Originated by National Board, on recommendation of the National Council Session Advisory Team and Dues Subgroup Proposal
To amend Article IX (Membership Dues) of the Constitution by adding as follows:
Current Wording
Every person accepting the principles of the Girl Scout Movement and desiring to be a member of the Girl Scout Movement in the United States of America shall pay annual, lifetime, or other applicable membership dues to Girl Scouts of the United States of America.
Proposed Amendment
Every person accepting the principles of the Girl Scout Movement and desiring to be a member of the Girl Scout Movement in the United States of America shall pay annual, lifetime, or other applicable membership dues to Girl Scouts of the United States of America. Dues are set by the National Council or the National Board.
The National Board shall implement procedures for communicating with and seeking input from Girl Scout councils and National Council delegates prior to any membership dues change by the National Board.
If Adopted, Will Read
Every person accepting the principles of the Girl Scout Movement and desiring to be a member of the Girl Scout Movement in the United States of America shall pay annual, lifetime, or other applicable membership dues to Girl Scouts of the United States of America. Dues are set by the National Council or the National Board.
The National Board shall implement procedures for communicating with and seeking input from Girl Scout councils and National Council delegates prior to any membership dues change by the National Board.
Rationale
See pg. 51 in the NCS Workbook for the joint rationale for Proposals 2 & 3.
Here are 7 reasons why ONLY the National Council should have authority:
1) It guarantees that the membership is involved when it comes to decisions about membership dues because it hasn’t been a part of it for the past 12 years.
2) The National Council truly understands “the market” because it IS the market.
3) Shared authority won’t work.
4) The National Board making decisions about membership dues doesn’t allow the National Council to fulfill its directed role.
5) The National Council controlling membership dues puts GSUSA on a budget, acts as a check & balance, and holds them accountable.
6) There’s no need to “establish a procedure” or issue promises when it comes to membership dues – because there’s already one in place.
7) Using the democratic process via the National Council ensures that the best decision for Girl Scouting is made.
I go into more detail and give my rationale here:
http://girlscoutwithacause.dawgtoons.com/2020/05/the-2020-ncs-proposals-c-through-e-i-cant-go-for-that-no-can-do/
Everyone needs to know that there is more than just annual membership dues that is up for debate when it comes to Proposals 2 through 4: http://girlscoutwithacause.dawgtoons.com/2020/09/2020-ncs-passing-proposals-2-through-4-opens-pandoras-box/
One more comment – if Proposal 2 is passed as written, there’s no turning back: http://girlscoutwithacause.dawgtoons.com/2020/09/2020-ncs-not-passing-proposal-2-is-our-fail-safe/
I have found out that an amendment to restrict dues setting to the National Council only would be considered to be in scope by the parliamentarian (who would advise the chair of that, but remember the chair makes the ruling). If that is done, per the parliamentarian, then proposals 3 and 4 would be no longer relevant. The parliamentarian does NOT believe that, should the constitution be amended to say only the National Council can set dues, the National Council could use Prop 4 to “authorize” the National Board to set dues on its behalf, within limits it sets. (I sure would like to see a legal ruling on that!)
My personal dilemma is this. I believe the National Board should have authority to raise dues under certain limits, and I’m comfortable with 25% in a triennium, as Prop 4 would do. However, given that the National Board is on record as saying that based on the congressional charter, essentially it can take authority for all sorts of things unless the constitution expressly prohibits it from doing so. So, based on what the National Board has said, what would prevent that National Board from deciding, in between National Council meetings, that it was not bound by the 25% limit? It already has assumed authority for dues despite past practice up until 2008 and despite a court case it LOST, and it STILL says that if Prop 2 is defeated, it would still have the authority to set dues. So it comes down to trust, and I’m sorry to say that I just do not trust the National Board when it comes down to anything related to dues at all.