Talking about the future
The first teleconference calls among LGBT sports stakeholders took place on the weekend of 24 October. The Bay Area Reporter published a column previewing the calls and a news story on the calls themselves.
Although the presenters said nothing has been finalized and everything is still under discussion, the proposal presented calls for the sports and culture programs to be based on the Gay Games model and a human rights conference to be based on the World Outgames model. Perhaps the most controversial portion of the presentation concerns governance of the event, which would include votes, committee membership for site selection, site inspection and host steering group, as well as financials. [FGG President Kurt] Dahl said a 60/40 split in the FGG’s favor had been proposed, but that 65-35 and 50-50 splits had been discussed as well.
Those ratios go to the core of the differences between the two international groups. The FGG underwent an organizational restructuring in 2006 with the goal of keeping site selection control in the hands of established and contributing sports and cultural organizations in the general assembly. A motion by former FGG president Sion O’Connor calls for the FGG to retain at least an 87.23 percent control of the event based on the relative values of the Gay Games and Outgames brands.
Delegate Rick Van Tassell of International Association of Gay and Lesbian Martial Artists, noted that the FGG assembly, not its board, has site selection rights and changing that to include GLISA having a role would require bylaw amendments.
“We would be adding another organization to our premier and, indeed, our only event,” Van Tassell said. “What are we getting from them in return?”
“What’s coming to the table is we don’t have the competition,” Dahl responded. “Participants won’t have to choose which event to go to; it’s a hard choice for some participants. What we’re gaining is we won’t have the competition any more.”
