NOVEMBER 26, 1993 GAY PEOPLE'S CHRONICLE

COMMUNITY FORUM

Editorial decisions border on censorship

To the Editors:

There seems to be a foul wind blowing at the Chronicle and I can only hope that it is not an indication of things to come. For the second time in two years the Chronicle has refused to print a strongly-worded letter from an out-spoken lesbian in the AfricanAmerican community. While the Chronicle was kind enough to outline their policy on what they will and will not print in the October 15 issue, I personally find the policy lacking.

Having read Peggi Cella's letter in What She Wants, a paper that obviously has no problem with strong commentary, I am wondering if someone at the Chronicle could specifically tell me what was so controversial about bringing the continued existence of racism and sexism at the Center to light? The letter Peggi wrote was her interpretation of events that led up to the selection of the new director and did not directly attack any individual(s) at the Center. What it did point Qut, however, is that once again the lip service that women, and people of color in particular, receive from some of the organizations in our community is still in effect. Is the Center (or the Chronicle for that matter) an organization above reproach when one of its members feels that part of the community is being slighted by its action or inaction?

I do not always agree with the way Peggi presents her views, but I wonder if in addition to the tone of her letter there was a concern for length, "fringe opinion," or an unsubstantiated attack on the Center? Length was the only issue I had with Peggi's letter, but I would much rather see a long, thought provoking letter such as Peggi's than some of the other topics that get rehashed month after month in issue after issue of the Chronicle!

The "fishbowl" meeting, Stonewall's third town hall meeting, and the articles in the October 15 issue of the Chronicle have reinforced some of my suspicions. They are as follows:

1. The Chronicle and the Center both seem to have a problem with criticism regarding racism and take a “tag team” approach to squashing that criticism. When I participated in the short-lived racism forum with Peggi and a number of other AfricanAmericans, I was somewhat surprised to hear that, in addition to refusing to believe racism was a real problem in our community, members of both staffs did not want to deal with the issue. I realize that the issue can be painful to discuss, and that sometimes it becomes personal when it should not be, but ignoring racism and sexism is not the answer. The equally short-lived "My Turn" column, which was donated space in the Chronicle for the people of color community to vent, disappeared when the Chronicle folded. Most of the blame lies with the people of color community for not pushing for this column as a way to communicate our concerns. I would like to see this column return.

2. Lip service is a dangerous way of dealing with problems in our community. I hear a lot of complaints about not being able to cultivate the interest of women and people of color, but it is treated as an agenda item at meetings. If the Chronicle or the Center was truly interested in effectively tapping into these resources they would have done it by now. If you say that you are trying to get women and people of color interested, but fail to make your organization friendly and accessible, you will continue to fail.

I wanted to reiterate a point I made in my article [letter] in the Sept. 3 Chronicle titled "Addressing African-American Issues" (it was signed "name withheld" because I forgot to put my name on it). In this community where we should be working together, people are still looking down their noses at African-Americans. And in organizations where we should be taking advantage of our group's diversity, we silence people simply because we do not understand (or do not

want to hear) the message they bring.

I am also tired of hearing that in order for most of you to understand sexism and racism, you need women and people of color to educate you. This is so ridiculous! The responsibility does not fall to the women and people of color community. Get out there and educate yourself on these issues just as you would any other topic where you feel you lack knowledge. Ask your friends questions (I am assuming that most of you have friends who are people of color . . . ), attend workshops, do your homework!

Stonewall learned a valuable lesson at the last town hall meeting. In addition to the sad turnout to hear the informed panel of women talk about their issues (where were you?), it was brought to everyone's attention that the lip service of trying to include more women and people of color had worn thin. I am glad that the Peggi Cellas, Leigh Robertsons and Leslie Taylors out there are also putting the community on notice, but they cannot do it alone. Too many gays and lesbians treat racism and sexism as issues they can choose to ignore because it makes them uncomfortable. What will truly be uncomfortable for these people is the knowledge that the gay and lesbian people of color community has tired of their lip service and may resort to in-your-face tactics to get action. Peggi said it best, "you had better stop paying attention to the way I say things to you, and start listening to what I am saying to you."

The editors respond:

Frank Lowery

The editorial board had several objections to printing Cella's opinion piece, none of which had to do with protecting the Center, hiding a discussion of institutionalized racism, or because of the writer's racial heritage. A major concern was that we felt the opinion piece contained unnecessarily abusive language towards then-Board President Dolores Noll and Executive Director Judy Rainbrook. What She Wants approaches the printing of opinion differently.

Regarding the statement that the paper has a "problem with criticism regarding racism," the Chronicle's publisher and managing editor met on Sept. 30 with representatives of SOAR and others who pointed out recent examples of the paper's racist attitudes. During the meeting, agreement was reached on all of the demands. One of these was Martha Pontoni's "Re-evaluating my racism" article in the October 15 issue. Another was for the paper's staff to do our own anti-racism work, which has begun and will continue. There was no article printed about the meeting at SOAR's request. As for the Center, we regularly report on it, including the racism concerns.

We don't live in a racist-sexist cave. The Chronicle regularly hears reports of homophobic, racist or sexist behavior, often from the community's bars. Unless the victim-survivor is willing to go on record with an incident, we can't do anything with the information. And even then, journalistic integrity demands that we contact the managers or owners to get their side of the story, which we can tell you in advance will be a version of "we don't discriminate. "To truly expose these and other racist institutions requires an undercover investigative approach with a pink reporter and a brown reporter separately entering the establishment and later confronting the owner with the evidence. Lack of resources, not lack of interest, is the reason this hasn't been done yet.

We would be happy to resume “My Turn" or another column or opinion forum for the people of color community. While moving forward in our anti-racism work, we still need to be told when we err. If a person of color has interest in either writing or coordinating submissions from others for such a column, and is willing to see how friendly and accessible we are, call us.

