12 November 2008
Odd Silence on Girl Scout Convention Proposals
Posted by admin under: Girl Scout Reorganization .
It is weird, in a kind of black helicopter, creepy way, that the Girl Scout convention is done and there is no simple, easy to access list of how the voting went. There were thousands of people there. Voting was finished almost two weeks ago. Yet, I can’t find anything about it on the national web site other than a couple of first-person accounts regarding parts of the results. It would seem to me to be the responsibility of the national board to type up a results list to share with everyone and publish it on the front page of the national web site, but that hasn’t been done. The other unfortunate thing, similar to both Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, is that the search engine on the national web site does not return relevant results.
So, here’s what I’ve been able to piece together, some of which was easy to find. There were six proposals originally written for debate and voting. 5 of them were amendments to the Girl Scouts constitution. The other one was a simple vote. You can see the original proposals as stored on the national web site here.
Each proposal was summarized by a helpful volunteer. I won’t quote them extensively, but I’ll give you the link to those summaries. As far as I could tell, each proposal could be broken down to be voted on in part or could be voted on in its entirety (I’m still not sure about that).
Proposal 1 had six parts (summary). This one dealt with the controversial idea of removing geographic diversity from national conventions and the national board of directors so that all of the officers and the voting members could have come from principally one area of the country. Those two parts of the proposal were withdrawn after they created a furor. Another part, to remove the word “local” from the description of a council was voted down at the convention. I think people lumped it in with the idea that representation could be shifted away from local control and so they voted it down. I guess the other parts passed, changing the name of the board that nominates the president and other officers to “board development”. Seems trivial. The rest of the proposal said that the national convention used to be able to be set by the national council, but now can only be set by the national board of directors. I guess that part passed, too. I don’t read legalese, but it seems like the definition of national council is board members and delegates selected by each local council. Board members are the the President, Vice-Presidents, and about 25 other members elected at the convention. Why the board doesn’t want the delegates to be able to set the convention is beyond me. Another trivial change, but taken altogether it can be seen as if the board is trying to manipulate control of the GSUSA. The cheerful interpretation is that the board wants to be able to get things enacted without undue delay.
Proposal 2 had three parts (summary). Reduce the number of delegates to the convention by half, change how many members one delegate represents in order to accomplish that reduction, and remove geographical representation laguage. The proposal was slightly modified, but passed. Why the delegates were okay with removing the geography languge is another mystery given how opposed they were to the first proposal, but maybe it’s because with the reduced number of councils after all the mergers, the required percentage means there is some geographical diversity. Plus, it’s dealt only with special sessions which must be rare. I don’t know if there’s ever been one.
Proposal 3 was to increase annual dues from $10 to $12 starting in October, 2009, and it passed.
Proposal 4 was to remove language that might have required a paper ballot for voting instead of voting electronically or by voice and also to remove the wording that the convention needs to set the membership dues and now the board can change it whenever they determine they should. The proposal makes clear that the board believes it already has this authority and changing the constitution just removes any doubt on that issue.
Proposal 5 again struck out geographical representation in the make-up of the committee that nominates the board of directors. The President of the board of directors gets to appoint the chair of that nominating committee. The chair of the committee has to be someone who was already a member of the committee. Taken altogether it basically means that whatever policies and membership the board has will not be quickly reversed by a subsequent board. That’s good for continuity and bad if you don’t like the direction it has chosen. I don’t know if it was amended or not, but this along with proposal 4 was apparently passed.
Proposal 6 was going to change how membership categories worked, but because delegates didn’t think the proposal was thought through they balked and the board removed it from consideration.
Again, I don’t know why the results aren’t published in a quick summary anywhere. It’s not that hard if you were present. It’s considerably more difficult if you’re sitting at your computer thousands of miles from where the convention took place and trying to piece it together from the occasional updates posted. It’s even harder if you’re constantly asking yourself if it really makes any difference to the way your troop will run.
Possibly Related Posts:3 Comments so far...
Mary Ann Chick Whiteside Says:
18 November 2008 at 2:39 am.
The silence is broken http://www.girlscouts.org/convention/talk/forums/t/318.aspx
admin Says:
18 November 2008 at 11:39 am.
Mary Ann, you’re a Godsend. Thank you!
» The Whiteside Report Says:
18 November 2008 at 1:34 pm.
[...] you looked at the recent commentsyou saw that Mary Ann Chick Whiteside, that indomitable force in the forums on the national website, [...]
