Friday, September 24, 2010

EPISODE RECAP: What happened at the Pride Toronto AGM?

It was a surreal evening at the annual general meeting (AGM) of Pride Toronto (PT) on Sept 23.

Police on bicycles lingered outside Church Street Public School in Toronto’s gay village for five hours, while inside a tightly controlled semi-public meeting saw the delivery of unaudited financial information, the election of one new director and every motion put to the floor by members ruled out of order by the chair.

And no, they didn’t let Chad speak.

It was a rocky start, as attendees were separated into two groups. Two bouncers asked those who didn’t have voting status to wait in the hall while members took their seats.

Meanwhile, at least five people complained that their names were omitted from the official membership list, including former PT treasurer Ross Chapman and performer (and Xtra columnist) Ryan G Hinds.

After the board decided not to deal with their complaints before the meeting, folks tried to get them added to the voting list by moving a motion from the floor. It was ruled out of order.

Francis Yap was initially given a vote, but was confronted by PT interim co-chair Margaret Ngai before the meeting; after a lengthy exchange, PT volunteers removed the wristband that represented membership status from Yap.

Also before the meeting, someone distributed flyers that said “Let Chad Speak,” referring to Chad Simon, a board member appointed just a month before the AGM who had initially promised to address the membership.

Former PT staffer Lisa Duke moved a motion to add “any other business” to the agenda, but it was ruled out of order by Genevieve D’Iorio. D’Iorio was aided by the frequent interventions of PT’s lawyer, who identified herself as Susan Manwaring of Miller Thomson LLP.

During the update from the co-chairs, D’Iorio burst into tears and briefly left the room.

The financial information, if accurate, shows huge losses. PT presented a deficit of $400,000. Executive director Tracey Sandilands said that $200,000 of losses were due to sponsors who pulled out of the festival at the last moment — but when pressed, the PT board refused to identify them. Sandilands also said that $700,000 was cut from the budget just weeks before the event to prevent even greater losses.

PT's cash in the bank as of July 31 was $-70,000.

After taking a handful of questions about the AGM, the chair attempted to move on, even though several hands were still in the air. Jane Farrow moved a motion to extend the amount of time for questions on the financials but was ruled out of order by D’Iorio.

Anna Willats moved a motion demanding — based on the financials — the resignation of the board. That motion was ruled out of order.

After brief Q and As with the candidates, Francisco Alvarez was voted male co-chair and straight former Ward 27 candidate Evan Dean was added to the board.

Several members asked why they weren’t electing more board members, since the bylaws say that up to 12 people can serve. PT’s lawyer defended the 10-member cap.

A scrutineer of the election admitted that Sandilands, board member Mark Singh and volunteer coordinator Emily Gibson controlled 25 percent of the vote via proxies.

After the meeting, the board met briefly and elected another director, Roy Mitchell, who had placed second in the vote.



This is a developing story.

Bookmark and Share    

Comments

Friday, September 24, 2010 1:25 PM

Were people challenging the chair on these seemingly random "out of order" declarations?

Dave ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 1:56 PM

Every other sentence is "and was ruled out of order." This board is ridiculous. Their complete disregard for the people who care about what happens is ridiculous.

Veronica ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 1:05 PM

The statement “A scrutineer of the election admitted that Sandilands, board member Mark Singh and volunteer coordinator Emily Gibson controlled 25% of the vote via proxies” is an accurate report of what Ashleigh Inge claimed. The problem is she had no factual basis on which to make the claim. I sat right next to her while the directors’ votes were counted and I assure you nobody either counted proxies differently from other votes or registered who held which proxy.

Emily was responsible for keeping records of proxy-holders. Those records presumably still exist and could be reported on; at the very least, Emily could be interviewed. Ashleigh’s claim is her own opinion based on an impression she had, not a legitimate or verified fact.

Joe Clark ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 1:49 PM

Happy Celebrate Bisexuality Day: September 23

Susan Gapka ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 2:42 PM

Pride's LAWYER spoke more than anyone else.

-the motion to discuss Mark Singh's partner reciving money from PrideTo wasn't even acknowledged.

- Yet again, the people from Blockorama were dismissed, ignored, and passed over. When they were acknowledged, it verged on ridicule.

I was shocked at the rude tone Genevieve, Tracey, Mark, and the lawyer (who, at times, acted like she was chair) took. Rolling their eyes, sighing deeply on mic, exchanging smirks and dismissive looks makes them look foolish.

B. ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 2:24 PM

I was appalled by how the Pride board, and especially the two co-chairs chose to run their AGM. If this board is serious about wanting to be more open and accountable they are going to have to stop treating their members like the enemy.
The meeting started off on the wrong foot, with the co-chairs revoking one member’s voting rights, and refusing to acknowledge the membership of a number of volunteers. Despite acknowledging error on their part, they refused the perfectly reasonable request to recognize these individuals’ memberships, even though there was nothing in their bylaws forbidding it, simply because they didn’t want to. It was a reasonable enough request, and would have been a good faith gesture that would have gone a long way to easing the tensions in the room. Denying these members their voting rights under the circumstance was petty and mean spirited and set entirely the wrong tone for the evening.
Just because your bylaws permit you to freeze out your membership does not mean that it is a good idea to do so, especially if you want to be perceived as being accountable to both your membership and the community at large. I have never been to an AGM in which members were ruled out of order for putting forward motions from the floor, especially perfectly reasonable ones such as correcting an administrative error that denied some members in the room their voting rights, or allowing extra time for discussion when there were a number of people waiting patiently for their opportunity to speak and ask questions.

