2016 Sierra Club Board of Directors Election

This Page: Candidate Positions | My Views | LeConte Home | LeConte Forum Listserv | Update On LeConte Memorial Lodge & Fundraising

This site is posted by Harold Wood, a long-time grassroots volunteer at the Group, Chapter, and National levels of the Club; I am also a Life member of the Sierra Club (which I joined in 1968) and a donor. This site is not sponsored or supported by the Sierra Club.

"What is at stake in the Sierra Club Board election: the Sierra Club itself. Is the Sierra Club to divorce itself from its history? Is it to become a generic environmental activist organization? If it detaches from its famous historic roots, it loses its meaning, soul and unique place in the minds and hearts of Americans, and ultimately its value and power as an organization."
- Barbara Mossberg.

The Sierra Club Board of Directors election is under full swing, and polls are still open through April 27, 2016.

Candidate Positions about Outreach in Yosemite, Preserving Sierra Club History, and Role of Grassroots in the Sierra Club

Featured here are responses we received from candidates about 3 sets of questions my wife Janet and I posed (on 3-7-16) to candidates for the Sierra Club Board of Directors in 2016. I asked the first two questions, and Janet asked the third question.

Based on these responses, and the positions stated by the Board candidates for the last two months during board meeteings and several telephone conferences, and the failure of two candidates to respond to my questions, my personal recommendation for board candidates to support this year are the following three:

Sadly, none of the other candidates express much sympathy toward the issues addressed in my questions. What the Board really needs are more members like Dean Walraff, Jim Dougherty and Spencer Black, who have a clear understanding of the importance of preserving our history. Unfortunately, those board members are incumbents not currently up for re-election this year.

The response from each candidate to each of these 3 questions is given below, directly from their email responses to us.

Note: These two questions were emailed from Harold Wood to the candidates on Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:57 PM.

QUESTION 1 - Continuing the LeConte Memorial Lodge (to be renamed the Yosemite Conservation Heritage Center) Program in Yosemite:

The Sierra Club built the LeConte Memorial Lodge in Yosemite National Park in 1904. For 112 years the Sierra Club has operated it as a public visitor center, presenting and promoting the conservation ethic through public programs, educational displays and a library. (See: http://vault.sierraclub.org/education/leconte/)

The annual cost is less than $100,000 per year, and involves over 100 volunteers who assist a paid curator during each summer season from May - September. The Lodge provides information about Sierra Club's unique history and involvement in establishing Yosemite National Park and other parks and wilderness areas, as well as current Sierra Club programs and campaigns, including global climate change. The Sierra Club Board of Directors in November of 2015 made a decision to terminate this program. It is currently re-considering that decision.

Do you support maintaining this program?
Do you think the program is too costly?
Would you support creating an endowment fund to keep the program operating long-term?
Do you think the program is no longer relevant to the Sierra Club?

ANSWERS:

David Scott: "I termed off the board last May and am proud to have been nominated to run again. The 2016 budget was adopted in November by the current board. I attended the February meeting where LeConte was on the board's agenda, and my understanding is that the current board intends to make decisions on its March call. I strongly support work to build an endowment to support this important program."

Chuck Frank: "My position on this issue is very clear as I stated in my blog about the recently concluded Board's meeting. I have excerpted the relevant portions below. That said, I find that the way you have presented the questions above doesn't fairly capture the comprehensive and complex nature of the problem and is trying to corner the candidates into simplified positions. Simple yes or no answers do not do justice to the myriad of options or fluidity of the situation at this moment in time which will change by the time the election is over, in fact.

LeConte Lodge. We next engaged in a session to address the issues surrounding the funding of the LeConte Memorial Lodge in Yosemite Valley in Yosemite National Park. This has become a somewhat complicated and contentious issue which has touched off some very passionate reactions. For this reason, interested parties were invited to attend the meeting in person or call in on Google Hangout. About two dozen members were there in person and maybe another dozen or so on the Hangout. We heard input from the volunteers, a representative from the NPS and leaders for the Our Wild America Campaign under who's purview the Lodge is now. Here is a website address in case you want more information on the Lodge: http://vault.sierraclub.org/education/leconte/.

