FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Best Directors Money Can Buy

by KARYN STRICKLER

Hearty congratulations to Lisa Renstorm, Jan O’Connell, Nick Aumen, Sanjay Ranchod and Dave Karpf. They won the election for the Sierra Club Board of Directors. I like to call them the Chosen 5. They won in an unprecedented, landslide victory. Why, it was so remarkable, that it was virtually divinely ordained.

Never before has a candidate for the Board of Directors won with a stunning total of nearly 142,000 votes. And never before has so much money been spent on candidates for the Sierra Club Board. The Club can now boast the very best, new Directors that money can buy.

We know that an expensive mailing was sent to about 550,000 members. Many Chapter newsletters nationwide carried a message supporting the Chosen 5–in violation of the Club’s bylaws and the California law. The problem is that we don’t know exactly how much money was spent. We do know that printing and postage to such large lists costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Despite many questions to those directly involved, no one seems to be willing to provide answers. So, I estimate that reform candidates were outspent by as much as $1000: $1. After the first official report, all 9 reform candidates had spent a combined total of less than $500 on their own campaigns.

Did I mention that all candidates in the race agreed to a spending limit of $2,000 per candidate? But the Chosen 5 rose above that trivial commitment by getting others to spend undisclosed amounts on their elections, without having to do a thing. Someone orchestrated a bizarre independent expenditure-type campaign on which there are no limits and no reports. But my guess is that they spent close to half a million dollars.

So, let’s calculate the cost per vote for the Chosen 5. The highest vote getter, Lisa Renstrom, got approximately 142,000 votes. Now, let’s say that there was $500,000 dollars spent for 142,000 votes — that calculates out to $3.52 per vote or less than 1/3 of a vote per dollar spent. Even if Renstrom spent only half of the original amount estimated — $250,000 — that’s $1.76 per vote, less than 2/3 of a vote per dollar spent.

As the vote totals go down, which they do for all of the remaining Chosen 5, the cost per vote goes up. Let’s consider the cost for the lowest vote getter among the Chosen 5, Dave Karpf. He received about 111,000 votes. If $500,000 dollars were spent, that’s $4.50 per vote and about 1/5 of a vote per dollar spent.

I was a candidate in the 2004 Sierra Club Board of Director’s election. I spent a grand total of $27.95 on my election. I received 8,333 votes. That comes out to $.003 dollars per vote. I received 298 votes per dollar spent. If I had spent $250,000, I would have gotten about 75,000,000–yes, seventy five million votes.

If I had spent $500,000, at 298 votes per dollar, I would have received about 150,000,000 votes — that’s one hundred and fifty million votes. Can we talk about unprecedented? That’s nearly three times the number of votes needed to be elected President of the United States. Of course, there are not even that many members in the Club, so this is strictly an academic exercise, but you get the point.

Imagine the disappointment of a true right-winger like former Club Vice President and current Board member Chuck McGrady, if a reform candidate like me, who wanted strong environmental protection, spent $500,000 and were elected to the Board. McGrady resigned as the Club’s Vice President during the election because as he said, “I’m tired of being rolled out to provide partisan cover for the Sierra Club. I’m unwilling to serve in any leadership position which might place me in the role of a spokesman for the Sierra Club in any strident attacks on President Bush.”

Speaking of President of the United States, the Chosen 5 have nearly as much of a mandate as George W. Bush. Sadly for the Chosen 5–those electoral Goliaths–the election is not over. Hey, didn’t that happen to Bush too? This is getting eerie. While the results are in–with a lawsuit pending over unfair election practices–justice and truth may yet prevail.

This election was really about the old guard versus the reformers. The old guard wanted to maintain power for power’s sake and perpetuate the status quo. Reformers want stronger protections and fewer compromises on environmental issues and more grassroots involvement in the process.

Long-time Sierra Club leaders from across the nation joined together to challenge numerous illegal election practices employed this year in a desperate attempt by the old guard to hang on to their power. Unprecedented amounts of money were spent in an effort to keep reform candidates from prevailing in this election. One-sided campaign mailers and unfair election notices were allowed by election inspectors and then challenged in this lawsuit.

The old guard’s tactics have been wildly successful to this point, but the judge in the lawsuit, the Honorable James L. Warren, at a preliminary injunction hearing on

April 14, stated that he agreed with the plaintiff reformers that “the corporation, itself, cannot legally advance at members’ cost, one list of candidates to the exclusion of others.”