David Frankovich ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 2:36 PM

*IF* it is true that Sandilands, Singh, and Gibson controlled 25 percent of the vote via proxies, one has to question not if it is 'right' to let Pride members (let alone the Executive Director of the organization) submit more than one proxy vote at an AGM -- as important as this question may be -- but rather:

1. WHO Sandilands, Singh, and Gibson represented via proxy. Names would be nice.

2. HOW these proxied members were given membership status. That is: whether these individuals had demonstrated any previous support or engagement with the organization and its festival; whether these members were personal friends and family members of Sandilands, Singh, and Gibson; and, if all the above are true, whether or not the Board took the time to review the list and question the 'appropriateness' of these additions under Article 4(b)(v) of the Pride Toronto By-Laws and, indeed, the 'appropriateness' of the Article itself.

3. And lastly: HOW it was that Sandilands, Singh, and Gibson - out of all people - came to (allegedly) hold one quarter of the vote. That is: whether or not they sought out these members themselves, and, if so, whether these members were in any way persuaded, if not paid (if one wants to entertain that possibility) to vote a certain way.
_ _

"Unfortunately," (as Pride Toronto's legal counsel would say) we won't be able to get any answers until Pride Toronto makes its membership list public -- which we know for a fact it refuses to do -- and until that membership list is compared to the list of proxy voters tallied at the AGM. Only then will we inch towards the truth of what really happened with the voting.

Then again, given that not all of the members had been processed as of 3pm the day of the AGM via the "strict procedures" that have been put in place as a result of the (alleged) 'technical problems' Pride Toronto has been having in keeping track of its membership, I seriously question how accurate the list will be if and when it becomes public. That is: how accurately will the membership list reflect the names of the members that were approved and, hence, eligible to vote at the AGM, given that the votes are in no way retroactive, as Pride Toronto's legal counsel so clearly stated at the meeting.

Indeed, it is quite unfortunate (if not altogether 'interesting') that the 'membership' was in favour of burning the ballots in light of this -- something the Board had always ASSUMED the membership wanted but had the decency to pass a motion yesterday.

Many questions are still left unanswered.

Martin Otarola ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 2:15 PM

Also, if Clark's comments are true (that is: that no record was made of who held which proxy), then these questions will forever remain unanswered. Unfortunately.

Martin Otarola ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 3:34 PM

If individual member or subset of members was counselled by Pride Toronto officials in any way to be sure to vote (it doesn't matter for whom), or if anyone used access to information such as membership email addresses to solicit and encourage voting -- in short, if any messaging when out to anyone that differs from the blanket messaging sent to the entire membership, this is an enormous problem. We need to find this out. It is a bit suspicious that all these proxies were delivered by staff and board people. If members randomly decided to submit to them, that is one thing. Otherwise, it may be something quite different.

Shawn Syms ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 5:36 PM

Without a public list of PT members it would make submitting a proxy vote via anyone other than a staff member or a board member rather difficult don't you think? That being said, can you fault the aformentioned individuals for (supposedly) having so many proxy votes?

S.F. ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 6:32 PM

The article states that "D’Iorio was aided by the frequent interventions of PT’s lawyer, who identified herself as Susan Happening". A search of the lawyer directory on the Law Society's webpage indicates that no lawyer named "Susan Happening" is licensed to practice law in Ontario. See www1.lsuc.on.ca/LawyerParalegalDirectory/index.jsp

Simon ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 7:40 PM

I was one of the proxies. So was my partner. We assigned out votes to Pride Toronto staff quite willingly and legitimately, when we discovered we could not make the meeting.

But the conspiracy theory does make for an interesting read.

Chris Mack ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 7:43 PM

The whole evening was so painful. I went home and realized how determined the majority of the current Pride Toronto staff/board are to continue running the event and organization not in a community-based way but simply in a very corporate, mainstream way. What do we do now, those of us who want a community-based Pride? Do we give up on this Pride and put our energies from now on into alternative events, such as the Take Back the Dyke March this year? If all of the creative, inventive, vibrant, political, diverse forces in the queer community moved over to alternative events, then mainstream Pride would inevitably lose much if not all of its soul, its spark. And we would keep ours. And have a damn good party to boot!

