FBI Has 3,000 Pages on Ted Kennedy

When a person dies, you can file a Freedom of Information Act request with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for any records on the deceased. My open government bone gets itchy many times when famous people pass away.

I experienced an episode of nosiness when homo-hating Sen. Jesse Helms died, I filed a FOIA, and the FBI soon revealed it had more than 1,000 pages on him. But more than a year after his demise, the feds still have not released a single page on the North Carolina politician.

The feds received another request from me in the summer when closeted gay singer Michael Jackson died, and in response the FBI said it had 600 pages on him, but didn't say when that file would be released.

And when the Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy passed away, the FBI got a FOIA request from me for his file. Last week I got a letter from the feds saying there were over 3,000 pages located responsive to my request. That's a lot of pages.

As with the Helms and Jackson requests, the FBI doesn't know when the Kennedy pages will be ready for public inspection. The agency is to be commended for quickly locating the number of pages on these men, but as with so many FOIA requests, actual release of the information can stretch on for years.

Here's an idea for President Obama to consider as part of a package to improve the nation's FOIA law: Find the money to hire more FOIA staff at all federal agencies. More staff would speed up the review and release of documents, giving us a better understanding of our government and our leaders.

Here's the letter from the FBI on the Kennedy file:

Obama's Town Hall Lesson
for HRC's Solmonese

(Joe Solmonese sits for Washington Life magazine's photographer, Clay Blakemore. September 2009.)

It's not required by law, but modern presidential hopefuls, as part of running for the nation's highest office, must subject themselves to town halls with voters. I don't know how many such forums candidate Barack Obama held, but since taking office he's held quite a few.

The White House in March created a web page to help Americans participate in an online town hall a few days later, and we saw the President begin a commitment to use the forums to keep in touch with average citizens.

Since then, Obama has held town halls abroad in Turkey, France, across the United States in Virginia, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Montana, Colorado, and Louisiana. Counting all in-person and online forums, Obama has conducted nine town halls. As if that's not enough, while in Asia next week, he'll hold a public forum with students in China.

The President reaped many large and small rewards from the dialogues, including engaging Americans to support his legislative and political agendas, leading to accomplishments such as the House passing a health care reform package last weekend. I don't think there are any serious drawbacks to town halls for Obama, indeed, they've assisted in keeping him connected to regular folks and vice versa.

But no such town halls ever take place before a new person is installed and crowned as America's Gay Leader when they take over the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay organization.

When the then-obscure Joe Solmonese was plucked from EMILY's List in March 2005 to head up HRC, it was because the board of directors met behind close doors and picked him to be the new executive director, and for many gays, the thing they said after the decision was announced was, "Joe who?"

There was no public auditioning of the candidates for America's Gay Leader by HRC, a fact that I believe leads to lack of connection and engagement many non-HRC members and donors have toward Solmonese. This lack of commitment from the larger gay community with Solmonese is clearly exhibited in the criticism he constantly faces from a loud chorus demanding a more assertive approach by him and his organization with the Obama administration.

These days, when Solmonese issues a weekly letter to HRC supporters or appears on national TV and does a masterful job of apologizing for lack of action from Obama, many bloggers and traditional gay media folks are ready to pounce on him. He is given no slack.

If Solmonese were to learn a few lessons from Obama in how to use town halls to bring people to endorse and work for your agenda, it would be a big step forward in convincing me that HRC truly has a roadmap for pressuring the White House, but also to more fully engage a wider spectrum of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

Imagine if Solmonese began holding regular monthly town halls at HRC's state-of-the-art media center at their DC headquarters, with any member of the gay public allowed to ask direct questions and questions submitted from gays around the country via email, YouTube and Twitter, and all of it streamed on HRC's web site.

Why, we'd have some genuine transparency and utilization of modern communication tools to better mobilize and organize the community to move forward more cohesively on a gay agenda. HRC would also be seen less as a monarchy given to ruling from an ivory tower with a rainbow hued foundation. Just as with Obama's town halls, there are great things to come of Solmonese's town halls, if they ever occur.

