Interpride Task Force Final Report October 2020

InterPride Task Force Final Report October 2020

Disclaimer: This report is intended for internal informational purposes only. This report has been distributed to members of InterPride and is not to be distributed externally. The IPTF was formed as an independent body to conduct this investigation. The findings contained herein are based on information provided to the IPTF, including personal recollections of the InterPride board and volunteers and representatives of Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras and Fierté Montreal, in the course of the investigation. The findings and conclusions are those of the IPTF and do not necessarily represent the official position of InterPride.

Table of Contents

Content Page

Background 2

Investigation 7

Recommendations 11

Annexure 1 - Standing Rules 07.01

Annexure 2 - Board Vote

Annexure 3 - Newsletter - InterPride (IP) Task Force is Formed

Annexure 4 - Declaration of Interests

Annexure 5 - Standing Rules 09.04

Annexure 6 - Standing Rules 12.01

A. Background a. Lead-up to the 2019 General Meeting and World Conference in Athens i. Waiver The WorldPride standing rule, as it existed at the time, attached hereto as Annexure 1, required that any member bidding to host a WorldPride event had to have been a member of InterPride for at least four years prior to bidding for the title. Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (SGLMG) was interested in submitting a bid, but did not meet this requirement, having initially become members in 2016. As such, in or about May 2018, they requested a waiver of this requirement. The WorldPride Committee held a vote to determine whether the waiver would be granted in or around June 2018. Fifteen of the 32 committee members voted, and the outcome was that the waiver was granted. ii. Grievance On July 19, 2019, Paul Savage, Regional Director from Region 20, filed a grievance against Fierté Montreal. While Savage was a member of the SGLMG bid team, he stated in the grievance that he was filing it as a board member of InterPride, not as a representative of SGLMG. In the grievance, Savage alleged that Fierté Montreal was buying votes by paying, or offering to pay, Athens General Meeting and World Conference (“GMWC”) registration and travel expenses for approximately 50 member organizations. Savage also alleged that Fierté Montreal was engaging in efforts to undermine SGLMG’s candidacy by stating that SGLMG was not eligible and threatening to sue InterPride should SGLMG win. Finally, the grievance stated that Savage was concerned about both the rollout of electronic voting and with the financial expectations the GMWC host city (Athens) had of SGLMG, i.e., sponsoring programming. On July 30th, 2019, Savage sent an updated grievance letter. While the Governance Co-Chairs attempted to investigate and resolve this grievance, an ultimate resolution was never reached. Because the issues raised in the grievance overlapped with the focus of this investigation, the IPTF made the decision to investigate Savage’s allegations. The recommendations in this report reflect the resolution(s) of the grievance. iii. Decision to move to electronic voting The option for electronic voting was incorporated into the bylaws that were voted into place at the 2018 GMWC in Saskatoon. This vote allowed for electronic voting, but did not

require it. The board then, at a meeting in Saskatoon, made the affirmative decision that they would move to electronic voting for the next GMWC. Co-President, Linda DeMarco was appointed lead of the project, with Membership Committee Co-Chair, James Hermansen-Parker assisting. Paul Savage recommended Deloitte as the company that could manage the ballot, prompting Linda and James to follow through on the recommendation in or around February 2019. Linda held a meeting in person at the Boston office of Deloitte, with James on the phone, where they showed her how the process would work. She maintained communications with representatives from both the Boston and Sydney offices, with them asking for more information and saying that they were doing testing. Conversations stalled when Deloitte representatives became unresponsive. Eventually, the Deloitte representative reached out and explained that they were unable to support an electronic vote across the various time zones required by InterPride. James then began doing research into other companies and learned about eBallots. James attended a meeting at the eBallots office with Linda on the phone and they learned about the eBallots’ process. Linda, James, Dave Wait, and J. Andrew Baker experimented with a test ballot and it worked well. They negotiated a price and the Board approved the use of eBallots in August 2019. The contract with eBallots was finalized in September 2019. b. Events occurring at the 2019 General Meeting and World Conference in Athens i. Presentations The three bidding organizations - SGLMG, Fierté Montreal, and Houston Pride - presented their bids at the GMWC in Athens. The presentations were recorded so that remote voters could view them prior to voting. Due to technical issues, portions of SGLMG’s presentation experienced audio/visual disruptions. The SGLMG team raised concerns. This led to an impromptu late-night/early-morning meeting on October 18/19, 2019, between Co-President J. Andrew Baker, World Pride Committee Co-Chair Kevin Beaulieu, and representatives from the three bid committees. During the meeting, the parties argued and voices were raised. Allegations were later made by multiple parties about inappropriate behavior on the part of other involved parties. The IPTF communicated with the involved parties but was unable to determine precisely what occurred.

ii. Vote The WorldPride 2023 vote occurred the morning of October 19, 2019 (Athens time). Five hundred and seventy-three organizations were given credentials allowing them to participate in the votes that occurred during the Athens GMWC. Of those 573, 274 (46%) organizations participated in the WorldPride vote. Of the 274 votes cast, Fietre Montreal received 99 (36%), SGLMG received 164 (60%), Houston Pride received nine (3%) and two voters selected the abstain option. c. Letters from Montreal On November 3, 2019, Fierté Montreal sent a letter to the Co-Presidents, Secretary, and Treasurer of InterPride. This letter demanded that InterPride provide Fierté Montreal with a list of the names of each organization that voted in each of the elections that occurred during and after the GMWC, as well as the results of each vote. In the alternative, the letter requested a list of the number of organizations from each region that cast a vote in each election. The letter further stated that Montreal had been told that registration for more than 40 Australian memberships and 15 Brazilian memberships were paid for using the same credit card. Montreal asked that this information be made public and that InterPride explain how this impacted the ethics of the voting process. On November 4, 2019, Montreal sent a second letter, to the Co-Presidents, Secretary, and Treasurer. This letter alleged that there were “procedural flaws resembling electoral fraud, major irregularities, the appearance of conflicts of interest, and/or multiple situations of injustice with regard to the fairness and ethics of the electoral process.” Fierté Montreal’s allegations can be separated into two primary categories. First, Fierté Montreal alleges that there were problems with the voting process. Second, Fierté Montreal alleges that there were multiple incidents in which InterPride representatives, including Board members, behaved in a manner that indicated, and communicated, bias against Fierté Montreal. In this letter, Fierté Montreal demanded that InterPride grant them the license to host WorldPride 2024 in Montreal. d. Initial co-president and board responses i. Initial meetings The Co-Presidents and Jessie DeStefano, InterPride’s legal counsel, engaged in a series of phone meetings with Eric Pineault, then-President of Fierté Montreal, and Jean-Sébastian Boudreault, then-Vice President of Fierté Montreal. These calls occurred

