Campos to Pride: City funding requires transparency, meeting about Manning decision

Protesters were locked out of the Pride board's "public" meeting on May 8

Over the weekend, Pride posted a Facebook note saying that, despite its promises, it would not be holding a public meeting to address its horrible handling of the Bradley Manning for Grand Marshal scandal until after Pride, and that "SF Pride’s decision concerning the election process of Bradley Manning as Grand Marshal being consistent with SF Pride’s long-standing Grand Marshal election policy is firm. Thus, the discussion of that matter is closed for this year."

People were not very happy about this. Last night a well-attended "mock Pride board meeting" protest was held, with a row of empty chairs symbolizing Pride's absence of leadership.

Now Supervisor David Campos has issued a stern letter to the Pride Board, citing Pride's status as a city-funded organization and its failure to operate with transparency, and advising them to meet with the public before the festival at the end of June.

Could Pride get its funding yanked if it continues to, ahem, Stonewall? Here's Campos's letter:

To Executive Director Earl Plante, Board President Lisa Williams and members of the Board of Directors of San Francisco Pride:

I am writing to express my concern over the recent actions of the leadership of Pride in the wake of the controversy surrounding the naming of Private Manning as a Grand Marshall for this year’s parade. The decision to rescind this honor is unprecedented and the community has every right to be concerned about the consequences of this abrupt, top-down directive. Most importantly, however, is the obligation Pride has to be accountable, transparent and representative to the diverse LGBT community it serves. As an organization which receives City funding, Pride has a responsibility to operate with transparency and accountability, and to allow for timely appropriate discussions with the community as needed. The failure of Pride leadership to do so in this circumstance is contrary to this responsibility.

Controversy is not a new phenomenon to Pride festivities, nor is it a valid reason for Pride not to fulfill its responsibilities to the broader LGBT community. The recent statement made by Pride that the discussion on this matter is “closed” is disturbing, and may serve to further divide the community and foster long-lasting resentments.

I urge Pride to hold an open community discussion on the matter of Private Manning’s awarding and rescission as Grand Marshall, and ask that this meeting be held as soon as possible and before the June Pride festivities. We must remember that Pride was born as a tribute to the courage of the LGBT community, and walking away from this discussion is contrary to that legacy.


Supervisor David Campos


"The well attended rally" consisted of the same small group of malcontents that show up to every rally on the fill in the blank fringe cause du jour. At least now they've moved on from the nudies. Most folks in the community could care less about this overhyped issue- and believe me when the Supreme Court rules on marriage in June, it'll be Bradley who.. oops I mean Breanna. And perhaps the offer of this blog is transphobic in using the name Bradley.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2013 @ 5:42 pm

Or does he have delusions of grandeur?

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

That's the point of Campos letter. Pride is publicly funded, so the community should be included in the process instead of being shut out. Campos is standing up for the community as their elected leader. What is so hard to understand about that?

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2013 @ 10:44 am

Is there any evidence he sought their agreement here?

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2013 @ 11:06 am

The city gives money to numerous organizations, do they all hold public meetings for "community input" on every issue. No.

Quite frankly, the grand marshal for any local parade should be (A) Someone who is able to physically attend and actually be a grand marshal, and (B) also preferably be a local resident--if not from SF, then at least a resident of the Bay Area.

Making political statements is a great thing to do, and there are numerous opportunities to do it, and no one is being prevented from doing it. People are free to march along the parade and trumpet about Bradley Manning, global warming, the sex scandals in the military, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Jesus Christ, or whatever the hell tickles their fancy. But, what SF and the Pride parade do not need is another symbolic gesture, like appointing some non-Bay Area resident who is in prison and who can't even attend the Parade as a grand marshal.

I would tell Campos to shove it, and if he keeps bitching, then I would return the $50K, which is peanuts, and tell him to take a flying leap. You don't pull this crap two weeks before an event. The time to review decisions is over.

I don't particularly care for the parade, but what gets me is all these people who act like they are "outside the mainstream," and call Pride a "corporate event," but then seem dead set on getting this "corporate event" to give their particular point of view the "mainstream" seal of approval. Yep, he pretty much belies their efforts at portraying themselves as "proud freaks' or "outsiders."

Posted by Chris on May. 16, 2013 @ 6:35 pm

How nice of the Guardian to shill for a career gay Democrat trolling for votes when he runs for Assembly. Campos, like Avalos when Occupy San Francisco was down at Hermann Plaza, waits a few weeks to get the lay of the land and stays silent, then steps in to coopt the anger and the activists. Nice of Campos to not mention a thing about jeopardizing City funds that flow to Pride or pull the permits or even spank Pride's hands with an organic gluten free wet noodle cooked by Matthilda Boring-stein Sycamore!

