Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Airing Dirty Linen: San Francisco National Lawyers Guild Lurches to the Center
The liberals win SF Guild election.
October 30, 2003
While most eyes were still on the recall election between the Terminator and the Gray eminence on October 7, another election drama was played out on October 8 at the annual membership meeting of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.
The Guild's SF chapter has been embroiled for the last year in a very public controversy over its political orientation and its long-time Program Director Riva Enteen. Consequently, the October 8 election was the first seriously-contested election in memory, pitting an incumbent, old-guard liberal slate against an insurgent "Activist Slate."
The liberals won, at least for the time being -- but not before some maneuvering about the location of the election, accusations of infiltration by government agents and provocateurs, a little red-baiting, and a creative union-busting scheme.
TWO SLATES
The incumbent slate, dubbing itself the "Koonan-Farrell Slate," represented the officers who had taken control of the chapter's Executive Board in an election last year, in October 2002. Their assumption of power within the chapter set off the crisis that led to this year's contested election, and has seriously threatened the reputation and stability of the chapter.
An insurgent Activist Slate challenged what they called the "mismanagement" of the incumbents, and charged that they had failed to give adequate support to the fight against war and repression in the post-9/11 period.
In addition to profound political differences, the two slates were very different demographically. The Koonan-Farrell slate had 19 candidates, all but one of whom are white. Over a third of the 17 candidates on the Activist Slate are people of color. The Activist Slate also included a good number of younger and newer members, as well as several chapter stalwarts. "Rather than simply repeating the decades-old call for a Guild with a new face," wrote Treasurer candidate Matthew Rinaldi, "the Activist slate actually embodies that new face and brings that energy into the leadership of the Chapter."
Not a single one of the candidates from the Activist Slate was elected. "I am discouraged, disheartened and dismayed that... when faced with the opportunity to create a board that included those from under-represented communities," wrote outgoing Law Student Vice-President Alyse Ceirante, the new Executive Board will now be "white and solidly middle class. I guess all the lip service that has been paid to 'diversifying the board' is just that..."
RIVA ENTEEN
The two competing slates also lined up on different sides with respect to the position of Enteen. Enteen, a popular figure in movement circles, has pulled the chapter's politics to the left during the 13 years she has worked for the Guild, and clearly represents the more activist, more radical and more community-oriented wing of the organization. More than one supporter has called Enteen the "heart and soul" of the chapter.
Despite this, or perhaps because of it, Enteen has been fighting several disciplinary actions against her initiated by the old guard Executive Board. The President of the union that represents Guild staff members has called this a "witch hunt." Enteen is represented by the National Organization of Legal Services Workers, UAW Local 2320.
The Koonan-Farrell Slate forthrightly sought a "mandate" to reduce Enteen's role in setting the chapter's political orientation, while several of the slate's leading members made no bones about the fact that they want to drive her out completely.
The Activist Slate did not make a large issue of Enteen's position, but certainly represented politics similar to hers. Their program stated that "we recognize and honor [Riva] for her leadership."
The very first act of the newly-elected Executive Board, taken at a special meeting held just a week after the election, was a flagrant union-busting scheme aimed at pushing Enteen aside: the hiring of a non-union "Interim Executive Director," a woman named Susan Mooney, to take over many of Enteen's job duties.
Enteen's union has demanded that the Executive Board negotiate over this new staff position, as is clearly required by the union contract. The new board, however, unanimously refused to negotiate with the union, claiming that the new position is only a "consultant." The concept of an Executive Director, interim or otherwise, being only a "consultant" is certainly novel. In any event, the current officers have made it clear that they want the "Interim" Executive Director position to become a permanent one, and that Enteen need not apply.
Enteen is currently on a voluntary leave from the chapter, reportedly mulling over her options.
ELECTION PROCESS
The election process in the chapter has not been without controversy, as might be expected in an organization made up primarily of lawyers. In October 2002, when the old-guard liberals took charge, the election was moved to the Rockridge Library, an unusual move for an organization that had traditionally held its annual election at a law school in downtown San Francisco. "This was designed to let the wealthier lawyers in the chapter, many of whom live in the East Bay hills, dominate the election process," said one source.
This year, the election was again held in the East Bay, but at a more accessible location at the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees (HERE) Local 2850 office in downtown Oakland. However, members could only vote if they showed up at the meeting between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM, which meant that San Francisco members had to cross the bay at rush hour.
A number of Guild members, including SF Board of Education Vice-President Eric Mar and former SF District 8 Supervisor candidate Eileen Hansen, publicly called for the board to set up a voting location in San Francisco, perhaps at the Guild office in the Mission. This request was denied on a 3-2 vote by the election committee, based on alleged "process" issues.
Notably, the member of the election committee who argued most vociferously against a San Francisco voting location was committee head and labor lawyer Matt Ross, a long-time chapter member and one of the most prominent members of the Koonan-Farrell slate. Ross is also the chair of the chapter's Personnel Committee, which has been at the forefront of pressing disciplinary action against Enteen.
NLG HISTORY
The National Lawyers Guild was founded in 1937 by progressive lawyers, primarily to support Roosevelt's New Deal. Among the founders were a number of Marxists, many of whom associated with the Communist Party in its heyday period. As the fascists and Nazis in Europe became more and more of a threat, the Guild turned more towards fighting fascism. After World War II, the Guild was targeted in the anti-communist hysteria that took hold during the early years of the Cold War, and was nearly decimated.
However, the Guild was reinvigorated as a result of the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements during the 1960s and 1970s. It has remained a vital part of the progressive movement ever since.
The Guild is unique as a multi-issue progressive legal organization. Describing itself as the "legal arm of the movement," it strives to integrate both political and legal action, recognizing that many victories which appear to be won in the courts are actually won in the streets. It also addresses a much-wider range of issues than most other legal organizations. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) does not take positions on foreign policy issues.
The Guild is membership-based, with a leadership structure that is directly elected, unlike some other progressive legal organizations. Originally membership was restricted to lawyers, but membership was subsequently opened up to legal workers, such as law clerks and investigators. Lawyers, however, still by far play the leading role in the organization.
The Guild can also lay claim to being a truly national organization, having genuine roots in many parts of the country, much more so than many other self-described national organizations.
For all these reasons, the Guild is an important asset to the progressive movement. The San Francisco Bay Area chapter is far and away the largest chapter in the country, and thus plays a vital role both within the Guild, and in the Guild's relationship to the movement.
POLITICAL DIFFERENCES IN THE CHAPTER
Some members of the San Francisco chapter have sought to minimize the political differences between the Koonan-Farrell and Activist slates, but a close reading of their programs and statements make it clear that the differences are very real.
In one statement, the Activist Slate proclaimed that "the events of September 11th abruptly accelerated the crisis of world imperialism and set the stage for a new cycle of war and repression..." and charged that "although hundreds of local Guild members have indeed been organized to support our post 9/11 work, they need an elected leadership that will further that work as the first priority of our chapter... [This work] has received inadequate support and little recognition by most of the current officers... We believe that leadership in the San Francisco NLG Chapter must be diverse, community-based and militant."
