Frequent Media Mentions About SFAF Do Not Always Reveal Its Notorious Underbelly

Mayor Newsom Should Ignore SFAF's Claim That AIDS Treatment Programs Might Be Cut Completely AIDS agencies receive vituperative Valentine

In addition to media coverage about general issues regarding the San Francisco AIDS Foundation that may be posted on the MediaWatch page of this web site, and in addition to other media stories about specific topics that are located on issues pages about SFAF (e.g., coverage about the AIDS Walk is located on the SFAF Fundraising page, and coverage about cuts in services is on the Bay Area Programs Cut page), this page contains more media coverage about SFAF, including articles that do not focus solely on SFAF but misguidedly mentions SFAF by passing it off as the only authority on HIV/AIDS issues.

Mayor Newsom Should Ignore SFAF's Claim That AIDS Treatments Programs Might Be Cut Completely
	Background SFAF’s Dana Van Gorder has learned well from his boss, Pat Christen: Whenever it suits their agenda, SFAF plays the “brinkmanship” game. In an article discussing various issues facing the LGBT community in San Francisco as our new Mayor, Gavin Newsom, prepares to take office on January 8, the Bay Times lamented in a covr story on January 1, 2004: “But nowhere in the mandate for his transition team, nor in the text of the [21] published [policy] reports [that he campaigned on, does Newsom’s policy group articulate the problems facing this city’s LGBT community and what his administration might do to address them.” Notably, the Bay Times did not mention that Newsom is reportedly facing a $160 million budget deficit starting July 1, 2004; that issue, surely, affects nearly all other issues facing the LGBT community, if only for funding solutions to the other issues.   How the deficit was overlooked by the Bay Times as a matter of concern to our communities is instructive; after all, gay people are no more fond of budget deficits than are other people. One of the issues the Bay Times addressed is HIV/AIDS, and it is unfortunate that Newsom campaigned and won the run-off election without having issued any position papers on HIV/AIDS.  To address its concerns, the Bay Times, turned to SFAF’s “lobbyist” Dana Van Gorder.  Looking into the future of AIDS/HIV issues in San Francisco, the Bay Times reported that: “… [Van Gorder] is worried that the city will be facing a critical decision if the state and federal governments decide to cut back on their subsidies for HIV treatment.   If the government cuts in contributions to programs like the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, as Schwarzenegger briefly proposed during the most recent budget wrangle in Sacramento, the city would then have to pay for the programs directly out of the general fund — or let them go [i.e., eliminate HIV treatment programs].” Readers should note that Van Gorder did not indicate that SFAF would step in to assist with HIV treatment if the feds, the state, or the City have budget crunches leading to cutting programs entirely.  Other news reports have indicated the ADAP shortfall in California would require approximately $24 million to close the gap; SFAF could easily contribute to closing a significant portion of such a gap if it would simply stop awarding grants + grants payable to its African affiliate, Pangaea.  But ever playing brinkmanship, Van Gorder appears to prefer alarming SFAF’s clients that treatment programs could be cut completely, rather than reassuring its clients that SFAF would step in to help preserve treatment programs. TheLastWatch’s take on SFAF and Mr. Van Gorder is contained below: ——— Mayor Newsom's "Gay Agenda" for HIV/AIDS Letter to Editor, San Francisco Bay Times, January 8, 2004 by Patrick Monette-Shaw Joe Dignan’s coverage of problems facing the LGBT community and what Mayor-Elect Newsom might do to address them (“A Gay Agenda for Mayor Newsom,” January 1) was balanced; however, coverage of HIV/AIDS was troubling. Dignan reported that “because of work of a generation of advocates,” there is not much more Newsom can do to curb the epidemic among “gay white men.” This smacks of Thomas Coates’ remark in 2001 that perhaps we should just stop prevention altogether. Ironically, it speaks to dubious prevention programs developed by this generation of “advocates,” like the San Francisco AIDS Foundation’s (SFAF) useless Gay Life workshops such as “Oh My God I’m 40. Now What?” (followed now by a “50 Plus” workshop) and “Gay Dating Makeovers” marketed to gay white men. While DPH’s AIDS Quarterly Surveillance Reports do not stratify by year of diagnosis the 20,739 AIDS cases as of September 2003 among white gay