My letter to HRC:

[livinginphotographs]

It is with the urging of several DU'ers here in this forum that I emailed this to HRC tonight. Just thought I'd update those on this continuing drama between the HRC and myself.

I am writing to cancel my membership and immediately cease all donations.

This decision was made after giving this issue some considerable thought. First, I thought the firing of Cheryl Jacques (or forced resignation, however you want to look at it) was extremely questionable, especially given the timing, so close to George W Bush's "re-election." The next-to-final straw was bringing on Hilary Rosen as interim director. Her history as an RIAA shill, making her living suing 12-year-olds and propping up the corporate behometh that is the record industry, thereby quickening the switch to a total media monopoly by corporations such as Clear Channel, makes this an incredibly disgusting move by your organization, to say the least.

The final straw was after reading that the HRC is thinking of endorsing President Bush's plan to privatize social security if he would promise throw the GLBT community a bone of token "equality."

I have long admired HRC's cause, if only having join just a few months ago, but this sudden shift to "moderate" DLC-style politics is the WRONG move. Bush did not have a mandate by any means; organizations such as HRC deciding to compromise their positions for temporary political clout is inexcusable.

With that said, please do not take any further donations from my account, and cancel my membership in the Human Rights Campaign. I will be contacting my bank as well to make sure that these withdrawals are no longer accepted.

I am truly sorry it has come to this, but the HRC's shift to the right is not something I can support any longer.

Sincerely,
(me)

Looks like the Gay and Lesbian Task Force is going to be getting my money from now on. And since I save a bit of cash by doing a lump sum for yearly membership instead of a monthyl donation, I'll have more to throw towards Amnesty International.

I really think my good karma just jumped up a few points today.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Excelllent letter.

[Zenlitened]

2. Wow. I'm a big supporter of HRC.

Is there a link stating that they're making deals with Bush? This is an organization that has accomplished quite a lot of good. I'd hesitate to write them off without knowing quite a bit more about the situation. For now, I'd prefer to wait and see what their next moves are.

[livinginphotographs]

3. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x2391

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[Zenlitened]

6. Well, I disagree. The part about...

"says . . . through friends, reportedly..." is what makes me hesitate. Let's not be so quick to devour our allies, based on third-hand quotes in the newspaper. I really think we should wait and see what develops next, rather than immediately tossing HRC in the trash-bin.

[livinginphotographs]

9. They've already said clearly that their thinking of endorsing Bush's

social security plan.

There's times to be pragmatic, and there's times not to compromise. Civil rights is not a time to compromise, and frankly I'd expect the HRC to have more of a sack than to just back down like this.

It's not a matter of tossing HRC in the trash-bin; it's a matter of me not wanting to give money to an organization that won't be as effective as another one, such as the Gay and Lesbian Task Force. I'm not encouraging anyone to do one or the other; this is just my personal preference.

[Zenlitened]

11. But where have they said that clearly?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative. It's just that I'm a strong supporter of HRC, and would hate to see them undermined before we know for sure what's going on. :) :) :)

[TaleWgnDg]

12. exactly. HRC is an old old old human rights advocate . . .

why throw out the baby w/ the bathtub water? If there's something amiss in HRC (and it hasn't been proven that there is), then merely remove the "amiss" stuff. All this hype in the newspaper based upon sensationalism is just that -- sensationalism. Don't bite into it. Be patient. Wait. Wait it out. Don't kneejerk crap.

After all, HRC does a great job of lobbying in Washington D.C. for human rights (homosexual rights and the rights of homosexual parents and their kids) . . . NEVER fall into the fray of having your opponent divide and conquer a sound, reasonable and just cause.

Yes, HRC wines and dines those politicians in D.C., and they advocate for gay rights. WHY cut em off at the knees?



.

[livinginphotographs]

14. Regardless, Hilary Rosen stinks too much for me.

I have a long and deep vendetta with this woman, and for them to be working with her makes me nauseous.

If I'm wrong, I'll owe you a coke, and I'll reinstate my membership with them.

[Zenlitened]

17. I think you're being unfair, I really do.

And it saddens me that we're attacking HRC this way. :(

[livinginphotographs]

18. ...

