Howard Brown
In April of this year, the public was informed of the ongoing problems at Howard Brown Health Center ( HBHC ) .
Both the CEO and the CFO were placed on administrative leave. Of course, we all were told that due to the severity of the problem, the lawyers would be involved and once more information was available, we would be informed. At the end of April, Howard Brown's board of directors had taken steps to correct the situation, including "management changes, implementing internal controls and an independent audit of all federal grants."
The HIV Study/MACS program is a $3.4-million annual grant. It provides funding for the treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS. HBHC managed this study until April of this year. Their budget depended on the monies paid for the management of this project. In April, the CEO gave control of the MACS study to Northwestern University, changing the control of the study and affecting the $600,000 that would be paid to HBHC to manage the study. In a recent podcast, the current CEO stated that "due to mistakes in managing grant funds, overextending itself by taking on more clients than funding available" has resulted in a big deficit for HBHC. What transpired in this organization is still a mystery to most. Its board of directors and its executive staff are to work together to manage, oversee and protect the agency they represent and insure that the services and work they provide for the community is professional, available and funded. A question raised is why the board of directors was not aware of the financial issues until after the fact.
Information was forthcoming this past month. HBHC needs our help and quickly ( the amount of $500,000 before the end of December ) . In a letter written by HBHC CEO/President Jamal Edwards, a lifeline is needed: "Our past leadership mismanaged Howard Brown's funds. Ultimately, their actions have led to a need to raise $500,000 by the end of the year, and an additional $500,000 next year." This $500,000 loss is needed to replace the money lost with the transfer of the Mac grant to provide for health care services. But this is only a scraping of the current $3.5-million debt HBHC has. More implemented fundraising sources and more results from the Brown Elephant resale shop, according to the CEO, will help offset this huge deficit.
Wow. Does this mean it will turn this problem around and all will be good again?
Since the agency is now significantly in the red, has the administration, including the CEO and CFO, made major cuts in payroll, including their own? If we are paying these salaries still, where will the money come to pay for PR firms and crisis management, let alone all the support services that are needed for the clients of the center? According to Edwards on a Nov. 10 podcast ( Feast of Fun ) , the administrative staff was committed to ensuring that they would forgo salaries, if need be, to save the agency. However, each has given a donation to help offset the deficit in the amounts of $1,000, up to the CEO's gift of $10,000.
He went on to state that the salaries are set based upon appropriate compensation for the work the work they are doing. That is probably true; however, that is based on an agency that is fiscally sound.
Positions were eliminated, with executive officers doing two or three jobs. Then there is the situation of the appointment of seven vice presidents who help run the organization. Wouldn't that be a bit of overstaffing?
On Marc Felion and Fausto FernÃ"s' podcast, the statement was made that "transparency is a must. HBHC is notorious for being secretive." There is the fact that Edwards is trying to be blunt and honest on what is happening at HBHC; however, it is without a lot of information forthcoming.
In the future, there are to be community open houses and more engagement with the community regarding HBHC.
As a philanthropist who has provided funding for many organizations in Chicago, I have some concerns about this request. First of all, where is the data that supports this request? What is the game plan to ensure this money is used appropriately? What percentage of this money will be applied directly to benefit services for the clients, leaving what percentage for administration and salaries?
We have heard there is going to be a three-year plan drawn up to ensure that this fiasco will never happen again. But what is the immediate plan to complete this year and get Howard Brown Health Center through next year?
Yes, Howard Brown Health Center does need to be saved. It does provide invaluable services for individuals in our community. There are decent and honest professional staff members at HBHC who work hard to provide services and care for those in need. It would be a tragic loss for our city. But, as donors, we need a bit more information to guarantee that when we open our wallets and check books, we are ensuring the future of HBHC and not just bailing out the past mistakes of the administration and board of directors of the agency.
