With the 43rd annual LGBT Pride parade weekend upon us, we must address the San Francisco LGBT Pride Celebration Committee that oversees the event. The board's inept handling of the Bradley Manning grand marshal nomination resulted in undermining the heart of what the Pride Committee says it is: a group that anyone can join and in which, presumably, all can participate. But what we've seen and reported on since late April is anything but a transparent process. We had a photographer booted from an open board meeting, saw the head of the committee lash out at a speaker at a community meeting who was obviously in some sort of distress, and have been met with silence or non-answers to many of our questions.
Here is our report card on SF Pride for 2013.
CEO: Financial management B, community relations, D
Earl Plante relocated last December from New York City to become San Francisco Pride's chief executive officer (a grandiose title that he's the first to receive), only six months before the parade. In that time, he continued the effort begun by former executive director Brendan Behan to focus on turning around Pride's finances – for that he deserves a lot of credit.
According to a recent SF Pride press release, Plante also achieved the highest sponsorship income in its 43-year history, including $782,199 in cash donations and $1.6 million in secured in-kind donations. For the naysayers who want to do away with corporate sponsors: that's just unrealistic. It's a priority for Pride to be a free event, and the only way that is possible is by finding funds to cover the costs for 22 stages, entertainment, portable toilets, clean-up, security, medical services, etc., not to mention paying the contractors who oversee every aspect of the festivities, from managing the parade to lining up the live acts. San Francisco is a world-class city that deserves a free world-class Pride, and that's what the sponsorships provide.
Most of the voluntary gate donations and beverage receipts go back to community groups, a tradition that has enabled Pride to grant nearly $2 million to beneficiaries since 1997. After the disastrous tenure of former executive director Amy Andre, who drastically miscalculated the beverage partner percentages, resulting in many groups not getting paid, it's a welcome relief that the program is back on track. Plante doesn't deserve all the credit for this, however, as Behan did an admirable job of stabilizing the Pride Committee during his two-year stint in the top job.
Plante's performance has been poor when it comes to community relations, as the Manning controversy so aptly demonstrated. (Manning, of course, is the Army private who leaked classified government documents to WikiLeaks. He is viewed as a hero or a traitor, and was given the grand marshal honor that was later rescinded by the board.) Plante exhibited little leadership that we could see, and offered no conciliatory statements to Manning supporters or others who may not have supported Manning but were turned off by the heavy handedness of the Pride organization. As CEO, Plante is the public face of SF Pride. Even the courtesy of making introductions at the May 31 community forum were too much to ask of the board and Plante.
Another of Plante's shortcomings had to do with his handling of this year's selection of grand marshals, which quite frankly, was the worst we've seen in decades. The controversy over Manning divided the community because of Pride's confusing communications and secret process. Adding to its embarrassment, another of Pride's grand marshals declined the honor. Stranger still was the fact that not all grand marshals were informed before the media was notified, leading to some surprises when a B.A.R. reporter called seeking comment. That's just unprofessional and the process is in dire need of an overhaul.
We are aware that Plante was out for a week on bereavement leave during the critical first days of the Manning announcement and retraction, but he did little to help improve the situation when he returned to work. There was no visible effort that Plante tried to mend fences or reach out to the community and address people's concerns. Heck, the community meeting wouldn't have even happened if San Francisco Supervisor David Campos hadn't intervened and sent a strongly worded letter requesting Pride hold a public forum.
In every way, Plante and the board, particularly President Lisa Williams, mismanaged the Manning situation and only ended up angering people. Their press releases were badly written and were not effective communication. Board members and Plante escalated tension by refusing to answer questions from the public. It's as if they thought the whole matter would disappear if they just shut up. Well, it didn't.
Plante told us in May that he takes "full responsibility" for the Manning mess. So far, he hasn't taken any steps to repair or correct the fallout.
SF Pride board's performance: F
Much of the blame for the Manning fiasco falls to the Pride board, the members of which repeatedly failed to understand the depth of community anger with both how the grand marshal process and how Manning's nomination were handled.
From the board's hard-line "Discussion of this matter is closed for this year" statement to their nearly complete silence at the community meeting, the time has come for new leadership on the board.
Only one board member, treasurer David Currie, can be given more than a failing grade. He at least had the decency to acknowledge that "mistakes were made" in the Manning retraction at the community meeting. "If you don't like us, replace us," Currie told the audience at that May 31 meeting. We encourage Pride members to attend the annual general meeting in September and do just that. We're not sure how many board positions will be open, but some new faces are definitely needed.
Pride membership process: F
What was an easy and hassle-free online membership application process to join SF Pride turned into a clunky snail-mail-in system. Whether it was orchestrated by staff and/or the board, it only made it more difficult for new members to join, thus decreasing their numbers and votes at the annual general meeting in September, where board elections will be held.
We've heard multiple reports of mishandled membership applications from people who signed up, only later to learn their forms were "never received." The sudden timing of the change raises suspicions and rumor and is just another example that the organization is out of touch with the community.
Why is Pride making it harder to join and become part of what Pride itself calls "a celebration of LGBT culture and liberation"? It won't be good for SF Pride if, in September, all those people who signed up to be members in May and June are not on the membership list and able to vote.
After this year's parade is over, Pride board and staff should hold another meeting, but instead of just listening like they did last month, they should engage the community and find consensus on some of these issues. The board should develop an oversight policy for grand marshal selections to correct the process and avoid these mistakes.
We want to see Pride flourish. It's an empowering experience for young and old, gay and straight. But the committee must be more transparent in its dealings with the public and be able to handle criticism. Most of all, it should be able to admit errors and work to improve them.