Gay Inc Fails to Expose Gingrich's
$350K to Iowa Homo-Haters

How well does Gay Inc follow the money of conservatives who oppose our fights for legal protections and social advancement? Not very well, if an important financial transparency and accountability story out of Iowa is any indication.

On March 16, Think Progress noted their research into part of Newt Gingrich's donations in Iowa and the digging done by the Associated Press and the Des Moines Register:

ThinkProgress previously reported on $200,000 that Gingrich funneled from an anonymous donor to the anti-marriage equality group Iowa for Freedom, which was also being funded by AFA Action, the political arm of the virulently anti-gay American Family Association. The Associated Press revealed yesterday that one of the cogs in Gingrich’s vast network of business enterprises and front groups, ReAL Action, provided $125,000 to AFA Action. The Des Moines Register reported this morning that ReAL Action also contributed $25,000 to yet another Iowa anti-LGBT group, the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition. ...

Notice that the usual Gay Inc suspects - the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, Equality Matters, GLAAD, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force - are not mentioned in the excerpt nor in the full Think Progress piece. If any of those groups are actively and regularly monitoring public records for elections related to gay marriage, they might be breaking the news on Gingrich's donations instead of

Over at Richard Socarides supposed gay war room site of Equality Matters, nothing was reported last week on the Gingrich donations in Iowa. If there was something posted at HRC's blog about the donations, I couldn't locate it. Same goes for the Freedom to Marry and NGLTF sites. Apparently GLAAD wasn't interested either in calling attention to the work of the AP, Des Moines Register or Think Progress.

Maybe the Gay Inc groups had nothing to say about the Gingrich donations because they had no role in uncovering them? If they said anything on their sites, gay people might question why these groups failed to follow the money in Iowa.

By the way, the mainstream press coverage omits all Gay Inc groups and their leaders, which says something about their non-player status is this exposure of Gingrich's role in the battle last year to oust three pro-gay state Supreme Court justices.

With well-funded Gay Inc groups like these, we still need the AP, Register and Think Progress performing the basic accountability task of following the anti-gay money, at least in Iowa.

HRC's Letter to Chief Justice Roberts
Accomplished Nothing for Gays

(Joe Solmonese talks about his group's useless effort targeting the nation's top judge.)

In a dangerous precedent to lobby the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, to take a stand on a contentious social and political issue that will be before the court in coming years, the Human Rights Campaign in November launched an open letter campaign to Roberts.

HRC was furious gay marriage opponents in Iowa with their national allies recalled three state Supreme Court justices who had ruled in favor of gay marriage. The leadership at HRC created a web page explaining their effort:

This [recall in Iowa] was a cruel and calculated warning shot to judges nationwide: Either rule according to our radical, anti-gay ideology or we'll come get you.

Please add your name to our open letter calling on U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to condemn NOM and its allies – and declare that judges must not be intimidated into ruling based on biased special-interest politics.

Do we really want advocacy groups from any side of the political spectrum pressuring the Supreme Court chief justice or his colleagues on any issue, thereby risking their ability to be judicially impartial and leaving them open to more pressure? I don't and I sure as hell don't want HRC telling Roberts to do anything, much less weigh in on the recall in Iowa.

Just imagine the howls of protest from HRC if the National Organization for Marriage mounted a petition to have Roberts publicly laud the November Iowa vote and outcome, or have him take a stand on legal matter related to gay marriage.

But the stodgy and bloated HRC is on a campaign to appear nimble, on-top of the issues du jour and fighting back. What they're actually doing with the Robert's letter effort though, as with so much of their agenda, is harvesting names, snail mail and email addresses, to drive up "membership" numbers and solicit donations.

Four months after HRC began this dubious open letter to Roberts campaign, and he ignored it, clearly nothing good for gays was accomplished. I wonder if anyone is keeping track of HRC's regular petitions and open letters, seeing if they do a damn thing for the community. Might be good for HRC to prove to us if their petitions achieve anything.

