Submitted by: Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana
Status: Passed by Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana board and sent to councils
Proposal: TO amend provisions in the Membership Dues and Procedures for Registration section of the Blue Book of Basic Documents p. 25, by inserting bolded wording, as follows:
In order to be a member of the Girl Scout Movement in the United States of America, a person must to GSUSA within register with and pay annual, lifetime or other applicable membership dues to Girl Scouts of the United States of America. This is done locally through the Girl Scout council of USA Girl Scouts Overseas committee with which she or he is affiliated or through national headquarters if she or he has no council affiliation. The National Board of Directors must seek approval from the National Council whenever a membership dues increase totaling more than 15% of the current dues rate is to be initiated in any triennium period. Girl Scout councils account for membership dues in the custodian fund and transmit to GSUSA within two months of receipt all monies received for membership dues. These funds are not to be invested by the council for the purpose of generating income for the council.
Reasons: The most recent membership dues increase in 2017 came in at a rate of 67%. This increase, while financially advantageous for the national organization, posed a severe hardship for the councils. Since it is the responsibility of each council to provide financial assistance for girls in underserved and economically disadvantaged communities, the obligation for the membership dues for these girls falls upon the local councils. The councils are extremely committed to ensuring that Girl Scouting is available to all girls, no matter what their economic status might be. However, such an enormous increase at one time makes it difficult for the councils to provide the necessary funds for financial assistance, and may force some councils to decrease the number of assisted memberships available. This proposal would increase collaboration between the National Board and councils in two ways: 1) Allow the National Board of Directors to continue to determine the amount for membership dues; and 2) Affirm that any increase would not prove to be too burdensome on the members, families, or councils.
Financial Impact Statement: Although there will always be some budgetary impact for the councils when the membership dues are increased, this proposal would insure a more manageable impact by allowing councils to set their financial assistance budget based on the assumption of a membership dues increase below 15%.
I suppose this could be seen as a compromise (even though technically the NB doesn’t have authority), but there is a big loophole that I see. It states “whenever a membership dues increase totaling more than 15% of the current dues rate is to be initiated in any triennium period.” But it doesn’t limit the raise to only one per triennium period. With the way this reads, the dues could be raised every year as long as each one is under 15%.
Actually it means the National Board could raise dues each year PROVIDED the total within the triennium is 15% or less. So, for example they could raise dues 4% per year and stay within the guidelines. As a council we appreciate the National Board’s need to effectively budget from year to year, but the 67% increase the last time was an unprecedented and unexpected increase and in many cases a hardship to families, troops and councils.
I see what you mean. But I wonder if the wording could be a little clearer to state that a raise can’t be any more than 15% total spanning a triennium. When I first read it, I interpreted it as stating that any individual raise that occurs between NCSs could not be over 15%. I’m not the only one who read it this way.
Writing proposals (or any regulatory language) is very tricky business. My bet is that this council intended this to apply to no more than one dues increase in a triennium. If so, I wonder if it would be considered in scope if someone from the proposing council or one of the supporting councils would amend to clarify this to read so that only one dues increase of up to 15% was allowed.
Our intent was no more than 15% in the triennium between National Conventions. Whether GSUSA wants to do that one time or split it up over the triennium is up to the BoD to decide. Assuming they create an annual budget (not a triennial one) this allows the board the freedom to adjust their budget to meet their forecasted income from membership dues. It also invokes the requirement to ask the National Council permission to increase the dues beyond the 15% if the need arises, as the National Board would need to justify that to the membership.
If the need does arise to raise it above 15%, then what is the thinking as to how they will ask the NC’s permission between trienniums?
Thanks for the clarification, Pippin.
Based on the recent Alaskan Supreme Court ruling (assuming they don’t reverse it with GSUSA’s Reconsider request), this proposal as written would not legally give the NB the authority to change the amount of dues. The ASC only based its decision on the Congressional Charter & GSUSA Constitution and stated that they did not consider the rest of the Blue Book (which includes the Credentials) on their appeal. In other words, in order to legally give the NB authority, the GSUSA Constitution would need to be amended and specifically state the NB has the authority to amend the amount of membership dues. This proposal only amends the Credentials section. Here is a recap of the ruling: http://girlscoutwithacause.dawgtoons.com/2019/09/farthest-north-vs-gsusa-the-final-battle/