NOTICE: The following is not intended to besmirch
anyone. All of the volunteers on NCADP's board are fine
individuals, however NCADP policies and practices as
described below require full disclosure and discussion.
Even though attendance at this conference was low,
the workshops were good, and the panel discussions were
outstanding, it was politics as usual. This organization
needs to change either its attitude, or its name. To
call it a "coalition" is a betrayal to all who
support it either in spirit or with actual resources. In
terms of movement direction and leadership, the NCADP
has capitulated to the "G-12," an
"ad-hoc" meeting of invited (mostly DC-based)
organizational leaders who get together to discuss in
secret how "the movement" will deal with
things like September 11 or the killing of McVeigh or
other mundane things like what state-level abolitionist
efforts are worthy of assistance and funding. In my
opinion, the "G-12" should disband and such
meetings should be open, announced, reported on, and
most important, run under the auspices of the National
Coalition.
AND, the National Coalition should govern itself in
an open and democratic fashion, which it currently does
not. A central tenet of any *membership* organization
should be its annual meeting of the members, at which
policy matters should be discussed and new leadership
*elected* in a fair process which, as required by law
should be clearly articulated well in advance and open
to all who wish to participate. It is true that anyone
can attend the meeting. In fact, they beg people to
attend what is usually the least attended event of the
NCADP's annual meeting. And to look at their process,
it's no wonder.
In letters to coalition affiliates, and in the
conference information posted on their web page, the
NCADP sought nominations for new members of its board of
directors. Having been nominated from the floor of the
membership meeting twice in the past, and losing both
times, I decided to put my name in the hat. I wanted to
explore my theory that one can only be elected to that
board if your name is actually printed on the ballot,
and not simply added during the process as a
"write-in" candidate. I also believed that as
a leading critic of the NCADP, I should try to work from
within. I submitted my name and bio to the outgoing
board chair, Rachel King, which she acknowledged well
within the deadline. Since I had heard from Rachel, and
she responded very positively to my entering the pool of
candidates, and recognizing that my availability is
limited, I also asked her some questions in the
following e-mail, which was sent on October 2:
*****
"Hi Rachel,
At 08:14 PM 10/2/2001 -0400, you wrote: >good for
you! i'll vote for you. rachel
well thanks, I think. Is this something you would
really recommend? I hear stories of frustration from
other current board members....
In part, I am testing a theory that all one need do
to get on this board is get on the ballot. I've stood
for election twice before, but they had to write my name
in. The last time, Both Halperin and I were "write
ins" and we both were not elected. That was in
Philadelphia, I believe.... I totally missed last year's
"membership" meeting.
Just for the record, some of my best and most
intensive work on AIUSA's board was as chair of the
"Board Election Reform Task Force," which
spent a year looking at creating a more inclusive
election process. No question, AIUSA is a much different
animal than NCADP, but not really... I think NCADP would
and could be a really effective vehicle if it functioned
more like a real coalition.
AIUSA only has 300,000 + members and with that they
have a $30million + budget. If our movement had that
*and distributed it* without all the bullshit, we'd be
much further along a lot faster. I think that is
possible. And that's the most radical thing I said in
Philly!
Anyway.... I didn't mean to get on the soap box, but
I guess what I am really driving at is, if I were
elected and agreed to serve, would I be constantly
pulling my hair out? Or do you think some of these ideas
might actually be entertained?
paz!
--abe"
*****
I never did receive a response to my message from
Rachel, although two days later she did e-mail to me a
request to resubmit my bio directly to her assistant,
which I did, and when it bounced back, I sent it to her
again. The outgoing NCADP chair did not attend the
conference due to her job as an ACLU attorney dealing
with current legislative matters.
BUT, I did attend the NCADP's "Membership
Meeting," and I ended up walking out. Here's why.