Lisa ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 7:31 PM

dear ryan g. hinds. i was in south garden when you, um, 'performed'. and what a performance it was. ear splitting and horrifying. the only skill involved was squeezing a size elephant into a size regular bedazzled costume. hilarious. oh how I wished i could have pulled the mic plug. THAT is what's wrong with how 'artists' have been programmed at past prides. NO ONE wants to see that shit.. as evidenced by the DISMAL attendance in the garden - but wait - isn't that gurl supposed to have a huge following HAHAHA the only thing huge about ryan g. hinds... is her HINDS!

non members give queers a bad name ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 8:14 PM

Why would staff be given proxy and for that matter why would there be any proxies used to vote. Proxies are usually used to create quorum, not for voting on bylaws and that has to be done so that bylaws for voting are made available to members in a certain time before the meeting.
Pride is corrupt. Can anyone tell me what the logic is of letting staff vote for their bosses, trusting staff to let them vote for proxies for their bosses. Even the lawyer had a hard time skating around that one. This is legally a nightmare and Pride should change this immediately. For me it's always a toss-up. Are they stupid and incompetent or ruthlessly corrupt. Stay tuned News at 11.
The AGM was a disgusting mess and showed how low queer community politics have gone. Get your fucking house in order Pride.

wicked ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 8:52 PM

Good for Pride Toronto for not putting up with all this bullshit and caving in to the negative attitudes. Xtra and Pink Triangle Press have been nothing but biased in their reporting and love having a misery party to wallow in. They of course hate seeing that PT controls Pride because it takes away from lining their fat pockets. Wake up people. If someone needs to stop destroying our community it is Pink Triangle Press and the negative people in our community who don't understand reality. This is big business and god bless PT for all the hard work that has to go into creating a huge festival that brings a lot of money to the city. It can’t possibly be the easiest job. Pink Triangle Press is gunning to destroy PT because it will mean business to them. Has anybody clued on to that. If you want us to be a secluded community, going back to being closed up in a ghetto continue with this negativity. Or stop this and start playing like a community. If you are not happy with this festival start your own little Pride party away from here.

Tony ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 9:28 PM

the board met briefly and elected another director, Roy Mitchell, who had placed second in the vote.

david ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 10:19 PM

I agree with both Lisa and Tony. Please. Speaking as a volunteer with Pride that put in 80+ hours in May alone, just go make a stand somewhere else. It will help heal the bruised egos and you all can pat yourselves on the backs. Away from those currently planning the festival. It was my 2nd AGM with Pride Toronto. I have never had a bigger headache or have had to suffer through a 12 hour day of work with tenser muscles. A couple of realities mentioned, but not embellished (as those favorable to their side were).

1)The 'bouncers' consisted of several volunteers at tables. They were asked to verify if attendees were members. The capacity of the Gym at the public school was only 250 seated. The intention was to have all members enter first before allowing the general public. The public was still allowed to enter right before 7:00 when it was clear that no more members
were going to show.

2) After the board decided not to deal with their complaints before the meeting, folks tried to get them added to the voting list by moving a motion from the floor. It was ruled out of order.

Nothing was ever ruled "out of order". Genevieve had the option to. If the motions were allowed to be voted on, then if they passed they would have been out of order and the vote would be invalidated. Obviously NOONE in the room wanted to sit through another one of these, so the loudest voices in the room were forced to shut up (of their own volition).

3) A very tense mood shift happened at one point of the meeting. There was an intense anger on the right side of the room from the start. Motion after motion. Mocking of the council, of Tracey, of Genevieve. People yelling "shame", "resign" at every phrase or even word not agreed upon. When Genevieve's turn came to give her update, she started strong. As the interruptions became more personal, her voice started to crack. She tried to pull it together, but had to excuse herself a door leading to back of the tiny stage. People from PT tried to comfort her, but were held back as her partner rushed by moments later.

I personally, felt my neck pumping red with rage. Those on the left looked over at those on the right and I think, for the first time that night, felt genuine disgust. It's what we've all wanted to do at some point over the past year, but she's been stronger than us all and no one but her has shed a tear in public.

Margaret gave the rest of the update.

4) So after Margaret finished, it was on to Tracey. She had taken the knocks so she let the criticisms fly. My personal spirit was broken when the gaffaws of our accomplishments were read and the one I'm most proud of got a "so what" from someone in the crowd. It pierced right through my heart. It's a personal low in my life.

5) Mark then gave the financial report. Immediately those in the crowd on the right smelled blood and forgot how they broke down Genevieve. Calls to resign... He took the high ground like all of us had at some point in the year. We had gotten emails before the meeting, but the rest of the room had to wait until the very end. Mark was already leaving the board. This was where people saw their opportunity to have their moment on the soapbox for their "community". As it was already nearing 9 and we had to be out by 10 or incur fees, they took another very generous 5 or so motions to break up Pride but had to move it on. Those at the front had been so emotionally intertwined with the current PT roster that they had to know... we were getting strung out.

6) So in this environment came the poor nominees for this thankless work. The participation was slightly less vehement. The highlight for some was the opportunistic presentation by Roy Mitchel. Welcome on board. Good luck, but it ain't no picnic.

So that's how it went for those of us on the other side of the room. When we got out at around 11, I tried to escape the evil of the night, but it followed me home and I carried it on my back throughout the day. Just consider that before screaming at well intentioned people. At least get some perspective first.


Alex ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 11:50 PM

I'd also like to ask that the editor revise the comment that "every motion put to the floor by members ruled out of order by the chair." That is factually inaccurate.

Alex ca


Friday, September 24, 2010 11:20 PM

How about the motion to accept the agenda? Or the motion to destroy the ballots? Every motion? No. You need to stop hurting the people involved for your own amusement.

