Statement presented at the RJRD meeting March 14, 2016
Friends of Crowell Hilaka have been working on the MOU [ Memorandum of Understanding ] draft since last April; the Work Plan part since November 2014. We are prepared to sign the MOU as it stands. But we felt it was important to have a conversation before signing & make sure the expectations were clear all around.
As the only non-profit 501c3 organization dedicated solely to the enhancement of Crowell Hilaka, our goal is to work with you in the most effective way possible.
Before we get into the specific points we want to address, there is a concern that affects the basic relationship. Over the past year, we have gotten some feedback from members of the community. Most of it is positive, but there is some negative. We collected the information and categorized the issues because we pay attention to what people say. There are some who have heard some misinformation about us and our motives for hanging around. These can be summarized into 4 concerns:
Looking back at our history, we think we can see where the confusion is coming from. So we would like to make a full disclosure by sharing very condensed version of our background.
In June 2009 the Girl Scouts announced they were closing Crowell Hilaka along with several other camps. In July FoCH formed to protest the closure and promote the value of Crowell Hilaka as a GS camp. In August we launched our first initiative. In September the GS administration decided that the north half could stay open pending a final decision on the disposition of all the camps. This gave us a window of opportunity to showcase the camp, research the history, put on some programs to bring kids in. We began looking at the possibility of doing some fund- raising for repairs. We didn’t have have our 501c3 non-profit status that would have made donations tax-deductible, so we asked Richfield Historical Society to “adopt” us. They did.
We submitted a proposal to GSNEO about what repair projects we would like to take on ( which included fixing the fence ! ). They said "no thank you" and a month later announced they were permanently closing 5 camps- including Crowell Hilaka - and turning the last two council camps into Leadership Centers. There was a huge outcry & concern throughout the council on what effect this would have on the whole Girl Scouting program. Six months later, at the next meeting of the council General Assembly some of the council delegates proposed a resolution to re-evaluate the camp decision. They also proposed some candidates for the council board of directors. The resolution passed, but the council administration declared it to be non-binding. They also refused to allow all the vacancies on the board to be filled. Long story short, a large group of active GS volunteers from four regions collectively hired a lawyer to take the case to court.
Not for a payout. It was to uphold the rights of the Girl Scout membership to have a say in their council like it say they do in the GS constitution. Six members of the large group agreed to be named as plaintiffs. Three of us are people you know. I was one, so was Corey, and so was Lucy. FoCH as an organization was one of the groups that helped raise money for legal fees. However as time dragged on, it became clear that even if the council was forced to keep the camps, they would not take care of them. At that point, FoCH withdrew from involvement, although individual GS paid for the case to continue as a justice issue. We won a partial judgment, but it was too little, too late to make a difference.
The take away is that FoCH did not file a lawsuit against Girls Scouts. But it is true that we supported the lawsuit. It was exhausting, expensive, and painful. And we don’t ever want to have to go through that again.
FoCH does not want this to be a GS camp. With apologies to Debbie Blusoe Rogers ( whose sister was the lawyer for the old council ) & current GS members; a lot of us can’t even bring ourselves to support the council by buying GS cookies any more. But it is very true that we think outdoor education for children is vitally important. It doesn’t matter what group they belong to – or if they come with their families or friends. We really do want to see kids playing here.
We are very aware that Richfield owns the park and we are more grateful than you can know. But we love the place and want to see it thrive. So we do what we can. Our name has raised some questions: why aren’t we "Friends of RJRD"?
As to whether we are being temporarily tolerated: we look at the MOU as a sign that we can stick around & be useful. We hope any incorrect ideas will fade out as people get to know us. But we felt it was necessary to call it out now because the existing confusion may undercut our ability to raise money for you. We need a mutually respectful, recognized partnership so that we can have a better chance of being successful in fundraising.
Points to be considered & questions to ask to make sure YOU are OK with this MOU
V/A . space designated for FoCH use for storage, business, & activities: anything would be great. Our first choice is Chagrin Valley Cabin- in part because it’s in the Clean Ohio restricted zone, so it can’t be rented out. but we would love it.
