Joe...careful darling. You might get your wig snatched.
Joe - a little piece of advice. Don't get into a battle that you cannot win. Its counterproductive.
I have been in la-la-land for the past week with work and work drama. Whilst I was absent, Andrew Sullivan had some festive entries about the HRC on his blog - that is highlighting that it is a "racket".
A-fucking-men.
So Joe gets the Blade to do piece on Andrew's comments titled "HRC hits back at blogger criticisms".
The article looks to be requested by HRC and it definitely doesn't address Andrew Sullivan's critiques of the organization.
Joe's quote is (as usual) banal:
"I find it curious that, as Democrats have taken charge of Congress and we are poised for the first time in over a decoade to pass this sort of legislation, he seems to have mounted this campaign to malign and discredit our work."
I find it interesting that Andrew's primary bitch of the moment is that HRC is not transparent in its finances and that Joe's response talks about Andrew working against the organization.
Now if Andrew, who has a big megaphone, bitches about the HRC finances, then Joe ought to address those points directly. Further, I don't think it is appropriate for the HRC to use the Blade in this way - it is clear that the Blade just repeated alot of the HRC talking points.
My favorite is from Jim Rinefierd, VP for finance and operations:
"No membership or operating dollars were used to purchase or renovate the office building at 1640 Rhode Island Ave N.W."
The article goes on the discuss how a special and separate campaign was mounted to finance the purchase and renovation.
OK - Andrew's point is that this sort of investment distracts from the actual purpose of the organization. That purpose, supposedly, is gay advocacy. The total cost of the building was 26.4 million bucks that people gave to HRC.
I think the Blade should have done the really interesting (and HRC critical) story: How far 26.4 million would go if it were given in competitive grants to grass-roots organizations?
HRC has offered no good reason for why they spent so much on the building - because they will not fess up to the truth. Pretty buildings help raise more money than dumpy ones.
posted by The Scientist's View @ 08:07
2 Comments:
HRC has offered no good reason for why they spent so much on the building - because they will not fess up to the truth. Pretty buildings help raise more money than dumpy ones.
I've spent my career in non-profit finance in Washington DC. Non-profits buy buildings out of vanity. Period.
I'm suprised the HRC hasn't just come out and mentioned this... but given the fact that they'd really rather pretend you guys don't exist, maybe I shouldn't be.
The HRC building is actually a pretty good moneymaker for the organization. They don't occupy the entire building, leasing out at least the top two floors. They also regularly rent out their meeting facilities. These cash flows, combined with the way they've financially structured the whole arrangement, means they're saving a significant amount of money compared to what they'd be spending if they just leased out office space. Add in the fact that gays have a very visible presence (literally) because of this building, and I think it's a smart move.
Ultimately, I agree with your calls for more transparency. The culture at the HRC is a little insular, and their upper ranks could use some non washington types.
Dan
Post a Comment
<< Home