IDAHO: 
Gays Oppose the Death Penalty

Earlier today in Paris the leaders of the International Day Against Homophobia on May 17 issued a crucial statement against the death penalty. IDAHO was founded in 2005 to unite gays around the globe in solidarity calling for the respect of the human rights, dignity and respect of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex peoples.

IDAHO's anti-death penalty statement has come into existence because of several factors.

First, gays in Uganda face the passage and enactment of a draconian "kill the homosexuals" piece of legislation, and the voices of all global gay organizations, including IDAHO's, need to speak out against the Ugandan legislation.

Second, after I learned that a gay Russian leader who is on the board of directors of IDAHO, speaking for himself and not the group, said he supported the death penalty, the IDAHO board received a request from me asking that the organization clearly and unequivocally declare their official position opposing state-sanctioned executions.

There were other peace and justice factors driving the IDAHO leaders to write and distribute this position paper, at this time. I offer applause and say thanks, merci, gracias, спасибо, danke, and all the other ways of expressing gratitude to those leaders.

Speaking as an American gay human rights activist, I would like to see U.S. groups - Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, et al. - and our community newspapers, organizers and bloggers all take the IDAHO declaration and either endorse it in full, or proclaim their own similar statements calling for an end to capital punishment.

Here is the statement from Paris:

Official IDAHO Statement on Homophobia, Transphobia and the Death Penalty

The IDAHO Committee, as a Human Rights organization, intrinsically subscribes to the universal principles of the UN founding Declaration of 1945 which, by its third article, declares the right to life as the most fundamental of all.

One of the first initiatives of the IDAHO Committee was the campaign for the universal decriminalization of homosexuality back in 2005. On this occasion, the IDAHO Committee has received the support of a large part of the global movement against death penalty, including the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty.

This link between the fight against capital punishment and the fight against the criminalization of homosexuality is organic: beyond the 'logical' alliance between the two causes, they are bound by the very principle of the indivisibility of Human Rights. When a society gives itself the right to kill, it quite naturally extends it to the right not to respect other fundamental rights, including all rights considered 'lesser', like privacy, dignity, freedom of expression, etc. 

Seven (7) countries in the world today still have death penalty in their books for the "crime" of homosexuality. People who feel same-sex attractions of who vary from allowed gender norms are, at least symbolically, affected by the death penalty, which endorses the principle of the right of 'life and death' of a society over its citizens. It enshrines a ‘right to kill’.

Small wonder then that the countries in which capital punishment is legitimate are amongst those in which homicide rates are the strongest.

Because the IDAHO Committee has been fighting since its origin for the respect of Human Rights of sexual and gender minorities,

Because the IDAHO Committee believes in the indivisibility of human rights:

The IDAHO Committee opposes categorically any form of death penalty in all circumstances and calls upon States and institutions to abolish all forms of capital punishment and instead to make every effort to ensure the right to life of all citizens, including all the men and women who are victims of assassinations, extrajudicial executions and other forms of violence and abuse, which the existence of the death penalty implicitly supports.

Sunshining the GLAADies

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation is one Gay Inc group that if it went out of business today, a huge favor will have been done for the community. GLAAD is nothing much more than a social-climbing network for media professionals, with an ability to suck dollars out of gay individuals and foundations. In September, I questioned what they did with an $80,000 grant from the Arcus Foundation to amplify the voices of bloggers and never received an explanation from GLAAD nor from Arcus.

GLAAD has initiated an award for gay bloggers for their money-making galas this year, and the five nominees are Bil Browning of Bilerico (where some of my essays have been cross-posted), Andres Duque of Blabbeando, Joe Jervis of JoeMyGod, Rod McCullom of Rod.20 and Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend.

I sent them all, and Richard Ferraro at GLAAD, a few questions about the nominating process and GLAAD charging an application fee, after this note arrived from a little birdy that I shared with everyone:

I forgot to tell you about those GLAAD awards. You were talking about that the other day. Apparently every one nominated had to be recruited to submit their own names for the blog categories. The original proposal was supposed to have a payment along with the submission. No one applied. None of the folks nominated are going cus they don't get a free ticket and the tickets are megabucks. Nice, huh?

