Back to WASHINGTON, HERE WE COME

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to LETTER TO THE EDITOR

RESPONSE TO SOULE

The suggestion for an executive office of SCB in Washington, D.C. has been discussed and considered by the Board of Governors since well before I joined the Board in 1992. The discussion continues today. Why no action? The Board has been generally supportive of the idea of having a Washington office and executive director, but this being an expensive undertaking, other priorities have taken precedence. At one time, as Michael Soulé notes, David Hales and he started a fundraising campaign for a Washington office. Contrary to what Michael suggests, however, the campaign was not "defeated by the board following negative comments about funding priorities." Indeed, most Board members not only supported and voted in favor of the concept, they donated personal funds to the campaign. To the best of my recollection, the campaign failed because Hales did not succeed in acquiring the major donations or grants necessary to establish the office and, perhaps prematurely, he gave up trying. No one volunteered to take his place, which is not surprising because few of our Board members would call themselves adept fundraisers.

I favor having an office and executive director in Washington if we can find funds specifically for that purpose. It is not, however, one of my highest priorities (see page 1). It seems that we can contribute more to conservation by educating, training, and influencing managers, conservation organizations, teachers, the media, and funders, among others, than we would rubbing elbows with policy makers within the Beltway. Most politicians couldn't care less about what scientists tell them--their priorities are set by more crass considerations such as campaign donations. A D.C. office doesn't seem to be among the highest priorities of our membership, either. In our recent strategic planning survey (see the May 1999 newsletter), most members agreed that SCB should "actively provide information to policy makers." However, only 8 of 92 respondents suggested that we should lobby Congress, and only 7 suggested that SCB's financial resources should be spent to influence policy makers, lobby Congress, hire a lobbyist, and/or create a policy office in Washington, D.C.

Many more respondents were interested in educating the public and in devoting SCB's financial resources to funding research projects internationally, collaborating in research with other organizations, and contributing to public outreach, and education. These activities do not require a Washington office or an executive director. In fact, most of the activities Michael mentioned as functions of a Washington office can be accomplished without a Washington office or an executive director. Importantly, SCB is already making significant progress in most of these areas.

If, in fact, the results of our survey are off-base (which is possible, given the low response rate) and a significant fraction of our members want an office in D.C., then I strongly urge Soulé and like-minded individuals to resume a fund-raising initiative. I feel confident that if funds were raised for an office, the Board would support it. In the meantime, we can accomplish many of the good things Michael calls for through active involvement of our members. If those who devote substantial time to SCB activities (for example, writing reports) can be compensated for their efforts, then we might be able to accomplish even more at much less cost than a permanent office and staff in D.C.

Reed Noss, President, SCB

Back to WASHINGTON, HERE WE COME

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to LETTER TO THE EDITOR