OCR Text |
Show policy. As for waiting until "a good Utah wilderness bill is passed," most political observers concede that passed legislation is years away. On September 23, 1997, Utah Congressman Jim Hansen called for hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the proposal to drain the reservoir. Hansen thought it was a pretty goofy idea and believed that congressional hearings would discredit the movement once and for all. Instead, the testimony before the national media gave new credibility to the plan. Evidence of that new-found respect came on March 5, 1998 when Rep. Chris Cannon introduced House Resolution 380 in the House of Representatives expressing the sense that no change in the water level of Lake Powell was justified. Even Utah congressmen were getting jittery. AND THEN...THE "GLEN CANYON GROUP" In the early summer of 1999, as the idea of decommissioning dams across the country became a topic of national debate, and as attention continued to focus on Glen Canyon Dam itself, a group of citizens in Moab gathered one night to discuss the future. It became clear to everyone that here on the banks of the Colorado River, just a hundred miles upstream from the reservoir, that this was the time and the place to create a new grass roots arm of the Sierra Club that stood foursquare behind the restoration policy of the national board. includes (but is not limited to) press releases, mailings, electronic contacts with media, and events to which the public is invited. Should such able discussion be initiated by the media or other parties, those who speak for the Chapter shall endeavor not to participate in any official capacity. Direct questions by the media may be answered factually." It was a gag order plain and simple. The Group would not be allowed to pursue one of its major objectives. It would not even be able to name itself! Members of the group met in an emergency meeting to decide on a course of action. The ExCom planned to vote to approve (or disapprove) the group in a few days, and some Moabites wondered if urging a delay might be the best course of action. Ultimately, however, the Glen Canyon Group decided it was "sink or swim" time. It made clear to the Binyons, who planned to represent the group at the ExCom meeting in Salt Lake City, that the gag order resolution was not acceptable under any conditions, nor would the tampering of the "Glen Canyon" name. Up or rem we said. Reject us or Support us-it was that simple. On the evening of September 13, the ExCom voted to approve the Moab group...BUT with the restrictive resolutions intact. The group had been approved, but with no name and no voice. The Moab members (with the exception of the Binyons) were stunned WHO ARE THESE GUYS? The Executive Committee of the Utah Chapter had, in one swift gesture, wielded the power of its office to demolish (for the time being at least) the goals and priorities of the Moab group. The disingenousness of its argument to squash the group is staggering. In the summer of 1999, as the idea of decommissioning dams across the country became a topic of national debate... a group of citizens in Moab gathered to discuss the future. According to the Sierra Club bylaws, a group cannot take a position that contradicts the policies of a chapter. The Utah Chapter’s 1997 resolution opposing public support for Glen Canyon Restoration is chapter policy. To contradict that resolution would therefore be a violation of the Chapter bylaws. In an email correspondence to the Binyons, Schroeder stated it clearly: "The Glen Canyon policy outlined in my first proposed resolution is, I Beyond the Glen Canyon issue, we were struck by the reality that there is NO grassroots environmental group in southeast Utah that confronts a variety of serious land issues---from the transportation and storage of radioactive waste to issues of runaway growth and development in rural Utah communities, the Sierra Club desperately needed think, merely a closer articulation of the policy we adopted two years ago (the September an activist voice in southern Utah. Although we knew something of the Chapter’s reluctance to embrace the national Board’s policy on Glen Canyon, it was difficult for anyone to grasp the magnitude of the Utah ExCom’s complete intractability. We even discussed the possibility of proceeding as a "stealth group," to disguise or deny any interest in the Glen Canyon Hot Topic until after Chapter approval. But finally it was decided that we were simply incapable of that kind of deception and could only speak honestly and earnestly on all the environmental issues that concerned us.’Despite some misgivings the group moved ahead with unbridled optimism. With the group’s support an editorial about the proposed new group appeared Canyon Group because it actually supported the policy of the national board! In addition to its obtuse and even bizarre logic, the ExCom maintains a bunker mentality when it comes to providing basic information to its members. Numerous requests for membership strength, proposed geographical group boundaries, requests for committee assignments, and concerns about the previously mentioned restrictive resolutions were met, for the most part, with repeated deadly silence. Nothing, Who does the leadership of the Utah Chapter speak for? Does it truly represent its members? Apparently the Utah leadership wants to keep that information a secret. A few weeks ago, Stiles attempted to acquire two basic pieces of Chapter data. First, how many Sierra Club members are in the Utah Chapter? Second, how many of those members actually voted in the last ExCom election? Each year, the Chapter presents a slate of candidates to its members; the information is conveyed via the quarterly Chapter newsletter (a violation of national bylaws; ballots are supposed to be sent separately to all chapter in The Canyon Country Zephyr. On July 16, our group met to discuss the future. Since there were groups already established in Ogden and Salt Lake City, we decided to establish another group in southern Utah. We had the necessary 25 interested members needed to proceed and proposed a | group that would cover the counties spread across the Colorado Plateau of Utah. These groups would be under the umbrella of the Utah Chapter. Appropriately, the members voted to call themselves "The Glen Canyon Group" and, in late July, Ken Sleight hand-carried the preliminary paperwork to the Chapter for approval along with a list of officers (Sleight had been elected chair) and concerns that the group hoped to address. They included the need to: "1. Support efforts to restore Glen Canyon. 