Alex ca


Saturday, September 25, 2010 1:38 AM

To be fair, Alex, the motion to accept the agenda and destroy the ballots were set by Pride Toronto before the meeting. The motions referred to by Xtra! were the ones that were put to the floor by eligible members, which is a distinction the article clearly makes.

Having said that, the Board was going to destroy the ballots without a motion but were compelled to make it a motion after some people (most notably Michael Went, who is now a member of the Community Advisory Panel) spoke out about the need to preserve them. So they listened.

This still doesn't excuse the fact that the floored motions were not allowed to be put to a vote, given that the Pride Toronto By-Laws clearly state that "Any other business that may properly be brought before the meeting" shall be conducted at the AGM [Article 11(f)]. The Board (or rather, the legal counsel's) reasoning being that Pride Toronto 'should not' veer away from the motions sent out to the membership in the notice in consideration of the members who were unable to attend, even though the Board is perfectly entitled to do so.

Martin O. ca


Saturday, September 25, 2010 2:24 AM

Pride is dead. Wicked, you killed it. Please stop using the word "community", all of you. You don't speak for anyone but yourselves.

Jim ca


Saturday, September 25, 2010 3:53 AM


I attended my first Pride AGM Last night, after a year of reading on line arguments thought it was time to get involved.

What I witnessed was an evening of immaturity and deceit. The problem seems to come from the Board of directors, who avoided answering questions and fail to understand procedure, their own bylaws kept referring to the team of lawyers sitting at a side table. Even the main lawyer Susan closed her eyes and shook her head at a few statements made by Board members. At one point board member Francesco apologized for the comments and actions of his fellow board members.

Many questions are left unanswered; Tracy announced Pride had lost sponsors because of political messaging, one of the Board candidates asked her to explain why does the official Pride guide show 34 sponsors this year compared to 27 last year, When asked to confirm his boyfriend was paid by Pride, Mark Singh changed the subject. The list goes on and it’s a list that members deserve answers too.

I was encouraged at election time and after suffering through two terrible speeches by young earnest men, with little obvious experience, we were entertained by one who did a Bob Dylan parody showing passion does not have to be all that serious and then another who obviously understands the complexity of the organization and answered every question thrown at him without the hesitation that was shown by the less experienced ones.

I attended the AGM, as a way to understand the organization better and decide if volunteering next year was something I could do. Today reading that two staff members held almost 25 percent of the vote is troubling and members that placed their faith in giving them their proxy should be ashamed. Staff has essentially voted them selves a new boss, Even Dean, who is an obviously weaker then themselves.

Let us hope Francesco and Roy help heal this badly damaged organization.

Antonia ca


Saturday, September 25, 2010 8:46 AM

PT is an extremely dyfunctional (non) community entity. It seems to operate like a large multi-national corporation--holding most proxies, allowing no motions to challenge its authority, power held and closely guarded by a few people. All the more reason to hope that the Advisory consultation committee headed by Brent Hawkes and including Pride Coalition for Free Speech co-founder Michael Went and lawyer Doug Elliot among others) really works to connect with the various segments of the LGBT community and change the very nature of how PT operates (which as it now stands is pretty undemocratically and impervious to may in the community it supposedly represents).
Also, now that Roy Mitchel PCFS stalwart is on the inside as an elected Director (a small step forward as Roy is a dynamic and smart activist), perhaps the Board can become more transparent and democratic in spite of its past actions and with a not so gentle push by the new Advosiry CC once it gets going in earnest (made up mostly of fairly credible longterm LGBT activists).

Enough is enough--from mishandling of the QUAIA matter (again and again until the final reversal of previous decisions after much angst in the community) to the dictatorial, elitist nature of the ED, PT needs a complete overhaul. And now is the time to do it.

james dubro ca


Saturday, September 25, 2010 10:07 AM

@Jim. I don't know if you were there at the AGM Jim, but far from killing it, the PCFS is reviving it. I'd say it did the Helmik maneuver on what is a Pride grasping for relevance and resources. If you were at the AGM you were witness then to three groups of people - those who fear the community and are afraid that an angry mob is going to burn down their playhouse. They were circling the wagons and boy did they look scared and full of fear. The other group, that I can proudly say spoke for me, were a happy, progressive group that want a vibrant Pride that is transparent and open. And the third group were for lack of a better way to put it the people that went "WTF?!!! This is Pride, these are its leaders(the Board) and this is what I'm here for? Where's my purse?" This third group while not part of any side, actually was won over to the good side and if not that night, I'm sure they will come to see the present Pride a bumbling, foolish thing that needs to be changed. And one thing I'll say, if charisma has anything to do with it, the PCFS people have it. We rose above the pettiness of the evening, we rocked and who doesn't want to hang with people who know how to party?!! So Jim, celebrate the death of Pride, because your kind of Pride was bound to hang itself on its own rope. Say hello to the new Pride, it'll take a while before it blooms, but its seed was planted in the shit that the old Pride was! Now smile you're bringing me down.

wicked ca


Saturday, September 25, 2010 10:00 AM

I am outraged that no members of the Questioning Community were voted on to the Pride board. This is blatent discrimination. I would also like to see which members of Pride are from each of the LBGTTQ2sQAI identity groups that you "claim" to represent? Where were the Questioning????? Where were the Asexuals??? Where were the Mothers Against Drunk Gender??? Where was the Hetero Kink Community? Where was Sky Gilbert, Nina Arsenault, Bruce la Bruce and Todd Klink??? I thought these four were the rulers of Queer Toronto? Where was Toronto's Queer mascot, Ayden??? Enquiring minds demand to know. ps. Pride is dead. Bury it and move on.

goo goo falls ca


Saturday, September 25, 2010 12:37 PM

"[Mark] took the high ground"

Ok, there are a few knee-slappers in these comments but this one has to be the most knee-slappingest. Mark Singh leaving the Board is the best thing that's happened to PT and that alone with do more good for the org than 20 Community Consultation Committees.

