Organizational Development

Table of Contents

Internet resources for nonprofits on organizational development

501(c)3 groups and lobbying - Tides Center Seminar on Non-Profit Lobbying Rules

Lobbying Within the Law: The Legalities of Friends Group Advocacy

Building Your Nest Egg: An Introduction to Raising Funds for NAtional Wildlife Refuge Support Groups

Taking Flight: An Introduction to Building Refuge Friends Organizations

A Model for Citizen Involvement in Forming a River System Refuge - Minnesota Valley NWR, Minnesota

How a Vocal Group Made a Difference at Back Bay NWR, Virginia

Overview of Insurance for Refuge Friends Groups

501(c)3 groups and lobbying - Tides Center Seminar on Non-Profit Lobbying Rules

This is a summary of a seminar held June 24, 2000, on the rules concerning 501(c)3 groups and lobbying. It was sponsored jointly by the Tides Center and the Alliance for Justice. The presenter was Mike Trister, General Counsel for the Alliance. Obviously, the information presented in this memo is general information, not a legal opinion!

The new 1990 regulations were extremely generous in allowing lobbying by 501 (c)3 organizations. Previously, the rules were not clear, which served as a chilling effect. The IRS code states that "no substantial part" of a 501 (c)3's expenditures can be devoted to lobbying. The new regulations helped to spell out what this means. They give foundations the green light to fund 501 (c)3 groups that do some lobbying. However, some foundations, are still not aware of the more generous new rules.

501(c)3's can elect to file a form, 501(h), that allows them to have their lobbying efforts comport with the "expenditure test" Under this, 20% of the first $500,000 of an organization's *expenditures* can be devoted to lobbying. (The % decreases in stages after $500,000.) Under the expenditure test, what counts is what you *spend*, including staff time. Thus, a key question is "what counts" towards your lobbying quota. This question only matters if you are near 20%. For many groups sweating "what counts" doesn't matter because they don't approach 20%. You can report questionable things or not. If the IRS audits you and says something counts, it just gets added to your 20%. If you go over 20% the penalty is just an additional 25% of the amount you failed to report. (The most severe penalty, loss of status, only occurs if over 4 years you exceed your quota by 150% or more.)

A distinction is made between (I) direct lobbying, and; (II) grassroots lobbying.

I. Direct Lobbying

The definition of direct lobbying includes three elements: (1) communications with members of legislative bodies or their staff (2) about specific legislation (3) that takes a position on that legislation. What does each element mean? What doesn't it mean?

(1) "communications:" face-to-face meetings; letters; phone calls; faxes; e-mails. It is unclear whether placards at rallies on the Capitol steps that a Congress member might see or signs on billboards count as a communication. Probably not.

Do communications with the Executive Branch count? They do when you are communicating to them about their position on specific legislation.

Communications concerning nominations of officials who must be confirmed by Congress count. However, communications to the Executive Branch about regulations do not count. Even requesting a member of Congress to communicate with the Executive Branch to get a regulation changed does not count. It must be about "specific legislation."

(2) "about specific legislation:" actual legislation, but also legislative proposals and nominations to positions that require confirmation.

Talking to a legislator about general social problems is not lobbying. If it is very early in the debate on an issue that could result in legislation and you're sharing information, it's not lobbying.

It was unclear to Trister when a Treaty (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol) crosses over from the Executive Branch to be considered "specific legislation." Off the top of his head he guessed it does so when it is submitted to the Senate.

(3) "take a position:" any opinion expressed in a communication on specific legislation.

*Exceptions

The code recognizes four exceptions to what would otherwise count as lobbying:

(1) "Technical assistance" - communications in response to a written request on their letterhead from a Committee or subcommittee. ("On behalf of the Committee we request...") Testifying falls under this exception. Trister advises making lots of copies of the letter and keeping it in various files.

(2) "Self-defense lobbying" - when you are dealing with the corporate structures of your organization and your own institutional well- being/survival.

(3) General discussions of problems or issues - since this doesn't qualify as lobbying it is actually not an exception, although listed as one.

(4) Non-partisan research, study, and analysis - if someone could read a report you wrote, even if you state a position on legislation, and come to a different conclusion. Needs to be something substantial with a good deal of information, statistics, etc. If you do a Fact Sheet or lobby a member and give the report that time to lobby and create the Fact Sheet does count. Trister considers this a major planning opportunity.

