Atlantic Chapter (New York State), one of the largest Sierra Club Chapters, has endorsed three of the four Petition Candidates (Mair, Bartholomew, and Dorsey).
0 Comments
Today the Sierra Club's Inspectors of Elections declined to overturn the January 20th election resolution passed by the majority of the current Sierra Club Board, despite complaints filed by four petition candidates for Board, and current Board members. We, the petition candidates, alleged that the resolution violated fair election rules and law by creating an uneven playing field that gives the Board majority an unfair advantage by promoting the Nominating Committee candidates, and urging members to vote for 5 of the 6 of them, in the ballot materials, and without giving any petition candidates an equal opportunity. Though the Inspectors allowed the Board majority's resolution, they expressed concern, noting that "This action by the Board was unusual, if not unprecedented", and they ruled that only a single short statement, in President Cruz's brief letter on the ballot, can be made, e.g.: "The Board of Directors hereby endorses the six candidates nominated by the Nominating Committee: Shruti Bhatnagar, Cheyenne Branscum, Allison Chin, Brian Gomez, Cynthia Hoyle and Herve Jean-Baptiste and urges Sierra Club members to vote for five of these six candidates when filling out their ballot." The Inspectors noted that this short statement, in President Cruz's brief ballot letter, would "not describe the qualifications of the [Nominating Committee] candidates or the reasons why voting for these candidates would be better than voting for the other four candidates." The Inspectors also ruled that the Board majority cannot include their electioneering sentence in two places, and can only include it in President Cruz's ballot letter, not also in an additional ballot memo that was proposed. Despite some restrictions imposed by the Inspectors, this unprecedented act by the Board majority gives one group of candidates, the Nominating Committee candidates, an unfair advantage over the four petition candidates, which creates an unfair election. We will comply with this ruling and move forward.
As some of you may already know, last Thursday night (January 20, 2022) a majority of Sierra Club Board members passed a resolution (3 no votes, and 1 abstention) to include two articles in the ballot materials (a flyer and an article from President Cruz) that would tell members how they should vote -- urging them to vote for 5 of the 6 NomCom candidates--while denying the petition candidates and equal opportunity to communicate with voters in the election. We filed complaints with the Inspectors of Election, arguing that this violates fair-election rules and law. Our initial complaints, and replies, are below, fyi. The Inspectors will issue their ruling soon, perhaps later today. If the Inspectors allow the Board majority to manipulate democracy in this way, I hope we will all respond to that with a vigorous get-out-the-vote and chapter endorsement campaign for the four petition candidates. Grassroots organizing and democracy will be our most powerful ways to respond here. Thanks again for all of your help and efforts. This is a strong group of petition candidates, who have written and submitted outstanding ballot statements. Now it's up to the voters, and our ability to communicate with them. Thanks! Chad
Sent to Inspectors Jan. 21, 2022: Dear Steve, We, the four petition candidates for Sierra Club Board, Aaron Mair, Kathryn Bartholomew, Michael Dorsey, and Maya Khosla, hereby file this election complaint regarding the January 20, 2022 action of the Sierra Club Board to actively electioneer for the Nominating Committee candidates over the petition candidates. The Board's action violates two key provisions of election law and rules: 1. California Nonprofit Corporation Code Section 5615(b), which states in part that inspectors of election shall, "do such acts as may be proper to conduct the election vote with fairness to all members." 2. The Club's Standing Rule 5.6.2(a) which states that "decisions by the inspectors shall be based on the Club's Bylaws and Standing Rules, in conformance with California law, to ensure a fair election." It is our contention that the action taken by the Board on January 20th violates these two items because it creates an unfair election for the following reasons: a) An endorsement of some candidates, and not others, by the Board as a whole is fundamentally different from individual Directors endorsing candidates. Voters obviously can discern the distinction between one or more individual Directors endorsing one or more candidates versus a statement saying that the Board as a body has endorsed one group of candidates over another group. The Board is the governing body of the Sierra Club and an endorsement of one group of candidates over another by the Board signals organization-wide approval of one group of candidates and rejection by the organization of the other group of candidates. This, on its face, creates an unfair election. This is particularly true in this circumstance, wherein the key distinction between the two groups of candidates--the favored group and the disfavored group--is that one has already been approved by the NomCom, and the other was put forth by membership signatures--the petition candidates. The Board's action creates two distinct classes of candidates on the ballot, one that is favored and highlighted for approval and the other that is disfavored. A first class and a second class. Again, unfair election on its face. b) The Jan. 20th Board action did not only endorse one group of candidates over another. It went significantly beyond that. The Board resolution commits the Sierra Club to expend significant organizational resources to publish a statement, to be included with the ballot materials sent to all members, that not only expresses the Board's endorsement of the NomCom candidates but also explicitly urges members to