I received three replies.

From Pam:

Apparently the nomination was recruited; I was offline for quite a long while during Nov-Dec due to major surgery. When I got back online the amount of email was so great that I declared "email bankruptcy" and just filed hundreds of emails away into the trash.

Anyway, one must have been the GLAAD solicitation to nominate a blog (or my own). I received an email sometime later, maybe January, asking if I knew that this award was in motion and whether I wanted to submit PHB, even though the deadline had just passed. I asked whether there was some form to fill out (I really had no interest in filling out anything I was just doing well enough to get back to work). I was told that if I wanted PHB entered for consideration, they'd fill out the form. Nothing was mentioned about money changing hands at all.

I figured that was the last of it, and that PHB was one of many LGBT blogs in the hopper; I was under the impression that a nomination wasn't a given by just filling out the form. So I was surprised when I received word of the nomination later. ...

Last week PHB was invited to attend the NYC awards as a member of the media, not as a nominee; specifying there was no dinner for the nominees anyway. I'm unable to go because of the tight timeline and my full calendar and none of my contributors was available; again, I'm not sure what the other noms were told. ...

The reply from Andres:

As in past years, I was aware that GLAAD would be doing their media awards this year. I did not initially submit my blog for consideration not because there was a fee but because I was not aware that they had launched a brand new category for blogs. I did receive a separate message highlighting the category, which I assume they also sent to other bloggers.

There was a submission process which required submitting a description of the blog, sample entries and contact info and a photograph. There was also a nomination fee (which I believe is across the board and not just limited to the blog category). When I inquired about it, I was told that I could ask for a waiver. I completed the submission and sent it before the deadline - and received the fee waiver.

I didn't hear about the awards again until the list of nominated blogs was released. I was personally thrilled, of course, and I remember being surprised how much attention it got from regular media. I considered that, in itself, a win, as I never really believed I had any chance to win considering the other better-known nominees.

As for attending the ceremony (at least the upcoming one in New York City): I can say that that I was personally invited as press for the event's red carpet ceremony and I was also told that they'd hold a seat for me to watch the actual award ceremony. I will not be in attendance not because I did not receive an invitation but because I am otherwise engaged.

From Richard at GLAAD:

This year, GLAAD is thrilled to introduce the Outstanding Blog category. We received unsolicited submissions from blogs – some of which became nominees. We also alerted bloggers to the new opportunity and encouraged them to be a part of the consideration process. As we sometimes do when requested by media in other categories, we waived the application fee. Each of this year’s nominees were invited to see the show in New York and some will be attending. ...

The submission fee for the GLAAD Media Awards is $50 per entry. Submission fees for awards programs are standard practice. Our fee is significantly lower than others. This fee covers the cost of processing the submissions and duplicating the materials for our volunteer jurors to review.

IMHO, it's problematic for independent gay bloggers to be part of any GLAAD award process, if only because it could co-opt or compromise the independence of the bloggers. You're probably thinking I'm feeling left out since I was not recruited to self-nominate this blog, but even if GLAAD folks dared to have me, a staunch critic of the group, get in on the awards act, I would have rejected the whole process. The last thing I want is to be associated in any way with GLAAD's operation.

However, the nominated bloggers think much differently, and I thank Pam and Andres, Richard too, for sharing their thoughts, and hope there is more gay blogosphere discussion about the alleged value of GLAAD and whether bloggers ought to be receiving an award from them.

Herb Spiers, ACT UP Co-Founder
& My Friend, Has Died

(Spiers on Fire Island in 1996. Credit: Gerald Hannon, Xtra!)

The first time I saw Herb Spiers, his relaxed masculine nature and handsome face attracted my eye, and when he spoke about the AIDS issues of the day back in 1987, he impressed me with his knowledge and smartness.

We got to know each well when we were both on the ACT UP Treatment + Data Committee, and when I volunteered at the AIDS Treatment Registry and he was on its board, and we collaborated with Iris Long on drug approval and clinical trial matters. I looked upon Herb as a surrogate uncle, especially when he would constructively admonish me for some of my radical views and behavior.