between November 12, 2019 and December 2, 2019. Throughout these discussions, the Co-Presidents understood there to be a legal threat being made by Fierté Montreal, that if they were not granted WorldPride 2024, they would sue InterPride for the issues they were alleging interfered with the results of the vote. Fierté Montreal made multiple comments about their Board voting to “take further action” and that they might have to go to Texas - where InterPride is incorporated and thus subject to personal jurisdiction - to do so. During these discussions, Fierté Montreal also repeatedly refused to sign a release of liability, which would have prevented them from bringing a lawsuit against InterPride. ii. Insurance implications The Co-Presidents and Treasurer reached out to InterPride’s insurers to learn what coverage would exist should Fierté Montreal bring such a lawsuit. They were informed that this would be considered a derivative claim (a claim by a member organization), as Fierté Montreal is a member of InterPride. InterPride had, and still has, insurance to cover derivative claims. However, the Co-Presidents believed that there had been a leak due to Fierté Montreal knowing confidential board information. When asked whether that would have an impact on coverage, the insurance company representatives explained that there was a risk that the insurance would not cover a claim made by Fierté Montreal, if it was found that a board member of InterPride had helped Fierté Montreal with the claim, such as by leaking the information that was the basis of the claim. iii. Recommendation to the board and vote In late November, the Co-Presidents informed the Executive Board about the situation and advised that they were recommending that Fierté Montreal be granted the 2024 title. This recommendation was based on both the threat of a lawsuit that might not be covered by insurance and the preliminary investigation which revealed that several of the key allegations regarding InterPride’s management of the election were true. The Co-Presidents then informed the remaining board members and made the same recommendation. In December, a meeting was held to present all of the known information to the Board. Following the presentation, the board asked questions and debated the proposal. The Board then voted, on December 28, 2019. The results of that vote are included in this report as Annexure 2. The board voted to grant Fierté Montreal the 2024 license. Fourteen board members voted in favor, with 11 voting against and four abstaining. The Board also voted on

whether the question should be put before the membership, either prior to the 2020 GMWC or during the 2020 GMWC. The proposal to put the matter before the membership prior to the conference failed, with 62% of the Board voting against it. The proposal to put the matter before the membership at the conference also failed with an evenly split vote. Several board members who participated in this vote had conflicts of interest. Of those who voted, we believe three had conflicts of interest based on receiving funding from Fierte Montreal. One person who received funds from Fierte Montreal recused themselves. iv. Creation and mandate of the InterPride Task Force (IPTF) One of the recommendations put forth by the Co-Presidents was that the Board create an ad hoc committee to investigate the allegations raised by the Fierté Montreal letters, as well as any other issues that occurred with the WorldPride bidding and voting processes, and to make recommendations for improvement. On December 28, 2019, the proposal to create this committee passed with 97% of the Board voting in favor. The Board decided that Julian Sanjivan would be a member of the committee, as they were the Co-President that had not been part of the organization prior to the 2019 GMWC. The board also appointed Jessie DeStefano to the committee, and determined that the committee would total nine people. Board members were invited to nominate potential members. The Co-Presidents then selected the members based on (1) number of nominations received for each person and (2) principles of diversity, including geographic. Two of the people selected for the committee declined the nomination. Ultimately it was decided that the committee would include: Darcie Baummann, Natalie Thompson, Debbie Brixey, Jorge Solorio, Mark Frederick Chapman, Hadi Damien, and Emmanual Torres. On January 28, 2020, a newsletter, attached hereto as Annexure 3, was sent to membership explaining that the InterPride Task Force (IPTF) had been created and would be “addressing flaws in the voting process, developing new processes to prevent irregularities, and correcting and streamlining the WorldPride bidding process moving forward.” v. Second vote After the December vote, the Co-Presidents spoke with representatives from Fierte Montreal and encouraged them not to accept the 2024 license. Eventually, Fierte Montreal agreed to sign a release of liability and then have the InterPride Board vote again. This was to ensure that the InterPride Board vote was not based on the fear of a lawsuit.

On May 13, 2020, Fierte Montreal signed the release of liability. In this document, Fierte Montreal agreed to abide by the results of a second InterPride Board vote on whether to grant them WorldPride 2024 and agreed that regardless of the results, they would not sue InterPride for anything stemming from the WorldPride vote or events that occurred at the GMWC in Athens. Prior to the InterPride Board meeting at which the re-vote was to occur, the Governance Co-Chairs discovered that several InterPride Board members’, specifically Regional Directors, terms had ended. The Board decided to allow the members who had termed out to participate in the vote, and Fierte Montreal agreed to accept the decision with the termed-out board members’ votes included. On May 16, 2020, Fierte Montreal presented to the Board on why they felt they should be awarded the 2024 license. The motion to award Fierte Montreal the license passed with 12 members (50%) voting in the affirmative, 11 (49%) voting in the negative, and one (1%) abstaining. Of those who voted, we believe three had conflicts of interest based on them being a member of Fierte Montreal’s bid team or receiving funding from Fierte Montreal. Seven former board members were invited to participate in the vote and 6 actually voted.