vote for 5 of the 6 NomCom candidates, at the exclusion of the petition candidates. The Board action does not give the petition candidates an equal opportunity in the election to have our own statement, telling members why voting for the four of us is better, to be published and included, equally, in the ballot materials sent to members. This, on its face, creates an unequal and unfair election. Indeed, the Board's resolution, by its own terms, clearly expresses the intention of creating an unequal election--i.e., an election where one group of candidates is advantaged and favored, while another is disadvantaged and disfavored. c) The Jan. 20th Board resolution includes, in the first paragraph, a statement that implicitly questions the motives and integrity of the petition candidates, by implying that we are motivated by self-interest rather than interest in the good of the Sierra Club. The fact that the offending statement does not explicitly mention the petition candidates is academic. From a reasonable person standpoint, voters reading that statement are likely to get the message that the NomCom candidates have the good of the Sierra Club in mind, unlike unnamed others (of course, the petition candidates) who are driven by some agenda that is not about what's good for the Club. This sort of insinuating personal attack on the petition candidates may have seemed clever to those who wrote the resolution, but it's impact creates an unfair election. We feel personally attacked because that was the intention of the resolution--to attack us, indirectly, and make voters distrust us and not vote for us. d) The notice about the Jan. 20th Board resolution did not come until immediately after the petition candidates' ballot statements were due, which means the timing deprived us of the opportunity to respond to the resolution in their ballot statements. This too creates an unfair election. To be clear, at this point, the ballot statements are done, and it would exacerbate harm and unfairness to re-open the text and content of the ballot statements. So, the remedy would be to halt implementation of the Jan. 20 Board action, rather than re-opening ballot statement content. e) During the Board discussion prior to the passage of the resolution, several Board members openly advocated voting for the NomCom candidates, and just as openly electioneered against the petition candidates. This included numerous false statements about our positions and personal attacks (too many to list here), and this was done for the better part of an hour on an official Sierra Club list (we see a Zoom call as being fundamentally the same as a Sierra Club listserv) in open session while several dozen Sierra Club leaders listened (and those leaders were not allowed to ask questions or make any comments). Once again, this created an unfair election. Sincerely, Aaron Mair Maya Khosla Dr. Michael Dorsey Kathryn (Kate) Bartholomew ----------------------------------------------------------- Sent to Inspectors Jan. 24, 2022: Thank you Steve for sending Mike's response to which we four petition candidates submit the following since it appears that endorsement (a statement) and electioneering (sending out campaign materials to influence voters with the ballots and at extra Club expense) are being compressed into one action. There for we state: Dear Inspectors, We maintain that, due to the unique position of the Board, an endorsement of certain candidates by the Board as a whole creates an unfair election. If the Inspectors ultimately do not share our view on this, we recommend as a remedy that mention of the Board majority endorsement follow established rules in that it be limited to a very brief entry on NomCom candidate ballot statements, such as “Endorsed by a majority of the Board”. Nothing more. Any additional actions beyond mention of a "Board endorsement" beyond the "ballot statement" would be electioneering and violation of election law, and established Club rules of even handed process fairness to ALL candidates. If you, the Inspectors, do not overturn the Jan. 20 Board resolution, which we believe you should in order to ensure a fair election, then we request the following remedies in order to give petition candidates an equal opportunity in the election and to ensure a fair election as required by law: 1) a statement, of equal length to the Board’s statement, by the petition candidates, promoting our slate and explaining why we are the better choice, be included in every ballot along with the Board’s statement; and 2) a representative of the petition slate, of the slate’s choosing, be afforded an opportunity and access to Club resources to promote the petition candidates that is equal to the opportunity afforded to the President under the Board resolution. These steps protect our Club's election process, ensure fairness from what would be Sierra Club Board of Directors process electioneering for one class of candidates against another; which is BEYOND a mere endorsement. Respectfully, Aaron Mair Maya Khosla Michael Dorsey Kate Bartholomew -------------------------------- Dear Inspectors, I have read the response by Mike O’Brien to my election laws/rules violation complaint. Below I offer my brief reply. In a nutshell, the O’Brien response is nothing more than an attempt to avoid acknowledging, or specifically responding to, the violations of law and rules that I, and the Petition candidates, allege in our complaints. In essence, therefore, O’Brien’s response in a sense represents a tacit admission. I explain this below. 