Why I Can't Support Summer Stephen for DA
(and Why We Need Genevieve Jones-Wright)
Timothy Holmberg·Saturday, June 2, 2018
I first met Summer Stephen one early morning as I schlepped into my 7am Rotary meeting. I had decided months ago to join Rotary for the good works at the core of their mission. They also specifically swore off political affiliations or allowing themselves to by used as a platform for the politically aspiring. We had office holders speak to our group in the past, and all had heeded our organization's prohibition on politicking at our meetings. I expected the same of Stephen.
I was wrong. If I had a pen at my disposal to make tick marks, I could tell you how many times we were made aware of Stephen's impending DA candidacy.
She had come to us ostensibly to discuss the tragic growth of human trafficking (a tragedy to be sure) and how it had played out in our community. For the uninitiated, speakers are usually asked to tie their presentation to some action(s) that our group can undertake to make a difference. What I can tell you, is that at the conclusion of her presentation, it was clear that Stephen had no real guidance for how we might become involved other than a hot-line number that we could call if we saw a human being trafficked. It was also abundantly clear that her presentation had little to do with organizing community response to human trafficking, and everything to do with pimping the issue to gain office (pun intended).
At this point, I was still unaware of the other candidate, Genevieve Jones-Wright, but was clear that I did not want someone who, even having been made aware of our need to stay away from campaigning, would abuse our forum to lay the groundwork for her DA bid. The more research I did, the more I found in Stephen, a candidate willing to look past rules and ethics, to attain her goals. Her prosecution of the very attorney (who just happened to be) representing a man who was being prosecuted by Stephen in a marijuana dispensary case transformed me from being unwilling to support her, to someone who actively wanted to work against her candidacy. For those not steeped in legal norms, this act was astounding in what it says about Stephen’s willingness to not only aggressively prosecute, but to zealously throw ethics and even the law to the wind in her crusade for whatever she conceived of as justice.
As I watched Stephen's candidacy unfold, and did my own research, what has emerged is a person who sees the world through highly polarized glasses. Unquestionable victims, and unrepentant, unmitigated perpetrators. Those worth of empathy and compassion, and those worthy of a vengeful and authoritarian version of justice. At a debate, this “us versus them” conception of the law came into stark view. Stephen posed the question of why a public defender (Jones-Wright) would or could ever want to lead a DA's office. To Stephen, justice it would seem is achieved and the public protected, only through prosecution. Casting aside the racial dog whistle that is just below the surface of that question, Stephen seemed to genuinely be ignorant of the notion that justice could come from a public defender that saw the limitations of an incarceration society.
Again also, was the willingness to cast aside ethics, and disregard the community whom she will serve. Her campaign and supporters, virtually all of whom were from outside of the community the event was being held in, swarmed the debate taking up seats that rightfully belonged to Chula Vista residents. Residents who were left outside trying to overhear the debate. Stephen herself has observed her discomfort at public debates and one could only be left with the impression that her need for debate training wheels outweighed the community's need to have access to the debate.
But what of Genevieve Jones-Wright? Is she some dangerous (racial code), inexperienced glam star who just wants attention and a title as Stephen’s campaign has characterized her? I had the chance to sit for dinner with Jones-Wright, and she was none of those things. Jones-Wright has precisely what is missing from our current DA's office. Namely an understanding that justice is the end goal, and does not always take the form of incarceration or prosecution. She intimately understands the relationship between the DA's office and the police departments they work with. She understands that we cannot incarcerate our way out of homelessness, drug addiction, or the marijuana issue. More than that, she recognizes when the attempt to do that will wreak more destruction than the supposed crimes being prosecuted. She understands how uneven application of the law has done immense damage to minority communities who have been the target of disproportionate attention. If we acknowledge systemic racial injustice, then we have to also acknowledge those who have, by their actions, contributed to its perpetuation, and that clearly fits Stephen's expression of the office as Interim DA. Jones-Wright has extensive experience working both inside, and outside of the traditional legal system to seek genuine justice, and to assure that justice is serving the community's needs rather than the other way around.
It also bears noting the Summer Stephen comes from a DA's office under Bonnie Dumanis, tainted by politics and an air of corruption. Under Dumanis, politicians responsible for the near bankruptcy of San Diego have walked away from the mess. Worse yet, Dumanis herself is implicated in one of the most prominent campaign finance scandals to rock San Diego in decades. A scandal that Stephen refused to investigate. Pay back? Her failure to recuse herself speaks volumes about how a Summer Stephen DA’s office would serve, or fail to serve the community. A community who's trust in our political system is at an historic low. Change involves risk, we all know that. But the status quo involves risk too. It allows problems that plague or criminal justice system to go unanswered and fester to the point of an epidemic.
This is the legacy of Dumanis. A legacy that could reach a tragic fruition under Summer Stephen should we empower her to carry her selective crusade to its obvious end. Stephen would cement the erosion of the public's trust while using the law as a bludgeon that will disproportionately fall on the heads of minorities and the poor as it has now for decades. Today, in this time, a public defender is precisely the eye needed in the DA's office.
Timothy P. Holmberg is a former staff reporter for the Gay & Lesbian Times and has been published in Uptown News Magazine, the San Diego Union Tribune, and the New York Times (opinion). The June 5th primary election will decide who is San Diego’s DA.
I first met Summer Stephen one early morning as I schlepped into my 7am Rotary meeting. I had decided months ago to join Rotary for the good works at the core of their mission. They also specifically swore off political affiliations or allowing themselves to by used as a platform for the politically aspiring. We had office holders speak to our group in the past, and all had heeded our organization's prohibition on politicking at our meetings. I expected the same of Stephen.
I was wrong. If I had a pen at my disposal to make tick marks, I could tell you how many times we were made aware of Stephen's impending DA candidacy.
She had come to us ostensibly to discuss the tragic growth of human trafficking (a tragedy to be sure) and how it had played out in our community. For the uninitiated, speakers are usually asked to tie their presentation to some action(s) that our group can undertake to make a difference. What I can tell you, is that at the conclusion of her presentation, it was clear that Stephen had no real guidance for how we might become involved other than a hot-line number that we could call if we saw a human being trafficked. It was also abundantly clear that her presentation had little to do with organizing community response to human trafficking, and everything to do with pimping the issue to gain office (pun intended).
At this point, I was still unaware of the other candidate, Genevieve Jones-Wright, but was clear that I did not want someone who, even having been made aware of our need to stay away from campaigning, would abuse our forum to lay the groundwork for her DA bid. The more research I did, the more I found in Stephen, a candidate willing to look past rules and ethics, to attain her goals. Her prosecution of the very attorney (who just happened to be) representing a man who was being prosecuted by Stephen in a marijuana dispensary case transformed me from being unwilling to support her, to someone who actively wanted to work against her candidacy. For those not steeped in legal norms, this act was astounding in what it says about Stephen’s willingness to not only aggressively prosecute, but to zealously throw ethics and even the law to the wind in her crusade for whatever she conceived of as justice.
As I watched Stephen's candidacy unfold, and did my own research, what has emerged is a person who sees the world through highly polarized glasses. Unquestionable victims, and unrepentant, unmitigated perpetrators. Those worth of empathy and compassion, and those worthy of a vengeful and authoritarian version of justice. At a debate, this “us versus them” conception of the law came into stark view. Stephen posed the question of why a public defender (Jones-Wright) would or could ever want to lead a DA's office. To Stephen, justice it would seem is achieved and the public protected, only through prosecution. Casting aside the racial dog whistle that is just below the surface of that question, Stephen seemed to genuinely be ignorant of the notion that justice could come from a public defender that saw the limitations of an incarceration society.
Again also, was the willingness to cast aside ethics, and disregard the community whom she will serve. Her campaign and supporters, virtually all of whom were from outside of the community the event was being held in, swarmed the debate taking up seats that rightfully belonged to Chula Vista residents. Residents who were left outside trying to overhear the debate. Stephen herself has observed her discomfort at public debates and one could only be left with the impression that her need for debate training wheels outweighed the community's need to have access to the debate.
But what of Genevieve Jones-Wright? Is she some dangerous (racial code), inexperienced glam star who just wants attention and a title as Stephen’s campaign has characterized her? I had the chance to sit for dinner with Jones-Wright, and she was none of those things. Jones-Wright has precisely what is missing from our current DA's office. Namely an understanding that justice is the end goal, and does not always take the form of incarceration or prosecution. She intimately understands the relationship between the DA's office and the police departments they work with. She understands that we cannot incarcerate our way out of homelessness, drug addiction, or the marijuana issue. More than that, she recognizes when the attempt to do that will wreak more destruction than the supposed crimes being prosecuted. She understands how uneven application of the law has done immense damage to minority communities who have been the target of disproportionate attention. If we acknowledge systemic racial injustice, then we have to also acknowledge those who have, by their actions, contributed to its perpetuation, and that clearly fits Stephen's expression of the office as Interim DA. Jones-Wright has extensive experience working both inside, and outside of the traditional legal system to seek genuine justice, and to assure that justice is serving the community's needs rather than the other way around.
It also bears noting the Summer Stephen comes from a DA's office under Bonnie Dumanis, tainted by politics and an air of corruption. Under Dumanis, politicians responsible for the near bankruptcy of San Diego have walked away from the mess. Worse yet, Dumanis herself is implicated in one of the most prominent campaign finance scandals to rock San Diego in decades. A scandal that Stephen refused to investigate. Pay back? Her failure to recuse herself speaks volumes about how a Summer Stephen DA’s office would serve, or fail to serve the community. A community who's trust in our political system is at an historic low. Change involves risk, we all know that. But the status quo involves risk too. It allows problems that plague or criminal justice system to go unanswered and fester to the point of an epidemic.
This is the legacy of Dumanis. A legacy that could reach a tragic fruition under Summer Stephen should we empower her to carry her selective crusade to its obvious end. Stephen would cement the erosion of the public's trust while using the law as a bludgeon that will disproportionately fall on the heads of minorities and the poor as it has now for decades. Today, in this time, a public defender is precisely the eye needed in the DA's office.
Timothy P. Holmberg is a former staff reporter for the Gay & Lesbian Times and has been published in Uptown News Magazine, the San Diego Union Tribune, and the New York Times (opinion). The June 5th primary election will decide who is San Diego’s DA.
Former ED Paints Stark Picture of HBIA:
Sonya Stauffer Speaks Out in Exclusive Interview
By: Timothy P. Holmberg
June 28, 2014
Unilateral decision making, no bid contracts, attempts to rewrite bylaws to exclude members, volatile outbursts from Board President Johnathan Hale - all of this and more are what Former Hillcrest Business Improvement Association Executive Director Sonya Stauffer described in a recent interview. Stauffer, who was abruptly terminated by Hale, paints a grim picture of the organization deeply troubled, that has veered far afield of its mission. Worse yet, Stauffer contends that as board president, Hale has assumed almost total control of the organization, often making decisions without consulting the board, and prone to explosive outbursts. The sometimes shocking account of Stauffer raises many questions about the organization, and it's finances. Worse yet, it shows a pattern of lax oversight, and ethically questionable conduct that has prompted more than one call for the city to step in and perform an audit of the HBIA's finances and contracting procedures. Here are the highlights of our recent interview with Stauffer . . .
LOTW: When did you come onboard with the HBIA?
Stauffer: it was at the beginning of October last year.
LOTW: I understand that you were not provided with very much in the way of training when you started?
Stauffer: If you can call it that. It was at Babycakes [restaurant] and [outgoing Executive Director Ben Nicholls] just sat there and told me what he did for a couple of hours.
LOTW: Prior to this had you been executive director at other organizations or had other similar experience?
Stauffer: My background is that I owned a real estate brokerage for fifteen years, a COO in banking and an assistant economic development director.
LOTW: When you arrived at the HBIA, what was the state of things when you took over?
