February 3, 2005 | Read Time: 2 minutes
The American Civil Liberties Union has decided not to seek any disciplinary action against two board members who have been publicly critical of actions taken by the group’s executive director, Anthony D. Romero.
At a meeting in January, however, the organization’s Executive Committee asked the board to create a committee to consider the rights and responsibilities of board members and whether written guidelines for board behavior are needed.
The actions follow articles in The New York Times in which the two board members, Michael Meyers, executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition, and Wendy Kaminer, a lawyer and author representing the ACLU’s Massachusetts affiliate, were quoted criticizing the organization’s policies and practices.
Some local ACLU leaders have been critical of the negative comments and asked the national board to take action. But Nadine Strossen, the organization’s board president, said in an e-mail message to The Chronicle that the Executive Committee “never even entertained” the idea of removing board members.
Mr. Meyers, however, says that was probably because the Times ran an article the day of the executive board meeting saying that such action was under consideration. That article “was embarrassing to the leadership of ACLU and chilled them from proceeding,” he says. “They didn’t want it revealed that a free-speech organization would censor or suspend or remove any board member for the, quote, ‘offense’ of speaking to the media about nonconfidential matters,” he adds.
Terrorist List
Mr. Meyers and Ms. Kaminer began making their displeasure with the organization public last summer after they discovered that Mr. Romero — as a condition for participating in the Combined Federal Campaign — had signed an agreement with the federal government that requires charities to check the names of its job candidates against terrorist watch lists and not hire anyone who was listed. The ACLU had raised concerns about the legality and accuracy of such lists in the past, and Mr. Meyers said he did not understand why the organization had agreed to use them. (Mr. Romero has since voided the agreement.)
Most recently, the pair criticized Mr. Romero’s decision to hire a company to gather data about the charity’s donors. They say the board was not fully informed about what data would be collected. (An ACLU news release says the subject of donor research was broached in an April budgetary memorandum that the board approved.)
Mr. Meyers says he is very frustrated and that the organization’s board “completely and totally collapsed with respect to their powers of stewardship.”
Ms. Strossen defended the trustees, saying the organization’s 83-member board “has always engaged in spirited debate, and that is how it should always be. Passionate, diverse views expressed with conviction will always be a hallmark of the ACLU.”
