Beyond the Standard: Calling for Accountability at LightHouse for the Blind

Magnifying Glass on the San Francisco Standard Article on LightHouse. Article Photo illustration by The Standard

In this post, we offer our Campaign's take on the San Francisco Standard's story about LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Overall, it is an excellent piece of journalism, providing a well-researched narrative of gross financial mismanagement at LightHouse. However, we take issue with some of the Standard's depiction of management misconduct, as summarized below.

A Closer Look at Women's Experiences

In the article, the Standard wrote that "a complaint about [Bryan] Bashin spurred LightHouse to tap the human resources firm ADP to conduct an investigation," which found that Bashin and Brandon Cox "belittled and ignored women and created a misogynistic workplace environment." There's just one significant problem: ADP was doing business with LightHouse while concurrently investigating LightHouse. Additionally, one of the key players in the investigation from ADP’s side was later hired by Cox, which leads us to suspect that ADP’s investigation may have been biased.

Using a third party to investigate while also maintaining a business relationship creates an environment for a conflict of interest. For example, if ADP uncovered evidence of more serious management misconduct, it could jeopardize the business relationship between the investigating firm and LightHouse's management. Thus, the objectivity of the ADP investigation is in doubt. Indeed, in an article titled "The Case for Outsourcing Internal Corporate Investigations to Outside Counsel," the author argues that an inquiry would be viewed as impartial if an independent outside counsel is hired. "If legitimate allegations of wrongdoing arise, the best response is a well-orchestrated, comprehensive, and credible investigation" by a "trusted outside counsel" that can help "preserve the integrity of the investigation and avoid potential conflicts of interest."

Our Campaign has received documents that collectively paint a disturbing picture of a pattern of abuse against women that goes far beyond simple sexism. Some women had to leave the workplace because the abuse became too much to bear, with several of them sharing that they were traumatized and suffering from severe emotional pain that made it very difficult for them to function in everyday life for years. The accounts of these former female LightHouse staffers offer a deeply troubling portrait of a leadership team, now helmed by Cox, that not only intentionally downplayed a hostile work culture but also punished women who spoke up. Indeed, after sending employees an apology letter, Cox's abusive conduct only worsened. We therefore call for an impartial investigation into sexual harassment allegations by more than a dozen women, as well as into systemic discrimination against other groups of LightHouse workers perpetuated by Cox.

If LightHouse Goes The Way of Its High-Tech Neighbors, It Would Be For a Very Different Reason.

In the Standard's telling, LightHouse's new Market Street headquarters put it "shoulder to shoulder with global tech giants in a neighborhood on the rise." A decade later, these tech neighbors left the area. Some are afraid LightHouse will be next to leave its current headquarters.

It isn't an apt comparison to make between LightHouse's current dire straits and the departure of its major business neighbors. Where the tech giants found new homes and went on to expand their reach and revenue, LightHouse is facing its demise because of corruption. The only way to reverse the nonprofit organization's impending doom is to remove its incompetent leaders.

A Governing Board That Does Not Know How to Govern

In our view, each of LightHouse's former tech neighbors had a Board of Directors that performed as intended. A responsible board acts as a watchful eye, scrutinizing management decisions, as well as a guiding hand shielding the organization from both internal and external threats; in short, the board ensures mission alignment and leadership accountability. Unfortunately, the LightHouse Board proved to be anything but a governing body: it became a hostage to the whims of the people it was meant to oversee, unable to function effectively and serving at Cox's pleasure. Otherwise, the Board would have put a swift stop to wasteful spending that veered considerably from LightHouse's mission and brought the organization to near ruin, as its reckless leaders could not contain their grandiose ambitions.

LightHouse is not and never should be a "global center for blindness learning." It belongs to the California blind community, and leadership must consult with that community when determining what LightHouse's priorities should be. There are many Lighthouses across the country, and it seems like Bashin and Cox were aspiring to take over all these Lighthouses. However, LightHouse's mission focuses first and foremost on the local blind community, while also welcoming blind people from outside California who wish to learn from the local community. That is why the Federal Communications Commission certified LightHouse as the organization serving eligible iCanConnect recipients living in California only. Yet, the incompetent LightHouse Board did not act to reverse leadership's radical departure from LightHouse's fundamental mission.