Green politico seeks new pastures

Jonathan Poisner departs League of Conservation Voters

By Steve Law

Pamplin Media Group, Oct 8, 2009, Updated Oct 30, 2009

Jaime Valdez / Pamplin Media Group

Jonathan Poisner, an avid hiker, walks briskly at Forest Park in Northwest Portland. Poisner is leaving his post this month as executive director of the Oregon League of Conservation Voters.

Jonathan Poisner once set out to write a book on how to involve citizens in the environmental movement. He scrapped the idea, but wound up practicing what he preached as executive director of the Oregon League of Conservation Voters.

In the space of a dozen years, Poisner quintupled the Portland-based group’s budget – to more than $1 million – and launched eight county chapters that mobilize hundreds of volunteers around environmental causes. Poisner also spearheaded creation of the Oregon Conservation Network, which coalesces oft-splintered environmental groups to present a united front in Salem.

Poisner is moving on this month, to be replaced by veteran political campaigner Jon Issacs. Sustainable Life interviewed Poisner about his decision to leave and the state of Oregon’s environmental movement.

Sustainable Life: Why leave when Democrats have a supermajority and environmental groups have more clout?

Jonathan Poisner: It was just time to pass the baton to somebody else, perhaps someone who’s a little hungrier than I am to take the organization to the next level. A colleague in another environmental organization said they left when they realized they had stopped taking as many risks. Hopefully, I’ll find that with whatever I do next.

SL: Why did you push a grassroots, chapter-based strategy instead of raising more money for campaign contributions?

Poisner: We had been just a Portland operation, with one or two staff. We did political endorsements around the state and our scorecard (of lawmakers’ environmental votes), but we didn’t really have anybody out there talking to the people directly. We knew that in lobbying the Legislature and the elections, our advantage compared to those who are on the opposite side of the issues is people. It was never going to be us writing a larger check than the timber industry.

SL: The environmental movement has splintered into so many different organizations. Is that the most effective way to make change?

Poisner: By about 2000, it was clear to me that one of the reasons we weren’t being more successful in Salem was the lack of coordination. When I first raised this in 2000, the reaction I got was, “It’s like herding cats; it will never happen; groups all have their own agendas.”

SL: Was your group uniquely positioned to bring together the Oregon Conservation Network?

Poisner: Absolutely, because we never had any particular issue agenda. We’re not the water group. We’re not the forest group. We’re not the salmon group.

SL: Is the Oregon Conservation Network succeeding in herding those cats?

Poisner: Particularly by the 2007 session, we made more progress because of a coordinated agenda. The chair of the Senate Environment Committee told us that not only was the environmental movement more coordinated than it had ever been, but it was more coordinated than other coalitions he dealt with in Salem. He said it made it easier for him and his counterpart in the House to help drive the agenda through the Legislature.

SL: Republicans often criticize your scorecard, saying the league selectively picks issues where there’s partisan disagreement, making it appear like Republicans never support any green-oriented legislation.

Poisner: That’s not how we produce the scorecard. We have a discussion about what bills were the most significant for the environment, where there was debate. A committee of experts in the environmental community makes recommendations to our board. If the Republicans have done worse on our scorecard, it’s because they’ve been voting worse on the environment.

1 | 2 Next Page >>

Facebook	Digg	Del.icio.us
Newsvine	Stumbleupon	Reddit