kevin.boyer@allterrain.net

Ken – I would be more than happy to discuss this further with you, and in more detail. I am searching for a more direct email address. Clearly, this forum is not appropriate.

As I mentioned in Cologne, I didn’t vote, but talking with some delegates afterward it was clear to me that nobody voted on a single issue like how many badminton courts there are, nor was any city’s bid discussed negatively. For every glitch, no city had anything in their bid that did, or should have, disqualified them from consideration. In fact, everyone commented on how refreshingly well-qualified each city was, and how well everyone prepared their bids and presented them. From the public comments I read afterward, that seems to have freed the FGG Membership Assembly to consider the mission and vision of the Gay Games as they made their decision.

FGG co-President Kurt Dahl said this to the Cleveland Plain Dealer after the announcement: “We want to change people’s perceptions through sports and culture. Cleveland is the one that really could help further that cause along.” This sentiment reflects a lot of what I heard in Cologne from others.

I really believe that was the core of the decision, a mission-driven one. People don’t seem to have voted against Boston or DC, but rather FOR Cleveland because of the opportunity it represents. Certainly not everyone will agree, but I walked away from that meeting feeling like the FGG had turned a significant corner. Having established and followed (with some blips, of course) a professional, thorough, and well-informed site selection process – the best ever – they were offered an opportunity to make a decision based on what they thought would be best for the LGBT sports movement.

It’s tough to come out on the other side of that decision, and the arguments can go on forever about whether a different choice could have helped them achieve their mission. And, of course, your experience – just like my experience with Chicago – will be used by the FGG to improve the process even more. I hope you’ll take the chance to make your next comments directly to the FGG, or you can email me directly and I’ll pass anything along.

Kevin Boyer

Back to the topic…when are we doing to know if 2018 will be one event or not?

My goal is not to denigrate individuals or publicize specific behaviors, or to air all the laundry that was displayed. I have spelled out my specific issues to people in the FGG, complete with details, and feel that providing those on such a public forum as this would do nothing to further the cause of the Games, the desire to correct flaws, or advance the reputation of any of the bidding cities, vounteers, FGG board and members, among other issues.

I thought that my last post would have listed a great deal of the issues confronting the process (did you not read the third paragraph?) without having to spell things out in detail.

Don’t expect that to happen. Despite my misgivings with the FGG, I respect everyone involved too much to reduce the discussion to a level which would only appeal to the baser instincts of those wanting a story.

Certainly I didn’t mean to disparage those volunteers who spend so much time and energy making organizations like the Federation a driving force in the worldwide communty. I understand the limitations of working with a largely unpaid group, and it has always been one of my pet peeves to hear people complaining while sitting on the sidelines, letting others do the work. In 1986 I spent six months, unpaid, full-time, as Co-Executive Director of the Colorado Athletic Exchange, building momentum for a team of more than 125 to represent the state in San Francisco at GGII. It was always distressing to get those bits of criticism (e.g. ‘I’m not giving any money because you left me off the mailing list last time.’) which seemed to ignore the greater issue, as well as the time and staff needed to cover all the bases. Seeing and hearing from those who attended the Games and for whom it was a life-changing event was reward enough to erase any negatives.

I coudn’t agree with you more that those with the expertise, money, and time should be stepping forward and becoming a more active part of organizations so vital to our community. Unfortunately, with advances in acceptance, and ease of lifestyle, many settle down in their lives without even thinking about the ways that organizations can use their services. It’s distressing to watch the petty and superficial issues eating up our time and resources.

Charlie and Kevin,

My issues with what I witnessed (as we talked about in Cologne, Kevin) were not related directly to understaffing or lack of resources, although perhaps correcting some of them might require more people getting involved. The most distressing thing I experienced was the complete disregard for rules and regulations, the lack of consistency in procedures, and the absence of ramifications for breaking stated regulations.

To answer your question, Kevin, I have enumerated my issues, with specific examples, to select members of the FGG. Wishing not to reflect poorly on the Boston contingent – as I mentioned before – I did not write an open letter to the Board at large; I trust that pertinent issues will be discussed at future board meetings.

My distress was further hightened by the highly subjective and non-standardized method by which cities were judged, subsequently presented to the voting members, and the lack of a level playing field of required data and issues from each city. Why was one venue rated higher than another? Was there some quantitative method of regulating personal prejudices? What experience do each of the cities, and each of the individual sports, have in organizing LGBT tourneys? What has been the history of the LGBT sports community in each city? What are the specific criteria that each voting member should investigate before casting their vote? Should they be discouraged from casting their vote solely on a single issue, like how many badminton courts are there, or how many locker rooms are in the tennis facility? How much emphasis is put on the concepts that are distributed to the bidding teams? Are these issues also the ones which are most stressed to the voting members (e.g. athelete’s villages, close proximity of facilities, interest of the city’s other attractions, taking the Games ‘to the next level,’ experience in organizing within the gay sports community, fundraising history and experience)? How are the Games going to be a positive influence on the city, and the image of our community in the greater world? How much participation in prior Games has the bidding city shown? Should bidding cities be allowed to refute allegations against them? Should bidding cities be allowed or encouraged to make comparisons between them and their competition? At what point does cameraderie and good will end and hardball tactics begin? How does the Federation react when rules are bent, or behavior is questioned?

In short, when a bidding city spends tens of thousands of dollars (and sometimes hundreds of thousands) pulling together members of their community, their business and government leaders, the experienced organizers of their LGBT community, the professional sports leaders of their citiy, volunteers, and fundraisers, they should be secure in the knowledge that their efforts will be reviewed without bias, will stand on their own merits, and should they overstep their bounds in any way, they should be prepared for repurcussions.

Lastly, it is certainly probable that my objectivity is compromised when discussing these issues. But, as I explained to you, Kevin, there were far too many anomalies in the process in Cologne for anyone to come away with the impression that the bids were viewed with equal objectivity. This had nothing to do with staffing or time limits.

It bears repeating that the premise the Games was founded upon is a noble one and should be respected and encouraged. In addition, I highly laud those who have so generously given their knowledge and time in making the Games a force in the LGBT community. What I ask in return, though, is the discarding of personal agendas, the honoring of fairness and equality, and the professional demeanor and behavior every participant, board member, and supporter has earned.

Just like with the IOC process, the site selection process can always improve and specific feedback is the way to make that happen. But in the end I felt like the FGG Board members had more information than ever before, had objective as well as qualitative data, and also had good discussions that helped them make a mission-based decision. Either of the 3 bidding cities would have made amazing 2014 hosts.