|
|
2008 Election Candidate Forum:
The Questions
Question 3: The Board of Directors has appointed the Organizational Change Steering Committee to come up with recommendations for making changes to the organizational structure of the Club. The OCSC has come up with a draft proposal called Project Renewal which will be acted on at the February Board meeting. Please present your thoughts on Project Renewal and, in particular, whether you, given the opportunity, would vote in favor of the OCSC's current recommendations.
Candidate responses were limited to 150 words per question.Lane
Boldman
Not in its present form, referencing the version posted on December 3rd, 2007, because it was not well accepted nor understood by a great majority of our leaders, who had questions regarding need. Since that version, I have worked hard to facilitate comments on this proposal from the Sierra Club Council of Club Leaders, which I chair. From those comments, I worked directly with the Organizational Change Steering Committee to help identify key components that were the most contentious, and offered them my advice, insight and alternatives. In mid-January, the OCSC released an update indicating areas in the proposal that will likely be changed. In addition, I authored a resolution passed by my chapter, and endorsed by other chapters, which requested Project Renewal recognize and address the unique needs of Chapters. The Board adopted their own version of this document as guidance in the revised Project Renewal proposal. Joni
Bosh
Questionnaire Not Returned Clark
Buchner
I would not have voted for Project Renewal. Now that it has been approved, I would, as a board member, take serious measures to see that the club is not wrecked by this churlish venture in the implementation phase. Director Catlin gave a brilliant analysis of Project Renewal describing it as a "faith based" initiative. To a large degree, it must be somewhat that, as it is so vague in certain areas that one might need to be true believer to swallow it whole in it's current state. I tend to be a skeptic of Project Renewal, as I am a supporter of grassroots democracy no matter how messy, and I believe in keeping committees in place that are doing excellent work in this club. Although I am mistrustful of this new mode for the club, I do have some people skills that should enhance my ability as a director. Jeremy
Doochin
Change is essential to an organization’s evolution. I support the concept of Project Renewal to improve efficiency and increase communication within the Club between national and chapters. But to move forward with the creation and implementation of the program requires the support of our chapters. While there are many benefits to Project Renewal’s structure, many components must be examined more critically. A budget, timeline, and plan of implementation are crucial. After talking with hundreds of chapter activists, it is evident that many chapters feel they have largely been left out of the decision making process. To create an effective communication structure (Project Renewal), we must start with better communication. Since the Board recently passed the Project Renewal proposal, I will focus my efforts as a Director on effective implementation and leadership. I will work to involve all activists in this implementation phase, and ensure that your voices are heard. Jim
Dougherty
I was a vocal and persistent critic of Project Renewal, objecting to the composition of the Committee, its non-transparent M.O., its failure to deliver on its charge, and the unsoundness of many of its recommendations, e.g., having committee members appointed by committee leaders. Alone among Directors, I repeatedly voted against adoption of P.R. At the February Board meeting, I scolded the Board for ignoring the resolutions of 23 chapters requesting that we approach the matter of reorganization more deliberately.
Now that it’s a done deal, we need to make the best of it. Larry
Fahn
Questionnaire Not Returned Barbara
Frank
I basically support Project Renewal as currently envisioned. There will be changes, including most recently dropping appointed CCL members . That could have had benefits, but the OCSC, responding to vigorous objections, chose to drop it. Another issue is the volunteer/staff pairings for certain national committees. Actually, that is already happening in some entities. These pairs would function as managers/coordinators and are certainly not to be construed as any kind of “staff takeover”. The OCSC made a clear goal to enhance our grassroots, and maintain issues experts and committees. We need more volunteers, better volunteer support , and improved communications throughout the Club. I think we can vote on the proposal at the Feb. BOD mtg. but I would recommend a lengthy (year perhaps) rollout period. If my fellow Board members choose to delay a vote, I would go along with that, though it’s not my preference. David
Scott
The OCSC’s recommendations are undergoing revision, which is good. I applaud the OCSC’s withdrawal of proposals to expand the Council and abolish issue committees. I support some changes to the current structure. We have so many entities that they end up diminishing each other’s effectiveness as they compete with each other to fill vacancies, budgets are spread too thin and too many lack staff support. Thoughtful reform can strengthen our organization.
I have differences with the OCSC’s approach and proposal. I would have preferred to modify the existing governance structure. Their proposal for volunteer leaders to be appointed by a “Coordinating Pair” of one volunteer and one staff member concerns me because it appears to give staff a 50 percent say in volunteer appointments. Before I’d approve any restructuring proposal, I’d ask lots of questions, and I’d want far more detailed answers about how the proposed structure would actually work. Jerry
Sutherland
I would vote against the December 3, 2007 OCSC draft proposal. New versions might change my mind but I started raising concerns about the direction of Project Renewal at the August 2007 GovCom Assembly when the presentation by LaPiana denigrated our breadth of issues and democratic processes. These are the very principles that motivate thousands of volunteers to give hours each week carrying out the mission of the Sierra Club. In web terminology, the Sierra Club gets thousands of “hits” each day with the American public, media, and government officials because of this army of volunteers. This is the basis of grassroots power, notoriety, and influence that is the envy of our friends and enemies alike. I don’t want the Sierra Club to exchange this power for the speed that seems to be driving Project Renewal. Extensive comments on specific aspects can be found in the online Project Renewal Forum. Matt
Urban
In February, the board adopted the recommendations from the Organizational Change Steering Committee. Had I been a director at the time, I would have likely voted in favor of the recommendations.
I was skeptical of the process at the outset. I was deeply concerned that this large-scale change to the Club’s structure would be very divisive and cause extreme chaos in implementation. I was concerned concerns from a number of respected Club leaders were not being addressed respectfully. And I was particularly concerned with the potential impact on the Club during an election year.
However, as the process unfolded, I became increasingly impressed with the level of care OCSC took taken to understand objections, then revising their proposal accordingly.
I now look forward to assisting in whatever way I can to make the transition to the new structure a smooth one, and helping to create the most effective Club possible. Nathan
Wyeth
Questionnaire Not Returned
Show all questions
Show all candidates
Back to Candidate Forum Main
Up to Top
HOME |
Email Signup |
About Us |
Contact Us |
Terms of Use |
© 2008 Sierra Club
|