Today I heard the sad news that he died recently and I want to honor Herb, his life and strong, compassionate advocacy by marking his passing. From the Xtra! publication in Toronto:

Herb Spiers died in New York City on March 2, 2011, after several years of struggle with HIV and cancer.

Though he had lived in New York for several decades, he was a significant force in the early gay movement in Toronto, co-authoring "We Demand," a text that became the strategic blueprint for Canadian activists.

He was also a member of The Body Politic Collective, wrote for the publication and was a vocal member of early gay rights groups like Toronto Gay Action.

In New York, he became a founding member of ACT UP and helped write The Montreal Manifesto, "The Declaration of Universal Rights and Needs of People Living with HIV Disease,” released publicly in June 1989 at the 5th International AIDS Conference in Montreal. ...

Herb sat down with the ACT UP Oral History Project in 2008, and spoke about his life, political beliefs and engagement with AIDS activism and gay liberation. Click here to read his interview. He played several important roles in the betterment of the lives gays and people with AIDS.

May he rest in peace.

Alarm Over SF AIDS Budget Changes;
Urgent Friday Meeting Set

Mergers. They are a key answer to the question of what big ticket items AIDS Inc groups and executive directors should consider to survive as a non-profit and not find more of themselves and their employees on the unemployment line.

Mergers have been demanded by people with AIDS and a few uncompromising allies since at least 1999, and only once has San Francisco seen it happen since then. That was when the Tenderloin AIDS Resource Center and the Continuum agency, which were located within half a block of one another, each with big overhead and capacity building costs, joined forces and become one service agency. A great benefit to people with AIDS.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. The scoop is pink slips have gone out to lots of works at several agencies over changes to AIDS programs receiving federal and local dollars. The SF AIDS Foundation is, unsurprisingly, the winner of recent struggles over available money, with smaller agencies howling at their losses.

Since January I've had people telling me their stories and concerns, generally against the plans of the SF DPH, with one person even suggesting I go back to Ryan White and HIV prevention council regularly and give the panels a piece of my mind. If anyone is asking me to attend a council meeting, you know things are alarming within AIDS Inc.

Today, this note was forwarded to me from a health care advocate. Good to learn the gay community center is rounding up some agencies for an urgent briefing tomorrow. I have no plans to attend. [Rebecca Rolfe just breathed a sign of relief.] Word will get out about what's discussed. We've also got the normal council meetings going on. Plenty of opportunities to talk and strategize.

One aspect giving me fear and inducing major alarms? The fact that Neil Guiliano, former head of the worthless GLAAD who only got to town three months ago with no AIDS resume, is now the ruler at the SF AIDS Foundation, thereby giving him queen bee status at the negotiating table at City Hall. Now that is scary.

Here's the info on the briefing tomorrow from 3:30 to 5:30 PM at the community center:

From: Rebecca Rolfe [mailto:RebeccaR@sfcenter.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:10 PM
Subject: Invitation to Discussion re Post July 1 Landscape of HIV Prevention Services

Hi all, I have been in conversation with quite a few folks about the cumulative impact of recent policy and funding changes, and how these cumulative changes (including, but not limited to the “New Directions” initiated by DPH HIV Prevention Division; a continued decrease in funding available; and the results from the most recent RFP process regarding DPH HIV Prevention funding) will impact the landscape of HIV prevention services available in San Francisco starting July 1.

Folks seemed interested in coming together for an open ended conversation about how to assess the impact of these changes, how to anticipate what the impact on the community will be, if there are community needs that are identified, and how we may be able to work together and address those needs. Given the interest, I worked with a couple of folks to set up a meeting for this Friday, from 3:30 – 5:30 here at the Center.

Apologies for the short notice, and if you are not able to attend personally, but have someone else at your agency that you feel would be appropriate, please feel free to pass this invitation along to them.

The major goal for the meeting is to begin to identify what services will be available come July 1, to see if there is common concern about what that service provision landscape looks like, and to see if folks want to work together to address the concerns.