Stauffer: Very unorganized as far as office, computer files, hard files and direction. The staff seemed to be unsure as to their job descriptions.
LOTW: When did you first become aware of any Brown Act issues?
Stauffer: It was about when Mat Wahlstrom [of Robert's Electric] started emailing myself and others on Brown Act issues. That would be probably about two months ago. We were also then notified by Meredeth Dibden-Brown with the city's Economic Development Department that we needed to move our committee meetings to an ADA compliant building.
LOTW: During the time that you were with the HBIA, did you witness any irregularities that raised your concerns?
Stauffer: I would say the thing that concerned me most was that nobody really seamed to have an understanding of how to read the financials. I asked a few times to see if we could schedule classes on how to read financials for staff and board members, but that has not happened.
LOTW: Overall how has your working relationship been with Johnathan Hale?
Stauffer: I would say working relationship with Johnathan was always very much on edge. In the sense that he would always give me directives, but he would never really listen to anything I had to say.
LOTW: You've raised the issue that you think this was wrongful termination is that correct?
Stauffer: I don't know if I would call it wrongful, but I would certainly say it was improper from a procedural standpoint.
LOTW: Are you looking at legal recourse at this point?
Stauffer: Yes, yes I am. I'm consulting with an attorney now. I have gotten no response from the HBIA. I have reached out several times and requested a formal hearing, and have so far I have gotten no response.
LOTW: Although Johnathan said that you were terminated, did you receive any formal notice that you were terminated?
Stauffer: No, they just sent me my last pay check stub on June 13th with my vacation hours. That's all the formal notification I have received.
LOTW: So there was no advanced notice, he just terminated you on the spot?
Stauffer: Actually I had fifteen minutes advanced notice over the phone. He said he was on his way to the office to terminate me. I asked him to stop yelling at me. He came in, unplugged my computer and took my office keys.
LOTW; Is it possible that even though he verbally terminated you, that perhaps they have not properly terminated you?
Stauffer: That's correct, as far as I know the board has made no decision, nothing has been noticed on any agenda. The last meeting they held had a closed session, but it was not properly noticed, so they could not take any action. They have not, to my knowledge, held any meeting yet on this. I have asked them to hold an emergency meeting, but so far they have not.
LOTW: How would you describe the working environment in the office?
Stauffer: Our office was great. Just the office staff and myself was great. We had worked hard to turn the corner, to get out and see the business owners who really had seen little if anything from anyone at the HBIA. But the staff was working at capacity, and I tried to address that on multiple occasions with Johnathan Hale, but he refused to take responsibility.
LOTW: During the time that you were there, the HBIA had several community events, how much of an impact would you say those had on day to day operations?
Stauffer: This was a big discussion of mine, and I raised it several times with Johnathan. The use of staff's time was probably at 90% in support of the events. That was a very big issue for me because so little time is spent for actually what we are there for which is for the businesses.
LOTW: During the time you were there, would you say there were times where Johnathan would take action without consulting the board?
Stauffer: Yes, all the time. There are supposed to be committees set up, there's supposed to be a special events committee set up and specifically a Cityfest committee because it is so huge. I talked to him again in May about getting these committees set up and his answer to me was "you're not going to get it".
Since this interview was recorded, LOTW has also learned that Hale himself was behind efforts to exclude certain members from the HBIA, or from running for the HBIA board. According to sources, those efforts continued even after being instructed by the City's Economic Development Department to admit the members in question. Furthermore, it has been learned that Interim Executive Director Ben Nicholls left the HBIA to take a position with MacFarlane Promotions. Following Nicholls being retained by MacFarlane, the company received several contracts from the HBIA including some that were awarded without a competitive bid process. Among events awarded to MacFarlane was the Hillcrest Mardi Gras, which the HBIA had originally backed away from producing, but then suddenly reversed course late last year. That event became the subject of a bitter dispute between Hale and LGBT Weekly publisher Stampp Corbin who also serves as president of the GSDBA Charitable
Foundation. The dispute was eventually the subject of a mediation agreement forged by none other than City Council President Todd Gloria. During the dispute, Corbin repeatedly called for release of attendance information for Mardi Gras, but was rebuffed by Hale. The HBIA has yet to release the figures for the event, but sources say that the event netted a paltry $4,000 for scholarships for LGBT students. That total includes $2,000 in event production fees to MacFarlane that the company has waived. Nicholls departed MacFarlane over "professional differences" and has resumed his post as executive Director for the HBIA since Stauffer's termination.
Sonya Stauffer Speaks Out in Exclusive Interview
By: Timothy P. Holmberg
June 28, 2014
Unilateral decision making, no bid contracts, attempts to rewrite bylaws to exclude members, volatile outbursts from Board President Johnathan Hale - all of this and more are what Former Hillcrest Business Improvement Association Executive Director Sonya Stauffer described in a recent interview. Stauffer, who was abruptly terminated by Hale, paints a grim picture of the organization deeply troubled, that has veered far afield of its mission. Worse yet, Stauffer contends that as board president, Hale has assumed almost total control of the organization, often making decisions without consulting the board, and prone to explosive outbursts. The sometimes shocking account of Stauffer raises many questions about the organization, and it's finances. Worse yet, it shows a pattern of lax oversight, and ethically questionable conduct that has prompted more than one call for the city to step in and perform an audit of the HBIA's finances and contracting procedures. Here are the highlights of our recent interview with Stauffer . . .
LOTW: When did you come onboard with the HBIA?
Stauffer: it was at the beginning of October last year.
LOTW: I understand that you were not provided with very much in the way of training when you started?
Stauffer: If you can call it that. It was at Babycakes [restaurant] and [outgoing Executive Director Ben Nicholls] just sat there and told me what he did for a couple of hours.
LOTW: Prior to this had you been executive director at other organizations or had other similar experience?
Stauffer: My background is that I owned a real estate brokerage for fifteen years, a COO in banking and an assistant economic development director.
LOTW: When you arrived at the HBIA, what was the state of things when you took over?
Stauffer: Very unorganized as far as office, computer files, hard files and direction. The staff seemed to be unsure as to their job descriptions.
LOTW: When did you first become aware of any Brown Act issues?
Stauffer: It was about when Mat Wahlstrom [of Robert's Electric] started emailing myself and others on Brown Act issues. That would be probably about two months ago. We were also then notified by Meredeth Dibden-Brown with the city's Economic Development Department that we needed to move our committee meetings to an ADA compliant building.
LOTW: During the time that you were with the HBIA, did you witness any irregularities that raised your concerns?
Stauffer: I would say the thing that concerned me most was that nobody really seamed to have an understanding of how to read the financials. I asked a few times to see if we could schedule classes on how to read financials for staff and board members, but that has not happened.
LOTW: Overall how has your working relationship been with Johnathan Hale?
Stauffer: I would say working relationship with Johnathan was always very much on edge. In the sense that he would always give me directives, but he would never really listen to anything I had to say.
LOTW: You've raised the issue that you think this was wrongful termination is that correct?
Stauffer: I don't know if I would call it wrongful, but I would certainly say it was improper from a procedural standpoint.
LOTW: Are you looking at legal recourse at this point?
Stauffer: Yes, yes I am. I'm consulting with an attorney now. I have gotten no response from the HBIA. I have reached out several times and requested a formal hearing, and have so far I have gotten no response.
LOTW: Although Johnathan said that you were terminated, did you receive any formal notice that you were terminated?
Stauffer: No, they just sent me my last pay check stub on June 13th with my vacation hours. That's all the formal notification I have received.
LOTW: So there was no advanced notice, he just terminated you on the spot?
Stauffer: Actually I had fifteen minutes advanced notice over the phone. He said he was on his way to the office to terminate me. I asked him to stop yelling at me. He came in, unplugged my computer and took my office keys.
LOTW; Is it possible that even though he verbally terminated you, that perhaps they have not properly terminated you?
Stauffer: That's correct, as far as I know the board has made no decision, nothing has been noticed on any agenda. The last meeting they held had a closed session, but it was not properly noticed, so they could not take any action. They have not, to my knowledge, held any meeting yet on this. I have asked them to hold an emergency meeting, but so far they have not.
LOTW: How would you describe the working environment in the office?
Stauffer: Our office was great. Just the office staff and myself was great. We had worked hard to turn the corner, to get out and see the business owners who really had seen little if anything from anyone at the HBIA. But the staff was working at capacity, and I tried to address that on multiple occasions with Johnathan Hale, but he refused to take responsibility.
LOTW: During the time that you were there, the HBIA had several community events, how much of an impact would you say those had on day to day operations?
Stauffer: This was a big discussion of mine, and I raised it several times with Johnathan. The use of staff's time was probably at 90% in support of the events. That was a very big issue for me because so little time is spent for actually what we are there for which is for the businesses.
LOTW: During the time you were there, would you say there were times where Johnathan would take action without consulting the board?
Stauffer: Yes, all the time. There are supposed to be committees set up, there's supposed to be a special events committee set up and specifically a Cityfest committee because it is so huge. I talked to him again in May about getting these committees set up and his answer to me was "you're not going to get it".
Since this interview was recorded, LOTW has also learned that Hale himself was behind efforts to exclude certain members from the HBIA, or from running for the HBIA board. According to sources, those efforts continued even after being instructed by the City's Economic Development Department to admit the members in question. Furthermore, it has been learned that Interim Executive Director Ben Nicholls left the HBIA to take a position with MacFarlane Promotions. Following Nicholls being retained by MacFarlane, the company received several contracts from the HBIA including some that were awarded without a competitive bid process. Among events awarded to MacFarlane was the Hillcrest Mardi Gras, which the HBIA had originally backed away from producing, but then suddenly reversed course late last year. That event became the subject of a bitter dispute between Hale and LGBT Weekly publisher Stampp Corbin who also serves as president of the GSDBA Charitable
Foundation. The dispute was eventually the subject of a mediation agreement forged by none other than City Council President Todd Gloria. During the dispute, Corbin repeatedly called for release of attendance information for Mardi Gras, but was rebuffed by Hale. The HBIA has yet to release the figures for the event, but sources say that the event netted a paltry $4,000 for scholarships for LGBT students. That total includes $2,000 in event production fees to MacFarlane that the company has waived. Nicholls departed MacFarlane over "professional differences" and has resumed his post as executive Director for the HBIA since Stauffer's termination.
Johnathan Hale Called on to Resign from Business Association: Request For City to Audit Assoc. Issued
By: Timothy P. Holmberg
6-19-2014
Hillcrest, San Diego – Local gay business owner and GLBT community lighting rod Johnathan Hale was the subject of an attempt to ouster him as President of the Hillcrest Business Improvement Association (HBIA). The longtime partner of Congressional hopeful Carl DeMaio has been targeted by community activists John Thurston and David Lundin, who raised charges against Hale of willful ignorance of open meeting laws and fiduciary responsibilities. According to statements released by Thurston, Hale “willfully and intentionally moved all HBIA committee meetings from the HBIA offices to his Hale Media offices. This was done without neither advice nor consent of the Board and is not in any published minutes of the HBIA. Subsequently 25 illegal meetings were scheduled and or conducted at Hale media in direct violation of your own bylaws, the CA Unruh Civil Rights Act, the CA Disabled Persons act, the Brown act, and the Americans With Disabilities Act Title III.” Each of the meetings that were non-compliant, according to Thurston, would expose the HBIA to a $5,000 fine should someone chose to take legal action. Thurston went on to call for Hale’s removal, “For this abrogation of Mr. Hale's fiduciary responsibilities as president of this board, and for this reason alone, I urge you to seek Mr. Hale's immediate removal as President from this Board.” Hale declined to respond to our request for comment.