The Koonan-Farrell slate titled their program "'Bridging' the Constituencies, Building the Guild." Their program stated that they "very much agree with others that the post 9/11 work defending civil liberties and opposing the expansion of U.S. domination around the world is critically important and must be strengthened." But, unlike the Activist slate, they argued that "there is nothing in the record of the out-going Board to suggest that they have believed or done otherwise."
But the Koonan-Farrell program qualified their support for post-9/11 work, stating that while "some of us and our supporters may identify ourselves as 'militants' or 'anti-imperialists,'" they oppose placing "the highest 'priority'... on any particular area of programmatic work," clearly targeting the call of the Activist Slate to prioritize the fight against war and repression. Instead of prioritizing this work, the program called for "a more supportive and inclusive Guild, composed of the many constituencies that 'bridge' the composition of our Chapter and the diverse interests of our membership."
One of the members with "diverse interests" might be Ross, the omnipresent Koonan-Farrell slate candidate, head of both the Personnel and Election committees. Sources tell us that he spoke out at a September 2001 membership meeting, arguing that the chapter should not oppose the then impending war on Afghanistan. Our sources tell us that Ross also expressed significant doubts about opposing the war on Iraq at the October 2002 membership meeting.
Another prominent member of the Koonan-Farrell slate, Marc Van Der Hout, reportedly joined Ross in equivocating about the war on Afghanistan at the September 2001 membership meeting. Van Der Hout is a former Guild national President.
Another example of "diverse interests" -- this time concerning the always touchy subject of Israel and Palestine -- was cited in a statement issued last February by thirteen prominent Guild members, several of whom later became part of the Activist Slate.
The Guild members who issued the February statement expressed concern that Enteen had been accused in her most recent performance evaluation of "putting 'an Anti-Israel ad and photo' in the April 2002 newsletter, which allegedly 'presented a major embarrassment to the Dinner Committee and jeopardized our fundraising efforts.'" The statement went on to explain that the photo in question "was the official flyer for the April 20, 2002 march and rally against the Bush administration's war drive in the Middle East, an event that was endorsed by the Guild both locally and nationally... The photo on the flyer was a picture of an Israeli tank beside prostrate Palestinians in the occupied West Bank."
The "Dinner Committee" that lodged this complaint is headed by Marilyn Waller, another prominent member of the Koonan-Farrell Slate. Waller also heads the chapter's Administrative Finance Committee, which is responsible for the chapter's fundraising efforts.
The performance evaluation in question was given to Enteen just a few days after the October 2002 election which brought the old-guard liberals, including Waller, to power.
ENTEEN AS SCAPEGOAT?
Although the political differences within the chapter are very real, much of the controversy in the last year has centered on Enteen's role as Program Director. In the words of the Guild members who issued the February statement, "We are deeply concerned about attacks on Riva Enteen... The attacks on Riva's work are attacks on the Guild's political work."
One Guild member, Erica Etelson, wrote that "I'm struck of late by certain similarities to the KPFA-Pacifica battle... A more conservative wing of the organization has risen up to rid us of one of our most prominent radicals... The result is an absurdly messy situation... draining away our community's precious time and energy much as Pacifica preoccupied and drained us that terrible summer of 1999."
Another Guild member, Omar Figueroa, put it more succinctly, writing that he is "concerned that the SF-NLG is facing a KPFA-style takeover by conformist 'progressives.'"
According to one source, "The people now calling the shots in the chapter are a set of wealthier lawyers who are uncomfortable with the politics with which the chapter has been associated while Riva has been at the helm, especially in this dark period of repression."
Our source continues, "During the McCarthy period, the ACLU threw Elizabeth Gurley Flynn out of the organization, even though she was one of their founding members, because she was a communist, and they wanted to appease the forces of reaction. Now a similar thing is happening here in the Guild, during a similar reactionary period, with some members wanting to sacrifice Riva because she is such a well-known leftist and radical."
GRANTS AND GRUDGES
Recently, Aisha Mohammed, a staff member hired to work on post-9/11 repression issues, charged in an open letter that Enteen became "a target because of her effectiveness as program director and her radical politics."
Mohammed wrote further that some of the current officers, in particular the Administrative Finance Committee, tried to "impede" a major grant to continue doing post 9/11 work "as leverage against Riva... The lack of support from some Guild members for the Post 9-11 work became clear... It was shocking to witness that some Guild members would put the entire future work of the Post 9-11 Project in jeopardy for their personal desire to oust Riva."
After the grant in question was sent off to the funder, Aisha was interrogated by Andy Krakoff, a member of the Personnel Committee and another prominent member of the Koonan-Farrell slate. "He tried every intimidation tactic in the book," wrote Mohammed. "He would ask me the same question again but in different words, he cut me off when I did not give him the answer he wanted, and he wrote down everything I said... The questions were designed to make Riva seem intentionally deceitful and irreverent to the Board. The interrogation lasted over an hour... I felt that since he had no substantive charges against Riva, he was searching for some kind of technicality to prove her guilty of insubordination."
Enteen was subsequently written up for "insubordination" and "gross misconduct" for supposed improprieties in the process of producing the grant for post-9/11 work. These disciplinary charges are still pending.
RED-BAITING, GOVERNMENT AGENTS AND PROVOCATEURS
In August, not long after Enteen was issued the warning notice concerning the 9/11 grant, the controversy in the chapter burst into sight among community and movement forces outside of the Guild, with the distribution of two statements.
The first statement to be issued was by the Midnight Special Law Collective, titled "National Lawyers Guild Guilty?" It charged that the "current Executive Board of the Bay Area Guild Chapter is trying to fire Riva Enteen. The process has been undemocratic; the politics are suspect."
The Midnight Special Law Collective is a collective of legal workers in the Guild who had been working out of the SF Guild office, and were central to the defense of anti-war protesters arrested in the wake of the Iraq war. Their statement went on to claim that Enteen had been "called out for her activist leanings and connections... Riva has been at the heart of this chapter for 13 years as Program Director, but instead of supporting her, the current Board has criticized, second-guessed, demeaned and silenced her." They called this controversy both a "political issue" and a "workers* issue."
The second statement was issued not long afterward, this time by six community organizations: the Bay Area Not In Our Name Project (NION), the Coalition on Homelessness, the Middle East Children's Alliance, POWER (People Organized to Win Employment Rights), San Francisco ANSWER and the San Francisco Tenants Union. This statement asserted that the "future direction of the SF/Bay Area Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, as well as the job of its program director, Riva Enteen, are in jeopardy." It also charged that "a campaign to drive Riva out has been led by a handful of local executive board members who equivocated about opposing US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are pro-Zionist, and who are uncomfortable with the leadership Riva has shown in fighting post-9/11 repression."
In response, three members of the chapter's Executive Committee (President Kevi Brannelly, Vice-President LeWitter, and Treasurer Scott DeNardo) issued a sharp rebuttal. Notably, two other members of the Executive Committee (Secretary Anne Weills and Law Student Vice-President Ceirante) were not even consulted about this response, as they were known to be supporters of Enteen.