B. Investigation a. Process i. Identifying and classifying The IPTF began the investigation in January 2020. They first reviewed the allegations put forth by Fierté Montreal as well as the grievance submitted by Paul Savage and identified and classified events and accusations into groups or categories. Clear systems (criteria) were developed and used. Keys are often used as criteria to carry out a classifying process, for example, identifying and naming individuals or committees. ii. Researching The IPTF then began gathering and analyzing findings in order to answer outstanding questions and to discover context and background information to help explain specific complaints. After identifying questions relevant to the direction of the investigation, IPTF members gathered the information needed by identifying the sources of that information and

engaging in email and phone interviews and reading emails and other written documentation of events. iii. Analysing The IPTF organised and analysed the information gathered, determined what facts gave rise to the events in question, and identified areas of organizational improvement. The IPTF then worked together to develop recommendations to help InterPride avoid similar situations in the future. b. Outcomes i. Allegations against Fierté Montreal The grievance filed by Paul Savage against Fierté Montreal alleges that Fierté Montreal “for at least 50 member organizations … paid or at least offered to pay some or all … expenses in consideration of express agreement that these beneficiaries would vote for Montreal as the host city for WorldPride 2023.” The alleged expenses included airfare to and from Athens, accommodations in Athens, and conference registration fees. The IPTF determined that Fierté Montreal did provide air transportation for 45 Athens attendees, not including those who were part of the Fierté Montreal delegation. Additionally, Fierté Montreal provided accommodations for 36 of these attendees, and paid the registration costs for 43. Fierté Montreal stated that this was part of their ongoing scholarship program. The IPTF found no evidence of recipients having the requirement to vote in favor of Fierté Montreal’s bid for World Pride. ii. Allegations against SGLMG Fierté Montreal alleged that memberships of 40 new organizations in Australia and 15 in Brazil were paid for with the same credit card. The IPTF investigation determined that SGLMG paid for memberships for 114 new member organizations. SGLMG stated that this was part of their ongoing solidarity fund program. The IPTF found no evidence of recipients having the requirement to vote in favor of SGLMG’s bid for WorldPride. Additionally, SGLMG reached out to Australian LGBTQI+ organizations encouraging them to join InterPride to support SGLMG’s bid, stating that “[a]ny not-for-profit organization that has produced an LGBTQI event in the 15 months - even if it’s just a small fundraiser, or a Parade rehearsal - is eligible to join InterPride and vote then in October.” This is not an accurate statement of InterPride’s requirements for full membership.

iii. Errors made by InterPride 1. Waiver InterPride did not have a system in place to determine how waivers can be granted if a candidate was not eligible to run. In or about May 2018, Sydney requested a waiver to allow them to bid for WorldPride 2023 despite not meeting one of the technical requirements. The WorldPride Committee held a vote to determine whether the waiver would be granted. The Co-Chairs of Methods & Standards administered the vote. At the time, there were 32 confirmed members of the Committee. The vote was held during a meeting, and those present voted. Of the 32 deemed eligible to vote, but only 15 people - which constituted a quorum - voted. These fifteen people included one member of SGLMG’s bid committee and one member of Fierté Montreal’s board. Another person who would eventually come to be employed by Montreal participated in the vote; it is not clear whether any conflict existed at the time. Sydney prevailed, securing the waiver by just a single vote. 2. Vetting of new members InterPride did not fully utilize available resources both prior to, and during, the GMWC. This was especially problematic as it related to the vetting of new members. InterPride did not have a system in place to adequately vet members and failed to confirm member eligibility to vote. Approximately two months prior to the Athens GMWC, over 100 new membership applications were submitted. The Vice President of Member Services, James Hermansen-Parker, upon seeing the influx of new membership applications, reached out to the Co-Presidents, Linda DeMarco and J. Andrew Baker for help vetting the applicants. The Co-Presidents were each given a list of 127 applicants to vet for membership. From these lists, twenty-three organizations that were deemed ineligible by at least one of the Co-Presidents ended up voting. An additional 10 of those that actually voted were unable to be verified. This means that of the 274 votes cast, 31 - more than 10% - had been vetted by the Co-Presidents and not been determined to be eligible to vote. The Member Services Committee was not involved in this process. Additionally, InterPride representatives did not communicate the results of the vetting to applicants. This resulted in organizations that paid for membership learning they couldn’t vote when the ballot opened. 3. Communication and timing of electronic voting

InterPride did not provide information about electronic voting in a way that was timely and accessible to members. On October 14, 2019, less than a week before the vote occurred, an email was sent out to members. This was the first communication members received informing them of when they would be able to vote. The WorldPride vote was open for five hours. Voters were only able to cast their votes within this window period. The October 14, 2019 email contained an image of a world map with the local times of the vote highlighted for Honolulu, Vancouver, NYC, Athens, Mumbai, Canberra, and Auckland. The heading over the top of the map read “Voting Round 1 – Saturday 19 October 2019.” The times listed were: Honolulu, 4PM – 9PM; Vancouver, 7PM – 12AM; NYC, 10PM – 3AM; Athens, 5AM – 10AM; Mumbai, 7:30AM – 12:30PM; Canberra, 11AM – 4PM; and Auckland, 3PM – 8PM. This communication did not make it clear that not all of the times listed were for Saturday, October 19. Due to the difference in time zones, the vote throughout North America opened on Friday, October 18. This clarification was communicated at the plenary, but due to technological issues, remote attendees were not able to attend the plenary live as planned. Moreover, InterPride did not have interpretation services at the GMWC. This created confusion for non-English speakers. Then, once volunteer interpreters were located, there were concerns about potential bias based on affiliation with candidate cities. The concern was that if, for example, the French interpreter was from Montreal, the interpretation might be biased towards Montreal. However, the IPTF determined that the interpreters all performed their duties in an unbiased and professional manner. Further, the only communication remote attendees received regarding the window in which they could vote was this email. The voting times were not posted on social media, though they were published on the website. The method InterPride used to send email communications at the time was incompatible with most iPhone operating systems, as the communications appear to be blank emails unless the phone is oriented in landscape. This created another obstacle to getting this information to each eligible voter. InterPride did not provide equal “waking hours” voting opportunities across time zones, which disproportionately impacted the Americas. The decision to only keep the vote open for five hours made it difficult to schedule it for a time that was fair to all three candidates. 4. Campaigning guidelines and expectations

