This week I received an email from Chesapeake Bay Foundation entitled “BREAKING NEWS: CBF and Partners Take Legal Action to Defend the Bay.” This email was sent out to members on an email list, each of whom specifically indicated or signed up for news alerts related to Chesapeake Bay Foundation activities and news alerts.
In the context of a “call to action,” consider the following statements from the email:
“This morning, CBF's Vice President for Litigation Jon Mueller and I announced that CBF is filing a formal legal intervention in federal court to stop lobbyists for major agricultural industries from derailing the unprecedented federal–state cooperative effort to reduce pollution throughout the Bay region.
In this legal action, CBF is part of a coalition that includes Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, Defenders of Wildlife, the Jefferson County (WV) County Public Service District, the Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy (MD), and the National Wildlife Federation.
We have taken this action in response to the agricultural lobbyists' recent legal challenge of EPA's authority to issue a Bay pollution budget, known legally as a Total Daily Maximum Load (or TMDL). This opposition to the TMDL has been joined by other state and national agribusinesses, including The Fertilizer Institute, the National Pork Producers Council, the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, and the National Turkey Federation.
We find the opposition incomprehensible, indefensible, and unwarranted, and so we felt we had no choice but to fight fire with fire.”
While the lobbyists’ legal challenge is likely to be upsetting to the CBF’s e-mail list, the email is not written in a way that compels action or motivates readers to feel invested in the issue. Readers are more concerned about how this legal action will affect them personally or how it overturns existing legislation than they are with which organizations are affected through these partnerships.
In the title, the email says “Partners Take Legal Action to Defend the Bay.” I would argue that people on this email list already consider themselves “partners” of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, so why not make them feel included in this action as well? Yet, the email gives readers little opportunity to get involved. In fact, the first “call to action” is in a PS line at the bottom of the email. It reads:
“P.S. I don't need to tell you that legal actions are expensive. We estimate this one action could cost tens of thousands of dollars, at least. Please send your much-needed donation today—every single one counts—to help us defray the cost of this litigation, which agricultural lobbyists have forced us into.”
There are no additional ways for the public to be involved. This would be a prime opportunity for the CBF to start a letter writing-campaigning, or a petition to Congress through other public mediums like their Facebook wall.
In addition, there are no future ways that the CBF asks for support other than for a donation in the “PS” of their email. The Foundation is involved in many activities, and I think CBF should include links allowing volunteers to show their support in a number of ways, not just through a monetary donation.
Further, CBF has several social media channels, but this email does not mention where viewers can access those channels. I believe a productive addition to this email would be “want to join the conversation? Share you thoughts? Follow us on Facebook, Twitter…..”
It would also be wise for CBF to make this appeal to local watershed residents. How will this new legal action affect them personally ? Why would residents want to get involved and “defend this Bay through legal action.” In my view, this email misses a lot by not responding to the “so what” factor. The email reinforces the notion that in many organizations, the public is considered when it comes to donations, but the public is not considered, or even consulted, when it comes to the organization’s actions.
It seems that the Chesapeake Bay Foundation would benefit from thinking of their members as participants or consultants, not simply as “donors.” In so doing, CBF would create a more networked, rather than hierarchical organization, that would likely be more effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment