GSUSA is working with the Harvard John F. Kennedy School of Government’s Center for Public Leadership to conduct a democratic governance assessment of GSUSA’s governance processes, intended to complement the ongoing Movement governance assessment launched by the National Board in September 2023 and the work of the Movement Governance Advisory Team (MGAT). The project will be led by Marshall Ganz—the Rita E. Hauser Senior Lecturer in leadership, organizing, and civil society—and is funded by a generous grant from the Ford Foundation.
The Harvard team has already held focus groups with various Movement governance advisory groups. In the next phase of work, they will be conducting surveys, running focus groups, and interviewing National Council delegates and alternates. The team is also eager to observe council annual meetings to better understand how National Council delegates interact with their local council members.
They will share their insights with the National Board and MGAT in late fall 2025 so that the MGAT can use the findings to inform their final report on Movement governance, to be delivered no later than the 58th National Council Session.
So I have to ask what is behind this? My council found poor support for proposal (little over a month ago) to change the current delegate system. Yes, getting delegates from communities/service units to attend the annual business meeting isn’t easy, but cutting out said delegates hit many of us a wrong.
Volunteers have very little input in my council. Most delegates have been hand picked or approved of/denied service by the CEO. This is a clear violation of our ideas on the separation of policy and operations. Even our board remains untrained on the differences allowing said CEO complete micro control of the council. Those who speak out against her are shunned and not allowed to offer voluntary services.
GS Virginia Skyline Council members voted to support a resolution from the Membership Voice Committee to replace the delegate system with: paraphrased: Anyone over the age of 14 and currently registered can vote, debate and make motions at the Annual meeting.
Your vote is your voice: Learning the Democratic process may be “messy” until the system changes are implemented. The phrase from the GSUSA Preamble to the Constitution states “The ultimate responsibility of the Girl Scout movement rests with its members.”
I’ll be interested to hear the results of this for the national level. The three comments here are all for local level. . . and, like Amy, I believe that if GSUSA doesn’t insist that local levels do a good job of governance, we’ll never have truly good governance nationally. Good local governance MUST include effective means of truly hearing local voices and giving ordinary members responsibility beyond just rubber stamping a slate of nominees for the board. And, I’m one who believes that the “wall” GSUSA has long been building between policy and operations is part of our governance problems. In my opinion, there’s not just one or the other — the responsibility for good decision-making is shared. In other words, it’s a continuum, not a divide. Another way of saying the same thing is that neither good governance nor good operations/management can truly and purposefully happen if each side is not involved APPROPRIATELY in decisions. Policies made without consideration of how they will play out operationally will too often be bad policies. Management decisions without consideration of how that management fits into the policies and directives established will too often be arbitrary and capricious. It takes partnerships, respect, sound knowledge of what the “other side” is doing, and LOTS of dialogue between governance folks and management folks while still respecting who is responsible for the final decision to get excellence in both governance and management.