For that reason, I would love to limit this discussion – at least at this stage – to folks who are current either providing services or part of referral networks. We can talk further about whether and how to expand this dialogue, but this will at least give us a place to start.

Within that framework, please feel free to pass this invitation along to other folks/agencies that you think would be appropriate and/or would be able to contribute to the discussion.

There are a few folks that I don’t have current contact info for, and would love it if any of you could forward this to: Bay Positives, Homeless Youth Alliance, Instituto Familiar, Mission Neighborhood Health Center, St. James Infirmary, or Walden House.

Please let me know if you are planning to attend, and I will make sure I work to find a room able to accommodate us and our discussion. - Rebecca

Israeli Gays to Speak at
SF Forum on Sunday

Over the past few weeks, San Francisco has been positively jumping with gay visitors from other countries coming here to talk about their lives, struggles as activists and political issues at the local level.

In February, several young gay Palestinians were in the Bay Area for a number of public events and I was not aware of their visit until after they left. A post at the Bay Guardian blog was how I learned they had been here. From the post:

Queer Palestinian activists are on tour in the Bay Area speaking about queer struggles in the context of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. ... [They are from] the organizations Aswat and Al Qaws ...

Most asked be be identified by their first names only, fearing discrimination for the sexual orientation and reprisals for speaking out. ...

The Bay Guardian unfortunately gave no explanation about from whom they fear discrimination, be it the Israeli government or the Palestinian Authority or other forces, and I think it's an important concern that should have been addressed.

This Sunday, from 6:00 to 7:30 PM at Congregation Sha'ar Zahav, located at 290 Dolores Street at the corner of 16th, a panel from the Israel Gay Youth Organization will share their personal stories and they are identified with their full names. Here's more info on the speakers:

Sam Rosenfeld
18.5 years old is transgender, female to male. ...

Shirel Touitou
20 years old; born in the settlement of Kiryat Arba, to an Ultra Orthodox religious family. ...

Itzik Sussan
19.5 years old soldier in the Israeli Air Force; works as an IT specialist.

Anna Shilansky
18 year old senior in a private high school. She lives in the city of Raanana ...

I'm not sure if I'll be able to attend and hear what the gay Israeli youth have to say, but if I do, there will be a report and some pix posted here afterward.

BAR: Fiscal Transparency from
AOF/Pride/Lyon Martin not Haas Fund

(Junketeers BAR writer Matt Baume, editor Cynthia Laird, blogger Zach Ford. Credit: Karen Ocamb.)

The Bay Area Reporter's editorial this week by Cynthia Laird justifiably takes the Academy of Friends non-profit to task for their latest evasiveness about their faltering group, its fundraising purposes and accountability to the community. Ending the AOF's annual gala Oscar party is something else the BAR calls for, while reminding readers of the fiscal and leadership deficiencies at SF Pride and the Lyon Martin Health Services.

From Laird:

Last month AOF held its 2011 Oscar gala and now, more than two weeks after the event, AOF board members claim to have no idea of how much money was raised and would not answer questions on when payments – now almost a year overdue – would be made to the organizations. It is inconceivable that 18 days after an organization's crucial annual major fundraiser, it still has no idea of how much money was raised. ...

We say: enough is enough. ... In the end, it's about accountability and transparency.

In case Laird, who was one of the select writers invited to last weekend's secretive-until-it-was-happening junket put on by Bil Browning of Bilerico and Matt Foreman, the man with a big checkbook at the Haas Fund, is curious about some else that is inconceivable regarding fiscal transparency, she should check out the failure of Browning and Foreman to release the costs of their junket, as I have asked.

Frankly, I couldn't agree more with the accountability and sunshine that the BAR wants from at least three organizations, but it's not kosher for the paper's editorial staff to give the Haas Fund a pass on giving those who weren't invited to the junket some fiscal details. How's about the BAR develop some consistent standards for both the community-based service and money-raising groups and foundations?