1) In interviews, gay rights activists familiar with Jacques's tenure said, for example, the HRC's campaign slogan ''George Bush, You're Fired!" was too partisan for an organization that will have to work in a Republican-dominated Washington." Too partisan? Is that what I'm giving them money for, to be worried about hurting some Republican bigot's feelings?

2) They floated the possibility of supporting the Bush administration plan to privatize Social Security, for example, in the hopes of winning survivor benefits from more open-minded private companies that might administer the funds." If I'm supporting an organization, I would like them to be a bit less naive.

3) And ever the beacon of integrity: In the Advocate essay, Rosen compared gay marriage to ''a noisy red Ferrari speeding down quiet Main Street. . . there is no question that this issue played some role in the overall mood of the country, and it is just not possible to deny so many their instincts. The strategy has to change," she wrote. ''Let's stop looking a gift horse in the mouth. If there are ways to get gay and lesbian couples some access to benefits now, we ought to be more aggressive in pursuing them."

[Zenlitened]

21. Please see my post #16. Rosen clarifies that statemement...

... which some may have taken out of context.

Also, the passage you cite once agin uses un-named sources. It's just not right to trash HRC based on this sort of thing.

I understand that you're angry with RIAA. But can't we consider that a separate issue, at least for the moment, at least until we see where HRC is headed?

[livinginphotographs]

23. In the "they floated" passage,

they refers to the HRC's annual meeting. That's not very vague.

[Zenlitened]

26. Floating an idea is by its very nature vague.

Seriously, this is just an interpretation of a conversation that we ourselves weren't involved in. It's just hearsay at this point. And to go from there to abandoning HRC -- and by posting here, encouraging others to do the same -- is just not productive. It's about much more than one person's $10. It hurts us all.

[TaleWgnDg]

20. You've cited to a DU thread in which I started . . .

however, you are referring to that thread under erroneous intentions. Why do I say that?

Because you are opposed to that thread here in this (your) thread. No where did I infer nor state nor intend that any DUer jump to the erroneous knee-jerk conclusions that you have here by proposing cutting-off donations to the Human Rights Commission (HRC). .


.

[livinginphotographs]

22. You didn't propose anything.

The urgings I referred to were other DUers. I read what you posted and came to my decision from that and some other sources.

This was NOT knee-jerk. Not by a long shot. I decided this after a week or so. And like I said, if I'm wrong, I don't think my $10 a month is going to make a huge difference. Morally, I'd rather keep my wallet closed for DLC-types, though.

[Bouncy Ball]

4. I need to write them and cancel my membership as well.

Got a link for the Gay and Lesbian Task Force? I need another organization to support now. Dammit.

[Zenlitened]

8. Please wait before you write off HRC!

They've been a strong voice for positive change in the past, and they've listened to the membership when we insisted on being heard.

(I'm thinking specifically about the TG rights debate -- TG advocates were ultimately successful in getting HRC to see the light.)

Let's not react hastily to what, as far as I can tell, are some unattributed speculations. Let's see what HRC does next.

:) :) :)

[livinginphotographs]

24. Hopefully, that's what my letter will do.

If I write them telling them WHY I'm unhappy with their direction, maybe they'll change. And then maybe they'll get more of my money.

[Zenlitened]

27. Well how about writing them for clarification?

Hold off on telling them "I quit!" until you hear their side. At least give them a chance to respond to what are essentially media allegations.

Right now it feels like we're at the start of a "dump HRC" movement, and I really don't think that's fair. :(

[livinginphotographs]

29. I read about another DUer who did the exact same thing

And got a line about, "We've been lied about in the media."

Not that I put it past the MSM to be honest about these things, but once again, I really think my money would be better going to less "moderate" organizations.

[Zenlitened]

30. Whah????????

So the media tells lies about HRC... the HRC points this out... and you launch a boycott of HRC based on what the media is reporting??????

This is just SO wrong!

You have every right to donate your money as you see fit, I don't dispute that for a second. But it's totally unfair to attack HRC in the way you have.

You've taken a flimsy collection of anecdotes, added what you yourself described as a sense of vendetta against one person, and used it to attack one of the leading voices of the GLBT community.

I think it STINKS. And I hope other people reading this thread will stop and think before joining you on this destructive path.

[livinginphotographs]

31. What stinks?

The fact that Cheryl Jacques was fired and replaced by a corporate shill?

