Home
 
Internal Power Struggle
 
Independent Directors & Petition Candidates
 
CEO and 'old guard'
 
False Claims
 
Unfair Electioneering
 
Injunctions
 
Learn more and vote
 
Press Releases
Articles & Letters
 
FAQ
 
Board & Candidate List

Quick rundown on false claims made in 2004 election materials and other publications

This year's election for the Sierra Club Board of Directors has been characterized by an unprecedented attack on the democracy and fairness principles for which the Club is known. The reason: Over the past three years, grassroots supported candidates have won five of the 15-member Board seats and are now poised to win a majority. To preserve their power, 'old guard' establishment directors have pulled out all the stops with an unprecedented campaign of disinformation, fear mongering and hostility.

This year, for the first time, the Board has allowed fake candidates (Phillip Berry, Morris Dees and Barbara Herz), to appear on the ballot - people who are asking members not to vote for themselves and who are using their ballot statements to attack other candidates. Also, for the first time, the election materials include a notice from the Board President with false claims about a 'take over' by outside organizations. More examples of unfair electioneering include publishing one-sided articles in Club newsletters, use of Club email lists for mass distribution of pre-election hit pieces, directors and Club employees using confidential information to pressure well known endorsers to revoke endorsements given to candidates, and hiring a high priced national law firm to threaten the assets of two retired university professors rather than letting their request for an injunction against unfair election practices be decided by a judge on its merits.

Directly, or through innuendo, the fake candidates and Sierra Club President Fahn claim that certain candidates and certain independent directors represent outside, right wing, anti-immigration, anti-immigrant, vegetarian, and extremist animal rights' organizations that are attempting a 'hostile take over' of the old guard's Sierra Club.

Sounds great for a Hollywood script. But the only truth to it is that several of the independent directors and candidates are vegetarians (while several are hunters and fishers).

The political views of the independent directors and candidates range from liberal to moderate. All are for human reproduction, but in responsible numbers. That doesn't make them anti-reproduction and certainly not anti-baby.

Similarly, a number of the independent directors and candidates understand that rapid U.S. population growth from both reproduction and immigration are now at environmentally unsustainably levels and conclude that both components of growth must be addressed. But just as they favor reproduction, they favor immigration. They are not 'anti-immigration' and they certainly are not 'anti-immigrants.'

Voters are urged to look carefully at the qualifications of those making the false claims. Chief among them is the formerly respected, but now highly suspect, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center. While Mr. Dees has done good work in the past, he has recently been described as a fraud and a con man in Harper's Magazine.

Dees was recruited to become a Sierra Club member just for this election by those who fear the progress independent board members have made in strengthening the Sierra Club. Please consider carefully whether to believe this person who is running as a fake candidate and is now using his ballot statement to tarnish the reputation of people like noted NAACP activist Frank Morris and immigrant Roy van de Hoek. Do their candidacies constitute a 'right wing anti-immigrant' take over of the Sierra Club? Absolutely not. His claim, and those of the others are simply groundless.

Dees claims about SUSPS are also groundless. SUSPS is a network of long term Club members who support the Club's policies that call for reducing our consumption and stabilizing and eventually reducing U.S. as well as global population. The supporters of SUSPS are neither 'right wing' or 'anti-immigration.' (Please visit www.SUSPS.org and judge for yourself.)

All of these negative attacks should be seen for what they truly are: the desperate attempts of entrenched interests to maintain their grip on power. By raising unwarranted fears, these officials hope to scare Club members into electing the 'old guard' candidates Lisa Renstrom, David Karpf, Nick Aumen, Sanjay Ranchod and Jan O'Connell. Michael Dorsey is also considered to be aligned with the old guard in terms of lack of support for democratic traditions of the Club.

Candidates Michael K. Dorsey, Nick Aumen, and fake candidate Phil Berry warrant particular attention as former directors who sought to reduce democracy in club election by supporting a 1999 ballot measure that would have made it more difficult for members to place a ballot question before the membership - a move that was rejected by the membership by a two to one margin.

Please note that the term 'old guard' is not a referral to age. In fact, David Brower was in his 80s during his last years on the Board and he was decidedly not 'old guard'. This year the old guard have recruited two young men formerly with the Sierra Student Coalition to become candidates. They have awarded them titles and nominated them without the usual climbing up the ladder. These candidates are David Karpf and Sanjay Ranchod. Younger leaders should be welcomed into the Club, but these two have already demonstrated their unfortunate willingness to engage in unfair and untrue negative attacks on others.

Its time for "more conservation, less conversation." Please vote for independent, grassroots, reform oriented candidates for the Sierra Club Board of Directors.