Subject: Growing Criticism of proposed 2000 March
From: HRTF FL <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:28:40 EST

Publications and lists have full permission to reprint and/or forward this
 article.

(Billy Hileman is a Pittsburg based activist and was one of four national co-
 chair for the 1993 March on Washington)

Barney Frank calls marches a `diversion'
HRC's `Millennium March' Plans Move Forward in the Face of Growing Criticism

by Billy Hileman

        Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has added his name to a growing list of gay and
 lesbian leaders who do not believe that the proposed `Millennium March' on
 Washington will do anything for the community politically. Frank told Planet Q
 in a phone interview on March 30th that `marches are a diversion' of community
 resources and `have no success politically.' Frank also said that if people in
 the community want change, they need to get back to basic political organizing
 such as doing voter registration.
        `We are ahead culturally compared to where we are politically,' explained
 Frank. He called marches `celebratory.'
        `The Promise Keepers held a big march and then laid off their staff. The
 Christian Coalition doesn't march, the NRA doesn't march' and they are very
 effective politically says Frank.
        The proposed `Millennium March' was first pitched by comedian Robin Tyler to
 the leadership of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) at the
 Creating Change Conference in San Diego last November. Tyler, who produces
 women's' music festivals was involved with producing the rally for the 1979
 and 1987 Lesbian and Gay marches. She also was responsible for some of the
 rally production for the 1993 March on Washington (MOW).
        NGLTF rejected Tyler's proposal for an event in Washington for the spring of
 2000 citing the need to focus on the already proposed 50 state marches. Tyler
 took her `Millennium March' scheme, to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the
 Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC), who are now
 the lead organizers for the event. Tyler's plan " which isn't really a march "
 is a large rally to be staged on the Washington Mall and produced by Robin
 Tyler, the Executive Director of the `Millennium March.'
        On February 3rd, HRC released a press statement that announced the
 `Millennium March' for the year 2000. But the news of a fourth national civil
 rights event for the queer community was not embraced as wholeheartedly as
 HRC's executive director Elizabeth Birch and UFMCC's moderator Troy Perry
 would have liked. Less than two weeks after the announcement, criticism of the
 proposal and the process had put the rally on hold. But several weeks later
 Birch and Perry announced that they were moving forward with the rally plans.
        Moving forward with the rally did not slow the growing call for grassroots
 input to the process of organizing a national civil rights event. In a letter
 signed by several organizers of the past three national marches, the lack of
 democracy and inclusion in the decision making process was sharply criticized.
 Signers of the letter included `79 and `87 MOW co-chair Steve Ault, `87 MOW
 co-chair Kay Ostberg, `87 and `93 MOW organizer Mandy Carter, `93 organizer
 Jason Hefner, and others. In the letter, the millennium rally organizers were
 criticized for ignoring the `the integrity of the process which was developed
 for the previous marches.' which mandated inclusion and representation from
 the many constituencies of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered
 (LGBT) communities.
        In a separate letter published in several gay newspapers across the country,
 the executive directors of 5 major lesbian and gay organizations (G&L Alliance
 Against Defamation, G&L Victory  Fund, LA Gay and Lesbian Center, Lambda Legal
 Defense and Education Fund, and the National Black Lesbian and Gay Leadership
 Forum) questioned the political strategy driving the millennium rally. The
 authors questioned the timing of the rally, suggesting an event might make
 more sense after the 2000 national elections.
        `In 2000, we have the opportunity to reshape the  political face of America
 by electing both national and local candidates supportive of our civil rights.
 How are our financial resources best allocated? Perhaps our money needs to
 stay in the trenches where we can focus efforts on fighting local and state
 ballot initiatives and electing supportive candidates,' wrote the executive
 directors.
        Planet Q tried several times to reach HRC executive director Elizabeth Birch,
 but she did not return phone calls, even after her assistant said Planet Q was
 on her `call-back list.'
        In a March 20th Washington Blade article Birch is quoted as calling the 1993
 MOW a `strategic political disaster.' She explained that the gay community's
 political leverage is greater before an election. Nadine Smith, co-chair of
 the 1993 MOW and current executive director of the Human Rights Task Force of
 Florida told Planet Q that idea didn't make any sense. `Candidates don't have
 political capital,' Smith said, `elected officials do.'
        And electing gay friendly officials is the meaningful work according to
 Barney Frank. Frank is now working on building and strengthening a national
 network of gay and lesbian Democratic Clubs. He says the real opportunity for
 the year 2000 is the election of a democratic president that has the
 Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), domestic partnership benefits, and
 protection for lesbians and gays in the military as high priorities. `We need
 to focus on what we can lock in " a democratic president that will not only
 support ENDA, but will work for it.'
        Frank says that for the first time gays and lesbians have the opportunity to
 play the influential role in the Democratic party that other constituencies
 like African Americans and environmentalist have.
        `Marches were effective in the 50's and 60's when African Americans were
 physically not allowed to vote,' said Frank. He explained that it was the
 violent behavior of white racists that made marches effective. `People's blood
 mobilized the rest of the nation.'
        But, these are different times and the reasons to `march' have changed. With
 HRC's goal of 1 million members by the year 2000, Birch and Perry move
 forward, calling criticism of their rally a `mud fight.' But, whether they
 like it not, the national debate on a millennium event is likely to continue.

