A Different Angle: a random collection of essays and observations, mostly about lesbian/gay/bi issues. © Todd VerBeek, Radio Zero(tm)

What Good Is An "In" President?

As you can see from the letters in this issue of Network News, there is a great deal of concern about the new president of the Network Board. This is because she is not "out" enough to have her name printed in the newsletter, or in any other place readily accessible to the general public. Network News is sent to anyone who requests it, as well as folks like the mayor of Grand Rapids. That's because the Network, as an organization, tries to maintain a visible profile. The Network is "out".

From that fact, it's a natural step to conclude that the Board - especially the president - should also be "out". After all, don't they, in a sense, embody the Network? As I said, it's a natural conclusion, but is it correct?

The Board is elected by the members to set policy for the Network and to give direction to its programs. But a dozen people cannot effectively do that job without some leadership of their own. That is why they elect people to serve as officers: a president to lead meetings, a vice president to assist the president, a treasurer to keep finances in order, and a secretary to maintain accurate records.

The president of the Board is not a monarch who embodies the organization, but a person chosen by the organization to perform certain tasks. Do those tasks really require someone who is "out"? I would be more concerned if the Network hired an executive director who was not out, because that is the person who will be filling the role that many think the president fills.

There are many qualifications for a good Board president. For example: the ability to work with other Board members; a keen grasp of the goals and capabilities of the Network; the resolve to be open about their orientation; the willing enthusiasm to give immeasurable time and energy to the Network; an understanding of the membership of the organization; and the vision to lead the Board in new directions.

It's easy to see that the Board's new president hasn't achieved all of these. She misses exactly one of them. As I looked around the table at the last Board meeting, I saw eleven other potential candidates, each of whom fell short on one or two counts. All of them have good points, but none are perfect. The Board felt that this imperfect candidate was the best of them.

Some people have criticized the Network, hastily comparing it to the lesbian/gay organization that hired a straight executive director, or the deaf university that hired a hearing president. That's an interesting analogy. Consider: The Network is an organization of people, most of whom are not "out". Isn't a semi-closeted president more in touch with the wants and needs of that membership?

Comments?

To the Different Angle main menu