|
Tuesday, 20 March 2007 15:56 |
 | | Roland Martin |
CHICAGO ó Dissident NAACP board members are so upset with the resignation of President Bruce Gordon that more than two dozen of them are caucusing in an effort to oust longtime board chairman Julian Bond, several sources have told me.
But the organization has an even bigger problem: corporate supporters backing away from financial commitments. I learned late Monday night that several Fortune 100 companies that were close to giving multi-million dollar gifts have now backed away as a result of Gordonís departure after 19 months at the helm of the 98-year-old civil rights organization. Other corporate partners have also pulled multi-million dollar commitments off the table, according to a board member, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the deliberations.
While
the news of Gordonís resignation, which was submitted two weeks ago,
wasnít a surprise to Bond and a few other board members, it was
shocking to others, who learned of the decision by way of media
reports. To add insult to injury, sources say NAACP workers were
alerted to the change by Google alerts to their Blackberries and
e-mails.
While some board members said good riddance to Gordon, others werenít as dismissive.
ìWe have got to stop this,î said one board member. ìThis is an outrage. We are not going to be treated like this.î
Board sources
said a flurry of phone calls and e-mails transpired between board
members from across the country on Monday, reaching such a boiling
point that they have compiled a list of at least five individuals to
take over should Bond be voted out.
A board source
said that according to the organizationís bylaws, 15 board members
could call a special meeting and give Bond a 10-day written notice of
their intention to have him replaced. Such a move would be just as
shocking as Gordonís departure because Bond, an icon in the civil
rights arena who has served as chairman since 1998, was re-elected to a
new three-year term last month.
Several sources
have said Bondís micromanaging, and the executive committee,
contributed to Gordonís frustration and decision to leave.
While Gordon
initially spoke broadly of the board having too much influence in
day-to-day affairs, he later told me that it was a much smaller number
of board members that wanted to dictate how the organization should be
run.
ìThere was a good number of (board members) that I considered to be enlightened and progressive,î he said Monday afternoon.
In fact, the
week Gordon was tapped to lead the NAACP in 2005, a source close to
former president Kweisi Mfume, who also clashed with Bond, said, ìHe
(Gordon) wonít have any control. Julian wonít let him have the power.î
An e-mail to Bond Monday seeking comment wasnít answered.
In his first
correspondence to the NAACP board late Sunday night, Bond sent an
e-mail saying: ìI believed I had sent the memo in the attachment to you
earlier today, but some have said they did not receive it ... In these
moments of transition, we must all pull together for the larger good of
the organization we serve. I know I can count on you.î
In his memo,
titled ìCEOís Resignation,î Bond detailed a troubled relationship with
Gordon almost from the moment he accepted the position.
ìMr. Gordon
first tendered his resignation to me six weeks after he took the job of
NAACP CEO, saying he thought he and the NAACP were not a good fit,î
Bond wrote. ìI convinced him to stay aboard. Then on Saturday, Feb. 17,
he tendered his resignation at the conclusion of the regularly
scheduled executive committee meeting. Members of the committee asked
him to reconsider, to no avail. He asked for a meeting with a small
group of EC members in Baltimore on Friday, Feb. 23. Board members Vice
Chair Roslyn Brock, Leon Russell, William Lucy and I met with him,
again asking for reconsideration. When it became clear his mind was
made up, we began a discussion of when we could announce that he was
leaving and a change in NAACP leadership would occur. He told me he
would get back to me last week, but did not.
ìIn a voicemail
exchange with me while we were in Los Angeles for the Image Awards, he
said that he would rather leave ësooner than later.íî
In a story
Monday in The New York Times, Bond said Gordon and the NAACPís
64-member board of directors disagreed about the direction of the
organization. Bond said their goal was to maintain a social justice
focus, while Gordon wanted to delve into the social services arena.
During an interview Monday morning on my radio show on WVON-AM in Chicago, Gordon said the NAACP could do both.
Now the greater
question is if the NAACP will be able to maintain the momentum ushered
in by Gordon by attracting a new CEO willing to step into a job filled
with tremendous uncertainty, especially if a board revolt results in a
new chairman assuming control.
Even Bond conceded that the NAACP could be severely impacted financially by Gordonís resignation.
ìI do not need
to tell you that this announcement comes at a difficult time for the
NAACP,î he wrote to board members. ìOur pending move to Washington and
our ambitious Centennial fund-raising campaign were heavily dependent
on Mr. Gordonís skills and contacts. His absence will mean each of us
must redouble our fund-raising efforts.î
ï
Roland S. Martin, editor of The Chicago Defender newspaper, is author of ìSpeak, Brother! A Black Manís View of America.î
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
