Girl Scout Council of Monterey Bay

Issue 3, July 2006

Overview of Proposals

By June 1, GSUSA received proposals and/or confirmation letters from all councils — now totaling 108 council groups. Here is a snapshot of the submissions received.

10 “early adopter” council groups
9 councils where boundaries did not change
10 councils where change will be limited to small jurisdictional adjustments
30 council groups where submissions matched the resource map
15 council groups where submissions reflected positive feedback received during the early adopter process
5 council groups where the submission differs from the resource map but where all submitting councils agree
5 pairs of council groups (representing 10 council groups) where the submissions reflect an overlapping area
9 areas (each including more than one council) where the details of the map are still unresolved

Recommendation for Council Jurisdiction

GSUSA’s Mapping Task Force, charged with creating the new national map, met in the latter part of June to discuss conflicting proposals from the California Central Coast Council (Santa Clara, Monterey Bay, and Santa Barbara) and California Northern Coast Council (San Francisco Bay, Konocti, Napa-Solano and Sierra Cascade). As explained in Realignment News Issue 2, San Francisco Bay disagrees with the demographer’s recommendation to place San Mateo County with the Central Coast Council. The Task Force recommends splitting San Mateo County along school district lines.

“The Task Force recognizes that this is a complex issue. San Mateo is a dynamic area with continual overlap between San Francisco and Silicon Valley. San Mateo County does reflect demographics which indicate a division within the county. The commuting patterns for San Mateo County reflect 61% of the people who live and work in the county, with the other 40% divided with 20% commuting North and 20% commuting South. This division of San Mateo County (by school districts) allocates both affluent and poorer areas to each council.

It is proposed that the following districts be added to the North Coast Council: Jefferson Union High School District and its elementary feeders (Brisbane, Jefferson, and Laguna Salada); South San Francisco Unified; and San Mateo Union High School District and its elementary feeders (Burlingame, Hillsborough, Millbrae, San Bruno,San Mateo-Foster City). The cities of Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, Foster City, Hillsborough, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, San Mateo, and South San Francisco are included in this part of the county.

It is proposed that the following districts be added to the Central Coast Council: Cabrillo Unified, LA Honda-Pescadero Unified, Sequoia Union High School District, and its elementary feeders (Belmont-Redwood Shores, Las Lomitas, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, Ravenswood City, Redwood City, San Carlos, and Woodside). The cities of Atherton, Belmont, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Montara, Moss Beach, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, and Woodside are included in this part of the county.”

We have notified the Task Force that we will support the compromise. The California Northern Coast Council continues to argue for inclusion of the entire county within their jurisdiction. Jurisdictional proposals for both of the newly formed councils will go the GSUSA Board of Directors with the split of San Mateo along school district lines. The board meets the end of August to approve all jurisdictional proposals.

Pro Bono Legal Counsel

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has been engaged on a pro bono basis by GSUSA as its special legal advisor for realignment. In that role, Gibson Dunn will help GSUSA and councils address issues that are national in scope.

Working with GSUSA, the firm will develop general policies relating to realignment as well as written materials that can be adapted by all councils, such as template agreements, checklists, and training materials. They will also set up and maintain an extranet that will be open to all councils. It will contain resources and FAQs about realignment.

Services provided by Gibson, Dunn can include advising on state law related to mergers, drafting merger agreements and merger filings that will be required; providing advice from a legal prospective regarding required board and member approvals; and review of contracts for possible third-party approvals.

If a group of merging councils decides to engage the firm, a Gibson, Dunn attorney will be assigned as the contact for each council the group.

The services of Gibson, Dunn are pro bono; however council groups will be asked to cover any out of pocket expenses incurred by the firm on their behalf. For example, if an attorney from Gibson, Dunn needs to be present for the final vote; the council group will need to pay for her or his travel costs.