It’s been just a few months since the Pride scandal and nary a peep’s been uttered about the incident that nearly brought Pride to a grinding halt. The scandal, which resulted in the resignations of several volunteers, staff and top board members including board chair Debra Self and Pride’s executive director, Suanne Pauley, now seems like a bad dream, as “business as usual” has settled over even Pride’s greatest critics.

The controversy began when one staff member and three volunteers were discovered on the Megan’s Law Web site, a registry that lists the names, addresses and criminal acts of convicted sex offenders. All in question had been convicted of child molestation, which triggered a massive outcry from the GLBT community and its straight allies. Despite initial pressure from some community members to remove the men, Pride would not budge and chose instead to protect the civil rights of those in question over the protests of the community.

When the annual Pride proclamation – in which the city of San Diego officially recognizes “Pride Day” – was pulled from the City Council docket, many were left feeling angry and confused over Pride’s management of the crisis.

Not until elected officials, the chief of police and multiple police departments, community organizations and even bars and nightclubs threatened to pull their support did Pride concede and call for the resignation of the sex offenders.

Tensions mounted following the discovery that Pauley allowed one registered sex offender, logistics coordinator Jerry Garret, to remain working on festival grounds despite Pride’s commitment to District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis and the San Diego County Law Office that all known registered sex offenders would be removed from duty.

The nail in the coffin came right before a town hall meeting was held to discuss the future of Pride, when it was discovered that a clown working in Pride’s Children’s Garden was also registered under Megan’s Law.

During the August town hall meeting, Pride co-chair Philip Princetta announced the adoption of a three-point action plan to resolve issues that arose from the controversy. Pride has fallen off the radar since then, leaving many asking what’s happening with the organization.

At the end of August, Pride held their annual open house to recruit new board members. Pride has completed a total of eight interviews so far, and two applicants started their candidate process Oct. 19.

Pride has also initiated a national search to replace Pauley. A replacement is expected by January.

To draw community feedback, Pride has created a survey, available soon on their Web site, that asks the community what Pride can do to improve.

But not everything is sitting well with us. In Pride’s three-point action plan, the board said they would immediately fill two slots on the board with respected members of the community. The appointments were to be announced two weeks following the town hall meeting.

As of today, this point has gone unfulfilled, with the two applicants entering into the candidate process nearly two and a half months following the board’s promise. Instead of immediately appointing prominent community members, the board has selected two applicants (who we know nothing about), and has refused to name the candidates. Why refuse to tell the community who will potentially be joining the board – do they still not get it?

The action plan also outlined the formation of a committee to develop a volunteer and staff screening process. When asked what specific steps have been taken, Princetta answered, “No steps – well, we’re working on it.”

The third point proposed the formation of an advisory council, composed of community members, to help restore public trust and assist with Pride’s task of creating a new screening process. When questioned about this supposed advisory board, Princetta replied, “We’re still investigating the idea of an advisory board.” When asked what action has been taken to create the advisory board, Princetta admitted that no action had been taken.

We know the Pride board isn’t going anywhere, but is it too much to ask for the board to stick to promises they made to the community?

With the exception of Judy Schaim, it’s disappointing that none of the community leaders pledging to assist the board, either at the board level or as part of an advisory council, have followed through. It was our hope that, with combining the current board with other respected community leaders, Pride would come out of this crisis a better, stronger organization. It’s not too late. Pride is still accepting applications. Make Pride live up to its promises; join the board and help make Pride everything it can be.