Center board is violating bylaws

To the Editors:

I believe I have a responsibility to inform the community of the ways in which the present Center Board of Trustees is violating the agency's by-laws.

As a 501(c)(3) agency, the Center is subject to both state and federal laws. Its bylaws are on file in the Ohio Attorney General's office.

1. Postponing the election of new board members. The by-laws stipulate that the annual election to the board is to occur in October at a meeting of the General Membership. This fundamental principle of democracy has always been followed religiously in my four years at the Center.

If circumstances were to force a delay for, say, a week, I would not object seriously. But this election is to be postponed for two and a half months! For what reason? Because the Nominating Committee placed two people of color on the slate without board member Peggi Cella's approval.

The fact that those at the meeting voted overwhelmingly for the delay doesn't alter the situation. Amending the by-laws requires that the amendment be "submitted in writing at the previous General Membership meeting." This gives the membership time to consider carefully all sides of an issue and prevents any one group from suddenly assuming control of the process.

The violation of this by-law creates other problems. Are the three board members (Palumbo, Cella, Kuykendall) whose terms were due to expire at the date of the election still members of the board or not? When I raised this issue to the board, two members responded immediately. One said they were. The other said they were not. Who makes this determination?

If the three are still board members, the president pro tem should be the 1st V.P., Nick Palumbo.

2. Interference with the Nominating Committee's process. The by-laws are carefully worded to insure the independence of the Nominating Committee at the annual election. Although at other times of the year the president may appoint, with the board's approval, new trustees to fill unexpired terms, the by-laws give the board no power to veto the Nominating Committee's slate for the annual election.

The Nominating Committee is to "present its candidates to the membership in writing at least one month before the Annual Meeting." This year the committee was unable to assemble a slate in time to notify the membership in writing. Although I was not a voting member of the committee, I will take a large share of responsibility for this failure.

Nevertheless, the committee did not intentionally delay the process. The process itself is time consuming, involving finding qualified and willing candidates, sending them a lengthy questionnaire to fill out and return, and interviewing each of them.

The by-laws stipulate that the Nominating Committee is to consist of three board members and three non-board members, all of whom are selected by the board. The present Nominating Committee contains two African-Americans and one HispanicAmerican.

The Nominating Committee did assemble a slate of four candidates, two of them persons of color. As a formality, it informed the board of its selections at the Oct. 19 board meeting.

Peggi Cella appeared at the beginning of the meeting to express her disapproval over the fact that the slate included two persons of color. At the Fishbowl meeting, Cella had argued that the board should not bring on any more people of color until the white members of the board had done their "work." She also had vowed to destroy the agency, including "burning it down and going to jail,” if the board did not respond appropriately.

At the Oct. 19 meeting, Cella attacked the qualifications of the African-Americans on the slate (although she herself had nom-

inated one of them the previous year). She used the terms "field/house niggers," which I found highly offensive. She also vowed to cause problems ("It will be a blast") at the Annual Meeting if the election were held as planned.

Cella had every right to object to the election of these or any other candidates. But her objections should have been addressed to the General Membership meeting at the time of the vote. Neither she nor the rest of the board had the right to veto the Nominating Committee's selections.

After making her remarks, Cella left. The board held a long and thoughtful, not heated, discussion of the issues. It then voted unanimously, with one abstention, to continue with the regular election process.

At this meeting I resigned as president of the board because I felt that my stepping down might remove an obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the problems the board faced with Cella and the members of SOAR. Because Nick Palumbo's term was ending, I suggested that Joan Organ, 2nd V.P., should be president pro tem.

The board agreed to contact all the candidates to inform them of Cella's objections. Three of them subsequently withdrew. The fourth, a man of color, assured Nominating Committee chair Nick Palumbo that he would remain on the ballot. The

following Monday, however, he was called by Judy Rainbrook, the executive director, and told that the election was to be postponed. (Rainbrook's version of this call was that she said it would "probably” be postponed.) He then agreed to withdraw.

The night before the Annual Meeting, at an informal board meeting which lacked a quorum, the decision made at the regular board meeting to continue with the election was reversed. I resigned from the board and left the meeting when it became apparent what was to occur.

The Oct. 29 Chronicle quotes Organ as saying that a postponement of the election would "give the Nominating Committee time to revise its slate of candidates." I want simply to reiterate that the Nominating Committee had made no request for time to "revise" its slate. It had worked hard, in good faith, to produce a slate of what it considered well-qualified candidates. It was then the responsibility of the trustees, who are entrusted with the duty to carry out the agency's by-laws, to go forward with the slate and let the membership vote.

According to the board's attorney (himself a board member), a decision to exclude people of color because of their race would be a violation of the Civil Rights laws regardless of the motive for doing so. Whether or not the board has violated these laws is not up to me to determine, but I think it is walking a very thin line.

3. Reduction of board membership to half the required number. The by-laws state that the board should contain from twelve to nineteen members. This board now has six. According to the Chronicle (Nov. 12), President pro tem Organ says that the board is "much stronger" now, and operates more informally. The board that I chaired was not able to establish and maintain a consistent position toward the racism/ sexism challenges thrown at it for the last six months. It swung wildly from one pole to the other, as the reversal of the Oct. 19 vote demonstrates. I suppose that the board is stronger in that there are now no dissentContinued on next page

Community Forum

The Chronicle encourages everyone to write and express your opinion about the community or the paper. Please be brief. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity. We will print your name unless you specifically ask us not to.

Address letters to the Chronicle, P.O. Box 5426, Cleveland, Ohio, 44101, or fax to 216-621-5282 (24 hours). Include your address and phone number so we may contact you to verify the letter.