THE VOICE OF CHICAGO'S GAY, LESBIAN, BI, TRANS AND QUEER COMMUNITY SINCE 1985

Mayor Richard Daley greeted the annual meeting of the Federation of Gay Games board in Chicago last week, during a critical point in the Gay Games movement.

While Daley joked Nov. 12 that he'd love to see the Gay Games in Chicago at some point in the future, the celebration event was clouded by the controversy brewing over the 2006 Gay Games.

The previous day, Montreal 2006 representatives turned down the Federation's final offer to host the event, and later in the week the Federation met with representatives of the three losing bid cities to make a plan for a new bid process.

Chicago, Atlanta and Los Angeles representatives all met with Gay Games delegates. Atlanta decided Nov. 17 they would not re-bid.

In the final analysis, both sides were right, and both sides were wrong. It will be a battle of the press releases and Web sites probably up to and including competing gay events in 2006. And the future of the Gay Games movement is at stake.

Montreal, as the city who won the Gay Games VII bid two years ago, was right to seek financial control over an event they were financially responsible for. And the Federation of Gay Games was right to ask for oversight of a Gay Games which are merely a part of a long-term gay sports and culture movement.

And both sides were also wrong. The Federation was wrong to allow the negotiating process to go on for two years, and Montreal was wrong to think the Federation, stewards of the movement, would give up total control of Gay Games VII.

Now, the bitter disagreements are another in a long line of examples of divisions within the gay movement. Can both sides just move on, progress on their own paths, without destroying each other in the process? There are many other large-scale sports and culture events for the GLBT movement, including the EuroGames which attract thousands of athletes. Individual tournaments and cultural gatherings take place every month. In the end, the Gay Games are just one part of the community—they are not the only 'Game' in town, but they do have the most impact. _____

Before moving forward, let's recap the final press releases coming out of the two sides last week. Both statements are available in full on their respective Web sites, www.montreal2006.org and the Federation's at www.gaygames.org .

'Two years and 13 versions of a contract later, with no signed agreement, Montreal 2006 obviously saw there was a problem,' Montreal stated. 'Montreal 2006 did everything in its power to find solutions to reach an acceptable agreement to both parties, formally requesting mediation, arbitration, and to be heard by the entire membership of the FGG. All were formally denied by the leadership of the FGG. Sending a new team to Chicago for a final round of negotiations, the negotiation process concluded unsuccessfully in the early hours of [Nov. 9] after 15 hours and the rejection by Montreal of a last revised agreement that was unable to break the deadlock between the two organizations. No parties walked away. It was simply clear that in spite of all the best hopes for a last-minute breakthrough, an agreement that would be mutually acceptable to both parties was unreachable.

'[Nov. 10], at the first morning of their Annual Meeting, the full membership of the FGG was given a 'comprehensive' presentation on the situation with Montreal 2006, although neither Equipe Montreal, a FGG membership organization for 10 years, or members of Montreal 2006 were allowed to participate in the in-camera presentations. This was disappointing from an organization which claims in their statement of purpose that 'A fundamental principle is that all Federation activities shall be inclusive in nature and that no individual shall be excluded from participating.'

'After six hours of debate within the in-camera session, Montreal 2006 Co-President Mark Tewksbury was asked to appear to speak before the full membership. He was not allowed to make a statement. He was not allowed to ask any questions.

'He was only to answer the nine questions put to him by the membership as read by one of the directors . ...

'In his responses, Mr. Tewksbury made it very clear that, although the negotiation process had formally ended on Sunday, Montreal 2006 was willing to put License Agreement 13, Montreal 2006's revised plan of its initial bid, back on the table as a final offer. If it was not accepted ... then the Federation of Gay Games and Montreal 2006 would be choosing to go their own ways. It was also made clear that, as the negotiation process was over, any other version would not be accepted by Montreal 2006, including specifically version 13.5 that had formally brought the final negotiation to an end in the first place. ... Montreal 2006, doing everything in its power to come to an agreement, came to the sad conclusion that the issue of financial control was a deal breaker. In the end, in spite of everyone's best efforts, the negotiation process failed.'

While Montreal's reason for seeking independence was because of four losing Gay Games in a row, the Federation took the opposite view—they need controls because past cities have failed to live up to their financial commitments.

'Montreal 2006 found itself caught between that past and a future as outlined by the current Strategic Plan of the FGG, where further control measures are to be implemented on host cities of Gay Games. Before entering into partnership that demanded such rigid control, Montreal 2006 asked itself a hard question: What is the Federation of Gay Games?' the organization stated.

