From: PlanetQ@aol.com Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:18:09 EDT Subject: MMOW Rejects Open Process; PRESS RELEASE Ad Hoc Committee for An Open Process P.O. Box 1114 Old Chelsea Station New York, NY 10011 For Immediate Release: April 28, 1999 Media Contacts: Leslie Cagan 212-927-8342 email: lcagan@people-link.com Bill Dobbs 212-966-1091 email: duchamp@mindspring.com MMOW BOARD AGAIN REJECTS CALL FOR OPEN PROCESS PROPOSED MARCH LOSES ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER AD HOC COMMITTEE MOMENTUM GROWS The Millennium March on Washington (MMOW) board has again ignored a call for opening the process for a national LGBT mobilization to the communities they claim to represent. After their board meeting on April 25 and 26, the MMOW released a press statement saying `the board discussed plans to broaden its structure,' but the release indicates a lack of understanding of what an open process means. Late on April 25th the MMOW Board and several members of the Ad Hoc Committee for an Open Process met for 90 minutes. During the meeting, MMOW co-chair Ann deGroot announced plans to use the internet and hold town meetings. However, the MMOW would not agree to opening up a community-wide discussion around the country to decide whether or when there should be a national mobilization. `E-mail cannot replace a democratic, inclusive process nor can promotional town meetings replace local organizing committees that are part of the decision-making process ' stated Ad Hoc member Leslie Cagan. `Attempts to deflect criticism by announcing their choices for new additions to their board or by allowing a few people to attend part of their meeting do not address the central problem that a handful of people - not a broad cross section of the lgbt community - decided it was time to march on Washington.' Earlier in the day of April 25th, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) executive director Kerry Lobel announced her resignation from the Board of the Millennium March. The MMOW claims that Lobel left for `personal reasons.' However, NGLTF has made public Lobel's 3-page resignation letter. Lobel cites three main reasons for her decision -- all of them directly related to MMOW. Lobel departed over political disagreements; doubt over the value of a march in April, 2000; and concerns over financial accountability. In February, the National Youth Advocacy Coalition executive director Rea Carey resigned from the MMOW Board. Other organizations have withheld their support of the event, including the National Black Lesbian and Gay Leadership Forum, Pride at Work, & BiNet USA, It's Time America (transgender organization), and over 500 lgbt activists around the country have signed the Call for An Open Process. On April 25th, The Ad Hoc Committee also met with the National Organization for Women's (NOW) President Patricia Ireland and Vice-President of Action Elizabeth Toledo for nearly an hour to discuss the possible suspension of NOW's conditional endorsement of the MMOW and to reconsider its relationship to the planned MMOW. The Ad Hoc Committee maintains that the MMOW has waited too long to address crucial community organizing issues. `The Ad Hoc Committee is not opposed to national marches -- look at who we are,' said Steve Ault, co-chair of the '79 and '87 marches. `However, unlike the other marches which proceeded from a community-wide mandate following discussions on when, why, how and if we should march, the MMOW event was decided by a handful of people meeting privately.' During the meeting with the Ad Hoc Committee, MMOW executive producer Robin Tyler stated that she unilaterally called for the Millennium March and that it would happen because they have contracts for `10,000 hotel rooms' in Washington, D.C. for the weekend of April 30, 2000. "Let's us never forget how we got here", said black lesbian activist Mandy Carter, an '87 and '93 MOW organizer from North Carolina. "While there is now emphasis on how diverse the MMOW Board is with people of color and women, this was not at all the case when key decisions were made by a few self-selected people. It is precisely when decisions are made that diversity is most needed. And not just diversity of race and gender but of issues and constituencies too. That is more than a flaw in how to organize in a social justice movement." The way the MMOW is being planned represents the privatization of the movement for profit with no accountability: what is the budget, what financial commitments have already been made, where is the money coming from? The Ad Hoc Committee is struck by the lack of community/movement building that was the hallmark of the previous three marches on Washington. Throughout the meeting with the MMOW Board, the Ad Hoc Committee reiterated that the fundamental decisions must be revisited through a grassroots, community-wide, democratic decision-making process. The Ad Hoc Committee has offered to work with present members of the MMOW Board and others to develop such a process. The Ad Hoc Committee is a volunteer, grassroots group that formed in early 1998 shortly after an announcement was made public for a `Millennium March on Washington.' The group's `Call for an Open Process' has created discussion throughout the lgbt movement and is now supported by many well known individuals and organizers of the three previous marches on Washington. -30- Addendum: (1) Call for An Open Process (2) Kerry Lobel's letter of resignation (3) NOW's conditional endorsement ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALL FOR AN OPEN PROCESS The Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender people of the USA have organized three national marches on Washington, in 1979, 1987 and in 1993. These marches raised the visibility and advanced the issues of our communities. But the real importance and success of these mobilizations can be measured by the effect they had on our own communities. Grassroots organizing raised issues locally, spawned lasting coalitions and turned many of us into