When Girl-Led Meets Governance: The Trouble with Too Much of a Good Thing

Last year, GSUSA entered a partnership with Harvard University to study its national governance structure. Harvard found that Girl Scouts is one of the few remaining national organizations in the United States that actively uses the democratic process in its decision-making and decision-influencing governance model. Harvard commended Girl Scouts for its dedication to the democratic process.

But like anything, the democratic process needs to be actively guarded and consistently valued. I think we’re at risk of it slipping away, but not for the reason you may think. I believe the increasing percentage of teens participating as National Delegates will eventually cause us to alter our current national governance model. I realize some of you are probably balking right now and thinking I’m anti-girl, but don’t jump to conclusions. Hear me out.

I absolutely believe that older girls should serve as National Delegates. The voice of the older girl is an integral part of the democratic process, so it’s important to hear from them. Also, teens get an amazing experience when they serve as National Delegates. They receive public-speaking experience and learn about the operations of a nonprofit. They also become knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure which is a valuable skill. As a girl-led organization, it’s important that we open opportunities for girls, and serving in the National Council is one of them. However, it’s my belief that over the past ten years, the National Council Session (NCS) has shifted from being regarded as a business meeting to instead viewed as a teen leadership summit in many eyes by both council leadership and the volunteer base.

In case you’re new to national governance, you may not be aware of the importance of the National Council. The National Council is made up of National Delegates that are elected or appointed by councils and USAGSO, National Board and NBDC members, and past Presidents of GSUSA. The GSUSA Constitution denotes the National Council as “the coordinating head of the Girl Scout Movement in the United States.” Every three years, the National Council meets in-person at the NCS and deliberates proposals sent to it by councils and the National Board that cover issues important to the business of Girl Scouting. It serves as both a decision-making and decision-influencing body by voting on proposals, electing members of the National Board and NBDC, listening and responding to reports from GSUSA and the National Board, and participating in discussions and round tables on topics selected by the National Board.

At the 2023 NCS, 22% of the National Council was made up of girls aged 14 to 18. At this past summer’s NCS, it was reported that 33% of the National Council was composed of girls, so note the huge increase between 2023 and 2026. There was enormous applause when the 33% figure was announced. As girl membership in Girl Scouts declines, which affects the delegate formula calculation, it’s likely that the percentage of girls in the National Council will increase even more, and soon we may hit 40%.

Let’s pause for a second. Does anyone believe that 40% of a decision-making and decision-influencing assembly for a multi-million-dollar national nonprofit should be composed of teenagers? To put it another way, do you believe a body composed of 40% of teens aged 14 to 18 should decide the amount of annual membership dues? In FY2025, membership dues brought in over $40 million to GSUSA. We’re not talking about a small piggy bank.

Even now, there’s already been murmurs about the appropriateness of certain proposal topics in the National Council and the quiet realization that girls are a larger part of the decision-making process. There were some rumblings about 2026’s NCS proposals with some saying financial proposals such as the one dealing with membership dues shouldn’t be decided by teens. Others said it would be “unfair” to place a decision as important as the licensing proposal on the shoulders of girls.

Personally, I think some teens are more than capable of making mature decisions on issues facing the National Council. A good number of them take the role of National Delegate seriously and studiously prepare. And to be fair, not all adults do this. I would much rather have a mature teen who is knowledgeable about the proposals and can use her critical thinking skills to come to a rational decision that is best for Girl Scouting than an adult who’s just there for the free trip and hasn’t done a lick of work. I’ve even heard comments stating that parliamentary procedure is “over girls’ heads” which is ludicrous. Teens are very capable of mastering parliamentary procedure as evidenced by FFA’s annual parliamentary procedure competition and the fact that the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) offers credentialing exams to students.

However, it’s possible to have too much of a good thing, and I think there will be subtle and incidental consequences as the percentage of teens in the National Council creeps closer to 40%. I believe council leadership will begin to self-limit what proposals are submitted for consideration by saying to themselves that it’s not an appropriate topic for the National Council (meaning: teenagers) to decide. Eventually, only “softball” proposals will be submitted, and the National Council will turn into a figurehead. The NCS will morph into a true teen leadership summit where nothing of any real consequence is heard or decided upon. As a result, our national governance structure will change so that even more control and power will shift to the National Board as the National Council’s influence lessens.

I think it’s important to hear from ALL voices in the Movement and that means hearing from operational volunteers, council board members, council staff, and older girls. When one voice dominates, the democratic process suffers. I suspect that sometimes adults decline to speak at the NCS because they see the large number of teens lining up at the mics and decide that it’s more important for a girl to have the opportunity to speak. I’ve heard some adults say they don’t want to “take a spot” from a girl. Well, while I realize this might be heresy coming from a volunteer in an organization dedicated to girls, I disagree. The voice of an operational volunteer or a board member is just as important as that of a girl’s when it comes to the democratic process.

So you might be asking, is there a way to limit teen numbers from taking up more than one-third of the National Council? Yes, but I don’t think it’s likely to happen. A provision limiting the number of delegates between certain ages would require a Constitutional amendment, and a 2/3rds vote would be necessary for it to pass. That’s a tall order. I think a proposal limiting the number of girls would go over like a lead balloon because the effects of having “too many girls” isn’t apparent right now, and quite a few folks think the more teens, the better. I also believe there are a number of councils who view the National Delegate position as an extension of their older girl programming as demonstrated by delegations composed entirely of all girls save one or two adults (usually the CEO and/or board chair).

I really don’t know what the answer to this is except for GSUSA to stress that the NCS is a business meeting, first and foremost. The voice of older girls is important, but not to the detriment of hearing from others. And council leadership needs to understand and respect the importance of the National Council and select National Delegates with the appropriate maturity level and skillset. Doing so will help ensure that the NCS remains a place where diverse perspectives can be heard while preserving the democratic governance model that has guided Girl Scouts for generations.