'There may very well be a Gay Games event in the future, under the control of the FGG. The fact that there might be two Games, as unfortunate as it is, is not in itself divisive. There are already numerous events for the GLBT sports community on the global agenda ... . What would be divisive would be to put an event on at the same time as Montreal 2006, but that will be a decision the FGG must make.'

Montreal 2006 also attacked the Federation's status as an international sporting organization. They say they will bring together sports leaders next January to discuss creating an 'international governing body that is democratic, representative, and dynamic that finally provides for the needs of the people it represents, the GLBT athletes and cultural participants of the world.'

The Federation's response was equally strong and passionate.

'Rendez-Vous Montréal 2006 has also issued divisive remarks that the Federation 'represents little more than itself, with only 21 of the 1000 sports teams around the world being FGG members,'' the FGG stated. 'This remarkably misleading statement is shown errant by even a cursory look at the Federation roster,' including:

* European Gay and Lesbian Sports Federation—representing thousands of athletes and multiple sports throughout Europe.

* Gay and Lesbian Rowing Federation— representing 21 teams on three continents.

* International Association of Gay and Lesbian Martial Artists, representing martial artists from around the world.

* International Front Runners—representing more than 100 running clubs.

* International Gay and Lesbian Aquatics —representing more than 50 swim clubs and thousands of swimmers worldwide.

* International Gay and Lesbian Football Association—representing an emerging league of football (soccer) players worldwide.

* International Gay and Lesbian Ice Hockey Association—representing 59 teams and nearly 2,000 athletes and officials.

* International Gay Bowling Organization, Inc.—representing thousands worldwide.

* International Gay Figure Skating Union —representing figure skaters worldwide.

* Numerous umbrella sport organizing committees in cities including Vancouver, Seattle, Toronto, Sydney, Berlin, Paris, Johannesburg, Chicago, and Cologne—all of which, 'collectively, represent tens of thousands of gay and lesbian athletes and scores of established and emerging gay and lesbian sport opportunities on at least four continents,' FGG stated.

'The Federation represents far more than itself. It is literally composed of directorships that attempt the difficult task of effectively representing the global GLBT sport community on a largely voluntary and unpaid basis.  In contrast, Rendez-Vous Montreal 2006 was organized to represent itself only,' FGG said.

Montreal 2006 states that the Federation demands 'full financial control of the 2006 Games.' FGG responded: 'The reality is that Federation sought not full financial control but, rather, robust budgetary oversight.  After a fourth consecutive Gay Games budget deficit at the Sydney Gay Games in 2002—this time largely due to overspeculation in the amount of attendees—the Federation felt stronger than ever that it is the Federation's responsibility to monitor the financial undertakings of a host city to ensure that participants at future Gay Games, including Gay Games VII, need not doubt the future of the event due to overspending.'

'After almost two years of negotiations (which had resulted in a 'Draft 12' of a proposed License Agreement between Rendez-Vous Montréal 2006 and the Federation), Rendez-Vous Montréal 2006 submitted a 'Draft 13' that unilaterally proposed new terms and departed significantly from the two years of work that had gone into developing Draft 12,' FGG stated. 'Draft 13 also included significant changes from their original bid documents as submitted to the Federation in 2001 (the basis for their selection as potential host for Gay Games VII), such as a 22% increase in participant registration fees.

'Following a full day of deliberation by the Federation's Board of Directors on [Nov. 10], the Federation offered a final version of Draft 13.5 that the Federation believed addressed all of Rendez-Vous Montréal 2006's concerns, including even further concessions. However, by Tuesday morning, the Federation's logo and the words 'Gay Games' had been removed from the entire ... Montréal 2006 Web site.

'The Federation's request for a financial model that could support 12,000 athletes was not a ceiling or a cap, but rather a foundational starting point. Accusations that the Federation offers no support to host cities is false. The Federation has traditionally provided direct support to host cities in the form of cooperative marketing, promotion, and sponsorships (i.e., 'fundraising'). In support of Sydney 2002, the Federation authorized over US$100,000 for a global marketing campaign to augment Sydney's regional efforts. Had [Sydney] not encountered financial difficulties, this cooperative expenditure alone would have accounted for more than 15% of the Federation's license fee,' FGG stated. _____

Chicago played host to the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Federation, hosted by Chicago Games, Inc., and Team Chicago. The meeting probably will be most remembered for the controversy, but in a press release, the hosts said they are 'pleased that the meeting will also be remembered as a well-organized and implemented week-long event that illustrated the vibrancy of the City of Chicago and the strength of support for the Gay Games movement from the city government and Chicago's GLBT sports and cultural community.'