II. Grassroots Lobbying

This involves communication with the public on specific legislation that takes a position AND includes a "call to action" - i.e. asking them to contact their elected officials in legislative bodies. Without the "call," it is not grassroots lobbying; it is public education. If you express a position on specific legislation that does not include the "call," it doesn't count as grassroots lobbying.

An exception to this is general ads in the media within 2 weeks of a vote. Even without a "call," it is grassroots lobbying.

"Call to actions" include: (1) an explicit call (e.g. "write your Congress member. . ."); (2) giving the names, addresses, and phone numbers of elected representatives; (3) petitions or post cards to elected representatives; (4) giving names of elected representatives and indicating whether they support or oppose specific legislation. (However, on this last point simply mentioning the name(s) of sponsors of legislation does not count; e.g. "the Jeffords bill")

What about newsletters? If you have a "call" on specific legislation, whatever is on that particular subject counts.

Something that can pose a problem for grassroots lobbying is the quota. Only 5% of expenditures - or BC of your lobbying quota of 20% - can be utilized for grassroots lobbying. For this reason, some groups set up 501(c)4's simply to do their grassroots lobbying. However, there are ways to avoid this problem, including using the internet/e-mail for communications with a "call" ( remember: what counts is expenditures), and sending a communication to "members" of your organization rather than the general public.

Concerning the latter, Trister said that a "member" is someone who makes a significant contribution in money or time to your organization. There are no rules on "member" definition. You will have to defend why you have designated people as members if challenged. There is no definition of "significant contribution" - but it's not a lot. Financially, a few dollars a year is enough. On contributions of time, you simply have to make "members" look different or set apart from the general public. For example, create a special list of "activists" who have agreed to write letters or go to rallies, etc. However, to be counted as direct lobbying they have to be your members. You can't send an alert to another group's members and have it be considered direct lobbying rather than grassroots lobbying. The Climate Action Network, for example, would have to get its coalition groups to send an alert to the ir members rather than sending it out as a CAN alert.

Foundations

Foundations can't earmark grants for lobbying (i.e. your 20%). However, a general support grant is ok, as is funding of specific projects, as long as the funds are not earmarked for lobbying.

If you are a 501(c)3 that does lobbying, one foundation cannot fund your entire budget. However, if more than one funds you, it's ok because the IRS cannot say who is funding your lobbying.

Further Information

One resource mentioned time and again was usuallyy referred to by the color of its book jacket - "the red book." It is entitled *Being a Player: A Guide to the IRS Lobbying Regulations for Advocacy Charities*. It is published by the Alliance for Justice. For this and other helpful publications see their website, www.afj.org, or call at(202)822-6070. Cost:$15.

<Back to top>

Lobbying Within the Law: The Legalities of Friends Group Advocacy

Many of the major social changes in our nation have come from nonprofit lobbying and advocacy, including: the protection of women's rights, child labor laws, stricter laws against drunk driving, requirements for safe drinking water and clean air, civil rights, disabled persons' rights, and many more. In the case of the refuges, both the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the Volunteer and Community Partnership Act of 1998, along funding increases for refuges in recent, resulted largely from effective lobbying by nonprofit organizations - including Friends groups!

Effective lobbying by your Friends group could mean the difference if your efforts to preserve native wildlife and habitat, build a visitor center, or work for increased funding for your refuge and the rest of the Refuge System. Friends groups are the best refuge advocates. They are concerned citizens and active constituents, as they volunteer to educate the local community and their elected officials, support refuge management policies, and protect refuge lands from harm. And, Friends groups can lobby without fear of threatening their tax-exempt status.

It's a myth that nonprofit organizations can't lobby, as tax laws have always permitted some lobbying. In 1976, Congress passed Section 1307 of Public Law 94-455, recognizing lobbying as a proper function of nonprofits. This law and guidelines issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 1991 clarify the extent to which nonprofits are allowed to lobby without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

Nonprofits have two choices when it comes to lobbying. If highly visible and intensive lobbying is in your group's future, you should consider electing to be regulated under the 1976 lobby law ("electing" is done by filing an IRS form - details follow). The alternative is to be regulated under the 1934 tax code, which also allows lobbying as long as it's not a "substantial" part of your organization's activities. Regardless of the choice a group makes, it must report its lobbying activity to the IRS each year.

The 1976 lobby law sets financial limits for lobbying and defines the activities that count against those limits. Under this law lobbying is defined strictly in financial terms (volunteer time is not a measure of lobby activity). The penalty for exceeding the financial lobbying limits is an excise tax. A nonprofit risks losing its tax exemption only if it exceeds the lobby limits by 150%.