activists. On state and regional levels, new links were forged. Nationally, constituency organizing resulted in the emergence of national organizations and networks. The marches on Washington have been unique organizing tools that helped build a larger, stronger and more unified movement. Each march was very different as were the times during which they were organized. However, each one was run democratically with mass, grassroots involvement, and each followed a similar organizing scenario. A committee (which dissolved after its work was done) organized a national meeting to which representatives of all lesbian and gay (and later expanded to include bisexual and transgender) organizations--local, state and regional as well as national-- were welcomed. Organizational representatives voted, but otherwise, all in attendance were invited to participate in these open meetings. Here, the primary decision whether to have the event was made first, followed by deliberations on the name of the event, the politics, structure, leadership, and the organizing strategy. Then, throughout the country, open, democratically run meetings selected delegates, with mandates to include women and people of color, to a national steering committee, the highest decision-making body. Constituencies were also represented in the national steering committee and every national organization in our community was invited to join. Many of these meetings were at times contentious and chaotic. But in the end the decisions were accepted because the process was fair and inclusive. People from all over the country were motivated to commit their time, energy, and resources to build the marches because they realized that they were both heard and represented. And finally, when the big day arrived, we reveled in and were empowered by our accomplishment. The marches on Washington strengthened our movement largely because they were democratically run grassroots efforts on a massive scale. They have become an essential part of our proud history and a model to other movements for social change. Now, as a fourth march on Washington is being proposed, we must summon the legacy of the previous three--for the process by which this discussion proceeds will define not only the nature of any event that may follow, but more importantly, that of the lesbian/ gay/ bisexual/ transgender movement itself. Therefore, we, the Ad Hoc Committee for an Open Process, propose: 1. that a call be issued for an organizing and strategy conference to include discussion and a decision on the proposed march on Washington and other proposals brought forth, with nothing about the proposed march on Washington presented as a fait accompli; 2. that all lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender organizations be invited to send two voting representatives to the meeting; 3. that attendance and participation (other than voting) be open to all. We are calling for an open process to engage our movement in a serious, national discussion on whether or not we want to go to Washington--what's the purpose, when do we want to go, what would we be calling for, and how do we insure the maximum, most diverse participation in any planing process? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- KERRY LOBEL'S LETTER April 25, 1999 Dear Colleagues, It is with great regret that I resign as a member of the Board of Directors of the Millennium March on Washington, effective immediately. The reasons for my resignation stem from three basic issues, which have continued to grow over time. First, I have significant political disagreements with the March call and planning, which have not been addressed. Secondly, I have grown increasingly skeptical of the value of this event for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) movement at this time. And finally, I cannot endorse certain decisions made by the Board. Although I have great trust and affection for each of you individually, it does not assuage my concerns and questions. I now believe I will be most helpful to the community from outside the Board. Since the initial call for the March, grassroots activists have consistently challenged us as national leaders. Their concerns address the credibility and legitimacy of the March and they have demanded an opening of the March process for greater discussion. The questions have been on whether to march, what agenda to march for, and how best to use the tremendous platform and visibility that such marches provide. Despite my political disagreements with the call and process, I agreed to serve on the March Board, believing my participation could change the course of the process. I also felt that as a representative of the oldest national political organization, and one of the few explicitly progressive national GLBT groups, my voice was needed in the March planning process. I stated at the time that I would remain on the Board as long as my presence represented the best interests of Task Force members, our constituents, and the movement as a whole. Since I joined the Board, my participation has been challenged by members and activists with whom we have deep and longstanding relationships. Individuals from all perspectives have intensively engaged me, the Task Force staff, and our Board. I took their concerns to heart and carried them in my work on the March Board. During my tenure, I voted in the minority on key resolutions on personnel issues, the naming of the March, and the broadening of the planning effort to allow more people a seat at the table. I helped lead the successful effort to ensure that funds raised by the March would go to statewide organizations, people of color organizations and other constituents underrepresented in our movement. However, the Board has largely ignored the fundamental issues that lead me into become involved: why we should march, the agenda, and the involvement of the entire GLBT community. I cannot serve on a Board that will not open itself to greater input and scrutiny from the communities we claim to represent. The