This rebuttal ignored the Midnight Special statement, and did not name five of the six organizations that had endorsed the second statement. Instead, they concentrated their fire on what they called "ANSWER's attack on the Guild."
ANSWER, as most anti-war activists know, has played a leading role in the anti-war movement, and has taken more than their fair share of hits for its association with the Workers World Party, a Marxist-Leninist organization that has been active for decades.
In this political context, it was hard to miss the undercurrent of red-baiting inherent in the Brannelly-LeWitter-DeNardo response, given that they chose to single out ANSWER alone.
Further, by characterizing the community statement as an "attack on the Guild," the three officers seemed eager to short-circuit any rational debate about the merits of the issues raised in the community statement. Instead they obfuscated the difference between a political critique of the actions of the current leadership of the chapter, and a critique of the Guild as an organization. It was as if George Bush claimed that a critique of his administration was inherently un-American.
Brannelly and LeWitter were both candidates on the Koonan-Farrell slate. DeNardo seems to have dropped out of sight.
Rather curiously, the Brannelly-LeWitter-DeNardo response circulated in various forms and permutations. It was first published as a "draft" on Indymedia by DeNardo. Subsequently, several different versions made the rounds of community organizations and postings. The most offensive was circulated by Rachel Lederman, a Guild attorney who has been vociferous in her very personal attacks on Enteen. Her version charged that the Guild was under attack from "provocateurs and agents" in a style reminiscent of "the FBI's Cointelpro operation." It read, in part:
"We are very concerned that the Guild, a progressive legal organization, is under attack from provocateurs. The Guild has been infiltrated by provocateurs and agents in the past, who have spread disinformation about the organization. As we know from the FBI's Cointelpro operation in the 60's and 70's, many left organizations were infiltrated and victimized by conscious disinformation campaigns. We are afraid that that is happening now again to the Guild. We don't know who is really instigating this campaign to undermine the SF Guild chapter, much of which comes from non-members of the Guild... Rest assured, however, that we will fight these attempts to destroy the Guild -- as the Guild always has throughout its history when it has been attacked by the government and the right."
When confronted, the Executive Committee members claimed that Lederman's version of their response was "unauthorized." At the time, Lederman was not a member of the Board. Nobody has yet explained how Lederman came into possession of this "unauthorized" version, or why she chose to circulate it. Instead, Lederman was rewarded with a slot on the Koonan-Farrell slate.
"It is one thing to attack somebody's politics," said one movement activist. "It is another thing entirely to call people government agents and provocateurs without even a shred of evidence. This is like putting a snitch-jacket on someone -- very bad things can happen. Somebody should be held to account for this."
GAG ORDERS AND DEATH THREATS
Despite all the controversy swirling about her, Enteen has yet to issue any public statement. Her supporters claim that the chapter officials have slapped a gag order on her and threatened her with further discipline, including possible termination, if she speaks out. The Executive Board denies the existence of the gag order, but those who know Enteen claim that she would very much like to say her piece, and that her public silence is impossible to explain if there is no gag order.
The controversy that has engulfed the SF Guild is not unique to the organization. Many elder Guild members have compared the political period in which we live to the days of McCarthyism, and several have argued that the political challenge before us today is even more serious. Many progressive forces and organizations have found themselves face-to-face with pressures, within and without, to moderate their politics in the face of the growing repression in the post-9/11 period. Many have responded well and honorably. Some have not.
Issues concerning Israel and Palestine in particular, long the third rail of progressive politics, have become even more treacherous in the post-9/11 era. Recently, for example, a number of workers at Rainbow Grocery, a popular San Francisco natural foods store, initiated a struggle to remove Israeli goods from their shelves. Although Israeli goods presently remain on the shelves, the workers who initiated this struggle have had to face harassment and gag orders.
Even more recently, a local pro-Palestinian organization, If Americans Knew, and its founder, Alison Weir, were subjected to death threats after participating in a debate about Israel and Palestine at UC Berkeley.
Both the activists at Rainbow Grocery and Weir have been outspoken community supporters of Enteen in her struggle with the SF Guild chapter leadership. Both clearly identify with Enteen, in part because they have all become targets as a result of their politics on Israel, Palestine and the Middle East.
At its root, the struggles in the Guild and other progressive political organizations are about how we maintain our political integrity in the face of the reactionary political pressures loose in the world today. It is long past time for serious collective contemplation and public discussion about how we defend our most outspoken activists, like Riva Enteen, and how we defend our vital political organizations like the National Lawyers Guild.
**************************************
More information about the National Lawyers Guild can be found at their website at http://www.nlg.org, and at the San Francisco Bay Area chapter's website at http://www.nlg.org/sf.
Enteen's supporters have a website at http://supportriva.primate.net.
Jack Read is the pseudonym of a San Francisco Bay Area political activist and writer who would prefer to be writing science fiction novels. He is also too smart to give his real name to a bunch of lawyers who undoubtedly would like to nail his ass to the wall. He can be reached at jakread [at] yahoo.com.
While most eyes were still on the recall election between the Terminator and the Gray eminence on October 7, another election drama was played out on October 8 at the annual membership meeting of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.
The Guild's SF chapter has been embroiled for the last year in a very public controversy over its political orientation and its long-time Program Director Riva Enteen. Consequently, the October 8 election was the first seriously-contested election in memory, pitting an incumbent, old-guard liberal slate against an insurgent "Activist Slate."
The liberals won, at least for the time being -- but not before some maneuvering about the location of the election, accusations of infiltration by government agents and provocateurs, a little red-baiting, and a creative union-busting scheme.
TWO SLATES
The incumbent slate, dubbing itself the "Koonan-Farrell Slate," represented the officers who had taken control of the chapter's Executive Board in an election last year, in October 2002. Their assumption of power within the chapter set off the crisis that led to this year's contested election, and has seriously threatened the reputation and stability of the chapter.
An insurgent Activist Slate challenged what they called the "mismanagement" of the incumbents, and charged that they had failed to give adequate support to the fight against war and repression in the post-9/11 period.
In addition to profound political differences, the two slates were very different demographically. The Koonan-Farrell slate had 19 candidates, all but one of whom are white. Over a third of the 17 candidates on the Activist Slate are people of color. The Activist Slate also included a good number of younger and newer members, as well as several chapter stalwarts. "Rather than simply repeating the decades-old call for a Guild with a new face," wrote Treasurer candidate Matthew Rinaldi, "the Activist slate actually embodies that new face and brings that energy into the leadership of the Chapter."
Not a single one of the candidates from the Activist Slate was elected. "I am discouraged, disheartened and dismayed that... when faced with the opportunity to create a board that included those from under-represented communities," wrote outgoing Law Student Vice-President Alyse Ceirante, the new Executive Board will now be "white and solidly middle class. I guess all the lip service that has been paid to 'diversifying the board' is just that..."
RIVA ENTEEN
The two competing slates also lined up on different sides with respect to the position of Enteen. Enteen, a popular figure in movement circles, has pulled the chapter's politics to the left during the 13 years she has worked for the Guild, and clearly represents the more activist, more radical and more community-oriented wing of the organization. More than one supporter has called Enteen the "heart and soul" of the chapter.