1: O’Brien’s response (p. 2) states that the Sierra Club Elections Inspectors have previously indicated that the Board can endorse candidates for the Board if it chooses to do so, citing Sierra Club Standing Rule 5.6.1, which does not specifically say that the Board can endorse candidates, but also does not explicitly say that the Board cannot do so. In essence, the argument here is that silence in this rule is the same as consent. I disagree, and believe that sort of election law/rule interpretation—manufacturing consent to manipulate an election where no specific consent is given under the rule/laws—is a dangerous, slippery slope. More importantly, my complaint does not pertain to S.R. 5.6.1; rather, it pertains to S.R. 5.6.2(a), which requires the Sierra Club to “ensure a fair election”. The previous ruling by the Inspectors on Board endorsement of candidates appears to pertain to S.R. 5.6.1, and this issue has never previously been adjudicated with regard to the fair-election requirement in S.R. 5.6.2(a). As I note in my complaint, the Board, as the governing body of the Sierra Club, cannot be equated with chapters or chapter endorsements. The Board is unique—a fact that O’Brien’s response avoids acknowledging. My complaint, and the complaint by the petition candidates, acknowledges that chapters (and individuals) have the right to endorse Board candidates. That is not in question. When chapters endorse Board candidates, some chapters may endorse one group of candidates while other chapters may endorse another group. That is democracy, and it is both even and fair. It is another matter entirely when it comes to the Board, which represents the Sierra Club as a whole. The Board’s Jan. 20th resolution not only endorses the NomCom candidates, but also directs that all ballots be stuffed with a statement promoting the NomCom candidates and urging members to vote for 5 of the 6 NomCom candidates, as well as a corresponding statement from President Cruz on the ballot itself. Chapters do not have the ability or power to do this, and no chapter represents the entire Sierra Club, as the Board does. 2: O’Brien’s response (p. 4) makes the bizarre assertion that “The complainants do not allege any specific violation of the Nonprofit Corporation Code, because no such violation has occurred.” It appears that O’Brien did not read my complaint, or the complaint by the Petition candidates. The complaints very specifically articulate a specific violation of California law, alleging the following: “The Board's action violates two key provisions of election law and rules: 1. California Nonprofit Corporation Code Section 5615(b), which states in part that inspectors of election shall, ‘do such acts as may be proper to conduct the election vote with fairness to all members.’ 2. The Club's Standing Rule 5.6.2(a) which states that ‘decisions by the inspectors shall be based on the Club's Bylaws and Standing Rules, in conformance with California law, to ensure a fair election.’ It is our contention that the action taken by the Board on January 20th violates these two items because it creates an unfair election for the following reasons…” At the core of the complaints is the explicitly and profoundly uneven--and therefore unfair and illegal--election situation that the Board’s Jan. 20th resolution creates by: 1) communicating to the members that the Sierra Club as an organization (as represented by the Board) wants them to vote for some candidates, and not others; 2) stuffing the ballot with a statement promoting the NomCom candidates and urging votes in their favor, without giving the Petition candidates an equal opportunity to include a flyer of equal length in the ballot materials alongside the statement from the Board; and 3) printing a statement on the ballot itself by President Cruz, promoting the NomCom candidates and urging votes in their favor, without giving the Petition candidates and equal opportunity to have a statement of similar length printed alongside the statement by President Cruz. The Petition candidates, in their reply to O’Brien’s response, ask for this equal opportunity, in order to ensure a fair election and comply with our rules and California law. I support that request and reiterate it here. Failure to allow the Petition candidates such an equal opportunity would create an election that is clearly unbalanced, and unfair, which would violate S.R. 5.6.2(a) and California nonprofit corporation law Sec. 5615(b). Notably, O’Brien’s response (p. 6) asserts that, “While it is possible to hypothesize situations where the expenditures and resources would be so significant that they would compromise the fairness of an election…that is not the case here”, but does not support this conclusory statement with any evidence or argument. Nowhere does O’Brien’s response acknowledge the obvious and major imbalance in opportunity and election influence on voting that would be created by allowing the Board to stuff the ballots with two statements urging votes for the NomCom candidates—statements in addition to the ballot statements by the NomCom candidates themselves—without allowing equal statements in the ballot by the Petition candidates. At the core of voting rights is the right to vote and fair elections so that votes actually matter. It is deeply troubling that, while the Sierra Club is rightfully promoting voting rights in the U.S., the Board is undermining voting rights and fair elections within the Sierra Club itself. Chad Hanson To: Steve Krieg, Sierra Club Inspector of Elections, 2022
