Stakeholders want to see MassEquality continue

A report by the consultant hired to help the MassEquality Board of Directors determine the future of the organization shows that there is widespread consensus among MassEquality coalition partners, national LGBT activists and MassEquality's major donors to keep the organization viable even though the fight for civil marriage rights has been secured in Massachusetts for the foreseeable future.

A copy of the 16-page report, titled "Stakeholder Perspectives on the Future of MassEquality," was delivered anonymously to the offices of Bay Windows this week. It represents the results of the first phase of MassEquality's three-month project to determine its future. Twelve MassEquality stakeholders, representing major donors, leaders of MassEquality coalition partners and national activists, were interviewed by Jack Regan of Metis Consulting, who was hired by the MassEquality Board of Directors to collect input and data on what the future of MassEquality should be. (Bay Windows decided not to name the stakeholders who participated in the interviews because they did so with the expectation that their remarks would be shared only with the MassEquality Board of Directors and not be made public.)

Regan notes on the first page of the report that he began each interview by asking stakeholders "whether or not they believed there was a mission or direction for MassEquality at this time." He did so, he writes, "[s]o as not to bias the responses in favor of a certain future for MassEquality or a certain end to MassEquality." All 12 interviewees, he says, "answered yes and the interview continued with their comments and my follow-up questions."

Options raised by stakeholders ranged from maintaining MassEquality as "a basic coalition," defined in the report as "a piece of paper, a website, a person, until it is needed again and in doing so keep good faith with the spirit of a coalition"; work to re-elect pro-equality legislators and defeat adversaries in 2008; continue to focus only on protecting marriage in Massachusetts; consult with other states on achieving marriage equality; partner with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) to secure marriage equality in the New England states; or become a multi-issue statewide LGBT organization for Massachusetts.

Some interviewees made a strong case for expanding MassEquality's reach in the New England states. One stakeholder outlined a plan to win marriage equality throughout New England within three to five years. Another had a detailed plan that would see MassEquality partner with GLAD to work toward that end.

"We have had the conversation with every state about this vision; they are not only aligned on this idea, they are excited about it," the stakeholder reports to Regan."

Regan also broached what he called "the most contentious of the options before us": That of turning MassEquality into a multi-issue statewide organization. Of the stakeholders' responses to this question, Regan notes: "Like much we have heard before, the views of the stakeholders are contradictory, but they bring a level of nuance and sophistication that hasn't entered our dialogue as yet."

One national stakeholder says, "The investment in MassEquality, while targeted on marriage, assumed an investment in people, databases, and infrastructure for LGBT political work. The investment was more than one issue/one election cycle. We gave with that assumption in mind that there would be no end date, that MassEquality would have an organize/natural role to fill."

The stakeholder continues: "MassEquality has accumulated broad, constituent-based, donor based political power. It would be a mistake not to use it going forward. Political power is political power - it is transferable to other issues. ... I have never seen political power accumulated and given up before."

But another stakeholder reports: "Multi-issue MassEquality is not that compelling. ... Marriage is a huge cultural thing that motivated people. Straight people can connect to marriage. They feel like it's something they can share, like Civil Rights in the broadest sense. Because they are gung-ho now - on a cultural issue - doesn't mean they will be on other 'gay' issues. They are not as electrifying."

And another also advocates against the creation of a statewide, multi-issue organization, arguing for example, that, "If the Governor and the Attorney General want to change the 1913 law, then we've got Arline [Isaacson, the co-chair of Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus] to do it. Coalitions for other issues can be built around GLAD, ACLU. Don't waste the coalition of MassEquality that is completely identified with marriage."

Yet another stakeholder was less sanguine about leaving lobbying efforts for future LGBT initiatives to the Caucus: "If the organizations that currently exist had served us well, we wouldn't have had to create MassEquality. And it makes me nutty to think that we would have to recreate it all over again - which we will if we let it go. The Caucus certainly hasn't provided what MassEquality can provide and I've funded the Caucus."

The question of funding MassEquality should it choose to continue was also broached in the report. Major donors indicated that they would continue to give depending on what the organization decided to do. Said one donor: "The mission I would give money to is for MassEquality to take it to other states - if I was convinced of the commitment and the willingness to transfer/adapt the model to conditions on the ground." Another had this to say: "The world of donor money is not finite. If you tell me if we need X to cure AIDS and Y to win in [Rhode Island] - both are important. So tell me when groups are having fundraisers - it would be very valuable to know. I wouldn't know of the needs of the coalition unless MassEquality tells us." Yet another major donor said she'd "absolutely continue giving to MassEquality - including for them to work on other issues of importance to the LGBT community in Massachusetts."

Additionally the report reveals some of the strains that have arisen within the MassEquality coalition during the marriage battle. One interviewee said that MassEquality didn't always play nice with other coalition organizations. "MassEquality showed relationship skills in bridge building with legislators but not with staff or coalition partners," said the interviewee, according to the report. Additionally, said the interviewee, under Campaign Director Marc Solomon's leadership, "the office was chaotic, people on staff were not well treated; there was little patience to sort things out with [the interviewee's organization]."

The report was distributed to the 18 members of MassEquality's board of directors on Oct. 19. As of presstime, the board was scheduled to discuss the report as well as the findings of the MassEquality online survey and the Oct. 15 World Caf? discussions of MassEquality's future, at a four-hour Oct. 24 meeting. Bay Windows formally requested permission to cover the meeting but was turned down by Board Chair David Wilson. The strategic planning process will conclude with a final determination of MassEquality's future at a Nov. 3 meeting of its board of directors.