Following Thurston’s call, community activist and retired attorney David Lundin also issued a public call at the board meeting for Hale to step down. “You ask the President of a non-profit business association to do two things: know the law as it may apply to the Association, and comply with that law. Hale did neither. He has created a legal liability exposure of a quarter million dollars or much more for the HBIA. He did so for his personal convenience and ego with no regard to the best interests of HBIA. He breached his fiduciary duty to the HBIA, to the Hillcrest Community, and to all visually impaired, mobility impaired and disabled. He should resign or be removed.” Lundin is most noted for his efforts in revealing the financial misdeeds of Balboa Park Celebration Inc. (BCPI), which lost over $2.5 million in city funds. Coming on the heels of the allegations against Hale, it has been revealed that Lundin has filed a Public Records Act request seeking documents related to HBIA’s finances and Hale’s role in managing several of the HBIA’s fundraising events, most notably Hillcrest Mardi Gras. Separately, Lundin has also requested a formal audit of HBIA finances to be conducted by the city. The audit request is based on allegations of malfeasance from anonymous sources within the HBIA. Lundin is withholding the name of his sources within the HBIA out of their concern for potential retaliation.
All of this action follows the termination of HBIA Executive Director Sonia Stauffer, who was abruptly fired a week ago. Filling in as Interim Executive Director, Benjamin Nicholls, seemed to place much of the blame for HBIA’s current issues squarely on Stauffer. “We have a volunteer board (drawn form) restaurant owners and other business types that don’t deal with Brown Act issues on a daily basis. It is all the more important in this situation that staff give good counsel to board members. It would have fallen to the (previous) ED to notify the board of those issues.” Some have called into question the timing of Stauffer’s firing as it coincided with Nicholls being let go from MacFarlane Promotions, a prominent event and promotions firm here in San Diego. Nicholls left his position as the HBIA's Executive Director to take the position at MacFarlane. The suggestion is that Nicholls wanted his old job and substantial pay package back.
The HBIA is most noted for its signature annual event “CityFest” which draws tens of thousands of visitors into the heart of Hillcrest. The event was established to raise funds for the maintenance of the historic “Hillcrest” sign that straddles University Avenue. The event has raised subsantial cash for the HBIA, but in recent years, proceeds from the event have all but dried up. This trend, however, has occurred while attendance and participation at the event has been breaking records, causing many to question where the money is going. In fact almost all the several events that the HBIA puts on are either in the red or generating scant returns. It is perhaps in response to those questions that Lundin revealed yesterday that he has submitted a Public Records Act Request for all HBIA financial records to Council President Todd Gloria. Gloria’s office indicated that they are working on the records request, but had no comment as of press time to Lundin’s call for a city Audit of the HBIA.
By: Timothy P. Holmberg
6-19-2014
Hillcrest, San Diego – Local gay business owner and GLBT community lighting rod Johnathan Hale was the subject of an attempt to ouster him as President of the Hillcrest Business Improvement Association (HBIA). The longtime partner of Congressional hopeful Carl DeMaio has been targeted by community activists John Thurston and David Lundin, who raised charges against Hale of willful ignorance of open meeting laws and fiduciary responsibilities. According to statements released by Thurston, Hale “willfully and intentionally moved all HBIA committee meetings from the HBIA offices to his Hale Media offices. This was done without neither advice nor consent of the Board and is not in any published minutes of the HBIA. Subsequently 25 illegal meetings were scheduled and or conducted at Hale media in direct violation of your own bylaws, the CA Unruh Civil Rights Act, the CA Disabled Persons act, the Brown act, and the Americans With Disabilities Act Title III.” Each of the meetings that were non-compliant, according to Thurston, would expose the HBIA to a $5,000 fine should someone chose to take legal action. Thurston went on to call for Hale’s removal, “For this abrogation of Mr. Hale's fiduciary responsibilities as president of this board, and for this reason alone, I urge you to seek Mr. Hale's immediate removal as President from this Board.” Hale declined to respond to our request for comment.
Following Thurston’s call, community activist and retired attorney David Lundin also issued a public call at the board meeting for Hale to step down. “You ask the President of a non-profit business association to do two things: know the law as it may apply to the Association, and comply with that law. Hale did neither. He has created a legal liability exposure of a quarter million dollars or much more for the HBIA. He did so for his personal convenience and ego with no regard to the best interests of HBIA. He breached his fiduciary duty to the HBIA, to the Hillcrest Community, and to all visually impaired, mobility impaired and disabled. He should resign or be removed.” Lundin is most noted for his efforts in revealing the financial misdeeds of Balboa Park Celebration Inc. (BCPI), which lost over $2.5 million in city funds. Coming on the heels of the allegations against Hale, it has been revealed that Lundin has filed a Public Records Act request seeking documents related to HBIA’s finances and Hale’s role in managing several of the HBIA’s fundraising events, most notably Hillcrest Mardi Gras. Separately, Lundin has also requested a formal audit of HBIA finances to be conducted by the city. The audit request is based on allegations of malfeasance from anonymous sources within the HBIA. Lundin is withholding the name of his sources within the HBIA out of their concern for potential retaliation.
All of this action follows the termination of HBIA Executive Director Sonia Stauffer, who was abruptly fired a week ago. Filling in as Interim Executive Director, Benjamin Nicholls, seemed to place much of the blame for HBIA’s current issues squarely on Stauffer. “We have a volunteer board (drawn form) restaurant owners and other business types that don’t deal with Brown Act issues on a daily basis. It is all the more important in this situation that staff give good counsel to board members. It would have fallen to the (previous) ED to notify the board of those issues.” Some have called into question the timing of Stauffer’s firing as it coincided with Nicholls being let go from MacFarlane Promotions, a prominent event and promotions firm here in San Diego. Nicholls left his position as the HBIA's Executive Director to take the position at MacFarlane. The suggestion is that Nicholls wanted his old job and substantial pay package back.
The HBIA is most noted for its signature annual event “CityFest” which draws tens of thousands of visitors into the heart of Hillcrest. The event was established to raise funds for the maintenance of the historic “Hillcrest” sign that straddles University Avenue. The event has raised subsantial cash for the HBIA, but in recent years, proceeds from the event have all but dried up. This trend, however, has occurred while attendance and participation at the event has been breaking records, causing many to question where the money is going. In fact almost all the several events that the HBIA puts on are either in the red or generating scant returns. It is perhaps in response to those questions that Lundin revealed yesterday that he has submitted a Public Records Act Request for all HBIA financial records to Council President Todd Gloria. Gloria’s office indicated that they are working on the records request, but had no comment as of press time to Lundin’s call for a city Audit of the HBIA.
Balboa Park Watchdog Report
Always Vigilant?
By: Timothy P. Holmberg
The seal of the City of San Diego has at the bottom of it a Latin phrase, "Semper Vigilans" (always vigilant). Like many such phrases, it belies the earned reputation of the organization that has adopted it. Nowhere was this more apparent than at Tuesday's city council meeting where a unanimous vote has effectively dissolved the city's disastrous agreement with the now defunct Balboa Park Celebration Inc. (BCPI).
Present at the meeting was civic activist and retired attorney David Lundin, who pled his case before the council to hold off terminating its contract with BCPI until a full audit of the group's finances is completed in mid-June. As the person whose vigilance originally brought to light the financial misdealings of BCPI, one might expect the city council to pay careful attention to Lundin's cautions. Lundin has accumulated a string of legal and political victories that could easily be the envy of City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, whom he has faced off with on more than one occasion.
From the Dias of the council chambers, Lundin went through a point-by-point presentation of the potential flaws in the city's hastily drafted termination agreement, and went on to lambaste it as "one of the most poorly written legal documents I have seen in over thirty years as a practicing attorney."
Among the litany of weaknesses Lundin identified were:
But in the end, the City Council was unmoved by such concerns, and much more of a mind to put the costly and embarrassing fiasco behind them. Having put in nearly $3 million of the public's money, the city is predicted to recover less than $250,000 according to Gerry Braun, BCPI's outgoing director.
The city attorney's office contended that the city's rights were sufficiently protected by the agreement and that it was vital for the city to approve the termination agreement to assure that planning for the park's centennial could resume. Ironically, it was at this very same meeting that the city agreed to shell out $350,000 in attorney's fees to a historic preservation group that brought suit against the city for violating its own historic preservation ordinance. The legal advice that led to that bill came from none other than City Attorney Jan Goldsmith.
Following the vote, I sat down with David Lundin for a brief interview.
Real Politik SD (RPSD): I am assuming that the outcome of today's vote was not unexpected?
David Lundin (DL): No, I had been hoping that David Alvarez would have at least cast a dissenting vote, but the important thing was to get this information to the public and get it on record. Now we have to turn our attention to the audit and ensuring that the city and the public get the answers they deserve.
RPSD: It seemed like one of the big concerns among the council members was that without this termination agreement we would be stalled in terms of moving forward in planning the park's centennial. How real do you think that concern is?
DL: Well, the answer is yes and no on that. It's true that the city signed an exclusive deal with BCPI to plan and execute events for the park's celebration. But there was nothing to prevent the city from reaching an agreement to suspend portions of that [contract] with BCPI pending the outcome of the city's audit.
RPSD: It seems that the city is relying solely on its own audit to investigate what happened at BCPI. Can that be relied upon to discover other wrongdoing and should the public be satisfied with this limited level of scrutiny?
DL: Well, that's just it, an audit is not designed to look beyond financial aspects of BCPI and look for other kinds of wrong doing. While the council did agree under pressure to include provisions for a performance audit, those provisions of the agreement I feel are too vague. It will require real vigilance on the part of the public to assure that these promises are carried out and that they give us the answers we deserve.
RPSD: How concerned are you that the Balboa Park Conservancy will do no better than BCPI?
DL: It's like déjà vu all over again. The Conservancy has essentially the same agreement with the city that BCPI had. The Conservancy is already in non-compliance with its existing agreements with the city, and has been for years now. Since the signing of the agreement, the Conservancy still has yet to offer a single point for public inclusion. In the last three years the Conservancy has documented only $250,000 that they have raised. You heard Council President Gloria rattle off an impressive list of projects that the Conservancy is engaged on. But where is anything to document the money they are supposedly raising for this? The botanical garden building restoration alone is projected to cost $2.5 million, and to date there is no evidence to show they have raised a dime. Had they raised any significant money for that effort - good news like that is rarely kept behind closed doors, so one has to wonder.
Always Vigilant?
By: Timothy P. Holmberg
The seal of the City of San Diego has at the bottom of it a Latin phrase, "Semper Vigilans" (always vigilant). Like many such phrases, it belies the earned reputation of the organization that has adopted it. Nowhere was this more apparent than at Tuesday's city council meeting where a unanimous vote has effectively dissolved the city's disastrous agreement with the now defunct Balboa Park Celebration Inc. (BCPI).
Present at the meeting was civic activist and retired attorney David Lundin, who pled his case before the council to hold off terminating its contract with BCPI until a full audit of the group's finances is completed in mid-June. As the person whose vigilance originally brought to light the financial misdealings of BCPI, one might expect the city council to pay careful attention to Lundin's cautions. Lundin has accumulated a string of legal and political victories that could easily be the envy of City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, whom he has faced off with on more than one occasion.
From the Dias of the council chambers, Lundin went through a point-by-point presentation of the potential flaws in the city's hastily drafted termination agreement, and went on to lambaste it as "one of the most poorly written legal documents I have seen in over thirty years as a practicing attorney."
Among the litany of weaknesses Lundin identified were:
- Termination of the agreement was premature without results of the city's own audit.
- The agreement's language allows BCPI to potentially sidestep handing over some of the most embarrassing documentation. Documents that could be crucial if further litigation is required.
- As written, the agreement has no provisions for binding arbitration, allowing instead for mediation which Lundin contends would give BCPI additional leverage in minimizing their liability.
- The methodology laid out for return of remaining city funds is legally flawed.
But in the end, the City Council was unmoved by such concerns, and much more of a mind to put the costly and embarrassing fiasco behind them. Having put in nearly $3 million of the public's money, the city is predicted to recover less than $250,000 according to Gerry Braun, BCPI's outgoing director.