When he joined Pride as a Board member the org had money and now after his terms as Co-Chair and Treasurer the org is in a terrible financial position that threatens its very existence. Yet his cheerleaders blame Xtra for trying to destroy the org.

If Xtra really wanted to destroy Pride they'd be lobbying to extend Mark Singh's term as Director.

Neil H ca


Saturday, September 25, 2010 3:02 PM

Alex, nobody is denying the fact that volunteer coordinators worked hard for the festival. Each role can easily billed up to a full-time volunteer hours. Should you go outside of what is told to you, you will find out about the truth in which why people are angry. They have every right to be. Don't take it personally (they're not directed at you). And you are barely scratching the the surface of the subject. You're only looking at the symptoms, not the cause.

Simon Walker ca


Saturday, September 25, 2010 5:17 PM

Why don't you all speak plainly about what's really going on: a small group of leftist activists are trying to take Pride over and change the event into a G20 re-run. The battle for gay rights has been mostly won, so you're channeling your energies away from gay issues to extremist leftist causes. Most gay people are not leftist activists and go to Pride only to have a good time. You're going to ruin it with your politics.

Jim ca


Saturday, September 25, 2010 5:12 PM

Simon,

I just wanted to provide some facts about how the meeting itself went down. I really don't care about the history or why things are the way they are. I don't need some context to bring me down and distract me from organizing an aspect of Pride. It functions enough for me to do what I need to do and still allow me flexibility in my role. The meeting was counter productive and difficult, personally, for me to attend. That's what I was trying to convey. Mostly in the hopes that when we have to vote on a female co-chair people will calm the fuck down. Good luck to the angels on the consultation whatever it is... hopefully if these people aren't in a public forum showing off for their friends, they won't act like animals.

Alex ca


Saturday, September 25, 2010 6:02 PM

Jim: Your comment just goes to show your mediocrity and ignorance. Who is to say those people are leftist activists? All types of people go to Pride, and from I can tell they're angry at the unprofessional, disrespect and rude display of the board treating its membership. Do you even understand the organizational structure of a non-profit organization?

Alex: "I don't need some context to bring me down and distract me from organizing an aspect of Pride." That's exactly it. Thank you for being honest. I am sure you're not the only one who feels that way. I suspect your entire coordinator body operates just the same way too.


Ryan Moore ca


Saturday, September 25, 2010 7:07 PM

ALL I SEE IS A HUGE MESS OF A LAWSUIT BREWING AND THE FREEDOM TO ACCESS ACCORDED BY ONTARION LAW THAT IS BEING SUPPRESSED HERE BY AN AGENCY RECEIVING PUBLIC FUNDS.

JEFF ca


Sunday, September 26, 2010 12:28 AM

"Most gay people are not leftist activists and go to Pride only to have a good time. You're going to ruin it with your politics." How bizarre this comment reads to me, when the simple fact is that Gay Pride marches began in 1970 to commemorate the anniversary of the Stonewall riots. These riots took place when queers protested, very politically, a police raid of a gay bar on Jun 28, 1969. These riots are often credited as the start of the gay rights movement in the US, and perhaps internationally. So, Pride started as a way to mark an extremely political moment. Toronto Pride is still held at the end of June to mark the date of the Stonewall riots. Yet people are now worried that Pride, a celebration of an historical unashamed political mobilization by queer people, will be ruined by the current unashamed political mobilization of queer people?! How can this possibly make any sense?

Lisa ca


Sunday, September 26, 2010 2:32 AM

Correction, Lisa: it seems Pride 2011 will be held the first week of July -- again! -- which is what the volunteer at the AGM registration table told me when I went to speak to him about becoming a member.

Yes, I can understand why Pride Toronto would want to bump the festival to the first week of July to not coincide with the G20 Summit; but to do so for 2011? There's no logical explanation for that. Although I'm sure the Board will come up with a very good excuse to justify it if it turns out to be true.

Indeed: if true, could it be yet another attempt to disassociate Pride from its political origins as a symbolic commemoration of the Stonewall Riots?

Certainly something to ponder...

Martin ca


Sunday, September 26, 2010 5:15 AM

re: proxy votes.

Determining how many proxy votes each person had did not involve some vague 'impression'. It was easily determined by standing near the voting box as people put their ballots in. As someone walked up, they had the number of ballots they held counted, their name was crossed off a list (as many times as they had proxy votes) and they put their votes in the box. This process was never hidden from anyone and any responsible person nearby would have paid attention to this.