By contrast, the 1934 tax code states somewhat vaguely that "no substantial part" of a nonprofit's activity can be dedicated to lobbying. The problem with the 1934 code is that "substantial" has not been clearly defined, and a nonprofit risks losing its tax exemption if the IRS determines that the lobbying activities are, in fact, "substantial." If your Friends group embarks on a highly visible lobbying effort, which may include advertising, generating many letters from citizens to their members of Congress, or sophisticated lobbying techniques that utilize a large portion of your budget, you might seriously consider electing to come under the 1976 law. On the other hand, if the primary focus of your organization, and the bulk of your resources are devoted to education and volunteer programs to benefit the refuge, electing may be unnecessary. For most Friends groups, for whom lobbying is limited to sending an occasional letter to or meeting with a lawmaker, or responding to NWRA action alerts a few times a year, electing to come under the 1976 law is probably unnecessary.

Lobbying Under the 1976 Lobby Law
Under the 1976 lobby law, lobbying is defined as the expenditure of money by an organization for the purpose of attempting to influence legislation (again, volunteer time is not part of the definition). Under this law, a distinction is made between direct lobbying and grassroots lobbying.

Direct lobbying is any attempt to influence legislation through communications with legislators or their employees. Activities include such things as visiting a lawmaker about a specific bill or communicating with your group's members and asking them to contact their legislators.

Grassroots lobbying is any attempt to influence legislation by trying to affect the opinion of the general public. Urging your members to contact their legislators is not grassroots lobbying, it is direct lobbying. Grassroots lobbying occurs only when the organization reaches beyond its members to get action from the general public. A group can spend no more than 25% of its lobbying limit on grassroots lobbying.

Reporting and Record Keeping
All nonprofits must keep records and report how much they spend on lobbying to the IRS. Your record keeping must be able to substantiate what you report to the IRS.

Reporting for nonprofits that elect to fall under the 1976 lobby law is really no more difficult than non-electing organizations; in fact it may even be simpler. Electing nonprofits must calculate their ceilings (based on their overall budget) and state how much of their lobbying expenses were spent on grassroots versus direct lobbying. Electing organizations don't need to record detailed descriptions of their lobbying activities, but non-electing organizations subject to the 1934 tax code must do so.

There are no specific guidelines for record keeping, but you might consider creating a form that includes the dates, nature of the activity (such as a visit with a legislator), whether it was grassroots or direct lobbying and how much was spent.

Election Procedure
To elect to fall under the 1976 lobby law, a nonprofit must file Form 5768 with the IRS. The nonprofit organization will come under the provisions of the 1976 law at the start of the tax year during which it files the election form. The organization will continue to fall under the provision of this law unless it chooses to revoke the election by re-filing the Form 5768.

*Note: This information is provided for general reference only. For expert advice, consult a tax lawyer.

Reference: The Nonprofit Lobbying Guide: Advocating Your Cause - and Getting Results. Bob Smucker, Independent Sector, 1991.

<Back to top>

Case Study: A Model for Citizen Involvement in Forming a River System Refuge - Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Minnesota

Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established in 1976. This 12,500-acre urban refuge is located on the border of the Minnesota River as it extends upstream from the Minneapolis - St. Paul metropolitan area, nearly 40 miles into the farm country of rural Minnesota. The river lies in a deep valley formed by an ancient glacial river and meanders through a valley of tree-covered bluffs, floodplain marshes and forests with only a short span of commercial development and an occasional bluff-top home.

The Challenge
In the early 1970s, a group of citizens called the Burnsville Environmental Council were frustrated by their failure to stop the expansion of landfill operations on the Burnsville portion of the Minnesota River floodplain. Under the leadership of Council president Dick Duerre, the group produced a 24-page booklet that proposed a Minnesota River National Wildlife Recreation Area. An area like this, stretching along the banks of one of the country's major rivers, had never existed anywhere in the nation.

