Discussing the Democratic Process at the 2023 NCS

This blog post is a continuation of a series that will cover topics of interest for the 2023 National Council Session (NCS). I shared my thoughts about the CEOs on the National Board and Delegate Formula proposals previously, but now it’s time to tackle the discussion topic. And it’s about something that’s near and dear to my heart — the democratic process.

I’ve written about the democratic process ad nauseam over the past few years with multiple blog posts, a 2019 white paper, and even a 2023 NCS proposal (“Ensuring the Importance and Effectiveness of the Democratic Process in the Movement”) for my council. Out of sheer enthusiasm (and a little bit of naivety), I once attempted to give a presentation on the democratic process during one of my council’s Town Halls to show that it could be used as the way to rebuild our council (much to the consternation of our interim CEO at the time). In fact, I’ve written about it so much that when I attempted to write this post, I had a very severe case of writer’s block for quite some time.

So what is the democratic process in Girl Scouting and how is it defined? The monograph Implementing the Democratic Process in Girl Scouting defines it as “the various means of avenues through which the membership can influence decisions and activities in matters of governance (policy) or management (operations), and have access to those responsible for decision-making at the individual, troop/group, service unit, council, or national level.” Or put very simply: it’s all sides of Girl Scouting — staff, boards of directors, volunteers, and girls — talking, listening, and respecting each others’ points of views, and then pulling all of these points together to come to the best decision possible. Alita C. Roberts, a member of a national task group that studied the democratic process in the Movement in the mid-1990s, shared in a 1996 edition of Leader Magazine: “Essential to the democratic process, we agreed, are the elements of trust, openness, willingness to share power and control, flexibility, accessibility, respect for all opinions, and the ability to foster and accept change.”

If you’re new to the democratic process and what role it should play in Girl Scouting and why it’s absolutely critical to the success of our organization, then at the very least, please take a few minutes to read Death Spiral: Governance Edition. If you’re up for it, then read my white paper for a more in-depth analysis.

In the Early Alert, GSUSA and the National Board write that they chose “Democratic Process and Delegate Voice” as the discussion topic due the number of council-submitted NCS proposals relating to governance that were not selected to be included on the NCS agenda. The Early Alert goes on to state that a “Movement Governance Advisory Team” will be created that will “take the results of the discussion at the 56th NCS, solicit additional feedback from Movement stakeholders, further examine the governance structure of GSUSA, and make recommendations to the National Board and National Council on potential changes to the governance documents, policies, and practices of GSUSA.“

At first glance, this seemed to match up with what I suggested in my council’s NCS proposal which would have created a task group to study the democratic process across our Movement (much like what was done in 1993). However, it’s not the same. GSUSA’s Advisory Team is going to focus on national governance, whereas my council’s proposal put more of an emphasis on council governance and the role the membership plays within it.  I personally feel like there are weaknesses as a whole when it comes to executing the democratic process on the council level, and the membership’s voice isn’t being heard effectively (if at all in many councils). And it’s my conjecture that without a strong foundation in governance on the council level, national governance suffers. How can National Delegates model the democratic process if they come from councils that don’t respect or employ it? I fear that GSUSA’s study will be an incomplete exercise, and in fact, could potentially make things worse unless there’s a commitment to sincerely implement the democratic process as a part of the committee itself.

As a side note, when I saw that GSUSA’s advisory team would be national in scope, I decided to put together a study on council bylaws because I felt like that could give us some clue as to how the democratic process plays a part in council governance. Also I did it because I’m a big bylaws nerd. You can read the report on GSG.

When I wrote my white paper back in 2019, I identified the Core Business Strategy (CBS) as the culprit for what essentially phased the democratic process out of Girl Scouting. Since then, there’s been national talk about re-engaging the democratic process, but there’s a critical piece missing due to the damage the CBS caused involving the minimization of the role and voice of the volunteer. We talk a good game and repeat mantras such as, “The volunteer is the lifeblood of the organization,” but do we really value what volunteers actually think about the direction of the organization and how we’re getting there?

When you read between the lines, volunteers are not considered part of the Movement by our organization’s leadership. GSUSA believes the Movement is defined solely by council and national staff and board members, and this is evident in many of its communications. Well, if we volunteers aren’t part of the Movement, then what are we?

We’re customers. And this is a huge problem.