If the leader of the free world can find the time to host many town halls to carry out his vision and dreams for America, the de facto leader of the nation's gay community should do likewise. Town halls aren't as glamorous as sitting all gussied up in formal wear for a photo session, but they should be an integral duty of Solmonese's in the very near future.

(Solmonese, back row, second from left. Washington Life magazine. Photo credit: Clay Blakemore. September 2009.)

New Prop 8 Federal Suit
Transcripts Now Online

(Ted Olson and David Boies meet the press after a recent court session over their Prop 8 challenge.)

The good people at the American Foundation for Equal Rights, who are behind the federal challenge to California's Prop 8 passage last year, have shared with me transcripts from two recent hearings before Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco.

Back in July, I made an effort to secure the transcripts of such hearings, even though I was sitting through some of them, because I believed the gay community, and lots of other interested parties, would be keen to follow the case through the written word. The foundation readily agreed with me and provided me with the July 2 transcript.

So far, the proceedings have not been aired on TV, but that could change. According to UniteTheFight, Walker is considering allowing cameras into the court room, which is something I believe we all should support.

But thanks to Chad Griffin and Yusef Robb of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, anyone with a computer can follow the case thus far through the transcripts.

Click here for a PDF of the August 19 hearing, which is 70-pages.

To read the 103-pages from the October 14 proceeding as a PDF, click here.

Many big thanks to the foundation for making the transcripts available and giving America a great glimpse into this important case. Oh, and much gratitude for filing the lawsuit. May we prevail on this matter, and put an end to the hatred and tyranny of the state ballot measures on gay marriage.

Gay Ugandan Protest in London;
No USA NGO Street Visibility

(London, November 7 demonstration.)

A call to action was issued in late October by the Gay Uganda blog and the Sexual Minorities Uganda group, in response to a proposal for new draconian anti-gay law. What's so terrible about this bill? The answer comes from the BoxTurtleBulletin blog, which has performed an excellent job of following homo-hatred in the African nation:

The Ugandan legislature is considering a bill that would enhance sentencing for gay people to include the death penalty for “repeat offenders”, among other “aggravated homosexuality” offenses, and life imprisonment for others.

Much outrage has been expressed by international human rights organizations, but little has happened in the streets over the Ugandan situation. The call to action was for the second weekend in November, and as far as I have been able to determine, a single action took place, in London on November 7, at the Uganda House, a governmental welcome center.

This report comes from Dennis Hambridge, an organizer with Gay Activists Alliance International:

The protest was joined by gay Ugandan John Bosco Nyombi who was illegally and forcibly put on an air flight back to Uganda by the UK Border Agency while seeking asylum in the UK, causing British courts to order his return back to the UK.

Amongst the banners and placards that were fixed to the front of the building, were banners stating “Unconditional Love for Ugandan LGBT” and the words of Dr Martin Luther King ("An Injustice Anywhere Is a Fight for Justice Everywhere” and pledging support for the Ugandan lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and other gender variant people.

Hundreds of leaflets asking for the “witch hunt” of gays in Uganda to be ceased were handed out to passersby, not just to Brits, but also to people from many countries visiting Trafalgar Square on Saturday. There were many people stopping and applauding the protesters, and taking pictures of the action, pledging their support and to highlight the injustice LGBT people face in Uganda to their own governments.

(At the megaphone is Davis Mac-Iyalla, a gay Nigerian man granted UK asylum earlier this year.)

Bravos to all who participated in the action and brought much-needed street visibility to gay Ugandans, and also put some pressure on a Ugandan government office.

Unfortunately, no effort was made by USA non-governmental organizations to stage similar peaceful actions at the Ugandan embassy in Washington or the country's mission to the United Nations in New York City.

