Sierra Club member? Voting on the BOD election? Read this first!

[ldoolin]

Who Owns the Sierra Club?
Anonymous Donors and Rigged Elections

By KARYN STRICKLER

The deliberate rigging of the 2004 Sierra Club Board of Directors elections--to keep reformers off the Board--smacks of a desperation so deep, that it begs the question--what does the old guard have to hide?

Internal Revenue Service forms show $47,898,118.40 in anonymous donations were given to the Sierra Club Foundation in the year 2000, and $53,593,640.00 in 2001. The LA Times reports, "Each of these donations was more than double the amount of all funds raised in each of the previous four years."

When angry, reform-oriented, incumbent members of the Sierra Club Board of Directors asked executive director Carl Pope, who gave the money -- he wouldn't say. When it was suggested that law required him to share the information with his Board -- he couldn't remember. So they asked again -- and he wasn't telling.

the rest of the article is at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/strickler03172004.html

Then see http://www.sierrademocracy.org/ for the rest of the story - and candidates worth supporting. Do NOT be fooled by the "Groundswell Sierra" smear job as MoveOn apparently was.

[Pyst]

1. Yes Moveon sent out messages about this today as well

As much as I disagree with the idea they would turn anti-enviromental. The idea they would be anti-immigration...ehhh sorry I agree with that part. I don't think I should have to learn another language to live here and lately it's starting to look that way. Oh I know I will get accused of racism or xenophobia for this but I am an independant thinker and that is my personal opinion. Take a bus trip down the eastern seaboard and maybe you might get an idea why I think this way after a few dozen bus stations.

:dem:

[earthside]

2. Former Group Chair

As a former chair of a local Sierra Club group, I can tell you that the club is in desparate need of reform. In my state, Colorado, the club has become a self-perpetuating clique of Democratic party bigwigs, lobbiest-funded insiders, and exclusionary snobs.

What we are finding out about the slush fund at the national level and the double dealing they are using against reform candidates is a sure sign of internal coruption.

And don't get me wrong ... I am a sincere believer in the purpose and goals of the Sierra Club. I'm also sure that in most states, the club is operating in an honest and open manner.

But Dick Lamm and the reform "slate" are just what is needed to revitalize and make the club what it should be: an unapologetic advocate for the environment. In recent years the club has suffered from the same malady as the old establishment DLC-type Democrats ... fear of offending the Republicans. It is time for a change.

As to immigration, Lamm is essentially correct. While I may disagree with him on the particulars of immigration laws, the REAL problem is 7 BILLION people on the planet. If we don't deal with population and imimgration forthrightly, then many of the environmental issues we are concerned with today will be meaningless in the face of too many mouths for too few resources.

[KoKo]

4. Thanks for your view on this. My area Sierra Club rep is out of town, but

will be back this weekend. I'll talk to him and do some more reading about this.

[Frances]

8. I think the Bush administration is the most corrupt in my lifetime

and I think these "reformers" will be Bush puppets.

[willmcw]

12. "Former Group Chair"

Dick Lamm is not running on a reform slate. Dick Lamm does not know enough about the Sierra Club to know the difference betweena group and a chapter, much less what needs reform.

Yes, there is need for reform inside the Sierra Club. Gosh, I'm sure every large organization could use a dose of reform. But electing a bunch of Know Nothings to the club is not the way to effect meaningful changes. Lamm has been particularly cozy with Republicans (such as Tom Tancredo, R-CO), perhaps because they are the only ones who listen sympathetically to his rants about immigration.

The right level of immigration is a legitimate question in modern society. But it is not one that the Sierra Club should get involved in. It has plenty of other battles to fight.

[KoKo]

3. Well....whom do I believe now? That's the dilemna. Are both sides up

to dirty tricks. And are there really anonymous donors who have come in trying to take the Club over and Carl Pope won't talk about it?

How are we small donors to know the truth of this? And, isn't it worrysome that Move.On would get involved with this? And, be on the side of the "old guard."

:shrug: What to do....I don't know..

[Frances]

7. Moveon was right about Bush

and I think they are really good at sniffing out right wing fundies.

[theoceansnerves]

5. maybe this organization has had it's day

the sierra club used to be top notch, but i would now suggest everyone look into donating time and money to the natural resources defense council. they really do help get things done.

[Frances]

6. I am inclined to believe that the same people

who took over AARP are trying to take over the Sierra Club.

The AARP endorsed the Bush make-the-drug-companies-richer Medicare bill.

I think that if these new people take over the Sierra Club we'll see the Sierra Club endorsing drilling in the Antartic.

[ldoolin]

9. I know enough about some of them...

specifically David Pimentel, Richard Lamm, and Roy van de Hoek, to know that they are serious environmentalists and if anything would take a more hard line position against drilling in the ANWR and against Bush. None of them are right-wingers.

Doing the math:

Kim McCoy is an animal rights activist. There is one animal rights activist already on the board, Paul Watson. If she were elected that would make two out of 15. Not a takeover.

The immigration slate has no numerical chance of taking over either. There are two on the board (Watson and Zuckerman) with a third (LaFollette) sympathetic, and two (Morris and Lamm, and maybe three at most if you count Pimentel who is more neutral on the issue) running this year. Let's say all of them were elected. That would be 5 or 6 out of 15. Not a takeover.

Karyn Strickler doesn't support the immigration-reform or animal rights positions to begin with, so to me that makes her more credible than others because she wouldn't have any kind of ulterior motive to be saying what she is saying about corruption and McCarthyism among the club's old guard. She definitely earned my vote, regardless of all the others. I've been familiar with her writings on counterpunch.org and elsewhere for a while.