For various reasons I have become very engaged in this item. It basically has evolved into a decision as to whether to continue funding the staff and program there in 2016 and/or beyond. And if so, how? Since I originally voted for ending the funding as part of our budgeting process last fall two principal factors have changed. First, the position of the National Park Service and, secondly, my understanding on how important keeping the Lodge open is to a wide and deep segment of our members and volunteers. My perception of the general feeling of at least a majority of the Board members is that the program there does not align well with our recently adopted Strategic Plan and as we move forward to align our funding priorities with our vision adopted by the plan that directing scarce C4 and C3 unrestricted revenue does not fit. That said, I am supportive of not dropping this program with virtually no notice to a large contingent of our members and volunteers who have so passionately supported LeConte for decades. I am also mindful of the link to our heritage and core DNA that this place and program involves. And the fact that once we give up stewardship of the Lodge there will unlikely be any chance of being able to reverse this decision. Furthermore, I believe that we should give the LeConte Committee the opportunity to develop a method of funding and advancing the program after the current budget year (2016). I would hate to see us end our relationship there prematurely if a solution can be arranged that works for everyone. I also worry that we might be cutting off our nose to spite our face in so far as the financial fallout from ending our annual $85,000 to $100,000 funding of The Lodge could end up in reduced membership income by more than this amount on an annual basis and in lost bequests that many of our longest standing and most dedicated members and volunteers may have designated to the Club.

Despite that this was scheduled to be strictly a "listening" session, the following motion was made by Director Dean Wallraff. I seconded the motion because, while we received a number of important pieces of new information at the meeting that could impact how we eventually create a manageable plan, in my mind, there was nothing that still needs to be determined that would change my mind about continuing to support the Lodge for one more year while we determine if a going forward plan with Sierra Club involvement is viable. Nevertheless, a motion to table the motion until our March 17 Board Meeting conference call was passed 9 to 6.

"Moved that funding for the Lodge formerly known as "Le Conte Memorial Lodge" be continued through 2016 at the same level as in 2015; that the BOD direct FinCom to determine how this continued funding is to be integrated into the 2016 budget; and that the BOD ExCom appoint a Lodge Task Force to develop a plan for the continued management and funding of the Lodge, and for increasing its impact on Club membership and advocacy, in time for their proposal to be considered during the 2017 budget process."

At the end of this blog is the statement I made as the seconder of the motion in support. I generally believe that there is a majority of the Board that is supportive of this process. A call in number will be provided to allow all who care to to listen in on the discussion on March 17th. I do not know whether there will actually be an opportunity for member input or involvement in that discussion. For more information on this, contact Michael Bryant at: mbryant@sonic.net or (h) 707-579-1429 (c) 707-953-9058.

Statement by Director Chuck Frank in support of the motion to fund the LeConte Memorial Lodge (under a new name) for 2016.

I voted in favor of the budget last November that did not include funding for the LeConte Memorial Lodge on the basis of the situation as it was presented to us then. There were three basic tenants upon which I relied.

1. The name LeConte had become a problem and the NPS would not allow us to change it.

2. The MOU was very restrictive and we were unable to promote our mission there or develop membership and revenue and that our financial resources could be utilized more effectively with greater impact elsewhere.

3. While a few loyal volunteers would be upset, in the big scheme of things, this is something that happens when we have to make tough decisions as I do well know.

The circumstances today are not as they were then or as presented. And, my views have evolved.

Clearly, the position of the Park Service has changed eliminating the name issue barrier. And, according to the input from scores of volunteers, now thousands, it appears to me that the impact of the lodge and our ability to promote the Sierra Club and our mission and initiatives is significantly greater than I was lead to believe. And what better audience to reach out to than people who have self selected to visit Yosemite?

Regarding the funding, I believe this is a red herring. I recognize that it is not so easy to simply say that in a budget of $110+ million this is a very small percentage based on how much of our funding is restricted and divided between C3 and C4 which severely limits our flexibility in our discretion. Nevertheless, to try and micromanage a budget for what is less than two tenths of one percent of our unrestricted membership C4 revenue ignores the fact that there are an enormous number of variables in our budget that are changing daily and I believe we can find the funding to allow the Lodge to stay open and funded this year while we work with the volunteers and staff to determine if we can figure out a way to maintain the Lodge as a Sierra Club entity and program in perpetuity or at least for the foreseeable future. In addition, we put at risk future membership income and bequests. A loss of just 1800 memberships would offset ANY financial benefit we might achieve by de - funding the Lodge.

