Year in Review and New Direction

In this post, we reflect on what we learned in 2024 about LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired (LightHouse) and lay out a new direction for our Campaign in 2025. To do this, we first list some of the key events below.

2024 in brief

1.     Multiple lawsuits were filed against LightHouse, including one seeking to foreclose on the 8 floors of the LightHouse building at 1155 Market St.

2.     The City of San Francisco decided to stop renting office space at LightHouse, saying it was being charged too much for rent.

3.     One of the legal cases against LightHouse filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), similar to a federal lawsuit, accused LightHouse of refusing to provide qualified ASL interpreters, among other things.

4.     Another lawsuit, filed by a Deaf interpreter in a California court who is the subject in the above-mentioned federal case, similarly alleged that LightHouse intentionally refused to allow iCanConnect staff and consumers to have access to qualified interpreters like him, as well as anti-deaf discrimination.

5.     A Superior Court judge ruled against LightHouse in the case brought by the Deaf interpreter. However, Brandon Cox, representing LightHouse, then sought to overturn this ruling, saying he was not present in court as he didn’t want to “needlessly commute from SF” because a court clerk supposedly told him the trial was postponed.

6.     After re-hearing the case with Cox present, the court again ruled against LightHouse. It was also reported that Cox lied to the judge under oath when he said there was no need for interpreters after he was asked why LightHouse didn’t provide them.

7.     Just like they did to the judge, LightHouse’s leaders have lied to other government agencies and so far appear to have escaped consequences. What’s more troubling is that they have also been telling flat-out lies about the reasons for taking adverse employment actions against former or current LightHouse workers, as if to destroy their reputations and deny them career opportunities.

8.     In November 2023, LightHouse workers voted to formally unionize. However, despite affirming their right to collective bargaining, leadership spent 2024 engaging in various union-busting activities. As of January 6, 2025, there is no contract between LightHouse United and management. This is consistent with leadership’s decision to refuse to provide qualified interpreters and never negotiate with the Deaf interpreter who was highly qualified and available.

9.     Despite legal and administrative claims in 2023 and 2024 against LightHouse for unlawful employment actions, LightHouse continued to engage in unjustified adverse employment actions in 2024, showing that leadership will not learn lessons. This solidifies the need for a united workforce to act collectively as an antidote to a persistently toxic work culture.

10.  Illustrative of leadership’s selective enforcement of the organization’s policies, many of the individuals, including those among management, who were accused of harassment (including sexual harassment) and retaliation by many current and former workers remain employed. Meanwhile, those who spoke up were accused of even very small infractions and swiftly dismissed, along with those who were hit with entirely made-up allegations.

We don’t think the events and actions in the preceding list are coincidental. Rather, we believe they reflect consistently bad decisions made by LightHouse’s leaders.

What 2024 taught us was that LightHouse’s leaders – Sharon Giovinazzo (Chief Executive Officer), Brandon Cox (Chief Operating Officer), Lisa Lee (Vice President of People & Culture/Human Resources), and others -- are not interested in finding common ground with anyone, unless it enhances them personally. They want everything their way. They seem to think they are perfect, they don’t make mistakes, and that everyone else is wrong. Because they could use taxpayer dollars to defend themselves, they are unmoved by lawsuits against LightHouse, which have not caused a change in their behaviors, despite being accountable to the public as nonprofit officers. Most of all, they appear to be unconcerned by the enormous financial impact that legal actions and negative public opinion are having on the organization; otherwise, we would have seen a significant shift in behavior.

Ethical leadership

Ethical leaders lead with integrity and empathy. They do not incessantly lie and consciously try to hide this immoral behavior. When confronted with legal threats for alleged wrongdoing, responsible leaders who truly want to protect their organization carefully examine what went wrong and make corrections. Such leaders also strive to actively listen to contrary viewpoints and invite their critics to cooperatively find areas of agreement. For example, if discrimination was alleged, these leaders would institute new policies and practices to root it out and reaffirm their organization’s strong commitment to respecting and valuing everyone.

However, Giovinazzo, Cox, and Lee did the opposite. They showed neither an interest in finding solutions amenable to both LightHouse and the community nor reaffirmed a genuine commitment to equality. They continue to blatantly discriminate, and their pattern of dishonesty persists. When our Campaign launched, there was zero effort on leadership’s part to reach out to us; and when multiple people pursuing legal actions offered LightHouse’s leaders a way out to preserve the organization’s good reputation and conserve its resources through negotiated resolutions, even for very low sums, Giovinazzo, Cox, and Lee rejected them – apparently because they were convinced that only they are right.

A new direction

This year, our focus will be on removing Giovinazzo, Cox, and Lee before they can do further harm to LightHouse and the communities it serves. In our opinion, they are ethically and morally unfit to manage a nonprofit organization serving the disability community. Our goal has never been to intentionally tarnish the image of LightHouse, long a beloved Bay Area nonprofit that has for years sadly suffered in the hands of unethical leaders; we did not intend to cause the Secretary of State to dissolve it and transfer its assets to another reputable organization to stop ongoing gross mismanagement. Rather, our goal had always been twofold: to raise public awareness about persistent structural problems inside LightHouse, and to try to persuade the leaders to change their behaviors by acting in conformity with LightHouse’s core values and by respecting all laws and regulations.

This shift in our Campaign’s direction will entail devoting less attention to the organization itself and more on exposing the potentially illegal and unethical actions of management. 2024 convinced us that there would be no change at LightHouse without the removal of not only Giovinazzo, Cox, and Lee but also many of the current Board members, who appear to be ever more committed to protecting the corrupt executive leaders. In 2025, we will explore every legal, administrative, and other solution to achieve accountability in ways that lead to personal consequences for Giovinazzo, Cox, Lee, and other officers.

A reminder about freedom of expression

Finally, in 2024, some have cautioned against personal criticisms of Giovinazzo, Cox, Lee and other officers, instead urging a focus only on the organization to achieve desired outcomes that are in the public interest. While we fervently believe in keeping it positive, 2024 taught us that there will be no leadership accountability without calling out the individuals who lead LightHouse right now; they will do nothing when the message is positive, and they are uninterested in sincere dialogue. Furthermore, we are entitled to our First Amendment right to express our opinions of those accountable to the public, particularly when discussing issues of interest to the public. On that last point, we share the following quote from a December 2024 court ruling rejecting a defamation case in Flynn V. Wilson:

“We have the privilege of living in a country with a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks. Like it or not, such attacks are a characteristic feature of our democracy . . ..”

Our Campaign does not seek to defame anyone’s character; we aim to bring accountability and transparency to a public benefit corporation that receives millions in taxpayer money. Because the organization’s leaders could not be held accountable internally by the Board, they have to be prosecuted in the court of public opinion. That in turn, we hope, will lead to prosecution in a court of law for possible abuse of power and other potential wrongdoing by Giovinazzo, Cox, Lee, other officers, and Board members of the nonprofit corporation.