Whither the Sierra Club?

Thirty years ago this spring the Sierra Club fired its executive director, David Brower, for being too radical. The club has been lost ever since. Now Brower, a current Sierra Club board member, has let it be known that he wants to become the president of the organization that gave him the boot all those years ago. And a couple of weeks ago it looked as if Brower, now 86, had a good shot at the post, since in the recent Sierra Club elections two reform candidates, Rene Voss and Charlie Ogle, won seats, giving the reform coalition (operating under the name of the John Muir Sierrans) a majority on the board.

Or so it seemed.

Within days of the election, the newly elected Ogle, an environmentalist from Eugene, sent out a letter saying that he didn't feel beholden to the reformers and would do what he thought was best for the club as a institution. As the John Muir Sierrans were ready to announce they had won a majority of the board and were poised to begin remaking the club, they received this e-mail from Ogle: "I suspect that you will not be able to count me in on any statement of "victory," or any suggestion that JMS has a voting bloc that includes me. I say this for several reasons, one of which is that I hope that the board never becomes a partisan or factional body. Board members are elected by, and accountable to, the members and should not allow themselves to be swayed by allegiance to anything other than these members, the Club itself, and their personal integrity and values."

Ogle's self-righteous letter was followed by a similar missive from two existing board members, who were associated with and elected by the John Muir Sierrans, Jennifer Ferenstein and Betsey Gaines. Gaines and Ferenstein wrote: "We both feel that we must make it perfectly clear that we will continue to vote as individuals. We will vote, as always, for strong conservation, openness, and democracy within the Club. But we cannot abide by the increasing pressure we feel to vote as a block. We didn't join a political party, nor do we believe that the role of JMS is to create such a partisan atmosphere. We have always been committed to the conservation goals of JMS and will continue to fight for ECL, environmental justice, the draining of Lake Powell and other visionary goals that have grown from JMS projects. However, we have grown more and more conscious of our divergent point of view from JMS tactics. We are not interested in hostile BOD takeovers. We are interested in productive and effective decision-making and leadership.

"We feel that we can work together towards our shared common goals without a label. For us, JMS has accomplished what it needed to accomplish and now it's time to move forward as strong individual voices. We are happy to see the original spirit of John Muir progress within the Club. We want to see this progress continue. We believe that the way to accomplish this is to build trust that goes beyond stereotypes of a John Muir Sierran.

"We will continue to work with the JMS and carry the torch for our overlapping conservation aims. We know JMS is where we came from. But we feel that we have broader views than JMS and very different approaches. We also see true value in working with and supporting club members who are not JMS. Therefore we have come to the conclusion that we no longer fit into the JMS mold. So without judgment, fanfare or a public resignation, we simply wish to reclaim our own identities outside of the shroud of JMS."

Thus Ferenstein and Gaines are the Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Richard Shelby of the Sierra Club, switching sides to suit their own interests. Their snotty memo typifies how calcified and politically correct even the reform elements of the environmental movement have become. Neither of them have ever been eco-visionaries or hardcore activists, but mainly flunkies for others, noodlish reformers at best. Ferenstein even flacked for Mitch Friedman's foundation-larded outfit, the Greater Ecosystem Alliance, which is often an opponent of the central theme of the JMSers: ending logging on public lands. Gaines used to work on grizzly bears for the Alliance for Wild Rockies. Now she is a development director at Montana State University, home of the wacko privatizers at PERC. Gaines says she no longer favors ending livestock grazing on public lands.

Now that they've both found a comfortable niche as Sierra Club directors (the launching pad for lucrative new careers if the past is prologue), the accouterments of power have apparently intoxicated and overwhelmed them. It's hardly surprising they would place the "institution" of the Sierra Club (which is a corrupt and corroded franchise at best) above the crisis at hand: which IS the destruction of public lands, after all. The only surprising thing is that either of these two would have ever won the endorsement of the John Muir Sierrans in the first place. At the time there was talk among the leaders that Gaines and Ferenstein were both "attractive" candidates. Decisions have, undoubtedly, been made on worse grounds (witness the endorsement of Clinton), but in this case doing so only muddied the water and contributed to the defeat of much worthier activists such as Susan Schock and David Orr.