The only one I really have questions about is Frank Morris. He seems to me to be a single issue person only concerned about immigration. But he's the only one.

I don't buy the "outside takeover" claims at all, but it looks to me more like an attempt to smear petition candidates and keep the old guard in control of the club. I'm more concerned with keeping the people who tried to stifle Sierra Club democracy a couple of years ago from being re-elected to the board - and those are precisely the people that Groundswell (and MoveOn, apparently) are endorsing. Sorry, I don't trust them.

[willmcw]

13. Doing the math:

You do not seem to be aware of the alliances that currently exist on the Sierra Club Board of Directors. Despite possible differences in philosphy, Zuckerman, Watson, LaFollette, Force, and Hanscom vote together. It would only take three more allies in order to form a majority bloc. FYI, candidate van de Hoek is Director Hanscom's life-partner.

[ldoolin]

16. I've seen the Sierra Club BOD minutes

They were posted on the web until very recently, when they were removed for some reason.

Zuckerman, Watson, Force, Hanscom, and LaFollette do *not* vote as a bloc. Zuckerman and Watson sometimes vote together, Hanscom is often the sole no vote where everyone else including the other four you mention votes yes, and LaFollette occasionally votes with Zuckerman and Watson but more often does not, and he also often abstains.

Those five did all vote against the move by others on the Board of Directors to stack the BOD election this year by sending out their "urgent election notice", and this was to their credit.

Fahn, McGrady, O'Connell, Catlin, Aumen, Cox, Ferenstein, Wells, and Zaleha, on the other hand, do vote as a bloc, and in a boringly predictable manner at that. The only one of the others who seems to have a fair attitude at all and wants to Club to accomodate all viewpoints is Ed Dobson.

I'm also fully aware that Roy van de Hoek is Marcia Hanscom's boyfriend, which is not an issue, it's a "so what?"

[struggle4progress]

10. In my experience, Sierra Club was always ...

an activist membership organization.

I wouldn't support anybody who hasn't been actively involved in the club for an extended period.

This isn't the first club election involving anti-immigration folks. Immigration has essentially nothing to do with immediate environmental issues: attempts to divert limited club attention and resources to immigration cannot possibly help in the environmental fights.

I sometimes look at counterpunch, but often find the articles manipulative.

[Maurkov]

14. Not exactly

Immigration has essentially nothing to do with immediate environmental issues

Maybe not, but environmental groups need to keep an eye on the long issues. Climate change, for example, is not going to have really dramatic effects for years, but they shouldn't ignore it now. Another of these is immigration.

Everybody has an environmental footprint. Those in the first world have the largest footprints, but they also have the lowest population growth rates. Those in developing nations have smaller footprints and higher growth rates. Immigration is a problem because it unites big footprints with high growth rates.

That said, an anti-immigration stand would give one a lot of unsavory allies. It's an issue that needs more attention and discussion.

[Quetzal]

11. I'm not sure who to vote for

and not sure who to believe.

As long as they are pro-environment, that is fine with me. However, I may not vote for a person who is an anti-immigration wingnut.

So out of the candidates who are reformers that are not anti-immigration, who can I vote for?

From what I understand, these ones are reformers and anti-immigration.

Dick Lamm - former Democratic governor
Kim McCoy - not sure, but her stance on population control

Human Population - It is unrealistic to address sprawl, global warming, habitat preservation, or anything else without also addressing the root cause. We must stabilize our human population--both nationally and globally - if we are to solve these problems.

http://www.kimmccoy.org/

I like Frank Morris - I always thought there should be minorities in the environmental movement. He is somewhat vague on his posistions, so if anyone has anymore info on him, it would be appreciated.

David Pimental looks appealing

I like Karyn Strickler's posistion

For the reasons stated, I do not support the longstanding effort by some Sierra Club members to change Club policy on immigration from the current, neutral position. I will however support a fair, open and honest debate on this and all issues.

http://members.cruzio.com/~jbean/karynimmigration.html

Robert Roy looks good

I guess my main fear is that immigrants could be the targets of attacks by the Sierra club. I really don't think that the people who want to make immigration an issue in this campaign are racist. I would feel more comfortable if the candidates laid out their immigration posistion more in detail.

So far on this list, I could vote for:

Robert Roy
Karyn Strickler
David Pimental

not

Dick Lamm

maybe (need more info)

Kim McCoy
Frank Morris

[MisterP]

15. Richard Lamm's in "The Clothes Have No Emperor"

Mar. 28, 1984: "Disapproving of artificial means to prolong life in an increasingly overcrowded world, Colorado governor Richard D. Lamm says--perhaps too bluntly--that terminally ill elderly people have a 'duty to die and get out of the way.'"

[ldoolin]

17. Oh, brother :roll:

This old canard again?

This widely quoted quote allegedly from Richard Lamm is known to be a hoax. See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F3061EFF3C550C758DDDAA0894DC404482

[willmcw]

18. Lamm's "Duty to Die" Quotation

Here is the accurate quotation:

"It's like if leaves fall off a tree forming the humus for the other plants to grow out. We've got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life."

http://www.dicklamm.org/articles/article_2004_drop_dead.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. What a total load of crap.

For instance, the charge keeps being repeated that the board is pushing 'fake candidates'. No facts are presented to support this assertion. They point to the lawsuit they filed -- which was dropped -- in which the same claims were made -- as if filing a lawsuit proves that you are right.

Sorry, but when I read blatantly dishonest and manipulative propaganda like this it is pretty hard to respect the credibility of those putting it out.