The debate over Pima Community College’s decision to eliminate its sustainability director has been framed as a question of whether the college is abandoning its environmental commitments. But the underlying concern is whether sustainability work in Tucson should be organized through transparent, accountable institutions or through informal networks of influence.

Critics raise legitimate concerns: that dedicated sustainability staff provide expertise, continuity, data tracking and grant coordination. PCC will need to demonstrate that spreading these responsibilities across departments keeps the work adequately resourced and accountable. Yet a movement’s values are reflected not only in its goals, but in how power is distributed within it.

These concerns are not merely hypothetical. Public records show significant overlap between the leadership of climate-focused nonprofits and public advisory bodies. The city of Tucson’s Commission on Climate, Energy, and Sustainability includes members drawn from organizations; some individuals simultaneously serve as commissioners, lobbyists, nonprofit volunteers, organizers, and public representatives across several initiatives. This raises legitimate questions about how influence and opportunity are distributed, and whether access depends on merit and open participation, or on proximity to a small number of influential figures.

Public institutions have an obligation that goes beyond achieving policy goals: they must maintain public confidence that decisions are made fairly and transparently. This is why the PCC discussion should be about creating strong systems, not individual power. The central question is how sustainability leadership should be structured. Should major initiatives depend heavily on a small number of influential individuals? Or should institutions deliberately distribute authority, create independent oversight, and keep leadership pathways open to a broader range of community members?

Tucson would benefit from four modest reforms, none of them expensive:

• Conflict-of-interest disclosure. Public boards, commissions, and publicly funded institutions should require annual disclosures that address not only financial relationships but overlapping leadership positions across organizations.

• Transparent reporting pathways. Organizations receiving public support should publish clear guidelines for raising concerns about volunteer participation, mentorship opportunities and decision-making processes.

• Regular governance reviews. Public institutions should periodically assess whether authority has become concentrated within a small network and whether broader community participation is being actively encouraged.

• Institutional resilience. Sustainability programs should be able to survive leadership transitions without disruption. The strength of a system should never depend on any one person.

Most of these measures can be implemented through existing staff and public records systems at low cost. The payoff is increased public confidence and stronger institutional legitimacy. These recommendations are not anti-sustainability. They are pro-sustainability in the truest sense. Strong environmental programs require strong governance systems. Transparency, accountability, and broad community participation are not distractions from the work; they are part of it.

MJ Watz is a filmmaker, media producer, and graduate student in Entertainment Industry Management at California State University, Northridge.