Ferenstein and Gaines have apparently cut a deal with the old guard of the club that would secure the re-election of current president Chuck McGrady over David Brower. McGrady is a fairly unabashed right-winger, who operates a Christian outdoor camp in North Carolina. He's widely perceived as the kind of man who one normally expects to see heading up the National Audubon Society. In return for this betrayal of Brower, Ferenstein would be elected vice-president over Chad Hanson, the leader of the reformers. Here's where the machinations become even more Machiavellian. The vice-presidency of the club is a stepping stone to the presidency. So this move has the effect of not only denying Brower a measure of justice in the twilight of his life, but also eclipsing the future of the club by suppressing Hanson.

The real power behind all of these moves is, of course, the club's executive director Carl Pope. Pope realized that the reformers were out for his head. Indeed, many of the John Muir Sierrans were openly talking about the first order of business being the firing of Pope. He deserves it. His record of shame is long. He winked at Clinton's logging plan for Pacific Northwest forests, played footsie with Clinton appointees such as Bruce Babbitt and Katie McGinty as they hatched plans to eviscerate the Endangered Species Act and other laws, failed to stand up tall against the salvage logging rider, secretly helped Dianne Feinstein push through the horrible Headwaters deal, and has mercilessly suppressed dissent.

Pope and the old guard members of the board retain enormous power and perks to court allies. This is not the first time JMS board members have defected. Former board members Laura Hoehn and Susan Holmes were elected with the support of the John Muir Sierrans, only to side with Pope on crucial matters. Holmes was recently given a $65,000 job with the club by Pope. Hoehn, a young lawyer, found a well-paying slot at a leading (anti-environmental) law firm in the Bay Area with the assistance of Phil Berry, regarded as one of the most reactionary members of the club.

A second beneficiary in all of this is Pope's friend and political patron, Al Gore. Gore, who authored a preface to a book Pope wrote in the '80s on hazardous waste, needs the support of the club (the only major environmental group that hands out political endorsements) to have any shot at winning the presidency. But with Brower at the helm of the board, the endorsement would have been a long shot at best. Recall that Brower courageously penned an editorial in the Los Angeles Times in 1996 exposing the Clinton/Gore ticket as being, in his words, "worse than Bush and Reagan on the environment." Brower supported Ralph Nader's campaign and has continued to support Green candidates across the county, infuriating Pope and his Democratic Party allies.

Brower sets forth his vision in a letter that he has circulated to a few friends and fellow environmental radicals. Here's a taste of what he has to say: "The late Justice William O. Douglas told President Franklin Roosevelt that every government bureau that was more than ten years old should be abolished; after that it was more concerned with its image than with its mission. Of the Sierra Club Board he told me, when I was executive director, it was 'a combination of mourner's bench and ladies sewing circle.' Serving on a good many other boards, I know some people see us, when they are not feeling especially charitable, as a bit smug, arrogant, with overweening pride, and as a little short on humility. I've heard directors claim that the club is run from the bottom, not the top, but the board is too comfortable with closed-door sessions and conference calls and doesn't want too much democracy to get in the way of process.

"We can do something about those facts and/or perceptions and with your help I'd like to try. Briefly. Then step back and bask in the brilliance of those who do the real work. I mention this strategy for those people who ask me if I am still up to the challenge of being President at age 86. I have no intention of becoming the dominant club personality as past Presidents have done. In fact, it is my intention to de-emphasize the role of the President, the Executive Committee, and the top staff in national decision-making and to return these powers to the democratically elected Board of Directors...

"What does it cost the Earth? What does it cost the future? I would like the club to set up dream teams and ask those questions all over--internationally, and at national, chapter, and group levels. A host of already illustrious people would help our luminance. We would make a bigger difference. We'd reverse what we all have lately been doing--merely slowing the rate at which things get worse. The reversal is overdue."

If Brower truly wants the position, Brower should get it. No question. It should be bestowed upon him! Brower is the last link to Muir, and he remains the liveliest and most radical of environmental thinkers. He is both a living link to our past and the way to the future. That Ogle, Ferenstein, and Gaines would deny this to Brower is as nauseating as them cozening with people like McGrady and Pope. But so it goes. If Brower gets the nod, rearticulates a new/old vision for the club--for the entire movement--and then steps down, the reigns of power should be handed over to Michael Dorsey, a young, vigorous and uncompromising advocate for wilderness and environmental justice. Dorsey would be the first black to head a major environmental group. It's about time.