Project Renewal Draft Proposal for Comment



Date: 12 February 2008

To: Board of Directors

From: Organizational Change Steering Committee

Re: Project Renewal Proposal

The Organizational Change Steering Committee is pleased to submit recommendations for Project Renewal. There are several important changes from the draft model we presented at the November 2007 Board meeting, most of which were previewed in our January 2008 Update memo:

Project Renewal Recommendations – Key Changes

• Issue Teams (similar to our current national issue committees) are retained as ongoing bodies within Activist Network Teams; they are not being made temporary, nor is their ability to represent the Club being taken away (page13).

• The Activist Network (a simplified name for the Issues & Skills Activist Network) will have a volunteer and staff support team to assure that those working within it can effectively use existing and new Network venue and tools (page 13).

• The Club should invest in the Network by making national funding available to Issue Teams, Regional Teams, and Project Teams. This funding will be reviewed and approved by the Activist Network Support Team (page 13).

• Expansion of the Council of Club Leaders, which many felt would be unworkable, is being withdrawn from the proposal and replaced with an alternative approach that would bring chapter and national leaders together through an annual event rather than through one body such as the CCL (page 16).

• Conservation Priority Task Forces are established to maintain strong volunteer leadership for the Club's three conservation priorities – America's Wild Legacy, Safe and Healthy Communities, and Smart Energy Solutions (page 11).

• Club processes, including budgets and position-taking, are described within the Project Renewal proposal (page 14).

And finally, at the Board Working Session, we will be providing a framework for transition to Project Renewal should the Board choose to adopt it. Transition should involve a larger set of activists and staff working together in the months ahead.

Acknowledgment of Additional Influences on Project Renewal

The OCSC would like to recognize the input that has helped shape Project Renewal:

We learned a great deal from the six Club-wide Project Renewal conference calls. We also appreciate those who participated in the online Project Renewal discussion forum, which attracted ~5,800 "web views" from interested activists. We also appreciate the time that many gave to the OCSC team in the form of email exchanges, individual conversations and discussions during your meetings. Many of the changes outlined above and described in more detail in Project Renewal, were directly influenced by this consultation process.

We would like to thank the group of national conservation leaders who put forward specific alternatives. It was refreshing to have alternative ideas to consider in addition to comments and critiques. Our recommendation for an annual event that brings together the CCL, chapter conservation chairs and national team leaders was specifically sparked by this input. The place within Project Renewal for strong volunteer leadership for the Club's three conservation priorities was also strongly influenced by what you wrote.

And finally we'd like to thank the Cumberland Chapter for the thoughtful way that you gave form to chapter concerns. By outlining key conditions and principles for a national structure that will meet the needs of chapters and local activist, you gave us clear guidance, which was reinforced by the Board's February 5th resolution, “Project Renewal concerns with respect to Chapters.”

The OCSC team completely agrees with the values defined in the Board's resolution: clarity of mission, grassroots structures, volunteer-driven, support for locally-based initiatives, respect for experienced leaders, need for better communication and clarity. We firmly believe that Project Renewal reflects these values. And we emphatically agree with the Board's recognition that beyond Project Renewal, the Club needs to do more to improve communication and connections, provide additional resources, clearly define integrated campaigns, and provide chapters with greater input on actions that directly affect chapters.

Final Thoughts

The Project Renewal team is grateful to have had the opportunity to devote our activism over the past nine months to providing Sierra Club with a structure that we believe will be a platform for greater, more powerful, more satisfying work to save the environment and broaden commitment to a culture in harmony with the natural world. We also humbly recognize that how people work within any given structure is ultimately what matters. We urge everyone to enter into this new structure, should the Board adopt it, with a spirit of adventure, exploration and collegial participation. In the end, that is what will matter most.

Project Renewal

A Proposal to the Sierra Club Board of Directors

February 12, 2008

Organizational Change Steering Committee

Allison Chin, Chair, and Julia Reitan, Co-Chair

Bob Bingaman, Susan Heitman, Laura Hoehn, Bob Morris,

Annette Souder, Marilyn, Wall, Nathan Wyeth

Supported by Gene Coan, Joshua Ruschhaupt, La Piana Associates, Inc.

Table of Contents for Project Renewal Proposal

I. Introduction: Why Project Renewal Matters 5

II. Project Renewal Model 7

III. Components of the Model 7

A. Board of Directors 7

B. Upstream from the Board: Board Advisory Committees and Task Forces 8

1. Volunteer Leadership Advisory Committee 8

2. Mission Strategy Advisory Committee 8

3. Public Visibility Advisory Committee 9

4. Finance and Risk Management Advisory Committee 9

5. Task Forces 10

6. Conservation Priority Task Forces 10

C. Downstream from the Board: Implementation Teams and Activist Network 10

1. Implementation Teams 11

2. Coordinating Pairs 11

3. Chapter and Leader Support Teams 12

4. Program and Campaign Teams 12

5. Activist Network 13

IV. Operational Processes 14

A. Funding for National Work 14

B. Position-Taking 14

C. Policy-Making 15

D. Organizational Direction-Setting 15

E. Liaisons 15

F. Bringing Local and National Leaders Together 16

V. Concluding Remarks 16

Appendix 1: Organizational Change Steering Committee (OCSC) Charge 17

Appendix 2: Principles/Criteria for Testing Models 18

Appendix 3: Building Blocks of the Model (Revised per November 2007 Board meeting) 19

Appendix 4: OCSC January Update 20

Appendix 5: OCSC Timeline 24

Speaking as an individual Sierra Club member, though I am a group chair and chapter ExCom member, I support the proposed change. It seems as though the accumulated emotional and physical hurts that human beings gather over the years cause us to slow down and prevent movement, not just physically but with our ability to try new things. It seems like even one thing that is perceived as being not right or accurate with something can be seen as a reason to not take action. I hope we get to try the proposed change and see if it helps the Sierra Club to move more quickly to reach our stated conservation initiative goals.

Roberta Paro, Norwich, CT, USA

I. Introduction: Why Project Renewal Matters

The Organizational Change Steering Committee (OCSC) and certainly the members of the Board are aware that not everyone shares Roberta Paro’s embrace of the need for substantive, urgent change in the way Sierra Club works. At the same time, we also know that the issues of this century demand that we do things differently if we are going to make a difference in the course of environmental and cultural events.

The proposal that we bring to you, after nine months of hard labor, is a prescription for new ways of making decisions, new ways of organizing, new ways of forming relationships, and new ways of leading, both internally and in the context of the American environmental movement. We have taken great care to respect, preserve and reinforce the good work that is being done by dedicated volunteers in our national committees, chapters, programs, and campaigns. But we also recognize that we need to do more, faster, and with greater power, and that to do so will require a broader embrace of Roberta’s plea for change right now.

Project Renewal matters because it addresses barriers, brings focus to our strengths, and boldly embraces new possibilities for organizing in the 21st century. The specific details of the Project Renewal proposal are outlined in the description of components. Here are several bigger-picture reasons why we believe Project Renewal matters at this time.

The Sierra Club must cast a wider net in order to engage more people in its work.

The integration of up-to-date social networking capabilities with the Sierra Club’s traditional strength in on-the-ground activism is a unique opportunity for us. No other environmental organization has both of these capabilities, and grassroots activists everywhere are begging for more tools to help them expand their work. Robust support and rapid implementation of the Activist Network will mark a turning point not only in the Club’s grassroots reach and relevance, but in the overall capacities for activism in America.

The Board has committed the Club to building its online organizing capacity to complement its current strength in on-the-ground activism. While many throughout the Club are excited about the potential of online networks, others have concerns about how online activists and on-the-ground Club chapter and group leaders will integrate.

The Activist Network proposed by Project Renewal will be a big step toward an answer. It will create a process and venue for national activists to connect with chapter, group and regional ones in ways that are very difficult today. It will also create a means for Club leaders with specific roles (national issue team members, chapter/group conservation chairs, etc.) to connect with interested activists from the public who are attracted to our online work.

The Sierra Club must stay true to its tradition of volunteer-driven, grassroots leadership.

The Sierra Club has never wavered in its commitment to leadership by grassroots volunteers, and won't do so now. Nothing about Project Renewal changes this fundamental nature of the Club.

Local Group and Chapter Executive Committees (greater than 350) are empowered to direct the work of the Sierra Club locally through chapter and group structures. Member-elected, grassroots volunteers (not hand-picked professionals or major fundraisers like in many organizations) also sit on our national Board of Directors, and these volunteers have ultimate governance authority for everything in the Club, as it has always been.

The Project Renewal model provides the structures the Board needs to be sure that it has strategic input for broad organizational decision-making, and the structures that on-the-ground activists and staff working from a national perspective need to work together effectively.

Staff and volunteers are both significant resources for the Club.

Our current national leadership structure carries no clear mandate for staff and volunteers to view themselves in partnership. The partnership approach happens in many cases, and that is where the Club's work runs most smoothly and effectively. But in other cases, staff and volunteers end up practically as rivals, with parallel mandates to act on behalf of the Club and with mistrust and jealousy regarding funding, credit for victories, hegemony as official Club spokespersons and arbiters of positions. Instead of volunteers and staff viewing themselves as partners exercising the power of the Club to achieve common objectives, there is strong cultural acceptance of the idea that one side or the other has too much or too little power; indeed we have often been told that staff and volunteers cannot work together with different but equally important attributes.

The Project Renewal model creates a team structure for bringing staff and volunteers onto the same team. It recognizes that staff and volunteers both provide leadership, sometimes in similar roles, sometimes in different roles.

Organizational strategizing needs a home in the Club.

Sierra Club makes broad strategic decisions all the time and national-level volunteers are part of these discussions, but it is often ad hoc. The Project Renewal proposal creates a space for this strategic thinking to happen intentionally and in an ongoing manner through four specific bodies, Advisory Committees to the Board. This is where volunteer direction is critical because grassroots identity and values shape our mission and how we pursue it within the broader American culture. These bodies are not charged with operational responsibility because their focus needs to encompass a higher, longer-term perspective.

II. Project Renewal Model

* Committees composed just of Board members, such as the Executive Committee and Investment Committee

** Other Board Standing Committees such as Nominating Committee, Inspectors of Election, Audit Committee, US Canada Oversight (joint with Sierra Club Canada), Advancement (joint with TSCF)

III. Components of the Model

1 Board of Directors

The member-elected Board of Directors has ultimate responsibility for governance of the Sierra Club (specified in California corporations law and Club Bylaws), including large-scale decisions on how best to deploy and build the resources available to the Club, and setting clear organizational direction for the Club by defining our broad mission in terms of specific policies and goals by which we can assess and measure progress throughout the Club. This responsibility is very different from the many complex and varied decisions that must be made day-to-day to carry out the Club’s work.

In order for the Board to carry out its governance responsibilities, we recommend the establishment of advisory committees and task forces on its “upstream” side as well as a number of implementation teams on its “downstream” side to carry out the work of the Club.

2 Upstream from the Board: Board Advisory Committees and Task Forces

In order for the Board to carry out its work, Project Renewal proposes the establishment of four advisory committees to provide expertise and advice about the Board’s core governance decisions, as well as the option for establishing specific task forces to provide expertise and advice on specific issues that may arise. Both the advisory committees and the task forces will be volunteer-led and must engage Club leaders broadly, democratically, and inclusively.

Board Advisory Committees are the national volunteer structures designed to seek and get advice for the Board’s governance decisions. Each Board Advisory Committee will take a long-range, high level view that considers how Club identity and values are reflected in our work. The committees will consult widely, and will provide a venue to raise concerns and ideas that come from volunteers or staff, that have large organizational scope.

These Advisory Committees will be chaired by a Director and composed of Directors and other volunteers, with staff support. Unlike the present Governance Committees, their work will not be complicated by also including operational functions. There are four Board Advisory Committees:

1 Volunteer Leadership Advisory Committee

Advise and make recommendations to the Board regarding broad organizational opportunities and priorities for enhancing grassroots leadership capacity as well as the Club's national volunteer leadership, including the Board itself.

• Assess the Club's grassroots capacity, its volunteer leadership strengths and gaps.

• Develop leadership development metrics for all programs, campaigns, and support teams, as well as the nationwide activist network.

• Develop organizational training strategies and approaches to enhance leader development and effectiveness.

• Identify key opportunities to enhance volunteer leadership capacity. Develop norms and structures for building collegiality, respect, trust, and member satisfaction.

• Serve as the Board development committee, attending to the Board’s own learning needs, and as a resource for other Board committees and task forces on leadership issues.

• Develop processes to provide for member input.

• Act with the Board's authority when Club leaders and entities are violating existing policies and corrective action is needed.

2 Mission Strategy Advisory Committee

Advise and make recommendations to the Board on broad organizational opportunities and priorities to further advance the Club’s mission.

• Assess the environmental, political, and cultural landscape, and identify key opportunities and threats to achieving the Club’s mission in the long term.

• Develop metrics to assess the impact of programs, campaigns, and support teams, as well as the Activist Network, toward advancing the Club's mission priorities.

• Advise the Board regarding priorities for the overall mix of programs, campaigns, support teams, and the activist network, to most effectively advance the Club’s mission.

• Coordinate and work with Conservation Priority Task Forces.

• Develop processes to provide for member input.

3 Public Visibility Advisory Committee

Advise and make recommendations to the Board on broad organizational opportunities and priorities to expand, enhance, and leverage the strength of the Club's reach and reputation.

• Assess and recommend strategies for improving the Club's "market position" – including its public visibility and reputation, constituencies engaged, impact and position relative to other organizations and social trends, and audiences to be reached to achieve the Club's goals.

• Develop metrics to assess the impact of the Club's communication channels, including video, print and online, and recommend strategies to define and engage constituencies in order to achieve the Club's goals.

• Develop metrics to assess the impact on the Club's visibility and reputation of the mix of programs, campaigns, support teams and the Activist Network.

• Develop metrics to assess the impact of the Club's mass media activities on its public visibility and reputation.

• Assess the public impact of decisions that could affect the Club's public visibility, reputation, and ability to reach constituencies.

• Develop processes to provide for member input.

4 Finance and Risk Management Advisory Committee

Advise and make recommendations to the Board on financial decisions, including the annual budget and risk versus benefits.

• Provide in-depth review of budget documents and recommend adoption of an annual budget.

• Assess Club financial, risk management and accounting practices, and identify key risks to, as well as opportunities to enhance, the Club's financial health.

• Assess the Club's revenues and fundraising, including donor contributions, membership development, licensing, etc., that impact the Club's financial capacity.

• Develop processes to provide for member input.

• Act with the Board's authority when Club volunteers or entities are violating existing financial and risk management policies and corrective action is needed.

These Board committees should not be seen as having exclusive jurisdiction over particular questions. Rather, each will bring its own perspectives to specific issues, many of which will overlap the areas of interest of these four committees. For example, take cause-related marketing: The Finance and Risk Management Committee will have a financial perspective; the Mission Strategy Committee might consider the role of such activities in achieving conservation goals; the Public Visibility Committee's viewpoint might concern the impact on the Club's public image. In the end, the Board, advised by these perspectives, would make informed decisions.

5 Task Forces

The Board will, from time to time, want advice that encompasses a range of opinions and expertise beyond that represented on an Advisory Committee. A primary use of Task Forces is to address policy questions, including both conservation policy and organizational policy.

Task Forces are task- and/or time-limited to provide advice to the Board on focused, specific topics. The recommendations may, in some cases, be in the form of alternatives. Task Forces will be volunteer-driven and led. The Board Executive Committee will appoint a lead volunteer who will chair the Task Force. The Executive Director will appoint a lead staff to participate on the task force. The composition of task forces can vary according to need and can include a mix of volunteers along with chapter, regional and national staff. On matters of setting direction, policies, and priorities, Task Forces will always be predominantly volunteers.

6 Conservation Priority Task Forces

Conservation Priority Task Forces align with the Club’s long-term conservation priorities and provide a body of expertise to support the Club's highest priority conservation goals. They expand the brain trust of the Mission Strategy Advisory Committee with specific knowledge, interest and focus in their respective areas. The charge of these task forces is similar to that of the Mission Strategy Advisory Committee, except focused on their respective area of expertise. Their charges last as long as they reflect the conservation priorities of the organization.

The charge of Conservation Priority Task Forces is to:

• Assess the environmental and political landscape, and identify key opportunities and threats to achieving the Club’s mission in the long term, in each respective area.

• Develop metrics to assess the impact of programs, campaigns, and support teams, as well as the activist network, toward advancing the Club's mission priorities in each respective area.

• Advise the Board regarding priorities for the overall mix of programs, campaigns, support teams, and the activist network, to most effectively advance the Club’s mission in each respective area.

At this time the three Conservation Priority Task Forces, in accordance with Board-approved priorities, are:

• America's Wild Legacy

• Safe and Healthy Communities

• Smart Energy Solutions

3 Downstream from the Board: Implementation Teams and Activist Network

Project Renewal also proposes structures downstream from the Board that would are empowered to act. Implementation functions require action and accountability in carrying out the Board’s charges, including managing their budgets. They should engage a large number of volunteers, staff, members and supporters who will be empowered to create plans, develop strategies, and take action.

1 Implementation Teams

Once the Board has established policies, priorities and a budget, implementation teams will be charged with driving work forward toward achieving concrete goals and objectives.

Implementation teams are structured in three clusters.

• Chapter and Leader Support

• Programs and Campaigns

• Issue and Working Teams within the Activist Network

These teams bring together a core of volunteers and/or staff to provide leadership for the specific work with which they have been charged. For the Club's major campaigns, programs and grassroots support, these teams will bring volunteer and staff co-leaders together. The co-leaders are responsible for recruiting team members, making maximum use of volunteer and staff capabilities, and providing a satisfying work environment.

Each team is responsible for setting goals, developing strategies and plans for how to deploy resources, establishing metrics, and coordinating with grassroots activists and leaders nationwide to implement and evaluate their work. Each team is responsible for communicating with others in the Club about their work and plans. Team selections will be based on obtaining the best possible mix of skills, initiative, available time, and motivation to reach the goals. Norms for diversity and fairness will be established and applied by team leaders in making their selections.

Issue and Working Teams that are formed in the Activist Network will often be comprised of entirely volunteers.

2 Coordinating Pairs

Coordinating Pairs enable and coordinate implementation teams in each of the three clusters. Coordinating Pairs will consist of one volunteer and one staff lead, appointed by the Board and the Executive Director, respectively.

Coordinating Pairs will lead by empowering the teams in their area of responsibility to make good decisions and assisting in making connections among and between those teams and all other internal and external bodies, including (but not limited to) the Board of Directors, Executive Director, Chapters, and Board Advisory Committees. Coordinating Pairs will have neither budget- nor policy-making authority, but will be charged to communicate policy and/or budget requests, gaps, or hurdles identified by the teams back to the Board for resolution. If for any reason the Coordinating Pair cannot come to agreement or resolve conflicts among their teams, they may request intervention from the Board and the Executive Director.

3 Chapter and Leader Support Teams

Chapter and Leader Support Teams are established by the Coordinating Pair for those national, regional, chapter, group, activity sections and leader support activities that the Board has identified as priorities and funded via the annual budget. Coordinating Pairs appoint (or replace) Team Co-Leaders, to consist of one volunteer and one staff member. These teams provide core volunteer and staff leadership for activities such as leader and activist training, internal communications, chapter fundraising and financial management, membership recruitment and stewardship, chapter operations, information technology and system support, etc.

Each team is responsible for setting goals, developing strategies and plans for how to deploy resources, managing their budget, establishing metrics, and coordinating with grassroots activists and leaders nationwide to implement and evaluate their work. The OCSC believes that an empowered team approach integrating both staff and volunteers would significantly improve the delivery of these support services.

We have a range of ongoing chapter and leader support work, such as conflict resolution, leadership development, training and support for various volunteer roles and positions, that will be supported by these teams. Additional teams to fill needed support functions should be identified and constituted as needed. Those involved in the transition process will determine the full complement of teams that are needed for chapter and leader support.

4 Program and Campaign Teams

The volunteer/staff co-leads for Program and Campaign Teams are appointed by the Coordinating Pair for those programs and campaigns that the Board has identified and funded via the annual budget. Coordinating Pairs appoint (or replace) Team Co-Leaders, to consist of one volunteer and one staff member. Program teams provide core volunteer and staff leadership for ongoing activities to engage members and supporters in building specific capacities in the Club. Campaign teams provide core volunteer and staff leadership to engage members and supporters in specific campaigns to reach key conservation objectives. Each team is responsible for setting goals, developing strategies and plans for how to deploy resources, managing their budget, establishing metrics, and coordinating with grassroots activists and leaders nationwide to implement and evaluate their work. Teams will seek to maximize synergy between reaching nationwide objectives and the chapter activities that are local manifestations of those objectives.

We have a range of ongoing programs, such as litigation, political, outdoor activities, environmental partnerships, environmental justice, and building environmental community, which will be supported by program teams. We also have a range of ongoing national campaign work, and anticipate developing new campaigns as part of the Club's climate recovery work, which will need to be structured as campaign teams. Those involved in the transition process will determine the full complement of teams that are needed.

5 Activist Network

The Activist Network will be an exciting place where new ways of organizing meet traditional ways, aided by technology but aimed at real world action. As a result, it will support a spectrum of activists, including those who want: (1) to connect with local, chapter, and national campaigns that have existing leadership and funding; (2) to find other activists who share their interest, but do not seek Club resources or independent authority to speak on behalf of the Club in their work; and (3) to carry out ongoing work that requires either Club resources and/or the authority to speak on behalf of the Club, such as submitting comments or giving testimony for the Club on regulatory matters. This third form of activism will occur in and be supported by Issue Teams, Project or Regional Working Teams, and an Activist Network Support Team, described below.

Coordinating Pairs appoint Issue, Regional and Project Working Team volunteer leaders.

Issue Teams:

Issue Teams, including Issue Committees, will operate within the Network. If they choose to do so they can operate largely as issue committees do today with the same authority to represent the Club publicly, develop guidance documents, identify nationally significant opportunities to take action and request budgets for doing so. Note: Issue teams do not have "jurisdiction" over the work of others. They can, however, raise concerns if they believe that established policy is being violated or when they believe policy needs to be clarified or revised.

New Issue Teams are recognized by the Coordinating Pair when activists present a compelling case that a particular issue needs the Club's ongoing, focused attention. Issue teams are always volunteer-driven and volunteer-led.

Regional and Project Working Teams:

The Activist Network structure helps individuals and local entities find others who may want to share interests or work together. All network members are encouraged to connect, share information, and work together when they see opportunities. Such self-organized collaborations can be short-term, long-term, or intermittent in nature. Self-organized work through the Activist Network can also be a basis for developing into a new Working Team. Working Teams are established when individuals come together, define a project with regional or national scope, and approach the Activist Network Support Team for funding or other support.

