A Point of Order Proposal Perplexity

Another National Council Session (NCS) is in the books! I attended the 2026 Girl Scout Convention held in Washington D.C. July 20 – 22, 2026, and I intend on writing two different posts – one about the nitty gritty details of governance and the other about my personal experience of the week. So one nerdy and another not so nerdy. If you’re ready for some governance talk, this lengthy blog post about the three proposals, especially the last one, is for you! Let’s get into it!

The NCS started off with an objection to the waiving of the reading of the Standing Rules which resulted in the Standing Rules being read from beginning to end. Then, two motions to amend were made to the Standing Rules. One amendment would have raised the number of speakers from 4 to 12 before the motion Previous Question could be made, and the other one sought to prohibit nut items from the NCS. Neither passed. During the adoption of the agenda, an amendment passed that inserted an hour-long debate period for Proposal 3 while the NCS was in recess. This amendment passed 457 to 434.

Considering the decisions on the Standing Rules and the Agenda ran long and we were close to the end of the first day, delegates wondered if the entire session would play out like this. I heard there was a run on the local CVS with delegates loading up on snacks for the following day anticipating a lengthy meeting lasting into the evening. However, this did not come to pass.

The first proposal to be debated was “Girl Scout Highest Awards Solicitation of Contributions,” presented by Girl Scouts of Eastern Pennsylvania. Back in 2019, the National Board added language to the Blue Book allowing girls earning their Gold Award to directly solicit donations. This proposal opened the same opportunity to girls earning Bronze and Silver. An amendment to strike Bronze failed (434 to 501). The proposal as written passed 566 to 373.

“Membership Dues and Procedures for Registration,” brought by the Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana council, was heard next. In 2020, the National Council approved a proposal which set a 25% threshold on the amount dues could be raised by the National Board within one triennium. The same council brought a follow-up proposal in 2026 which lowered that threshold to 15%. After a short debate which included two amendments ruled out of scope, the proposal passed as written 585 to 358.

Then came the third proposal which delivered a boatload of drama leading up to the NCS. “Preservation of Girl Scout Leadership Experience Relating to the Entrepreneurship Program” was presented by Girl Scouts of Kansas Heartland. This proposal sought to restrict GSUSA from licensing Girl Scout cookie flavors for food products during the fall product or cookie season. Before the proposal was presented, there was an hour-long period where delegates or alternates could speak for one minute on the proposal while the NCS was in recess. The debate was overwhelmingly negative. In fact, I don’t even remember anyone speaking in favor of passing it outright.

After that hour, the proposal was presented. A delegate came to the interrupting microphone immediately and made a Point of Order citing Article V, Section 2 in the GSUSA Constitution maintaining the proposal was not in order and should be struck from the agenda because it did not “foster or improve Girl Scouting.” The presiding officer placed the vote on the Point of Order to the assembly to decide if Proposal 3 fostered or improved Girl Scouting. The assembly voted in the negative with a 142 to 802 vote which ruled the Point of Order well taken, and the proposal was struck from the agenda.

And then, my phone blew up. My messages were filled with folks wondering if what just happened was appropriate and one or two commenting that it was brilliant. Later on, I spoke with several delegates who came away questioning what really happened.

So I’m going to break down Proposal 3 with you and share my thoughts. Go get a caffeinated beverage because this might take a while.

First of all, I’d like to start by saying that I thought the presiding officer(s) did a great job, and I mean that sincerely. I realize it’s very easy for me to be an armchair quarterback sitting here in my office at home versus serving as a presiding officer standing in front of thousands of folks waiting for me to rule on a complicated and awkward matter, so I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who serves as presiding officer of an NCS. My post is certainly not intended to denigrate or criticize or to insinuate that anyone did anything “wrong.” It’s just my opinion, plus I’m sharing some potential concerns.

I personally would have ruled the Point of Order not well taken (meaning I would have disagreed with it) which I realize probably would have gone over like a lead balloon to a lot of folks and possibly would have been appealed, but here are several reasons why. Before I begin, let me remind everyone that I did not support this proposal at all, so this is definitely not sour grapes. I would have ruled on principle.

First, I believe the delegate who made the Point of Order misinterpreted the GSUSA Constitution. She cited this line from Article V, Section 2 of the Constitution:

“The National Council at its sessions shall hold elections, amend the Constitution, establish requirements for credentials, and shall determine the general lines of policy of the Girl Scout Movement and program by considering and acting upon proposals directed toward the fostering and improvement of Girl Scouting, by receiving and acting upon reports of its National Board of Directors, and by giving guidance to the National Board upon general lines of direction of the Movement and program.”

However, if you read the Constitution in its entirety, specifically Article VI, Section 1, the National Board and local councils are who determine what proposals are directed “toward the fostering and improvement of Girl Scouting” via the proposal process:

“Proposals directed toward the fostering and improvement of Girl Scouting that are to be acted upon by the National Council may be originated (a) by the National Board of Directors and (b) by local councils.”