The fact that people have given their personal experiences with HRC and I trusted them enough to take their word for it?

This wasn't an email I wrote in five minutes. This was an email I've been writing in my head for the past week or so. Don't think that this was impulsive; I proudly displayed my HRC sticker on my car and even got a bisexual neighbor of mine to join. I'm just sick and tired of organizations moving to the right after Gee Dub's re-selection, and I'm not going to give them money anymore.

The leading voices of the GLBT community? You mean Hilary Rosen or HRC? Either way, they're cavorting with the enemy, and I want no part of it.

[Brian_Expat]

40. One of the reasons Cheryl Jacques got in trouble was over transgender. . .

. . . rights. She was loudly blasted by the friends of the people running HRC now for "allowing ENDA to be 'trans-jacked.'" If you think folks like that are in your corner, I've got some beachfront property in Nevada to sell you.

[foreigncorrespondent]

51. Sorry dude!

The HRC has been a sell out since the original founder left several years ago.

Cheryl Jacques tried with all her might to do what was right by our community, but in the end the organization shit all over her and as a result shit all over the LGBT community.

They are going more and more like the DLC each day. I for one don't want an organization representing my partner that is so much like the the cop out party she swallowed her tongue to vote for this past election.

People have a right to make their own decision. You support the HRC, good for you, but I have seen many on DU who do not. So just remember, you do not have the right to tell people to wait. You have made that choice for yourself, others have made a different decision, so let it be.

Just for the record I have not supported the HRC for quite a while. I certainly know a pile of shit when I see one, and looking at the HRC, that is all they are now.

[Chovexani]

57. Amen!

HRC is an org for rich white homosexuals and if you don't fit into that category they don't know you from Adam...oh they may have a token brown face they can point to as proof of their "cultural sensitivity" but the fact is for years now HRC has been an org by and for rich white guppies.

I'm a New Yorker and I've never forgiven them for that chicken shit endorsement of Repuke Al D'Amato in his last Senate campaign, that sounded like something right out of the DLC playbook.

NGLTF is far more deserving of support and I kick them a few dollars whenever I can manage it. They understand that issues of social justice are inseparable from issues of civil rights and are in the trenches truly fighting for the LGBT community instead of HRC's Dickensian "Please, sir, may I have some more?" horseshit.

</rant>

[livinginphotographs]

10. Here ya go.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/index.cfm

[TaleWgnDg]

5. Woohooooooooooooooo . . .

Just what the rightwing loves! Divide and conquer. Attaway!

BTW, what do claims of copyright infringement have to do with "quickening the switch to a total media monopoly by corporations such as Clear Channel" ???? Help me here. Just curious.



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


.

[livinginphotographs]

7. Because Clear Channel is the whore for the major label music industry.

Which stifles smaller, independent artists without as much money. They are complicit in signing musicians who are too naive or legally ignorant to understand their contracts, and usually end up oweing the labels hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It has nothing to do with copyright infringement; it has to do with an industry that offers an inferior product (i.e. Britney Spears CDs) for an obscenely high price, and people figuring out ways to get around it. Instead of litigating its own consumers to death, the music industry should figure out a way to evolve.

But that's a totally different issue that I could write pages and pages about. I still think Hilary Rosen is a corporate whore, and that she'd be lobbying for the Nazi Party if they paid her enough.

[arcos]

13. Excellent post! nt

[TaleWgnDg]

15. You appear to jump to conclusions rather quickly . . .

you haven't answered my question to you (above) when I asked:

What do the actions of Hilary Rosen, Attorney for RIAA, have to do with "quickening the switch to a total media monopoly by corporations such as Clear Channel" ??? (your original post in this thread)

Please answer my question.



.

[livinginphotographs]

19. I did answer your question.

With only three or four major record labels, and Clear Channel controlling all of the radio stations, how much of a chance do independent (talented) artists have to squeeze in among all the crap?

[TaleWgnDg]

25. No. You did not answer my question . . .

instead you repeated a prior response which did not answer my question whatsoever. Further, both your responses do not demonstrate your knowledge of why Clear Channel and other media are able to have almost-monopolies or monopolies today.