Judge Warren, denied the old guard’s motion, led by Club President Larry Fahn, to dismiss the lawsuit and stated, “I do believe that there is probably going to be a pretty good chance of success on the merits with respect to the claim that the Sierra Club has not properly given equal time to all of the candidates.”

Incumbent, reform-oriented Board member Marcia Hanscom said, “Basic democratic principles of fairness and honesty were tossed aside in this election, leaving the most progressive candidates at a decided disadvantage. The candidates who want a stronger, more principled Sierra Club deserve an unbiased election, and apparently the Judge who will decide this case, agrees that fairness is required by the California Corporation code.”

The real story of this election is the need for a Board that exercises proper oversight, insists on holding elected officials of both major parties accountable, fights for tough environmental protection without compromise and consistently votes to support the important grassroots work our activists do in chapters and groups across the country.

Reformers will have their day in court and may get another chance to tell their story.

KARYN STRICKLER, former executive director of the national Endangered Species Coalition and a reform candidate for the Sierra Club Board of Directors. Contact: http://www.karynstrickler.com or fiftyplusone@earthlink.net .

Copyright 2004

 

 

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

August 23, 2016
Diana Johnstone
Hillary and the Glass Ceilings Illusion
Bill Quigley
Race and Class Gap Widening: Katrina Pain Index 2016 by the Numbers
Ted Rall
Trump vs. Clinton: It’s All About the Debates
Eoin Higgins
Will Progressive Democrats Ever Support a Third Party Candidate?
Kenneth J. Saltman
Wall Street’s Latest Public Sector Rip-Off: Five Myths About Pay for Success
Binoy Kampmark
Labouring Hours: Sweden’s Six-Hour Working Day
John Feffer
The Globalization of Trump
Gwendolyn Mink – Felicia Kornbluh
Time to End “Welfare as We Know It”
Medea Benjamin
Congress Must Take Action to Block Weapon Sales to Saudi Arabia
Halyna Mokrushyna
Political Writer, Daughter of Ukrainian Dissident, Detained and Charged in Ukraine
Manuel E. Yepe
Tourism and Religion Go Hand-in-Hand in the Caribbean
ED ADELMAN
Belted by Trump
Thomas Knapp
War: The Islamic State and Western Politicians Against the Rest of Us
Nauman Sadiq
Shifting Alliances: Turkey, Russia and the Kurds
Rivera Sun
Active Peace: Restoring Relationships While Making Change
August 22, 2016
Eric Draitser
Hillary Clinton: The Anti-Woman ‘Feminist’
Robert Hunziker
Arctic Death Rattle
Norman Solomon
Clinton’s Transition Team: a Corporate Presidency Foretold
Ralph Nader
Hillary’s Hubris: Only Tell the Rich for $5000 a Minute!
Russell Mokhiber
Save the Patients, Cut Off the Dick!
Steven M. Druker
The Deceptions of the GE Food Venture
Elliot Sperber
Clean, Green, Class War: Bill McKibben’s Shortsighted ‘War on Climate Change’
Binoy Kampmark
Claims of Exoneration: The Case of Slobodan Milošević
Walter Brasch
The Contradictions of Donald Trump
Michael Donnelly
Body Shaming Trump: Statue of Limitations
Weekend Edition
August 19, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Hillary and the War Party
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Prime Time Green
Andrew Levine
Hillary Goes With the Flow
Dave Lindorff
New York Times Shames Itself by Attacking Wikileaks’ Assange
Gary Leupp
Could a Russian-Led Coalition Defeat Hillary’s War Plans?
Conn Hallinan
Dangerous Seas: China and the USA
Joshua Frank
Richard Holbrooke and the Obama Doctrine
Margaret Kimberley
Liberal Hate for the Green Party
John Davis
Lost Peoples of the Lake
Alex Richardson-Price
The Fight for a Six Hour Workday
John Wight
Why Palestine Matters, Even on the Pitch
Brian Cloughley
Hillary Clinton’s War Policy
Patrick Cockburn
A Battle to the Death in Syria
David Rosen
The Great Fear: Miscegenation, Race “Pollution” and the 2016 Election
Ben Debney
Worthy and Unworthy Victims of Child Abuse
David Barouh
Liberal Myths: Would Al Gore Have Invaded Iraq?
Graham Peebles
Democratic Revolution Sweeps Ethiopia
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
How Parasitic Finance Capital Has Turned Iran’s Economy Into a Case of Casino Capitalism
David Swanson
The Unbearable Awesomeness of the U.S. Military
Robert Fantina
The Olympics: Nationalism at its Worst
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail