Free Speech is not for the ACLU, comrade!

[MKSheppard]

Linka

A.C.L.U. Will Consider Disciplining 2 Officials
By STEPHANIE STROM

The American Civil Liberties Union, which since its inception has fought to protect free speech rights, is scheduled to begin a debate today over whether to discipline - or potentially move to oust - two board members for speaking to reporters.

The executive committee of the A.C.L.U. board will discuss whether Wendy Kaminer and Michael Meyers have acted inappropriately as board members. The two have criticized some actions by the executive director, Anthony D. Romero, and the executive committee for what they said was a failure to provide proper oversight.

Nadine Strossen, president of the A.C.L.U., wrote in an e-mail message responding to a reporter's questions that the subject was added to the committee's agenda at the request of its Oregon affiliate. The committee will then decide whether the entire board should address it over the weekend at its quarterly meeting.

"To the best of my knowledge, no current board member supports implementing any such proceedings, and I am aware of many board members who responded by expressing their strong opposition to the idea," Ms. Strossen wrote. "We will discuss the idea, but I predict that it will be resoundingly rejected."

In a Dec. 28 letter, Catherine S. Travis, a lawyer who sits on the board of the A.C.L.U. affiliate in Oregon, recommended that the board consider suspending or removing Mr. Meyers and Ms. Kaminer, saying that they had violated their fiduciary responsibilities by talking to reporters about matters she called confidential.

"Appropriate corrective action must be taken now to avoid further incidents that can only impede the organization's ability to meet the unprecedented challenges to civil liberties we face at this critical juncture," Ms. Travis wrote.

Ms. Kaminer and Mr. Meyers began pressing for more information about certain practices last summer. Their pressure led to the disclosure that the organization had signed an agreement that obliged it to check its employees' names against government terrorist watch lists, the type of lists it has decried. They also discovered that Mr. Romero advised the Ford Foundation, his former employer, to use the language of the USA Patriot Act, which the organization is fighting, in its grant agreements.

Most recently, the dissident board members have criticized Mr. Romero's decision to do more extensive research on A.C.L.U. donors and members without fully informing the board what data would be obtained by whom. They say they were concerned that the organization is engaging in the same kind of research that it has contested as a violation of privacy when done by government agencies and corporations.

"They are going after the critics instead of the criticism, and I think that's a gross embarrassment and shameful for the A.C.L.U.," Ms. Kaminer said in an interview.

Mr. Meyers said any effort to punish or silence them would be a violation of the organization's commitment to free speech and the right to dissent. "I am a person who urges them and constantly reminds them that they must practice what they preach," he said, "and I am, therefore, their worst nightmare."

In her letter, Ms. Travis expressed concern that the dissidents' criticism was hurting the organization.

Ms. Travis said in a telephone interview that she had not intended for her letter to be circulated beyond the board and therefore declined to comment on it. "I find this disturbing, this focus on internal governance issues when the organization is doing such important work in the protection of our civil liberties at a crucial junction in our history," she said. "I'd like to see the media looking at that."

Judging from e-mail that has been circulating, many board members are upset at the dissidents.

"Perhaps you would both do better volunteering your time at an organization like Exxon that is used to toxic spills," wrote Alan Toy, another board member, in e-mail addressing the two critics. He later said that he could not discuss the matter until after the board meeting.

The uproar has mystified others. "I consider it out of character for the organization and its fundamental mission," said David F. Kennison, a board member from South Carolina.

Mr. Kennison said he did not think the critics had violated their responsibility by airing their opinions. "It's my understanding that as a fiduciary of a nonprofit organization, you have a responsibility to the public, too," he said.

Mr. Romero said that he could not comment on the executive committee's affairs but that criticism should be expected from the board. "On an 83-person board, this kind of debate, discussion and dissent is not just respected, it's definitional," he said.

The most recent criticism has been about the collection of information on donors. A consultant who previously helped gather data for the group offered The New York Times a spreadsheet from July 2001 containing information about 1,027 of its wealthiest donors, including their net worth, stock holdings and past contributions to the organization.

Mr. Romero said he was furious about the disclosure and would consider legal recourse. "We are outraged and appalled that this information was stolen from the A.C.L.U.," he said.

The A.C.L.U. contends that it is doing what many large nonprofits do to enhance their fund-raising activities, that its current practices are not substantially different from its past practices and that all the information it obtains is publicly available and protected by confidentiality agreements with its consultants.

The list came from Doug Erpf, who worked in the A.C.L.U.'s fund-raising office from July 2001 to July 2002 as an employee of Community Counselling Service, a consulting group hired to work on the organization's endowment campaign.

He said the spreadsheet demonstrated that the A.C.L.U.'s current research was not significantly different from what it had done in the past. "The A.C.L.U. isn't doing anything inappropriate in its research," Mr. Erpf said, adding that he did not have any direct knowledge of current data collection.

Community Counselling said Mr. Erpf had violated the terms of a confidentiality agreement.

Mr. Erpf acknowledged that he had signed a confidentiality agreement with his employer at the time but said he had done nothing wrong. "It was on my computer," he said. "I just thought it would be of use to you just as a generic point of comparison."

Several donors whose names appeared on the spreadsheet said they were concerned the list had slipped out to a reporter. But they expected information to remain confidential in the future.

"I'm not concerned that the A.C.L.U. might be doing normal development-type research, and I think that all nonprofits should treat any information they gather as confidential and use it only for their own internal purposes," said Warren J. Spector, president and co-chief operating officer of the Bear Stearns Companies.

Harold W. Kuhn, a professor emeritus of mathematics at Princeton and A.C.L.U. member, said he had no concerns about the spreadsheet and believed The New York Times had "sensationalized" the issue.