"Hilary Rosen as interim director. Her history as an RIAA" (your words) has NOTHING TO DO WITH CLEAR CHANNEL's ability to run riot over singers etc.

Instead, the reason is because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allows such behavior, period. No single attorney is responsible for what FCC does or does not do under Michael Powell, Chairman, who has several times attempted to promulgate FCC regulations cutting out public hearings, shafting the public, and allowing huge conglomerate corporations centralize their power over the radio, television, periodicals (magazines), and newspapers . . . again, you really appear to have a propensity to assume a hell of a lot with hardly a leg to stand upon.

And, you've displayed it here w/ your misguided, misdirected angst against HRC.

edited to add: Anyone with a brain knows that Clear Channel is a lousy corporation. And you've demonstrated knowledge about their crushing corporate policy. However, you really don't know the full extent to their lock on creative artists. Do a google on Clear Channel including their corporate structure in TX. They are incorporated under Texas law. They own radio stations, booking agencies, distribution agencies, performance arenas, theaters, billboard companies, ticket agencies . . . they have a lock on the creative artists. And they are pushing their way into the hearts and minds of large-monied old-monied ppls by donating to foundations and other non-profit causes. Don't spill your anger on Rosen, she does not own this. This is the creature of GWBush and his cronies, the FCC headed by Michael Powell. And, oh, yeah, Clear Channel is on the dole w/ GWBush and Company. Their families are intertwined, policitally in TX and now nationally.


.


.

[livinginphotographs]

28. So it's not poor Hilary's fault.

She didn't have to take the attorney fees from them did she? So are Zell Miller or John McCain not fascist enablers by campaigning for Bush? After all, they don't make policy for him.

[Zenlitened]

16. Look at a recent statement from Rosen on marriage and unions

It's taken from The Advocate (see below). I honestly think it's wrong to write off HRC right now. It's not fair. We need to give the organization a chance to make its next move. C'mon, folks! Let's not rip each other to shreds! That's not good karma at all!!!

Advocate: Was HRC’s push for marriage simply just too much for voters and politicians in this most recent election? Should a national gay rights organization take it slower?

Rosen: I think it’s not about going slower. It’s about establishing a series of achievable goals along the path to success. I think institutionally we feel an obligation to make people’s lives better this year and next year and the following year. If that means looking at issues in a segregated way of pension benefits or tax reform or Social Security or employment, those sorts of things I think you’ll see being done more effectively and more holistically. But also in a way that we think that the marriage discussion needs to be had—more beyond the politics to the personal. We have to meet America where it lives. We have to do that on a series of issues. We feel internally excited about having the same goal with multiple paths. I don’t think it’s about less of a commitment to marriage as it is about making sure that there are entry points for everybody.

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/929/929_rosen.asp

Edited to clarify which is my own statement.

[Zenlitened]

32. I'm calling bulls**t on this whole thread...

... for all the reasons I've outlined in my previous posts.

Some people are unhappy with completely unsubstantiated allegations about HRC, and suddenly we're in "boycott HRC" mode.

It's completely unfair, and it's completely counterproductive.

What is wrong with us? Have we all gone crazy? Why are we turning on each other like this? It's just wrong. It feels like we're being freeped. It feels like we're being played for chumps, manipulated into attacking each other for no reason at all, other than the amusement of our enemies.

It stinks.

[livinginphotographs]

33. Call bullshit if you will.

Just don't give me this "Are we being freeped" crap. I'm not someone who's trigger-happy with the alert button, but I don't appreciate an insinuation that I'm a freeper.

What the hell is so hard to understand? The HRC is not living up to my expectations, so I stop giving them money. I'd been hemming and hawwing on DU about my membership with them for a while, so I post an update. If you don't like it, don't post. Funny, I've never seen you on any of the other threads, but you accuse me of "freeping."

I'm sick and tired of being fed up with the useless members of our cause(s), yet we're not allowed to say anything because "that's what the right wing wants." Who gives a shit what they think? If the HRC isn't doing their job, no more money from me. Simple as that. I don't understand why you're so concerned about what I do with my $10 a month, and whom I tell this to.

[Zenlitened]

34. I'm not saying you're a freeper. I'm saying you're being duped.

I'm saying you're BEING freeped. And by inciting others to boycott HRC, it becomes my business.

