girls shall be adjusted up or down by three hundred or multiples thereof when necessary to keep the total number of local council and USAGSO delegates as close as possible to two thousand but not in excess of two thousand.

It now reads:

The prescribed figure of 3,500 girls may be adjusted when necessary to keep the total membership of the National Council no larger than 1,500.

As you can see, the phrase “as close as possible” disappeared. No mention of its removal was mentioned in the 2008 NCS Workbook nor was it discussed during the NCS. Ever since a limit was placed on the number of National Council delegates at the 1960 NCS, the phrase “as close as possible” had always been part of the package, so by amending the number of members from what the National Board wanted (1,000) to 1,500, National Delegates in 2008 took it upon good faith that the National Board would respect that the delegates intended for the number to stay close to 1,500 and that they’d adjust the formula the way it had always been calculated for decades. However, since then, the National Board has taken the language to mean any number less than 1,500. In fact, they’ve lowered it below the number that the National Council soundly rejected in 2008 as evidenced by the fact that there are only 902 allocated delegates for the 2023 NCS.

Adding “as close to but not” not just honors the decision of the 2008 National Council and the historical purpose of the formula, but it allows the National Council to take back control over establishing the number of National Council members. I cannot stress to you enough why the National Council needs to retain this power. It has been stripped of much of its power since 2008, and that power has been transferred to GSUSA and the National Board. Even if you think the number of National Council members should be lower than 1,500, voting this proposal down or amending it to strip out “as close to but not” isn’t the right way to go about it because it will mean the National Council consents to handing over power to the National Board. And once that power is handed over, it will never be returned. If there is a wish to lower the number of National Council members, then a separate proposal for the 2026 NCS should be submitted, and the National Council would be the one to decide the number of members – not the National Board.

Since we recorded the first webinar, we’ve had a couple of questions come in that ask what value this proposal brings to the Movement. Also, someone asked why the 2008 National Council decided upon 1,500 members. I’ll answer both of those below.

One of the values of this proposal is to allow the democratic process to flourish. In a nutshell, the democratic process in Girl Scouting is to respect and hear from all voices that play a part in Girl Scouting. They include volunteers, council staff, council board members, National Board members, and older girls. All five of these voices are supposed to work together as the National Council so that it can successfully serve its role as “the coordinating head of the Girl Scout Movement in the United States.” If a representative voice is missing, then decisions made without its input are at risk of failing.

The 2008 National Council amended the number to 1,500 members because delegates felt that not only was it a compromise, but they also felt 1,500 was the appropriate number for enough voices to be represented in order for the democratic process to be successfully implemented. The fewer delegates there are, the more likely someone’s voice is going to be left out – especially in smaller councils. If a nominating committee has a limited number of spots and has to choose between council staff, council board members, girls, and volunteers, who do you think will most likely be left out?

A National Council under 1,000 members (or as small as possible), which is what the National Board wants, benefits the National Board because it’s easier to control. It does NOT benefit the membership.

There have also been some suggestions to change the formula structure itself such as using a sliding scale based on membership or a static formula number, but that is not the intention of this proposal, so any amendment trying to change the structure would most likely be ruled out of scope.

The National Board and GSUSA don’t support this proposal, and one of their rationales is that a larger National Council would mean higher costs for councils. There’s no doubt that some councils are pinched for dollars, but here’s the thing. Councils aren’t mandated to send all of their delegates, and they have control over how much they want to spend on the NCS. It’s their prerogative to make those decisions for themselves, and the National Board and GSUSA making an overarching decision to limit the number of delegates for every council (and USAGSO) cuts into council operations. If the National Board and GSUSA really wanted to save councils money, they’d lower the cost to use Volunteer Systems 2.0 which councils are required to use per their charter agreements. Additionally, if the virtual meeting proposal passes (and the National Board and GSUSA support passage of it), then the cost argument should become invalid.

The National Board and GSUSA also claim that the proportion of allocated delegates per girl has increased over the years even though the size of the National Council has shrunk. This is an invalid argument.  Delegate allocation is set by council membership numbers, not overall membership numbers. Additionally, mathematically speaking, a ratio will always increase as the dividend (girl membership in this case) decreases. And as we stated previously, there will be a limited number of spots to fill, and someone’s voice will be left out. Whose will it be?

We’ll add more to this post as we go, and you’re welcome to ask questions in the comments below. If you’re a National Delegate, you can also submit questions via the delegate website and they’ll be added to the OFFICIAL FAQ (which we can link here as well). If you’re not a National Delegate, let your delegation know your thoughts about this proposal.

Please vote YES for this proposal because when it boils down to it, the membership’s voice will effectively be stifled if it doesn’t pass.