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 1 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 2 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. 3 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 4 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.