GLRF at the Annual Meeting of the Federation of Gay Games

The 2003 annual meeting of the Federation of Gay Games was held in Chicago 10 Nov – 14 Nov 2003. It was an emotionally draining week as we went through what seemed like endless motions and procedures. The first day’s business was totally consumed with the debate about the Montreal License dispute.

In the end, it was a very say day for the Federation of Gay Games because the FGG attorney openly said that the Montreal presented License Agreement, version 13, had no fundamental problems and that the FGG could sign it and do just fine. That means the crucial FGG logo and name would be protected and the FGG would receive its vital quadrennial license fee of $650,000, its only source of income.

The GLRF motion to accept Montreal’s License 13 was never considered. The previous motion submitted by the FGG Executive Committee for License Agreement version 13.5 carried and of course, Montreal rejected it and here we are. That means the Federation now has no source of income until it signs a new license agreement with another, alternate city.

The Director Organization membership was a hot topic. Several organizations did not renew their memberships, two lost their voting status, and one organization resigned. Only one organization was admitted – Team DC. The official recommendation was not to admit Team DC. GLRF voted for their admission. Team Montreal resigned in protest after being excluded from participating in the Montreal debate.

On the financial side, a three-year budget was presented and approved, even with a forecasted deficit of $72,000 by year three. Director Organization fees were doubled, as were the new applicant fees. The fee for a Host City to apply jumped 28% based on the average of the previous host cities’ bid costs.

An Image of the Gay Games paper was approved that provided more specific guidance to a host city considering a bid for the Gay Games. GLRF abstained from the vote since the guidance was meant to better prepare the host city applicants but the guidelines were so restrictive as to be suffocating. The paper will be published on the FGG website in the coming weeks.

A new Strategic Plan structured as a set of guidelines for the various FGG committees was approved. GLRF voted against the plan because it simply reinforces an already existing bureaucratic structure and attempts to increase organization contribution through increased threats and restrictions. GLRF called for a radical restructuring of the FGG organization using a much small Board of Directors, a paid staff, and a Congress of Sports Delegates represented by their leaders at smaller meetings held once every two or three years.

The Board of Directors or the Federation of Gay Games approved a plan to pursue an alternate city to host Gay Games 7 in 2006 or 2007. The three cities involved in the original Gay Games 2006 bid will be given the opportunity to submit a revised bid. The selection process will take several months and a new host city will not be announced until early 2004. GLRF did not vote.