Activist Network Support Team:

The volunteer/staff co-leads for the Activist Network Support Team are appointed by the Coordinating Pair to ensure a broad range of support for the entire network and to disburse funds allocated by the Board for the Activist Network. The Activist Network Support Team is composed predominantly of volunteers, but may also include chapter, regional and national staff.

The Activist Network Support Team will provide robust ongoing support for Issue Teams, working groups and individual activists, especially as more and more Network functions are put in place. Support for Network activists will include communicating with other activists, developing plans and projects for high-impact both online and on-the-ground, and leveraging the work of activists throughout the Network.

The funding from the Activist Network Support Team will flow to projects of national scope, including new initiatives, regional work, rapid-response mid-year projects, and high-impact projects that otherwise might languish for lack of a small to moderate amount funding. Projects that are not of national scope but that have the potential to become significant in scope and impact may be selected for funding.

Operational Processes

1 Funding for National Work

Implementation teams will be funded through the annual budget process and will be responsible for allocating that budget. The funding for Issue Teams and Working Teams will be allocated by the Activist Network Support Team based on project proposals. Budgets for team communication will be part of the overall support provided to activists and teams in the Network.

2 Position-Taking

Decisions about Club-supported positions will continue to be initiated, as they are now, in the first instance by those carrying out the work, and any objection to a decision should be resolved directly with them. For example, if there is Campaign Implementation Team working on an issue, it should take the lead in developing positions. If there is no Campaign Implementation Team, the relevant Issue Team could take the lead in proposing a new position. However, there are many positions which require a sign-off by another Club entity or leader. Typically these are positions which have a specific regulatory, legislative, electoral, legal or corporate venue. The current requirements for such sign-offs are not being modified by Project Renewal.

Here is a list of the current sign-off requirements as OCSC has been able to identify them:

|Type of Position |Sign-Off Required From: |

|Lawsuits |Litigation |

|Boycotts |Board of Directors |

|Federal legislation |Vice President for Conservation or their designee |

|State legislation, initiatives, or regulatory actions |Chapters |

|Local ordinances or regulatory actions |Groups or, in some states, Chapters as the chapter has determined |

|Candidate endorsements |Two-body approval based on rules set up by Sierra Club Political Committee |

|Land use plans for specific federal lands (National Parks, |Affected chapters |

|National Forests, BLM lands, etc) | |

|Federal regulatory actions impacting specific states |Affected chapters |

|Federal regulatory actions affecting the entire country, or |Vice President for Conservation or their designee |

|nationwide modification of land use rules for federal lands | |

Prior to seeking final sign-off from these entities and leaders, any dispute about whether the proposed position violates Club policy needs to be resolved. It should be clearly recognized that responsibility for any disputes on position taking rests with those who are the parties to the dispute. If the objection cannot be resolved promptly at this level, those objecting would present the reason for their objection to the Vice-President for Conservation and the Conservation Director. If the VP for Conservation and the Conservation Director agreed that the position taken clearly violated Club policy, they would intervene to correct this. If they could not agree, or they agreed that Club policy was ambiguous or multiple Club policies were in conflict, they would refer the matter to the Board Executive Committee. It would appoint a time-limited task force to clarify or reconcile the ambiguous or conflicting Club policies. Unless and until the VP for Conservation and the Conservation Director determined that the position clearly violated Club policy, or the ambiguous or conflicting policies were revised to clearly prohibit the position, it would be authorized.

3 Policy-Making

When Board Advisory Committees or the Board itself believes that the Club's formal policy statements need to be revised, reconciled, or new policy developed the Board Executive Committee appoints a policy task force. The Board, as always, has final governance authority for adopting policy. Issue Teams can and should provide issue guidance. But only the Board can adopt policies that "constrain" others in the Club.

4 Organizational Direction-Setting

The establishment of broad conservation priorities for the Club is a decision for the Board of Directors. The Board should make these decisions periodically based on input not only from its Advisory Committees, but also from a wide consultative process involving as many volunteer leaders of the Club as possible. This consultative process should engage chapter, group and national leaders as did the direction-setting Sierra Summit process of 2005, and may involve a large meeting, if affordable and appropriate. Any large-scale direction-setting process should solicit a wide array of views and obtain measurable responses to any proposed set of choices.

5 Liaisons

The OCSC believes that the Club's current practice that many committees have "liaisons," who then travel to attend meetings of other committees, should be carefully examined. If someone is to be a meaningful voice of some constituency, they should be among the participating members of that body. If there is a need for information from some particular body within the Club, a plan should be adopted for getting representative, meaningful input. If there is a need for one committee to communicate to some other groups within the Club, then a plan should be adopted to do so in a substantive way. Communications between different bodies within the Club should always be open and not reliant on liaisons or other formal encumbrances.

Additionally, the Club's extensive practice of appointing liaisons places the role of broader communication on just one person, when it should be the work of the committee as a whole. All committees, task forces and teams should proactively communicate about their work and plans with the broader Club.

In general, the work of committees, task forces and teams should be informed by appropriate and timely input from those having relevant concerns, and the work of committees and task forces and teams should be made widely available.

6 Bringing Local and National Leaders Together

The original OCSC proposal to bring chapter and national body representatives together in a single forum by expanding the Council was withdrawn because it raised concerns that chapters' advisory voice would be diluted. While we disagree, we respect the expressed wishes of the Council. An alternative provided by conservation leaders proposed a body composed of chapter conservation chairs and national conservation leaders, but the OCSC is concerned that this would create a conflicting, parallel structure. We do agree that a forum for local and national leaders to assemble and facilitate coordinated work together is essential.

