For the third time in four years, the San Francisco LGBT Pride Celebration Committee and its top leader have parted ways. In the first case, former executive director Amy Andre couldn't manage the budget and left the organization in the fall of 2010 with some $225,000 of accumulated debt and unanswered questions about her leadership abilities or lack thereof. Then the board did not renew Brendan Behan's contract.
Last week, CEO Earl Plante was forced out by the board just days after news surfaced that he sent a threatening email to one of the candidates for Pride's board of directors. After Plante's many missteps, sending an intimidating email from his work account to a board candidate was apparently too much even for this board to tolerate. As we noted in this space in June, while Plante skillfully brought in sponsorship dollars and retired the remaining debt, he proved hopelessly lacking in the human aspects of running one of the city's most important LGBT organizations. With Plante's abrupt resignation, board President Lisa Williams took a leave of absence from that body to become the interim CEO.
We're not certain that Williams is the best person to lead SF Pride either. It was Williams who made the initial decision rescinding Chelsea Manning's grand marshal honor because Plante was away on bereavement leave. Aside from saying in the initial statement that selecting Manning was a "mistake," Williams has said next to nothing about the board's deliberations on the topic. From what we've reported at recent board meetings, her administrative style seems similar to that of Plante's: little interaction with the public and a refusal to admit that the Pride board should have treated Manning supporters with a modicum of respect. That simple courtesy would have made the situation much less combative. Five months later, Manning supporters are still seething and that's because no one on the board has provided any information on their decision making process.
The bigger question is where does the Pride Committee go from here?
First, there must be significant changes made to the board, not only in its makeup but also the way it is structured and the way it operates. We're not the only ones who have called for these improvements. Gay Supervisors Scott Wiener and David Campos, who rarely agree on policy matters, both told us that they have concerns about how Pride is run and its structure. It's inexplicable that board members don't engage with the public, either at meetings or through the media. Surely, not all of them agreed with the way the Manning situation was handled, yet month after month, at meeting after meeting, they just sat there, stone-faced, while Pride members and others raised legitimate questions about adhering to the bylaws and other written policies. In another example, for two months now, members have sought to have a discussion about allowing military recruiters at Pride. The National Guard was on site at this year's festival and that raised concerns among some trans people and their allies because transgender people are not allowed to serve openly. But each time the issue was raised, the board tabled it. Does the board think this matter will just go away? Pride board member Pam Grey is the spouse of retired Navy Commander Zoe Dunning, one of the loudest proponents of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." You'd expect that among the board members, she must have an informed opinion on the budding controversy. Yet we have heard nothing.
We've read the bios of the board candidates who will stand for election this Sunday at the annual general meeting. The information, as is usual these days, is buried on Pride's website, but you can find it by scrolling down at http://sfpride.org/membership/. They all sound eager to engage the community, which the incumbents failed to do this year. Perhaps with Williams now off the board, new Chair Davace Chin can restore some accountability and encourage board members to speak up.
The Pride organization must move beyond the Manning debacle. It will help no one if we're still talking about this next year. To do so, the board must acknowledge its shortcomings, pledge to improve and follow its procedures.
In the search for a new leader, we would strongly encourage the board to do away with the ridiculous CEO title for the top manager of a nonprofit. Pride is not a business, although it does need to raise significant funds to hold the world-class parade that people have come to expect. The title of executive director is prestigious enough and brings the organization more in line with other grassroots organizations. For many years Pride had no paid leader at all and the parade went on as usual. Perhaps it's time for a return to that model and subcontract the sponsorship duties.
In his exit letter to the "SF Pride Community," Plante blames "racist politics of personal destruction" for his downfall. We categorically reject that statement without specific allegations that can be corroborated. Sure, Manning supporters were angry this year. They were treated like crap, shut out of a board meeting, and met with silence at every turn. Anyone would be dissatisfied with that. Plante further states, "Dissatisfaction about the [Manning] result can and should be civilly discussed." Unfortunately, Plante and Williams never allowed that to happen and actively stonewalled discussion.
This Sunday, eligible Pride members should go to the W Hotel and vote for new board members. We're not making any explicit endorsements, but we will say that out with the old and in with the new would be a wise first step to restoring the Pride Committee's credibility.