Transparency

Michael Petrelis left a comment on my Aravosis entry earlier this week and here is a very cogent piece of advice for the HRC:

The matters of fiscal transparency and accountability, and the need for HRC to develop town hall meetings, allow staff to blog, and general learn to engage the blogger critics are long-standing.

Transparency ought never be scary if your motivation is pure and you have faith in your goals. This is a common feature in publishing papers in scientific journals - one must give enough information in the publication such that other scientists can repeat the entire set of experiments. Obviously, others may have a differing view and this is the basis for generating a scientific consensus.

However this sort of consensus building requires alot of discussion of results and data. If there is no transparency, then this whole exchange is short-circuited.

Michael's comments about both fiscal and motivational transparency is spot on. This discussion has also been further by an extensive set of posts by Chris Crain about the HRC vs the blogosphere.

Sadly, this appears to be degenerating into personal attacks, most visibly on Chris by Metro Weekly and an earlier round involving Chris and Andrew Sullivan by Joe at HRC.

Note Chris has links and content describing Andrew Sullivan's back and forth with HRC.

In relation to transparency, there is limited value of Joe being so prickly with individuals while dodging the larger issue at hand. This sort of personal attack strategy only buys Joe more time and hoping that the furor blows over. The current blog-uproar has clearly shown that there is a definite interest in bringing the focus of the HRC back to nuts and bolts gay issues. This can be acheived by the HRC refocusing on regular interaction with the community. I like the town hall meetings because they can bring all the voices together for a discussion.

Joe likes ENDA and repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. Also clearly a proponent of legislating gay marriage.

For one: Joe is not courting the community to explain what HRC's stance on ENDA will be in concrete terms- will it include trans-rights? How extensive will this be in the private sector (i.e. will mom and pop operations get a pass?). All legislation will require compromise and what points can be compromised and what points are a deal killer. I firmly believe that it is more important to have a core set of non-negotiable points that the HRC is forwarding clearly as opposed to the less transparent backroom deals that are then "explained" to us.

If we cannot get a clear explanation about the financial state of HRC, should we expect to get a clear explanation of what goals HRC will go to the mat for (and potentially risk killing the legislation in the process).

Another point: Why is domestic partnership (which can be far more cleanly legislated) DOA at HRC? Given the problems with judicial fiat and the resistance within the gay community for the all-or-nothing approach of gay marriage - wouldn't it be a good idea to regroup and consider if domestic partnership is a suitable compromise that will provide us basic legal protection?

Seeking a consensus is not always easy. But it is a necessary point of ensuring that the gay community has some core principles. Frankly, I am embarrased that we are mired in gay marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell. And I think that the goals for ENDA should be discussed with the gay masses.

The HRC appears to have strayed from the average gay's needs and goals. I think that the current blog vs HRC drama is so divisive because the HRC is not upholding its perceived goal as speaking for, and more importantly with, the gay community.

Bravo to Chris Crain, Michael Petrelis, Andrew Sullivan, and Larry Kramer for bringing the issues surrounding HRC to the fore (again).