 |
Club must remain neutral in Board of Directors electionMany Sierra Club members have received an email message from former Club President Lawrence Downing. In connection with this year's Board of Directors election, the message calls for a Club effort against certain candidates. Its recommendations are very problematical, from the point of view of the Club's rules and traditions - a matter worthy of discussion on this list. Mr. Downing's email criticizes unnamed petition candidates in the current election for the national Board of Directors. It refers the reader to a website, which names the disfavored candidates and elaborates on the concerns expressed in the email. In general, the email and the website seem to me to be permissible campaigning. The email, however, contains this troubling sentence: "We need your help in getting the word out about this threat to our organization, demanding that the current Board of Directors and staff utilize the vast resources of the Sierra Club to defend itself against this outside take over, and encouraging our fellow members to vote -- thoughtfully -- in this spring's Board of Directors' election." The rules governing BoD elections quite properly require that the Club, as an organization, remain neutral. Standing Rule 5-2-6 concerns "Promotion of Candidates." Specifically, SR 5-2-6(3), "Use of Club Resources," states in pertinent part: "Without authorization of the Board of Directors, no Club funds or other resources, including those of chapters, groups and other entities, shall be used to support or oppose any candidate for Director, ... unless all candidates ... are given the same opportunity, with adequate notice to them." The rule goes on to elaborate on this requirement of treating all candidates equally. Staff time is obviously a major Sierra Club resource. The Standing Rules, as posted on the Club's website, present (after SR 5-2-7) a quotation from the Sierra Club Employee Handbooks, 1998 eds., reading in part: "As members, Club employees may vote in national or local elections but may not participate in an election campaign for a national or a local office in any way." Mr. Downing's suggestion that the Club utilize its resources against certain candidates, and that it involve the staff in this endeavor, would represent a major departure from the principle of neutrality. I recognize that SR 5-2-6 begins with the gaping loophole "Without authorization of the Board of Directors ..." It could be argued that a BoD vote to spend Club funds denouncing certain candidates would comply with this rule. To anyone who cares about the Sierra Club as a democratic, grassroots organization, however, it should be obvious that such a course would be grossly unfair. The website cited in the email devotes much of its attention to the immigration issue. The argument, in sum, is that certain petition candidates "serve on the boards of several anti-immigration groups" and are running for the purpose of taking over the Sierra Club for the anti-immigration cause. I personally do not support the longstanding effort by some Sierra Club members to change Club policy on immigration. Early in my legal career, I spent part of my time representing immigrants before what was then called the Immigration and Naturalization Service. My sympathies are still with them. Also, as a Sierran, I just don't see a role for the Club in taking on issues like the number of immigrant visas to be issued annually. In the referendum on the subject, I voted with the majority of Club members, who rejected the proposed change in policy. Nevertheless, although I disagree with the members who urge this change, I think they have a right to present their position. Furthermore, as BoD candidates, they also have a right to equal treatment by the Club, including Club neutrality in the expenditure of funds and the allocation of staff time. On a contentious issue like immigration, we can't hope to achieve consensus on Club policy. What we can realistically hope for is to maintain a process that is generally accepted as fair. When a decision emerges from such a process, the members whose views did not prevail will be disappointed, but they can still feel that they were treated appropriately. Unfortunately, there's often a temptation to abridge the democratic process to achieve a desired outcome. (Free and fair elections are such messy, unpredictable things.) Experience has shown that yielding to this temptation is very harmful to the long-term cohesiveness of an organization or a polity. Applying these principles to the specific case at hand, I strongly believe that use of Sierra Club funds or staff to try to defeat certain BoD candidates would be wholly improper. The impropriety would not be cured by an authorization from a majority of the incumbent BoD. Those of us who are not in sympathy with the anti-immigration movement have a particular responsibility to see to it that our adversaries are treated fairly. I hope the BoD will allow the electoral process to play itself out, unencumbered, and will let the members of the Club decide who is to be seated on the Board. - Jim Lane, February 15, 2004
Home Press Releases |