Despite this, or perhaps because of it, Enteen has been fighting several disciplinary actions against her initiated by the old guard Executive Board. The President of the union that represents Guild staff members has called this a "witch hunt." Enteen is represented by the National Organization of Legal Services Workers, UAW Local 2320.
The Koonan-Farrell Slate forthrightly sought a "mandate" to reduce Enteen's role in setting the chapter's political orientation, while several of the slate's leading members made no bones about the fact that they want to drive her out completely.
The Activist Slate did not make a large issue of Enteen's position, but certainly represented politics similar to hers. Their program stated that "we recognize and honor [Riva] for her leadership."
The very first act of the newly-elected Executive Board, taken at a special meeting held just a week after the election, was a flagrant union-busting scheme aimed at pushing Enteen aside: the hiring of a non-union "Interim Executive Director," a woman named Susan Mooney, to take over many of Enteen's job duties.
Enteen's union has demanded that the Executive Board negotiate over this new staff position, as is clearly required by the union contract. The new board, however, unanimously refused to negotiate with the union, claiming that the new position is only a "consultant." The concept of an Executive Director, interim or otherwise, being only a "consultant" is certainly novel. In any event, the current officers have made it clear that they want the "Interim" Executive Director position to become a permanent one, and that Enteen need not apply.
Enteen is currently on a voluntary leave from the chapter, reportedly mulling over her options.
ELECTION PROCESS
The election process in the chapter has not been without controversy, as might be expected in an organization made up primarily of lawyers. In October 2002, when the old-guard liberals took charge, the election was moved to the Rockridge Library, an unusual move for an organization that had traditionally held its annual election at a law school in downtown San Francisco. "This was designed to let the wealthier lawyers in the chapter, many of whom live in the East Bay hills, dominate the election process," said one source.
This year, the election was again held in the East Bay, but at a more accessible location at the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees (HERE) Local 2850 office in downtown Oakland. However, members could only vote if they showed up at the meeting between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM, which meant that San Francisco members had to cross the bay at rush hour.
A number of Guild members, including SF Board of Education Vice-President Eric Mar and former SF District 8 Supervisor candidate Eileen Hansen, publicly called for the board to set up a voting location in San Francisco, perhaps at the Guild office in the Mission. This request was denied on a 3-2 vote by the election committee, based on alleged "process" issues.
Notably, the member of the election committee who argued most vociferously against a San Francisco voting location was committee head and labor lawyer Matt Ross, a long-time chapter member and one of the most prominent members of the Koonan-Farrell slate. Ross is also the chair of the chapter's Personnel Committee, which has been at the forefront of pressing disciplinary action against Enteen.
NLG HISTORY
The National Lawyers Guild was founded in 1937 by progressive lawyers, primarily to support Roosevelt's New Deal. Among the founders were a number of Marxists, many of whom associated with the Communist Party in its heyday period. As the fascists and Nazis in Europe became more and more of a threat, the Guild turned more towards fighting fascism. After World War II, the Guild was targeted in the anti-communist hysteria that took hold during the early years of the Cold War, and was nearly decimated.
However, the Guild was reinvigorated as a result of the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements during the 1960s and 1970s. It has remained a vital part of the progressive movement ever since.
The Guild is unique as a multi-issue progressive legal organization. Describing itself as the "legal arm of the movement," it strives to integrate both political and legal action, recognizing that many victories which appear to be won in the courts are actually won in the streets. It also addresses a much-wider range of issues than most other legal organizations. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) does not take positions on foreign policy issues.
The Guild is membership-based, with a leadership structure that is directly elected, unlike some other progressive legal organizations. Originally membership was restricted to lawyers, but membership was subsequently opened up to legal workers, such as law clerks and investigators. Lawyers, however, still by far play the leading role in the organization.
The Guild can also lay claim to being a truly national organization, having genuine roots in many parts of the country, much more so than many other self-described national organizations.
For all these reasons, the Guild is an important asset to the progressive movement. The San Francisco Bay Area chapter is far and away the largest chapter in the country, and thus plays a vital role both within the Guild, and in the Guild's relationship to the movement.
POLITICAL DIFFERENCES IN THE CHAPTER
Some members of the San Francisco chapter have sought to minimize the political differences between the Koonan-Farrell and Activist slates, but a close reading of their programs and statements make it clear that the differences are very real.
In one statement, the Activist Slate proclaimed that "the events of September 11th abruptly accelerated the crisis of world imperialism and set the stage for a new cycle of war and repression..." and charged that "although hundreds of local Guild members have indeed been organized to support our post 9/11 work, they need an elected leadership that will further that work as the first priority of our chapter... [This work] has received inadequate support and little recognition by most of the current officers... We believe that leadership in the San Francisco NLG Chapter must be diverse, community-based and militant."
The Koonan-Farrell slate titled their program "'Bridging' the Constituencies, Building the Guild." Their program stated that they "very much agree with others that the post 9/11 work defending civil liberties and opposing the expansion of U.S. domination around the world is critically important and must be strengthened." But, unlike the Activist slate, they argued that "there is nothing in the record of the out-going Board to suggest that they have believed or done otherwise."
But the Koonan-Farrell program qualified their support for post-9/11 work, stating that while "some of us and our supporters may identify ourselves as 'militants' or 'anti-imperialists,'" they oppose placing "the highest 'priority'... on any particular area of programmatic work," clearly targeting the call of the Activist Slate to prioritize the fight against war and repression. Instead of prioritizing this work, the program called for "a more supportive and inclusive Guild, composed of the many constituencies that 'bridge' the composition of our Chapter and the diverse interests of our membership."
One of the members with "diverse interests" might be Ross, the omnipresent Koonan-Farrell slate candidate, head of both the Personnel and Election committees. Sources tell us that he spoke out at a September 2001 membership meeting, arguing that the chapter should not oppose the then impending war on Afghanistan. Our sources tell us that Ross also expressed significant doubts about opposing the war on Iraq at the October 2002 membership meeting.
Another prominent member of the Koonan-Farrell slate, Marc Van Der Hout, reportedly joined Ross in equivocating about the war on Afghanistan at the September 2001 membership meeting. Van Der Hout is a former Guild national President.
Another example of "diverse interests" -- this time concerning the always touchy subject of Israel and Palestine -- was cited in a statement issued last February by thirteen prominent Guild members, several of whom later became part of the Activist Slate.
The Guild members who issued the February statement expressed concern that Enteen had been accused in her most recent performance evaluation of "putting 'an Anti-Israel ad and photo' in the April 2002 newsletter, which allegedly 'presented a major embarrassment to the Dinner Committee and jeopardized our fundraising efforts.'" The statement went on to explain that the photo in question "was the official flyer for the April 20, 2002 march and rally against the Bush administration's war drive in the Middle East, an event that was endorsed by the Guild both locally and nationally... The photo on the flyer was a picture of an Israeli tank beside prostrate Palestinians in the occupied West Bank."
