The Sierra Club leadership at a board of directors election yesterday defeated a slate of independent candidates who wanted to see the club adopt a tougher stance on immigration.
After the most contentious board election in memory, the club’s membership elected the five candidates endorsed by the organization’s nominating committee. All five supported maintaining the club’s neutral stance on immigration.
“Immigration was the bellwether issue in this election, and there was a clear statement from our members,” said Jennifer Ferenstein, an outgoing board member and a former club president.
But supporters of the independent slate cried foul, arguing that the club’s staff tried to intimidate voters by actively opposing the five upstart candidates. They said the tactics included running three “phony” candidates whose only goal was to blast the independent candidates in election materials.
“To be honest, I’m not surprised by the outcome at all because of the ballot manipulation they were engaged in,” said Fred Elbel, a member of Sierrans for Population Stabilization and a 30-year club member.
“Essentially, they frightened members into voting for the old guard,” he said.
Sierrans for Population Stabilization, which supported the independent slate, accused the club’s leadership of “an unprecedented attack on the democracy and fairness principles for which the club is known.”
The slate’s members were former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm, elected as a Democrat; scientist David Pimentel; Robert van de Hoek, an immigrant; Kim McCoy; and Frank Morris, an active member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
“It’s been a disgrace,” said Diana Hull, a 10-year Sierra Club member and president of Californians for Population Stabilization. “They’ve never put up a fight like this before. Why did they have to get so vicious unless they were afraid of losing?”
At stake in the election was control of the powerful club’s 15-member board. In the past two elections, members chose five independent candidates who wanted to curb the immigration boom.
With three more members, the independent candidates would have controlled the board and presumably overturned the organization’s neutral stance on U.S. immigration. The threat was enough to prompt some former Sierra Club presidents to form Groundswell Sierra, designed to fight the independent candidates.
Supporters of neutrality argued that the immigration issue was a distraction from the Sierra Club’s mission to protect the environment.
“The core values of the club are to protect the water and the air,” Ms. Ferenstein said. “Immigration does have an environmental component, but it’s overshadowed by the social components. We’re not the right organization to address it.”
But other Sierrans argue that the unchecked flow of immigrants poses an enormous threat to the environment. They cited the increase in air pollution from cars, the loss of farmland and open space for housing, and the strain on the water supply.
In California, where illegal immigration from Mexico is booming, the population is growing at a rate of 1.7 percent per year, which will double the state’s population in 40 years. About 2.5 million immigrants, legal and illegal, arrive in the nation each year, Mrs. Hull said.
Supporters of the independent candidates filed a lawsuit citing unfair election practices, which is pending in court.
With 750,000 members and an annual budget of $80 million, the Sierra Club is one of the nation’s most influential environmental organizations. About 22 percent of its members returned ballots in the election, more than double the usual turnout.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.