I will begin to help in that regard by directing the $5000 of funds that I committed to contribute yesterday to the Lodge's 2016 budget if it will be matched by our two Boards and volunteers. Furthermore, I will also forgo any budget that is put aside for a face to face meeting for the Visibility and Outreach Committee which I Chair if the FinCom will allow me to do that.

I have discovered through the experiences I have had I my career and life that there are often unintended consequences to our actions and behavior. Sometimes it is perceptions that are skewed or in fact there was a blind side. And sometimes a behavior hits a nerve that was unforeseen. I think this is one of those cases and it is therefore appropriate to take a step back and reassess and reconsider. There is a perception among many volunteers, right or wrong, that the Sierra Club is abandoning its roots and core values of protecting our wild and scenic landscapes and wildlife. This step, rightly or wrongly, will reenforce that narrative. And in so doing so, will alienate our core constituency who have been our most loyal and committed members and volunteers especially those here in California in these local groups and Chapters from which we've heard. It is a commonly accepted reality, supported by extensive research, that for every complaint that is received, that person will tell 10 other people. Therefore, I believe that the nerve we've touched is substantially greater than we've actually heard. And by not allowing the volunteers an opportunity to develop a solution could subject the Club to serious fallout both financially and reputation-ally ESPECIALLY, from our CORE California constituency.

Lastly, I want to address the concept that we cannot simply change our Board decisions any time a few members are upset and complain. While I generally agree with that I also believe we are elected to at least listen to our members and reconsider our decisions if even one member makes a good point and always respect everyone who has a different viewpoint. In this case I think that there is substantial input to raise this issue to a higher level. The process did not work ideally in this case and I think we owe it to the passionate volunteers and members to allow the time to work out a solution before we make a landmark decision that cannot be reversed.

I for one am even ok if as a result, at the end of the year, our reserve balance of around $24 million, now $2 million higher than a year ago, drops by $85,000. I believe that this expenditure is a valid use of these unanticipated expenses.

I hope I am not alone on this board in voting for the motion and urge the rest of you to provide the time and money to see if we can't maintain a jewel of our heritage, one I now hope to take my grandson too, to continue to tie us to our roots in Yosemite in the heart of our Sierra Nevada Mountains. "

Judy Hatcher: "I'm not familiar enough with this controversial decision to say much of value, except to appreciate the dedication of the LeConte Lodge's volunteers, and to be sorry for how much pain this has caused, if the emails I've received since becoming a board prospect are any indication. I am reluctant to second-guess the current board--or anyone else--regarding a complex matter that I've only heard one "side" of."

Susana Reyes: Do you support maintaining this program? Yes but significant details have to be ironed out to make this work. The Sierra Club benefits substantially from this program by having a strong lasting presence in Yosemite and providing valuable learning experiences about the Sierra Club to thousands of visitors. Kudos to the hundreds of grass roots activists who stepped up and provided potential solutions.
Do you think the program is too costly? It depends on what the cost covers, how the budget will be used, the value the program brings, and its source of funding. Board members have fiduciary duties to the entire organization and one of them is to ensure financial stability and long-term sustainability of the Sierra Club. A key question to ask is how best to support and operate the the program and still be able to balance the budget. We will need to sharpen our pencils, roll up our sleeves, and together, come up with a solution that will ensure continuity of the program and advancement of our mission and goals for decades to come. There is no lack of will, motivation, and creativity on the part of all of us invested in the program. It can be done. Further, it is important to analyze any opportunity cost of the decision and weigh the benefits we could have received by taking an alternative action. Not an easy task and complicated at best.
Would you support creating an endowment fund to keep the program operating long-term? Absolutely. The time is ripe to push for an Endowment to guarantee stable funding for the program. Chapters may also be willing to donate funds annually towards a dedicated fund. We should explore setting up a fundraising team to identify opportunities.
Do you think the program is no longer relevant to the Sierra Club? Not at all. As I stated in my response to earlier emails I received, I personally apologized for the chaos the Board decision caused. There were many moving pieces at the time a decision was made and with the most recent developments, a door has been opened to explore options and move towards a resolution. Regardless of how the lodge will be named, the Sierra Club program in this lodge has a rich history that should be preserved and enjoyed. There are also many opportunities to improve/enhance the program, embed DEI principles and practices,and recruit new members.

