PREVIOUSLY:

###

The Northcoast Environmental Center (NEC) is in turmoil. Its staff have gone on strike, accusing the board of misrepresentation, disrespect, and silencing of their political activism. Their demands call for sweeping changes to the NEC’s governance, communications, and even its very identity.

The staff clearly feel strongly about their vision for the future. But here’s the hard truth: if your ideology no longer matches the institution you work for, the solution is not to seize the institution and bend it to your theology. The solution is to build your own.

The NEC is not a blank slate. It is nearly fifty years old, with deep roots in the North Coast’s environmental history. It carries the legacy of redwood protection campaigns, citizen science, coalition building, and the long, slow work of conservation in both policy and community. You may not agree with every decision made by past leaders, but you cannot erase the foundation they built.

Trying to reshape an established institution to reflect a new and radically different ideology comes at a steep cost. It risks alienating longtime members, confusing the public, and burning through the credibility that took decades to build. It fractures the community into factions rather than broadening the movement.

I know this because I’ve created not one, but two organizations myself. Building something new is hard — far harder than taking the keys to an existing brand. It requires vision, persistence, and the ability to inspire people to join you. It demands earning the trust of funders, members, and partners. And it forces you to prove that your vision is viable: that it resonates with enough people, and that your target base has the resources to sustain it.

If the NEC staff’s ideology truly reflects the future of environmentalism, then they will find an audience. They will attract members. They will secure grants and donations. They will stand on their own. And in doing so, they will earn the freedom to shape governance and communications exactly as they wish, without being constrained by the expectations of an older institution.

But if the ideology is too fringe, or if the target community lacks resources, then the new organization may not survive. That is the test every founder faces — and it is a fairer test than dismantling an elder institution from within.

The NEC was born in another time, to meet the needs of that era. Its staff are calling for something new, born of today’s intersectional justice movements. Both have value. But they don’t have to be in the same house. The respectful path is to allow NEC to continue in its tradition, while new organizations rise to carry forward new visions.

Our community needs both continuity and innovation. It needs legacy institutions with deep roots, and new ones with fresh energy. But we must resist the temptation to cannibalize one to create the other. If you believe the future demands a new theology, then have the courage to build it.