It's not about $10, as I've said. It's about undermining an organization that has fought hard to improve the lives of all in the GLBT community -- regardless of their post count.

[livinginphotographs]

35. So I'll give my money to an organization that I think is more effective.

I also resent the idea that I'm being freeped. This was my decision based off of the experiences of long-time DU posters and my own opinions.

As I said before, if I'm wrong, I'll owe you a coke.


on edit: Jesus H Christ, I didn't intend for this to become a flame war.

[Duncan Grant]

36. Who's calling for a boycott?! Calling bulls**t? Wha?

I haven't seen anyone call for a boycott or even suggest it - EXCEPT you (3 times so far in this thread). The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is a great organization - well worth supporting, imho. http://www.thetaskforce.org /

You ask:
"What is wrong with us? Have we all gone crazy? Why are we turning on each other like this? It's just wrong. It feels like we're being freeped."

No. We haven't gone crazy. No. There's nothing wrong with us. No. We are not turning on each other. Where are you getting this stuff?

If someone researches an organization and chooses to give them money, that's worth celebrating! Three cheers for livinginphotographs! More of us should do that - instead of following blindly because an organization has had some success in branding themselves as the 'powerful and effective' voice of GLBT people everywhere. When did HRC become the monolith, the voice, the paragon of GLBT civil rights advocacy? When did it become unacceptable to criticize them?

Personally, I'd like to see HRC stand toe-to-toe with the GOP and call them out for the christofascists that they are -- I'd pay damn good money to see that!

[Zenlitened]

37. *shakes head in utter and complete disbelief*

"I haven't seen anyone call for a boycott or even suggest it - EXCEPT you"

Um, read the original post, the "great post!" follow-ups, and the "me too" posts

"If someone researches an organization and chooses to give them money, that's worth celebrating!"

No matter what the rejected group has accomplished, and no matter how flimsy the reasons for withdrawing support?

"When did HRC become the monolith, the voice, the paragon of GLBT civil rights advocacy? When did it become unacceptable to criticize them?"

Is it possible to criticize an ally without totally trashing and rejecting everything about them? And wouldn't it behoove us all to wait until we have some actual facts before launching reprisals when an ally is concerned?

It's unbelievable, this willingness to trash the HRC. No they are not THE voice of advocacy. But they have been a LEADING voice -- not merely clever branding technicians -- and they deserve better treatment than this.

[TaleWgnDg]

38. hear, hear, hear . . . and more of it too . . . n/t

[Duncan Grant]

39. LOL! I'm not driving the wedge here.

You are the only person in this thread to use the word "boycott", yes? No one called for a boycott; you inferred it and then called it bullshit.

I have some familiarity with HRC, even back unto the days of the HRCF. It's not as if I'm unable to cast an informed critical eye over a long period of history (and upon some of the people involved, too). Your impassioned allegiance to HRC, while admirable, is not enrolling me to your cause. I would be more interested in your defense of HRC if you would resist the temptation to put words into other people's mouths - mine included. I never said anything about trashing and rejecting everything about HRC. From my perspective, you have inferred more here than was ever actually stated.

At this time, no one can afford to rest upon their laurels. It should surprise no one that many of us are reevaluating our personal involvement with the agencies who claim to speak for us. That is a healthy process.

I respect your right to be emphatic about your position but please don't characterize those of us who disagree as some subversive element out to divide and weaken "our" cause. Quite the contrary - to put it bluntly - quite the contrary.

[Zenlitened]

41. No, but you are missing the point...

... by lapsing into this language analysis, declaring what can be inferred from a statement and what can not. It's particularly charming, given your statement, "When did HRC become the monolith, the voice, the paragon of GLBT civil rights advocacy? When did it become unacceptable to criticize them?" No sense of overly broad inference there!

In any event, all this high-minded talk of re-evaluating one's allegiances falls utterly flat when the evaluation takes place without FACTS. When an organization that has shown genuine leadership is written off -- "no more money from me!!!" -- on the basis of third-hand gossip. When there is a knee-jerk rejection and very public denunciation based on what the organization MIGHT DO. As if none of its accomplishments have earned it a little patience on our part, some willingness to wait and see what happens next.

One needn't be a subversive to weaken a cause. One merely needs to be maneuvered into doing the work of the subversive for them. To put it bluntly.