The Players

• Burnsville Environmental Council
• Bloomington Resources Commission
• Lower Minnesota River Citizens Committee
• Elaine Mellott, first president of the Friends of the Minnesota Valley, Chair of the Bloomington Resources Commission and Lower Minnesota River Citizens Committee
• Marialice Seal, also with the Lower Minnesota group
• Senator Walter Mondale, sponsored bill to form the refuge
• Representative Bill Frenzel, sponsored bill to form the refuge
• Minnesota Valley Audubon Chapter
• Ed Crozier, first Project Leader of Minnesota Valley NWR, Ex-officio board member of Friends of Minnesota Valley
• Ann Haines, first Executive Director of the Friends of Minnesota Valley
• McKnight Foundation, continues to fund grants administered by the Friends group
• Twin Cities Metropolitan Council
  

The Story
The Burnsville Council sent their booklet to everyone from local city councils to Congressional delegates and even the President of the United States. The Department of the Interior investigated the feasibility of a national wildlife recreation area in the valley in 1975. The Council brought in other communities along the river. Elaine Mellot had been active in the Minnesota River Valley Audubon Chapter and was chair of the Bloomington Natural Resources Commission. She was asked join forces with the Burnsville group and head up a new group. The two groups combined formed the ad hoc Lower Minnesota River Citizens Committee. Eventually the Burnsville Environmental Council dissolved.

Mellot and friend Marialice Seal worked tirelessly on the Lower Minnesota River Citizens Committee - a loosely knit, all-volunteer, non-membership group that had contacts with citizens from throughout the valley. They kept up contacts between volunteers, asking people to write letters and call officials. With Mellot as chair, and Seal as co-chair, the group made presentations up and down the river, educating people about the project and gathering endorsements. They got funds and support from over 40 private groups, including conservationists, chambers of commerce, corporations, Jaycees and endorsements from city councils.

Senator Walter Mondale and Representative Bill Frenzel introduced bills in Congress to establish the Minnesota Valley NWR in 1975. Once the refuge was established in 1976, Mellot's group then began lobbying Congress for land acquisition dollars. Since that time, nearly $22 million has been appropriated to buy land and construct a visitor center.

Mellot formed the Friends of the Minnesota Valley NWR in 1982 with Kay Schwie, who was a member of the Conservation Committee of the Minnesota Valley Audubon Chapter. The group started with a membership of about 60 people and nine board members. Since its inception, said former refuge manager Ed Crozier, now retired, the group has acted as a sounding board for the refuge manager and as advocates for the refuge, and have raised funds and fostered partnerships that improve the Minnesota River watershed and ecosystem. Mellot passed away in 1997, but she left behind a strong group that achieved tremendous results. One of Elaine's legacies is an Education Center established as part of the refuge. The classrooms were named in her honor in 1996.

One of the most significant programs conducted by the Friends is called the Minnesota Valley Heritage Registry, conceived in 1983, and first implemented in 1990. Its purpose was to expand the protection in the valley beyond the refuge boundaries. The Registry is an Honor Roll of refuge neighbors who volunteer to protect and preserve the undeveloped lands they own for the benefit of wildlife and the ecosystems that support it.

A Cooperative Agreement was developed with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for office space, clerical support and an exchange of services. An initial $22,000 was raised to support the program and a part-time person was hired. A two-year grant for $119,000 was awarded by the McKnight Foundation to hire a full time Registry Coordinator. Ann Haines filled this position as the Friends' first Executive Director.

Haines and Program Coordinator Sue Beiseker got grants from the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council to work with the refuge's environmental education staff to develop water quality Trekking Packs. These packs provide teachers and students with information on activities for water quality testing and site investigation at the refuge's Louisville Swamp. The packs also provide encouragement to participate in other community activities like the Storm Drain Stencilling project.

The Storm Drain Stencilling project has involved more than 320 volunteers including school and scouting groups and employees of business to stencil residential storm drains with the message "Drains to the River." The purpose is to educate people that what goes in the drains goes directly into the river. More than 3,000 drains have been stencilled and 6,000 flyers have been distributed in nine communities through this program.

Another grant of $136,000 from the McKnight Foundation has funded the Minnesota River Steward Campaign, called "Leadership in Stewardship." The grant allowed an additional full-time staff person to be hired as a Communications Coordinator to educate residents about how their choices affect river water quality, and what individuals can do to improve the river.

Citizen Involvement Helped Form a River System Refuge at Minnesota Valley NWR

It took persistence, many years and several groups to establish a refuge along the banks of the Minnesota River. Today the highly successful Friends of the Minnesota Valley continues to assist the Minnesota Valley NWR in conducting outreach and education programs that would not otherwise have been possible due to federal funding constraints.

Build Coalitions to Garner Support
Coalitions of supporters formed and re-formed over the course of several years. The original goal was to stop the expansion of landfill operations on the Burnsville portion of the Minnesota River floodplain, but their "net" widened as their goal grew larger.