Sincerely,
Michael Leppen
Supporting HBHC
Dear Editor:
The legacy of Howard Brown Health Center is worth fighting for. As a donor, a former employee and friend, I am 100 percent behind Howard Brown Health Center and its history of service to the Chicago LGBT community. We cannot let its recent difficulties define who it is and what it has meant for so many of our neighbors who have relied on their services for decades. When I was executive director of Howard Brown many years ago, the community organized to help erect the building Howard Brown inhabits today and helped it grow into the vital community resource it has become. You may recall how the community championed Howard Brown then because of the critical, if not indispensable, role it plays in the health of the LGBT community and the community at large.
Working to save Howard Brown is not simply about saving a building, nor is it just about saving the jobs of the people who work there. It is about honoring the spirit that spurred the founders to start an STD clinic for gay men. It is about honoring the spirit of those who helped Howard Brown grow into the LGBT community's health center which continues to provide outstanding, high quality services for so many who have nowhere to else to go. There has been turmoil, which has been and continues to be addressed. Despite the failings of some individualswhether management or boardthe mission has not changed and the needs of the population they serve goes on.
I am pleased to see the positive changes that Howard Brown is making during this extremely challenging time. The center has stayed true to its mission, and devoted to the people who need their services. Additionally, they have become more transparent and are working tirelessly towards building a healthier future. Jamal has reached out to leaders in Chicago, including myself, to seek counsel and build relationships, and I am confident about Howard Brown's potential under his leadership. Yes, they have a long way to go, but they are making positive strides each and every day. Now is not the time to turn our back on Howard Brown Health Center. Now is the time to embrace it and support it as Howard Brown has embraced each and every one of their clients in their times of great need. People need Howard Brown now more than ever, and if it is to improve, as I know it can, we must defend it and do whatever it takes to ensure its survival.
I believe anyone who wants to bolster the health and wellness of the LGBT community should support Howard Brown, too. They cannot function as a community health center without the community. Each and every one of us has a responsibility to work toward preserving this essential LGBT organization. The community cannot lose Howard Brown.
Eileen Durkin
President and CEO
Neumann Family Services
Same stuff, different bishop
Dear Editor:
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' change in leadership does not represent any significant pragmatic shift in the organization's debates against gay rights. The Rainbow Sash Movement will continue to challenge the bishops' position of supporting their interpretation of natural law, over positive law. They continue to rhetorically construct unchallenged homophobic positions which only reflects a style of leadership that operates only on fear, and not engagement.
We believe by challenging publically the bishops' positions that gay people are a separate class of people and are not entitled to the same constitutional rights as heterosexuals, we have put the bishops on notice that gay Catholics will no longer run from their homophobia, nor will we be silent as they promote so called gay ministries within the Church, or cloistser ourselves in submissive gay Catholic ghettos outside the Church. We believe we are called to engage their moral reasoning in the public square and expose it as as dangerous to the wellbeing of the LGBT Community.
The bishops' argument in the political arena is similiar to the argument it made with the healthcare debate: Rather than recognizing the practicality of the need for such legislation, it promoted its dogmatism of purity over the need of the "common good." The election of Archbishop Tim Dolan to replace Cardinal Francis George of Chicago ( as the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ) is only further reflection of this religious/political view that all federal legislation must be in compliance with their dogmatic viewa position that is opposed by most reasonable people. Look for the bishops to approach immigration legislation through the same prism of pure dogmatism. This means any inclusion of gay families' concerns will not receive the bishops' endorsement. This is why it's so very important for U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., not to wobble on this issue, as he has done in the past.
The basis for the bishops reasoning on gay rights, in general, and same-sex marriage, in particular, is their view of natural law compounded with their weak reasoning. It is similar to the argument used to support slavery. Like same-sex marriage, the Church's support of slavery was based on natural law.
We perceive the recent election of Dolan as a sign that the Catholic bishops still believe that they still manage the unity of the Church through systemic control, rather than through engaging the "Sense of the Faithful." This will only set the stage for further challenge to the basic unity of the Church, and I fear this style of leadership will only continue the steady decline of the Church in the United States.
In my opinion, the response of most people to the recent Baltimore meeting of Catholic bishops was a collective yawn.
Joe Murray
Executive Director
Rainbow Sash Movement