At the time of the vote, InterPride did not have any policies in place governing campaigning behaviors of candidates. This led to InterPride leadership not addressing allegations of Fierté Montreal and SGLMG buying votes. Additionally InterPride did not provide candidates clear information regarding conference sponsorship. This resulted in Fierté Montreal sponsoring a campaigning lunch after the vote and SGLMG sponsoring a coffee break because they thought it was mandatory. 5. Board conflicts of interest Several InterPride members had conflicts of interest related to the WorldPride bid. First, all three candidates had at least one InterPride board member on their bid team. Second, Fierté Montreal hired an InterPride board member as a regional ambassador for their WorldPride bid. Another regional ambassador was later elected to the InterPride board. Additionally, two people who were members of the InterPride board at the time of the GMWC received financial assistance from Fierté Montreal to attend the GMWC, with a third recipient later becoming a board member. Not all of these conflicts were disclosed. This resulted in pre-vote decisions being made by board members with a conflict of interest. This also resulted in four board members who had either received financial assistance from, or were members of the Fierté Montreal delegation, participating in the InterPride board’s vote to grant Fierté Montreal the license for WorldPride 2024.

C. Recommendations The IPTF has spent eight months meeting every week to examine the events that took place before, during and after the 2019 Athens GMWC, allegations that were raised by some of the bidding organizations and looking at the running of InterPride. Our recommendations are based on this research and investigations. We have taken every care to look at ways to make this organization stronger and to future proof the WorldPride brand. We strongly urge the Board and all committees to look to our recommendations and to adopt these changes as a matter of priority. We suggest the Board elects two or three individuals to ensure the implementation of the recommendations are carried out in a timely manner. Please be advised that these are recommendations, and therefore implementation of these recommendations will happen at the

committee level. Any questions related to these recommendations and their implementation need to be directed to the relevant committee(s) for their consideration.

a. All Committees’ Co-Chairs & Board Members

● Learn and understand more about skills (communications, knowledge of the work that we do, finance, governance, etc) and requirements (care, trust, confidentiality, etc) for board members. Information can be found in the bylaws, standing rules, handbook and agreement. ● Create work plans and agree on goals and KPIs (Key Performance Indicator) at the beginning of the term. These should be agreed and approved by both the committees and Board. More information can be found at KPI.org. ● Develop a new standing rule on role evaluation and, if required, the removal of Board members and Committee Chairs. Criteria for evaluation should include attendance at meetings, a professional code of conduct, and performance evaluation. ● Board members can only chair one committee but can be a member of many. Additionally, Board members can sit on committees in an advisory role. ● Any binding decisions that can affect the organization (such as waivers) shall be recommended (through a vote) to the Board. The Board will vote to accept the committee’s recommendation. ● A clear definition of what constitutes a conflict should be incorporated into the standing rules. Whenever in doubt, please seek clarification from the Governance Co-Chairs. ● Board members must declare all interests in a “Register of Interests” and this must be updated regularly if and when changes occur. The Register should also be held on each committee, sub-committee and the Global Advisory Council. Payment for attendance at events/AGM, membership fees paid or sponsorships, etc. must also be recorded here. Any potential conflicts should be discussed openly and a decision made as to whether

there is a conflict, and if so, how it will be handled. In the event that this is not resolved Governance Co-Chairs must be consulted. Examples are attached as Annexure 4. ● The Co-Presidents/Governance Chairs will decide what is a conflict based on the register rather than allowing the individual to decide. Committee Chairs or VPs should decide on Conflicts of Interest within their committee members. ● Review and expand the current Standing Rule 09.04 Code of Ethics and Conduct. An example is attached as Annexure 5. ● Board members and committee chairs should receive training on conflict of interest and code of conduct. ● Board Votes to be done by Roll Call and available for any IP member to know how individuals voted. This is currently in our Bylaws. ● All Board votes must have a two thirds majority or higher in order for them to pass. Our Bylaws need to be amended. ● It is the responsibility of Board members, Co-Chairs and GAC members to be aware of when their individual terms start and finish. They must make provision either for re-election or encourage others to apply. The Board should not allow termed-out Board members to vote, regardless of whether the termed-out member was previously aware that their term had ended. ● We should hire an employee to help with the amount of membership growth we have been seeing.

iv. Membership process

We would recommend the following steps:

● When an organization or group completes the form on the website expressing interest in becoming a member, someone from Member Services should check the applicant’s details. They should then contact

them, either by email or telephone, to verify the request and answer any queries the applicant may have. ● The level of membership the applicant may be eligible for should be verified at this stage. No payment should be asked for until such time as the application for membership is confirmed by Member Services. ● Having verified the legitimacy and eligibility of the applicant a request for an invoice at the relevant rate should be sent to the treasurer. ● The treasurer should send an invoice to the agreed contact at the applicant organization with a time frame for payment. Once the invoice is paid the Treasurer will advise Member Services. ● Once the payment is received, Member Services should reach out to confirm the membership in writing and schedule an onboarding session. The onboarding process should include a list of all membership perks, background of InterPride including the history and operations, introduction to the bylaws and standing rules, and access to relevant resource materials.

ii. Website

The description of each committee and their purpose needs to be better clarified on the website. The whole website needs to be reviewed and re-written with clearer language. Taking into consideration that our target audience would not necessarily have English as a first language, we should ensure that we are following recommended accessibility guidelines at all times and that the website is W3C compliant. This site will help https://www.w3.org/WAI/

B. Committees

Where multiple committees are mentioned it is for all of them to work together.

i. Conference Structure and Integrity Committee (CSIC)

● Member Services, CSIC, and GMWC host to work with Communications Committee to send reminders to members in the official languages of InterPride. ● Requesting all eligible member organizations to register to vote and confirm email address to receive ballot(s) 60 & 45 & 30 days prior to GMWC ● Reminder to eligible organizations that have not yet registered that the deadline is imminent 20 days prior. ● Methods and Standards, CSIC, Member Services, and Governance Committees to work with the Communications Committee to send reminders to members in the official languages of InterPride by default. ● Instructions on how to vote, what will be voted on, expected time zones and durations for voting and contact details for any queries arising to be sent to all registered eligible voters 45 & 20 & 5 days prior to GMWC taking place. ● Managing the approvals of membership applications, payments, status updates, and voting rights needs to be done accurately with confirmations issued minimum 20 days before the GMWC. ● Should there be any amendments to the information given in the above emails, precise details of the changes must be sent out to all eligible voting organizations in a timely manner. ● Ensure that GMWC host is not distributing inaccurate information to members or bidders (such as requirements regarding sponsorship). ● Ensure that each host and CSIC work together to develop a GMWC sponsorship deck. ● CSIC, Member Services, and Methods and Standards Committees to ensure that the electronic voting system is accurate and sufficient testing is done using various scenarios before the GMWC. A test group should be used to ensure accuracy. Membership should also participate in a test ballot prior to the conference.

● World Pride, CSIC, Methods and Standards, and Member Services Committees to develop clear bidding and voting policies and checklists for the above committees and the WorldPride hosts. ● World Pride, CSIC, Methods and Standards, Finance, and Member Services Committees in multiple languages by default need to work together to develop a step-by-step operations manual. The manual should detail how InterPride manages the WorldPride process from the time an interest to host a WorldPride is received until after the host city completes its profit-sharing payment and submits all relevant reports. This operations manual will include checklists, email templates, forms, guides, policies, standing rules, and other references. The manual should also include the following: ○ A clause in the WorldPride contract that allows IP to withdraw the WorldPride from an awarded host should they commit/be proven to have acted in a way that brings the movement into disrepute. ○ The hosting city and its representatives for WorldPride should also agree to a code of conduct. ● CSIC, WorldPride, Methods and Standards, and Member Services Committees should ensure ballots are prepared in advance and be kept open for at least a minimum of 24 hours. This would ensure voters in the various time zones, including those present at the plenary, have ample time to cast votes. ● Develop a detailed conference sponsorship package (with a deck) that is made accessible publicly. There should be clear expectations and steps on how to submit a request to sponsor and how it will be activated upon acceptance. This process should be clearly documented and shared with CSIC, Governance, and WorldPride Committees. ii. Communications Committee

● Member Services and Treasurer to work with the Communications Committee to send reminders to members in the official languages of InterPride: ○ On membership status generated monthly when fees are due as generated by Treasurer ○ Outstanding fees reminders with an explanation that voting rights will be lost 60 days prior to GMWC as generated by the Treasurer. ● Member Services, CSIC, and GMWC host to work with the Communications Committee to send reminders to members in the official languages of InterPride: ○ Requesting all eligible member organizations to register to vote and confirm email address to receive ballot(s) 60 & 45 & 30 days prior to GMWC ○ Reminder to eligible organizations that have not yet registered that the deadline is imminent 20 days prior. ● Methods and Standards, CSIC, Member Services, and Governance Committees to work with Communications to send reminders to members in the official languages of InterPride: ○ Instructions on how to vote, what will be voted on, expected time zones and durations for voting and contact details for any queries arising to be sent to all registered eligible voters 45 & 20 & 5 days prior to GMWC taking place. ○ Should there be any amendments to the information given in the above emails, precise details of the changes must be sent out to all eligible voting organizations in a timely manner. ● The Member Services Committee to work with the Communications Committee to send out regular newsletters to the membership. Email addresses that bounce should be shared with the Members Services Committee so that it can be updated. ● All relevant standing rules should be updated to reflect new rules around voting (to allow for things like application deadlines).

● All outgoing emails and correspondences should be available in languages that reflect the membership. Review the Bylaws and the relevant standing rules including Standing Rule 03.08 on Languages to decide what are the core languages we should use for all outgoing communications within InterPride. This can be done through a poll sent out to the membership. Terminology and the use of language should be examined and made suitable for all. It should use less jargon with clearer and simpler language structures. iii. Finance Committee

● Member Services and Treasurer to work with the Communications Committee to send reminders to members in multiple languages by default: ○ On membership status generated monthly when fees are due as generated by Treasurer ○ Outstanding fees reminders with an explanation that voting rights will be lost 60 days prior to GMWC as generated by the Treasurer ● Managing the approvals of membership applications, payments, status updates, and voting rights needs to be done accurately with confirmations issued minimum 20 days before the GMWC. ● Review our liability insurance policies and obtain new insurance policies to ensure proper coverage from risks caused by other types of negligence. ● World Pride, CSIC, Methods and Standards, Finance, and Member Services Committees in multiple languages by default need to work together to develop a step-by-step operations manual detailing how InterPride manages the WorldPride process from the time an interest to host a WorldPride is received until after the host city completes its profit-sharing payment and submits all relevant reports. This operations manual will include checklists, email templates, forms, guides, policies,

standing rules, and other references. The manual should also include the following: ○ A clause in the WorldPride contract that allows IP to withdraw the WorldPride from an awarded host should they commit/be proven to have acted in a way that brings the movement into disrepute. ○ The hosting city and its representatives for WorldPride should also agree to a code of conduct. iv. Governance Committee

● Methods and Standards, CSIC, Member Services and Governance Committees to work with Communications to send reminders to members in multiple languages by default: ○ Instructions on how to vote, what will be voted on, expected time zones and durations for voting and contact details for any queries arising to be sent to all registered eligible voters 45 & 20 & 5 days prior to GMWC taking place. ○ Should there be any amendments to the information given in the above emails, precise details of the changes must be sent out to all eligible voting organizations in a timely manner. ● Managing the approvals of membership applications, payments, status updates, and voting rights needs to be done accurately with confirmations issued minimum 20 days before the GMWC. ● The definition of “Pride Event” in the ByLaws needs to be reviewed and updated so that the term cannot be misconstrued or misinterpreted ● Those interested in running for Board roles should ideally be committee members or co-chairs of committees. This ensures that potential nominees would have experience of InterPride’s operations. The exception to this would be that the candidate has proven external experience relevant to the role.

● A detailed role description of the Board vacancies should be published when nominations are open. This will prevent candidates submitting their nominations from claiming they had no understanding of what the roles entailed. ● A detailed onboarding process for all Board Members and Committee Chairs should be developed. The plan should include a clear understanding of what the role entails, performance evaluations, background of InterPride including the history and operations, introduction to the bylaws and standing rules, access to relevant reading materials, and an overview of issues affecting the LGBTQ+ and Pride communities. Resource materials should be properly named and made easily accessible to every new Board, Committee Co-Chair, and Global Advisory Council member.

v. Member Services Committee

● Member Services will agree on a deadline of 60 days prior to the GMWC for new members to join IP to be eligible to vote. Extensions to the deadline must be put before the Board and a majority vote must be obtained in a closed session excluding any member who has a conflict of interest.

● Verify the updated lists and legitimacy of members with regional representatives, Pride Networks (EPOA, FCP etc) as well as with VPs of Global Outreach. In the absence of a local representative or a Pride Network the VP(s) of Global Outreach will be tasked with validating the request.

● Following the GMWC an updated membership list should be made available for regional representatives and executive committee members with this being provided every three months or if requested.

● Member Services Committee working with regional representatives, VPs of Global Outreach and the Communications Committee are strongly urged to put together a strategy to reach out and engage with IP members and Pride Networks on a regular basis.

● The Member Services Committee to work with the Communications Committee to send out regular newsletters to the membership. Email addresses that bounce should be shared with the Members Services Committee so that it can be updated.

● Member Services and Treasurer to work with the Communications Committee to send reminders to members in multiple languages by default:

○ On membership status generated monthly when fees are due as generated by Treasurer ○ Outstanding fees reminders with an explanation that voting rights will be lost 60 days prior to GMWC as generated by the Treasurer

● Member Services, CSIC and GMWC host to work with the Communications Committee to send reminders to members in multiple languages by default:

○ Requesting all eligible member organizations to register to vote and confirm email address to receive ballot(s) 60 & 45 & 30 days prior to GMWC ○ Reminder to eligible organizations that have not yet registered that the deadline is imminent 20 days prior.

● Managing the approvals of membership applications, payments, status updates, and voting rights needs to be done accurately with confirmations issued minimum 20 days before the GMWC.

● The vetting process for new members should incorporate different cultural perspectives and remove decisions being made by any single individual in InterPride. Instead, vetting

should be done by a group of individuals representing member organizations within InterPride who can review the information provided on the membership application form and cross-check the information with political, cultural, and geographical factors. We recommend that the Member Services Committee take a lead on this utilising all of the committee members not just the VP &/or Co-chairs. Delegating is key!

● CSIC, Member Services and Methods and Standards to ensure that the electronic voting system is accurate and sufficient testing is done using various scenarios before the GMWC. A test group should be used to ensure accuracy. Membership should also participate in a test ballot prior to the conference.

● World Pride, CSIC, Methods and Standards, and Member Services Committees to develop clear bidding and voting policies and checklists for the above committees and the WorldPride hosts.

● World Pride, CSIC, Methods and Standards, Finance, and Member Services Committees in multiple languages by default need to work together to develop a step-by-step operations manual detailing how InterPride manages the WorldPride process from the time an interest to host a WorldPride is received until after the host city completes its profit-sharing payment and submits all relevant reports. This operations manual will include checklists, email templates, forms, guides, policies, standing rules, and other references. The manual should also include the following:

○ A clause in the WorldPride contract that allows IP to withdraw the WorldPride from an awarded host should they commit/be proven to have acted in a way that brings the movement into disrepute. ○ The hosting city and its representatives for WorldPride should also agree to a code of conduct.

● CSIC, WorldPride, Methods and Standards and Member Services should have ballots prepared in advance and be kept open for at least a minimum of 24 hours. This would

ensure voters in the various time zones, including those present at the plenary, have ample time to cast votes.

vi. Methods & Standards Committee

● Methods and Standards, CSIC, Member Services and Governance to work with Communications to send reminders to members in multiple languages by default:

○ Instructions on how to vote, what will be voted on, expected time zones and durations for voting and contact details for any queries arising to be sent to all registered eligible voters 45 & 20 & 5 days prior to GMWC taking place. ○ Should there be any amendments to the information given in the above emails, precise details of the changes must be sent out to all eligible voting organizations in a timely manner.

● Managing the approvals of membership applications, payments, status updates, and voting rights needs to be done accurately with confirmations issued minimum 20 days before the GMWC.

● CSIC, Member Services and Methods and Standards Committees to ensure that the electronic voting system is accurate and sufficient testing is done using various scenarios before the GMWC. A test group should be used to ensure accuracy. Membership should also participate in a test ballot prior to the conference.

● World Pride, CSIC, Methods and Standards, and Member Services Committees to develop clear bidding and voting policies and checklists for the above committees and the WorldPride hosts.

process from the time an interest to host a WorldPride is received until after the host city completes its profit-sharing payment and submits all relevant reports. This operations manual will include checklists, email templates, forms, guides, policies, standing rules, and other references. The manual should also include the following:

● CSIC, WorldPride, Methods and Standards and Member Services Committees should prepare the ballots in advance and be kept open for at least a minimum of 24 hours. This would ensure voters in the various time zones, including those present at the plenary, have ample time to cast votes.

vii. Strategic Planning Workgroup

Strategic Planning should ensure that the recommendations in this report are included in the annual strategic plan that is being developed.

viii. WorldPride Committee

● Managing the approvals of membership applications, payments, status updates, and voting rights needs to be done accurately with confirmations issued minimum 20 days before the GMWC.

● Once a bid has been accepted bidders will be required to sign an agreement This will include but not be limited to:

○ Stating that they understand and will adhere to Standing Rule12.01 (Annexure 6) in particular Standing Rule 07.01 prior to/simultaneous to submission of their bid.

○ Bidders need to confirm their acceptance and knowledge that InterPride can not be held liable for last-minute issues/challenges that may result in rescheduling of any part of the proceedings and they agree to waive any claims that may arise. ○ Bidders will be held accountable to an agreed code of conduct which will include nondisparagement.

● World Pride, CSIC, Methods and Standards, and Member Services Committees to develop clear bidding and voting policies and checklists for the above committees and the WorldPride hosts.

● As our brand continues to grow, it is recommended that we seek advice from similar organizations on how they have handled various aspects. We would suggest reaching out to EPOA, FIFA, Gay Games, Pan American Games and the Olympics.

● CSIC, WorldPride, Methods and Standards and Member Services Committees should have the ballots prepared in advance and be kept open for at least a minimum of 24

hours. This would ensure voters in the various time zones, including those present at the plenary, have ample time to cast votes.

● The WorldPride Applications & Licensure Standing Rule (07.01) should be updated to state that the WorldPride title can only be granted following a vote of the membership

26 Standing Rules

07 – WorldPride Standing Rule 07.01 Revised 16 November 2019 WorldPride Applications and Licensure

Purpose To establish the procedures by which applications for the WorldPride title are handled and the requirements for licensing should the WorldPride title be granted by the Membership.

Section 1 – Establishment of WorldPride Title Pursuant to Resolution 97-01, the Organization established the title “WorldPride”, which it may license, from time to time, to a Full Member Organization. WorldPride shall be a semi- regular activity of InterPride. The event may be awarded to occur every two (2) calendar years, beginning in 2019. InterPride may opt to grant the title at different intervals. The title should be granted in the spirit of geographic diversity – it is preferred, but shall not be required, that each WorldPride not be held on the same continent as the previous one.

Section 2 – Requirements for Applicant Organizations In order to be eligible to apply for the WorldPride title, an applicant organization must meet the following requirements:

A. The applicant organization must be a current, Full Member Organization of InterPride or an associated Pride Platform, e.g. EPOA, Fierte Canada Pride, USAP, CAPI, and have been in good standing for at least four (4) consecutive calendar years prior to submitting an application. B. The applicant organization must have organized at least three (3) Pride Events within the previous four (4) calendar years. C. The applicant organization must have attended three (3) of the previous four (4) World Conferences. Consideration may be given to Member organizations that have not fulfilled this obligation but have been actively involved in any of the associated Pride Platforms over this period. D. The applicant organization must be a fiscally-stable organization with no operating deficit exceeding ten percent (10%) of revenues in a four (4) calendar year period. E. The applicant organization must propose to hold the WorldPride event at least three (3) calendar years after the World Conference at which their application would be considered. F. The applicant organization must be present at the World Conference at which their application would be considered. G. Organizations from ODA-eligible countries applying to host a WorldPride event may request a waiver of part or all of the licensure fee. The organization must demonstrate a compelling reason for this request. The request should be submitted to the WorldPride Committee as part of their bid.

Section 3 – Application Content Any application for the WorldPride title must include the following:

A. Name, full postal address, telephone and fax numbers; and email address of the applicant organization and contact person(s) for that organization. B. A full description of the history and legal status of the applicant organization and its structure. C. The proposed date and geographic location of the event(s). D. Details of the proposed program, including: a. an opening ceremony; b. a march, parade or similar demonstration;

SR07.01 11-16-2019 Standing Rules

c. conference(s) and/or workshop(s) on various aspects/issues of LGBTI+ life; and d. a closing ceremony. E. A full description of the political context of the program, its projected impact on a global scale and how the program will meet the mission statement and provide measurable outcomes to InterPride and its member organizations. F. A proposed business plan for the event that includes the following: a. a proposed budget; b. organizational structure; and c. key personnel. G. A proposed marketing plan for the event, including: a. a timeline; b. format(s) of marketing; c. projected costs of marketing; and d. key points that will be emphasized in marketing efforts. H. General information about the host city/region/country, including: a. international airport location; b. transportation to/from the event(s); c. relevant health and safety/security issues; and d. accommodation availability and cost(s). I. A brief description of LGBTI+ life in the host city/region/country.

The application must clearly specify the global dimension of the event and evidence the desire to embrace and respect the participation of the international LGBTI+ community. The application must also fully comply with this standing rule, along with the Bylaws, other standing rules and other governing documents of InterPride.

Section 4 – Supporting Documents Applications must be accompanied by as many of the following documents as possible. If any of these documents cannot be obtained, a reason must be given as to why the document(s) is unavailable.

A. Letters of support from:

1. organizations within the city/region/country where the event(s) will take place exhibiting their support; 2. government officials (mayor, city council, governor, president, prime minister, etc.); 3. LGBTI+ businesses in the city/region/country of the event(s); 4. local media; 5. prospective sponsors; 6. local tourism authorities; 7. travel partners (airlines, hotels, travel agents, car rental agencies, etc.) and other event partners; and 8. human rights organizations.