Create Materials To Support Your Effort
A 24-page booklet described the vision of what people wanted to accomplish for the Minnesota Valley. It was sent out to everyone from local city councils to Congressional delegates and even the President of the United States.

Involve Everyone With a Stake in the Process
Other communities along the river valley were contacted. Members of the Lower Minnesota River Citizens Committee, a loosely knit, all-volunteer, non-membership group that had contacts with citizens from throughout the valley kept up contacts between volunteers, asking people to write letters and call officials.

Prepare Presentations
Presentations were made up and down the river to educate people about the project, and to solicit money and endorsements. They got funds and support from more 40 private groups, including conservationists, chambers of commerce, corporations, Jaycees and endorsements from city councils.

Keep Congressional Representatives in the Loop
Senator Walter Mondale and Representative Bill Frenzel introduced bills in Congress to establish the Minnesota Valley NWR in 1975. Once the refuge was established in 1976, Mellot's group then began lobbying Congress for land acquisition dollars. Since that time, nearly $22 million has been appropriated to buy land and to construct the visitor center.

Never Give Up
Without the many years of persistence and hard work of volunteers like Elaine Mellot and friends, this refuge would never have gotten off the ground!

<Back to top>

Case Study: How a Vocal Group Made a Difference at Back Bay NWR - Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia

In 1938, Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) occupied 5,000 acres in southeastern coastal Virginia. The refuge is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean and the highly populated Hampton Roads metropolitan area and Back Bay. It features beaches and fragile dunes, shrubs, upland woods and bay habitat, which supports a variety of wildlife including the loggerhead turtle, the peregrine falcon and the piping plover. Located along the Atlantic Flyway, the refuge is a popular birding site. In 1988, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed adding 6,300 acres of swamp, marsh and critical "edge" habitat to the refuge to provide a buffer against encroaching development.

The Challenge
A group of citizens known as the Back Bay Citizens Alliance, led by Charles Cushman of the National Inholders Association, rallied to oppose the refuge expansion. The Alliance inflamed the public, conducting a vigorous campaign to warn people that the government was prepared to carry out the expansion by any means necessary, including land takings by condemnation. This was not true, but it did begin to influence public opinion. People began to wonder: "Could there be any truth to this rumor?"

The Players

• Tony Leger, former Back Bay NWR Refuge Manager
• Molly Brown, President, and other members of the Friends of Back Bay
• Back Bay Citizens Alliance
• Charles Cushman of the National Inholders Association
• Virginia Beach City Council
• Congressional delegates
• Hampton Roads Sanitation District Commission

The Story
Former refuge manager Tony Leger attributes much of the success of efforts to carry out the refuge expansion and protect lands at Back Bay NWR to the Friends of Back Bay president, Molly Brown.

The Friends of Back Bay formed in 1983, to promote conservation and preservation of lands in the Back Bay area, including refuge lands. Molly Brown met with Tony to discuss the refuge's role in this larger context after rumors about land takings began to be circulated by the Back Bay Citizens Alliance. In his meeting with Molly, Tony was quick to assure her that there was no truth to the rumors being disseminated by the Alliance. He and Molly found that they shared similar concerns and motivations in protecting the lands of the Back Bay area. The meeting marked the beginning of an important alliance.

The Friends of Back Bay mounted a campaign to help the refuge achieve its goals. They proceeded with a letter-writing initiative to neutralize the Alliance's attempt to sway public opinion against the refuge. They wrote to their Congressional delegates explaining what the Fish and Wildlife Service was trying to accomplish through the refuge expansion project. At the same time, they also began a petition and letter-writing drive to regional and national Fish and Wildlife Service representatives expressing their support for the project.

The group then lobbied the Virginia Congressional delegation to support funding of the expansion project from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Next, they wrote, called and personally met with the Congressional staff of the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. Working at the local level, the Friends discussed the project with the Virginia Beach City Council, prompting the Council to go on record in support of expansion. Finally, every year since 1990 Molly has traveled to Washington D.C. to testify before Congress. So far, the Friends of Back Bay has helped the refuge secure more than $12 million and has purchased more than 4,000 acres of environmentally sensitive land from willing sellers.

The Friends of Back Bay, however, did not stop there. The Friends lobbied successfully against a proposed highway slated to cut through the newly acquired lands. They also worked with the City Council and the Hampton roads Sanitation District Commission to re-route a sewage main, which the Commission had planned to run through the refuge expansion area.