Luther Dale: This is too complex an issue for me to address. I support the difficult Board decision and it's process. I can understand your pain given your personal investment in the Lodge over the years, and thank you for your great work. Sadly, good things do come to an end and it seems that the Board felt a change was necessary for strategic and financial reasons. I will lose your votes, no doubt, but you have my honest assessment. The best to you in all your work on behalf of the great places on earth like Yosemite. Luther Dale

Mike OBrien: "From my understanding of what transpired last fall, it sounds like the decision around the LeConte Memorial Lodge was made in a non-transparent manner without the level of input that I believe is warranted for an important decision. If elected as a Board Member I would want to be transparent about such decisions and provide opportunities for meaningful input from members, volunteers, staff, etc to shape a decision. To your specific questions - I would like to preserve the program, $100,000 seems like a relatively modest amount to maintain the long history, and I think an endowment is a great way to possibly fund the ongoing support for the program. I have not visited the lodge, but from what I read I think it is still relevant."

QUESTION 2 - Preserving and Celebrating Sierra Club History:

The Sierra Club is unique among all modern environmental organizations because it has a history going back to 1892, and especially, its association with co-founder naturalist John Muir, whose message of wilderness and conservation continues to inspire people the world over. The Club's "John Muir Exhibit" website is the leading information site about John Muir on the web, and our small John Muir Education Team fields dozens of questions every year from students, journalists, and researchers requesting information about John Muir.

The Sierra Club in its 124-year existence has a fascinating history of additional men and women who have figured prominently in our history and conservation campaigns. These include, Marion Randall Parsons, and Aurelia Harwood, the Club's first female President in 1927; and leaders such as William Colby, who established our Outings program; Joseph N. LeConte (son of the professor for whom LeConte Memorial Lodge is named) who served the Club for 50 years; famed photographer Ansel Adams; David Brower, who transformed the Sierra Club into a more modern environmental organization; and Dr. Edgar Wayburn, who helped lead protection for the Redwoods, Alaska wildlands, and open spaces close to urban areas like the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

Some believe our history is an important aspect our heritage and uniqueness as an organization; others discount the importance of preserving our heritage in the face of current and future conservation campaigns, or see so many "old white males" in our history as an obstacle to our current effort to increase diversity in the Sierra Club.

What is your position about preserving and celebrating the Sierra Club's past history?

ANSWERS:

David Scott: "Regarding your question about preserving and celebrating the Sierra Club's past history. Of course we should. And we should also be willing to tell the truth about our organization's and our nation's history. Where Sierra Club leaders from a different time denigrated indigenous people, African Americans or others, we can and should acknowledge that, as we should acknowledge the fact that the Club was completely dominated by white males for most of its history. in light of his writings in support of eugenics, LeConte's name shouldn't be on a lodge associated with our organization. But certainly we should honor the work of visionaries like John Muir, Dr Wayburn, Ansel Adams and many others. We should also devote more effort towards researching and highlighting the important contributions of people whose pictures mostly aren't hanging on our office walls -- the women and the members of ethnic minority groups who fought for the environment in the ways they could, and suffered the effects of discrimination in the Club and in America as a whole."

Judy Hatcher: "I'm not sure that I agree with how the debate about "history" is framed here. It's important to know our history, honor the parts that have value and acknowledge the parts that were negative and had real repercussions for people's lives. It's uncomfortable to accept that eugenicists and racists were central to the Sierra Club's past, as is probably true with all older institutions in this country. I certainly feel ambivalent about "celebrating" such people. How we respond when people whose ancestors were harmed by the actions of prominent leaders of the past illustrates how we try to live out our values now. I hope that we would not dismiss that as a sop to political correctness."

