CLUB MEMBERS FOR AN HONEST ELECTION v.
SIERRA CLUB,
Filed 3/24/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| CLUB MEMBERS FOR AN HONEST ELECTION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SIERRA CLUB, a California non-profit public benefit corporation, et al., Defendants and Appellants. | A110069 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 429277) |
This litigation concerning the conduct of an election to the board of directors of the Sierra Club, a public benefit corporation, was brought by a candidate for membership on the board of directors and an unincorporated association, Club Members for an Honest Election (hereafter CMHE), against the corporation itself and six members of the board of directors (hereafter collectively Sierra Club). CMHE now appeals an order granting in part a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. Sierra Club appeals from the partial denial of the motion to strike. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Sierra Club is the nation's largest environmental organization with approximately 750,000 members and a budget of $95 million. Since its foundation in 1892, the organization has combined educational and recreational activities with political activism in support of conservation.[1] In recent decades it has played an important political role in promoting policies and programs for the protection of clean air, water, wilderness and parks. The Club is governed by a 15-member board of directors. Only the president of the board is paid for services as a director. All directors serve for three-year terms on a rotating basis so that the Club holds elections for five positions on the board every year. A nominating committee appointed by the board of directors chooses a slate of candidates. Other members may stand for election by submitting a petition with the requisite number of signatures.
Member participation in yearly elections is generally low. In the five-year period of 1999 through 2003, the percentage of voting members has ranged from 8.7 percent to 10.1 percent of the total membership. Because of this low participation, a small element of the membership has the potential power of exerting disproportionate influence by actively voting for particular candidates. In 2003, the board of directors was divided between a majority supporting the leadership of the executive director, Carl Pope, and a minority seeking a new direction for club activities. The plaintiffs describe the minority as consisting of political caucuses favoring population stabilization and a more rigorous return to the founding principles of the organization. But other members describe the minority faction as representing an anti-immigration and animal rights agenda that is not shared by the mass of the membership. In January 2004, 13 former presidents of the Sierra Club signed a letter to the Sierra Club president warning of â€
