More light shining on Crested Butte Land Trust board brouhaha

Finances? Personalities? Philosophy? Behavior? All of the above?

Differing philosophies on how to go about preserving land in the county, plus financial disagreements and questions about board behavior, were apparently the fuel that stoked the fire within the board of the Crested Butte Land Trust (CBLT), leading to three board members being ousted from the organization last week.

The three board members, Linda Powers, Jim Starr and Beverly Griffith, were dismissed by their fellow board members on Friday, August 28.
Powers and Griffith contend that personality conflicts ultimately resulted in the action, but it was the overall board direction, particularly the reliance on conservation developments and strong disagreement over how money in the organization was handled that fueled that fire. Remaining board members maintain that the three were dismissed because of inappropriate board behavior.
“The thing that concerns me about the Land Trust is finances,” said Powers. “It’s a community organization and its finances should not be a secret. Non-profits need to be accountable, especially non-profits like the Crested Butte Land Trust that receive so much funding from a public entity like the town of Crested Butte. The donors, the members and the town all need to know what’s going on with their funds.”
The town of Crested Butte has an open space fund that is filled through the Real Estate Transfer Tax. While not obligated to spend the money with the Crested Butte Land Trust, the town has contributed millions of dollars from the fund for CBLT deals since the Land Trust was organized in 1991.
Powers and Griffith cite a transaction currently taking place as an example of the board’s “financial mismanagement.” The Land Trust purchased approximately 320 acres near the top of Kebler Pass in 2001. In a three-way transaction with the Forest Service and a private entity, the CBLT is expected to soon receive approximately $700,000. Powers and Griffith say once that money is transferred to the CBLT, it should be used pay down the more than $1.1 million in total debt currently held by the Land Trust. Instead, they say, the money is being used for operational costs like salaries.
Land Trust member Joe Currier is on the board’s finance committee. “We plan to do the most fiscally conservative thing anyone could do with that money,” he countered. “Like every non-profit in the country, we anticipate that in these uncertain economic times donations to the Land Trust could fall significantly. We want to have some cash on hand and be prepared for future preservation opportunities. Given the financial situation in the country, we can’t count on our line-of-credit being there. We want to keep our powder dry and not be caught short. This is probably the most conservative approach we could take.”
Currier also said that with the help of board member Tim Mueller, the CBLT was able to restructure the current debt load to bring down payments and ease the Land Trust’s financial stress.
Griffith also said the board took some money out of the organization’s stewardship endowment to balance the operating budget this year. “The Land Trust dipped into its stewardship endowment for operations to the tune of $68,000,” said Griffith. “That is coming out of the stewardship endowment fund to cover losses in operations. Our staff has doubled in recent months and during these hard economic times, it makes sense to trim staff instead of add to it.”
Currier said the Land Trust is simply being prudent. “We have cut our budget,” he said. “Unlike some other organizations, however, we continue to have expensive land stewardship responsibilities since we have committed to take care of land we preserved forever. Like other organizations, we anticipate that we will have to take money out of capital reserve and endowments.”
Land Trust president Jeff Hermanson is baffled by the accusations of doubling staff or payroll. “The only new position we’ve hired since May of 2008, which is when we froze staff salaries, is a development director,” he said. “That position is part time and her role is to bring in more money to the Land Trust, so we see that as an investment. As for dipping into the stewardship endowment, we haven’t taken any money out of the fund at this point. We have authorized the Land Trust to possibly use some money from that fund but only for stewardship purposes and only as a last option.”
According to Powers and Griffith, the paid Land Trust staff was consumed this past summer with two fundraising events, a wine and food tasting festival and a fly fishing tournament. Those two events raised a total of about $16,000 for the organization. “They may be good events and the wine and food festival will hopefully grow, but it would be more productive for the development director to be in contact with potential large donors,” said Powers. “That was a cause of some of the friction.”
Hermanson doesn’t necessarily disagree with that assessment. “The events are meant to be an investment,” he said. “They aren’t strictly about raising money. They can help foster new relationships and new donors. Maybe having so much staff focus on the events wasn’t the best move. But we as a board collectively made that decision and took the risk to do the wine and food festival. Maybe next year we’ll change that but we all made that decision. Hindsight is always 20-20.”