The "Dinner Committee" that lodged this complaint is headed by Marilyn Waller, another prominent member of the Koonan-Farrell Slate. Waller also heads the chapter's Administrative Finance Committee, which is responsible for the chapter's fundraising efforts.
The performance evaluation in question was given to Enteen just a few days after the October 2002 election which brought the old-guard liberals, including Waller, to power.
ENTEEN AS SCAPEGOAT?
Although the political differences within the chapter are very real, much of the controversy in the last year has centered on Enteen's role as Program Director. In the words of the Guild members who issued the February statement, "We are deeply concerned about attacks on Riva Enteen... The attacks on Riva's work are attacks on the Guild's political work."
One Guild member, Erica Etelson, wrote that "I'm struck of late by certain similarities to the KPFA-Pacifica battle... A more conservative wing of the organization has risen up to rid us of one of our most prominent radicals... The result is an absurdly messy situation... draining away our community's precious time and energy much as Pacifica preoccupied and drained us that terrible summer of 1999."
Another Guild member, Omar Figueroa, put it more succinctly, writing that he is "concerned that the SF-NLG is facing a KPFA-style takeover by conformist 'progressives.'"
According to one source, "The people now calling the shots in the chapter are a set of wealthier lawyers who are uncomfortable with the politics with which the chapter has been associated while Riva has been at the helm, especially in this dark period of repression."
Our source continues, "During the McCarthy period, the ACLU threw Elizabeth Gurley Flynn out of the organization, even though she was one of their founding members, because she was a communist, and they wanted to appease the forces of reaction. Now a similar thing is happening here in the Guild, during a similar reactionary period, with some members wanting to sacrifice Riva because she is such a well-known leftist and radical."
GRANTS AND GRUDGES
Recently, Aisha Mohammed, a staff member hired to work on post-9/11 repression issues, charged in an open letter that Enteen became "a target because of her effectiveness as program director and her radical politics."
Mohammed wrote further that some of the current officers, in particular the Administrative Finance Committee, tried to "impede" a major grant to continue doing post 9/11 work "as leverage against Riva... The lack of support from some Guild members for the Post 9-11 work became clear... It was shocking to witness that some Guild members would put the entire future work of the Post 9-11 Project in jeopardy for their personal desire to oust Riva."
After the grant in question was sent off to the funder, Aisha was interrogated by Andy Krakoff, a member of the Personnel Committee and another prominent member of the Koonan-Farrell slate. "He tried every intimidation tactic in the book," wrote Mohammed. "He would ask me the same question again but in different words, he cut me off when I did not give him the answer he wanted, and he wrote down everything I said... The questions were designed to make Riva seem intentionally deceitful and irreverent to the Board. The interrogation lasted over an hour... I felt that since he had no substantive charges against Riva, he was searching for some kind of technicality to prove her guilty of insubordination."
Enteen was subsequently written up for "insubordination" and "gross misconduct" for supposed improprieties in the process of producing the grant for post-9/11 work. These disciplinary charges are still pending.
RED-BAITING, GOVERNMENT AGENTS AND PROVOCATEURS
In August, not long after Enteen was issued the warning notice concerning the 9/11 grant, the controversy in the chapter burst into sight among community and movement forces outside of the Guild, with the distribution of two statements.
The first statement to be issued was by the Midnight Special Law Collective, titled "National Lawyers Guild Guilty?" It charged that the "current Executive Board of the Bay Area Guild Chapter is trying to fire Riva Enteen. The process has been undemocratic; the politics are suspect."
The Midnight Special Law Collective is a collective of legal workers in the Guild who had been working out of the SF Guild office, and were central to the defense of anti-war protesters arrested in the wake of the Iraq war. Their statement went on to claim that Enteen had been "called out for her activist leanings and connections... Riva has been at the heart of this chapter for 13 years as Program Director, but instead of supporting her, the current Board has criticized, second-guessed, demeaned and silenced her." They called this controversy both a "political issue" and a "workers* issue."
The second statement was issued not long afterward, this time by six community organizations: the Bay Area Not In Our Name Project (NION), the Coalition on Homelessness, the Middle East Children's Alliance, POWER (People Organized to Win Employment Rights), San Francisco ANSWER and the San Francisco Tenants Union. This statement asserted that the "future direction of the SF/Bay Area Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, as well as the job of its program director, Riva Enteen, are in jeopardy." It also charged that "a campaign to drive Riva out has been led by a handful of local executive board members who equivocated about opposing US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are pro-Zionist, and who are uncomfortable with the leadership Riva has shown in fighting post-9/11 repression."
In response, three members of the chapter's Executive Committee (President Kevi Brannelly, Vice-President LeWitter, and Treasurer Scott DeNardo) issued a sharp rebuttal. Notably, two other members of the Executive Committee (Secretary Anne Weills and Law Student Vice-President Ceirante) were not even consulted about this response, as they were known to be supporters of Enteen.
This rebuttal ignored the Midnight Special statement, and did not name five of the six organizations that had endorsed the second statement. Instead, they concentrated their fire on what they called "ANSWER's attack on the Guild."
ANSWER, as most anti-war activists know, has played a leading role in the anti-war movement, and has taken more than their fair share of hits for its association with the Workers World Party, a Marxist-Leninist organization that has been active for decades.
In this political context, it was hard to miss the undercurrent of red-baiting inherent in the Brannelly-LeWitter-DeNardo response, given that they chose to single out ANSWER alone.
Further, by characterizing the community statement as an "attack on the Guild," the three officers seemed eager to short-circuit any rational debate about the merits of the issues raised in the community statement. Instead they obfuscated the difference between a political critique of the actions of the current leadership of the chapter, and a critique of the Guild as an organization. It was as if George Bush claimed that a critique of his administration was inherently un-American.
Brannelly and LeWitter were both candidates on the Koonan-Farrell slate. DeNardo seems to have dropped out of sight.
Rather curiously, the Brannelly-LeWitter-DeNardo response circulated in various forms and permutations. It was first published as a "draft" on Indymedia by DeNardo. Subsequently, several different versions made the rounds of community organizations and postings. The most offensive was circulated by Rachel Lederman, a Guild attorney who has been vociferous in her very personal attacks on Enteen. Her version charged that the Guild was under attack from "provocateurs and agents" in a style reminiscent of "the FBI's Cointelpro operation." It read, in part:
"We are very concerned that the Guild, a progressive legal organization, is under attack from provocateurs. The Guild has been infiltrated by provocateurs and agents in the past, who have spread disinformation about the organization. As we know from the FBI's Cointelpro operation in the 60's and 70's, many left organizations were infiltrated and victimized by conscious disinformation campaigns. We are afraid that that is happening now again to the Guild. We don't know who is really instigating this campaign to undermine the SF Guild chapter, much of which comes from non-members of the Guild... Rest assured, however, that we will fight these attempts to destroy the Guild -- as the Guild always has throughout its history when it has been attacked by the government and the right."