The OCSC recommends that the Sierra Club establish an annual assembly. This event would be face-to-face, but could also include periodic electronic gatherings. The event may be held in multiple regions, possibly simultaneously. Attendees would include the Council of Club Leaders, chapter and group conservation chairs, and national team leaders specifically for the purposed of identifying ways for chapter, group and national teams to work together to mutual benefit. This would be a forum for action leaders to resolve problems and find opportunities to work together, not for policy debate, resource requests or resolution adoption. The event would include both volunteers and staff participants.

The functions of this assembly include:

• Connecting group, chapter, regional and national leaders together at one time and place

• Providing a forum for sharing information and enabling replication of local success in other parts of the Club: local, state, regional, and national

• Making expertise and on-the-ground experience across the Club more accessible

• Providing education about Club programs and campaigns from all levels of the Club

• Coordinating campaigns and programs at all levels of the Club

• Building relationships and everyone’s “Club network”

Concluding Remarks

We have outlined how some key Club processes would work within the Project Renewal structure. However we have not attempted to anticipate or prescribe answers to every process question.

If the Board takes the step of adopting the Project Renewal structure, it must do so knowing that many answers will be developed as people work together to transition into the new structure, and work within it over time. The OCSC team has worked through many scenarios in which different processes may be established within this structure. We feel it provides stability, strength, and flexibility in application to meet shifting needs in a changing culture. We have high confidence in what we've proposed and in the Club's activists whose work within it will be enhanced and supported as never before.

Appendix 1: Organizational Change Steering Committee (OCSC) Charge

July 17, 2007 (approved by Sierra Club BOD)

Context

This change process is undertaken to fulfill the Board's promise to follow up on the May 2007 organizational assessment survey conducted by the Board's Strategic Planning Work Group. The results of that survey showed that the Club's current national leadership structures and practices are not optimally serving the needs of the organization in key ways.

The OCSC Charge

The committee of 9 members supported by a team of consultants is comprised of board members, other key national leaders, and senior staff selected by the board president, the executive director and the OCSC chair (board member Allison Chin). All were chosen for their Club-wide commitment to progress and for being good thinkers. The committee’s charge is to guide the change-planning process through December 2007, working closely with consultants from La Piana Associates.

Specific Tasks

• Define governance and operations in the Club context of national strategic development and implementation of Club campaigns and programs.

o Clarify how we organize to govern (or manage governance)

o Clarify how we organize to implement (or manage operations)

Identify ways to come to a shared understanding among other Club leaders of Club communication and special forms developed for this purpose

• Define the problem (review findings of the recent Organizational Assessment)

Identify key weaknesses in the current structure

Identify suboptimal decision-making processes

Identify elements of Club culture that may need to change

• Create a Norms and Values Plan

o Utilize results from the Norms Survey implemented by the Club

o Integrate into overall change process

• Review alternative models for structuring the board’s work, national staff and volunteer leadership processes, and staff-board relationships and recommend to the Sierra Club Board workable model(s)

• Solicit input from other Club leaders

• Serve as liaison to the full board and communicate with other Club leaders regarding the status of the change process, working to build support and understanding

Outcomes

• Identify clear, core governance, program and operational functions.

• Recommend models for national leadership structure so the Club can be more efficient and effective and a culture change to function within that structure.

Appendix 2: Principles/Criteria for Testing Models

The new Sierra Club structure should result in….

1. Enhanced ability to fulfill the mission

2. Closer collaboration between and among staff and volunteers

3. Avoiding overlapping authority, duplication of effort

4. Clear, consistent decision-making paths

5. More time and energy focused on implementation instead of deliberation

6. Greater support for implementation

7. Greater ability to move strategically and make decisions quickly

8. Greater satisfaction in everyone’s involvement with the Club

9. A governance structure that is more closely tied to the elected board

10. A structure that seeks people with new ideas and welcomes involvement of new members

11. Better alignment and cooperation between national and local entities

AND…

• Keep It Simple

Appendix 3: Building Blocks of the Model (Revised per November 2007 Board meeting)

Keeping in mind the principles presented to the Board in September (“Testing the Model”) we developed a few basic “building blocks” to guide the construction of a model organizational structure.

1. The two basic functions of deliberation/advice and campaign/program implementation are inherently different functions; thus they should be vested in different entities, not charged to the same entity.

a. Deliberation/advice (“Upstream from the Board”) functions require democratic inclusiveness. They should engage Club leaders broadly and provide a clear channel through which to provide advice and information to the Board.

b. Campaign/program implementation (“Downstream from the Board”) functions require action and accountability in carrying out the Board’s charges. They should engage a large number of volunteers, staff, members and supporters that will be empowered to create plans, develop strategies, and take action, without the need for further approvals by the Board.

2. The leadership of all national committees, as well as national campaign, program and support teams, should consist of a pair; an experienced volunteer working side-by-side with a staff counterpart. One of this pair (sometimes staff, sometimes volunteer) will be clearly identified to be held accountable for delivering and communicating the results of the committee's or team's work.

3. All committees, task forces, campaign and program-related bodies should be given a clear charge with goals that are measurable and specific tasks, and should last as long as, but no longer than, those tasks require.

4. Any structure must provide meaningful space for efforts related to both national priority and non-priority issues, while allowing the Board to shift and focus resources on prioritized efforts quickly and strategically. It must also provide the ability to draw upon and preserve the institutional knowledge to inform new endeavors.

Appendix 4: OCSC January Update

January 18, 2008

TO: Board and Club Leaders

FR: Project Renewal -- Organizational Change Steering Committee (OCSC)

RE: January Update

The OCSC has completed six open-invitation Project Renewal "webinar" conference calls, and many more calls and emails with individuals and groups of leaders. All of these calls challenged the Project Renewal team with tough questions and wide-ranging concerns.

