Breaking: Peter Borelli will head restructured Protect the Adirondacks
Long-time environmentalist and writer Peter Borrelli, who spends much of each year in Northville, will take the helm at Protect the Adirondacks.
Borrelli spoke with NCPR this afternoon, describing a significantly different vision for the the group formed last year by the merger of the Residents Committee and the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks.
He says Protect won’t hire an executive director any time soon, but will instead function more as a board-and-volunteer driven group.
He described that change as the product of a philosophical approach, but also reflection of a much tighter economy, which has squeezed non-profits and green groups across the Adirondacks.
Borrelli, a former journalist with Time magazine who also worked for the Sierra Club, says consultants and contract employees will be brought on as needed.
Asked about priorities for the new group, Borrelli said Protect would try to focus on some key issues and not be distracted by various issues that pop up.
“There is talk of a constitutional convention in the near future,” he said. “If that were to occur and if there were challenges to Article 14 [which established the Park’s forever wild protections] I would expect this organization to play a major role, drawing on some of the best legal minds in the country.”
This news follows the departure earlier this month of Dave Gibson and Dan Plumley, long-time fixtures in those organizations.
Speaking on Monday, Gibson said he would remain active in the Park and may form a new organization, drawing on some of the donors and supporters that he cultivated over the years.
What’s clear from the continued evolution of Protect — and from Gibson’s talk of a new project — is that the Adirondack environmental movement remains in flux, rocked by budget shortfalls, personality conflicts, and the changing climate in Albany.
.jpg)
What key issues? This is the main problem with these environmental groups – its all a cloud of inference – nothing solid to stand on that differentiates PROTECT! from the Adirondack Council / APA / DEC / and others that have come and gone (like the RCPA).
Most lay people need to know where to put their hard earned donations in a very clear and concise manner – and most are not interested in a brick and mortar operation (like the Center for the Forest Preserve on St. David’s lane in Niskayuna) which extracts too much of the scarce donations anyways.
Our tax dollars support the APA and the DEC by law and isn’t it their mandate to protect the Adirondacks? If not, then for once and for all tell the public why they should donate additional monies to Protect! and make it undeniably clear why and also explain very clearly why the APA is needed and why the DEC is needed if Protect! is doing all the conservation litigation / investigation, etc.
In this economic climate differentiation is the most important concept that these groups need to focus on.
One clear difference between the not-for-profit groups is their fiscal strength and their clarity of mission. Look which groups are still functioning effectively for differentiation. And, talk to elected officials and town leaders about which not-for-profit organizations/leaders they think are most effective/helpful. Yes, the state agencies have mandates, but they are also influenced by public opinion and the political climate. And, they are working with laws which are open to interpretation. Advocacy groups (whether focused on the environment, health, education, etc) serve an important function of shining a light on the agencies/government work and the laws involved. The groups serve as a vehicle for citizens to participate in the democratic process.
Fiscal Strength and clarity of mission? Fiscally, Protect! is in shambles – which is why they are painting the picture of “volunteer” versus “paid professional” staff. Gibson, Plumey, and previously and often overlooked Rimany are the wealth-spring of Adirondack stewardship knowledge – so if Protect! is so fiscally solid – why jettison the very core of expertise? And do not pretend that they “didn’t agree with the new direction of Protect!” – they left because Protect! hasn’t raised the money required to keep the brightest, most effective experts on Adirondack ecology and conservation.
Please don’t ask the public to do research on which elected officials “think” are the good environmental groups – that is another pass the buck – in the clouds – get the information yourself ruse. No one in today’s economy is interested in “…We are going to focus on key issues” – garbage – put in writing what the key issues are, tell the public how is is going to be done – don’t ask the public to do their own homework – those days are gone – better get on the stick and stop hiding behind innuendo and prose – make it clear!
The public needs a clear answer to the following question: What are the fundamental differences between the NYS DEC, the APA, the Adirondack Council, Protect! and all the other groups?
Answer the question in conservation goals, tactics and results – please do not condesend (sp) to the public about “vehicles for participation” and how “…laws are open to interpretation” – the public hates that – tell the public concretely why they should fund Protect! when their tax dollars are already supporting the DEC, APA, etc
Many fiscally sound not for profits are sound because they rely on a variety of funding sources not just individual donors. Not for profits must go out and garner money from private foundations, government grants, private business, fee for service contracts and of course individual donations to name only a few. But employing full time people is very difficult when you include benefits.
Pure advocacy groups that do not provide a direct service beyond advocating often do better on a volunteer basis so this may be a more sound direction for this particular group although I do not know as I have no real knowledge about this group.
Again – another lecture! Please stop the condescending tone! The public is already aware of how not for profits function – The premise of protecting the Adirondacks is not enough to compel anyone (private donor or grant authority, etc.) to donate anything – tell the public what Protect! is going to do (function, tactics, strategy – conservation ease please) that is different than the rest.
TELL THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHAT IS THE DIFFERENTIATING FUNCTION OF PROTECT!
If you cannot do that then please leave this thread.
I don’t think that was the point of the thread so I won’t be leaving it if you are speaking to me?
I don’t know looks like a Save the River style group that advocates for protecting the Adirondacks? I think protecting the Adirondacks from a private non-government perspective IS enough for people to support an advocacy group that would really do that. But maybe not; which is okay then the group can just operate as a coordinated effort among volunteers, which is often the most effective anyway.
Sorry if I sound condescending it is not my intent.
mervel – I am concerned about the duplication of advocacy, not the premise.
Okay that makes sense. How many advocacy groups does the Adirondack Park need?
Exactly!
I just wish they’d get rid of the stupid exclamation point in their name.
In fact let’s just get rid of exclamation points altogether; they have become a meaningless punctuation!!!!!!!!!
How the groups are SUPPOSED to be different than DEC & APA, is that they are watchdogging the state-mandated groups, specifically for enforcement and following their own laws. The problem becomes and what David is aptly addressing, how do these groups move from a reactionary/response-driven organization to one with actual vision and accompanying programs? I think RCPA did that, and I think they did lay out concrete, specific objectives, plans and goals. They also served a role as left of left by enabling the more centrist Council to gain traction. This worked with acid rain legislation, jet ski bill, ATV ban, DEC trail-widening moratorium etc.
knuckleheadedliberal – you are right on target – they should never have changed the organizations name anyways – Paul Schaefer is probably rolling over in his grave…
Chanty – I get what you are saying about the “watchdog” function – but isn’t that role already taken by the Adirondack Council? See where I am going here? Chanty – you hit the ball out of the”park” (no pun) with “…how do these groups move from a reactionary/response-driven organization to one with actual vision and accompanying programs?”
That is another fundamental crux with these vanilla watchdog groups – if they actual did identify a solid and clear role in park protection, they why wouldn’t that new solid /clear role be integrated with the APA? What are we paying the APA to do for park protection if these vanilla advocacy groups keep springing up or morphing themselves (the ! thingy)?
I do not have an issue with park protection. I have an issue with redundancy – and need to know: What differentiates the goals of APA, Adirondack Council, Protect! and what are the clear methods, strategies, etc that makes them all necessary but separate?