Based on this language and the rest of Article VI, the National Council merely acts upon the proposals. It does that via proper parliamentary procedure. And this brings me to my next point of why I would have ruled the Point of Order not well taken.

A more appropriate motion that is specifically tailored for this scenario is Objection to the Consideration of the Question. Per Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 12th ed.) 26:1, this motion’s purpose is to “enable the assembly to avoid a particular original main motion altogether when it believes it would be strongly undesirable for the motion even to come before the assembly.” It requires a 2/3rds vote in the negative. I realize that vote scared off some strategists, but there’s a reason why it requires a 2/3rds vote and that’s because striking a motion/proposal from even being heard infringes on the rights of the minority. I feel that the strategy of twisting Constitutional language via a Point of Order to get a majority vote instead of a 2/3rds vote is a little disingenuous. Others may call it genius, but it just didn’t sit right with me. But admittedly I’m a RONR purist. And looking at the vote on the Point of Order, they had nothing to worry about because they would have gotten the 2/3rds vote easily. This was extremely obvious after the hour-long debate period.

At this point, you may be thinking that I’m just splitting hairs because the end result of what played out versus using Objection to the Consideration of a Question would have been the same. But let’s continue with what really nags at me.

The action taken in Proposal 3 leads us to a slippery slope. ANY delegate in the future who does not support a proposal could use this Point of Order strategy to try to cut the proposal off at the pass. It introduces an inefficient, awkward, and unnecessary step. If Proposal 3 had been heard second and the 15% Membership Dues proposal third, it would have been very easy for a delegate to use the same strategy and rationale. Opponents of the proposal could have easily made the argument that changing the percentage from 25% to 15% handcuffed the National Board, and therefore, it did not “foster or improve” Girl Scouting. Furthermore, using this route and deciding that a proposal as originally presented does not foster or improve Girl Scouting with only a majority vote prevents it from moving through the process of amendment and other secondary motions to further refine it into something the assembly feels is acceptable. Is this really how we want to process proposals at a future NCS?

Additionally, this strategy unfairly puts the onus on the presiding officer. When it comes to a Point of Order, the presiding officer can take three actions: rule it well taken (agree with it and take steps to fix it), rule it not well taken (disagree with it and ignore it), or put the vote to the assembly to decide on whether it’s well taken or not. To this presiding officer’s credit, she decided to give it to the assembly. However, that’s not necessarily going to happen the next time with a different presiding officer. It’s the prerogative of the presiding officer to rule on her own if she wishes, and so in essence, ONE person could decide that a proposal is on or off the agenda. The assembly could always appeal, but appeals are a tricky business. Again, is this what we really want?

RONR (12th ed.) 23:10 states that rulings and rationale on Points of Order can serve as a precedent for future reference by the chair and the assembly. Granted, this can be overruled by a later decision and they are not binding, but the weight given to such precedents increases with the number of times the same or similar rulings occur. The action taken at this NCS can be used as a rationale for a similar action that might not be so clear cut.

Finally, and this is purely anecdotal, but a good number of folks walked away with a questionable feeling wondering if we did something wrong. To me, that means something didn’t go quite right. Using parliamentary procedure appropriately should not give folks “the ick” nor should they wonder if there was a conspiracy between GSUSA and some councils or that something was “put over on us.” I heard all of these things and more after the fact. And these statements were all from folks who did not support the proposal and would not have voted for it in the end.

Now you might be wondering, okay – so what about it? Does this change anything with Proposal 3? Can anything be done? No. Another Point of Order would have had to have been made before the time of the vote, and who’s to say that it wouldn’t have been ruled not well taken and ignored. And now I’m sure you might be saying, “So I’ve read this lengthy blog post and there’s nothing to show for it? What was the point of this exercise?” I’ve expressed all of this because I hope we do not encounter this strategy again in future National Council Sessions because inevitably it will create Constitutional and governance conundrums that will need to be resolved.

But looking at the big picture, I question why this heavily criticized proposal ended up on the agenda in the first place. Two delegates stated during the hour-long debate time that their councils originally endorsed it, but they pulled their support late in the game. I have to wonder what made them endorse it in the first place? Also I wonder why GSUSA attorneys didn’t speak up earlier if the language was really that dangerous? They made a determination on another proposal that didn’t get on the agenda but didn’t say a word about this one until it was too late.

You might find my opinion a little curious considering that I didn’t support the proposal at all, and furthermore, I think it would have been overwhelmingly voted down including any possible amendments and any referrals to committee. Postpone Indefinitely would have most likely have been the final motion that killed it if enough delegates understood the motion’s intention. When it comes to this extremely unpopular proposal, can we say, “All’s well that ends well?” Perhaps, but I’m not so sure about that. But we’ll find out in future National Council Sessions if the strategy I caution about rears its head again.