Tony described Molly's role as that of an "ambassador." Her group chose not to file for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status because their primary purpose was to lobby and they didn't want to be hampered by any restrictions on the amount of time and funding they could spend in that area.

Tony remarked that he believes it is important that the Fish and Wildlife Service understands that in the case of Friends groups: "One size does not fit all." By this he meant that the Service should not create a "box" into which every Friends group must fit. Each group and refuge has different needs. How each Friends group evolves depends to a large degree on how much they can help fill the needs of their refuge's unique situation.

The key, Tony thinks, is in cultivating the relationship between the refuge and the Friends. His advice: Refuge Managers must sit down with people in the community and understand their motivations. He said, "Molly knew how to go to her group and say 'Can you help me with this particular issue?'" For example, with the sewer line issue, she asked her group, "Does anybody know anyone on the Hampton Roads project board?" It just so happened that members of Molly's group did indeed know many influential people in the community.

Tony observed that some refuge managers are reluctant to share information. Much of their reluctance, he speculates, comes from the worry that Friends will not accept the path that the manager has chosen, that the Friends will say, "I'm not sure you're doing the right thing." In Tony's mind, managers need to share information with Friends so that Friends will be enabled and empowered to do things that will help the refuge accomplish its goals. There should be no secrets. "After all, Tony said, "if you can't tell your friends what's going on, what is your job?"

According to Tony, one of the common areas of concern from refuge staff - already spread thin - is how nurturing a Friends group will take up too much of their time. "I would've never been successful without people like Molly," Tony reflected. He considers Molly to be not only a Friend, but also a friend. During his tenure as refuge manager, the amount of contact Tony had with Molly varied widely: "Sometimes I wouldn't talk to her for weeks, and other times one hour a day for weeks at a time - communication is they key."

The bottom line for Tony is: "You can be more successful through Friends, and they through you, if you work closely, communicate and share information. The benefit is ultimately for the resources we are trying to protect."

What advice can Molly share based on her experiences? "We now know that a vocal group can make a difference and that one can fight city hall and win. We have learned that when people want to build, they will wrap themselves in "health and safety" in order to obtain the tools for development that they need, whether it be for sewers or roads. Always stay focused on the issues and never personally attack your opponent. Do your homework, check your figures and ask for help from experts when you need it. Also, check your opposition's figures, and, more importantly, scrutinize their assumptions. Remember - 'garbage in equals garbage out.' Or - 'figures never lie, but liars sure can figure!'"

Back Bay NWR Expansion and Protection Succeed With Help From Friends

Back Bay refuge manager Tony Leger and the Friends of Back Bay president, Molly Brown, started out as strangers and ended up as close allies and friends. Their teamwork helped Back Bay NWR secure more than $12 million and over 4,000 acres of environmentally sensitive habitat. Here are some keys to their success:

Establish Common Ground
Molly and Tony initiated discussions to establish what their common interests were with regard to the refuge.

Form the Relationship
Molly and Tony honestly shared information, concerns and motivations about the refuge (no secrets).

Know Who Your Friends Are
Molly and other members of the Friends group knew many important people in the community, and used their connections to further the group's cause.

Organize a Campaign

• Friends wrote letters to local groups to neutralize rumors of land takings.
• Friends wrote to Congressional delegates explaining the Fish and Wildlife Service's intentions.
• Friends mounted a petition and letter-writing drive notifying regional and national Fish and Wildlife Service representatives of their support for the refuge's expansion.
• Friends lobbied the State Congressional delegation with a specific request to fund the expansion project from monies within the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
• Friends wrote, phoned, and personally met with Congressional staff of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.
• Friends discussed the expansion plan with local Virginia Beach City Council and got their support.
• Molly testified annually before the House Appropriations Committee.

Keep the Lines of Communication Open
Throughout the whole process, Tony and Molly kept communicating. As Tony remarked, "Sometimes I wouldn't talk to her for weeks, and other times one hour a day for weeks at a time - communication is they key."

Be Vocal
As Molly put it, "We now know that a vocal group can make a difference and that one can fight city hall and win."

Do Your Homework
Learn and anticipate the tactics the opposition will employ "…when people want to build, they will wrap themselves in 'health and safety' in order to obtain the tools for development that they need, whether it be for sewers or roads."

Stay Focused on the Issues and Never Personally Attack Your Opponent
Instead, "check your opposition's figures, and, more importantly, scrutinize their assumptions."

<Back to top>