[livinginphotographs]

42. Regardless of what you consider heresay...

Hilary Rosen was brought on. How many times do I have to explain why I'm so opposed to this? Maybe they should hire Zell Miller, too, since we're not supposed to judge the qualifications of the incoming directors.

[Zenlitened]

43. Can you list for me some of Rosen's anti-gay statements?

Anything that makes her comparable to Zell Miller? Or is it just that she's too "corporate"? Or too "the wrong kind of corporate"?

My point all along has been that it's unfair to toss HRC into the dumpster without giving it at least a few weeks to see what happens next.

[livinginphotographs]

44. Who said anything about anti-gay?

Can you give me some statements which put to rest my fears that she's just an opportunistic corporate whore who's found a new way to make a living besides suing 12-year-olds?

[Zenlitened]

45. If she's not ant-gay, why is Rosen comparable to Zell Miller? n/t

[livinginphotographs]

46. I'm talking about someone with questionable ethics and background

Coming in pretending to be a friend of the organization.

Zell sold us out in 2004. If he came back in 2005 and pretended to be our best friend, would you believe him?

[Zenlitened]

47. Zell, who has a detailed record of undermining progressive causes?

No, I wouldn't believe him.

Rosen, whose sole offense seems to be that she objected to people stealing her company's product? I'd hold off on making a judgement until I see what happens next at HRC.

[livinginphotographs]

48. See there you go.

"Stealing" a product? What about the majority of artists (except for Britney, etc.) who have no problem with file-sharing?

More like forcing a dinosaur of an industry to evolve. If HRC wants to associate with people like that, great. But in my eyes, it's inexcusable.

[Zenlitened]

49. Wow. Just... wow.

"... forcing a dinosaur of an industry to evolve."

How very noble.

Think I'll go force my local supermarket to evolve, by walking off with a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk. It won't affect the milk and egg suppliers at all.

I find your logic faulty, to say the least. But then, I've been saying that all along.

You're punishing HRC because the music industry refuses to "evolve"? Because Hilary Rosen was not willing to give away music for free?

Unreal.

[livinginphotographs]

50. This is getting old.

I've explained my problems with Hilary Rosen. You just sound like a broken record.

Think what you want. Give 'em another $10 a month to make up for me if you want.

[Zenlitened]

52. "You sound like a broken record."

A very witty pun, unwittingly penned, I guess.

See ya. Keep those hits coming.

[Duncan Grant]

53. Just how stupid do you think I am?

"One merely needs to be maneuvered into doing the work of the subversive for them."

:eyes:

I need no further confirmation as to what I'm dealing with here.

[Zenlitened]

54. Did I say you were stupid? Or did you infer that? n/t

[Touchdown]

56. Uh'.. reality check. HRC has "accomplished" very little.

I saw the ineffectiveness of this back-scratching bunch of snake oil salesmen years ago.

Everything we've gained has been through local, grass roots activism, lawsuits, being open in society, and getting corporate America to address us as valuable employees. HRC, who's focused on national, Washinton based activism has been extyremely wasteful and INEFFECTIVE and 2/3rds into this thread, your propaganda is getting tiresome.

Do we have full equality in the military? Have they successfully stopped any more "protection of marriage" amendments from coming forth? Have they been successful in repealing DOMA? Do we have full employment equality, because ENDA passed? Did they successfully lobby federal legislation making Sodomy illegal?...no, it took a brave victim of overzealous cops in Texas, taking it to the SCOTUS for that. All of these things are in the realm of HRCs goals, among others, and they have failed miserably in every step.

I always thought HRC was was a colossal waste of money. Don't pretend they are something more than what they are.

[Tony_Illinois]

55. You have every right to feel as you do and spend your $$ as you like, but

please remember that HRC has been working for you for 24 years. They have been extremely effective in bringing gay issues to the table of public awareness and the halls of government.
Your concerns are valid, and I too would like to know more about where we go from here--but please appreciate the overall good work done by this organization.

[Brian_Expat]

58. HRC is dead to me now

After firing Cheryl Jacques and snuggling up to Republican corporate lobbyists, their record has been completely soiled and destroyed by the actions of a few connected people at the top who ignored the will of the broad membership.