I am writing to correct several points made by the Windy City Times (Jan. 28) in the article, 'Final Push for Games Bid.' In this analysis, WCT claims that I oppose the Chicago Games, Inc., solely based on conversations I have had with representatives from Rendez-Vous Montreal 2006. This could not be further from the truth.
In the meeting referenced in the article during which members of the Advisory Council on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues (ACLGBTI) and representatives from Chicago Games, Inc., met to discuss the proposed bid, the Chicago Games people suggested that the Council did not have time to practice 'due diligence' in coming to the conclusion in November that a bid should not be submitted for Gay Games 2006. In addition, it was recommended that due diligence be the modus operandi for future deliberations on this issue.
Thus, it was due diligence that led me to ask a series of questions of the Rendez-Vous Montreal 2006 people. I weighed this information along with that which was provided by representatives from Chicago Games, Inc. After extensive review of documentation from both organizations as well as the Federation of Gay Games (FGG), I concluded that sponsoring the Gay Games in Chicago in 2006 is not in the best interest of the city or our community. WCT should understand that 'due diligence' does not mean simply taking the word of one organization but rather, gathering all information possible including that from potential competitors in order to come to an informed decision.
In the process of 'due diligence,' I came to the conclusion as stated previously. In addition, I became very concerned that Chicago Games, Inc., was more interested in spinning the truth than telling the truth. I don't trust that approach in national politics and I don't trust it at the local level. Indeed, the 'analysis' refers to the resolution passed by the ACLGBTI as a 'carefully worded letter of support.' What is not provided is the entire resolution. The resolution did not, in fact, reverse the stance of the Advisory Council from November. Nor was it a letter of support. Indeed, the resolution passed with two votes in favor and three abstentions. I was not there to register my vote. While technically unopposed, this was hardly a resounding vote of support.
The WCT appears to be compelled to couch this discussion in the cloak of city pride. Unfortunately, this is done with misinformation, the exclusion of information, and re-purposing messages. I remain opposed to a bid for the Gay Games in 2006 for very specific reasons based on a thorough analysis of all of the facts available, not just those Chicago Games, Inc., wants me to see and believe.
Damon K. Marquis
EXCERPTS from Jan. 28 WCT story:
The carefully worded letter of support made note of the hard work of the bid efforts, the controversy surrounding the Games, and the earlier vote of the Council not in favor of a bid effort. [Council member Bill] Kelley wanted to clarify that the November vote (5-1 and which he was not a part of) was not 'against' the Gay Games, just a vote saying the council did not advise the bid effort at that time.
So was this a reversal? The new Council vote was 2-0 with 3 abstentions, and at least one strong critic of the bid was not there. He did send a letter opposing the effort. For those who strongly touted the first vote as 'opposing' the bid, this new vote was just as significant ... . The letter by Council member Damon Marquis, who had also attended a three-hour sit-down meeting between members of the Council and Chicago 2006 the week before ... was very strongly opposed. But Marquis' argument is based on conversations he had with Tom Czerniecki, the marketing communications director for the Montreal 2006 efforts. ...
We wish Montreal well. The more opportunities for GLBT athletes, the better. But if you are trying to make up your mind about Chicago's bid, I wouldn't go calling Montreal for an objective opinion. ...
The Advisory Council ... [resolved] the Council 'will provide and encourage all feasible and advisable support to Chicago Games Inc. in its hosting activities after a review of award terms if its bid is accepted by the Federation of Gay Games.' The sponsor of the motion further clarified that a November vote stating 'the Council could not recommend a bid,' should not be interpreted as opposition to CGI, but as a resolution offered at a moment in time when the Council felt it couldn't support the bid.
Thus, Windy City Times noted clearly that there was still opposition, even though the vote was 2-0, and that the new resolution did not reverse the earlier vote. Our position: Those who gave importance to the first vote should put at least equal weight on the second, which was taken after a lengthy debate.
Each city Advisory Council, according to the Commission on Human Relations, is supposed to act as a 'liaison between city government and community organizations to promote cooperation between the two.' Chicago Games, Inc., has simply been trying to work with the Council to foster that cooperation.