When confronted, the Executive Committee members claimed that Lederman's version of their response was "unauthorized." At the time, Lederman was not a member of the Board. Nobody has yet explained how Lederman came into possession of this "unauthorized" version, or why she chose to circulate it. Instead, Lederman was rewarded with a slot on the Koonan-Farrell slate.
"It is one thing to attack somebody's politics," said one movement activist. "It is another thing entirely to call people government agents and provocateurs without even a shred of evidence. This is like putting a snitch-jacket on someone -- very bad things can happen. Somebody should be held to account for this."
GAG ORDERS AND DEATH THREATS
Despite all the controversy swirling about her, Enteen has yet to issue any public statement. Her supporters claim that the chapter officials have slapped a gag order on her and threatened her with further discipline, including possible termination, if she speaks out. The Executive Board denies the existence of the gag order, but those who know Enteen claim that she would very much like to say her piece, and that her public silence is impossible to explain if there is no gag order.
The controversy that has engulfed the SF Guild is not unique to the organization. Many elder Guild members have compared the political period in which we live to the days of McCarthyism, and several have argued that the political challenge before us today is even more serious. Many progressive forces and organizations have found themselves face-to-face with pressures, within and without, to moderate their politics in the face of the growing repression in the post-9/11 period. Many have responded well and honorably. Some have not.
Issues concerning Israel and Palestine in particular, long the third rail of progressive politics, have become even more treacherous in the post-9/11 era. Recently, for example, a number of workers at Rainbow Grocery, a popular San Francisco natural foods store, initiated a struggle to remove Israeli goods from their shelves. Although Israeli goods presently remain on the shelves, the workers who initiated this struggle have had to face harassment and gag orders.
Even more recently, a local pro-Palestinian organization, If Americans Knew, and its founder, Alison Weir, were subjected to death threats after participating in a debate about Israel and Palestine at UC Berkeley.
Both the activists at Rainbow Grocery and Weir have been outspoken community supporters of Enteen in her struggle with the SF Guild chapter leadership. Both clearly identify with Enteen, in part because they have all become targets as a result of their politics on Israel, Palestine and the Middle East.
At its root, the struggles in the Guild and other progressive political organizations are about how we maintain our political integrity in the face of the reactionary political pressures loose in the world today. It is long past time for serious collective contemplation and public discussion about how we defend our most outspoken activists, like Riva Enteen, and how we defend our vital political organizations like the National Lawyers Guild.
**************************************
More information about the National Lawyers Guild can be found at their website at http://www.nlg.org, and at the San Francisco Bay Area chapter's website at http://www.nlg.org/sf.
Enteen's supporters have a website at http://supportriva.primate.net.
Jack Read is the pseudonym of a San Francisco Bay Area political activist and writer who would prefer to be writing science fiction novels. He is also too smart to give his real name to a bunch of lawyers who undoubtedly would like to nail his ass to the wall. He can be reached at jakread [at] yahoo.com.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
I hope the Guild membership regains its senses, and forces the organization to return to its progressive, activist roots.
If any of what you wrote was true, I could see how you would be alarmed. Unfortunately -- or unfortunately -- you are pathetically misinformed.
Re-broadcasting this hype, much of which has been publicly discredited and even disavowed by Riva herself (like the whole B.S. Zionist allegation) does a huge disservice to the Guild, and by extension, the activists whom Guild members sacrifice every day to support.
In comparing the strife in the SF Guild Chapter -- which, by the way, is far more personal than political -- to the KPFA Board takeover, and branding the new NLG Board members "liberal" , "wealthy," and equivocal about U.S. imperialism abroad, orrepression at home, you must be talking about Hunter Pyle, one of the newly elected Board members, and also one of the principal lawyers who battled agaisnt the KPFA takeover. Is that right? Is your rhetoric still making sense to you?
Or perhaps you're talking about Karen Jo Koonan, who helped us pick the jury in the Judi Bari case, and who lives very modestly (I assure you), and who, as a non-lawyer legal worker, long time Guild member, and former President of the Guild nationally, has her credentials well enough in order to not have to worry about being slagged off by you.
Or perhaps you're talking about Steve Bingham, who represented George Jackson, and had to go underground himself as a target of a gov't frame up attempt.
Or Mike Froelich, a radical law student and co-organizer of Alternative Law Day last year at Hastings (who, for your information, was not part of the Koonan-Farrell slate).
I know you singled our Rachel Lederman. Did you know that Rachel brought and won the case against the SFPD for summarily rounding up protesters in SF after the acquittal of Rodney King , in an oft-cited case which strengthened the First Amendment rights of protesters, called Collins v. Jordan? Rachel is also representing protesters in the port of Oakland melee against the OPD, and works tirelessly on police brutality and accountability issues. And she aint no fucking Zionist neither, so get it straight! Rather, she is constantly promoting symposia and lectures on email by anti U.S. Imperialist and anti- Israeli occupation speakers and guests.
Outgoing President and new Board Member Kevi Brannelly is an indefatigable Guild worker -- emphasis on "worker", in the trenches, for little or no pay -- who is also working assiduously on police accountability issues, in support of Prop. H on the Nov. ballot in SF.
Mark Van Der Hout certainly doesn't need me to sing his praises. Among other fights, he has battled for years against star chambers and the use of secret evidence (which usually means no evidence) in immigration removal proceedings, notably in the LA 8 case.
Did you stop to wonder that perhaps this is what the Koonan-Farrell slate meant when they encouraged the multi-faceted work of the Guild, not that they were pro U.S. imperialism and hegemony. I mean really, get a clue.
I could go on and on.
Listen pal, I love Riva. She helped initiate me into the Guild, first as a law student, then as a lawyer, working with Dennis Cunningham in the Judi Bari case. We had a direct line to each other; I heeded many of Riva's phone calls asking for a quick response to this or that unfolding emergency at a protest, or for prospecive legal observing, and Riva always helped me network and patch into the best people in or outside the Guild, when I tried to refer a client to someone more knowledgeable in a particluar area. Riva's contributions to the Guild, and to activist struggles, cannot be overstated.
I have stayed out of the hurdling -- and will continue to do so -- because there are enough voices in it already, and after battling against COINTELPRO-style operations, I don't want to participate in doing to ourselves what the government could only salivate about doing to us.
I agree with you that there needs to be more color and more diversity in the Guild (based on race, gender, age), and my own voting in the election expressed this view. But whatever else you want to say about the SF Guild Chapter, or the strife with Riva, or the make-up of the curent Board, IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY ATTEMTPED TAKEOVER OR COOPTATION BY LIBERALS. It has to do with ego, polarization, alienation, and paranoia, and sadly, your polemic, free as you are to make it, plays right into it.
Ben Rosenfeld, Attorney
(Are you gonna call me a fucking liberal now?)
We should always be wary of defenses that rest primarily on recitations of people's resumes -- i.e., the premise that what they've done before justifies what they are doing now, or at least holds them blameless for it.
Todd Gitlin was one of the founders of SDS; now he slags off demonstrators for being disruptive. David Horowitz edited Ramparts; now he's a right-wing attack dog. Arianna Huffington was a darling of the country club-set; now she's a anti-globalization liberal on the left-most fringe of the Democratic Party.