As I wrote five years ago, the role one plays as a customer versus a member is extremely different. Attitudes are not the same. By and large, customers have superficial relationships with companies and organizations. When they’re done using your product (for whatever the reason), they leave and don’t come back. Customers also don’t feel like they’re part of something bigger than themselves. There’s no “we’re all in this together” feel. So when volunteers playing the part of customers age out or drop out as troop leaders, they don’t stick around to become trainers or help lead service units. And there’s more — they don’t become donors either. Whether they realize it or not, councils are missing out on a big chunk of change when they fully adopt the “volunteers are customers” mindset. When it comes to governance, volunteers who are engaged on a shallow basis do not see its importance nor do they understand their role within it because customers don’t play a part in the democratic process.

Dr. Gloria Scott, National President from 1975 to 1978, nailed who should be involved in sculpting the Movement’s direction in a letter featured in a 1976 edition of Leader Magazine following the 1975 NCS (emphasis added):

For we must keep in mind that we all have leadership roles in Girl Scouting. Some of us serve at different organizational levels, perhaps for a short-term or possibly long-term assignment. Many of us interact directly with girls; others work directly with United Way and other funding agencies. But whatever our task, what counts is that we all provide leadership for the Girl Scout Movement.

If all of us then, in our separate leadership roles, understand the common cause that binds us together – providing quality program for girls – we will surely meet all the challenges of these next three years. Our all-important challenge is to provide the means, the planning, organization, and evaluation that will ensure our self-renewal as the nation’s major, dynamic organization dedicated to the development of ALL American girls.

On a larger scale, the National Council is supposed to represent the voice of the membership — meaning all voices.  I think it’s in massive danger of becoming irrelevant on multiple levels. Maybe it already is. The two 2023 NCS proposals I’ve written about previously on this blog directly relate to this issue. For its proposal, the Greater Atlanta council feels that CEOs serving on the National Board can represent the membership’s voice. A better solution would be for the National Board to figure out a way to consult with the National Council in sincere fashion more often than every three years. If the Farthest North council’s Delegate Formula proposal doesn’t pass as is, then the National Council’s size will stay under 1,000 members at this point moving forward and will very likely continue to shrink. When filling a limited amount of delegate spots, board development committees will have to choose between council staff, board members, older girls, and volunteers. Who do you think will be left out?  My bet is the volunteer. If this happens, the membership’s voice will be incomplete without it, and a critical puzzle piece to the democratic process’ success will be lost.

You might ask — so what if the democratic process isn’t used? Can’t we just trust our leadership to make the right choices without going through all the hassle of getting input and feedback? When all viewpoints aren’t considered by those in charge, decisions (especially unpopular ones) are made in a vacuum which risks the health of the organization. Here’s a real life example of what happens when the democratic process isn’t employed by decision-makers:

In 2021, the Heart of the Hudson council announced that a handful of camps would be sold as a part of a property plan that incorporated very little membership feedback in its development. The reaction to the announcement was swift and harsh, and delegates rallied in an attempt to have a council-wide discussion. Council leadership doubled down and did not allow delegates to voice their concerns with the property plan at follow-up meetings. Consequently, the delegate body called a special meeting and passed a vote of no confidence on both the CEO and the board of directors which contributed to both the CEO and board chair stepping down and the board being left in disarray. At the subsequent annual meeting, the delegates voted in their own board candidates from the floor including a board chair. The council is now rebuilding under an interim CEO, but it will take a lot of time, energy, and resources to fix the damage and repair relationships. If the democratic process had been properly implemented during the development of the property plan, all of this could have been avoided.

Until the “volunteers = customers” thought process is axed, volunteers are considered part of the Movement once again, and the volunteer voice is consulted for more than just superficial Voices Count surveys or National Delegate polls asking how tables should be arranged at the NCS, any mention of the democratic process is lip service.  I am concerned that the Movement Governance Advisory Team will come to conclusions and suggest changes that will further erode what little relevancy is left of the National Council and dampen the voice of the volunteer even more than what’s going on now. That’s the trajectory we’ve been on since the implementation of the CBS.  Although I am discouraged about how things have played out through the years and where we are now when it comes to the democratic process, I do feel like there are solutions and ways to turn things around. I cover them in the last half of my white paper.

All this said, I am very, very interested to see what exchanges come out of the NCS this summer. It is my hope that it will be a very constructive conversation that will be taken under sincere consideration and respected.