Many of the folks at the Haas Fund junket have said they were not co-opted by the generosity extended to them, and at least two of the attendees, Zack Ford and Matt Comer, weren't exactly burning up their blogs with criticism of Gay Inc and Gay Foundation Inc showing they are not boat-rockers of institutions.

But the BAR, for all their faults I've been blogging on lately, has a strong and honorable track record of holding non-profits accountable and shedding light where AIDS groups in this town would to keep in the dark. In not asking for the Haas Fund this week to answer questions about the costs of their junket and other concerns from the critics of it, the BAR shows dangerous signs of being co-opted by the weekend summit, or applying inconsistent-standards.

If Laird was not co-opted, she would get the BAR behind the effort to have the Haas fund deliver what she wants from AOF, Lyon Martin and SF Pride. Timely fiscal info and public dialogue. Laird might also call upon Foreman to hold regular public forums and push all institutions to get with the democratic engagement agenda.

SF Press Club: Why Are Cops
Revoking Some Media ID Cards?

(Josh Wolf. Full disclosure: Not only have I expressed admiration for his commitment to the First Amendment, my praise has extended to his great head of big hair. Credit: Bill Wilson.)

I thought the story about the cops denying and revoking media ID cards for online news sites and blog was over, but an article today at the San Francisco/Peninsula Press Club site proves me wrong. The club's intro said:

The San Francisco Police Department has revoked press passes from several online news outlets after receiving complaints from major media organizations. The online journalists are calling for an agency that's separate from police to decide who should receive the passes.

Blogger Michael Petrelis appears to be the first journalist to report that police were revoking press passes, and his report includes an e-mail from Lt. Troy Dangerfield explaining the revocation. Here's a link to the SF Appeal's report. ...

The club's piece was written by Josh Wolf, a young independent journalist who made history in 2006 when he served 226 days in a federal prison for refusing to turn videos he shot of a demonstration in the Mission. No other journalist served as long a time for not revealing a source.

What new ground does Josh break on the press passes? Plenty, starting with trying to pin down the police department as to exactly why the policy is in flux:

Lt. Troy Dangerfield, a police spokesman, told me that although the police hold press conferences in a room that's big enough to hold every interested reporter, other facilities, such as the room the mayor uses for press conferences, are much smaller. People from the major networks complained that they were being crowded out by their independent counterparts, and the police department responded by revoking the press passes of any reporters who hadn't recently covered a breaking news story involving the police or fire departments, said Dangerfield.

Reporting for the San Francisco Sentinel, one of several outlets now without a police-issued press pass, Pat Murphy writes that Dangerfield told him the complaints were “from, but not limited to, KGO and KTVU.”

But when reached by phone, both KGO-TV news director Kevin Keeshan and KTVU senior assignment editor Tony Bonilla were adamant that their stations never requested the police revoke anyone's press passes. ...

As far as I'm concerned, the police department is the last entity in this or any city that should be the sole entity in charge of who gets a press pass and why. The spokesperson for the department has offered conflicting and vague reasons why change is afoot, providing me with more reasons why the cops are not the best folks to be deciding who's a reporter and worthy of an ID card.

Regarding the fact the press club piece was authored by Josh, I wish to say I'm glad he's sticking with his independent journalism endeavors.We need more troublemakers like him.

What was the Cost of Haas Fund's
Junket for Equality Bloggers?

(Bil Browning, left, and Matt Foreman at their confab on Saturday. Credit: Karen Ocamb's LGBT POV blog.)

The San Francisco-based Haas Jr Fund, sponsor and underwriter of the past weekend's junket for select bloggers from around the country, provides some minimal fiscal transparency about where they direct their gay dollars. Click here to read up on which gay groups over the past five-years received Haas money. Kudos to the fund for the transparency.

Yesterday I sent off these basic questions to Matt Foreman of the fund, and the convener of the junket Bil Browning, hoping to dialogue with them about the price-tag of their event:

1. what was the total cost for the weekend?

2. can you break down the cost info by travel, hotels, meals?

3. were any folks compensated for organizing the summit, such as bil or mike rogers?

4. was anyone who presented info to the bloggers compensated?

