Friday, January 22, 2010
Was Lorenzo Hoopes a Worthy Board Member for the Paramount?
Breaking News Kathleen Richards — Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:48 PM
Many gay-rights activists and supporters recently have denounced the re-nomination of Lorenzo Hoopes to the Paramount Theatre’s board of directors because the 96-year-old former president of the Mormon Temple was Oakland’s leading contributor to Proposition 8, the anti-gay-marriage initiative. Indeed, Mayor Ron Dellums decided to hold off on deciding about Hoopes’ nomination, and the San Francisco Chronicle reported that he likely won’t get enough votes from the city council to win final approval. But history suggests there are plenty of other reasons to question the qualifications of the theater’s longtime board member.
As I reported in a cover story on the Paramount back in 2007, the nonprofit Paramount board, which operates on behalf of the city-owned facility, has long been criticized (most notably, by former Tribune writer Peggy Stinnett) for being blithely out of touch, lacking transparency and industry knowledge, and sticking with the status quo. At least two members — Hoopes included — are in their nineties, and have been on the board since its inception in 1973.
Then-board member Rene Boisvert argued that the largely self-perpetuating board wasn’t nearly proactive enough in making the historic theater a thriving arts and entertainment venue. Among his recommendations: that the facility could be self-sufficient and “had a whole lot more potential if it chose to emulate the more successful facilities around the country.” In short, he believed that the theater could benefit from sponsorships, increased marketing, increased beverage sales, allowing beverages to be brought inside the theater, and producing more of its own shows. Yet the board wasn’t focused on making money, he said. When she was first hired, General Manager Leslee Stewart noticed that the Paramount didn’t sell bottled water. For a Britney Spears concert, she ended up buying cases of water to sell, which completely sold out. Boisvert believed that adding another bar would add significant revenue to the facility’s operation.
According to Boisvert, the board rejected all his recommendations and, eventually, he was booted off. Hoopes was among the board members who voted against him. And, according to Jeff Chew, who acts as the liaison between the city and the Paramount, that third bar still hasn’t been built. Still, he said the theater is “doing really well. It’s endowment is intact. It’s a big contributor to that end of the Uptown.”
While Hoopes clearly has been devoted to the Paramount for decades (he was involved in the fund-raising that helped restore the theater), it’s not clear whether he’s been very effective. In fact, some of his beliefs may have been costing the Paramount (and the city) potential revenue. In 2002, Boisvert convinced the Paramount board to pay for a study on possible sponsorships at the theater. According to the report, the opportunities were worth more than $400,000 per year. But in an interview at the time of my story, Hoopes called Boisvert’s ideas “completely impractical.” He said he hoped to increase the theater’s sale of beverages — “stopping short of having to take drinks into the theater.” He called the Paramount “primarily a rental building” and said that being a producer was “risky business.” “We don’t do that,” he said, adding that the Paramount’s classic movie series was an exception. “We get our income from renting or movie classics,” he said.
“Nothing that I’ve ever said to them is reinventing the wheel, it’s just new to their 25- or 30-year-old way of doing things,” said Boisvert. “Some of those board members have been there for 20, 25 years, and embracing new things isn’t their comfort zone.”
Stewart wouldn’t respond to questions about Hoopes, nor would Chew. A phone call to board member Clinton Killian was not returned in time for publication.
Comments (9)
Showing 1-9 of 9
If gay marriage is a 'right' then so is polygamy and let's not stop there. Pederasts want their 'right' to have consensual sex with minor boys and other polyamorists want to have their 'right' to have their relationships sanctioned by law. This issue is always framed in terms of gay identity without reference to gay behavior, which is anomalous at best and immoral at worst. Homosexuals who equate their cause with the struggle of ethnic minorities, mock that struggle. The issue is NOT gay marriage. It's state sanction of homosexual behavior.
like
dislike
I’ve known Ren Hoopes for over 50 years. As a teenager I stood on freeway overpasses on election day with a campaign sign proclaiming “Vote for Hoopes for Oakland School Board”–selfless service which he gave for many, many years. He has been successful and consistent with his community service throughout his life. He is a man without animosity or guile, and much beloved and universally respected by those who know him best. His service (and his generosity) with the Paramount Theatre of the Arts is legendary and exemplary. The entire community–-LBGT and straight alike-–should be unified in supporting him at this time.