============================================================

From: HRTF FL <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:27:38 EST
Subject: Stop the March Madness

(Publications and lists have full permission to reprint and/or forward this
 article)

Nadine Smith served as one of four national co-chairs for the 1993 March on
 Washington. She is currently Executive Director for the Human Rights Task
 Force of Florida and lobbys the state legislature on behalf of17 Florida-based
 L/G/B/T and allied organizations working to end discrimination.
_____________________________________________________
Stop the March Madness
An Open Letter to the Community
by Nadine Smith

I've spent a great deal of time pondering the recent turn of events that
now has us grappling with what to do about the proposed Millennium
March.

Because I was as a national co-chair of the 1993 March, people have
frequently asked for my opinion on this situation.  I've taken time
before responding  publicly because I understand how casually critical
some people can be and I have worked hard not to be one of those who
would rather attack our own than focus on our enemies.

But now I've come to realize that there is much more at stake here than
hammering out the logistics of a march.  In fact, what is at stake here
is the very heart of our movement.

Currently, a huge segment of grassroots community leaders and  many
national groups believes that this march is ill-timed, strategically
weak and coordinated by people out of touch with the important work
happening outside of Washington D.C.  Even U.S. Rep Barney Frank, the
most politically prominent openly gay elected official in the country
called the proposed march  "a diversion of resources" and "not a good
idea."  And yet, rather than set up a structure for meaningful dialogue
to balance pros and cons and evaluate the strategy of such a march,
edicts are delivered via press release.

The Human Rights Campaign, the largest group involved in advocating for
the march has publicly apologized for the ham-fisted manner in which it
has approached the issue and that is good. However, it is not enough to
say "sorry" and continue to move forward on the same misguided course.

In the past, a critical mass of support has been established before
committing the enormous resources that marches require.  Now, it
appears, instead of doing the work of building broad-based support for
such an effort, the movement is being hijacked and strategy and
coalition-building have been thrown out the window.

We must decide whether this is a movement for social and political
change that will continue to build and grow and grapple with the tough
issues. Or will we be a product to be packaged and shaped according to
the dictates of the latest focus group.  We can't replace courage with
marketing.

There is without a doubt tremendous power in marching on Washington. My
first March in 1987 was a significant turning point in my life.  But
this debate is not about the value of marches.  It is about whether we
best serve this movement by going to Washington in 2000, a major
election year, and how we decide when and if the time is right.

Three times in the past two decades we've come to Washington D.C. and
the community was told go home and build.  Well, we've built and built
and built and back home is where it is all happening.

For over a decade the idea of a march on the 50 state capitals has been
gaining steam and for the first time there exist enough organizations to
make this a powerful event. To truly have a strong national presence
that isn't merely a paper tiger, building local and state networks that
can gain ground at home and feed the national effort is vital.

Talk to young people who are coming out.  While they are thrilled to see
Ellen and Martina and Greg and other celebrities, what they really want
to see are people in their own communities who have lives similar to the
ones they imagine for themselves.  A gay janitor or principal. An openly
gay business person or reporter in town.  They especially want to see
couples whose relationships are lasting and loving right in their own
back yard so they know that is possible without being a rock star,
television actor or moving to some gay mecca.