Posted by MPetrelis on May. 15, 2013 @ 6:40 pm

Thank you, David Campos!!!

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2013 @ 6:46 pm

at all. This just gives Campos yet another reason to opine on another useless topic so he can keep his toadish face in the media in preparation for his Assembly run.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 15, 2013 @ 6:53 pm

Why don't you take it elsewhere? We're tired of looking at it.

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2013 @ 11:03 am

do you type these messages using city-owned computers? Or are you just so enamored of the Frog Prince that you spend your time away from his office typing messages defending him?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 16, 2013 @ 7:03 pm

I've always been a big supporter of Campos, because I think that he does a much better job of representing the *entire* LGBTQ community than Scott Weiner does. I'm glad to see that he's had the courage to take a stand on this issue, and I still hope that the Pride board will reverse their stance and allow Bradley Manning to be a grand marshal, since that is what the majority of the community here wants.

Posted by HeartTenderloin on May. 15, 2013 @ 7:31 pm

Can you provide that community poll please.

Posted by Locknpost on May. 15, 2013 @ 9:11 pm

Campos didn't even include the "Q" in LGBTQ!

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2013 @ 6:51 am

L, G, B and T cover all the possibilities. "Q" is just a catch-all term for any or all of the categories.

In fact, "L" is redundant too if you want to be picky, since "G" covers both men and women.

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2013 @ 7:25 am

on gay men by pushing that "L" in front. Why don't you folks dispense with the silly acronymic segmenation and opt for the simple and all-encompassing "gender liberated"?

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 16, 2013 @ 9:10 am

Why don't you folks STFU!

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2013 @ 11:04 am

I nominate "Q" as the catch-all. It's an enigmatic letter, and it's self-deprecatingly retro. This alphabet soup for the endless sub-categories of non-heterosexuality and gender confusion has got to go. It's too inelegant, much more so than the Q's in my orbit.

Posted by Chromefields on May. 16, 2013 @ 11:18 am

anyone used to need to decribe the various aspects of gayness that now pertain.

But along came political correctness around 1990 or so, and suddenly non-whites were "people of color", air hostesses became "cabin crew" and "queer" developed into a taxonomy that, frankly, is quite mind-boggling.

I can only assume that "queer" now refers to any kink that isn't covered by being a gay man, woman, bi or someone of indeterminate gender (known as "tranny", so I hear).

So if your thing is bestiality, pedophilia, incest or necrophilia, presumably "queer" captures that. But I'm not sure anyone really cares.

Posted by anon on May. 16, 2013 @ 7:17 pm
Posted by lillipublicans on May. 17, 2013 @ 3:42 am

Some people here clearly cannot handle the emotional to and fro of a political debate.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2013 @ 10:05 am

here, but I'm pretty much non-violent unless you insist on getting in my face.

I was not making neither a death wish or threat; I was simply opining that if you had the temerity to go about espousing such poisonous rhetoric in public that you'd get snuffed out pretty quick. The wider world is a far less safe place than your little computer nook.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 18, 2013 @ 11:02 am

Unless you are way over the line even more than we thought.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2013 @ 11:51 am
Posted by Matlock on May. 16, 2013 @ 6:20 pm

Has anyone taking a poll of the "majority of the community?"

Again, I think just a few weeks before an event is too late to reverse any decisions, but if people feel so left out of the process, then let's actually have a legitimate process, and not have decisions made through postings on SFBG (of SFGate, for that matter).

Here is the deal: Have the city pay for an election--it can be an "informal" impromptu one, and if the majority of SF residents (who participate) vote for Bradley Manning to grand marshal the parade, then fine, tell Pride if it wants future city funding for the event, it should honor the decision.

Until, and if you hold an election, and truly give the majority a chance for input, then stop saying you or anyone else speaks for the majority.

Posted by Chris on May. 16, 2013 @ 6:40 pm

traitor should be a role model?

The vast majority of people do not care either way.

Posted by anon on May. 16, 2013 @ 7:12 pm

Campos never said that the pitiful excuse for "City Funding" of $58,000 would/could be yanked. The Meeting that was cancelled was Not the one Pride was talking about when they said they were going to have one at a later date. Not surprised that SFBG for shotty reporting on a gay issue.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2013 @ 8:00 pm

increase funding for pride?