The meeting opened with a nice welcome from executive
director Steve Hawkins, who then turned it back over to
board member Jotaka Eddy. She began by reading the
report of the unnamed "Nominations Committee"
of the NCADP board, and this report included the names
of all of the people who had been nominated. My name was
among those listed, and even though I had put my name in
to the general pool, they had chosen to segregate me
into the candidates for board slots specifically
reserved for individuals representing NCADP affiliates.
CUADP has been affiliated with the NCADP almost since
CUADP's inception in 1997.
The first ballot was passed out, and at that time
people were reminded that they had to be certified as
NCADP individual or organizational members in order to
vote. Voting rights were certified by NCADP staff
present in the back of the room. I looked at the ballot
that had just been passed out. This was for the board
officers. I was not surprised to see that there was only
one candidate for board chair, plus a spot to write in
the name of another candidate. I was happy to see that
the board vice-chair was contested - or so I thought. It
turned out that there are two vice-chairs, and again,
only two candidates were named, along with two
"write-in" spots. Similarly, only one
candidate was named for the positions of treasurer and
secretary. In all of these cases, no write-in candidates
were nominated from the floor, no opposition was
recorded, and it was happily announced that all the
named candidates were "elected," including the
very happy announcement that Brenda Lewis was
"elected" to be the first African American
chair of the NCADP. I am sure she'll do a fine job -
congratulations Brenda!
Then it was announced that the "Affiliate"
board positions were next to be voted on. Four people
had been named as having been nominated, yet the ballot
listed only enough affiliate candidates for the two
affiliate slots available. (Ballot is pictured above.)
So imagine my surprise when the ballot showed only two
candidates! "Wait a minute!" I asked.
"Are you saying that the printed ballots will only
contain the names of the candidates for whom the
nominating committee wants approved?"
"Yes." was the response. At which point I made
a "ppphhhbbt" sort of spitting noise of
disgust, stood up, and walked out of the room while
exclaiming loudly, "This process is in need of
serious revision!" I went to the bar and vented
with the leadership of other NCADP affiliates who were
not wasting their time in the "membership"
meeting.
It was later reported to me that the same thing
happened when they presented the ballot for the "at
large" board members. Only the names of those they
wanted to fill the available slots were presented.
Again, people who had been named as nominees were not
put on the ballot. This was NOT an election. It was an
"affirmation." "This is how we've always
done it," argued one board member. Maybe so, but
that does not make it right.
To the best of my knowledge, this is not illegal. In
fact, many board election procedures allow the board to
be self-replicating - meaning that the board picks its
own new members. I have not seen the by-laws of NCADP,
so I am unaware of its specific guidelines. But
self-replicating boards are typically the governance
structure of NON-MEMBERSHIP organizations, like CUADP.
NCADP claims to be a membership organization, but the
process used was democratic in the same way elections in
CUBA are democratic! (In Cuba, local precincts choose
their candidate, who must then receive the affirmation
of better than 50% of the electorate in a secret ballot
vote.) Even IF the process used by NCADP was legal, it's
unethical to call it an election. The word
"election" indicates that there is a contest.
Better they should call it an affirmation of the slate
put forth by the nominating committee, which *should*
decide what candidates best meet the current needs of
the board.
Unfortunately, by naming all of those nominated, but
not slating only a few, the NCADP Board and its
nominating committee created an embarrassing and
unfortunate situation. What is wrong with those not
slated? Are they criminals? Are they too much or not
enough of something? Could it be that they are voices
which question or express concern, and refuse to
rubber-stamp? Could it be that they have new ideas, or
in the case of two of those nominated but not slated,
they have significant experience on the board of a much
larger organization with a much larger budget? Is NCADP
afraid of contested elections? We'll never know, will
we? Or maybe so. I invite a response by the NCADP, and
if they choose to present one I promise it will be
shared on this site. (NCADP Board Chair responded as
follows):
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:18:07 -0500
To: "Abraham J. Bonowitz" <abe@cuadp.org>
From: "Brenda Lewis" <Brenda_Lewis@fd.org>
Dear Abe,
Thank you for sending a copy of your letter published on
the CUADP
web site regarding the NCADP Board elections process.
The NCADP and
it's Board of Directors acknowledge your comments and
critique of our
board nomination and election procedure. We are aware
that there may
be a need for revision, and we will be discussing
possible changes at
our winter board meeting.
We will keep you and others apprised.
Sincerely,
Brenda Lewis
Chairperson
NCADP Board of Directors
*****
A FEW RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NCADP BOARD
I served four years on the board of the US Section of
Amnesty International, and during that time I chaired
the Board Election Reform Task Force. In search of ways
to increase DEMOCRACY and participation in AIUSA's
elections, we polled AIUSA members, and studied numerous
other non-profit organizations elections procedures. I
feel more than qualified to offer to NCADP's board the
following suggestions (in no particular order):
* Develop a "leadership council," and use
that for figure heads and famous people. Only people
willing and able to actually work should be nominated to
serve on the governing board.
* Develop a nominating process which provides for
more names on the slate than there are positions to be
filled. If possible, present a slate which includes as
many as twice the number of candidates as there are
spaces to be filled. Then, in the order of the number of
votes received, use the candidates not elected as a
reserve, and when vacancies open on the board due to
resignation, death or removal, offer the opening to
candidates not elected.
* Develop a process whereby those who cannot be
present at the meeting of the members can cast a ballot
by proxy via the mail. It may be useful to consult an
agency which specializes in assisting non-profits with
the conduct of their elections.
* Develop a process where members of the organization
can be included on the ballot via a petition process, so
that the nominating committee and the board to not have
exclusive powers and any member in good standing is a
potential candidate.
* In all cases, the nominations process must be kept
*private* and the names of those nominated but not
slated should *never* be released.
* Develop a process where the members of the
organization elect the board, and each newly elected
board elects its own officers. This way, a truly
contested election for a board officer position would
not result in a highly qualified individual not being
elected at all! Also, board leadership can best be
evaluated only by people who sit at the board table.
* Stagger the election, so that half or one third of
the board is elected each year. This way there is both
continuity and new blood. Limit the number of
consecutive terms a board member may serve. (In AIUSA
board members may not serve more than two consecutive
terms of three years each. Officers are re-elected every
year.)
* Establish a clear job description for board
members, including qualifications, disqualifications,
and a general sense of what is expected of board
members.
*******
I'm sure there are other factors which should be
considered, but all of the above are ideas in practice
in other membership organizations. Will it be more
difficult to build diversity? Maybe, and maybe not. Will
it lead to a more functional and effective board? Maybe,
and maybe not. Will it enhance credibility and
democracy? Absolutely.
There are those who will cry "sour grapes,"
and suggest that I am only complaining because I am shut
out of the process. I admit that it is painful to be so
reviled that I am not invited to meetings, and publicly
exposed as being undesirable within certain circles. I
want to note that two NCADP board members made it a
point to apologize to me privately. One new board member
told me that he would not have participated in the
election if he knew how unfair it would be. But this is
not the first time this has happened, and it will not be
the last, AND, I am not the only person to be publicly
discarded by the "leadership" of this
movement. And therein lies the crux of the matter. My
efforts have always been toward a movement which
recognizes and values *everyone* and which operates in a
fair and democratic manner. When there are policies and
practices which shut people out, I will not stand for
it. I have tried to work from within. Now the NCADP
Board and the "G-12" will have to hear it from
the outside, where everyone else gets to hear it too.
Hopefully, this will be a good thing. After all, when we
made light of the fact that the dinner has a reputation
of running on and on, they tightened it right up.
Perhaps the airing of the movement's dirty laundry will
whip us into shape across the board? I hope so.
Most Sincerely,
--abe
Abraham J. Bonowitz Director, Citizens United for
Alternatives to the Death Penalty an Affiliate member of
the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