The issue of utilizing conservation developments also caused friction within the board. Powers says it sometimes seems the board basically wants to make every Land Trust transaction a conservation development where a portion of the land obtained by the CBLT is sold off to help pay for the purchase.
“Conservation developments can be a good tool,” she said. “But it shouldn’t be the only tool. The current board seems to want to use it for everything. The 70 acres at the winter trailhead up the Slate River is another example. The Kikel property up there I thought was meant to be preserved but the board wants to sell off some of the property and that would result in seeing some major impacts of development on a piece of property owned by the Land Trust. That didn’t make sense to some of us.”
Hermanson said that none of the organization’s 2009 projects use conservation developments, although they are finalizing a proposal from several years ago to separate the old homestead on the Niccoli property near Crested Butte South and put it on the market.
“Right now we are working with a willing landowner to provide a new loop on the Lower Loop trail system. We have filed a Statement of Opposition to the application for water rights by U.S. Energy in an effort to protect the quality and quantity of water in the pristine Slate River wetlands preserve. We are working with the Rozman’s on protecting another 200 acres of their working cattle ranch at the base of Whetstone Mountain. And just north of the Gunsight Bridge we are removing the coal piles to enable wetlands to return to proper function. None of these projects utilize conservation development. But we still want that tool in our quiver.”
Powers doesn’t see it that way. “Right now the Land Trust has become a lazy Land Trust in my book,” said Powers. “The present board wants to sell property instead of gain property. They want to sell off the “Colonel’s Property” at the curve on Highway 135 by Round Mountain as you head into the valley toward Crested Butte. We’re kind of going backwards to get out of debt. Selling property to get out of debt is not a good plan. There is more talk in the Land Trust right now about what to sell instead of what to buy.”
Land Trust board member Keith Bauer doesn’t view the board as lazy but he admits to the tension among board members. “Of course there were philosophical differences over the best way to run the organization. We encourage and respect different opinions,” he said. “However we would never release board members simply because of that or because of personality differences. I felt there was a Founder’s Syndrome with some of the past members and that brought with it some inappropriate action by those individuals based on a false sense of ownership.”
Founder’s Syndrome may be defined as occurring when an organization is damaged by original board members or staffs that take ownership of the organization and make decisions detrimental to the organization as the scope of activities widen and the number of stakeholders increases.
“There were instances where individual board members pleaded their own agenda outside of board meetings,” Bauer continued. “It seemed almost impossible for the Land Trust to speak with one voice. It’s important to recognize that this didn’t happen overnight. These issues grew exponentially over time.”
Hermanson agreed. “Ultimately it was about board member behavior,” he said. “There are pretty clear guidelines and practices for appropriate board behavior. Some of those lines were crossed. It was a dramatic situation and it ended with dramatic steps being taken. It’s really sad because these people all made such incredible contributions to the organization. But it’s like they couldn’t understand how to be team players as the organization evolved. This wasn’t easy for anyone and we know the organization will get some fallout.”
At least one major longtime donor is part of the fallout as a result of the board dismissals (see letter page 4). John and Margie Haley made it public that “until we see change we will withhold our financial support.”
Griffith and Powers view the situation as less about being team players and more about trying to take a different tack on strategy and public accountability.
“We are very concerned now about the land left in the care of these folks,” said Griffith. “And about the future of land conservation in our valley.”
“Land conservation in the valley continues to be critical to our valley,” added Powers. “I want the Land Trust to be successful but it has to answer to the community. I feel the three of us were removed because we asked the hard questions about these things. These are some of the reasons we were removed, in my opinion.”
Currier said no one was removed because of politics, opinions or questions. “All the previous environmental-centric boards I’ve been on have experienced this situation,” he explained. “It’s typical Founder’s Syndrome. There’s the inability to change with the times as the organization becomes more complex. The mission doesn’t change but the way the mission is executed can change.
“You can draw an analogy with climatic change,” Currier continued. “It’s going on and the human race has more than likely turbo-charged it. You have to adapt to the change. Some people do it willingly and others struggle. This was a sad but necessary move. They have all contributed greatly to the Land Trust. But at the end of the day, the organization and its mission statement trumps any one individual.”
So far, the Land Trust has not filled the seats of Powers, Griffith or Starr on the board.