Early last week, I emailed many paid international and domestic LGBT advocates from HRW, IGLHRC, HRC, NGLTF and Global Equality, including Scott Long, Carey Alan Johnson, Joe Solmonese, Rea Carey, Julie Dorf and Mark Bromley, asking if they had any plans to leave their suites for press conferences at the embassy or mission in their cities, and none of them replied, not did they stage a visibility action for the Ugandans.

I believe the NGO advocates should get out of their offices more often and organize press conferences and vigils at embassies and missions, because it will pressure foreign governments and carry other tangible benefits for our oppressed brothers and sisters around the globe who can't stage such actions. Yes, the NGOs have sent letters to Uganda's leaders, but more should be done by the NGO advocates.

(Rep. Baldwin, holding glass award, and NGO advocates.)

Recently, several of these advocates staged a photo-op with openly lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin in her office to bestow a leadership award on her for advocacy on many fronts, including at the international level. That is laudable, but how about these folks, including the good Congresswoman, getting out of their comfort zone inside Baldwin's office and pounding the pavement in front of the Uganda embassy in DC?

Gay Ballot Measures Since '72:
102 Losses, 23 Wins

From the NY Times obit after William F. Buckley Jr died:

To the New York City politician Mark Green, he purred: “You’ve been on the show [Firing Line] close to 100 times over the years. Tell me, Mark, have you learned anything yet?”

This amusing anecdote sprang to mind after I compiled a list of all winning and losing ballot propositions over the decades related to gay people. Leave to conservative Buckley to sting an opponent into spirited debate, with a simple question, one that expresses what I want to ask my gay community.

Information from three lists shows gay people have suffered 102 losses and 23 wins since 1972 through the ballot initiative process. The setback in Maine this week became our 102nd loss. That is some string of failures for the sissies. Triple digits losses over forty years, and I ask, have we learned anything yet?

I took data from this list published by a straight University of Kansas professor, Don Haider-Markel, (thank you, so much, Don), and also from this Wikipedia entry on LGBT ballot initiatives, along with info at the Wikipedia entry on gay marriage measures, and tallied up wins and losses.

Last week I was upset when Maine became the 31st gay marriage prop loss, but I didn't know the larger context of all gay-specific props, and it's even more disturbing to have to wrap my head around the total figure of 102 ballot measure losses.

Like a screaming queen at the Stonewall Inn riot and rebellion, I'm fed up with being treated like dirt by the establishment, and the Mr. Nice Gay leadership that produces endless ballot box bashings damaging our collective psyche and community karma.

Let's not forget the high price of the campaigns, sucking up money that could go to better use like housing subsidies for gay/bisexual/lesbian/transgender seniors. How many millions are we talking about? David Mixner has part of the answer:

We have poured over $100,000,000 in the last two years into efforts where Americans feel it is there obligation to vote on our freedom.

One-hundred million in just two years and I shudder to think of the cost to the gay community pocketbook after _decades_ of these ballot props.

How much higher than 102 failures must our losses number climb to before things change? Much higher, with the thinking expressed by a man whose career is working on these losing campaigns. From a recent Washington Post article:

Advocates say there was a partial victory even in Maine, where the vote was closer than it had been in previous campaigns.

"We're hopeful that it's a signal that there is increasing support for gay couples to marry," said Dan Hawes, field director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Nationally, we're going to continue education efforts to move the needle of public opinion, especially in California."

Sorry, Dan Hawes, and the rest of the Gay Inc folks who have without question helped create 102 setbacks, with so many gay millions down the toilet. It no longer is good enough to change move the needle.

Will Gays Again Squander
A Ballot Loss Crisis?

Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff to President Obama, believes no serious crisis should be wasted to bring forth necessarily and valuable changes unlikely to happen at any other time.

Such a crisis befell the American gay community in the wake of Prop 8 passing in California last November, and despite many street protests, angry blog postings, the formation of dozens of new splinter groups, and other reactions, we are essentially at the same (losing) place politically. If there have been radical changes to the structure and leadership of Gay Inc and the California gay community, I've missed seeing them take effect.

