Here we are, 11 weeks from the San Francisco LGBT Pride Parade and festival, and the SF LGBT Pride Celebration Committee board just lost three members, all of whom abruptly resigned last weekend. Co-chair Alex Randolph, who joined the board only a couple months ago, stepped down, along with veteran board members Belinda Ryan and Jamie Fountain. Randolph's departure marks the third time in six months that a co-chair has resigned. Under the best of circumstances this would be problematic, and as we all know, the diminishment of the board poses a risk to Pride itself. The loss of the three board members leaves SF Pride with only five remaining, one of whom just joined days ago. Two others have been on the board only a short time.
Since creating a fulltime executive director position in the late 1990s, SF Pride has, until last year, been an efficient, well-run organization. We can't help but be dismayed by the downward spiral in which SF Pride now finds itself; and we're amazed that a once-thriving and active board has been reduced to a handful of people and can't find committed leaders to stay on.
This rapid turnover on Pride's board is troublesome. And after months of reporting and editorializing on Pride's dire financial situation, we believe it is time for the board to dissolve and for SF Pride to merge with another organization. The contractors who are continuing to provide services in the weeks ramping up to the parade should stay on – they're the ones who really know what to do and how to manage all of the upcoming deadlines. But what is needed is an organization that can step in now and become a fiscal sponsor and exert some much-needed leadership. The news Wednesday that Brendan Behan has been appointed as interim executive director is a welcome sign, as is businessman Bill Hemenger's decision to become treasurer of the organization. In fact, the board should have hired Behan in 2009 when he applied for the job.
But in the four months since the city controller's office issued its fiscal and governance assessment of SF Pride, we have not heard of any news indicating that the board has made progress in the areas identified by the controller. There is still a deficit. There are still inadequate financial reserves. There is no significant fundraising being done by the board. And, with the recent resignations, the board is at a low of only five members (out of the allowable 15). It is not realistic to expect that five people – with only a small office staff and no executive director – to solve Pride's numerous problems.
Finally, we hear that some sponsors are getting nervous, and that does not bode well for the organization, the city, or the LGBT community.
SF Pride, unfortunately, has not taken steps to right itself, or if it has such moves have proved ineffectual. It is time for another agency or organization to step in and take control, since the Pride board has shown it is unable to do so.