The report of the national board meeting in the recent Pacific Citizen issue focuses on two matters: the proposed budget for the next biennium and the location of the national director. Both issues were discussed at length but left unresolved according to the P.C. report, so let me comment on one and maybe both.
During my seven years as national director, we were in a state of financial crisis almost the entire time because of the collapse of the investment market and the subsequent loss of our reserves, which we depend on. That, coupled with the accelerated decline of our membership because of Nisei attrition, brought us to the crisis even before we had gotten through the year 2000.
Had our financial situation been different, I would have traveled much, much more than I ever did during my seven years at the helm of the organization. As I see it, one of the important functions of the director is to be an ambassador for the JACL. It's the director who's the public face of the organization, the one who needs to become a familiar face to funders and to directors of other major organizations and to national leaders.
I live in the San Francisco area, so my being at the headquarters was easy enough. But if we had had a normal budget and a HQ support staff, I would easily have been on the road perhaps two or three days a week, and no doubt a good deal of the time in Washington, D.C.
I should say here that I've long been in favor of having the national director in D.C. for the simple reason that this is where the action is, this is where you stay in the loop with important issues and maintain a more effective organization. This is why most of the major civil rights organizations as well as many of the major APA organizations are headquartered there.
For me, it was a distinct disadvantage not being able to be in D.C. while I was director, especially after 9/11 when it was important to talk with the Administration and to members of Congress. But just in general, so much goes on in D.C. and in the past, we've not really been a part of any of it.
This is not to minimize the value of having a Washington, D.C. representative in our office. Debee Yamamoto, JACL's current representative, is a tremendous addition and brings the kind of background experience and savvy needed for that position. As the policy director (the other title of the position), Debee brings a lot of talent and skill in focusing on legislation and policy. But when it comes to decision-makers, the director's presence is important, especially when deals are cut. And since so many major funders frequent D.C. nowadays to network with APA organizations there, this is an important consideration if you want to get corporate funding.
I brought corporate funding to the JACL for our educational programs as a way to expand our financial base and ensure the development of programs. But we don't get anywhere near the lion's share of funding among civil rights groups, and one reason is that we haven't been where we can compete for the dollars.
If the JACL insists that the director physically be stationed in San Francisco at HQ, I'm curious to know why. Because the bylaws say so? The bylaws can always be amended to fit the more pragmatic goal of having the director where it does the JACL the most good. Because the HQ staff needs supervising? We have two very capable and experienced staff in the business manager and membership support person. Plus, we now have an administrative assistant with whom the director can stay in contact daily, as well as finally a membership coordinator who has viable and innovative ideas for bolstering membership.
If the director's to be at HQ, then I strongly suggest that a substantial travel budget be established to provide for his/her ability to be in D.C. often and to travel to the East Coast to visit with funders regularly. It's all about building relationships, whether it's influencing policy or seeking funding or simply having the JACL's presence where it matters most.
The more important issue for the board is the budget, which wasn't resolved at the board meeting. It's a statutory requirement that the budget be in the hands of chapters 60 days before the convention, which was May 17 this year. When it comes to the budget vs. the location of the director, one is a survival issue and the other is, well, I'm not quite sure what, but certainly not worth occupying so much board time when the board is having difficulty just producing a budget.
The Pacific Citizen Web site gives you a sampling of the stories currently in the print edition of the P.C. Click here to subscribe and get two months free!
Print This Article-
Email This Article