Here it is, that time of the year when we've suffered another ballot proposition, No on 1 in Maine, while also racking up two wins, in Washington and Michigan, that don't wipe away the awful pain of the New England loss, and Gay Inc leaders are again pleading for the criticism to go away.

Actually, there was a preemptive move by Matt Foreman of the Haas Jr Fund, a week before the Maine failure, to keep the lid clamped tight on holding our leaders accountable for their decisions. In a column at the Bilerico.com site, Foreman opined that TV ads weren't the answer for us:

As the campaign in Maine enters the home stretch, our skeevy opponents have unleashed yet another ad claiming that unless marriage equality is overturned, same-sex marriage will be "pushed" on elementary school children.

Our side has responded with calm, rebutting the attacks with facts, statements from authoritative figures, and appeals to higher values. Sadly, that approach has been condemned by well-respected figures in our community, including Andrew Sullivan, Mike Tidmus, the Box Turtle Bulletin and the Bay Area Reporter. [...]

If, goddess forbid, we lose [Maine], can we remember why that was - and it sure as hell won't be because our side was somehow responsible.

Well, our side's response, however noble it was, again lost us the battle. Instead of considering that his way of thinking is wrong, Foreman choose to cannibalize gay bloggers and newspaper editors for having the temerity to call for new approaches in ad and campaigns. I strongly disagree with Foreman's belief that our side bears no, or little, responsibility for our 31st loss. Reading his words, there is no sense, at least at the end of October, that he'd be willing to consider us taking responsibility for our Maine effort, the great and not-so-good stuff.

The question of how important the ads were to Maine's ballot measure can be summed up by this opening sentence in an AP story:

Stunned and angry, national gay rights leaders Wednesday blamed scare-mongering ads - and President Barack Obama's lack of engagement - for a bitter election setback in Maine that could alter the dynamics for both sides in the gay-marriage debate.

While some believe the TV ads from our side weren't our answer, our opponents again were able to use commercials to prevail with voters. Might our 31st gay marriage ballot loss finally be the opportunity for new thinking and diverse ad messages from us? Must we always lose with the same lame Hallmark marketing?

One gay political consultant, Steve Hildebrand, who served as an assistant campaign manager to Barack Obama, had this to say about Maine's ads:

We are fools to have spent all this money and time and not have defined the opponents. It's not enough to answer their charges. We need to hit them back and not let up on it until voters don't buy their lies anymore. Malpractice in my opinion.

Not helping with an honest assessment post-Maine, by his extremist framing of the issue, is the head of Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese. In an email shared by John Aravosis at AmericaBlog, Solmonese said:

For a lot of people in the community and our supporters, Tuesday's results feel like a good reason to throw up our hands and say forget politics. It's also tempting to find someone to blame, or a missing piece, that pesky "if," to cling to. I'm not asking you not to. I'm telling you that we can't.

First of all, no one other than Solmonese is expressing a belief Maine is a reason to forget politics. And while the community is searching for betters ways of fighting at the ballot box, and potentially winning, HRC frames the search as a blame game. Good way to deflect rightful anger that is being directed at HRC and others. Who the hell is this HRC loser to tell the rest of us what we can't do?

Can we expect some new thinking from the head of Equality California, Geoff Kors, a key leader in the Prop 8 debacle, one year later? Sure, in some ways, Kors will never repeat the mistakes he made last year, but I wonder if he'd consider re-evaluating his approach to our next gay marriage ballot initiative out here. Take a look at an interview Kors gave last week to Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic:

I think we have to really look at the vote and analyze it before we can draw any specific conclusions, but what's clear is, even though we significantly outspent the opposition for the first time, and supporters of equality out-organized the opposition, our side still fell short. [...]