The city attorney's office contended that the city's rights were sufficiently protected by the agreement and that it was vital for the city to approve the termination agreement to assure that planning for the park's centennial could resume. Ironically, it was at this very same meeting that the city agreed to shell out $350,000 in attorney's fees to a historic preservation group that brought suit against the city for violating its own historic preservation ordinance. The legal advice that led to that bill came from none other than City Attorney Jan Goldsmith.
Following the vote, I sat down with David Lundin for a brief interview.
Real Politik SD (RPSD): I am assuming that the outcome of today's vote was not unexpected?
David Lundin (DL): No, I had been hoping that David Alvarez would have at least cast a dissenting vote, but the important thing was to get this information to the public and get it on record. Now we have to turn our attention to the audit and ensuring that the city and the public get the answers they deserve.
RPSD: It seemed like one of the big concerns among the council members was that without this termination agreement we would be stalled in terms of moving forward in planning the park's centennial. How real do you think that concern is?
DL: Well, the answer is yes and no on that. It's true that the city signed an exclusive deal with BCPI to plan and execute events for the park's celebration. But there was nothing to prevent the city from reaching an agreement to suspend portions of that [contract] with BCPI pending the outcome of the city's audit.
RPSD: It seems that the city is relying solely on its own audit to investigate what happened at BCPI. Can that be relied upon to discover other wrongdoing and should the public be satisfied with this limited level of scrutiny?
DL: Well, that's just it, an audit is not designed to look beyond financial aspects of BCPI and look for other kinds of wrong doing. While the council did agree under pressure to include provisions for a performance audit, those provisions of the agreement I feel are too vague. It will require real vigilance on the part of the public to assure that these promises are carried out and that they give us the answers we deserve.
RPSD: How concerned are you that the Balboa Park Conservancy will do no better than BCPI?
DL: It's like déjà vu all over again. The Conservancy has essentially the same agreement with the city that BCPI had. The Conservancy is already in non-compliance with its existing agreements with the city, and has been for years now. Since the signing of the agreement, the Conservancy still has yet to offer a single point for public inclusion. In the last three years the Conservancy has documented only $250,000 that they have raised. You heard Council President Gloria rattle off an impressive list of projects that the Conservancy is engaged on. But where is anything to document the money they are supposedly raising for this? The botanical garden building restoration alone is projected to cost $2.5 million, and to date there is no evidence to show they have raised a dime. Had they raised any significant money for that effort - good news like that is rarely kept behind closed doors, so one has to wonder.
If you wish to comment on this or any other article, you may email comments to: [email protected]
Please note that our policy is to print letters as-is with the exception of correcting minor spelling errors. We reserve the right to refuse to publish letters that would result in the use of this forum to spread personal attacks or disseminate information that is factually in error. Letters should have a first and last name of the author, and community/city of origin to be considered for publication.
Please note that our policy is to print letters as-is with the exception of correcting minor spelling errors. We reserve the right to refuse to publish letters that would result in the use of this forum to spread personal attacks or disseminate information that is factually in error. Letters should have a first and last name of the author, and community/city of origin to be considered for publication.
Balboa Park Watchdog Report
Peering Through the Windows
By: Timothy P. Holmberg
For open government activists, San Diego's halls of power have always been known to be somewhat of a labyrinth designed to confound them. It has often been said that you can get more information on city policy origins by peering through the windows of a handful of upscale lunch spots around City Hall than at city council meetings themselves. This propensity has been on full display since the stunning news that Balboa Park Celebration Inc. (BCPI), the now defunct group that was contracted by the City of San Diego to plan and organize events for the famous park's centennial celebration, will close its doors. Activists who are trying to glean what went wrong with the organization have been staking out countless meetings since the scandal broke. To date, they have been left with with few answers to show for their efforts and a growing number of questions.
Among the most strident in questioning the city is retired attorney and activist David Lundin. More than anyone, Lundin is credited for bringing to light the shocking revelations of BCPI and it's finances. Lundin successfully petitioned for BCPI's financial documents, and those statements were jaw dropping. A litany of bloated contracts awarded to little known or newly created entities, with no competitive bid process. Many of those who benefitted from BCPI's largess are among the inner circle of the corporate and political power elite in San Diego. In the end, the city will likely lose most of the $2.5 million it poured into BCPI's bank account. Key among the concerns Lundin has raised with BCPI was its near complete lack of accountability and transparency.
Fresh Faces?
Soon after it was announced that BCPI would close its doors, City Council President Todd Gloria and Mayor Kevin Faulconer hurriedly announced that the Balboa Park Conservancy would take over the park's Centennial celebration under the direct oversight of the Mayor. Lundin and other open government activists were riled by the selection of the Conservancy, an organization that presents a nearly identical set of troubling circumstances and cast of characters as BCPI.
On May 1st, the Conservancy had another in a string of chances to demonstrate they were committed to following a different more open path than BCPI, and once again, the opportunity was missed when a meeting of the Balboa Park Committee was abruptly cancelled. Following the cancellation, Lundin was visibly annoyed at what he is increasingly finding to be a similar pattern of obfuscation by the Conservancy.
Why is there so much concern over a mere city park celebration?
As BCPI's financial statements attest, the Balboa Park Centennial Celebration involves big bucks and a host of lucrative contracts. The group that wields power over those contracts could potentially become a powerful political tool.
With the backdrop of what increasingly appears to be gross malfeasance by BCPI and a host of overly cosy relationships, Lundin is attracting some powerful allies in his quest to regain the public's access to the planning process. One of the more prominent voices to speak out in support of Lundin's efforts is noted open government activist and former city council member Donna Frye, "I have great respect for Mr. Lundin and am thankful for his advocacy on behalf of the public and their right to know how their money is being spent." Frye went on to say, "The Balboa Park Conservancy should be open to public requests for information and should provide a way for the public to participate in a meaningful way. I suspect part of the failure of BCPI was a result of their lack of trust in the public and their ideas about the 2015 celebration."
Private Dealings with the Public's Money
The Conservancy's resistance to public scrutiny also serves to underscore broader the concerns of open government activists like Lundin and Frye. A recent string of actions by both Mayor Faulconer and Council President Gloria have sought to roll back government transparency and threatened the hard fought gains championed by former council member Frye. Her now famous battle to reign in closed door city council sessions resulted in significant improvements in policies that protected the public's right to know. Since her crusade, San Diego's power brokers have increasingly sought to move decision making away from public view by allocating decision making to a web of quasi private NGO's, like the Conservancy, who are contracted by the city to accomplish ever more significant tasks. "[I think BCPI] shows the weaknesses that exists when the public is shut out of the process," Frye stated, "However, the city can remedy this by putting language in the contracts to require more public participation and oversight."
BCPI is one in a long succession of groups that operate largely outside the public domain with considerable access to public resources. Most notable among these groups is the San Diego Tourism Marketing District which commands 2% of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues granted it by the city. The roughly $30 million in tax revenue the organization collects annually is spent by a private board (much like BCPI and the Conservancy), that operates with little if any accountability to the public whose taxing authority funds them.
Mayor's Muddled Ethics?
With San Diego's strong mayor form of government, Mayor Faulconer's recent move to consolidate planning and coordination of the centennial celebration under the tight control of his office is seen by some as a further attempt to avoid the public's gaze while giving the impression of public oversight. Some contend that Faulconer's move will, in reality, only further remove the event's planning from the public eye. Mayor Faulconer's direct role in overseeing the Conservancy and it's planning of the centennial celebration is seen by Lundin and others as being overly close.
So close is that relationship, that at a recent city council committee meeting, a representative with the Mayor's office found herself in the embarrassing position of having been identified by the Conservancy as the designated representative to speak on their behalf. Such an arrangement would be improper if not illegal. Faulconer has for years straddled muddled ethical boundaries due to his wife, Katherine, and her business dealings with the city. Over the years, Katherine has parlayed her connections with her husband and various interest groups in San Diego into a lucrative event planning business that nets the couple over $175,000 in income annually. With control over the Balboa Park Centennial Celebration now firmly resting in the Mayor's hands, it is easy to see why so many eyebrows have been raised. As the go-to person for event permits in San Diego, Katherine Faulconer is in a prime position to see her business interests greatly advanced by her husbands new role.
Peering Through the Windows
By: Timothy P. Holmberg
For open government activists, San Diego's halls of power have always been known to be somewhat of a labyrinth designed to confound them. It has often been said that you can get more information on city policy origins by peering through the windows of a handful of upscale lunch spots around City Hall than at city council meetings themselves. This propensity has been on full display since the stunning news that Balboa Park Celebration Inc. (BCPI), the now defunct group that was contracted by the City of San Diego to plan and organize events for the famous park's centennial celebration, will close its doors. Activists who are trying to glean what went wrong with the organization have been staking out countless meetings since the scandal broke. To date, they have been left with with few answers to show for their efforts and a growing number of questions.
Among the most strident in questioning the city is retired attorney and activist David Lundin. More than anyone, Lundin is credited for bringing to light the shocking revelations of BCPI and it's finances. Lundin successfully petitioned for BCPI's financial documents, and those statements were jaw dropping. A litany of bloated contracts awarded to little known or newly created entities, with no competitive bid process. Many of those who benefitted from BCPI's largess are among the inner circle of the corporate and political power elite in San Diego. In the end, the city will likely lose most of the $2.5 million it poured into BCPI's bank account. Key among the concerns Lundin has raised with BCPI was its near complete lack of accountability and transparency.
Fresh Faces?
Soon after it was announced that BCPI would close its doors, City Council President Todd Gloria and Mayor Kevin Faulconer hurriedly announced that the Balboa Park Conservancy would take over the park's Centennial celebration under the direct oversight of the Mayor. Lundin and other open government activists were riled by the selection of the Conservancy, an organization that presents a nearly identical set of troubling circumstances and cast of characters as BCPI.
On May 1st, the Conservancy had another in a string of chances to demonstrate they were committed to following a different more open path than BCPI, and once again, the opportunity was missed when a meeting of the Balboa Park Committee was abruptly cancelled. Following the cancellation, Lundin was visibly annoyed at what he is increasingly finding to be a similar pattern of obfuscation by the Conservancy.
Why is there so much concern over a mere city park celebration?
As BCPI's financial statements attest, the Balboa Park Centennial Celebration involves big bucks and a host of lucrative contracts. The group that wields power over those contracts could potentially become a powerful political tool.
With the backdrop of what increasingly appears to be gross malfeasance by BCPI and a host of overly cosy relationships, Lundin is attracting some powerful allies in his quest to regain the public's access to the planning process. One of the more prominent voices to speak out in support of Lundin's efforts is noted open government activist and former city council member Donna Frye, "I have great respect for Mr. Lundin and am thankful for his advocacy on behalf of the public and their right to know how their money is being spent." Frye went on to say, "The Balboa Park Conservancy should be open to public requests for information and should provide a way for the public to participate in a meaningful way. I suspect part of the failure of BCPI was a result of their lack of trust in the public and their ideas about the 2015 celebration."
Private Dealings with the Public's Money
The Conservancy's resistance to public scrutiny also serves to underscore broader the concerns of open government activists like Lundin and Frye. A recent string of actions by both Mayor Faulconer and Council President Gloria have sought to roll back government transparency and threatened the hard fought gains championed by former council member Frye. Her now famous battle to reign in closed door city council sessions resulted in significant improvements in policies that protected the public's right to know. Since her crusade, San Diego's power brokers have increasingly sought to move decision making away from public view by allocating decision making to a web of quasi private NGO's, like the Conservancy, who are contracted by the city to accomplish ever more significant tasks. "[I think BCPI] shows the weaknesses that exists when the public is shut out of the process," Frye stated, "However, the city can remedy this by putting language in the contracts to require more public participation and oversight."
BCPI is one in a long succession of groups that operate largely outside the public domain with considerable access to public resources. Most notable among these groups is the San Diego Tourism Marketing District which commands 2% of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues granted it by the city. The roughly $30 million in tax revenue the organization collects annually is spent by a private board (much like BCPI and the Conservancy), that operates with little if any accountability to the public whose taxing authority funds them.
Mayor's Muddled Ethics?
With San Diego's strong mayor form of government, Mayor Faulconer's recent move to consolidate planning and coordination of the centennial celebration under the tight control of his office is seen by some as a further attempt to avoid the public's gaze while giving the impression of public oversight. Some contend that Faulconer's move will, in reality, only further remove the event's planning from the public eye. Mayor Faulconer's direct role in overseeing the Conservancy and it's planning of the centennial celebration is seen by Lundin and others as being overly close.
So close is that relationship, that at a recent city council committee meeting, a representative with the Mayor's office found herself in the embarrassing position of having been identified by the Conservancy as the designated representative to speak on their behalf. Such an arrangement would be improper if not illegal. Faulconer has for years straddled muddled ethical boundaries due to his wife, Katherine, and her business dealings with the city. Over the years, Katherine has parlayed her connections with her husband and various interest groups in San Diego into a lucrative event planning business that nets the couple over $175,000 in income annually. With control over the Balboa Park Centennial Celebration now firmly resting in the Mayor's hands, it is easy to see why so many eyebrows have been raised. As the go-to person for event permits in San Diego, Katherine Faulconer is in a prime position to see her business interests greatly advanced by her husbands new role.
I Have Something I Need To Tell You
Originally published in the San Diego LGBT Weekly in their 2010 Wold AIDS Day issue.
by: Any One of the Estimated 154 People Diagnosed With HIV on November 12, 2009 (Timothy P. Holmberg)
November 12th (2010) marked my one year anniversary of living with HIV. It was on that day I walked into the County Health Clinic and requested an HIV test. I was due for my screening through the military and had decided a long time ago that if there were bad news to be delivered, I did not want to receive it from the military. I sat in the waiting room for what seemed an eternity. The waiting room is a sparse place with chairs that loose any pretense of comfort after the first five minutes. There is one TV in the room that plays the same HIV informational tape on an endless repeat, like a juke box with only one record. After the second time through the tape, I sifted the magazine collection for something that was less than a year old. The magazine diversion ultimately gave way though, and I did what we all do . . . I began to sift through the dates, encounters and repeat engagements of the last year looking for clues, trying in vain to compute the odds.
“Number 12?”, the voice around the corner called out.
“Yes”, I responded as I walked towards the open door.
Twenty minutes later, I was back in the room and after countless ‘negative’ results, I received the last HIV test results I will ever get.
My reaction was mechanical, ‘what do I need to do now?’
Years ago I had managed to inoculate myself to the fear that accompanied each test by reminding myself that you do not get infected in the room when they read the results. They are just giving you a history lesson; they are simply telling you if you have already been living with HIV.
When I got home that night I starred at my computer for a moment. I took a deep breath, and I logged into my e-mail account and a . . . uhm . . . ‘dating site’.
I know a lot of people out there do not do this, but I am not a lot of people. I am me, and for me there was only one choice. I started the very difficult process of taking responsibility. I had to push past my own fear and shame, but I knew that if the roles were reversed, I would want to know. I knew that the people I met deserved more than silence.
It has been a year since I looked at those messages. Some of them are profound and moving to me. I realized that not enough of these conversations are happening. So I decided to share mine in hopes that others might find something in them that will help them have their own conversations. I wanted to do something that might pay a small penance to those who received the message from me that started out - “I have something I need to tell you” . . .
editor's note: all dialog [sic]
Me: hey man, need to let u know that i went in for my twice a year test and the result was poz. the test was confirmed. very sorry to have to tell u this, but i know i need to tell u so u can get tested. Since u were the top, i am pretty sure that you will be fine, but please let me know ur results.
Friend 1: This is really disturbing. i'm sorry for your result. I will get tested tomorrow and let you know what the results are. When did you last test show a negative result?
Me: Last test was about six months ago. I really hope this does not affect you, but please let me know either way.
Friend 1 tested negative
Friend 2: Oh God Xxxx....are you OK?
Me: ya man, doin good actually. I appreciate ur concern. I would have told u directly but the window for my infection did not put u at risk. Honestly, have been doin pretty good and have a lot of friends for support. It is not a death sentence, we r all born terminally ill, so i just happen to know the likely cause of my own mortality which will im sure b many decades away. I certainly would have preferred to remain neg but that is not how it went. I am not spending time thinking about ways i could have kept this water from flowing under my bridge, seeing as how it has already done so, more focused on the future and what I want for myself. I hope u will keep any judgments to urself since they really do not serve any purpose at this point. I am being very responsible, more so than most it would seem, as far as disclosing my status and making sure i do not pass this on 2 anyone else.
Friend 2: I think your attitude is amazing...and spot on. ...and who would I ever be to judge you...? ..nothing less than a total ass if I did....and I certainly do not. One thing is for certain, no one can ever have too many friends....we should grab a coffee and catch up some time. Let me know if you need anything! I hope you had a nice holiday! Take care, XXXXX
Friend 2 tested negative.
Friend 3: Wow! That’s the probably the last thing that I expected to hear. Not sure what to say, how are you doing emotionally?
Me: Ya, the last thing I hoped to have to tell you, but I know with ur job it’s important for you to know so you can check. Doing ok right now. I think this is the hardest part. I think living out here on my boat is helping a lot. It’s peaceful out here and that helps. Just waiting to see what this is going to mean for my job. Please make sure that you let me know how your test comes out.
Friend 3: of course, still am going to be there with you as friend. Want to meet up and give you your birthday present. Still have it siting here, lol.
Me: Ya, should get that to me soon. If not I might have to file a stolen property report. lol.
Friend 3: lol. Soon then for sure.
Friend 3 tested negative
Friend 4: OMG, when?
Me: yesterday
Friend 4: Ok, man, now i’m nervous. Am trying to remember if u came inside.
Me: no, so hopefully this does not affect you, but you should get tested. I went to the county health clinic. They have free testing there during the week. anonymous. I can go with you if you need, or google them for directions.
Friend 4: Are you sure? Did they confirm it?
Me: I go in for that today, but 99.998%
Friend 4: what’s going to happen at your job? Are they going to kick you out?
Me: no, just read the order and I’m supposed to be able to continue on, but no one seems to know exactly. I keep getting different stories. Really frustrating.
Friend 4: really nervous man. I really can’t have this happen to me. Call me xxx-xxx-xxxx?
Me (text): I know the feeling, but I just tell myself when I go to get tested that you don’t get infected at the office, they just tell you what the deal is, and it’s better to know. Please make sure you let me know how it turns out.
Friend 4: will text you when I get the results
(later)
Friend 4: found the place, am in the office waiting. nervous as hell. how long did u say it takes 4 the results?
Me: is about 20 minutes once they take the sample. hang in there, and text me when ur done.
Friend 4: am going in now, wish me luck.
Me: good luck is an understatement.
Friend 4: am out waiting for the results. Hate this.
Me: I know, but it’s better than two weeks.
Friend 4: here I go.
Friend 4: neg, but need to test again in three months.
Me: :) ))))) phew!
Friend 4: double.
Friend 5: OMG, ur fuckn kidding me. When? jesus, I can’t believe I’m hearing this. I can’t have this happen. FUCK.
(this was the last contact I had with Friend 5)
Friend 6: Great! You send me this message on World AIDS Day!!! No, seriously. I appreciate you letting me know. Of course I am panicking as hell now and I received your e-mail as I arrived into Xxxxxxxx for work and I get back at the weekend, so I cannot check till Monday next week.
And it is my Birthday this weekend. But I guess it will teach me a lesson!
So of course you get it, and I complain!
But really, are you Ok?
Best regards,
Friend 6 tested negative
Friend 7: Hey you, just checking up on you. Hope all is well and I hope that you are taking care of yourself. I am so afraid of it all now, that I don't want to do anything with anyone anymore. Sucks for me, but oh well it was really scary for me. I will continue to keep you in my prayers and of course continue to be your friend. And where's my money hoe!!!! haha just a little humor to cheer you up. TTYS...Love ya.
Me: Well, I certainly did not intend to scare anyone. We all live in fear of this, and it is because we are humans who have failings. If we were perfect there would be no fear of it because no one would ever slip up or make THE mistake. We fear it because we know it is possible for any of us. So take it as a reminder of ur humanity and do the best that u can with it. And if u should sucumb to ur humanity again, just remember that we r all human.
Friend 7: I know, I know. i'm just glad you're ok.
Me: likewise my friend
Friend 7:don't be a stranger Xxxx ok? I will be leaving for OCS soon and will not be around for a couple of months, but stay in touch.
Friend 7 tested negative
I went through similar exchanges with other friends. All but one (friend 5) contacted me with their results, and no one I know of tested positive. When I look back at these conversations I remember how difficult they were. But I would not take any of them back. I hope that sharing these will help someone out there have their own conversations. I hope that someone out there who is negative will consider these conversations. I hope it will remind those who are positive that the battle against HIV does not have to end with your diagnosis.
Disclose to your partners, disclose on your profiles and disclose before you wind up in bed.
Editor's note: Name in this article have been altered or omitted to protect the identities of those involved.
by: Any One of the Estimated 154 People Diagnosed With HIV on November 12, 2009 (Timothy P. Holmberg)
November 12th (2010) marked my one year anniversary of living with HIV. It was on that day I walked into the County Health Clinic and requested an HIV test. I was due for my screening through the military and had decided a long time ago that if there were bad news to be delivered, I did not want to receive it from the military. I sat in the waiting room for what seemed an eternity. The waiting room is a sparse place with chairs that loose any pretense of comfort after the first five minutes. There is one TV in the room that plays the same HIV informational tape on an endless repeat, like a juke box with only one record. After the second time through the tape, I sifted the magazine collection for something that was less than a year old. The magazine diversion ultimately gave way though, and I did what we all do . . . I began to sift through the dates, encounters and repeat engagements of the last year looking for clues, trying in vain to compute the odds.
“Number 12?”, the voice around the corner called out.
“Yes”, I responded as I walked towards the open door.
Twenty minutes later, I was back in the room and after countless ‘negative’ results, I received the last HIV test results I will ever get.
My reaction was mechanical, ‘what do I need to do now?’
Years ago I had managed to inoculate myself to the fear that accompanied each test by reminding myself that you do not get infected in the room when they read the results. They are just giving you a history lesson; they are simply telling you if you have already been living with HIV.
When I got home that night I starred at my computer for a moment. I took a deep breath, and I logged into my e-mail account and a . . . uhm . . . ‘dating site’.
I know a lot of people out there do not do this, but I am not a lot of people. I am me, and for me there was only one choice. I started the very difficult process of taking responsibility. I had to push past my own fear and shame, but I knew that if the roles were reversed, I would want to know. I knew that the people I met deserved more than silence.
It has been a year since I looked at those messages. Some of them are profound and moving to me. I realized that not enough of these conversations are happening. So I decided to share mine in hopes that others might find something in them that will help them have their own conversations. I wanted to do something that might pay a small penance to those who received the message from me that started out - “I have something I need to tell you” . . .
editor's note: all dialog [sic]
Me: hey man, need to let u know that i went in for my twice a year test and the result was poz. the test was confirmed. very sorry to have to tell u this, but i know i need to tell u so u can get tested. Since u were the top, i am pretty sure that you will be fine, but please let me know ur results.
Friend 1: This is really disturbing. i'm sorry for your result. I will get tested tomorrow and let you know what the results are. When did you last test show a negative result?
Me: Last test was about six months ago. I really hope this does not affect you, but please let me know either way.
Friend 1 tested negative
Friend 2: Oh God Xxxx....are you OK?
Me: ya man, doin good actually. I appreciate ur concern. I would have told u directly but the window for my infection did not put u at risk. Honestly, have been doin pretty good and have a lot of friends for support. It is not a death sentence, we r all born terminally ill, so i just happen to know the likely cause of my own mortality which will im sure b many decades away. I certainly would have preferred to remain neg but that is not how it went. I am not spending time thinking about ways i could have kept this water from flowing under my bridge, seeing as how it has already done so, more focused on the future and what I want for myself. I hope u will keep any judgments to urself since they really do not serve any purpose at this point. I am being very responsible, more so than most it would seem, as far as disclosing my status and making sure i do not pass this on 2 anyone else.
Friend 2: I think your attitude is amazing...and spot on. ...and who would I ever be to judge you...? ..nothing less than a total ass if I did....and I certainly do not. One thing is for certain, no one can ever have too many friends....we should grab a coffee and catch up some time. Let me know if you need anything! I hope you had a nice holiday! Take care, XXXXX
Friend 2 tested negative.
Friend 3: Wow! That’s the probably the last thing that I expected to hear. Not sure what to say, how are you doing emotionally?
Me: Ya, the last thing I hoped to have to tell you, but I know with ur job it’s important for you to know so you can check. Doing ok right now. I think this is the hardest part. I think living out here on my boat is helping a lot. It’s peaceful out here and that helps. Just waiting to see what this is going to mean for my job. Please make sure that you let me know how your test comes out.
Friend 3: of course, still am going to be there with you as friend. Want to meet up and give you your birthday present. Still have it siting here, lol.
Me: Ya, should get that to me soon. If not I might have to file a stolen property report. lol.
Friend 3: lol. Soon then for sure.
Friend 3 tested negative
Friend 4: OMG, when?
Me: yesterday
Friend 4: Ok, man, now i’m nervous. Am trying to remember if u came inside.
Me: no, so hopefully this does not affect you, but you should get tested. I went to the county health clinic. They have free testing there during the week. anonymous. I can go with you if you need, or google them for directions.
Friend 4: Are you sure? Did they confirm it?
Me: I go in for that today, but 99.998%
Friend 4: what’s going to happen at your job? Are they going to kick you out?
Me: no, just read the order and I’m supposed to be able to continue on, but no one seems to know exactly. I keep getting different stories. Really frustrating.
Friend 4: really nervous man. I really can’t have this happen to me. Call me xxx-xxx-xxxx?
Me (text): I know the feeling, but I just tell myself when I go to get tested that you don’t get infected at the office, they just tell you what the deal is, and it’s better to know. Please make sure you let me know how it turns out.
Friend 4: will text you when I get the results
(later)
Friend 4: found the place, am in the office waiting. nervous as hell. how long did u say it takes 4 the results?
Me: is about 20 minutes once they take the sample. hang in there, and text me when ur done.
Friend 4: am going in now, wish me luck.
Me: good luck is an understatement.
Friend 4: am out waiting for the results. Hate this.
Me: I know, but it’s better than two weeks.
Friend 4: here I go.
Friend 4: neg, but need to test again in three months.
Me: :) ))))) phew!
Friend 4: double.
Friend 5: OMG, ur fuckn kidding me. When? jesus, I can’t believe I’m hearing this. I can’t have this happen. FUCK.
(this was the last contact I had with Friend 5)
Friend 6: Great! You send me this message on World AIDS Day!!! No, seriously. I appreciate you letting me know. Of course I am panicking as hell now and I received your e-mail as I arrived into Xxxxxxxx for work and I get back at the weekend, so I cannot check till Monday next week.
And it is my Birthday this weekend. But I guess it will teach me a lesson!
So of course you get it, and I complain!
But really, are you Ok?
Best regards,
Friend 6 tested negative
Friend 7: Hey you, just checking up on you. Hope all is well and I hope that you are taking care of yourself. I am so afraid of it all now, that I don't want to do anything with anyone anymore. Sucks for me, but oh well it was really scary for me. I will continue to keep you in my prayers and of course continue to be your friend. And where's my money hoe!!!! haha just a little humor to cheer you up. TTYS...Love ya.
Me: Well, I certainly did not intend to scare anyone. We all live in fear of this, and it is because we are humans who have failings. If we were perfect there would be no fear of it because no one would ever slip up or make THE mistake. We fear it because we know it is possible for any of us. So take it as a reminder of ur humanity and do the best that u can with it. And if u should sucumb to ur humanity again, just remember that we r all human.
Friend 7: I know, I know. i'm just glad you're ok.
Me: likewise my friend
Friend 7:don't be a stranger Xxxx ok? I will be leaving for OCS soon and will not be around for a couple of months, but stay in touch.
Friend 7 tested negative
I went through similar exchanges with other friends. All but one (friend 5) contacted me with their results, and no one I know of tested positive. When I look back at these conversations I remember how difficult they were. But I would not take any of them back. I hope that sharing these will help someone out there have their own conversations. I hope that someone out there who is negative will consider these conversations. I hope it will remind those who are positive that the battle against HIV does not have to end with your diagnosis.
Disclose to your partners, disclose on your profiles and disclose before you wind up in bed.
Editor's note: Name in this article have been altered or omitted to protect the identities of those involved.
What is Citizenship?
This article was first published in the Gay & Lesbian Times of San Diego, which ceased operations after 23 years. I am proud to say that I served as the publications first staff reporter in 1996. I wrote the article below in response to a pervasive phenomenon in my community of people opting out of fights they felt they had no direct interest in. I was inspired to re-post it here because many of the observations that I made then about citizenship and our need to be more than a collection of individuals is at the heart of the current political debates. I hope you enjoy it.
DADT – Not Your Fight?
BY TIMOTHY P. HOLMBERG
Published Thursday, 30-Sep-2010 in issue 1188
Every issue in the GLBT community has had the tendency to show why the ‘GLBT’ community uses individual letters to represent the different components of the community. It’s like staring at a bowl of Alphabets cereal in milk - when an issue comes along certain letters drift away.
We are all creatures of self interest to some degree, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that when it is counter balanced with an understanding that even as individuals we can be diminished by someone else’s loss.
Marriage equality - ‘I don’t want to get married’
Breast cancer - ‘I’m not a woman’ (men have them too)
AIDS - ‘That’s those gay guys’
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell - ‘Don’t want to join anyway’
Adoption/custody rights - ‘Don’t want kids’
Drug and alcohol issues - ‘I don’t hang around those types’
The problem is this -
When one of us can’t marry or adopt - we lose a home for a homeless child and a possibility for our own future.
When one of us gets breast cancer or AIDS - we lose a future leader, or musician or entrepreneur.
When one of us falls into drug abuse or addiction - we lose a friend, or a customer or an executive.
When one of us is denied the opportunity to serve in our armed forces- we are weakened as a nation, we lose a technician, a medic, a translator and we also lose some part of our own citizenship.
Citizenship is a word that seems to have fallen out of favor in this age of rampant and unbridled individualism.
Ayn Rand in her book Atlas Shrugged extolled the virtues of individualism and idealized a mythical cast of productive elites who shed themselves of the collective burdens of society (and government). Rand’s elites staged a collective ‘strike’ and withdrew themselves and their efforts from society. Miraculously saved from the ravages that befell their own society, the elites emerge to construct a new society in which self interest dominated and corporations were free of restrain.
It seems to me that we are living in Rand’s utopia
To Rand I would say that a nation in which its citizens have no investment beyond their own front yard is not a nation at all.
Citizens that can be excluded from some part of our nation's collective rights and responsibilities out of mere capriciousness (or indifference) are certainly a diminishment to us all.
We don’t have to be Atlas, but surely the answer is not to just shrug.
DADT – Not Your Fight?
BY TIMOTHY P. HOLMBERG
Published Thursday, 30-Sep-2010 in issue 1188
Every issue in the GLBT community has had the tendency to show why the ‘GLBT’ community uses individual letters to represent the different components of the community. It’s like staring at a bowl of Alphabets cereal in milk - when an issue comes along certain letters drift away.
We are all creatures of self interest to some degree, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that when it is counter balanced with an understanding that even as individuals we can be diminished by someone else’s loss.
Marriage equality - ‘I don’t want to get married’
Breast cancer - ‘I’m not a woman’ (men have them too)
AIDS - ‘That’s those gay guys’
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell - ‘Don’t want to join anyway’
Adoption/custody rights - ‘Don’t want kids’
Drug and alcohol issues - ‘I don’t hang around those types’
The problem is this -
When one of us can’t marry or adopt - we lose a home for a homeless child and a possibility for our own future.
When one of us gets breast cancer or AIDS - we lose a future leader, or musician or entrepreneur.
When one of us falls into drug abuse or addiction - we lose a friend, or a customer or an executive.
When one of us is denied the opportunity to serve in our armed forces- we are weakened as a nation, we lose a technician, a medic, a translator and we also lose some part of our own citizenship.
Citizenship is a word that seems to have fallen out of favor in this age of rampant and unbridled individualism.
Ayn Rand in her book Atlas Shrugged extolled the virtues of individualism and idealized a mythical cast of productive elites who shed themselves of the collective burdens of society (and government). Rand’s elites staged a collective ‘strike’ and withdrew themselves and their efforts from society. Miraculously saved from the ravages that befell their own society, the elites emerge to construct a new society in which self interest dominated and corporations were free of restrain.
It seems to me that we are living in Rand’s utopia
To Rand I would say that a nation in which its citizens have no investment beyond their own front yard is not a nation at all.
Citizens that can be excluded from some part of our nation's collective rights and responsibilities out of mere capriciousness (or indifference) are certainly a diminishment to us all.
We don’t have to be Atlas, but surely the answer is not to just shrug.
On San Diego's "Strong Mayor"
This letter to the editor was published in the San Diego Gay and Lesbian Times on October 14, 2004. It was a call to action for the gay and lesbian community here to stop accepting symbolism instead of real progress. In some ways, I think our community has improved on this, but in other ways, San Diego's LGBT community remains a guest at our own dinner table.
Dear Editor:
If the gay and lesbian community is divided over the race for mayor it is only because current mayor Dick Murphy has been a master of symbolism.
Murphy has posed for photo ops at Pride rallies and numerous gay and lesbian community functions. He has offered platitudes about inclusive communities and created a GLBT advisory committee that he largely ignores.
Murphy will undoubtedly shore up his credentials with the gay and lesbian community by pointing to his appointment of openly lesbian councilwoman Toni Atkins as Deputy Mayor of San Diego. Toni is a friend, so I hope she understand this is not meant to belittle her historic appointment in any way, but this too is symbolic.
What matters are issues of substance, and on that point mayor Murphy has been somewhat less than friendly to gays and lesbians. He brought to the council the ill-fated Boy Scouts Balboa Park lease renewal that discriminated against the gay and lesbian community and skirted the city’s own Human dignity Ordinance. That fiasco cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars and was eventually tossed out by the courts.
Murphy has repeatedly fought against medical-marijuana and clean needle exchange. He has supported Proposition 22, and contrary to the advice of his own gay and lesbian advisory committee, has refused to take a position on President Bush’s constitutional ban on gay marriage.
This city does not need a strong-mayor form of government, it needs a strong mayor. It needs a mayor who has convictions and is willing to stick to them publicly, not just at rallies. We need a mayor that will face our city’s fiscal problems, not run from them. We need a mayor that will work with the business community and developers, not for them. We need a mayor who’s 20/20 vision is not just in hindsight.
Not since Maureen O’Conner has San Diego’s GLBT community truly had a friend in the mayor’s office. Since that time we have become too willing to abandon the fight for true accomplishments in favor of gold-plated name badges. It is time for us to raise our expectations. We deserve better!
Timothy P. Holmberg
Dear Editor:
If the gay and lesbian community is divided over the race for mayor it is only because current mayor Dick Murphy has been a master of symbolism.
Murphy has posed for photo ops at Pride rallies and numerous gay and lesbian community functions. He has offered platitudes about inclusive communities and created a GLBT advisory committee that he largely ignores.
Murphy will undoubtedly shore up his credentials with the gay and lesbian community by pointing to his appointment of openly lesbian councilwoman Toni Atkins as Deputy Mayor of San Diego. Toni is a friend, so I hope she understand this is not meant to belittle her historic appointment in any way, but this too is symbolic.
What matters are issues of substance, and on that point mayor Murphy has been somewhat less than friendly to gays and lesbians. He brought to the council the ill-fated Boy Scouts Balboa Park lease renewal that discriminated against the gay and lesbian community and skirted the city’s own Human dignity Ordinance. That fiasco cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars and was eventually tossed out by the courts.
Murphy has repeatedly fought against medical-marijuana and clean needle exchange. He has supported Proposition 22, and contrary to the advice of his own gay and lesbian advisory committee, has refused to take a position on President Bush’s constitutional ban on gay marriage.
This city does not need a strong-mayor form of government, it needs a strong mayor. It needs a mayor who has convictions and is willing to stick to them publicly, not just at rallies. We need a mayor that will face our city’s fiscal problems, not run from them. We need a mayor that will work with the business community and developers, not for them. We need a mayor who’s 20/20 vision is not just in hindsight.
Not since Maureen O’Conner has San Diego’s GLBT community truly had a friend in the mayor’s office. Since that time we have become too willing to abandon the fight for true accomplishments in favor of gold-plated name badges. It is time for us to raise our expectations. We deserve better!
Timothy P. Holmberg
HIV/AIDS and the Military After 28 Years
BY TIMOTHY P. HOLMBERG
Published Thursday, 23-Sep-2010 in the Gay & Lesbian Times issue 1187
Randy Shilts very accurately described the early stages of the treatment of HIV/AIDS in the military in his ground breaking book And The Band Played On. In short he described a military that when faced with an epidemic that at the time was largely viewed as being a gay disease, against the odds, they chose the higher road. The military’s initial response while far from perfect, was among the most progressive at the time.
Among other things the military made the wise choice of letting medical fact rather than social stigma and fear guide their policy. They recognized early on that HIV was not transmitted through casual contact and therefor those who had contracted HIV were not a threat to their coworkers. That realization led to a sensible policy that those who were diagnosed with HIV would not be discharged, and apart from certain restrictions, could continue in their careers so long as their health permitted. There seemed to be a sober recognition that the military had made large investments in training that should not be abandoned in the face of a health condition unless and until it began to limit ones duty status.
The military also made a solemn commitment not to abandon those in our ranks who were diagnosed with HIV when it came to medical care thus ensuring access to treatment and medication. Similarly progressive were the rules protecting a diagnosed service member’s confidentiality. Commanders or other personnel who disclosed someone’s status without their permission would be brought up on charges and likely end their career. The military has also served a pivotal role in furthering research and advancing treatment techniques for HIV/AIDs. Collectively, these policies were among the most progressive in the nation.
That was then.
Since then the military has preferred to regard the issues surrounding HIV/AIDS in the military as being resolved. In the intervening time however, not only has treatment advanced dramatically, but infection rates have begun to rise and the face of HIV in the military has quietly begun to morph. As infection rates have risen, so to has the reactionary drum beat to purge those who become infected from the military altogether.
The military stands at a cross roads. From here, they can chose to either retreat into their own fear and allow stigma and prejudice to form policy, or they can once again chose the higher road.
What is the higher road?
1. Acknowledge, confront and challenge within our ranks the notion that HIV is a gay disease. We will not do our service members any favors if we fail to dispel these notions as we deploy to Africa and South East Asia more frequently. The face of HIV/AIDS is not that of a gay disease in these regions, nor should it be viewed this way at home.
2. If the military wants to reduce the financial burden of treating HIV in our ranks then fight it through more active prevention and education, not by targeting those who have become infected. Break the ‘cone of silence’ around HIV and encourage those living with HIV in our ranks who are willing to play a role in our prevention efforts. No one can speak to us better than one of our own.
3. Remove restrictions on the deployment of HIV positive service members. While some of these restrictions made sense earlier in the epidemic, they have become vestigial and in most cases no longer serve a valid purpose. Many countries have dropped their treaty restrictions on HIV positive persons, and advances in medical treatment no longer require positive personnel to be within 24 hours of a major medical facility. Similarly, treatment needs have been reduced to the point that almost any clinic at any military base is adequately equipped to handle HIV treatment. Most service members who are positive are taking one pill a day and a blood test every six months. whatever restrictions there are should recognize this state of treatment. Most positive service members are eager to deploy and ‘pull their weight’, so let them.
4. Change the Equal Opportunity mission to include HIV status. Discrimination exists in our military and certainly HIV status is a basis for discrimination among some commanders. Those who face discrimination have little if any recourse. The standard grievance procedure known as Request Mast requires too much disclosure on the part of service members who wish to protect their confidentiality, and is ill equipped to handle issues of discrimination.
5. Resume annual screening for HIV for all service members and combine it with syphilis screening (current standard for HIV is once every two years). Research is showing that not only is a syphilis infection a significant cofactor in increased HIV infection rates, but syphilis rates are rapidly on the rise in population centers where we have large military bases. The recent incident at SDSU in which 80% of a group of college students tested positive for syphilis should be a wake up call for the military. The military population is not that much different in terms of social demographics.
6. Remove restrictions on moving between active duty and reserve duty for HIV positive service members. This restriction made little sense to begin with and in light of treatment advances and potential changes in deployability, it makes no sense at all. If there is a space for you and you have the skills and desire, we should not stand in the way. Similarly, enlisted HIV positive personnel should be accepted into commissioning programs and allowed ascension into the officer corps if they are qualified.
7. Standardize HIV policy between all our military branches. There is no valid reason why an HIV positive service member in one branch should be greeted with opportunity and equal treatment while boxed up and hidden in another branch.
Our military has always been its strongest when it has brought to bare all its resources to accomplish our missions. This was true with the Tuskegee Airmen, it was true of the ‘Wind Talkers’, it is true of muslims and our arabic speaking translators today and will no doubt be true of our gay and lesbian service members if they are allowed to serve openly in the near future.
So to is it true of those among us who are HIV positive in the military, and it can be more true if we make the right choices now. . .
Published Thursday, 23-Sep-2010 in the Gay & Lesbian Times issue 1187
Randy Shilts very accurately described the early stages of the treatment of HIV/AIDS in the military in his ground breaking book And The Band Played On. In short he described a military that when faced with an epidemic that at the time was largely viewed as being a gay disease, against the odds, they chose the higher road. The military’s initial response while far from perfect, was among the most progressive at the time.
Among other things the military made the wise choice of letting medical fact rather than social stigma and fear guide their policy. They recognized early on that HIV was not transmitted through casual contact and therefor those who had contracted HIV were not a threat to their coworkers. That realization led to a sensible policy that those who were diagnosed with HIV would not be discharged, and apart from certain restrictions, could continue in their careers so long as their health permitted. There seemed to be a sober recognition that the military had made large investments in training that should not be abandoned in the face of a health condition unless and until it began to limit ones duty status.
The military also made a solemn commitment not to abandon those in our ranks who were diagnosed with HIV when it came to medical care thus ensuring access to treatment and medication. Similarly progressive were the rules protecting a diagnosed service member’s confidentiality. Commanders or other personnel who disclosed someone’s status without their permission would be brought up on charges and likely end their career. The military has also served a pivotal role in furthering research and advancing treatment techniques for HIV/AIDs. Collectively, these policies were among the most progressive in the nation.
That was then.
Since then the military has preferred to regard the issues surrounding HIV/AIDS in the military as being resolved. In the intervening time however, not only has treatment advanced dramatically, but infection rates have begun to rise and the face of HIV in the military has quietly begun to morph. As infection rates have risen, so to has the reactionary drum beat to purge those who become infected from the military altogether.
The military stands at a cross roads. From here, they can chose to either retreat into their own fear and allow stigma and prejudice to form policy, or they can once again chose the higher road.
What is the higher road?
1. Acknowledge, confront and challenge within our ranks the notion that HIV is a gay disease. We will not do our service members any favors if we fail to dispel these notions as we deploy to Africa and South East Asia more frequently. The face of HIV/AIDS is not that of a gay disease in these regions, nor should it be viewed this way at home.
2. If the military wants to reduce the financial burden of treating HIV in our ranks then fight it through more active prevention and education, not by targeting those who have become infected. Break the ‘cone of silence’ around HIV and encourage those living with HIV in our ranks who are willing to play a role in our prevention efforts. No one can speak to us better than one of our own.
3. Remove restrictions on the deployment of HIV positive service members. While some of these restrictions made sense earlier in the epidemic, they have become vestigial and in most cases no longer serve a valid purpose. Many countries have dropped their treaty restrictions on HIV positive persons, and advances in medical treatment no longer require positive personnel to be within 24 hours of a major medical facility. Similarly, treatment needs have been reduced to the point that almost any clinic at any military base is adequately equipped to handle HIV treatment. Most service members who are positive are taking one pill a day and a blood test every six months. whatever restrictions there are should recognize this state of treatment. Most positive service members are eager to deploy and ‘pull their weight’, so let them.
4. Change the Equal Opportunity mission to include HIV status. Discrimination exists in our military and certainly HIV status is a basis for discrimination among some commanders. Those who face discrimination have little if any recourse. The standard grievance procedure known as Request Mast requires too much disclosure on the part of service members who wish to protect their confidentiality, and is ill equipped to handle issues of discrimination.
5. Resume annual screening for HIV for all service members and combine it with syphilis screening (current standard for HIV is once every two years). Research is showing that not only is a syphilis infection a significant cofactor in increased HIV infection rates, but syphilis rates are rapidly on the rise in population centers where we have large military bases. The recent incident at SDSU in which 80% of a group of college students tested positive for syphilis should be a wake up call for the military. The military population is not that much different in terms of social demographics.
6. Remove restrictions on moving between active duty and reserve duty for HIV positive service members. This restriction made little sense to begin with and in light of treatment advances and potential changes in deployability, it makes no sense at all. If there is a space for you and you have the skills and desire, we should not stand in the way. Similarly, enlisted HIV positive personnel should be accepted into commissioning programs and allowed ascension into the officer corps if they are qualified.
7. Standardize HIV policy between all our military branches. There is no valid reason why an HIV positive service member in one branch should be greeted with opportunity and equal treatment while boxed up and hidden in another branch.
Our military has always been its strongest when it has brought to bare all its resources to accomplish our missions. This was true with the Tuskegee Airmen, it was true of the ‘Wind Talkers’, it is true of muslims and our arabic speaking translators today and will no doubt be true of our gay and lesbian service members if they are allowed to serve openly in the near future.
So to is it true of those among us who are HIV positive in the military, and it can be more true if we make the right choices now. . .
Marine Reservist Questions Demobilization Over HIV Status
BY STAFF REPORTER
Published Thursday, 16-Sep-2010 in Gay & Lesbian Times issue 1186
San Diego, CA – Marine Reservist Sgt Timothy Holmberg is questioning his recent demobilization by Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 101 (VMFAT 101). Holmberg recently volunteered for active duty service to support the Miramar based training squadron in its mission to train pilots for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. The squadron trains pilots to fly the F/A-18 Hornet in combat support roles and Holmberg has over 20 years experience maintaining the aircraft and its systems.
This would have been Holmberg’s second mobilization tour with the squadron, but it was cut short by the unit’s commanding officer. “I reported as ordered for duty and when I arrived at the squadron was told to stop checking in by the unit Sgt Maj. He indicated that the unit CO was not sure that my orders were issued properly given my ‘medical situation’”, said Holmberg, “I was really kind of shocked at their reasons and returned to my reserve unit for guidance”.