There are multiple boards in Oakland that are suffering from inertia and unimaginitive members, and the main problem has to do with the fact that some of the members have been there for decades.
The council should simply enact term limits or time limits for all boards. 10 years ought to be enough. We should give multiple people opportunities to serve, in order to bring in fresh ideas.
Wagnerian: what you don't seem get about this is found in the old saying, "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." You just proved my 'either/or' argument to be true – who wants to listen to that over and over when it’s just not true? Maybe your strategy is to scream it loud enough and long enough that everyone else just shuts up. What you don’t get is that your "everyone not with us is a bigot" rhetoric is causing you to lose public support that you shouldn’t have.
To siikaeha and Handsome. I'm gay and I also happen to have gay parents who live in Minnesota. Fisrstly, I want to say that Hoopes record is absolutely up for criticism. Perhaps his record on supporting Prop 8 is making people scrutinize his record more closely right now, but that's not a bad thing. It's called building a case.
Otherwise, I think that every person who supported Prop 8 needs to be held accountable for their homophobia. Homophobia cannot be acceptable in our culture anymore. It's not a question of letting people have their 'free speech'. Hoopes definitely has his free speech. But so do other people who care about equality for gay people. People should be shunned for homophobia. Homophobes want gay people to be shunned for being gay, but the dominance of the homophobes is ending.
Hoopes gave something like over half of all monetary donations that Oakland gave to Prop 8. It is being argued in federal court right now that Prop 8 proponents slandered gay people and that the law had malicious intent. Everybody knows that this is a truism. Homophobic straights want to think they are better than gay people. They want gay people to feel 'less than' themselves. Up til recently, Homophobes had free reign to act homophobic and never be called on it.
We can't stand for this anymore. What you are offensively and wrongly calling gestapo tactics is what is actually: accountability.
You will be held accountable for homophobia from now on. The way to avoid this is to not be homophobic.
We want the freedom to live without violence, shunning and slander, We want equal civil rights, and we know that anyone who would give into prejudice against us is nothing but wrong, Homophobes will be held accountable.
So, Handsome, opposing a civil right such as gay civil marriage is not an example of bigotry, pure & simple?
I guess you've got your own edition of Websters!
Now that you've stabbed Mr. Hoopes in the back, why don't you just go ahead and twist the knife? It wasn't enough to block Mr. Hoopes’ re-nomination, now you want to criticize his years of service. This is just more of the same political correctness run amok in Oakland. Anybody who tries can easily find an Oakland board or commission with problems.
Some people believe that keeping Mr. Hoopes off the Paramount board fulfills the spirit of MLK’s dream of equality for all. I’m sure that a fairly large segment of the black community would seriously take issue with this and with any attempt by the LGBT community to co-opt Dr. King's message. Regardless of the controversy about the exact numbers of African-Americans who voted for Prop. 8, it is clear that many supported it.
In the LGBT community now, the trend regarding Prop. 8 is to paint everything as ‘either/or’ - “either you support us and oppose Prop 8, or you are bigot.” Given this unmistakable message, it isn't surprising that the EBX could not get Chew or Killian on the record about the nomination. No one in their right mind would ever speak out publicly against this kind of rhetoric or dare to offer a different perspective for fear of being branded with a scarlet "B.”
This has nothing to do with free speech, siikaeha, as no one has stopped this man from speaking up (and showing his bigotry to the public).
It is a political appointment, and I'm proud of the mayor for recognizing that a bigot willing to spend $26000 (that's $26 THOUSAND FREAKIN dollars) to prevent some people from marrying is not worthy of the appointment.
Do you have $26000 to influence our political processes? Do you waste such money that could have been used for a GOOD cause on something reflecting Mormon bigotry?
Oh, so this really has nothing to do with his donation to the Yes on 8 Campaign? LOL..nice try but No. This is part of the campaign against freedom of speech by a bunch of arrogant hypocrites who are only tolerant if you agree with them. If not they come after you. The next time we vote on this, good luck explaining to voters how you turned into the GESTAPO. Cause I KNOW the commercials from your opponents are going to REMIND EVERYONE what a bunch of bigots and haters you have all become.
Author Archives
