Gay journalist Ann Rostow asks a few questions about the Human Rights Campaign’s secrecy and unaccountability. HRC recently held a forum in San Francisco and barred reporters and bloggers, just as they barred all media from Hillary Clinton’s speech to their board. They act like a politburo with something to hide, not a civil rights group with a message to send. Rostow asks:
Listen, if Joe Solmonese and HRC can’t handle Michael Petrelis, how the hell are they going to handle the real enemies facing our community? And why wouldn’t Solmonese want one of the most provocative activists on the blogosphere to participate in this meeting? Is this a pep rally or a serious attempt to hear what San Francisco has to say?
HRC still won’t respond to the five basic questions I have asked of them. They refuse to say how many members actually pay the recommended minimum $35 annual membership fee. I’m beneath a response because I have dared to criticize them. A reader comments on Rostow’s analysis, disagreeing that this is a fight between "insider" activists and "outsider" activists:
The basic question isn’t whether we need a "lobbying group in Washington," but whether HRC can meet that need in any meaningful way. In part, HRC is the victim of recent successes (and even a few near-misses) in state legislatures: State GLBT lobby groups have shown signs of success, quite possibly because many of them are actually working for GLBT equality. Compare HRC’s record with Equality California — or even with a group like Equality Virginia, working in one of the most anti- Gay states in the Union — and you wonder just what HRC has been doing with all that cash.
The answer is: not much apart from teddy bears and Cyndi Lauper concerts. If you want real progress, demand more accountability, transparency and effectiveness.
(HRC logo courtesy of Bay Windows.)
The Dish 