5/17/15 Special Meeting Minutes

held at 1PM in the San Francisco Pride office

Called by Justin, Jose and Oliver
In attendanceBoard: Chandra, David, Joey (lost Skype reception early on in the meeting and was unable to vote),
Gary, Marsha, Larry, John, Oliver, Justin, Michelle
Excused absence- Veronika
Non-Board: George, Joe
Called to order - 1:15
Agenda Approval - Motion to accept Jesse, David Seconds, Unanimously approved
Chair - John Nominated by Jesse, Seconded by Jose, Unanimously approved
Stack - David
Vibe - Chandra
Time - Jose
Agenda
Facebook Sponsorship
1.George 5 min
Currently agreed to accept sponsorship assuming they commit to quarterly
meetings and participating in a community forum.
FB is not willing to change the name reporting and not willing to change their
position on this issue
They are willing to engage in public meetings and a forum
FB would be willing to make a public statement in conjunction with us.
2.Discussion 45 min
Oliver update
1.Got all demands from various community stakeholders in writing, and
checked in with community leaders. Have provided these to the board via
email. #mynameis coalition is asking Facebook to eliminate fake name
reporting and switch to validating identity through testimonies from other
people on Facebook rather than through documentation.
2.A credible rumor from someone involved with FBs internal work on this is
that internally at FB there is support for a policy to collect the identification of
users with pseudonyms but continue to allow them to use the pseudonyms

creating accountability for actions of pseudonym profiles, and that this is the
main suggestion favored by FB employees themselves as far as we know.
This is the alternate names proposal which seems like the reasonable
compromise.
3.While Facebook has an exemplary record on human rights, the things they
do for our community largely benefit the most privileged, people like their
employees. Pride also has an obligation to the most marginalized, to trans
people, people of color, those without the class privilege of a Facebook
employee. Our obligation is not to treat all contingents equally, as though
there could ever be equality between Facebook and a grassroots activist
group! Our obligation is educate the world, liberate our people and help
drive the LGBT movement forward.
4.Since Gary mentioned it at the Tuesday meeting, advocates know that
Mark Zuckerberg has been on the phone with us even though he apparently
has not directly communicated with either City Hall or any of the other
advocates, social actors, or stakeholders, pushing for changes in this policy.
What does it say if all it takes is a 15-minute phone call from Zuckerberg for
Pride to sell out our own community?
Larry
1.We have many organizations that do not have the highest quality ratings
regarding their dealings with the LGBT community, and no standards of who
we accept and why. Larry views removing a group from the parade to be the
nuclear option and this is too extreme.
2.Is it better to negotiate or to force the option.
3.Believes we can promote boycotts and alternatives.
Oliver and others disagree that Facebook can be boycotted on the grounds that
FB has what is essentially a social media monopoly. In this day and age access to it
is a human right.
Joe Wagenhofer
1.Corporate participation policy
1.Main three criteria
1.No Tobacco: Per SF city regulations
2.Adolph Coors Brewing
1.Directly against LGBT
3.Exxon Mobil
1.Directly against LGBT
2.Does FB meet this level of criteria. Is it that level of issue for our
community?

2.Big issue back in the day was Coors

3.Banning someone from the Parade is a higher bar than the festival site. as
it is completely covered by free speech we do not pay for permits and the
like due to it being considered.
4.Is their policy applied to all people or just LGBT people?
Justin - What about a 15 year old LGBT kid developing their new sense of identity
whether trans, not out or a budding drag queen that doesnt have the type of name
recognition and cannot come up with the alternate forms of identification to prove
their pseudonym? Current policy favors people like Roma who have public
recognition but leaves these others in the dust.
Chandra
1.FB could have reached out to the advocates and instead is reaching out to
us. This is no different than the advocates pushing us. Why are we listening
to FB PR department instead of our own community stakeholders?
2.FB is tech, linked to displacement and eviction crisis. The housing
movement would be our allies in increasing pressure on them this year.
Michelle - Major advocacy for awareness of what we are taking on and questioning
if we have the whole community behind us.
David
1.We are stuck with this process currently so we need to pick our battles.
2.They have done a lot of good things for the community.
3.They seem to be willing to move forward changes,
Marsha
1.This is their employee resource group in the parade. Employee Resource
Groups are bottom-up and often advocate for LGBT causes within their
corporations, so we shouldnt conflate them with the corporations.
2.Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Band was the only group
weve historically banned from the parade, after three warnings.
Gary
1.The board had due notice on this time sensitive issue prior to the last
executive session meeting held after Mays general membership meeting.
2.This is highly equivalent to many other examples that could be requested
by any advocacy group harmed by a sponsor. What would we do if an antisex group came and complained about a leather contingent?
George
1.This could put up a large red flag for future sponsors, or damage our
relationship with Facebook as a sponsor. Flip-flopping is a major concern.

2.We still have unsigned/closed sponsorship agreements needed to make

our budget for this year.
3.Concerned that if we ban Facebook what do other sponsors think of our
parade.
Oliver
1.Facebook should be held to a higher standard because it is a global
monopoly.
2.At minimum, we should require Mark should represent Facebook in the
public forum.
3.If he wont do that, there are two options for changes to Facebook policy
on the table: meeting the demands of the #mynameis coalition, or the
compromise allowing people alternate names.
Round the room discussion continues.
3.Resolution 15 min
Board authorize the ED to negotiate the contract for facebook sponsorship
agreement and joint press release. -Gary -2nd David
1.Further Discussion1.Oliver- This is an agreement requiring less of FB then even the last
decision that led to this meeting. Why are we backing down?
2.Call the question.
1.Favor
1.John, Marsha, David, Larry, Gary
2.Against
1.Oliver, Jose, Justin, Chandra, Michelle
3.Result- Tie
Board authorizes the ED to negotiate the contract for facebook sponsorship
agreement and joint press release but that the press release be issued prior to the
signing of the contract. -Gary amended proposal
1.Further Discussion
1.Justin - This decision is cowardly as our time frame to make a real
impact on this issue will expire after we accept the sponsorship.
2.Chandra - Instead of giving FB the benefit of the doubt, can we
provide our community the benefit of the doubt and have FB change
before letting them in instead of letting them in and believing theyll
change.
3.Michelle - Im not sure if I belong here. Im a good fundraiser but I
want to be fundraising for something that really helps people instead

of just running a party.

4.Jose - Why am I here? I am supposed to represent youth and I am
a person of color but my view is never listened to on this board.
Everyone under 40 opposes the Facebook sponsorship. If we arent
here to take a stand, why are we even doing this? I dont care about
raising money for a party, I care about making a difference.
5.Oliver - Many of us, Gary included, are sitting here because of the
Chelsea Manning controversy: which was precisely about how
internet freedom and surveillance intersect with the LGBT rights
movement. We were elected by a progressive coalition to bring new
leadership for Pride. How can you then sit there and support
Facebooks participation over the activists from our own community?
2.Call the question
1.Favor
1.John, Marsha, David, Larry, Gary
2.Against
1.Oliver, Jose, Justin, Chandra
3.Abstain
1.Michelle
4.Result - motion passes
Marsha reminds the board that this was not a meeting done in executive session
and so the minutes and voting records are a matter of public record.
4.Adjourned 2:55