second reason for my resignation is that I continue to doubt the value of this March at this time. I honor the value of our previous national Marches and acknowledge them as having been political turning points in the lives of many current leaders and activists. However, the effectiveness of such an enormous commitment of time and resources at a moment when more and more energy is demanded of the GLBT movement at the state and local level is questionable. Nothing so dramatically reinforced this as the success of Equality Begins at Home. Held one month ago and sponsored by the Federation of LGBT Statewide Political Organizations and the Task Force, EBAH was supported by national and local groups, including the March Board. It demonstrated the incredible power of investing in state and local movement building. It also exemplified the real possibilities for political advancement of GLBT equality in every state. More favorable bills were introduced in state legislatures, more allies were reached and involved, more media coverage was generated in every state on GLBT issues than had ever been achieved at the state level. Because of its overwhelming success, the campaign is likely to be repeated in years to come, perhaps even annually. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has committed the vast majority of its resources to deepening and growing political power in every state. The time I have spent on the March Board has taken away from my important work at the state and local level. I need to concentrate my energies on NGLTF1s efforts to build this state-by-state movement and on advocating for our grassroots constituents at the national level. This is the heart and soul of our work and it requires us to have the courage of our convictions. Finally as a Board member, I have had personal financial responsibility and liability for the non-profit corporation producing the March. I am concerned that the March is not moving forward in a strategic manner. I am also concerned that neither the Board members nor our GLBT community have full access to information about March management and finances. I can no longer accept the personal risk my participation on the Board requires. I hope that my colleagues, many of whom are working very hard and responsibly, will push for information and accountability in the planning process. In closing, I want to assure you that the Task Force will be visible at the Millennium March on Washington to encourage gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people from around the country to continue their work through state and local organizing. They will come to Washington to experience the power of gathering in their nation1s capital, to feel strength in numbers, and to create a show of force for the GLBT community. We will be persistent in our efforts to ensure that the energy and momentum of the March carries to local communities. The financial commitments made by the March Board to organizations dedicated to statewide organizing and people of color organizing could be the finest legacy the March will leave to our movement. If significant changes are made in the March planning and organizing, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force will gladly consider rejoining the planning efforts for the Millennium March on Washington. In the meantime, we will advocate for the inclusion of our entire community in the March process and for the linking of our agenda to those of other movements for social justice. We hope these issues will be reflected in the March planning and agenda. Sincerely, Kerry Lobel Executive Director, NGLTF ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NOW's CONDITIONAL ENDORSEMENT Tue, 9 Feb 1999 From the National Organization for Women Action Center: NOW Press Office 202-331-0066 Loretta Kane, x 762 202-785-8576 (fax) Following lengthy discussions over the last four months, the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women (NOW) voted to endorse the Millennium March for Equality, based on assurances by March organizers that a number of NOW's concerns would be met. "We are facing serious right-wing attacks on lesbian and gay civil rights. We must start the new century with unprecedented strength. To do so, we need a unified, progressive movement where everyone has a place at the table," said NOW President Patricia Ireland. "NOW's participation in the Millennium March depends on the inclusion of feminist concerns in the March agenda and people who represent the wide diversity of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community in the organizing process." The resolution passed by NOW's Board anticipates that the March agenda will address discrimination based on not only sexual orientation, but also sex, race, class, age and disability. NOW received assurances that the right to privacy and to control one's own body, implicit in the March agenda, would include the right to abortion and reproductive health care. NOW's endorsement is also contingent on a commitment that with its expansion, the Millennium March On Washington's (MMOW) board will represent the diversity of the LGBT community, including open lesbians of all races, colors, abilities, classes and ages. Finally, NOW's resolution recognizes the importance of the MMOW's board's taking steps to reconcile the differences that have arisen within the LGBT community over the March. Organizing for the Millennium March got off to a rough start when key-players in the LGBT movement challenged the manner in which the march was called, and questioned what role people of color and issues of race and class would play in the event and the organizing process. While many individuals and organizations who fight racism have signed-on to the march, the controversy still exists. "By signaling our willingness to participate in the Millennium March, we hope we can help facilitate a resolution to the existing problems. NOW wants to be part of the solution," Ireland said. "Now is the time to close ranks and fight our enemies -- not each other."