People have called marches on D.C. glamourous and media sexy events.
That is perhaps our biggest problem.  Too many people are wondering how
they can become the Martin Luther King, Jr. for our movement when we are
in desperate need of a million Rosa Parks.  We’re mistaking style  for
real substance. We used to be a movement willing to demand full equality
but savvy enough to occasionally settle for half a loaf.  Now half is
all we ask for and we seem grateful enough that we were granted an
audience.  We've traded true activism for occasional access at the
national level.  I was part of the first gay delegation to meet in the
Oval office with President Clinton. Sure, it was a historic moment but I
still came home to a state where I can be fired, denied housing and
barred from adopting because of my sexual orientation; where sodomy laws
remain on the books and gay kids are still threatened, beat up and
harassed in schools.

At the brink of the next millennium, people aren't waiting to come to
D.C. to come out.  In fact, the people who are coming out in record
numbers need local structures to provide real assistance not just
symbolic gestures far away.  If ENDA is to pass nationwide it will come
because the constituents back home sway legislators. We must have strong
local groups, that form strong statewide groups, that support a strong
national effort. Now is a great time to establish that priority

As I think back on the 1993 March, I am proud of the diversity displayed
throughout the organizing and the March itself.  But I agree with those
who criticize the presence of Lea Delaria and a few other performers who
lost sight of the March as a political act.  It is however, astounding
that having launched that criticism, HRC would then turn to the person
responsible for putting that part of the March stage together to produce
the next one.

Criticisms of Robin Tyler as the producer of this proposed march cannot
be dismissed as "dredging up old stuff".  HRC and the other sponsors
must address directly Tyler's reputation for racism, exclusion, and
questionable business dealings.  I have heard Tyler describe efforts at
inclusion as the "tyranny of the grassroots".  I’ve witnessed her
sabotage group decisions that she disagrees with. While publicly
purporting to be supportive of the transgender and bisexual communities,
I've watched her work behind the scenes to try and ensure their
exclusion.  With her installed at the helm, promises of a broad-based,
inclusive decision-making process ring hollow.

Over the years, HRC has developed a reputation for pulling money out of
local communities without giving back, for swooping into town, treating
the local organizers like rubes and setting up parallel organizing
structures without respect to the wishes, knowledge or insights of the
people who must live with the fallout. Now HRC has an opportunity to
demonstrate a new attitude that supports those who work outside the D.C.
beltway.

I state all of this as someone who has supported HRC since long before
they dropped the "F" from their name.  I have attended fund raisers and
urged people to open their check books.  I received the HRC's national
award for activism and just recently traveled with a member of their
field staff to help organize in South Florida.  I will support every
effort to empower and strengthen local and statewide organizations
because I believe it is the recipe for national success.
I believe that good people work at HRC who are passionate about
achieving the same things I care so deeply about.  And while the
organization provides an important and powerful voice in the national
media, I think too many of its leaders are woefully out of touch with
the pulse of this movement and the shifting political ground. I fear we
are headed for a massive, strategically foolish, financially draining
march simply because a handful of people like the alliteration in the
phrase "Millennium March" and their eyes flash dollar signs whenever
they say it.

I have yet to hear a cogent, persuasive argument for a national march in
2000.  I'm open to it.  If convinced no one would work harder to bring
folks to it.  But right now I believe our priority is back home.  We
need massive voter identification efforts so we can start winning
elections for ourselves and our supporters. We need to lobby our elected
officials in their home districts. We need to build our memberships and
fundraise for the referendums we continue to face on the local and state
level.

Those of us who believe that our movement should not be strong-armed
have a responsibility to speak up instead of accepting this as a "done
deal".  For HRC's own good, for our community’s benefit, we need to make
clear that this march will not go on as it is now conceived.  HRC is the
wealthiest and largest gay organization in the country.  I hope that it
is big enough to admit its mistake and begin to heal this divide.  This
is not the way for us to greet the next millennium.

Nadine Smith
Human Rights Task Force of Florida

============================================================

From: HRTF FL <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:15:33 EST
Subject: Millennium March " Who Decides?

