The Middle TN Lawsuit Has Been Settled… Or Has It?

On August 26, 2024, paperwork was filed to dismiss the Middle Tennessee council’s lawsuit versus GSUSA. I had actually gotten word that both sides came to a settlement a few weeks ago, but I am not one to publish things on GSWAC (Not a Council) without public references, so I waited for the paperwork on Court Listener to catch up. It finally did, and with that, another chapter on my blog ends. Kinda.

If you’re new to this and have no idea what I’m referencing, take a moment and read my original post about the lawsuit. I won’t rehash it here.

No details are given in the filing other than the lawsuit being dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can’t be resurrected at a later point. Settlements are usually confidential, so all we’re left with is speculation as to how things were worked out between the Middle Tennessee council and GSUSA. This is complete speculation on my part, but I wouldn’t be surprised if GSMT agreed to onboard to Volunteer Systems 2.0 (VS 2.0 aka GSUSA’s nationwide IT platform) but perhaps all fees were waived as a concession. Assuming my theory is correct, that means ALL councils will be on GSUSA’s IT platform that I’ve talked about at length and documented over the past few years.

So where do we go from here?

GSUSA is fully aware that VS 2.0 is deficient, to put it mildly. Data privacy has also been at the forefront of discussions lately, so there will be a significant investment of money into the platform to make sure we’re conforming to updated laws and statutes. My guess is it’s going to involve some sort of rebuild, but again, that’s purely speculative on my part. It’s also my guess that’s behind part of the push to raise membership dues (among a variety of other reasons).

So while the IT matter is settled, there’s still something hanging out there that wasn’t resolved since the case never went to trial, and that’s where GSUSA’s and the National Board’s authority begins and ends when it comes to mandating what councils have to do in order to fulfill their charter requirements.

Before I go any further, I just want to pause for a second and say that my questioning doesn’t mean that I’m personally attacking GSUSA staff or National Board members. Some of us who raise “what if?” questions such as what I’m about to discuss are sometimes tagged with “rogue” and “troublemaker” labels when all we’re doing is trying to make sure our governance documents are watertight and that our organization is safe from being abused by those who may not have the best intentions for Girl Scouting in mind. Like I discussed in a previous blog post, sometimes bad actors enter the picture, and we need to guard against that. And you do that through good governance. It does not mean that we think any current members are “up to no good.” It means we’re trying to do our due diligence to protect Girl Scouting.

Back in 2022, the national delegation of the Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana council crafted a National Council Session (NCS) proposal to protect councils against GSUSA and National Board overreach. The proposal never made it on the 2023 NCS Agenda – not because it didn’t get enough council endorsements, but because it involved Constitutional amendments, and per the GSUSA Constitution, the National Board has sole authority to determine if proposals involving Constitutional amendments make it on the agenda. The National Board declined to add it. I’m no attorney, but I have no doubt that if the proposal had gotten on the agenda and passed, it would have severely hurt GSUSA’s case in the Middle Tennessee lawsuit which was still being argued at the time.

I’m curious to see if the Chicago delegation attempts to rework the proposal and not include Constitutional amendments this time around so that it has a better chance to make it on the 2026 NCS agenda. I hope so because I DO think this issue needs to be resolved and there DOES need to be stronger language in the Blue Book about what constitutes a charter requirement. While I think we’re under stable leadership now, what if GSUSA gets a wild hair in the future (again) out of desperation and decides to directly extract cookie money from councils by charging a per box fee? The fact remains that what constitutes “charter requirements” (which the National Council has authority over) is vague in the Blue Book and can be easily twisted. Furthermore, what could keep those in leadership from stating a charter requirement is really a “standard” (which the National Board/GSUSA has authority to establish)? Because this is exactly what GSUSA was arguing in the Middle TN case.

Girl Scouting is going to continue to face stout challenges in the future due to shifting societal forces whether we like it or not. Sometimes, those in leadership positions push the envelope trying to come up with creative solutions, and many times our governance processes are collateral damage. Even though the Middle Tennessee lawsuit didn’t make it to trial, it still raised a very important question of authority that WILL come up again at some point in the future. It’s just a matter of time. It’s up to us to decide whether we want to answer that question at the 2026 NCS or to continue to kick the can down the road and risk a future lawsuit that will be more destructive to our organization.