The number of votes (+proxies) held by Mark, Tracey and Emily was actually 23.9% of the total vote.

ashleigh ca


Sunday, September 26, 2010 5:54 AM

@Martin: there was very much a list that kept track of who held whose proxy votes. this is the list that emily crossed names off of. assuming that all copies were not destroyed post-AGM, then this information is still available.

ashleigh ca


Sunday, September 26, 2010 10:51 AM

I didn't go to the annual meeting but have been watching events for the last year as Pride Toronto seems to self destruct. It is obvious that the board is being steered in the wrong direction by its leadership. The only solution to this lack of judgement by the senior membership of the board is to disband it altogether. Any other attempt to rectify the lack of respect and concern for the membership and the organizations publics will fail with this group of pundits in place.

Paul Flanders ca


Sunday, September 26, 2010 11:02 AM

Pride is not “self”-destructing, it is being deliberately destroyed by left-wing political activists who are interfering with the operations of the board and causing sponsors to pull out as fast as they can. And you don’t care. That’s what you want.

Lisa, who are you to lecture me about Stonewall?? You’re joking, right? Please don’t shove your views about Pride down my throat. Pride is a fun party, a chance to focus on gay issues and gay rights. I don’t want to be confronted with your twisted view of politics at Pride. And I certainly don’t want to participate in a parade with anti-semitic signs being waved in my face.

By the way, I am not "queer" and please don't refer to me that way.

Ryan, please cut the crap and lay your cards on the table. It's plain as day that all this mock outrage and references to "community", "professionalism" and "accountability" are just a smoke screen put up by leftist activists to turn Pride into something NONE OF US WANT. It’s disgusting that your group is using these words at all.

Have you read the bios of the people on the board? What do you imagine is going on? Your contingent is howling at this board like a group of demented beagles chasing a scent. Leave them alone.

Jim ca


Sunday, September 26, 2010 2:37 PM

@ Martin" "Indeed: if true, could it be yet another attempt to disassociate Pride from its political origins as a symbolic commemoration of the Stonewall Riots?"

Actually, Pride Toronto is not a Stonewall Pride event. The date was first used for a gay picnic on the Island that celebrated Pierre Trudeau's decriminalizing homo behaviour.

It doesn't mean the date is any less symbolic, but our history runs concurrently to that of the U.S.

Kinda cool, eh?

Chris Mack ca


Sunday, September 26, 2010 4:05 PM

@Chris: I never implied that it was a 'Stonewall Pride event;' I was simply pointing out the fact that the Pride Parade has been held the last Sunday of June to coincide (roughly) with the same weekend of the 1969 Stonewall riots. The weekend of June 27 - June 29 to be exact. Hence 'symbolic' commemoration and not 'actual' commemoration.

Martin ca


Sunday, September 26, 2010 7:58 PM

To be clear ...
Whenever I write comments or contribute on-line, I will ALWAYS sign as myself. The above comments (signed by "Lisa") should NOT be inferred to be my comments.

I was @ the AGM and I am laughing at the various polarizing & opposing diaries of the same event. For readers who did not attend, you will not find the truth about what happened by reading anonymous comments. Next time there's a Pride Toronto general meeting, come and see for yourself, judge for yourself, and think for yourself, and ideally, vote yourself instead of assigning your proxy.

Only then will the organization begin to truly reflect and serve its membership.

Don't believe that opposing views can be so easily characterized as "leftist" simply to be disparaged and dismissed. Comments like these are meant to polarize and divide since they are attempting to colour your perception of the truth.

If you're a PT member, come and do the responsible thing. Inform yourself of the bylaws and rules & regulations governing non-profit organizations and then come to a meeting and vote on the issues after listening to both sides and considering carefully.

I am not afraid of the truth nor being criticized by many because I want the truth to be known. I do not need to attack those who I disagree with. I know that sooner or later, the truth will out!

This last AGM was the first that lawyers were present to solely represent the interests of the board as opposed to representing the interests of all its members. This was the first AGM that cops on bikes circled the location. This was the first AGM to NOT have "Other Business" on the Agenda as per the bylaws. This was the first AGM to not entertain a single motion from the floor despite having a seconder...
and this was the first AGM (in awhile) with a great turn-out!

But don't take my word for any of the above. Instead, come to the next meeting yourself!

- Lisa -

Lisa Duke - Cabbagetown ca


Sunday, September 26, 2010 9:16 PM

Oh dear, I would certainly hope that people realize that there are quite a number of people who are truly named Lisa (yes it is my real first name), just like there are a lot of Jim's, Alex's, Martin's, David's and so on in the world. To Jim, I am sorry you feel that I was shoving my views about Pride down your throat. I was just drawing attention of simple historical facts regarding the origins of international Pride marches. And as well to Jim, your posts are starting to lose their temper and could perhaps benefit from some calming down. Let's all share our wide differences of opinion but in a respectful way with each other.

Lisa ca


Monday, September 27, 2010 7:59 AM

With all the push for diversity, can someone explain why a straight (white) male was elected to the Pride Board??? Was there no one L G B or T anywhere capable???

