Banducci Challenge Grant to Support NEC!
Don and Maggie Banducci, long-time supporters of the NEC, have generously offered $5000 challenge grant to help out the NEC during these tough times. However, there is a catch and WE NEED YOUR HELP!
The NEC will receive the $5000.00 from the Banducci Challenge Grant only if we can raise $5000 in pledges within two weeks.
The clock is ticking and we need to receive all pledges by August 9th.
You will receive a free “Un-Dam The Klamath” bumper sticker with your pledge. And contributors who pledge $100 or more will receive a FREE Northcoast Environmental Center T-Shirt! These shirts may someday be collector’s items.
We can accept cash, check or credit card for your pledge. Drop by the NEC, or mail your check to 1465 G Street, Arcata, CA 95521. Remember to note that it is for the Banducci Challenge Grant.
Please help the NEC today!
Pete Nichols
NEC Board President
707.845.0832
23 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 29, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Rose
You mean the NEC is still handing out those bumperstickers? After they tried to DERAIL the process? Are you kidding me?
July 29, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Skippy
As usual, you’re kidding yourself. They didn’t want to derail the process, they wanted to improve it. You can argue whether or not their action was a wise tactic to accomplish their goals of undaming the Klamath and restoring better flows, but there’s no reason to believe that they wanted to “derail” efforts to undam and restore the river. Unless you like kidding yourself, that is…
July 29, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Anonymous
They clearly didn’t want to derail the process in the context of leaving the dams, they did grossly misjudge the political realities and almost derail the entire program which might have ended up leaving the dams. The current board (overall) is more conecerned with politics and political power than environmentalism. Unfortunately for them they are good at environmentalism and just as poor at politics as they are at real estate investment.
All that said, the NEC is incredibly important to our community and it is imparative that the organization continue. To effectivly do so and to regain the trust of their supporters the current board must be held accountable and new members brought in who can bring the focus back to where it belongs. Three or four resignations and apologies for mistakes and lack of oversight and some new blood will revitalize and reinvigorate the troops. A few responsible steps and then (and only then) we should all start contributing again. Back to basics, go figure.
July 29, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, personally I’ll be making a pledge. The real estate investing was obviously a mistake, but I don’t think heads should roll for it when plenty of seasoned investors across the state made the same mistakes.
July 29, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Anonymous
The real estate investment was a symptom. The problem was gross dereliction and a utter failure to perform minimum oversight of the financial situation they were entrusted. They failed to pay attention to what was happening until it was too late. Thats why some should resign. The problem is being blamed on real estate that is a huge misrepresentation, the real issues are far deeper.
July 29, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Eric Kirk
You mean…. No! Can’t be!
Woooo.
July 30, 2009 at 4:26 am
Anonymous
As usual, when you don’t like what you hear your comments become soooo insightfull and well thought out. I forgot it’s not about truth and fairness it’s about we lowly bowing to our superiors regardless of how poor and self centered their egocentric decisions become.
The NEC needs to continue and it needs our help to do so. That does not mean that they don’t need to be held responsible for their actions or reduce the need for a board that is more focused on the core mission. Sarcasm and attacks won’t fix the problem. Real change and better management will.
July 30, 2009 at 6:35 am
Eric Kirk
The problem is that you aren’t giving me facts. You’re making vague personal attacks. Hence the sarcasm.
July 30, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Not A Native
When “seasoned investors” make mistakes they’re supposed to lose their positions of authority as a result, and many have. GM has a new CEO, BofA CEO is off the board, and Merril Lynch management is history. And if they make more than mere mistakes, they’re supposed to be charged with legal offenses. But no one is alleging fraud or malfeasence at the NEC.
I attended the Monday meeting. Although I’d also like the NEC to continue as an organization, I came away feeling the board didn’t articulate how they would manage their finances in the future.
Pat Higgens asked about bankruptcy and called for the board to resign. After he spoke, all the board members froze, looking like deer caught in the headlights, not willing to even consider stepping down. Pat had to ask twice before getting even a wishy washy response.
The former NEC office manager felt the board should become an advisory board serving under a new director board comprised of individual members with expertise in organization, management, and finance. That sounded right to me.
I want to know how my contributions are used and how those uses further environmental restoration. When it all went to Tim, I knew what he was doing and what he was accomplishing because he was very visible.
Now, with the board members all having their “own” organizations that they are primarily accountable to, I really don’t know what role the NEC has. There’s only a single board member, Martin Switt who’s “at large”, meaning he isn’t beholden to another organization. And he’s a bean counter. Something’s wrong with that setup.
July 30, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Eric Kirk
When “seasoned investors” make mistakes they’re supposed to lose their positions of authority as a result, and many have. GM has a new CEO, BofA CEO is off the board, and Merril Lynch management is history.
But most of them weren’t let go. Instead they were given bonuses.
July 30, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Not A Native
I only threw that in because your excuse for the NEC board is lame, they wweren’t chosen to be “investors”. Comparing them to “seasoned investors” is disingenuous. Their obligation is to be focused on restoration not real estate ownership. Renting space, as needed, is a prudent way to manage their cash flow, which can be expected to be highly volatile. And BTW, only some of the board members were there when the house on G street was bought.
Fundamentally, I want my donations/volunteering to the NEC to go to protecting the environment, not toward building an edifice. If they want to stray from their mission, they should raise funds expressly for that purpose. Tim had a separate “building fund” effort, I don’t know what happened to it or if the money was segregated but that’s the right idea.
The real issue at the NEC is there’s a problem of direction that money alone can’t solve. Tim’s passing left a void that is still there. Several people spoke to say that ideas from the 2006 “visioning” meeting that the NEC should involve community members to encourage new leaders to emerge just weren’t implemented.
I think the best way to solve the problem is to put it back to the grassroots, where NEC began. That’s where visionary leadership will come from, not from a board with competing attentions and interests. Several other people at the meeting expressed the same opinion.
July 30, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, my point is that if private sector investors are actually getting rewarded for the same mistakes, then why should volunteers for a cause who acted with good intentions be sacked for the same thing? They were trying to bring some financial security to the organization. It didn’t work out. We don’t need ritual sacrifice or seppuku to restore the balance, particularly when there are agendas at work which would like to see a more “cooperative” and accommodating leadership.
July 30, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Anonymous
You can’t actually be serious, your comment is absurdly over the top. Eric, if you actually believe your statement it illustrates that your political bias has crept into any semblance of common sense you had left. Now you suggest that it is okay to get away with doing wrong just because some corporate CEO got away with it. Where does that logic end, Hurwitz got billions by raping and pilaging, Bush got a cushy retirement and speaking fees so I guess it’s okay if Nichols and Kalt get rewarded for their mistakes and failures too. Come on, we all have to pay for our errors in one way or another, that is how we learn as a society and as individuals. At some point we have to start holding those who would lead us accountable.
NAN is correct, the board should resign amid their dismal failure to be responsible and a lay board take over. The professional crowd should be advisory not visa-versa.
July 30, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Eric Kirk
I’m not sure what “political bias” you’re referring to. I know that a number of vested interests were upset when the NEC pulled out of the Klammath deal. I’m not sure what you mean by “doing wrong” either. It was a strategy for financial security. It was bad strategy in retrospect, not “wrong.”
I’d suggest you consider your own agenda, whatever it may be. What specifically is your criticism of Nichols and Kalt? It’s amazing how many anonymous comments have been made to slam them, with little or no recitations of fact. What did they do that you don’t like? Was it the real estate purchase? The refusal to support a watered down Klammath deal? Something else?
July 30, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Anonymous
Nichols and Kalt to the best of my knoledge did not make the original bad decision they simply failed to fulfill the oversight responsibility they (and the others) accepted when they took the job as board members. Board members of most organizations regularly resign or are replaced when they or their policies fail. Why should NEC be any different or their board held to lower standard?