QUESTIONS
III/ C. / 5 FoCH submitting RJRD- related material info for review before publication. Should there be a reciprocal clause so that FoCH can fact-check information about our organization and/or events that RJRD may be distributing?
X/ A. What additional financial reports and inspections does RJRD require beyond local state, federal regulations?
Work Plan -
no essential changes from what we submitted & what Bill Hanna approved except
Kirby Birthday event: we noticed this item was removed from our work plan draft, and we are wondering why
Oviatt House & the Nature Hut we are interested in preserving/moving/salvaging whatever is possible
Mill restoration: we have selected an architect and a structural engineer to evaluate the mill. We were waiting for two things before we hired them: signing of the MOU and making sure the lower lake is part of the Master Plan. If it’s OK, we will notify these professionals to begin making their assessments. They are going to only give us information on what is possible; we will present that to you. As owners, you will have final approval on the restoration plans. We will not begin formal fundraising until you have signed off on a plan that that works for you.
Friends of Crowell Hilaka have been working on the MOU [ Memorandum of Understanding ] draft since last April; the Work Plan part since November 2014. We are prepared to sign the MOU as it stands. But we felt it was important to have a conversation before signing & make sure the expectations were clear all around.
As the only non-profit 501c3 organization dedicated solely to the enhancement of Crowell Hilaka, our goal is to work with you in the most effective way possible.
Before we get into the specific points we want to address, there is a concern that affects the basic relationship. Over the past year, we have gotten some feedback from members of the community. Most of it is positive, but there is some negative. We collected the information and categorized the issues because we pay attention to what people say. There are some who have heard some misinformation about us and our motives for hanging around. These can be summarized into 4 concerns:
- FoCH sued the Girl Scouts ( and might want to sue us)
- FoCH wants to turn this back into a GS camp
- FoCH thinks they own the place
- FoCH is just being tolerated for now.
Looking back at our history, we think we can see where the confusion is coming from. So we would like to make a full disclosure by sharing very condensed version of our background.
In June 2009 the Girl Scouts announced they were closing Crowell Hilaka along with several other camps. In July FoCH formed to protest the closure and promote the value of Crowell Hilaka as a GS camp. In August we launched our first initiative. In September the GS administration decided that the north half could stay open pending a final decision on the disposition of all the camps. This gave us a window of opportunity to showcase the camp, research the history, put on some programs to bring kids in. We began looking at the possibility of doing some fund- raising for repairs. We didn’t have have our 501c3 non-profit status that would have made donations tax-deductible, so we asked Richfield Historical Society to “adopt” us. They did.
We submitted a proposal to GSNEO about what repair projects we would like to take on ( which included fixing the fence ! ). They said "no thank you" and a month later announced they were permanently closing 5 camps- including Crowell Hilaka - and turning the last two council camps into Leadership Centers. There was a huge outcry & concern throughout the council on what effect this would have on the whole Girl Scouting program. Six months later, at the next meeting of the council General Assembly some of the council delegates proposed a resolution to re-evaluate the camp decision. They also proposed some candidates for the council board of directors. The resolution passed, but the council administration declared it to be non-binding. They also refused to allow all the vacancies on the board to be filled. Long story short, a large group of active GS volunteers from four regions collectively hired a lawyer to take the case to court.
Not for a payout. It was to uphold the rights of the Girl Scout membership to have a say in their council like it say they do in the GS constitution. Six members of the large group agreed to be named as plaintiffs. Three of us are people you know. I was one, so was Corey, and so was Lucy. FoCH as an organization was one of the groups that helped raise money for legal fees. However as time dragged on, it became clear that even if the council was forced to keep the camps, they would not take care of them. At that point, FoCH withdrew from involvement, although individual GS paid for the case to continue as a justice issue. We won a partial judgment, but it was too little, too late to make a difference.
The take away is that FoCH did not file a lawsuit against Girls Scouts. But it is true that we supported the lawsuit. It was exhausting, expensive, and painful. And we don’t ever want to have to go through that again.
FoCH does not want this to be a GS camp. With apologies to Debbie Blusoe Rogers ( whose sister was the lawyer for the old council ) & current GS members; a lot of us can’t even bring ourselves to support the council by buying GS cookies any more. But it is very true that we think outdoor education for children is vitally important. It doesn’t matter what group they belong to – or if they come with their families or friends. We really do want to see kids playing here.
