Friday, July 24, 2009

CA Gay Leadership Summit to be
from San Bernardino

Earlier today I created a listserv of people involved in putting on tomorrow's LGBT leadership summit down in San Bernardino, and sent out an email asking if it could be web streamed.

I received a phone call from lesbian community organizer Robin McGehee of Fresno, saying she was looking into the matter and agreed with me that the summit should be streamed to everyone who couldn't be there. She soon followed up with this email:
The person that is interested and willing to cover the summit is Phillip Minton with

I explained to him that I had gotten Michael's email and that it was not up to me whether or not he could live stream. I helped him check in with Eden from the IE to see if the desire was even a possibility, and it is possible.
Because of this technology, and the desire to see how this summit concludes from of those who can not make it to the IE because of multiple circumstances, hopefully this can happen.
A few reporters were on the list, including Lisa Leff of the Associated Press and also was keen to follow the summit on the web. Lisa said:
Thank you, Robin, for looking into this, and to you, Michael, for bringing it up. FYI, I spoke with Marc Solomon from Equality California about this earlier in the week, and at that time he wasn't sure the event could/would be streamed. If it could be, that would be super, because I can't make it to San Bernardino this weekend either. Thanks again.
We then heard from the person responsible for making the streaming happen:
This is Phillip Minton with Unite the Fight. We will do our best to provide the best streaming possible. Given that this is a last minute development, some technical difficulties may arise. We do have a good camera and I've been assured that I will have a hard line to the internet which will definitely cut back on any issues wireless would bring.

As for sound, it may be iffy at times. Panelists and facilitators will have a mic, but attendees won't. However, there is a chat room next to the streaming window, so I will do my best to type up what is being asked or said by attendees. As for an agenda, there may be breakout groups, so naturally, I won't be able to cover those.

Here is the link to the post where you'll find the streaming and chat room: Leadership Summit Live Streaming .

Keep your fingers crossed that all goes well for the techies!
Kudos to Robin, Philip and the summit organizers for committing to making the event transparent. This web streaming will go a long, and very valuable, way to engage the California and national LGBT community in our continuing struggle for liberation and equality.

Don't forget: Click here on Saturday to catch the streaming. Oh, and spread the word about it and the summit.


Anonymous said...

Hurrah, Michael, for encouraging the commitment to and value of "sunshine" here in extremely overcast CA. And to those makin' it happen with next to no advance! Don't stop.

Jeffrey Taylor said...

Thanks very much for your efforts here, Michael. This is a great step towards the transparency and accountability we all deserve.

Streaming is relatively easy and very inexpensive, and it's unacceptable to not stream any major LGBT org meeting that is open to the public.

Anonymous said...

I have been listening to the live stream and I am very familiar with the dynamics of this movement at this time and I am an expert in communication and problem solving and rhetoric. Here is my observation:

It is fine to argue for using the strategies of the president yet you have to recognize what is similar about this campaign (the issues and people) to the president AND what is different--you just do not naively lay over a campaign structure without talking openly about the unique dynamics of GLBT movements and politics. NO one is talking about this.

Second,and for me more importantly--on paper yes we need a central message and a central person/sm group who directs (the example given was BO did not allow infighting) yet that is not going to happen until there is a public hearing on what went wrong in 2008. More specifically, the Challenger went down because of a defective O ring. Organizations like EQCA keep noting that yes they put in a deffection O ring--sorry. What HAS to be revealed is how it was in their backstage problem solving they arrived at the decision to place those rings in the Challenge. NO one has been able to make public the defects in their problem solving in the first place. The two consultants who they have hired back to work on this campaign need to be asked in their forum (a) why should their advice be trusted now and (b) from their wisdom as consultants--step back--and tell us how come No on 8 failed? I do not want to hear that they were late on money raising, their ads were wrong, they ignored Central Valley etc--I want to hear what went wrong in the back stage infrastructure and problem solving dynamics.

If these issues are not confronted and moved beyond we will NEVER trust a person or sm group to direct this campaign because the underlying toxic patterns of leadership and problem solving will only erode those efforts and we will find ourselves some time in the future scratching our heads and blaming so and so and wondering why we just cannot get it together--look at material written about GLBT movements and you will see from day one the same damn problems plaguing us--not the least of which is our tendency to cannibalize emerging leaders--if this psychosis is not healed. . .

Jeffrey Taylor said...

I just finished watching and wanted to report back.

The summit was not a success, and seemed to be descending into chaos as things ended. There was no structure, no good moderation and it seemed rather hastily and ill-prepared.

The good news is that many people saw this online, will be as appalled as I am and will demand better from so-called "leaders" as a result.

Unknown said...

i tuned in and out of it for about two hours, maybe closer to three, and was impressed when the camera panned around the room. it was packed with people.

thumbs up for the good turnout, and for getting the streaming to happen at the last minute.

it would have helped this at home viewer if an agenda has been publicized further, and more forethought given to the streaming. i was lost at times at who was who and what they were talking about, or if they represented a group in CA.

thumbs down for not making transparency/streaming part of the meeting from the start of the organizing process.

if we can't even manage to properly engage the online community that can't always attend the meetings, and set up simply streaming, don't try and convince me this crew is also ready to raised tens of millions of dollars for a ballot initiative in 2010 (ha!) or even in 2012.

what happens know? are any more state summits like this planned? more info, please.

Jeffrey Taylor said...

The other commenter is absolutely correct. It was painfully obvious that there was still much blame going around for 2008's failures, and anyone with any idea of what has gone on was clear that there was much more going on in the unsaid than there was heard in the said.

There was a concern amongst some commenters in the stream's chatroom that EQCA had funded many of the orgs participating in the Summit, and that it was driving some of the voting (if you want to call it that, it really was a mess of voting on voting to vote in attempts to secure an ostensibly required consensus, Michael) and many of the things being said in the room. I don't know much about EQCA's financials, but I'm going to look into it. Many also felt that EQCA may have encouraged failure so a coalition-based decision would cause continued delay and the 2010 effort would be scuttled or weakened.

At the end, the "Coalition of the Willing for 2010" supporters, who seemed to have won a majority vote but not a consensus vote, announced a meeting on August 15 in LA (check with the One Struggle One Fight Folks for specifics, I remembered their being mentioned as part of the effort/coalition). The "Prepare to Prevail" people got up and plugged their website, but I heard no meeting announcements. So to answer your question, Michael, it's as clear as mud what will happen next.