History of Iowa Lawsuit
At the time the lawsuit was filed, the Council's proposal for the camps was the one it announced on February 5, 2013, which called for selling all 4 of the camps.
The lawsuit was filed by the 5 petitioners on March 22, 2013, for the purpose of obtaining a ruling from the court--not to prevent the Council from ever selling any of the camps---but to determine that in the event the Council does decide to sell any camp, the members of this Council would have a right to vote to approve or disapprove of the proposed sale. The name for this kind of legal action is a "declaratory judgment," which is a lawsuit designed to seek a ruling from the Court determining things such as status or legal rights of the parties.
At the same time, the lawsuit also sought what is called a "preliminary injunction,” that is, a court order which would prevent the Council from conducting its vote at the Board meeting scheduled for March 28 until such time as the Council had designed and presented to the Court an adequate procedure to accommodate the right of members to vote on the proposed sale of the camps.
Click here If you would like to read the Amended Petition filed by the petitioners, and the Answer filed by the Council in the case.
The hearing on the petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction was scheduled for the morning of Wednesday, March 27. Minutes before that hearing, the Council informed the Court that it would agree to cancel the official Board meeting scheduled for March 28, cancel the vote on the disposition of the camps, and meet again informally to hold what they intended to be a "work meeting," out of which they would produce a new proposal re the 4 camps. Because this took the immediate sale of any camp off the table, the petitioners withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction, with the understanding that they could re-file it at any time, if needed.
On Friday, March 29, 2013, the Council posted on its website, its newest version of the plan for all 4 camps. You can view that by going to the Council website and clicking on "Property Recommendation." The Board then re-scheduled its official regular meeting from March 28 to April 11. The Board voted at this meeting to approve this newest plan issued on March 29, 2013.
Below are links to the Council's website, on which you can find the Council's Press Release of March 27; new Property Recommendation of March 29; as well as the Council's March 29 letter to Girl Scouts:
http://girlscoutstoday.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/council-listens-shares-update/
http://girlscoutstoday.org/property-recommendation
http://girlscoutstoday.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/property-recommendation/
Update May 2013:
At this point, the underlying lawsuit remains active. It seeks a determination from the Court that members of the Council have the right to vote with respect to the proposed sale of any camp, even though the Board proceeded to approve the plan that it announced on March 29.
"Discovery" has been initiated by the petitioners, who have served Interrogatories and Request for a Production of Documents on the Council.
The Council answered only 2 out of 17 questions in the petitioners' Interrogatories, while refusing to answer the remaining 15 questions and objecting to those as "irrelevant." Those 15 questions sought various items of information pertaining to the 4 camps, such as when determinations would be made under the Council's current property plan as to what camp property is "not needed," as well as who would make those determinations, and the specific criteria to be used for each determination. Those Interrogatories also asked the Council to disclose whether it has identified any buyers for the camps, and if it has retained any firms or other entities to assist with consulting in the process of disposition of the camps and to identify all such plans.
The Council refused to provide documents to the petitioners with respect to 8 out of 9 of their Requests for Production of Documents. The only documents provided by the Council were copies of the written real estate appraisals for Camp Tahigwa; Camp Conestoga, and Camp Little Cloud. The Council stated that it had not obtained an appraisal for Camp L Kee Ta. The Council refused to provide documentation that related to various other requests for information about the planning for the camps, and objected to these Requests as "irrelevant," such as requests for documents relating to planned upgrades and modifications; Council Board Minutes for 2008-2013; Property Committee Minutes for 2010-2013; various communications with and recommendations by representatives from GSUSA regarding planning for the camps; and camp budgets for previous years to the present
Trial was held in January 2014. The ruling can be found on the main lawsuit page here.
The lawsuit was filed by the 5 petitioners on March 22, 2013, for the purpose of obtaining a ruling from the court--not to prevent the Council from ever selling any of the camps---but to determine that in the event the Council does decide to sell any camp, the members of this Council would have a right to vote to approve or disapprove of the proposed sale. The name for this kind of legal action is a "declaratory judgment," which is a lawsuit designed to seek a ruling from the Court determining things such as status or legal rights of the parties.
At the same time, the lawsuit also sought what is called a "preliminary injunction,” that is, a court order which would prevent the Council from conducting its vote at the Board meeting scheduled for March 28 until such time as the Council had designed and presented to the Court an adequate procedure to accommodate the right of members to vote on the proposed sale of the camps.
Click here If you would like to read the Amended Petition filed by the petitioners, and the Answer filed by the Council in the case.
The hearing on the petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction was scheduled for the morning of Wednesday, March 27. Minutes before that hearing, the Council informed the Court that it would agree to cancel the official Board meeting scheduled for March 28, cancel the vote on the disposition of the camps, and meet again informally to hold what they intended to be a "work meeting," out of which they would produce a new proposal re the 4 camps. Because this took the immediate sale of any camp off the table, the petitioners withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction, with the understanding that they could re-file it at any time, if needed.
On Friday, March 29, 2013, the Council posted on its website, its newest version of the plan for all 4 camps. You can view that by going to the Council website and clicking on "Property Recommendation." The Board then re-scheduled its official regular meeting from March 28 to April 11. The Board voted at this meeting to approve this newest plan issued on March 29, 2013.
Below are links to the Council's website, on which you can find the Council's Press Release of March 27; new Property Recommendation of March 29; as well as the Council's March 29 letter to Girl Scouts:
http://girlscoutstoday.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/council-listens-shares-update/
http://girlscoutstoday.org/property-recommendation
http://girlscoutstoday.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/property-recommendation/
Update May 2013:
At this point, the underlying lawsuit remains active. It seeks a determination from the Court that members of the Council have the right to vote with respect to the proposed sale of any camp, even though the Board proceeded to approve the plan that it announced on March 29.
"Discovery" has been initiated by the petitioners, who have served Interrogatories and Request for a Production of Documents on the Council.
The Council answered only 2 out of 17 questions in the petitioners' Interrogatories, while refusing to answer the remaining 15 questions and objecting to those as "irrelevant." Those 15 questions sought various items of information pertaining to the 4 camps, such as when determinations would be made under the Council's current property plan as to what camp property is "not needed," as well as who would make those determinations, and the specific criteria to be used for each determination. Those Interrogatories also asked the Council to disclose whether it has identified any buyers for the camps, and if it has retained any firms or other entities to assist with consulting in the process of disposition of the camps and to identify all such plans.
The Council refused to provide documents to the petitioners with respect to 8 out of 9 of their Requests for Production of Documents. The only documents provided by the Council were copies of the written real estate appraisals for Camp Tahigwa; Camp Conestoga, and Camp Little Cloud. The Council stated that it had not obtained an appraisal for Camp L Kee Ta. The Council refused to provide documentation that related to various other requests for information about the planning for the camps, and objected to these Requests as "irrelevant," such as requests for documents relating to planned upgrades and modifications; Council Board Minutes for 2008-2013; Property Committee Minutes for 2010-2013; various communications with and recommendations by representatives from GSUSA regarding planning for the camps; and camp budgets for previous years to the present
Trial was held in January 2014. The ruling can be found on the main lawsuit page here.