I could go on and on.
I take no personal position on the fight at the NLG, nor do I claim any particular knowledge of the facts or of the records of the people involved, but I recognize an apologia when I see one.
Nobody's resume grants them immunity from criticism...
De Nardo has not dropped off the face of the planet.
I was a little sick of being vilified and criticized for making decisions that I thought were in the best interest of the organization. If I truthfully was elected and "out to get" Riva, I would ran for the Board again.
But, our time here is too short to spend bickering amongst ourselves. There is a bigger enemy to fight and I choose to expend my energy fighting for labor and against BushCo. in the upcoming election cycle. Hence, I dropped out of sight? Well.... One can only hope that happens to the author of these emails.
And yes, I am a bitchy fag.
comparing these people to Todd Gitlin, David Horowitz, Arianna Huffington, et al, strikes me as inappropriate, unless someone has some information that contradicts what Rosenfeld posted
"A liberal by any other name..." writes a nifty post-modern criticism of my recitation of the contributions of some of the newly elected Guild Board members, calling my posting an "apologia", while simultaneously disclaiming any personal knowledge. Suggested alternative: get some personal knowledge!
And echo what Karen Jo said to, in her inimitably reasonable and conciliatory way: It's about the work; we're all doing it. Dare to move beyond abstraction.
I'm glad we have a community of activists who will rally to the defense of the Guild and its radical politics if it ever gets coopted, or starts sliding toward the center. But it's not happening, so chill.
Not that we don't have other issues to work on, like working through all the recent strife, and also seeking more diverse membership and representation...
Ben
KAREN JO KOONAN
Koonan asserts that the current chapter leadership "should be judged by the work that it does and the positions that it takes, not on the basis of anonymous rumors and innuendoes..." But the numerous Guild members, Guild staff and community organizations quoted in my article are hardly anonymous.
The February statement issued by thirteen Guild members, quoted in my article, is not anonymous. The statement from the Midnight Special Law Collective, quoted in my article, is not anonymous. The community statement issued in August, quoted in my article, is not anonymous. The programs of the Activist slate and the Koonan-Farrell slate, quoted in my article, are not anonymous. The comments of Guild members Matthew Rinaldi, Alyse Ceirante, Eric Mar, Eileen Hansen, Erica Etelson, and Omar Figueroa, and the statement of former staff member Aisha Mohammed, all quoted in my article, are not anonymous. Enteen's union representative is not anonymous when she calls the campaign against Enteen a "witch hunt." The nearly 400 community organizations and individuals who have signed on as Enteen's supporters are not anonymous. Is all this irrelevant just because my name is not really Jack Read?
If one takes a close look at Koonan's reply, one sees a confirmation of the criticism, offered by the Activist slate, that she and her allies do not see the need to make opposition to war and repression a priority in the post-9/11 period. "The Guild is a broad progressive organization," she writes "in which members feel free to raise issues for discussion to better inform ourselves and solidify our understanding of why we do what we do. Members are encouraged to participate in whatever work is appropriate to their commitment, skills and personal resources." This laundry-list, lowest-common-denominator style of politics is much different than the Activist slate's call to make the fight against "war and repression... the first priority of our chapter."
By most accounts, Enteen got into hot water precisely because she tried to focus the chapter, in the post-9/11 period, on fighting war and repression. Much of the Guild membership responded very positively to her initiatives.
But not the chapter leadership. Instead of supporting Enteen's work, they turned on her and made her the scapegoat for their own backward politics and failed vision. This effort was led by people like Marilyn Waller (Executive Board member and head of the Administrative Finance Committee), who complained about Enteen putting a picture of an Israeli tank in the chapter's newsletter; by people like Matt Ross Executive Board and AFC member, head of both the Personnel and Election Committees) who publicly equivocated about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and by people like Andy Krakoff (Executive Board, AFC and Personnel Committee member), who grilled staff member Aisha Mohammed in an effort to find "some kind of technicality to prove her [Enteen] guilty of insubordination" for putting together a grant for post-9/11 work. These are the people with whom Koonan has thrown in her lot.
Koonan's response to my article doesn't even mention Enteen's name. Neither did any of the campaign materials that she penned. This is a telling omission. It is as if she wants to cleanse the chapter of any memory of this 13-year employee. This appears to be the real meaning of Koonan's oft-stated desire to "heal the rifts" within the chapter.
A MOMENT FOR SCOTT DE NARDO
De Nardo is most offended by my comment that he "seems to have dropped out of sight." He protests that this is not so.
But something seems to have gone south. De Nardo denies "truthfully" that he was "out to get Riva." Yet many sources confirm that De Nardo has been very outspoken about his desire to see Enteen gone. One source tells us that he is seen as such a loose cannon that he was not offered a slot on the Koonan-Farrell slate.
Here is just one comment that De Nardo posted on the chapter's list serve, this on August 26: "This Riva Enteen crap is exactly what is driving the young lawyers from our organization. We don't have the time or energy to spend fighting one woman's complete and utter disregard for the entire membership."
BEN ROSENFELD
Most of Rosenfeld's reply is a hymn to the accomplishments of several of the members of the new Executive Board, and a passionate declaration that they are not liberals.
Significantly, however, Rosenfeld fails to come to the defense of the real powers-that-be in the chapter -- like Marilyn Waller, Matt Ross or Andy Krakoff. These are the people calling the shots in the chapter now. And they, and their politics, will be even more firmly in charge if Enteen is forced out.
Sure, the Guild members Rosenfeld names have all done some good work. But the "disinterested observer," who posted a comment on November 1, delivered a worthy rebuttal to Rosenfeld's line of argument: "We should always be wary of defenses that rest primarily on recitations of people's resumes -- i.e., the premise that what they've done before justifies what they are doing now, or at least holds them blameless for it."
The good work of Rosenfeld's friends didn't prevent them from doing dirt to Enteen, or from participating in union-busting, red-baiting, gerrymandered elections, and calling people government agents without a lick of proof. Hunter Pyle, Rachel Lederman, Kevi Brannelly and Marc Van Der Hout, like Koonan, felt perfectly comfortable throwing their lot in with the old-guard AFC crowd.
Mike Froehlich, as Rosenfeld notes, ran as an independent. This didn't prevent him, however, from voting with the Koonan-Farrell crowd to bring in Susan Mooney, the new non-union "Interim Executive Director," to shove Enteen aside and take over many of her job duties. "Mooney is to the Guild as Lynne Chadwick was to KPFA," says one source.
Steve Bingham, as Rosenfeld fails to note, also ran as an independent. Bingham is a long-standing friend of Enteen's. He was absent for the vote on the "Interim Executive Director."
To his credit, Rosenfeld seems genuinely conflicted. "Listen pal," he writes, "I love Riva... Riva's contributions to the Guild, and to activist struggles, cannot be overstated." But the company Rosenfeld keeps seems to have confused him about the real nature of the struggle in the chapter. He tries to provide some explanation for the chapter's problems -- blaming them on "ego, polarization, alienation, and paranoia." But he does not attempt to ascribe these particular qualities to particular people, other than me, which leaves the reader to wonder just exactly what he thinks is going on, or how he thinks the problems in the chapter can be resolved.