I think if we do the work we need to do and we can stay equal or out-raise the other side, I believe we will win in 2012.

What I would like Kors to think about is the fact, as he noted, that in Maine, even with significantly more money than our opponents, we still failed to persuade enough voters to agree with us. This means money, and lots of it, may not be the answer to gays winning in California, or any another state. Yet, Kors concluded his interview saying if the money flows like a river, we'll do well. Sorry, I just don't have faith in that method.

Money is surely important to any election, and gays sure like to open the checkbook for these losing campaigns, but I believe it going to take more than big bucks to turn the tide. We're going to need a new ideas and marketing.

But will the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community muster the courage to use the Maine crisis to bring about better, lasting changes to Gay Inc and the future campaigns on the horizon?

This skeptic is not hopeful that will happen. A recent Washington Post piece on the aftermath of Maine, delved into how Gay Inc will move forward:

For the gay rights movement, the defeat is another setback to its long-held strategy of building the case for marriage equality state by state. Historically, the tactics have been to target places where conditions seem favorable, and Maine, characterized by its governor as a libertarian state, seemed to fit that criterion.

Still, advocates say the strategy remains effective.

If the strategy is so damn good, why are suffering so many setbacks? Those advocates are entitled to their views, and the Post article is not about the ads and tactics employed in Maine. However, if we are to most beneficially use this latest current electoral loss and crises, we would be wise to place every aspect of the gay marriage battle on the table for discussion.

BAR: Cleve's EAA Has 200 'Fuzzy' Groups

You need not be medicated on marijuana to appreciate the latest dope from Cleve Jones about the current state of his new group, Equality Across America. From the current Bay Area Reporter:

From the beginning, Jones insisted that the [march] would be a scaled down affair, with the only goal of the march being full federal equality and that the way to best achieve that would be to establish action teams in all 435 congressional districts across the country.

It remains to be seen exactly how many of those teams have been formed.

Jones said Tuesday that he thinks groups have formed in some 200 districts.

"But that's kind of fuzzy," he added. (Emphasis added.)

Planet Queer to Cleve. Dude, get a damn clue. You'd be lucky to have 2 groups in any districts.

This man's big ego and his march, barely a month after the rally at the capital, has produced what exactly? Something kind of fuzzy.

Speaking of groups to spring out of the march, how's the one in Cleve's backyard coming along? Some clues from the Desert Sun paper:

Gay rights activists took to the streets of downtown Palm Springs on Wednesday night to call for a local push to create a national network.

More than a dozen men blew whistles, chanted and waved handwritten signs at Indian Canyon Drive and Arenas Road in Palm Springs.

One of the comments says there were only 10 men who showed up. Whatever the number, not a large turnout. No indication that Cleve was there, but his hand-picked interim leader of the EAA, Tanner Efinger, was present and accounted for:

The protesters, who also blasted disco music from amplifiers, said they want to see gay-rights groups in every congressional district across the country begin to network.

“While it seems like we're preaching to the choir here — there are a lot of gay people who live here — what we're actually trying to do is say, ‘Listen, we need to start talking to each other,'” Tanner Efinger, 25, a part-time Palm Springs resident, said Wednesday.

This is beyond rich. One of the key folks at EAA who couldn't be bothered to hold a single town hall meeting anywhere in gay USA, so we could, um, talk to each other, is now standing on a street corner saying we need to talk each other. Oh, and he brought along a disco music system to show his seriousness. He must have played "I Will Survive."

All the energy, time and money that went into validating Cleve's delusions of leading an effective army to be activists at home is nothing more than some fuzzies and a Naive Equality Princess shaking her groove thang in the desert.

Will my community ever grow up and get serious?