No one suggests that their intentions were evil, only less that competent. NEC needs better. Non professional enviros would bring a range of much needed skills to an organization sorely lacking in diversity.
July 30, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Eric Kirk
Board members of most organizations regularly resign or are replaced when they or their policies fail.
That’s not true. Not for something like a bad investment anyway.
July 30, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Not A Native
First Eric you do the SoHum denial “don’t accuse me because other people are doing bad things”(i.e. alcohol is legal and causes lots of suffering so that justifies legalizing pot). Now you’re attributing ulterior motives to some anon for having a position that others have voiced publically. Thats the second misdirection, when someone disagrees with you, cast aspersions on their associations and character.
Hey, there are real reasons for the board to step down involving the subject of the meeting, the future organization and mission of the NEC. Pete Nichols himself opened the meeting with the observation that the financial problems could be viewed as an opportunity for the NEC to change and grow. So instead of adopting a defensive mindset, circling the wagons seeing threats and sinister forces aligned against you, listen to what people are saying.
Do you also question Pat Higgens’ (and all the other people who spoke similarly at the meeting) “agenda” for asking the board to resign? Maybe all those speakers should be investigated and their conspiratorial plot uncovered. And if they don’t admit to ulterior motives, waterboarding will bring the truth out of ‘em.
July 30, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Eric Kirk
I don’t account for everybody’s motives. It’s part of human nature to demand blood for failure. But I also know that the NEC’s decision to pull out of the Klammath affair was not taken well by certain people. It was suggested on a previous thread in this blog that there is a spontaneous boycott against the organization because of opinions voiced by NEC people about the GPU. And there’ve been numerous posts on all the blogs targeting the NEC vicariously in the slew of irrational attacks on Democracy Unlimited.
So I do question the sudden concern for the financial well-being of an organization which has been slammed by the same voices.
July 30, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Anonymous
Your response is more of the all or nothing approach that has become all too typical of late. Do you really believe that it is impossible for someone to believe in an organizations true mission and to disagree with some the positions taken by it’s board? Is there no room in your world for a conservationist or anyone else who doesn’t see everything in lock step with you? I suppose it is somewhat reassuring to always be right regardless of the facts but oh what a letdown if you are wrong. Sometimes there is more than one right answer.
With respect to NEC’s poorly chosen attack on folks in the rural areas, yup, this was as poor a position as their Klamath debacle and their real estate acumen. Yet another poor choice taken by their board (the current one) that has cost them dearly in membership and contributions and another reason to rethink their structure. Of course, just because this doesn’t fit with your view I’m sure it’s wrong and part of some obscure plot to overthrow western society and institute facist rule.
As to DUHC, their actions speak for themselves.
July 30, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, there you go. So do you want them to resign because they support Plan A, or because they bought a house?
July 30, 2009 at 11:16 pm
anon
The NEC pulled out of the Klammath deal because it had become a joke.
July 31, 2009 at 6:22 am
Anonymous
I’m open to a civil conversation, one where issues are honestly discussed between those whith open minds. Let us know if you sre ever looking for the same.
July 31, 2009 at 10:30 am
Eric Kirk
I’m sorry. Maybe I shouldn’t post so late at night. My sarcasm gets the best of me.
Basically, if they’d asked me, I would tell what I told many a client who wanted to buy property over the past few years with big mortgages, namely that they were taking chances with whatever equity they would go in with. I agree there were plenty of bubble signs. But it was a common mistake, made by, yes, seasoned investors. I don’t think anybody other than the people you can read over at The Visible Hand was predicting quite the crash which took place. Everybody loves a winner, but when a football team doesn’t repeat the season following a Superbowl win, there are almost always calls to fire a coach “losing his edge.” Did you warn the NEC against this purchase ahead of time? Did you know it would come out this way?
There’s a lesson to be learned, and it doesn’t require ritual sacrifice. And if you don’t like their position on the Klammath or GPU, those are different issues. There’s no common theme there.