Chesapeake Climate Action Network reviews

The Executive Director is an extremely hard person to work with and it negatively affects much of the work culture.

- The ED is the biggest con of this organization. He is not educated on the issues and holds no credentials but behaves as if he is an expert on every matter, not respecting real experts. His focus is largely on his image and the image of the organization. Campaigns focus more on "winning" than the issue or the people impacted by climate change, indicating again that this organization is an ego boost for him. His temper burns bridges with coalition partners, political leaders, and former staff. His immature and inappropriate behavior has ostracized the organization and made it difficult for staff to get access to important policymakers. - Leadership is not open to new ideas or challenges to their thinking - There is a lot of white supremacy and sexism in the organization due to the largely white leadership and the dominating personality of the ED. The leadership will talk the talk of DEI work but it does not take long to recognize who at the organization is given respect and deference and who has to fight for respect. The ED micromanages employees but does not adequately train them. - Policy orientation is not intersectional, making it hard to build coalitions that are authentic or built on real trust and comradery. The ED will encourage deal making that often betrays communities that have been tokenized by the climate movement. The organization uses EJ as a buzzword but the leadership will not allow organizers or staff to do the real deep work needed for EJ organizing. Staff who push back on this orientation to the work are shut down and often shut out as a result. - Feedback to leadership is not handled well and middle management is often put in the position of navigating difficult relationships between entry level staff and leadership. There's a strong us-verse-them mentality at the organization between staff and leadership - Parts of performance reviews are based on how much money you can raise for the org from your social circles, even when you are not on the development team - There is very little transparency around decision making. The ED unilaterally makes significant decisions without consulting other leadership or the directors responsible for the programs that are impacted by those decisions. - Organization proclaims to have progressive values but has held unpaid internships throughout their existence, as recently as summer 2022. - Workload and expectations are unreasonable and often arbitrary. The team will create a plan for a campaign but the ED will demand dramatic pivots at his whims and expect staff to work extreme hours to meet his demands. This leads to very low morale, burnout, high turnover, and a lack of strategic decision making or credibility for the org. - Leadership weaponizes the urgency of climate change and uses it as an excuse for absurd expectations - Leadership speaks poorly of coalition partners and former staff, often taking unrelated actions personally. - Board does not hold leadership accountable or actively participate in governing of the org.