2. Support efforts for safe disposal of toxic/nuclear waste. 3. Support efforts to increase wilderness in Utah." Other areas of concern included recreation and tourist impacts, commercial logging on public lands, large scale toxic mining and grazing impacts. On July 30, Ken Sleight wrote to Nina Dougherty, President of the Chapter, and the Chapter ExCom advising them that some of the Moab members of the Sierra Club would be attending their August 2 meeting to plead our cause and that members would be having an org: 1 meeting onS ber 7 at Pack Creek Ranch, near Moab. Chapter officials were invited to what was hoped would be a landmark event. The meeting didn’t happen...the Chapter would not support it. On August 2, Ken Sleight, John Weisheit, and Kevin Walker represented the members from the Moab area at the Chapter meeting in Salt Lake City. Each extolled the virtues of the establishment of the new group. Some of the members of the ExCom said they wanted a chance to review a written proposal before they voted. A proposal had already been submitted to the Chapter office previously (hand-carried to them), but the officers failed to distribute copies to the members of the ExCom for their perusal prior to the meeting. Instead we were charged with being a “single issue” group—establishing ourselves just for the sake of draining Powell Reservoir. Even so, we fully expected approval that night, but the Chapter officials delayed the decision to another day. Prospects looked reasonably good even then. A REBUFF AND A GAG ORDER FROM THE EXCOM In August, the fledgling group was joined by “longtime Utah Chapter Sierra Club ‘ members" from Salt Lake City, Jean and Mike Binyon. Jean had once been on the Chapter ExCom and both Binyons supported the Chapter’s 1997 resolution opposing the national 18, 1997 resolution). BUT...the Chapter, by repudiating the national board’s resolution on Glen Canyon Restoration violates the Club’s national policy. So...the Utah Chapter opposed the Glen meémbers.). Votes must be cast by the end of ‘October and the results are posted in the following newsletter. Well...that’s not quite right. The winners are posted, but not the vote tallies. The actual vote totals are not released. And so, in email after email, phone message after phone message, Stiles attempted to attain this information from various members of the Utah Chapter ExCom, its field representative and its chapter representative--they were either met with either silence or obfuscation. Finally, through the national office, we learned that the Utah Chapter had, as of December 31, 1999, 4358 members and, by way of an anonymous tip from a Utah Chapter ExCom member, that approximately 20 to 30 of those members vote. Subsequently, an email was sent to each of the Utah Chapter members previously contacted that read: "OK...informed sources have told me there are between 20 and 30 voters. If that’s wrong, contact me. If I hear nothing I'll assume it’s correct." We never heard an official word. In fact, we learned that the ballots had probably been destroyed. The Chapter, by repudiating the national board's resolution on Glen Canyon Restoration violates the Club's national policy. So...the Utah Chapter opposed the Glen Canyon Group because (the group) actually supported the policy of the national board. Even if the estimated vote were doubled (recently, one ExCom member believes as others down there who may be interested," Schroeder made it clear that,-when it came to many as 50 ballots were cast), the leadership of the Utah Chapter, those who have chosen to defy national Sierra Club policy, not only makes decisions without a mandate, it represents barely 1%, perhaps as low as 0.5% of the Utah membership! Schroeder once proclaimed, "The Club is unusual in being a ‘democratic’ organization in which everyone gets a say in decisions." Maybe so. But very little, if any, effort is being made by the chapter to improve the membership’s paltry participation in political issues. And it seems to prefer it that way. Where the Club in Utah does seek a lot of participation is in its varied schedule of outings and outdoor activities for members. Indeed, outings rather than activism often seem to be the central focus of the Utah Chapter. the issue of Glen Canyon restoration, there was no room for debate. The new group, if approved, could simply not discuss The Forbidden Topic. In his comments, Schroeder observed, "I and others feel that the name of the group should not be Glen Canyon. I’ve written "Canyonlands," but you folks may prefer something else and I really don’t care, as long as it’s not Glen Canyon." . Then Schroeder introduced his restrictive resolutions. For all the same reasons that the ExCom had stated in its 1997 unilateral rejection of Sierra Club’s national policy, the most Note: A week before this issue went to press, Stiles finally received a response from Chapter chair Nina Dougherty regarding the number of ballots cast. In part, she wrote, "As I believe you know, we don’t have that information. We do not retain it. Our rationale has been that we do not want to affect the morale, nor the continued high level of activism, of our well qualified candidates. Even though all candidates are well qualified, experienced and effective, some have to lose." So, apparently, no one can remember even the approximate number of ballots cast and they destroy them so as to offensive of the new resolutions proclaimed: not hurt the feelings of the losers. board’s policy. Now the Binyons attempted to persuade the group to abandon its Glen Canyon restoration priority. Supporting their position was Utah Chapter ExCom member Dan Schroeder, chairman of the Ogden group. He is also the author of three resolutions which called for the formation of a new group, but which, at the same time, rendered it impotent and ineffective. In an email to the Binyons, in which he added "feel free to forward (this) to "..it shall be the policy of the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club not to initiate public discussion or debate on the issue of Glen Canyon restoration at this time. ‘Public discussion’ continued on next page... |