 |
Frequently asked questionsBriefly, what is really going on in the 2004 Sierra Club election? Three internal groups are supporting various candidates for Sierra Club positions on the Board of Directors: the 'old guard' establishment, John Muir Sierrans(JMS) and a network of Sierrans who favor stabilizing U.S. population - SUSPS. The 'old guard' establishment, is fighting to maintain its majority position on the board. Unfortunately it is trying to do so by scaring members into thinking that the club is being infiltrated by outsiders - just as Senator Joseph McCarthy used the 'communist threat' to maintain and expand his power in the 1950's. Just look at their groundswell website and various quotes of Carl Pope and others in newspapers. The scare tactics are blatantly obvious. Why has the press been running stories and editorials about radical right and radical left "outside organizations" taking over the Sierra Club? Sometimes the press just gets it wrong. In this case they've run a sensational story without checking the so-called facts they were given by board president Larry Fahn, chief executive Carl Pope, and some irresponsible people from the Southern Poverty Law Center. When the real story comes out, some reporters will have egg on their faces. Why on earth would anyone believe unconfirmed allegations that an improbable alliance of racist, immigrant hating, animal loving, vegetarians - who could never possibly get along with one another - are about to take over the venerable and wealthy $80 million per year Sierra Club? What is McCarthyism? "McCarthyism n. 1. The political practice of publicizing accusations of disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence. 2. The use of methods of investigation and accusation regarded as unfair, in order to suppress opposition." (American Heritage Dictionary) Senator Joseph McCarthy used the tactics that bear his name to maintain and expand his power in the 1950's. He scared people by charging that infiltrators from foreign communistic countries were taking over, or 'hijacking', America's government. Guilt by association is a key part of McCarthyism. Person A is associated with person B who is associated with person C - therefore whatever C believes is purportedly also true of person A. It's obviously fallacious reasoning but can look legitimate at first blush. Such tactics have no place in the Sierra Club, but unfortunately they are being employed by Groundswell writers like Drusha Mayhue, Carl Pope when he talks to the press, and other 'old guard' reactionaries. Are outside organization trying to take over in any way? There have been organizations on all sides of the political spectrum who reprinted articles that have encouraged people to join the club. The Club itself uses direct mail and membership lists from other organizations to solicit new members. But there is no evidence of an increase in Club membership this year compared to years past so these charges should not be taken seriously. Have any outside organizations had a role in recruiting candidates for the board? No outside organization has been involved in recruiting candidates for the board. No outside organizations (with the possible exception of fake candidate Morris Dees' Southern Poverty Law Center) have any control or influence on candidates for the board. So Board President Larry Fahn, and colleagues such as Chuck McGrady, Robbie Cox and executive Director Carl Pope aren't really defending the Club against an 'outside' takeover? The real takeover attempt is being mounted by the old guard group which has pushed through resolutions at the January 30, 2004 board meeting to use our member's dues, and the publications they pay for, in a manner that will directly affect the outcome of the election in favor of their nominated candidates. This hastily called conference call meeting lasted 3 hours, during which the old guard repeatedly overrode attempts by independent board members to stop these outrageous actions. This unfair electioneering will be done by using club ballot material, newsletters, mailings and press relationships to distribute hundreds of thousands of copies of an Urgent Election Notice from the president of the club. The notice includes unfounded warnings - false scare tactics - that outside organizations are attempting to take over the Club and that voters should take special precautions this year to vote for safe candidates. The clear implication is that independent reform-minded Petition Candidates are dangerous and members should vote for Nominating Committee candidates. The old guard has also placed three fake candidates on the ballot. These candidate have announced they do not want votes for themselves, that is, that they are not real candidates to serve on the Board of Directors. Their only role in running is to attack the independent Petition Candidates and push votes to the old guard's nominated slate of candidates. Who are the reform groups within the Sierra Club? There are two independent reform-oriented groups: John Muir Sierrans (JMS) - a network of Club members who have worked particularly hard to protect forests and public lands. SUSPS - a network of Club members who have worked particularly hard on stabilizing U.S. population. Both of these internal groups of Sierra Club members believe strongly in the democratic rights of the full 700,000 members of the Sierra Club to decide what is best for the Club. In past years both groups have brought forward initiatives for members to vote on, which have been opposed by the old guard entrenched directors. Are any of the internal groups or the candidates it supports "anti-immigration"? No. SUSPS favors immigration (as well as people having children) but believes that levels of reproduction and migration to the U.S. need to be reduced to a level that is consistent with stabilizing the U.S. population. The negative effects that our nation's rapid population growth has on the domestic and global environment is unsustainable. This position is neither anti-immigrant nor anti-immigration. In fact, existing Sierra Club policy calls for reduction of the U.S. population - a goal impossible to attain without addressing immigration and fertility levels. Do any of the internal groups or candidates support or have any relationship whatsoever with "racist hate organizations"? Absolutely not. The crassness and dishonesty of Club officials who have made such suggestions are inexcusable. See the statement against racism and the repudiation of any racist organizations at www.SUSPS.org. Is this internal power struggle analogous to the problems of not having enough independent directors on the Enron and Worldcom Boards of Directors, resulting in notorious failures in the for-profit corporate world? The Sierra Club is a great organization in many ways but there are some parallels in terms of governance. The failure of corporate governance was in having too many inside board members who paid too much attention to management's interests and too little to the interests of shareholders. The 'shareholders' of the Sierra Club are its members. In a very real sense, this is a power struggle between the 'old guard' management directors and grassroots directors and candidates. Who is Drusha Mayhue and why is she attacking great environmentalist board members like Paul Watson and Ben Zuckerman? Mayhue is one of the 'old guard' reactionary members. Their goal is to kick out every independent reformer from the board in future elections. "Dare to try to change us, and we'll show you who is boss" seems to be their motto. You'll find her name on the groundSwell web site. Her article on the website is textbook McCarthyism. Publishing her article in Sierra Club newsletters is considered an unfair business practice and breach of fiduciary responsibility in the lawsuit Richard Lamm v. Larry Fahn which is now awaiting a hearing in San Francisco Superior Court. Who are the unnamed candidates Mayhue is smearing? She is targeting three Sierra Club Board candidates who have sterling qualifications: David Pimentel: A Cornell University Professor of Ecology who for decades has been one of the world's preeminent experts on pesticide impacts, water pollution and exotic invasive species. Dick Lamm: A three-time liberal Democratic governor of Colorado with numerous environmental awards and credentials. Frank Morris: A retired professor, former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, and decorated senior U.S. foreign service officer. Mayhue and others seem to think Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center are wonderful. Is there another side to this story? Yes. Many people respected Morris Dees and the SPLC during their fights against the KKK and Aryan Nation. But now Dees is described as "a fraud and a con man" by the director of another civil rights organization (the Southern Center for Human Rights) and others who have worked with him. See, for example, the Harpers Magazine article The Church of Morris Dees and the article Lump of Coal. Morris Dees, along with Barbara Herz and Phillip Barry, have been identified as "fake" candidates for the board in the unfair business practice and breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit, Richard Lamm v. Larry Fahn, which is now awaiting a hearing in San Francisco Superior Court. The purpose of these fake candidates, according to the suit, is to unfairly attack petition candidates and thus help the old guard's nominated candidates. Fake candidates have been aided by the old guard, particularly Director Robbie Cox. |