Becoming the next chief executive of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was the furthest thing from
the mind of the Rev. Frederick D. Haynes III, senior pastor of the
8,000-member Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas. But then a
search firm hired by the NAACP invited him in January to apply. After
two rounds of interviews, Haynes was ranked first in a field of three
finalists. But four months later, someone else was chosen. The process
provides a disturbing inside look at how the nation's oldest
civil-rights organization picks its leaders - a process marked by
misrepresentation and favoritism. Benjamin Jealous, the
second-ranked candidate and the one preferred by board chair Julian
Bond, won the job. Jealous was the only name presented to the full
board for consideration. On an up-or-down vote on May 17, Bond's choice
was approved 34-21. Interviews with more than a dozen board
members, some willing to be named, others not, shows that NAACP leaders
tried to shape the vote, misinforming those likely to vote against
Jealous, and allowing him (and forbidding the other two candidates) to
campaign openly. After Jealous was elected, board members
contacted me with allegations - which I was able to verify - so serious
they must be exposed, if for no other reason than to make the process
fairer and more transparent next time. Take the open-campaigning
issue. The search firm warned all candidates not to do so, a directive
repeated in a March 12 memo Bond sent to board members, state
conference presidents, and trustees of the NAACP special contribution
fund. Yet it appears Jealous was allowed, even encouraged to campaign. After
I published a March 6 column in The Inquirer identifying the three
finalists, some candidates began to lobby the board members and the
national office, Haynes told me, adding that a member of the search
firm called him "and said, 'Do not engage in any kind of lobbying
because that's not allowed.' . . . And later, I found out that's been
the game all along." Jealous had been playing it well, meeting
with friendly and unfriendly board members, including the Rev. Amos
Brown of San Francisco and Alice Huffman, president of a California
State Conference NAACP in Sacramento. Jealous also met with board
member and former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, who said, "I told
him, 'In my opinion, your credentials are fabulous, but I'm looking for
someone with more' - unfortunately, I used the term experience. Hillary
[Clinton] has made experience a bad word." The Rev. Amos Brown
(no relation to Willie Brown) confirmed that he, too, met with Jealous
in San Francisco three weeks before the board vote. He said he was
unimpressed. During Jealous' presentation before the full board,
he made a remark that underscored Rev. Brown's earlier reservations
about the candidate: "Jealous got up before the board and dissed Jesse
Jackson and Al Sharpton. Someone asked him during the
question-and-answer period what was his relationship with present
civil-rights leaders, how did he feel he would get along and interface
with them. He said, 'Some of them, I don't think too highly of . . .
And when I was with the national black publishers, I discovered that
Jesse Jackson did not show up at the meetings unless he wanted
something.' He said Al was nothing but an opportunist." More than
six board members have confirmed that Jealous made those remarks or
something similar. Board member Jerry Mondesire, publisher of the
Philadelphia Sun, said that Jealous "used a closed-door session to
undermine previous NAACP leader Ben Hooks as well as make vituperative
remarks about Jesse and Al." Haynes, though the top-ranked
candidate, felt anything but embraced by the awkward, three-legged
selection process. Under arrangements agreed to by the board in
advance, a special 15-member search committee interviewed the
candidates and submitted three finalists to the executive committee
chaired by Bond. The executive committee advanced the name of one
candidate to the full board for an up-or-down vote. Jealous was ranked
second by the search committee, but was the only candidate the board
was allowed to vote on. Why had Haynes been passed over? Bonds
told board members it was because when asked whether he would step down
as pastor of his church in Dallas, Haynes said he would not. Haynes
says his recollection was different. When the issue was raised in his
first interview in February, he said, " 'I've been there 25 years and
I've not given it sufficient thought because this process has just
started. It's something I can look into, but I have to pray about it.'
That was not part of my thought process because Ben Hooks had pastored
two churches. We have a history of doing more than one thing." (Hooks
had simultaneously pastored churches in Memphis and Detroit while
directing the NAACP from 1977 to 1993.) He said that while he did
not state he would give up his church, he told the executive committee
he felt he could hold down the job of NAACP president and preach on
Sundays in Dallas. He cited a list of public figures, including former
Congressmen William H. Gray III and Adam Clayton Powell Jr., who held
high-profile positions while still pastoring churches in their home
districts. "I told them I have a staff of 60-plus individuals, which is more than they have," Haynes said. The
issue did not come up at all in the second interview, in March. But in
the third interview, Haynes said, "the first question posed to me was
by Julian. He said, 'In the first interview you indicated in the
affirmative that you'd be willing to leave your church. Is that still
true?' I had said no such thing, but I could tell he was setting me up
to look like I was a liar or that I had changed my mind. He was
determined to paint a certain picture." Some board members say
they were shut out of the electoral process. Some of Bond's staunchest
allies, including William Lucy and Frank Humphrey, participated in the
voting by telephone; other absent members, including Leonard Springs,
were not told they could participate in the meeting. One board
member said, "I don't blame Jealous for this. This is not his fault. He
was a guy applying for a job, and he happened to land on both feet. He
had an advantage that the others didn't. If we're going to play the
game like that, let everybody play it." The "game" has left a bad taste in Haynes' mouth. He said he would never go through such a process again. "I'm
very disappointed in how things were handled," Haynes said. "As far as
I'm concerned, the whole process was almost a charade. Julian had who
he wanted, and that was going to be his candidate no matter what."
Next Column:
It’s Time to Stop Playing Ball with ‘Billary’ Clinton
Back To Columns |