NYT: SF Maps HIV
Viral Load by Neighborhood

The Bay Area section of today's New York Times has a fascinating article by Carol Pogash about the local health department using HIV viral load mapping to ask some important new questions about using new technology to better help people with AIDS and the larger communities in which we live. Full disclosure: I'm quoted, but that is not the only reason why I say the piece is fascinating. ;-)

The HIV research under discussion could potentially become a valuable tool both for treatment and prevention protocols. From the Times:

[A shaded DPH map] shows where the sickest AIDS patients live. Many are untreated. The map is the product of a groundbreaking effort to identify where care should be focused.

The research combines medical records and epidemiological tools to show the intensity of the illness, measured by individual’s viral load, the number of viral particles in a patient’s bloodstream. [...]

Using the data of individuals’ viral load levels, the city can track where the virus is circulating and focus attention on the deepest reservoirs of H.I.V. Successful anti-retroviral treatment reduces the load in an individual so it is undetectable in the blood. The less virus in the blood, the lower the chance of infecting others.

There is good and bad news, isn't this always the case with anything to do with HIV?, showing up in data. One example:

[Researcher and DPH head of HIV prevention] Dr. Colfax worries about disparities both in viral load and in care. The Castro, for example, has more H.I.V. cases, but individuals in lower-income neighborhoods tend to have higher viral loads, the new research shows.

It's a positive step that the people with AIDS in the gay Castro district tend to have lower viral loads, but that should be replicated in all areas of the city. Much truth-telling comes from the leader of a person of color HIV org, Jimmy Loyce, who I always liked when he was head of the DPH AIDS Office many years ago:

The results of the mapping were not surprising to James Loyce, executive director of Black Coalition on AIDS in San Francisco. [...]

Historically, he said, sections like Potrero Hill have felt “benign neglect,” suspecting that services were geared to the Castro, where more H.I.V.-infected people in the city live. [...] The sickest people of color, he said, have many issues: violence, heart disease, diabetes, obesity and the perceived stigma of homosexuality.

Good for Jimmy, bringing in a larger context to black people and AIDS issues. For local activist color, the Times turned to me:

Michael Petrelis, an AIDS blogger and self-proclaimed provocateur, said, “It’s feeding two birds with one seed, helping a patient extend his life by keeping his viral load down, and that in turn makes him less infectious.”

And summing it all up, rather well, I think, is the lead researcher:

Dr. Colfax must balance individual and communal care. “I think we’re asking the right questions,” he said. “Now the issue is, What are the answers?”

FYI, the reporter, Carol Pogash, is a longtime Bay Area writer and wrote the first SF Examiner story about the murder of George Moscone and Harvey Milk. She is also the author of "As Real As It Gets," a history of SF General Hospital in the first years of the epidemic. Click here to check out her web site.

DNC's Tobias:
'Big' Donation to ME Gay Marriage

Over at John Aravosis' AmericaBlog site, he yesterday took the Democratic National Committee and it's treasurer, openly gay money guru Andy Tobias and Democratic leader, to task for their b.s. and non-support to defeat Question 1 in Maine. From Aravosis:

I think we just caught the DNC lying to the gay community about the election in Maine. And an email from DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias, which we quote below, proves it.

This conflict is about the DNC's emails earlier this week about races that were important to the party leadership, and missing was a push for Mainers to vote no on Question 1. Tobias posted a long and defensive comment in reply to Aravosis' complaints, and much of this debate is inside politics, but very important for the gay community to have, if we are ever to force the Democratic Party to be our fierce advocate, after sucking up millions from gay donors.

But I digress. My real point here is that Tobias donated a big fat zero to the Maine effort, according to the information posted on the Maine ethics commission's web site. If he made a personal donation to No on 1, it's not showing up in the commission's search engine.

To be fair, even if he had donated, it wouldn't have helped win the vote for us, but it sure would have been great to say at least Tobias made a contribution.

Maine: Gayja Vu All Over Again x31

The Urban Dictionary has two entries for "gayjavu" and two more for "gay ja vu," and I will soon submit a fifth entry, spelled "gayja vu" because the ones already listed don't sum up my definition of the phrase.

To me, gayja vu is when you have the same gay leaders and advocacy groups, with the same political thinking, waging the same tired campaign over a gay marriage ballot proposition, producing the same losing result. On Tuesday night in Maine, we witnessed a superb example of gayja vu. It was the 31st time the gay community has lost one of these electoral battles. That's some gayja vu losing streak.

We will easily see the 32nd instance of gay marriage losing when put up to vote, if we allow the people who've created the losses to continue, without a challenge to them and their way of operating. I'm not sure how to do this exactly, but let me give you an example of a looming loss, if we don't radically rethink how we wage the battles over the initiatives.

In mid October, the Let California Ring project of Equality California, the lead organization in the Prop 8 fight last year, announced they were launching a new phase of their existence. It was exclusively, and uncritically, heralded at UniteTheFight.com.

What was so new about Let California Ring? Not much really. Like the No on 8 campaign, it has an executive committee, self-appointed without public input, and the usual suspects are running the show. From UniteTheFight.com's report, quoting Marc Solomon of Equality California:

"The people who have stayed on is Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry; Matt Foreman of HAAS Jr. Fund and former Executive Director of the Task Force and Empire State Pride Agenda; Thalia Zepatos, consultant of the National Collaborative, and Shannon Minter [of NCLR]," Marc informed.

"New folks are me, Marc Solomon; Louis Lopez, founder of Honor PAC, who in my opinion, is the most sophisticated Latino LGBT organization that I’ve run across; Karin Wang, who's on the board of API Equality LA; Ron Buckmire, who chairs the Jordan Rustin Coalition; Rev. Madison Schockley, an amazing supporter, who is an African American United Church of Christ minister in N. County San Diego; Kathy Schwamberger, Vice Chair of EQCA Institute Board; and Roger Doughty, Executive Director of the Horizons Foundation out of San Francisco."

No word on how these folks were self-selected, what exactly qualifies them for the executive committee, other than Marc Solomon likes them, or if they'll hold public meetings, something the Prop 8 governing bodies never bothered with. On behalf of all of us, the committee will in the next few years try to move people of color communities and voters to support gay marriage in California, and the effort is expected to cost $15 million.

Sure, the committee members are good people and they only want what is best for the larger LGBT community, but the way they, both at their individual non-profits, and collectively on projects such as Prop 8, have shown they operate is that they're insular, non-transparent and committed to organizing behind closed doors.

And that has directly contributed to why we lose these initiative campaigns, and suffer other setbacks politically.

One name on the new executive committee has a long history as a paid consultant to quite a few initiatives, Thalia Zepatos, longtime director of NGLTF's training department, before moving on to another consulting gig. She's been involved in these (losing) campaigns since 1988 in Oregon, when voters rejected employment protections for state workers.

I single out Zepatos here because I think she is representative of part of the problem here, which is we have an entrenched circle of consultants who made part- or full-time careers either in ballot fights, or at Gay Inc. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it ain't helping the rest of us win ballot props.

If she and the others on the executive committee had track records of successes, I probably wouldn't care, but, Zepatos and the others, despite their law degrees and years of working on (failed) campaigns, have racked up 31 losses. I see no reason to think, if left to their own devices, that some important changes, benefiting the community, will happen.

Can't we find a way to force new thinking and people into creating better and winning strategies? Must we accept that the only way to organize on gay or marriage propositions is to have the same leadership circle, with the same ivory tower thinking?

We could start with Equality California and Let California Ring holding regular, public community meetings, that are streamed on the web, and actually engaging more of the state's community. I'm sick of "community" groups making structure and personnel decisions out of public view, then announcing some supposedly great new development as a done deal.

Looking at the Let California Ring executive committee members and its structure, sends one loud message: The crisis in California's gay community of losing Prop 8 went to waste. As currently constituted, this executive committee is all-but-guaranteed to deliver the LGBT community more gayja vu at the ballot box.