Genuine question ca


Monday, September 27, 2010 9:25 AM

and all the candidates were white guys. Why a straight guy won. My theory is you don't have to look any further than the Tracey Sandilands story. Take someone from away, set her up in Toronto, away from a support base, make her dependent on the board and keep her uninformed but scared to make any trouble. It doesn't hurt that she's incompetent too. So here's how he got in. Give your Proxy to Pride Volunteer Coordinator who in turn gives it to Mark Singh and Tracey Sandilands who vote for the most pliable and conveniently stupid candidates enmasse. The voting was rigged and the candidate didn't identify as straight during his speech, he talked about being all for queer rights but didn't talk about what they were. He's a fool. I encourage you to speak to him for two minutes and see how ridiculous he is. Who's Pride? A bunch of scared incompetent people's Pride! I went to that AGM a non-member and left not wanting to participate in Pride again because of who is in charge and their obvious fear of the people in the room and possible issues of them being corrupt. Hey Fetish Fair - you're more fun!

yu yu ca


Monday, September 27, 2010 1:18 PM

May I just point out some of ya ya`s cognitive laziness: racism- ``all candidate are white`` (so they must be bad); sexism- ``all candidate are …guys`` (by virtue of their self identified gender they must be bad); xenophobia-``don't …look any further than …Tracey Sandilands … someone from away``(an immigrant, she is not one of us, she must be bad); sexism- Tracey is ``…dependent…uninformed…scared…incompetent`` (stereotypical attributes assigned to female leaders, regardless of how competent they are- such as Tracey`s leadership role winning and bringing World Pride 2014 to Toronto, Canada, but of course achievements will be conveniently forgotten); heterophobia - `` voting was rigged ..(as candidate is) straight`` (we don’t care if he`s an ally and a supporter, by virtue of his sexual orientation he is bad) .. et al!

Zega ca


Monday, September 27, 2010 1:29 PM

.., I suppose one should expect no less as the ‘white men’ that run Xtra (the Xtra! executives are) have made it their mission to instigate and fuel this toxic atmosphere we find ourselves in. While we tear each other down to pieces they benefit from the increased readership derived ad sales to—-the same ‘corporations’ that they want to accuse Prides of selling out to (please note the banner and flash ads on this page). If this isn’t the biggest hypocrisy of the queer century I don’t know what is.

Please ask WHY Xtra!, not exactly a bastion of journalistic integrity and critical thought, is bent on destroying Prides and queer organizations (such as EGALE), not only in Toronto but, across Canada! There IS an emerging pattern!

Zega ca


Monday, September 27, 2010 2:36 PM

Zega, can you point to any examples of Xtra caving to corporate sponsors needs to exclude people, the way Pride does?

B. ca


Monday, September 27, 2010 3:40 PM

B.,

I'd just like to clarify a point here because there is some misinformation/misconceptions going around. The fact is that Pride was NOT in fear of losing corporate sponsorship when they made the decision to kick QuAIA out of Pride. They had actually already made the judgement to do this and were simply looking for an excuse.

This is evident in the fact that in their original Board resolution banning the phrase "Israeli Apartheid" they cited that the Canada Council of the Arts had turned down a funding request from Pride on the basis of QuAIA. However, when the Canada Council discovered that Pride Toronto made this claim, they publicly rebuked it and demanded that Pride remove the false (if not childish) charge from their website (Pride complied).

Pride further claimed that Interpride had contacted them to demand that QuAIA not participate in Pride or else it might put the Toronto claim for World Pride 2014 at risk. Again, Interpride publicly rebuked this claim.

Then there is the whole affair with the Marquee Tourism bid, in which Pride ignored the controversy that was generated by last year's successful grant request, and bizarrely made the request for greater funding from Harper's conservative gov't. What's more important to note is that it seems Pride probably spent that money _assuming_ that the grant would come through. Of course we all know it got turned down (and really, who was surprised when that happened??). So instead of acknowledging that they had made a mistake, Pride did what any 2-year old would do and pitched a temper tantrum and tried to blame the whole thing on QuAIA.

Think about it... QuAIA-like groups have now marched in Montreal, in Vancouver, in other parts of the world... none of those festivals have gone bankrupt. None of them have suffered financially in any way. So why is it that Toronto is the one organization that has mysteriously suffered tremendously by the participation of QuAIA?

The answer is that Pride did not kick us out of Pride because they feared the loss of sponsorship dollars. They kicked us out because they don't like us. We tried to introduce an actual message into one small part of the parade. The only problem with having a real message is that someone might disagree... and that makes these clowns very uncomfortable.

Sav ca


Monday, September 27, 2010 3:32 PM

B, can you point to any examples of Xtra! doing anything for inclusion and tolerance in the queer communities across Canada? Is seeding division, fear and intolerance to increase readership and ad sales what you call activism and journalistic integrity?

Z.