The comment period on the proposal we put forward in December is still open. However, as a result of feedback from Club leaders, we have already identified key concerns that we know we need to address:

Key Concerns From Chapters and Leaders

1) The Club must stay true to its volunteer-driven, grassroots leadership. Chapter leaders are concerned that Project Renewal will take away authority from chapters/groups and make the Club more top down.

The Project Renewal team is very committed to the Club's volunteer-driven, grassroots leadership. We apologize if our focus on the national structure did not properly put it into the much larger context of our grassroots chapter and group structure. We will be certain to clarify that going forward.

There will always be an organizational tension between the Club's need to coordinate its work in order to win big nationwide environmental goals, and its delegation of authority to chapter and group activists to conduct Club work in their own way for local environmental victories. Project Renewal cannot resolve this tension.

What we can do is make the Club's national structure clearer and more accessible for local activists, and to build-in the expectation that the work of national entities includes connecting and coordinating with our grassroots leaders and structures, such as:

● clearer authority for teams of volunteers and staff working together

● a clear point of access and responsibility for funding volunteer projects not already covered by national campaign funding or chapter funding

● national campaigns focused on organizing and grassroots support

● development of improved tools for online networking and communications

2) Chapter delegates to the Council of Club Leaders do not want the role of the CCL expanded to bring together chapter and national volunteer leaders in one body. They are concerned that if this happens the Council will not remain a voice for chapters.

In response to this specific concern, the OCSC team plans to withdraw the proposal to expand the CCL and look for other ways to improve the connectedness and community between our national and chapter/group entities.

Key Concerns From National Committees and Leaders

3) Commenters have been alarmed that the important work of national issue committees will be eliminated. The proposal for an Issues and Skills Activist Network with project-based working teams has appeared too ad hoc; it appeared not to address the need for ongoing national issue work or representing the national Sierra Club in public processes and arenas.

Got it. The comments from issue committee members and chairs have demonstrated that we need to revise the proposed structure to ensure more stability in ongoing issue "committees" or teams. We will be revising the proposal to make it clear that Project Renewal expects current national issue committees to continue as ongoing entities (not time- or task-limited) within the Issues and Skills Activist Network.

We heard a great deal of interest in the Issues and Skills Activist Network potential to connect activists with common interests and skills. We remain solidly committed to the Issues and Skills Activist Network as a way to foster the emergence of additional teams of Sierra Club activists working on topics not addressed by existing Issue Committees or that may arise in the future or in specific regions.

Issue committees will operate within the Network. If they choose to do so they can operate largely as they do today with the same authority to represent the Club publicly, comment on federal rule-making, develop guidance documents, identify opportunities to take action and request budgets for doing so. There will be two key exceptions that we will recommend regarding the charge to issue committees: We will recommend that issue committees do not have "jurisdiction" to require other teams to gain their approval, or conversely, authority to stop the work of other implementing teams (see discussion of policy below.) And secondly, we will recommend that issue committees should have access to funding for work that they initiate and implement but that they should not act as an internal grant-maker to other entities (see below).

4) Commenters have asked how funding for national-level work will flow, and have expressed that the proposal has not made this clear.

The draft proposal should have been more explicit on this important topic.

Many good projects will be funded from the budget approved by the Board and allocated directly to implementation teams working on Chapter and Leader Support, Campaigns, and Programs. The teams that are allocated funds will be responsible for using these funds strategically to achieve their team goals.

What Project Renewal did not make clear, and we will make clear in the next version of the proposal, is that funds also will flow to projects of national scope, including new initiatives, regional work, rapid-response mid-year projects, and high-impact projects that otherwise might languish for lack of a small to moderate amount funding, from a fund allocated by the Board to the Issues and Skills Activist Network for this purpose. We will propose that the administration of this fund be closely integrated into the Issues and Skills Activist Network to support teams working within the Network.

We also heard valid concern about the Coordinating Pair for the Issues and Skills Activist Network – two people – reviewing all of the proposals and allocating funds among projects from this fund. We agree and will modify the final proposal on this issue by requiring that the Coordinating Pair appoint the leaders of a team that would be dedicated to, and skilled in deploying funds quickly and effectively, to projects through the Issues and Skills Activist Network. Any chapter, group, issue committee/team or self-organized group of activists will have the ability to propose a project to this volunteer-driven team for funding. Clear criteria and procedures will need to be developed for administering this fund.

5) The scope and authority of "Coordinating Pairs" was not made clear. Additionally there is concern that too much power will be vested in these pairs and that two people cannot effectively enable and coordinate multiple teams.

In our revised proposal we will clarify that the role of Coordinating Pairs is to enable teams to do the work they're charged with and to convene team leaders as needed to coordinate work across teams. Coordinating Pairs will have neither budget- nor policy-making authority.

OCSC agrees that it will be important to monitor the workload of coordinating pairs and, if necessary, divide the workload by appointing additional pairs. The disadvantage of doing this is the goal of ensuring that the work of teams is better coordinated may diminish with more "pairs." Our recommendation will be first to clearly authorize coordinating pairs to seek additional staff and volunteer support for their work.

6) How will we decide whether an action or position complies with existing conservation policy without review and ruling by the current hierarchy of national issue committees?

We share your concern that this question is important to the effectiveness and reputation of the Club, as well as the level of satisfaction experienced by all of those who work to achieve its mission. We heard general agreement that, in the absence of a clear answer, these decisions are currently made in a way that is often maddeningly confusing and time-consuming. While any new structure can’t make genuinely tough choices easier, it can make them more transparent, timely, and trusting of our grassroots.