How much does the city give to the Irish pride coors light fund?

Posted by Matlock on May. 17, 2013 @ 2:09 am

Some funding would be cool based on true conservative ideals.

It's about time that city funding for special interest positions are based a non George Wallace agenda.

Posted by Matlock on May. 15, 2013 @ 9:14 pm

Thanks to David Campos for speaking up when so many remain silent about SF Pride's unacceptable treatment of Bradley Manning and the progressive LGBT community. We deserve representation among the Grand Marshals at Pride just like the more conservative portions of the community do. Right now, the parade is far too weighted toward corporations, the military, marriages, and selling booze, rather than respecting the early ideals of freedom and human rights for all, rather than just rich queers expressing their "pride" mixed with greed.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2013 @ 10:49 pm

Just another mindless twit latching on to the career tin hats that dominate any local discourse in SF.

Did anyone even know that Manning was gay?

People here are absolutely addicted to manufacturing drama.

Posted by NOT_Eric_Brooks on May. 16, 2013 @ 9:30 am

the way your comment headlines neatly sum up the nature of your perspective.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 16, 2013 @ 9:45 am

was made available on Harry Shearer's radio program Le Show earlier this month, when he interviewed a journalist who has been covering Manning's case:

Great music and sometimes highly humorous takes on current events are also regular features.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 16, 2013 @ 10:25 am

This man committed treason against his country, which treason led to the deaths of others, and he at least ought to be locked away for life if not executed. What possible justification could David Campos have for honoring him other than to score some more anti-war points with his political base?

To paraphrase Obama, anyone promoting Bradley Manning as a parade marshall dishonors all Americans who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters where we've fought terrorism and global jihadism, and particularly to those who lost their lives doing so.

Posted by cfulbright on May. 16, 2013 @ 10:31 am

Campos is not promoting Bradlye Manning as parade marshall. He is calling for a public hearing to include everyone in the LGBT community, not just the autocratic members of the Pride board. All of us! Does that clear things up for you?

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2013 @ 11:08 am

No, it doesn't. As the article said, "Campos, who said he personally supports the idea of honoring Manning, said he spoke with SF Pride CEO Earl Plante, and it sounds like there could be a debate before the parade after all."

Does that clear it up for you?

Posted by cfulbright on May. 16, 2013 @ 11:24 am

Trust me, you'd be much happier hanging with the mindless, jingoistic, red-white&blue good ole boys of the deep South than in progressive San Francisco. I'll help you pack.

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2013 @ 11:14 am

How long you been here, boy? I've been here 30 years. Is that good enough for you? Or do you want everyone to share your fringe opinions or move somewhere else? Gee, maybe you're the jingoist!

Posted by cfulbright on May. 16, 2013 @ 11:23 am

Where have I shown any evidence of patriotism in any form? Obviously, you don't know the meaning of the word.

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2013 @ 12:42 pm

You showed it when you told me to move to Texas, presumably because I didn't deserve to live in your precious San Francisco. You're a San Francisco socialist jingoist. I run into them every day.

Posted by cfulbright on May. 16, 2013 @ 1:05 pm

actions lead to? Even the military has given up on that argument. You have more in common with the terrorists and jihadists than you are willing to admit.

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2013 @ 12:20 pm

Please, your ad hominem attacks are pathetic. They exposed the names of politicians in other countries who have been killed. They exposed the names of US consular officials who have been forced out of the field.

Do you think because your positions agree with a majority of the citizens of this area that you can make weak arguments and the herd will carry you?

Posted by cfulbright on May. 16, 2013 @ 12:58 pm

to point to puppets and spies, pretending to be politicians and diplomats. Keep fighting for your freedom to be deceived. Patriotism, the last bastion of a scoundrel.

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2013 @ 1:21 pm

So it's OK if puppets and spies die? Maybe they even deserve to die?

It sounds like you're fine with the death penalty. You just want to apply it to people working for your country's interests, instead of against them.

Posted by cfulbright on May. 16, 2013 @ 1:35 pm

he writes some letter in that pompous "look at me I'm El Lider De San Francisco" tone, but in fact has no power to make Pride do a goddamned thing. More hot air (or is it breaking wind ) from a wannabe dictator who didn't grow up with US values and doesn't understand how this country works - after all he was a citizen only a few years ago.

Pride should say "FU" to the Manning supporters. After all, Manning's actions are often cited as to why gay people shouldn't serve in the military.

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2013 @ 9:09 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.