men, white injection drug users, and white gay or bisexual cases that have been diagnosed since 1980, this represents fully 72% of San Francisco’s cumulative AIDS cases. Perhaps prevention interventions targeted to white men are not as efficacious as possible. Surely Newsom’s administration can do something to reduce the 400–500 new AIDS cases among gay and bisexual men each year, regardless of ethnicity, and plenty it can do to reach minority communities. Within the past six months the CARE Council noted that areas such as the Bayview Hunters Point has historically been underfunded. Minority communities have not received an equitable share of prevention funds across the years while the money was being channeled to the Castro instead, and now prevention advocates are throwing up their hands trying to reach white guys, after having failed to reach out to minority communities. More problematic is Dignan’s reliance on SFAF’s Dana Van Gorder, who spouted the same nonsense we heard from SFAF’s Pat Christen in February 2003:  That if the federal or state government cuts programs for HIV/AIDS treatment, San Francisco may have to dip into the General Fund, or abandon those programs completely.  This is disturbing precisely because SFAF routed $22.4 million in grants and grants payable away from the Bay Area to its African affiliate, Pangaea, by the end of June 2003, and has not been honestly forthcoming about how much it routed to Pangaea in its current fiscal year ending June 2004.  While SFAF squeals about HIV treatment and prevention finds being cut at the federal and state level, claiming it needs more City General Funds to bridge the gap, that has not stopped SFAF from diverting massive millions to Africa at the expense of firing 48 “domestic” employees, drastically cutting direct services to its clients, and slashing the amount of fundraising money it shares with smaller Bay Area AIDS organizations. Newsom would be wise to critically question misinformation from SFAF and issues raised by Dignan. Newsom should address Mark Leno’s concerns by demanding greater accountability over how and why money is moved from one AIDS pocket to another. Top
AIDS agencies receive vituperative Valentine   Cover Story, Bay Area Reporter, February 21, 2002  by Matthew S. Bajko  Reprint permission courtesy of B.A.R.
	Valentine’s Day brought some tough love for San Francisco AIDS agencies and officials.  The cantankerous cupid came in the form of a report released by a conservative taxpayers’ group attacking numerous AIDS agencies for allegedly mismanaging public funds. The report from Citizens Against Government Waste attempts to package missives from two radical ACT UP groups and AIDS activist Michael Petrelis into an alarming exposé aimed at reducing the amount of federal funding HIV prevention programs receive. “Many prevention programs actually promote risky behavior, and are using taxpayer dollars to do so,” writes Kerrie Rezac in the report titled, “AIDS Programs: An Epidemic of Waste.” Most of the report’s arrows skewering AIDS agencies for misspending funds are aimed directly at five Bay Area agencies.  The San Francisco AIDS Foundation received criticism for sponsoring “Sex on the Net, 2001: A Sexual Odyssey” last year while at the same time health officials warned Internet chat rooms were spreading sexually transmitted diseases [emphasis added]. The Asian Pacific Islander Wellness Center is listed for sponsoring the first Mr. and Ms. UTOPIA pageant whose flier noted the event was “partially funded by the CDC.” The Stop AIDS Project is used several times as an example of alleged wasteful spending, once for its upcoming program “GUYWATCH: Blow by Blow.” According to the report, the advertisement for the seminar reads, in part: “What tricks do you want to share to make your man tremble with delight?” Positive Force received mention for holding a “Poz Prom” and for offering “flirting classes and, last July, host(ing) a workshop on how to have anal intercourse if you suffer from diarrhea Also, the report slams the University of California, San Francisco’s AIDS Health Project for sponsoring HIV bowling nights and daytime cruises of San Francisco Bay. Officials for the agencies dismissed the report as being inaccurate and outdated. They cautioned the report’s real intention is not to save taxpayer money but to derail effective HIV prevention programs. “The report is a red herring.  A few Republicans in D.C. want to defund HIV prevention for gay men.  I think it is highly irresponsible because the path that they are taking will devastate people’s lives,” said Darlene Weide, executive director of Stop AIDS.  “What really is obscene is that 20 years into the epidemic, when we know prevention works, we are spending precious resources and time at having to respond to these redundant investigations and reports.  We are in compliance.  We know prevention works.  Let us do our job.” The report attempts to validate its venom for these agencies’ “wasteful spending” by connecting it to the government’s “War on Terrorism.” “It is more important than ever for the federal government to use its resources in the most cost-effective manner possible to find a cure for AIDS and to protect the country against chemical warfare and bioterroism.  Duplicative social programs and pornographic prevention seminars do nothing to bring about an end to this dreaded disease or to combat terrorism,” states the report. But the worst vitriol in the report is leveled at Steven Tierney, the city’s director of HIV prevention.  Tierney is charged with not taking HIV prevention seriously and attacked for not reprimanding an HIV-positive prevention worker for admitting to the New York Times that he had unprotected sex. In addition, the report characterizes Tierney’s attitude as “callous” and questions his ability to comply with federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines regulating how agencies spend federal funding on prevention programs. “Not only does Tierney scoff at the standards set for federal programs by the CDC, he also can’t control the activities of the groups under his agency’s purview that rely on tax dollars for their work.  While one can hope that Tierney is an exception to the leadership required at local departments of health, there is nonetheless systemic duplication and waste in AIDS programs throughout the country,” states the report [emphasis added]. In an interview with the Bay Area Reporter, Tierney dismissed the report as merely old news from the radical members of ACT UP/San Francisco, whose members argues that AIDS is over, and ACT UP/D.C. “There is nothing in there that is fresh.  It is standard Michael Petrelis language,” said Tierney, who said he was never contacted by the author of the report or anyone from the taxpayers group.  “They take a couple of alleged facts and wrap a whole story around it.  They never even made any attempt to contact me to find out if anything they were saying is true.” Despite the report’s ominous tone, Tierney said he is not concerned that it will have any impact on how the government funds HIV prevention programs.  He added he doesn’t mind bearing the brunt of the attacks if it keeps HIV and AIDS on the public agenda. “We work hard to do HIV prevention here in innovative and effective ways.  If it gets the attention of people and keeps people talking about HIV prevention, then I am happy to have them beat up on me a little bit,” said Tierney. AIDS activist Jeff Getty, a member of Survive AIDS, dismissed the notion there is widespread mismanagement of funds by prevention programs.  But he said such attacks will continue if these agencies remain hidden behind closed doors. “This is a sad thing, but unfortunately, it is a result of AIDS organizations for years and years not being willing to show their books to the public and not having open relationships with the community,” said Getty.  “This is what happens every time you circle the wagons anytime someone questions how you are spending the money.” Getty attacked the two ACT UP groups for courting right-wing Republicans in order to further their own political causes. “They can’t change the AIDS funding structure so they go and try to destroy it,” he said.  “It is not fair to use right-wing lobbyist organizations’ inherent homophobia to beat up on AIDS agencies.  There has got to be a better way to do this.” At the Valentine’s Day press conference in Washington, D.C., ACT UP/D.C. coordinator Wayne Turner thanked the taxpayer group for its report and vowed to continue to question how AIDS agencies spend federal money. “Too many HIV/AIDS patients have needlessly suffered and died as a direct result of AIDS funding abuses.  Only through vigilance and increased oversight can we ensure that public funds earmarked for medical treatment and care actually help patients in need,” said Turner [emphasis added].  “By identifying the deficiencies in HIV/AIDS patient care, we can better work at the federal and local level to improve the quality and accessibility of services that those living with HIV/AIDS depend upon for their very survival.” Top

_______

Copyright (c) 2004 by Patrick Monette-Shaw.  All rights reserved.  This work may not be reposted anywhere on the Web, or reprinted in any print media, without express written permission of the author.  E-mail him at pmonette-shaw@earthlink.net.