Division at the ACLU
Posted on December 8, 2005
Via NY Times
Since Mr. Romero stepped into the job just four days before the Sept. 11 attacks, the A.C.L.U. has been transformed. Under his watch, membership and revenues have risen sharply. The use of data to maximize contributions has become more sophisticated. Big donors have been wooed and won. At the group’s first membership conference in Washington in 2003, 1,500 members descended on Congressional offices.
But Mr. Romero has also become a lightning rod, with a band of vociferous internal critics saying that civil liberties are not his top concern. They have seized on his failure to inform the board about a settlement with the New York attorney general over privacy breaches on its Web site and his signing of a government fund-raising agreement that the organization later renounced. In both cases, they say, Mr. Romero was not entirely forthcoming even after those controversies came to light.
There have been heated boardroom exchanges and an unusual number of resignations from the board. Dissidents say Mr. Romero is ignoring the A.C.L.U.’s traditions, of encouraging dissent; threatening its core principles, like free speech, and too often acting without the full knowledge and support of the board, which is supposed to guide him.
“I think there is an ideological difference among board members having to do with pure principle versus the pragmatism of money,” Ms. Esman said, echoing current and past board members.
The internal friction has roiled the organization, which is unaccustomed to scrutiny of its operations, and prompted members of the executive committee to try to limit access to recordings of board meetings.
Several critics of Mr. Romero’s leadership have left the board. Michael Meyers, his fiercest opponent, was voted off the board in September after 24 years of membership.
Citing a need for efficiency, the organization now often insists that board members who want to question Mr. Romero or other senior staff members first get approval from the executive committee.
The restriction is similar to one the A.C.L.U.’s Michigan affiliate is challenging on behalf of a board member at a small university.
Several staff members are complaining about a new requirement that they sign an agreement by Jan. 6 never to disclose information broadly defined by the group as confidential. They contrast it with the A.C.L.U.’s record of defending whistle-blowers, most recently an F.B.I. analyst who complained about faulty translations.
Apparantly, Mr. Romero has a great talent for raising money, and many members on the board are questioning whether this has become his top priority rather than civil liberties. The big concern that many of them have is over decisions he has made on his own, keeping them in the dark. When an organization is set up with a board, it is organized in a fashion where the board should be involved and guiding the decisions of its director. Many are concerned that the organization is losing its foothold on standing by its principles, many even feeling that dissent to his goals are being are being hushed. For an organization that brags on defending dissent and free speech, this certainly does seem to be compromising its stated core values.
Mr. Romero tries to dismiss the criticism as the work of two people, Mr. Meyers and Wendy Kaminer who have said that he has witheld vital information from the board, and made ill-advised, unilateral decisions that have embarrassed the organization. However, more people are emerging with criticism.
In interviews, six more board members generally echoed Mr. Meyers’s and Ms. Kaminer’s concerns, and eight others have posted e-mail messages that agree with much of their criticism, though they did not consent to interviews. (Board members have been asked to refer all news media calls to the A.C.L.U.’s public relations managers.) Three more board members who resigned in the last year said they did so because of concerns about Mr. Romero’s leadership, and one member who expressed concerns was voted off the board last fall.
He has also criticized the coverage in The New York Times. After one article recounted complaints by the group’s former archivist about the use of shredders, he invited the staff to a “shred-in” and suggested they bring copies of that article and others to run through his own shredder. He later apologized to the reporter.
More criticism came about on Mr. Romero’s handling decision to sign a federal charity drive agreement that legal experts advised obliged the A.C.L.U. to check its employees’ names against terrorist watch lists. Personally I applaud his initial decision, yet he later changed his mind. I can see how some on the board would feel by not only being left in the dark on his initial decision, and also how it would appear hypocritical to sign something the organization had criticized as black lists. In this decision, he appears to follow the guidance of wherever the money leads. Originally signing it to continue receiving the funds, and then later changing his mind when certain big donors threatened to stop their contributions.
Mr. Lewis said he balked at giving the money for the building primarily because of Mr. Romero’s decision to sign a federal charity drive agreement that legal experts advised obliged the A.C.L.U. to check its employees’ names against terrorist watch lists, which the organization has criticized as black lists.
“I told him I’m not going to pay any of my commitments until I get an explanation, and Anthony therefore came out to California in a great hurry and at great physical cost to him,” Mr. Lewis said in a phone interview arranged by Mr. Romero. “He explained his view of what happened, acknowledged his shortcomings in the situation and described what he was doing to fix that. To me, that’s what I’d call a big man.”
The A.C.L.U. ultimately withdrew from the fund-raising agreement and decided to challenge the terms. The government recently amended the requirement.
Ms. Kaminer, a writer who represents the Massachusetts affiliate on the national board and is married to Mr. Kaplan, criticized Mr. Romero’s handling of that matter and the attorney general’s pact, among other things. “I believe Anthony has routinely withheld information and misled the board, as well as donors and members, about matters large and small,” she said. “I also believe that many board members are aware they have been misled and denied information, but they choose not to acknowledge that they have an executive director and executive committee who are often less than candid.”
I completly understand the board members’ concerns on being left in the dark on decisions, and being denied to function as a democratic comittee on issues. It sounds like priorities need to be sorted out at the ACLU. What is the top priority? Is it money, or principle?
Linked at Wizbang
» Filed Under News
Trackback URL
Comments
6 Responses to “Division at the ACLU”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Divide and Conquer..The Iron is Hot. The media is the tool.
I LOVE IT!!! Let’s just say - I predict he will be “stepping down” soon!
ACLU membership’s up? I have to wonder how much is attributable to the surge in left wing radicalism under Howard Dead and the Soros crowd, as much as Romero.
I wouldn’t get excited. It won’t mean much until the Church and conservatives get their act together and get on the same page.
Hmmm, an ACLU Pogrom … just what the country needs!
Embarrassed the ACLU? Don’t a large portion of their cases embarrass them?