Rosenfeld eventually gets more to the heart of the matter when he states: "I agree with you that there needs to be more color and diversity in the Guild(based on race, gender, age), and my own voting in the election expressed this view." Sadly, this sentiment does not seem to have been shared by the people who put together the Koonan-Farrell slate -- a slate of 18 white people and one person of color. Weren't there any more candidates of color available? The Activist slate had six candidates of color -- Nancy Hormachea, Linda Sherif, Julie Posadas Guzman, Vylma Ortiz, Whitney Leigh and Dan Spalding -- mostly women and mostly young. Why could the Activist slate find such people, but not the current leaders of the chapter?
Rosenfeld worries that I am going to call him a "fucking liberal." I won't. But I am not sure we share a common definition of the term "liberal." I think that Dom Helder Camara got it right when he said, "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
There just isn't much of anything in Rosenfeld's recitation of his friends' resumes that shows that they are asking why the poor have no food. Nor does the Guild get any closer to answering this question with the Koonan-Farrell laundry-list style of politics, of encouraging members "to participate in whatever work is appropriate to their commitment."
The Activist slate gets much closer to answering this question by advocating that the Guild must prioritize work against war and repression in this dire post-9/11 period of history. This is clearly the most important battleground today for exposing and confronting the systemic forces inherent in capitalist society, the forces that create a world full of poor, hungry and powerless people.
An open letter from the Activist slate early in the campaign stated that "the current situation is reminiscent of the period of the early sixties when much of the NLG leadership failed to recognize the significance of the civil rights and Black liberation movement. It took a rebellion from below to overturn the bureaucratic and conservative tendencies that prevented the Guild from living up to its historic responsibilities."
Rosenfeld sums up his critique of my article by claiming that I am "pathetically misinformed." I beg to differ. Rosenfeld betrays his own pathos and confusion by stating that "Riva herself" has "disavowed" much of "what you wrote." Rosenfeld offers no reference for this assertion. Most of us suspect that if Enteen was ungagged and could speak for herself, she would have even more startling things to say about the powers-that-be in the San Francisco Guild chapter.
any of the above mentioned will prove the point!
Now the membership has spoken and elected a new board. (BTW, the Bylaws would not allow a secondary election polling place in SF) (Also, Eileen Hansen was on the "activist slate" on the first pass, but dropped off of it. So don't assume her position.)
How do I know these things? Because I have been a full time employee in the SF Guild office longer than Riva. Until mid September '03, I ran the administrative aspects of the bar association; Riva was a part time person when I started there over 11 years ago.
I have watched Riva alienate many members, both locally and nationally. I know that there are people from the SF chapter and Guild members outside the chapter that have written letters to complain about Riva (several people have told me that they wrote letters; I assume there are also letters written by others who didn't inform me). I know Riva has done wrong to the national NLG Executive Director. I watched Riva fight tooth and nail against the "one person, one vote" proposals for democratic voting by the national Guild -- why? Maybe because she would lose alot of influence over Guild national elections? The old way of voting by those in attendance at the convention meant that staff had alot of influence over the large amount of votes the SF chapter had.
Riva also fought with the Chapter Executive DIrector (a well-known local pro-choice activist) when Riva was a part time employee. I remember Riva literally screaming at our ED. I watched horrified at this extremely unprofessional behavior. That wasn't the last time.
I have watched Riva undermine decisions made by the Executive Board. I watched her refuse to do what was asked of her by the EB. I could give pages of examples of the problems there have been.
Recently Riva came close to putting the chapter in jeopardy when writing a grant and making up a "paper board" to make the grant app look more attractive. Can we say "fraud"?
No wonder many EB members and other Guild members think it is time for Riva to move on. There is so much more than what I can write here.
As to accusations of Union busting - that is total BS. Our union contract ran out years ago. The Guild management has cooperated with the staff in rolling it over from year to year. The SF chapter has been very supportive of the union (one of the few staffed chapters that has consistently sent dues checks to the union). The comments by the Union president are what they are because that is her job.
I left the SF chapter for two reasons. I wanted to move to a warmer climate and I just got fed up with the Cult of Riva that are blind to her faults and put her above the good of the chapter. And many people have added their names to "support" Riva without knowing what the hell is going on. (In typical knee-jerk fashion)
While Riva is an activist and a good public speaker, she is not someone who brings the chapter together. The Guild needs staff that organizes its members to get involved in various projects. (Not just one or two pet projects.) It needs staff that will support the members, not talk badly about them, when there is disagreement. It needs a principled staff that will work with the Executive Board to further the aims of this multi-issue organization.
and no, I am not a "loose cannon"; as I stated in my last message, I am just "a bitchy fag."
To whoever posted above using my name ("by Rosenfeld -I am 'pathetically misinforme.") Unless you're an agent provocateur, please get your own name for your posts. Not that you had anything choherent to say anyway.
Second,
To Jack Read: You don't exist. You've told us this is not your name, even though in your latest polemic, you put great stress on how un-anonymous your various sources are. How about you? What's your connection? What are your biases? How do we know you're not some provocateur simply building a collage out of the pieces of things you've read? Incidentallyl, how do you feel about the frequent reliance by mainstream "news" outlets on "anonymous sources"? Because I think it's a dangerous practice, which undermines truth and accountability. If you agree, why are you an exception? If you disagree, what are your reasons?
These are not idle questions. Your polemics are full of misinformation which people keep debunking (most recently, Rob Petipas). First, you tried to scare everyone by telling them the NLG was sliding toward the center and had been taken over by liberals. Now, forced to abandon that argument, you've refocused on three people out of a Board of 19, whom you inexplicably conclude are the "real powers-that-be in the chapter." Even if you were right about these few people's politics (and my information is to the contrary), do you think they're some kind of Svengalis or cabal who wield disproportionate influence over a 19 member board?
Rob refuted your rhetoric about union busting, gerrymandering of elections, and took studied exception to your paean to Riva (which, for reasons already stated, I will continue to stay out of).
How many times does an anonymous entity like you have to be wrong before s/he packs up his/her sophistic suitcase and moves on to ghost about somehwere else?
I've got a proposal designed specifically for you:
If you really are a local activist, next time you are looking for legal support for yourself or comrades in an action, I suggest, for the sake of honesty and consistency, you decline the help of anyone who does not satisfy your litmus -- i.e. anyone who is on the NLG Board, is middle class or richer, is white, or has any beef with Riva Enteen. I would hate to see your case botched by such an ulterior and incompentent group of dilettantes who waste theirs and everyone's time on non-war and imperialism issues like immigration, the death penalty, worker rights and safety, tenants' rights, and so forth -- a veritable "laundry-list, lowest-common-denominator style of politics", as you so eloquently put it.
In the meantime, I will remain agnostic of "Jack Read" -- at least until I see proof of your arguments, let alone your existence.
Ben Rosenfeld