Zega ca


Monday, September 27, 2010 4:51 PM

@Zega
Wow, you're a troubled man/woman. I know nothing about you so I can't whip my cogniative laziness up to describe why you are troubled. I can just read the letters you wrote. Just because I call a dog mean and stupid doesn't mean I think all dogs are mean and stupid. And Zega, just because you're scared and troubled, doesn't mean I think all Zegas are scared and troubled. Just you my friend. Things are changing. The queer community called and they want their Pride back. Far from destroying it, they're rocking the house, dusting off the old bullshit excuses for not moving forward and demanding that changes be made. Changes that will include you no matter how scared and troubled you are. Pride is for everyone even Straight people...we need people to schelp for us, right?

wicked ca


Monday, September 27, 2010 5:25 PM

I applaud Xtra! for its reporting on Pride Toronto. In fact after hearing from people's feedback on this year's festival, and members who attended the AGM, I find Xtra!'s report still seem rather mild compared to what is actually happening. In fact seeding division, fear and intolerance is what PT does best since the arrival of Executive Director Tracey Sandilands.

Leslie G. ca


Monday, September 27, 2010 5:21 PM

WTF is wrong with you people? None of you Pride haters actually give a shit. You are a bunch of sniffling cry baby fags and dykes that have nothing better to do with your time. Here's something to do instead of trying to destroy Pride with your pathetic excuse for a life. Get laid!

If any of you actually cared, where were you BEFORE Pride became this corporate. It's obvious this is not a hate for Pride, but a hate for the current roster of people running it. Are you all to shallow to just admit that?

Brad ca


Monday, September 27, 2010 5:33 PM

Interesting blog post I found about the evolution of “Pride” in Toronto and an organization called “Pride Toronto”. A must-read! http://pridebrief.wordpress.com/

Zeitgeist ca


Monday, September 27, 2010 5:24 PM

Hi Zega,

Here is a nice example of Xtra covering an issue that is undeniably all about bringing the queer and trans community together:

www.xtra.ca/.../...elter_for_queer_youth-9209.aspx

I just wrote a message to Michael expressing my support for the homeless shelter for queer youth. I hope you will do the same (or is even supporting homeless queer kids what you call a "crazy radical leftist cause"??)

Sav ca


Monday, September 27, 2010 5:14 PM

@ "Zega":

It's obvious that you and your "friends" don't actually READ the paper or any of its on-line 'zines cuz you would know that Xtra! has tons of positive coverage promoting numerous "queer" (LGBTI)issues and in fact, often helps nascent organizations and community groups by providing affordable advertising and free web listings ...

They may not be the best paper in the world, but no-one claims it is. Xtra's only claim is that it REPORTS "Canada's Gay & Lesbian News". As for journalistic integrity, they at least put their name behind what they write and if it was incorrect or inflammatory as you suggest, lawsuits would follow ... (I notice you and your fellow Xtra bashers hide behind your on-line monikers and anonymity.)

So just cuz YOU make claims of Xtra "seeding division, fear and intolerance" doesn't make it reality or even close to the truth. It's people like you who are guilty that.

If you feel that Xtra doesn't represent you, why read it? Why post comments here? It's obvious you have an axe to grind and you are using this forum to vent your own personal opinions THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE or even the issue @ hand ...
Deflect, deflect - point fingers, whine, rant and cry foul.

If you TRULY didn't feel this paper/news organization was accurate, you wouldn't waste your time engaging with it. Therefore, since you spend so much time & energy trying to attack it, there must be some truth to their articles that are perhaps cutting too close to home for you?
("Me thinks thou dost protest too much!")

Do you feel under attack? Why's that "Zega"? Perhaps you're just another toadie who feels that the best way to protect the REAL YOU and the organization you're involved with, is to try to discredit those pointing out your organization's faults. Instead of dealing with the issues, you're the type that shoots the messenger.
It won't work ...

Only people who have no minds of their own let anonymous others do their thinking for them.

There are lots of people who don't like Xtra, and I too have my complaints, but your claims above are over-the-top and absolutely false. Had you signed your REAL name, they could have grounds to sue YOU for libel.

so STFU

Stay off these pages with your crap. I'm really tired of anonymous comment writers trying to tear down various long-standing community organizations by writing vicious, vile, vindictive and vitriolic vents on these pages.

How about putting some positive ideas forward? Contributing to the solution instead of just bellyaching and blaming?

But that would mean being honest first. Is that too much to ask?
Probably, cuz I'm sure you & the other anonymous BS commenters won't stop anytime soon.

Trevor Bain ca


Wednesday, September 29, 2010 2:04 PM

The reason why many of us write vindinctive vents here is to piss off people like you whose responses are guaranteed hilarious. Your response is so tight ass, so stamp foot, so simp seething, it's a riot. Thanks for the laughs.

anonymous bs commenter ca


Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:55 PM

I think we all need to take a deep breath and relax and realize we are all on the same side!

Brad Stevens us


Thursday, September 30, 2010 6:43 PM

ahahahhahahahhhhaah

Like I said - Don't expect the truth from a Bull-Sh*ter!

Trevor Bain ca



Comments are closed

Powered by BlogEngine.NET 1.4.0.0

The Roundup

Xtra.ca's Roundup
blog is your source
for news and
analysis that has
queer people
talking.

The Roundup is
written by Xtra's
staff reporters:

Rob Salerno
rob.salerno@xtra.ca

Andrea Houston
andrea.houston@xtra.ca

Natasha Barsotti
natasha.barsotti@xtra.ca

and

Adam Glen
Editorial Intern


Log in
Feed Subscribe