Publications and lists have full permission to reprint and/or forward this
 article.
Millennium March " Who Decides?
by Billy Hileman,

(Billy Hileman is a Pittsburg based activist and was one of four national co-
 chair for the 1993 March on Washington)

        The current debate of a LGBT civil rights event in Washington, D.C. in 2000
 may look like `political in-fighting' if one only takes a quick glance. But
 just below the surface is one of the most important community discussions to
 occur in decades. Our community is in the process of redefining the movement.
        If organizing for a national LGBT civil rights event in Washington proceeds
 on its current course, then progressive, grass-roots, democratic organizing in
 our community will suffer a serious injury.
        The tragedy of this situation is that the Human Rights Campaign's (HRC)
 executive director Elizabeth Birch, comedian Robin Tyler, and the Universal
 Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches' Troy Perry are the willing
 architects of this attack on queer democracy.
        Right now, Perry, Birch, and Tyler are frantically lobbying the community to
 support an event they decided to produce. They are trying to prop up grass-
 roots support for an event only they had input on. Perry has just sent out a
 letter with `six very specific steps, very definite steps' ...to lobby
 congress? ...no, to lobby the president? ...no, to zap Jesse Helms? No. Troy
 Perry is asking you to lobby the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the
 National Black Lesbian and Gay Leadership Forum to support the Millennium
 March! What's wrong with that? In Troy Perry's plea for help, he says, `If you
 are a contributor, member or supporter of these organizations, be sure to
 mention that too.' That is sickening.
        The Millennium March is about money. It is not about whether 2000 is a good
 year to rally in Washington. It is not about ENDA, or domestic partnership, or
 about lesbians and gays in the military. Right now there is only one
 organization in our community with the resources to support a huge national
 action in Washington. And there is only one organization that has vowed to
 have 1 million members by the year 2000 " HRC.
        Never before has one of our organizations been in a position to unilaterally
 call for a March on Washington. The Millennium March is a test of HRC's new
 power. It is a test whether the community will allow HRC to circumvent the
 progressive, grassroots, democratic principles that were the basis of the
 three previous marches and the heart of our movement.
        At the end of Perry's letter, he writes, `History's greatest movements have
 been grassroots movements. And history's greatest leaders have been those who
 heeded the call of their grassroots members.' But, there has been no `call.'
 HRC and UFMCC didn't allow the forum for a `call.' And now that people are
 voicing their concern about the process, Birch, Tyler and Perry are putting a
 call out to the grass-roots instead of the other way around.
        In March of 1991 the executive directors of NGLTF and HRCF, Urvashi Vaid and
 Tim McFeeley hosted a meeting in Washington, D.C. for activists to discuss a
 third march on Washington. Minneapolis City Councilmember Brian Coyle had
 pushed the idea at the 1990 Creating Change Conference. During the March `91
 meeting, and a second national meeting in May, dozens of proposals and
 concerns were discussed by hundreds of activists.
        Proposals for marches in 1992 and 1993 were discussed. Bi-annual MOWs with a
 permanent committee; 52 regional marches: states, DC and Puerto Rico; and a
 MOW before every presidential election were all proposed. Stonewall 25
 organizers pleaded that no national action take place before 1994. A call for
 inclusion of youth in the organizing was made and a request to be aware of the
 dates of the many women's music festivals  was voiced. Native American gays
 and lesbians explained that they could not participate in the fall of 1992 -
 the 500th anniversary of the survival of indigenous cultures. And that is a
 very small sample.
        In 1998, all that expression and creativity has been silenced in one meeting
 between Perry, Birch, and Tyler. They want to control the timing, message, and
 money associated with the Millennium March. They may achieve that. But in the
 process, they'll lose the movement. Arrogance is not the word. Only sheer
 contempt for democracy can describe their organizing style.
        Several national leaders authored letters distributed at the 1991 meetings
 explaining why a march before 1994 was misguided. Where are their voices now?
 Some of the very same people have privately expressed their concerns about the
 Millennium March, but won't do so publicly. Why? They're afraid that in the
 year 2000, they'll be on the outside looking in. There shouldn't be an
 outside. Organizing a national civil rights event without a grassroots `call'
 is exclusive no matter how much multicultural rhetoric they try to pour over
 it.
        But its worse than that. Birch is smart enough to know that Barney Frank is
 right when he says that big marches do nothing politically for the community.
 All that stuff about the political benefits of being in Washington before the
 election is a lie. Birch wants her Millennium March so she can get her
 1,000,000 members and the associated loot. Grassroots democracy might produce
 50 state marches. Big bummer for Birch.
        In a recent Out magazine article, Birch responds to her critics by saying,
 `Imagine what you would have done if three years ago you woke up and found
 that someone had handed you the movement, ... I'll bet that you would have
 made most of the decisions I made.' It's time to wake up again. It's not your
 movement. We can help.