Susana Reyes: What is your position about preserving and celebrating the Sierra Club's past history? I wholeheartedly support. A concerted effort to preserve and celebrate the Sierra Club's history is a vital link to all of the things that quite literally make us who we are. The Sierra Club's history matters. LeConte was part of that history, like it or not. When we find ourselves with such controversies, we must act quickly to mitigate impact. LeConte is associated with a building whose very function is to welcome visitors, and to educate and inspire them. His name should not be associated with the Sierra Club as it moves on its journey to become a diverse, inclusive, and equitable organization. We must always learn from our past in order to achieve greater influence over our future.

Mike OBrien: "We absolutely should be preserving and celebrating the club's history. I don't believe that increasing the diversity within the club and preserving and celebrating our history are mutually exclusive and I would support ways to achieve both of these goals as we move forward."

Note: This question was emailed from Janet Wood to the candidates Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:47 PM.

QUESTION 3 - Should Grassroots Sierra Club entities be consulted before long-standing programs affecting them are discontinued?

At the November 2015, BOD meeting, during a closed session, and despite the fact that the program has been in operation for 112 years, the Board voted to terminate the public outreach program at the LeConte Memorial Lodge. This was done without any notice to any of the 100 plus volunteers who have donated thousands of hours of their free time to support this effort over the past 30 years. Nor were any of the other affected Sierra Club entities consulted: the local chapter (Tehipite), the Yosemite Committee, other California Chapters, or the California Regional Conservation Committee, who have now weighed in objecting to the decision. These volunteers and local entities were never given the chance to participate in this decision-making or offer alternative funding solutions to keep the outreach program in place.

The excuse for the secrecy was that union rules require privacy when a staff member is being terminated. I believe this argument is specious, because the decision to terminate the program logically would have been required to be made before a staff member could be laid off.

As a candidate for reelection to the BOD please respond to the following questions:

1) Do you feel the Board may appropriately make a decision that affects so many Club chapters and regional Club entities without consulting with them in advance, when less than $100,000 in the Club budget is at stake?

2) Do you feel taking action without asking the 100 plus volunteers involved in the program is an appropriate way to treat volunteers who have donated thousands of volunteer hours on behalf of the Sierra Club to further its conservation mission for more than three decades, and many of whom have donated generously to the Club - even provided a legacy to the Club in their Wills?

3) Do you believe that "budget necessity" or a "staff recommendation" justifies taking similar action in the future against other long-standing programs without consulting local volunteers and chapters?

ANSWERS:

Dave Scott: " I termed off the board in May, so I was not present at the November meeting or aware of this decision. My sense is that many members of current board might have handled the process differently in hindsight, although I'm just guessing. Had I been a member of the board in November, I would have cautioned my colleagues about making decisions without notice to the many people affected. I was on the board in 2009 after the harsh budget impacts of the 2008 stock market collapse, and I know that board got a large number of messages about Clair Tappan Lodge. Many people care deeply about CTL and LeConte, and understandably so.
I understand your disappointment and anger. I'd just like to add one important thing. I know these board members. They're good, conscientious, hardworking volunteers making hard choices about funding good and important things. I think the process here was a mistake, but these are people trying to do what they believe is in the best interests of the club. That's important to remember.
Thanks for all you and the LeConte volunteers do -- I appreciate your work and dedication."

Chuck Frank: "The issue is more complex than you are presenting and framing it to which I strongly object. There were many factors that lead to the decision to consider the future of the LeConte Memorial Lodge and the decision to do so in closed session. We had legal input on whether we should do it in closed session. Regardless, I believe some (maybe the majority or more) on the Board generally agree that the process as it played out could have been executed in a more effective manner.