'This was a challenging meeting for the delegates of the Federation,' said Dennis Sneyers, Co-Chair of Chicago Games 'and our goal was to ensure a smooth operating environment. By all accounts, we accomplished this and more. We are extremely grateful to the many volunteers and sponsors.'

Sponsors included: Steamworks, LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon, the City of Chicago, Northern Trust Bank, Harris Bank, AX Computers, Bacardi, Baton Show Lounge, Boi Magazine, Bonnie Flowers, Buddies' Restaurant and Bar, Chicago Eagle, City View Realty, ChicagoPride, Cliff Bar, Gay Chicago Magazine, Gentry, The Room, Roscoe's, Turi Vodka, Third Coast Marketing, Windy City Media Group and Zone Perfect.

'More than 50 volunteers worked on the Annual Meeting,' said lead organizer Kevin Boyer, 'either in planning, staffing the Meeting office, hosting delegates in their homes, or helping with social and civic events.' Many of these volunteers were recognized at the closing dinner held at The Room. Special recognition was given to the key organizers including Kevin Boyer, Kurt Dahl, Rob Hunden, Christopher Pries and Dennis Sneyers of Chicago Games, Inc., and Roger Bashore, Suzanne Arnold, John Niehaus, Paul Oostenbrug, and Elizabeth Valenti of Team Chicago.

As for the next Gay Games, 'We remain committed to the Gay Games movement and will spend the time necessary to appropriately consider the FGG's request to re-bid to host the Gay Games in 2006,' the group stated. 'Preliminary discussions among the organizers of our initial 2006 bid will be followed by consultations with the City of Chicago, our proposed sponsors for 2006 and the GLBT community. We are aware of concerns regarding the cost of such an effort, the shortened planning time, and the public relations challenges because of the public disagreement between Montreal and the FGG. However, Chicago has a long and rich history of support for the Gay Games and the Federation of Gay Games and we want to act in a manner that will ensure the continuation of that movement. Therefore, we plan to seriously consider the FGG's request for a re-bid. If we can develop a plan that would be fiscally sound, would not put undue hardship on the Chicago Area's GLBT community or its organizations, and would be enthusiastically supported by the City, our sponsors, and the community at large, then we will seek to bring the Gay Games to Chicago.' _____

In last week's Windy City Times, I detailed my involvement as part of the large volunteer group which bid on hosting Gay Games 2006. We came in third place to Montreal in the final bidding, close behind Atlanta. But Federation delegates did not vote for a 'second' city contingency.

The FGG will now open a new bid process, and they want the Gay Games VII to be in 2006. Atlanta, Los Angeles and Chicago have until Dec. 1 to decide if they are going to bid—and they have about three months to complete the shortened new bidding process. Atlanta has already opted out of the process, and Los Angeles had only received one vote two years ago. It appears a burden might be on Chicago to carry that Games torch, but we should not feel forced into that position.

This will be a very difficult decision for Chicago to make—and that decision should come from those who would do the work hosting such a massive event. Mostly, it should come from the athletes and cultural participants who would be involved. If Mayor Daley and the city step forward and say they are interested in supporting a new bid, and if past volunteers (and many new ones) also agree this is a good idea, that should be good enough for the GLBT community.

Personally, I do not relish repeating that draining process again. But it is not the bid process which will be difficult—it will become difficult if we win. Chicago is in a unique position to host the Gay Games—that is why we bid in the first place. We have the public parks, universities and private venues. We have the hotels and transportation. And we have an amazing athletic and cultural community which hosts events every week.

A scaled-down Gay Games VII, which focuses on the athletes and culture participants, could be done right. It does not have to detract from fundraising needs in the community. In fact, it can attract a whole new level of people to the movement, and to Chicago. Some people will give to health causes, some people give to buildings and institutions, and some give to sports and culture. I do not believe either side was 100% right or wrong. Montreal did what it did to create the best event for their city. The Federation did what they think is best for the long-term Gay Games movement.

Now, let's put the animosity behind us. We can support many opposing community events, organizations, and leaders. Good luck to Montreal in 2006. Many Chicagoans will undoubtedly still travel there. And good luck to my fellow Chicagoans, if they choose to step forward to bid for Gay Games VII.

See www.ChicagoGamesInc.org . More photo coverage of FGG meeting next week.