Mar 23, 2007  |  By: KEVIN NAFF  | COMMENTS     

THE GAY BLOGOSPHERE has received much attention in recent weeks following a barrage of criticism that the Human Rights Campaign is ineffective, its executives overpaid and that it is beholden to the Democratic Party.

To drive home just how frivolous HRC has become, blogger Andrew Sullivan and others posted images of some of the merchandise the gay group sells to promote itself, including pink stuffed animals.

Sullivan and Co. conveniently ignore the fact that all non-profits sell such silly items. You can buy an “NRA infant bib,” a Second Amendment wall clock or lovely logo earrings from the National Rifle Association, for example. Selling branded merchandise is not diverting HRC resources from loftier pursuits.

What is noteworthy about all the recent fuss is that HRC is taking it from all sides — Sullivan on the right (though he cannot be fairly described as a partisan Republican) and Michael Petrelis and Pam Spaulding on the left. Some of their criticisms are valid, while others seem shrill and gratuitous, like the attacks on HRC’s cuddly stuffed animals. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle.

Among the concerns raised: HRC inflates its membership numbers; its executives are overpaid; it is ineffective because it has failed to pass federal gay rights legislation; it is inefficiently operated, wasting money on overhead; it paid too much for its headquarters building in D.C.; and it is intolerant of its critics.

To be sure, some of these are legitimate concerns. HRC exposed itself to charges that it is intolerant of its critics when it responded to former Blade editor Chris Crain’s criticisms with a harsh letter to the editor published in the San Francisco Bay Times, arguing that “[g]iving Chris Crain a platform to spout his misguided rhetoric sets back the work of the entire movement.” The response was personal and over-the-top.

Further, HRC’s claims of 650,000 members are exaggerated and misleading. But the Blade reported that story two years ago, so the recent outcry about it sounds like either piling on or that some of these bloggers are late to the party.

As the Blade reported in May 2005, “In 1990, there were only 20,000 members; five years later there were 100,000. By 2000, 20 years after being founded, HRC had 360,000 members. By 2003, the year [Elizabeth] Birch left, there were 500,000. Today, under new director Joe Solmonese, HRC claims 650,000 members.”

An HRC spokesperson at the time said that membership numbers include the name of every person who has ever once given at least the minimum amount of $1 and provided an address, meaning that someone who donated a dollar or made a purchase from the HRC store is considered an HRC member, even in death unless HRC learns of the person’s demise.

HRC should answer the questions raised about its actual membership and resolve this distraction once and for all.

AS FOR THE compensation of its executive staff, a 2004 Blade salary survey revealed that HRC’s executive director was not the highest paid gay rights leader. That distinction went to Joan Garry, then head of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, who was paid $198,730, representing a whopping 5.2 percent of the group’s annual revenue.

By comparison, HRC’s Birch was paid $193,513 that year, about 0.98 percent of revenue.

Among other charitable foundations, HRC’s executive compensation doesn’t seem out of whack. According to Charity Navigator, the Sierra Club’s executive is paid more than $163,000; the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation makes $180,000; the latest number for GLAAD has executive compensation exceeding $250,000; the head of New York City’s gay community center is paid nearly $180,000. The number for Solmonese is $226,678.

The more disturbing revelation related to executive compensation at HRC concerns the severance money that HRC’s former executive director, Cheryl Jacques, was paid last year. Jacques resigned abruptly after the 2004 elections in which 11 states approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. 

The notion of paying her $160,000 to go away is galling, but perhaps that’s cheaper than letting her stay on to inflict more damage.

ON THE QUESTION of purchasing a headquarters building, however, the blogger criticism is misguided. HRC bought its building for the same reason homeowners stop renting: It’s a waste of money to rent. Did HRC need to spend $26 million on a building? Probably not, but the way Washington real estate appreciates these days, it’s doubtful that the investment will prove unwise.

More important than questions about plush toys and office suites is the state of ...