B. Documentation regarding the background of the application, describing the special political, cultural or social reasons for hosting the event(s).

C. Biographical information on the key personnel who will be involved in the planning and execution of the event (at the time of application).

Section 5 – Application Submission Applications for WorldPride will only be formally considered at the World Conference four (4) calendar years in advance of when it is scheduled to take place. Applications for optional

SR07.01 11-16-2019 Standing Rules

years will only be considered at the conference a minimum of four (4) calendar years in advance of the earliest possible calendar year. The following table is only an example:

WorldPride Year Bid Year 2025 2021 2027 2023 2029 2025 2031 2027 2034 2030 2036 2032

Written and/or electronic applications shall be provided to the WorldPride Committee at least ninety (90) days prior to the World Conference at which the application would be considered. The WorldPride Committee shall vote on whether to approve each application for a Membership vote. The qualifying application(s) shall then be referred to the Membership at the World Conference where they shall vote on whether to grant the provisional WorldPride license. A non-refundable fee of US$500, submitted to the Treasurer of InterPride, must accompany applications. The application will be considered incomplete if payment is not received by the Treasurer by the close of the ninety (90) day window.

At a minimum of 120 days prior to the World Conference the applicant(s) will send their draft bid(s) to the WorldPride Committee Co-Chair(s) for review. This review is to verify that the minimum requirements, as established in the Standing Rules and bylaws for a bid to be accepted and valid have been met. The co-chairs will only evaluate if the requirements have been met, and not the caliber or quantity or quality of the information provided. The co- chair(s) will then send feedback to each bidder for incorporation using a formal checklist.

At 100 days prior to the World Conference, the revised draft proposal(s) will be sent to the WorldPride Committee Co-Chair(s) and distributed to the WorldPride Committee to preview prior to the aforementioned vote at 90 days. This distribution of the proposal(s) shall be confined to the committee and are not to be made public until such time as deemed by the CSIC committee, InterPride Co-Presidents, and the World Conference host organizing committee.

Applications must be found to meet the requirements of Sections 3, 4 and 5, above, in order for the applicant organization to be permitted to present their application at a World Conference. This would be accomplished based on a recommendation of the WorldPride Committee.

Section 6 – Application Presentation Each applicant organization shall be provided with up to thirty (30) minutes during a plenary session of a World Conference to make a presentation regarding their application for the WorldPride title. The applicant organization is responsible to coordinate any technical needs they might have for this presentation with the World Conference’s Host Committee.

The presentation(s) shall be followed by a question and answer period of no longer than fifteen (15) minutes for each organization.

An applicant, in consultation with the WorldPride Committee and the World Conference Host Committee, may provide additional opportunities during that World Conference outside plenary sessions to permit applicants to provide the Membership with additional information regarding their bid. Such additional opportunities shall be provided to all bidding organizations on an equal basis. SR07.01 11-16-2019 Standing Rules

Section 7 – Application Selection

A. An application for the WorldPride title shall be provisionally granted to an applicant organization should two-thirds (2/3) of the Full Member Organizations present and voting at the AGM at which their application is presented vote in favor of its acceptance. The vote shall take place using the process outlined in the Bylaws, Article VIII, Section 3, Subsection A. This vote will take place by ballot during a plenary session of any given AGM. The choices to be provided shall be: voting in favor of an applicant organization’s bid, voting to not award the license to any applicant organization, and abstention. B. Should only one application be considered and the bid not receive a two-thirds majority vote, no provisional license shall be granted. C. When there shall be two (2) or more applications and should no option receive a majority vote, additional votes shall be taken with the application with the lowest vote total being removed from each subsequent round of voting until a majority vote for an option be achieved. The application achieving a majority vote shall be awarded the provisional license.

Section 8 – Requirement Suspension The WorldPride Committee, upon the request of a bidding organization and through the majority vote of those members of the committee present and voting, may recommend to the Membership at a World Conference the suspension of one or more provisions of Sections 3 and/or 11 of this Standing Rule, excluding membership requirements. The Membership, through the majority vote of those present and voting at a World Conference, may enact such suspension(s), provided they occur prior to the presentation of bids noted in Section 7 of this rule.

Section 9 – Licensure – General The provisional license of the WorldPride title is contingent on the host organization (successful applicant) and InterPride Co-Presidents entering into a signed licensure agreement containing the terms and conditions upon which the usage of the WorldPride title is authorized by the Organization.

Section 10 – Licensure – Specifics of Agreement

The following terms should be incorporated into the licensure agreement:

A. The ability for InterPride to withdraw the WorldPride title and revoke licensure should the host organization be found to be in violation of the licensure agreement. B. A program of accountability between the host organization and InterPride. C. Regular reporting of the progress of the event(s) to the WorldPride Committee. D. In-person reporting of the progress of the event(s) to the Membership at the World Conferences leading up to the event(s); E. A post-WorldPride presentation at a World Conference following their event(s), including detailed written report. F. A requirement that host organizations maintain Full Member status with the Organization for a period following the events. G. Payment of a non-refundable licensure fee, with a detailed explanation of any agreed upon installment plan. H. A percentage of profits from the event(s) that will be paid to InterPride. I. A percentage of profits from all WorldPride merchandise paid to InterPride; and J. A statement clarifying the length and scope of the license.

SR07.01 11-16-2019 Standing Rules

Section 11 – Enactment and Precedence This standing rule shall take effect immediately upon passage and replace all other standing rules, motions, resolutions and other policies enacted by the Executive Committee, Board of Directors and Membership dealing with the subject matter contained herein.

Resolutions 97-01, 97-02

eBALLOT REPORT BOARD VOTE ON WORLD PRIDE

Prepared by Darcie Baumann standard eballot Election/Vote Results Report: BOARD VOTE ON WORLDPRIDE (Results)

Results by Question

Download:

1. Should InterPride grant Montreal Pride the license to host WorldPride 2024?

Total Voters:30