We, the four petition candidates for Sierra Club Board, Aaron Mair, Kathryn Bartholomew, Michael Dorsey, and Maya Khosla, hereby file this election complaint regarding the January 20, 2022 action of the Sierra Club Board to actively electioneer for the Nominating Committee candidates over the petition candidates. The Board's action violates two key provisions of election law and rules: 1. California Nonprofit Corporation Code Section 5615(b), which states in part that inspectors of election shall, "do such acts as may be proper to conduct the election vote with fairness to all members." 2. The Club's Standing Rule 5.6.2(a) which states that "decisions by the inspectors shall be based on the Club's Bylaws and Standing Rules, in conformance with California law, to ensure a fair election." It is our contention that the action taken by the Board on January 20th violates these two items because it creates an unfair election for the following reasons: a) An endorsement of some candidates, and not others, by the Board as a whole is fundamentally different from individual Directors endorsing candidates. Voters obviously can discern the distinction between one or more individual Directors endorsing one or more candidates versus a statement saying that the Board as a body has endorsed one group of candidates over another group. The Board is the governing body of the Sierra Club and an endorsement of one group of candidates over another by the Board signals organization-wide approval of one group of candidates and rejection by the organization of the other group of candidates. This, on its face, creates an unfair election. This is particularly true in this circumstance, wherein the key distinction between the two groups of candidates--the favored group and the disfavored group--is that one has already been approved by the NomCom, and the other was put forth by membership signatures--the petition candidates. The Board's action creates two distinct classes of candidates on the ballot, one that is favored and highlighted for approval and the other that is disfavored. A first class and a second class. Again, unfair election on its face. b) The Jan. 20th Board action did not only endorse one group of candidates over another. It went significantly beyond that. The Board resolution commits the Sierra Club to expend significant organizational resources to publish a statement, to be included with the ballot materials sent to all members, that not only expresses the Board's endorsement of the NomCom candidates but also explicitly urges members to vote for 5 of the 6 NomCom candidates, at the exclusion of the petition candidates. The Board action does not give the petition candidates an equal opportunity in the election to have our own statement, telling members why voting for the four of us is better, to be published and included, equally, in the ballot materials sent to members. This, on its face, creates an unequal and unfair election. Indeed, the Board's resolution, by its own terms, clearly expresses the intention of creating an unequal election--i.e., an election where one group of candidates is advantaged and favored, while another is disadvantaged and disfavored. c) The Jan. 20th Board resolution includes, in the first paragraph, a statement that implicitly questions the motives and integrity of the petition candidates, by implying that we are motivated by self-interest rather than interest in the good of the Sierra Club. The fact that the offending statement does not explicitly mention the petition candidates is academic. From a reasonable person standpoint, voters reading that statement are likely to get the message that the NomCom candidates have the good of the Sierra Club in mind, unlike unnamed others (of course, the petition candidates) who are driven by some agenda that is not about what's good for the Club. This sort of insinuating personal attack on the petition candidates may have seemed clever to those who wrote the resolution, but it's impact creates an unfair election. We feel personally attacked because that was the intention of the resolution--to attack us, indirectly, and make voters distrust us and not vote for us. d) The notice about the Jan. 20th Board resolution did not come until immediately after the petition candidates' ballot statements were due, which means the timing deprived us of the opportunity to respond to the resolution in their ballot statements. This too creates an unfair election. To be clear, at this point, the ballot statements are done, and it would exacerbate harm and unfairness to re-open the text and content of the ballot statements. So, the remedy would be to halt implementation of the Jan. 20 Board action, rather than re-opening ballot statement content. e) During the Board discussion prior to the passage of the resolution, several Board members openly advocated voting for the NomCom candidates, and just as openly electioneered against the petition candidates. This included numerous false statements about our positions and personal attacks (too many to list here), and this was done for the better part of an hour on an official Sierra Club list (we see a Zoom call as being fundamentally the same as a Sierra Club listserv) in open session while several dozen Sierra Club leaders listened (and those leaders were not allowed to ask questions or make any comments). Once again, this created an unfair election. Sincerely, Aaron Mair Maya Khosla Dr. Michael Dorsey Kathryn (Kate) Bartholomew All four petition candidates have officially qualified for the national Sierra Club Board of Directors election. To become candidates, we were required to submit 398 signatures. We submitted 560 signatures to qualify for the official Sierra Club Ballot! All of us are committed to nothing more than to save the Sierra Club from itself for the sake of the grassroots!
Thank you for the support from all the local Sierra Club members and chapter and group leaders who made our candidacy possible. Now we need to shift into campaign mode. Please encourage your chapters to endorse the four petition candidates, Aaron Mair, Kathryn Bartholomew, Michael Dorsey, and Maya Khosla, which will allow the chapters to include their endoersement in chapter and group newsletters encouraging members to vote for them. Onward! The current Board majority has promoted inaccurate and misleading attacks on the Sierra Club’s founder, John Muir. These attacks should be rescinded. Also, the behavior of current Board members around this topic (particularly aimed against those Board members and volunteers seeking to set the record straight) has been very public and alarming to many of our Chapter and Group volunteers. This behavior must stop as well. For information on these attacks, see: https://johnmuir.org/sierra-club-vs-john-muir/
|
News from the 2022 Petition CandidatesAaron Mair Archives
April 2022
Categories |