Public vote nixed for parade marshals at Pride Toronto meeting
LOCAL NEWS / Few tense moments, despite a handful of contentious motions
Marcus McCann / Toronto / Thursday, February 25, 2010
Share |

The public meetings of gay community groups can rapidly degenerate into cathartic cleansings or bitter grudge matches. Those with bones to pick with queer nonprofits often choose public meetings like AGMs as the place to air their grievances publicly.

That makes Pride Toronto’s Feb 11 meeting of the members a peculiarity. There were few tense moments, even as organizers pushed through a handful of contentious motions.

After little debate and a single vote, it was decided that Pride Toronto’s grand marshals, honoured dykes and honoured groups will no longer be selected by public voting at a special general meeting. Instead, past honorees will select the recipients, meaning the decisions will be left to power-gays like Mark Tewksbury, Irshad Manji and Brent Hawkes.

Fears of ballot-box stuffing appeared to be at the heart of the rationale.

“I do think that it makes a lot of sense, rather than having people come out to one meeting to vote and then leave,” said a Pride volunteer from the floor.

The 519 Centre’s Matthew Cutler will spearhead the new process, with nominees accepted from the public, vetted by Pride, then passed on to a jury of those eligible to vote.

Before the meeting, Pride volunteers handed out a press release (and then tried to rescind it) that claimed the process would “better advance the mission and vision” of Pride.

“The honoured positions selection process is one of community involvement and engagement, and we are committed to maintaining that tradition and connection,” said Tracey Sandilands, Pride Toronto’s executive director, in the document.

Sandilands also presented the nonprofit’s financials. Pride Toronto has gone through a period of extraordinary growth over the past two years, doubling from a $1.5 million company to a $3 million company in two years. These changes have not been without growing pains, including a worsening cash position in 2008 and a $140,000 net loss in 2009. Click here to download full copies of the 2008 and 2009 financial figures.

Sandilands provided an update on money that was set aside to deal with a disputed contract. Although she declined to name the group, she said that one business contact felt Pride Toronto owed them $150,000. The matter was settled for about 10 percent of that amount.

“I think we won,” Sandilands told the membership.

Pride board member Mark Singh made a presentation about preparations for World Pride, which will be hosted by Toronto in 2014. The presentation, a short version of the one Pride gave to outside stakeholders, including World Pride organizers, implied that Pride Toronto had control over third-party events like the AIDS candlelight vigil.

When Cutler pointed out that statements like that give Toronto Pride “a reputation” for being imperial, Singh nodded and apologized, saying that the full version of the presentation was clearer.

Overall, there were few questions from the floor.

“You guys are a quiet group tonight,” Singh said.
For more information and to download grand marshal nomination forms, go to Pridetoronto.com.


Share |


Reader Comments


 
Big mistake & step backwards
This is a big step backwards a a huge mistake. LAst year's public election of Grand MArshal and other honoree was most engaging and had a feeling legitimacy to it that an elite group in private making that decision does not have. You could argue that a vote at a Pride AGM is just as fixed or manipulated as the vote in a public meeting of honorees. I doubt if the attendance for the AGM which passed this change by one vote was as robust as last year's election by the community of its honorees where hundreds attended and many spoke, It was very democratic--at least as democratic as most things are in the LGBT community in Toronto.
james Dubro, toronto ontario
02/25/10 9:03 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Pride is making a huge mistake here
This is a big step backwards & a huge mistake. Last year's public election of Grand MArshal and other honorees was most engaging and had a feeling legitimacy to it that an elite group in private making that decision does not have. You could argue that a vote at a Pride AGM is just as fixed or manipulated as the vote in a public meeting of honorees. I doubt if the attendance for the AGM which passed this change by one vote was as robust as last year's election by the community of its honorees where a few hundred attended and many spoke, It was very all very open & democratic--at least as democratic as most things are in the LGBT community in Toronto. Shame on Pride for going backwards! (Sorry for typos in previous message)
james Dubro, toronto ontario
02/25/10 9:12 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
More Pride mistakes
Someone noted that Dragos Production is a company registered at the same address as the residence of current past chair of the Pride Toronto Board, Mark Singh which questions the clear conflict of interest as defined in every description of a Not-For-Profit Board. Dragos Production is currently contracted by Pride Toronto for the annual Pride Gala and Awards and 2010 Fierte Canada Pride (FCP) Conference and Annual General Meeting where Singh sits as its Interim President. The budget presented at the recent AGM, showed revenue of $103,000 vs expenses of $95,000 for a profit of $8000. The 2008 Gala had $97,790 sales vs $92,595 expenses and fundraised $5,195. Who in both organizations are in controlling conflict of interest or misfeasance and questioning the financial mismanagement?
David Woods, Toronto ON
02/25/10 3:15 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Correcting inaccuracies
I would like to correct some inaccuracies in the above article. Firstly, it was not an AGM but a general meeting. Our AGM was held on 17 September last year. The organization has a policy of holding several public general meetings throughout the year to keep the members informed, and this was one of those. Second, there was no vote required on the change of policy for the Grand Marshal selection process. It was explained to the attendees that a working group of community members and stakeholders (including former honorees) was convened to propose a new process and that this group had proposed, by majority vote, the process that has been adopted. The audience was invited to ask questions or make comments and as stated, there was little debate. However, this was a point of information and not an issue to be voted on. Since the announcement of the new process, Pride has received numerous communications applauding the new selection process that is now based on merit and not popularity. These issues may seem like semantics but when measured against allegations of 'pushing through contentious motions' it must be clarified which of the agenda items were in fact motions, and which were not.
Tracey Sandilands, Toronto Ontario
02/26/10 9:44 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Further inaccuracy
Another inaccuracy that I would like to correct is the statement 'Sandilands also presented the nonprofit’s financials, which included a $140,000 loss, the second year in a row Pride has been in the red.' Our audited financial statements for the 2008 fiscal year, which were made available to Xtra, shows Excess of Revenue over Expenditure of $41,972. While we have now learned that this surplus came by virtue of the 2008 festival transferring money from the investment fund to operating expenses and not replacing them, the fact remains that the audited statements do not show the organization in the red for that year as stated.
Tracey Sandilands, Toronto Ontario
02/27/10 2:04 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
[Editor's Note]
 Thanks Tracey
Hi Tracey. Your comments about the term “AGM” are dead on. I’ll change the story to reflect the fact it was one of several public meetings that Pride holds annually and not the official AGM. As for your other two points... the members did vote on changes to the selection process for Grand Marshal at the Feb 11 meeting. At the time, PT made no effort to tell the membership that they were rubberstamping a decision that had already been made. I find that strange. Finally, for the “in the red” comment: for the last two years, even as the PT has grown extraordinarily, it has failed to translate that into a more stable financial picture. Perhaps that’s to be expected when growth has happened so quickly... I'll add some more clarifying details and attach the full financial statements for our readers. Cheers, Marcus.
Marcus McCann, Ottawa ON
03/01/10 11:01 AM EST