To effect this change, the OCSC will recommend the following process for such decisions in the new structure. First, these decisions will continue to be made, as they are now, in the first instance by those carrying out the work, and any objection to a decision should be resolved directly with them. If the objection cannot be resolved promptly at this level, those objecting would present the reason for their objection to the Vice-President for Conservation and the Conservation Director. If the VP for Conservation and the Conservation Director agreed that the position taken clearly violated Club policy, they would intervene to correct this. If they could not agree, or they agreed that Club policy was ambiguous or multiple Club policies were in conflict, they would refer the matter to the Board Executive Committee. It would appoint a time-limited task force to clarify or reconcile the ambiguous or conflicting Club policies. Unless and until the VP for Conservation and the Conservation Director determined that the position clearly violated Club policy, or the ambiguous or conflicting policies were revised to clearly prohibit the position, it would be authorized.

We believe it may be necessary to identify additional categories of actions that would require pre-approval -- similar to lawsuits requiring pre-approval of the Litigation Committee and political endorsements requiring specific two-step approval processes. The pre-approval of the Political Committee. OCSC will consider this question, especially with regard to federal legislation.

7) There is opposition from some, and support from others, for creating a national team structure based on a partnership between staff and volunteers, with implementing team leadership composed of a staff person and a volunteer. Some are concerned that this erodes the volunteer-led traditions of the Club.

OCSC is firmly committed to volunteer leadership for policy-making decisions and priority-setting in the Club. Additionally, we are firmly committed that the bodies the Board will turn to for advice on these matters -- standing committees and task forces -- remain volunteer driven as they are today.

What OCSC does not agree with, is the objection by some to our proposal that staff and volunteers should be partners in the implementation of campaigns, programs, and support for chapters and leaders. We are firmly committed to the principle that national work must be a partnership of staff and volunteers because that is what makes the Sierra Club powerful -- and conversely when staff and volunteers pursue separate paths, we weaken ourselves. One very key goal of Project Renewal is to acknowledge the importance of bringing staff and volunteers together as we work nationwide. This is in fact how some of the most successful work in the Club operates today; the Political Program and Litigation Program are two powerful examples.

Finally, the OCSC appreciates those who have brought forward new ideas and concerns. We are committed to provide you with an organizational model that offers new channels, through the standing committees, for volunteers to provide input to the Board on policy, strategy and organizational matters, and unprecedented capacity for grassroots power in implementing those ideas, policies and strategies.

Your input through the conference calls, forum, emails and individual contacts has added extraordinary experience and intellectual content to the process and is measurably responsible for strengthening the model and assisting the team.

The Project Renewal comment forum is still open on Clubhouse and we welcome continued discussion --

Appendix 5: OCSC Timeline

The OCSC was charged with guiding the change-planning process through February 2008, soliciting input from Club leaders and recommending a new model for a national Club structure that would provide more effective ways to achieve the Club’s mission.

• June 2007: The OCSC was appointed.

• July – August 2007: From the outset, broad consultation was sought (~100 people) and included Governance Committee chairs and members, senior staff, CCL leaders and chapter activists. A website was established on Clubhouse, with meeting notes posted and a blog set up to answer questions.

• September 2007: A preliminary progress report was made to the Board of Directors and the Council of Club Leaders, including a schematic model. Additional research and consultation (~120 more people) was conducted to address questions raised by the Board and others in attendance.

• October 2007: Ongoing consultation through committee conference calls, individual phone conversations, email and listserv discussions.

• November 2007: A second progress report was made to the Board. At this meeting the Board approved a series of “building blocks” that would guide the development of a proposal for a new national organizational model.

• December 2007: The Project Renewal Draft Proposal, based on these building blocks, was circulated widely to Club leaders and activists for comment.

• December 2007 through January 2008: An open comment period was held to receive input, share ideas, and answer questions about the Draft Proposal. Consultation was accomplished in a number of ways:

o Six Project Renewal Conference Calls and Webinars

▪ Average attendance of 25 participants per call, with representation from national committee members and local activists on each call

▪ Average attendance of 2 Board members (non-OCSC) per call

▪ Average attendance of 9 Project Renewal Team members per call

▪ Conference calls lasted 2.5 hours on average

o Project Renewal Discussion Forum

▪ 64 Total Topics

▪ 190 Total Comments

▪ 74 Commenters (non-OCSC)

▪ ~5,800 Views

o Conversations (~3,000) via conference calls, phone, in-person, and email with ~500 volunteers (national committee members, local activists) and ~200 staff.

• February 2008: Project Renewal Proposal submitted to the Board of Directors.

-----------------------

EMPOWERED TO ACT

ADVISE THE BOARD

Member-Elected Chapter ExComs

(no change recommended)

Council of Club Leaders

(no change recommended)

|}âåŽ ? ® ¯ ¼ ›žŸ ‰

Œ

Ž

?

d

g

i

j

Š

?

?

?

Q

U

u

w

ä

ç

é

ê

î

ï

€ƒÇæè"#$%xyÈËadýŒ?ô÷T›

-"^a?ŽüøüôüíæßæüÛü×üÛü×üôüÛü×üÛüÛü×üÛ×ôüÛüIMPLEMENTING TEAMS AND

COORDINATING PAIRS

BOARD COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES

Volunteer Leadership

Advisory Committee

Activist Network

Coordinating Pair (with support as needed)

ACTIVIST NETWORK SUPPORT TEAM

ISSUE TEAMS

REGIONAL & PROJECT WORKING TEAMS

Chapter & Leader Support

Coordinating Pair (with support as needed)

SUPPORT TEAMS

BOARD

Committees of the Board*

Board Standing Committees**

Public Visibility

Advisory Committee

Program & Campaigns

Coordinating Pair (with support as needed)

PROGRAM TEAMS

CAMPAIGN TEAMS

Finance & Risk Management

Advisory Committee

Mission Strategy

Advisory Committee

Task Forces (as needed)

CONSERVATION PRIORITY TASK FORCES

America’s Wild Legacy

Safe and Healthy Communities

Smart Energy Solutions

ED

Sierra Club Staff

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download