1) Do you feel the Sierra Club Board may appropriately make a decision that affects so many Club chapters and regional Club entities without consulting with them in advance? "Depends. The Board may not comprehend the full extent to which members and volunteers are engaged in or care about an issue being discussed. That was certainly my perspective originally. Once I became aware of the extent and depth of the interest I felt it was warranted to reconsider our decision as I clearly have described in the blog I wrote (relevant portions copied below) about the issue in the discussion about it at the recently concluded BODs meeting. Furthermore, the answer to your question also is dependent on your definition of "so many". The Board is not going to consult every member that may be affected by any decision every time we make a decision. It is a matter of judgement as to when we seek input or simply make decisions that we feel are in the best interests of the Club and the mission. There will be times when we error on either side of this equation. In my opinion, we did make an error in this case and are now in the process of reconsidering how to go forward based on numerous factors including member input. "
[Candidate Frank also incorporated his blog entry on the topic, which is provided above.
]
2) Do you feel taking this action without asking the 100 plus volunteers and many presenters involved in the program is an appropriate way to treat volunteers who have donated thousands of volunteer hours on behalf of the Sierra Club to further its conservation mission for more than three decades, many of whom have donated generously to the Club - and even had provided a legacy to the Club in their Wills? "See my response above."

Susana Reyes:
1) Do you feel the Sierra Club Board may appropriately make a decision that affects so many Club chapters and regional Club entities without consulting with them in advance? "This is a leading question but let me tell you my thoughts. Consultation with key stakeholders is a crucial key step in ensuring transparency, communications, and buy-in. The Board was made to understand that there were a series of consultations with key stakeholders about the LeConte issue which was deemed sufficient at that time. Please see my response to your 2nd question as well.

2) Do you feel taking this action without asking the 100 plus volunteers and many presenters involved in the program is an appropriate way to treat volunteers who have donated thousands of volunteer hours on behalf of the Sierra Club to further its conservation mission for more than three decades, many of whom have donated generously to the Club - and even had provided a legacy to the Club in their Wills? "Volunteers are the DNA of the organization and the work that hundreds of volunteers have contributed to this program are invaluable to our conservation mission. In hindsight, there should have been a more comprehensive and intentional consultation with stakeholders. The outreach could have been expanded. Please accept my personal apology for the chaos the original decision of the Board created. As I stated in my response to Harold, there were many moving pieces at the time a decision was made in January 2016 and with the most recent developments, a door has been opened to explore viable options and move towards a sustainable plan and resolution.

3) Do you believe that "budget considerations" or "staff recommendations" justifies taking similar action in the future against other long-standing programs without consulting local volunteers and chapters? "I think I have clearly stated my position. The path to a mutually agreeable decision moving forward on the LeConte matter was created when the Board, at its meeting in February, decided to revisit this matter, using new information we received. The Board has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the Sierra Club is on solid financial footing and is in compliance with regulations and rules. This includes exerting due diligence each time budget priorities and issues that may potentially impact allocations for programs (staff/volunteers assigned to said programs) are brought before the Board. As for the budget, the Board, FinCom, and Executive Team in a high level discussion about organizational priorities discuss funding allocations and create the foundation for the development of the budget each year. Having said that, what the Board ultimately decides on Leconte Lodge is unique to the Leconte issues. Painting a broad brush across other long-standing programs goes against the fiduciary responsibilities the Board must uphold. It also goes against our grassroots approach to seeking engagement of members in a discourse to the greatest extent possible."

Luther Dale: "This is too complex an issue for me to address. I support the difficult Board decision and it's process. I can understand your pain given your personal investment in the Lodge over the years, and thank you for your great work. Sadly, good things do come to an end and it seems that the Board felt a change was necessary for strategic and financial reasons. I will lose your votes, no doubt, but you have my honest assessment. The best to you in all your work on behalf of the great places on earth like Yosemite. Luther Dale"

Mike OBrien:
1) Do you feel the Sierra Club Board may appropriately make a decision that affects so many Club chapters and regional Club entities without consulting with them in advance?
"Any decision that affects so many of our members and volunteers should be done in a transparent process that allows for input and feedback from people impacted by the decision. Based on your description, it sounds as if that clearly was not done in this instance. In my current job as a Seattle City Councilmember, this is a standard I hold myself to and would do the same as a Board Member. I don't know the specifics around the labor rules within the club, but it seems like there could be a process to allow for input and hopefully crafting a solution to the problems prior to making a decision."

3) Do you believe that "budget considerations" or "staff recommendations" justifies taking similar action in the future against other long-standing programs without consulting local volunteers and chapters?
"Budget considerations are real, and I would certainly value staff recommendations, but again, any decision at this level should be transparent and include input."

Judy Hatcher: No response as of March 29, 2016, though she responded to the 2 sets of questions above..