We are very aware that Richfield owns the park and we are more grateful than you can know. But we love the place and want to see it thrive. So we do what we can. Our name has raised some questions: why aren’t we "Friends of RJRD"?
- It’s been stressed that RJRD may eventually take on the administration of other properties. We are still going to support you, but we are only connected with this particular property.
- Right after Richfield voted to buy the property we put the wheels in motion to get our legal non-profit status. We also wanted to re-print our brochures, and do some promotions, so we asked the RJRD communications committee if they were going to go with some sort of temporary name so we could decide what to do & they said they’re sticking the with the name Crowell Hilaka for the time. The fact is that if you change the name of the park, we are very likely to change ours to match
- if we aren’t in the middle of a fundraising campaign. Right now Crowell Hilaka & FoCH has a lot of name recognition value- we are hoping to use that to raise money for historic restoration.
As to whether we are being temporarily tolerated: we look at the MOU as a sign that we can stick around & be useful. We hope any incorrect ideas will fade out as people get to know us. But we felt it was necessary to call it out now because the existing confusion may undercut our ability to raise money for you. We need a mutually respectful, recognized partnership so that we can have a better chance of being successful in fundraising.
Points to be considered & questions to ask to make sure YOU are OK with this MOU
- VII/ B . Who gets out assets if we disband? The MOU says RJRD gets earmarked funds and an acceptable third party can take the rest. The earmarked funds thing is fine. We had to name an heir when we applied for non-profit 501c3 status. Since RHS was our fiduciary sponsor at that time, we made them our heir. That is what the IRS has on file. We had some concerns that they weren’t specifically named in this contract. But then we realized that if it comes to the point of our disbanding, we won’t care, because we’ll be dead. You can take it up with the Historical Society and the Internal Revenue Service.
- We generally need to have things in writing if we are going to announce something in our newsletter or otherwise act on it. Emails are fine. But in the beginning we were so anxious to do whatever anyone said- we kind of jumped the gun whenever anyone on the RJRD board said to do something. We kind of had to learn the hard way to differentiate between someone on the RJRD board expressing personal opinion vs. decision set forth by the board as a whole
- V/B Intellectual property Our website is copyrighted. Standard practice is someone who wants to use our writings or anything that we have produced has to ask permission first. RJRD does not have to. All you have to do is say that you got it from www.friendsofcrowellhilaka.org because it gives us credit and it strengthens the public understanding that we are working together.
- If you see something that doesn’t seem right on our website- let us know.
- III/B/5 Using space on the property for FoCH meetings. We’re flexible. We’ve used Amity porch, Gund front porch, Waterfront tent unit ( w/ campfire). If something changes, let us know asap so we can send out a mailing- otherwise, we’ll post signs to our location. We’re adaptable. RJRD board members, personnel, & volunteers ALWAYS welcome at our meetings. Third Tuesday, 7 pm.
V/A . space designated for FoCH use for storage, business, & activities: anything would be great. Our first choice is Chagrin Valley Cabin- in part because it’s in the Clean Ohio restricted zone, so it can’t be rented out. but we would love it.
QUESTIONS
III/ C. / 5 FoCH submitting RJRD- related material info for review before publication. Should there be a reciprocal clause so that FoCH can fact-check information about our organization and/or events that RJRD may be distributing?
X/ A. What additional financial reports and inspections does RJRD require beyond local state, federal regulations?
Work Plan -
no essential changes from what we submitted & what Bill Hanna approved except
Kirby Birthday event: we noticed this item was removed from our work plan draft, and we are wondering why
Oviatt House & the Nature Hut we are interested in preserving/moving/salvaging whatever is possible
Mill restoration: we have selected an architect and a structural engineer to evaluate the mill. We were waiting for two things before we hired them: signing of the MOU and making sure the lower lake is part of the Master Plan. If it’s OK, we will notify these professionals to begin making their assessments. They are going to only give us information on what is possible; we will present that to you. As owners, you will have final approval on the restoration plans. We will not begin formal fundraising until you have signed off on a plan that that works for you.