HRC, pro and con.

Thank you for your recent profile of the Human Rights Campaign by correspondent Sarah Wildman ["Tough Times at HRC," March 29]. We thought overall it was a reasonable look at the spectrum of opinions and feelings that exist on the work of HRC. There were, however, a few troubling inaccuracies that we feel need to be clarified on behalf of our organization, our staff, and our members nationwide.

Contrary to the graphic in the sidebar titled "Show Us the Money," audited financial statements for FY2003 show that, excluding the capital campaign, 61% of the HRC Foundation's expenditures were for programs, 25% for fired-raising, and 14% for administration. The graphic that The Advocate ran is wrong, and we will be asking the operators of CharityNavigator.org for a correction as well.

Furthermore, for the $1.81 million HRC Foundation spent on fundraising in FT2003--for both the capital campaign and regular operations--HRC raised more than $11.8 million. That equates to a 15% cost of fund-raising. HRC is very proud of that number.

The purchase of the building has resulted and will continue to result in savings of more than a million doblars a year. The building also provides room for growth, is an asset to the organization, and helps provide for the long-term financial future of HRC. We take the stewardship of the resources given to tiffs organization very seriously and want to make sure that our members and your readers know that.

David M. Smith, HRC, via the Internet

[HRC provided this explanation to The Advocate during the reporting of the article. We regret that it was not included in the financial sidebar as published.--Ed.]

Whether one chooses to believe Charity Navigator's numbers (52%) or HRC's numbers (41%) is not the issue. More than 40% for fund-raising and administration is alarmingly high. I say this both as an HRC member and as a board member for a homeless shelter with similar fundraising demands. I plan to take a second look at my contributions to HRC to evaluate ff the funds could be better utilized by local or state GLBT organizations.

J. Bergmann, San Francisco, Calif.

Now, more than ever, GLBT solidarity is absolutely critical, and HRC is the organization to stand up for all of us. Accompanying a dismal political defeat last November with community infighting is not the answer, surely it is destined to fuel the already spreading fire of hatred and homophobia. Tough times, changes in management, changing political strategies--what business has not been confronted by these issues in recent years? HRC provides political power for all of us, sometimes in front of the camera and most of the time behind the scenes. HRC staff continue to pave a road of freedom that will outlast us all--let's praise rather than persecute or criticize them for their important work!

Luc R. Pelletier, San Diego, Calif.

In its early days HRC was a vibrant, necessary organization that brought attention to the needs of gay and lesbian Americans. By the end of the reign of Elizabeth Birch, HRC had become a glitzy corporate behemoth whose "sleek six-story headquarters near Dupont Circle" announced the legitimacy of a group of people that HRC has in no other way legitimized, not in federal employment nondiscrimination protections, not in hate-crimes protections, not in repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."

Cheryl Jacques was a blip on the radar. Her achievement was to avoid controversy by eviscerating the gay sensibility of the Democratic Party by removing Margaret Cho from the face of its convention.

So now we have Joe Solmonese as executive director. What a relief. Can you help me, though? I'm not from around here: Who the hell is he, and why haven't I, a fairly politically active gay guy, ever heard of him?

Tom Lockwood, San Jose, Calif.