A Takeover in Plain Sight: What the Latest LightHouse Email Reveals About the Guild Subsidiary Plan

Image Description: Four sighted people sit around a round table in silhouette, partly hidden in shadow, suggesting a secretive meeting.

A Reminder of What This Is

As outlined on our recent blog, the current situation invo

lves a proposed transfer of control of LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired (LightHouse), a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, to Lighthouse Guild International (Guild), an out-of-state nonprofit based in New York.

California’s Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law regulates these transactions. For example, Corporations Code § 6010 requires notice to, and often written consent from, the Attorney General for mergers or merger-like combinations involving charitable nonprofits, while Corporations Code §§ 5914 and 5920 provide that certain transfers of control, governance, or material assets (especially where health-related services are offered) also require Attorney General review.

Beyond these statutes, the Attorney General’s Charitable Trusts Section oversees transactions where control or governance of a California charity effectively moves to another entity. Despite LightHouse calling this arrangement a “partnership,” the structure described in its own FAQ resembles a transfer of control requiring Attorney General oversight.

What the New Email Tells Us

LightHouse’s latest mass email, sent under the subject line “Our deepest apologies,” begins with an explanation about using the wrong subject line. (A web version of the email is found here.) But after this perfunctory apology, the message expands into a detailed FAQ that confirms what many in the community already suspected: LightHouse will become a subsidiary of the Guild.

A subsidiary relationship means LightHouse is controlled by the parent organization. The FAQ makes this explicit: Guild will control LightHouse’s finances; Guild’s top executives will become LightHouse’s top executives; and the Executive Committee of the Guild’s Board will sit directly on LightHouse’s Board. The existing LightHouse Board will be downgraded into an advisory body without governing authority.

This is not a partnership. It is a takeover. And we are not surprised given that LightHouse’s leaders have consistently used misleading or outright false information to justify adverse actions against current or former employees and community members, and to avoid regulatory scrutiny.

Comparison to the Previous Blog

In our prior blog, we warned that LightHouse leadership was quietly negotiating an arrangement that would surrender Bay Area community control to an out-of-state organization. The new email confirms this point for point.

The previously raised concerns included the lack of transparency, the exclusion of the community from the decision-making process, and the fact that the leaders who created LightHouse’s internal crises are positioning themselves to retain power under the new structure. The new email does nothing to rebut these concerns; instead, it provides evidence of them. LightHouse’s CEO role will be filled by the Guild’s CEO; LightHouse’s new leader will be the Guild’s COO; and the very LightHouse executives accused of discrimination and retaliation will remain in key operational positions.

The email also mirrors the crisis-framing we noted earlier: it highlights severe budget deficits, layoffs, and program cuts if the takeover does not proceed. This fear-based messaging appears designed to pressure the community into accepting a prearranged deal. But California’s Attorney General review process exists precisely to scrutinize such transactions, evaluate alternatives, and protect charitable assets from being transferred under duress or without adequate transparency.

Sighted-Controlled Governance Under a Blind-Fronted Structure

A central issue in the previous blog was the pattern of sighted-led governance cloaked in blind-fronted leadership. That pattern is now replicated on a larger scale.

Under the proposed structure, the Guild’s Board Chair (who is sighted and has held that role for decades) retains ultimate control. Although the Guild’s CEO, who is blind, becomes CEO of LightHouse, the governance structure places him beneath a sighted-controlled board and a sighted Executive Committee with final authority. This arrangement reflects token leadership rather than genuine blind-led governance.

LightHouse itself has a similar history. Even when a blind or female CEO was installed, real operational authority rested with sighted senior staff. The Guild takeover appears to amplify this model by extending sighted governance from New York into San Francisco.

Entrenchment of Existing LightHouse Leadership

Equally troubling is that LightHouse’s current executive leadership (individuals accused of discrimination, retaliation, and mismanagement) are positioned to retain or even expand their authority under the takeover. Instead of independent scrutiny or structural accountability, these leaders are being placed directly under the Guild’s appointed President and insulated by the new governance structure.

This should concern anyone who cares about the integrity of blindness services in the Bay Area. A takeover that strengthens the position of the leaders responsible for years of organizational dysfunction is not a solution. It is consolidation of the very problems that drove LightHouse into crisis.

Lack of Community Participation

The timeline provided in the FAQ shows that all major decisions were made long before the community was informed. Meetings between LightHouse leadership and the Guild took place privately, due diligence was nearly complete before any public discussions, and the term sheet was delivered before community comment was solicited. This sequence reveals a process driven internally by executives and board members, not one shaped by community needs or community input.

Our Campaign views this process as a reflection of the two organizations’ aversion to transparency and utter disregard for the concerns of those who knew and experienced LightHouse for decades. This absence of community involvement contradicts the stated mission of LightHouse and once again reinforces the need for immediate FCC action to preserve the integrity of iCanConnect and protect the community’s access to essential services mandated by Congress.

What the Community Should Do Now

This attempted transfer of control must be reviewed by the California Attorney General. The Bay Area blind and DeafBlind communities have the right to expect transparency, due process, meaningful oversight, and a determination of whether this takeover is in the public interest. Legislators and local officials can request Attorney General’s review, hold hearings, and demand accountability for the charitable assets that LightHouse holds in trust for the community.

We urge all community members to contact their state legislators and insist on immediate action. LightHouse is a longstanding, vital institution for blind, low vision and DeafBlind people in the Bay Area, and its future cannot be negotiated behind closed doors or surrendered to an out-of-state entity without public scrutiny.

We have consistently argued that the solution to LightHouse’s current crisis is this: either remove the current leaders at LightHouse or transfer LightHouse’s assets and governance to a California-based nonprofit that is directly accountable to the community it serves. An out-of-state organization with its own questionable history is not the answer to LightHouse’s crisis. If policymakers and regulators fail to do something that is in the public interest, those who have been harmed by the LightHouse Board’s breach of fiduciary duty should consider legal action to dissolve the Board and protect LightHouse.