5. if anyone was compensated, please share the info on how much they were paid.

6. will you soon present the community with a fiscal accounting of the weekend on your respective web sites?

7. any chance the haas jr fund will put on a town hall meeting in SF for anyone to attend, so we can all engage in constructive dialog about the fund and its gay programs?

8. what future gay summits are planned by you all and will they be open to all?

Bil sent this terse reply:

These questions are aimed at Haas. I'll let them answer if they choose. I have no idea about the costs or if they plan to hold a San Fran townhall.

Sounds like Bil is passing the buck and it strikes me as odd, since he boasted on his site that he was the convener of the junket, that he is ignorant of the price-tag, but at least he responded. Matt has not.

Also raising questions is San Francisco-based transparency-promoter Patrick Connors, who was not at the junket. He shared some concerns at Karen Ocamb's post full of photos from the event. Patrick said:

How much money did Haas spend to get y'all here and why was it important for writers/bloggers to get the information they were feeding?

I'm cautious about appearing envious of not being on the guest list. ... The event was announced on Friday as an exclusive "invite only" event with no details about where, when, what, who, how, and when some people raised issues with the appearance of this secrecy they have been shamed, ridiculed and dismissed.

I'm no seminar denialist for anyone interested in such things - but why was this one handled so oddly and defensively? ...

[I'm] extremely frustrated by being a part of the largest LGBT community in the country and we can't get out Congressional Rep (Pelosi) to hold a town hall meeting to hear from us, nor do we ever get access to EQCA, or any other organization that represents us...unless we pay at the door. And now last weekend dozens of out of towners were shipped in to receive a message that many in SF would like to hear...or could use...and might even (god forbid) have input to share. ...

To his credit, Matt answered many of Patrick's questions, excluding the one about the cost. Matt wrote:

There was no hidden "agenda" behind this convening. It's simply an opportunity to be able to present in-depth information about issues of the day to LGBT editors/bloggers. ...

There's simply no way to have a convening of this sort without some people feeling excluded. That goes with the territory and I am sorry that anyone feels left out.

A 4-hour town meetings for subjects like suicide prevention and homelessness? Maybe, but then what about the people who can't come because they work evenings or weekends, or live too far, or can't afford to get there? And why San Francisco and not Oakland, San Jose or Topeka, for that matter?  

Allow me to disagree. I believe part of the agenda of the junket was to develop and maintain group-think among the invitees, and to subtly discourage hard, necessary criticism of Gay Inc and their foundation partners including the Haas Fund. Further, Matt should recognize that it's not just "feelings" of being excluded from the cool kids' table in the junior high school cafeteria. It is actual exclusion.

Patrick wrote back to Matt:

I don't think that a 4 hour town hall meeting is necessary and having to choose SF over a neighboring locale sounds like you are using excuses to avoid the difficult task of being open to the public. ...

Instead of there being any attempt at openness there are excuses offered like the ones you list above. That is why there is ongoing suspicion and cynicism.

The "left out feeling" could have been avoided by announcing the event in advance. Were attendees asked to not discuss the event - it's agenda or locale - until immediately prior to the event? How much money was spent educating visitors to SF about homelessness while there are an abundance of LGBT youth in SF that could use support?

Did anyone in attendance ask questions like the ones I pose above or would they be too beholden to the largess of their host to want to appear ungrateful? ...

Unfortunately, Matt has not responded to Patrick. I've known Patrick since we met up last spring and I am impressed with how he gets it regarding the damnable lack of transparency and openness for ordinary queers in San Francisco.

We have no town halls with Rep. Nancy Pelosi or her gay district manager Dan BernalEQCA, who failed to hold public forums during their disastrous No on Prop 8 campaign, can't be bothered with public summits.

It is easier to find snow flakes in San Francisco than a genuine commitment and actual continuing practice of public forums from Gay Inc. How many more junkets like the Haas Fund's, and the resulting resentments and divisions, must we endure before the likes of Bil and Matt and their cohorts at the junket understand that inclusion and openness will go a long way toward strengthening the movement?