Holmberg’s medical situation is that he is HIV positive, a condition that does not preclude him from service with the non-deployable squadron. He was originally diagnosed near the end of his first mobilization tour and continued his service with the squadron until his orders expired. According to Holmberg he was assured by the former commanding officer that the unit wanted to continue his service but needed additional guidance from the legal department as to what the restrictions might be in his case.
As an HIV positive reservist Holmberg’s duty status is determined by an instruction that very clearly spells out how active duty members should be handled, but is less clear when it comes to reservists. This confusion led to delays that ultimately prevented Holmberg from applying for an extension to his previous tour. “I had just found out I was HIV positive and started to try to get a handle on what this would mean for me health wise, but nobody could tell me clearly where I stood with the Marine Corps or whether I could continue to support the squadron in its mission. My plan before all this happened was to work towards promotion and move back to active duty, and I really felt lost when it came to getting answers on where to go from this point.”
Holmberg completed his active duty mobilization and then applied for new orders, a process that took several months. “I went to the unit and got their approval, the maintenance chief even helped me write the justification for my new mobilization. I thought that even if I could not deploy to support the war effort directly, I could participate stateside and perhaps allow another Marine to go forward. Sometimes you just have to make the best out of a bad situation and I figured this was the best way for me to do that.” Holmberg stated.
In May Holmberg was informed that his mobilization request was approved. “I was really happy to be able to get back to my unit and get to work. It meant a great deal to me to be able to continue as a Marine after this and have it really be meaningful.”
Following his brief meeting with the Sgt Maj from 101 Holmberg was in limbo for two weeks while the Marine Corps tried to sort out what to do. “I reported back to my reserve unit and waited for the powers that be to decide what to do. It was so frustrating and the more I learned about what was going on the more upset I got.”
Finally, word came that Holmberg could reapply for mobilization to correct any procedural problems with issuing his current orders and the package would be processed on an expedited basis. It was at this point however, that 101’s new Commanding Officer indicated that he could not use Holmberg to his full capacity due to his medical condition and would not approve his request for mobilization with them.
In the letter of denial the unit cites Holmberg’s medical issues as the basis for their decision, a fact that elicits a strong reaction from Holmberg, “Not only are they wrong on the health issues, but that is really a determination that should be made by my doctor, and my doctor has cleared me. Here is a training squadron that has difficulty getting quality experienced mechanics to want to stay there, and they have someone like me with 20 + years experience and virtually all the qualifications I can get . . . it just does not make sense.”
Unit leaders are given wide discretion when it comes to staffing decisions, a fact that Holmberg readily concedes, “I understand that unit leaders need to have the prerogative to manage their own staffing. But to the extent that this is based on an inaccurate view of my medical condition and a confusing and contradictory policy, I think both the CO and I deserve better policy guidance.”
When asked if he considers this to be a case of discrimination, Holmberg is very clear, “I don’t proceed from that assumption and I don’t think those labels are very productive. But I do think that many people’s view of this disease is through the prism of 1992 when death rates were at their high. The treatment of this has dramatically evolved to the point that it is a manageable medical condition much like Tuberculosis or HPV or herpes. People living with HIV went from having a life expectancy of six to ten years from diagnosis to a life expectancy of 70+ years of age. But the policies and views have not evolved with the treatment. I think that unit leaders and those who contract the disease are struggling to make sense of a deficient order and do what is in the best interests of the Marine Corps and the Marine. We need to destigmatize this and stop treating it as more than what it is.”
Given the unit’s stand it is unlikely that Holmberg will be able to continue his affiliation with them and this may ultimately spell the end for his career. So why is Holmberg persisting? “I think that people in my situation deserve better. They deserve clarity in policy, they deserve good faith dealings with their unit and they deserve the expressed promise of being able to continue their careers to be real. I may not be able to change the ultimate status of my own career at this point, but maybe I can do something to improve the situation for others. If the Marine Corps’ needs and my desire to continue to serve can meet then why should that be a problem for anyone?
Published Thursday, 16-Sep-2010 in Gay & Lesbian Times issue 1186
San Diego, CA – Marine Reservist Sgt Timothy Holmberg is questioning his recent demobilization by Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 101 (VMFAT 101). Holmberg recently volunteered for active duty service to support the Miramar based training squadron in its mission to train pilots for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. The squadron trains pilots to fly the F/A-18 Hornet in combat support roles and Holmberg has over 20 years experience maintaining the aircraft and its systems.
This would have been Holmberg’s second mobilization tour with the squadron, but it was cut short by the unit’s commanding officer. “I reported as ordered for duty and when I arrived at the squadron was told to stop checking in by the unit Sgt Maj. He indicated that the unit CO was not sure that my orders were issued properly given my ‘medical situation’”, said Holmberg, “I was really kind of shocked at their reasons and returned to my reserve unit for guidance”.
Holmberg’s medical situation is that he is HIV positive, a condition that does not preclude him from service with the non-deployable squadron. He was originally diagnosed near the end of his first mobilization tour and continued his service with the squadron until his orders expired. According to Holmberg he was assured by the former commanding officer that the unit wanted to continue his service but needed additional guidance from the legal department as to what the restrictions might be in his case.
As an HIV positive reservist Holmberg’s duty status is determined by an instruction that very clearly spells out how active duty members should be handled, but is less clear when it comes to reservists. This confusion led to delays that ultimately prevented Holmberg from applying for an extension to his previous tour. “I had just found out I was HIV positive and started to try to get a handle on what this would mean for me health wise, but nobody could tell me clearly where I stood with the Marine Corps or whether I could continue to support the squadron in its mission. My plan before all this happened was to work towards promotion and move back to active duty, and I really felt lost when it came to getting answers on where to go from this point.”
Holmberg completed his active duty mobilization and then applied for new orders, a process that took several months. “I went to the unit and got their approval, the maintenance chief even helped me write the justification for my new mobilization. I thought that even if I could not deploy to support the war effort directly, I could participate stateside and perhaps allow another Marine to go forward. Sometimes you just have to make the best out of a bad situation and I figured this was the best way for me to do that.” Holmberg stated.
In May Holmberg was informed that his mobilization request was approved. “I was really happy to be able to get back to my unit and get to work. It meant a great deal to me to be able to continue as a Marine after this and have it really be meaningful.”
Following his brief meeting with the Sgt Maj from 101 Holmberg was in limbo for two weeks while the Marine Corps tried to sort out what to do. “I reported back to my reserve unit and waited for the powers that be to decide what to do. It was so frustrating and the more I learned about what was going on the more upset I got.”
Finally, word came that Holmberg could reapply for mobilization to correct any procedural problems with issuing his current orders and the package would be processed on an expedited basis. It was at this point however, that 101’s new Commanding Officer indicated that he could not use Holmberg to his full capacity due to his medical condition and would not approve his request for mobilization with them.
In the letter of denial the unit cites Holmberg’s medical issues as the basis for their decision, a fact that elicits a strong reaction from Holmberg, “Not only are they wrong on the health issues, but that is really a determination that should be made by my doctor, and my doctor has cleared me. Here is a training squadron that has difficulty getting quality experienced mechanics to want to stay there, and they have someone like me with 20 + years experience and virtually all the qualifications I can get . . . it just does not make sense.”
Unit leaders are given wide discretion when it comes to staffing decisions, a fact that Holmberg readily concedes, “I understand that unit leaders need to have the prerogative to manage their own staffing. But to the extent that this is based on an inaccurate view of my medical condition and a confusing and contradictory policy, I think both the CO and I deserve better policy guidance.”
When asked if he considers this to be a case of discrimination, Holmberg is very clear, “I don’t proceed from that assumption and I don’t think those labels are very productive. But I do think that many people’s view of this disease is through the prism of 1992 when death rates were at their high. The treatment of this has dramatically evolved to the point that it is a manageable medical condition much like Tuberculosis or HPV or herpes. People living with HIV went from having a life expectancy of six to ten years from diagnosis to a life expectancy of 70+ years of age. But the policies and views have not evolved with the treatment. I think that unit leaders and those who contract the disease are struggling to make sense of a deficient order and do what is in the best interests of the Marine Corps and the Marine. We need to destigmatize this and stop treating it as more than what it is.”
Given the unit’s stand it is unlikely that Holmberg will be able to continue his affiliation with them and this may ultimately spell the end for his career. So why is Holmberg persisting? “I think that people in my situation deserve better. They deserve clarity in policy, they deserve good faith dealings with their unit and they deserve the expressed promise of being able to continue their careers to be real. I may not be able to change the ultimate status of my own career at this point, but maybe I can do something to improve the situation for others. If the Marine Corps’ needs and my desire to continue to serve can meet then why should that be a problem for anyone?
Dear General Peter Pace
The following is a letter published in the Gay & Lesbian Times on April 5, 2007, Issue #1006 regarding statements made by Marine General Peter Pace on the ban on openly gay and lesbian service members.
Dear Editor:
As a former Marine considering reenlisting I was disappointed in General Peter Pace’s remarks about gays and lesbians serving openly in the US military. A person of his rank and position is tasked with leading all of our service members, not just those whose moral views match his own. I doubt his remarks contributed to his ability to lead.
I would point out to General Pace that gays and lesbians are already serving lawfully under his command and quite likely in his own office. Like General Charles Krulack before him, however, General Pace is asking this country to continue to accommodate the prejudices of a few in favor of providing the human resources and talent to our armed forces require in their hour of need.
Our military commanders are leading the armed forces of the United States of America, not a boy scout troop.
I have looked on as service members ‘came out’ during times of war only to be told ‘fine, now pick up your gun and go fight’ ( a statement i agree with). I have also witnessed this same military during times of peace tell gay and lesbian service members they cannot serve because their presence will undermine ‘unit morale and cohesion’.
I respectfully ask, ‘which is it General Pace? You can’t have it both ways’. Either they’re good enough to bleed and die in times of war, or they can’t serve at all. Many of our allies including Israel have integrated gays and lesbians into their armed forces. I dare say we can too. It simply requires leadership, and leadership starts at the top.
I have not yet reenlisted. I am not sure that my morals match those envisioned by General Pace. But I have served my country with honor, and I could again. Perhaps General Pace you can tell me, what I should do?
Timothy P. Holmberg
Note: I did reenlist on April 14, 2007 not withstanding General Pace's prejudices. The ban was repealed in 2011 just prior to my concluding my Marine Corps career.
Dear Editor:
As a former Marine considering reenlisting I was disappointed in General Peter Pace’s remarks about gays and lesbians serving openly in the US military. A person of his rank and position is tasked with leading all of our service members, not just those whose moral views match his own. I doubt his remarks contributed to his ability to lead.
I would point out to General Pace that gays and lesbians are already serving lawfully under his command and quite likely in his own office. Like General Charles Krulack before him, however, General Pace is asking this country to continue to accommodate the prejudices of a few in favor of providing the human resources and talent to our armed forces require in their hour of need.
Our military commanders are leading the armed forces of the United States of America, not a boy scout troop.
I have looked on as service members ‘came out’ during times of war only to be told ‘fine, now pick up your gun and go fight’ ( a statement i agree with). I have also witnessed this same military during times of peace tell gay and lesbian service members they cannot serve because their presence will undermine ‘unit morale and cohesion’.
I respectfully ask, ‘which is it General Pace? You can’t have it both ways’. Either they’re good enough to bleed and die in times of war, or they can’t serve at all. Many of our allies including Israel have integrated gays and lesbians into their armed forces. I dare say we can too. It simply requires leadership, and leadership starts at the top.
I have not yet reenlisted. I am not sure that my morals match those envisioned by General Pace. But I have served my country with honor, and I could again. Perhaps General Pace you can tell me, what I should do?
Timothy P. Holmberg
Note: I did reenlist on April 14, 2007 not withstanding General Pace's prejudices. The ban was repealed in 2011 just prior to my concluding my Marine Corps career.
