May 5, 2006
Volume 34
Issue 18
search only SGN online
Thursday, Dec 05, 2019




Dear Stranger Editor,

[Editor's Note: The following letter was sent to The Stranger and copied to the SGN for publication.]

I am dismayed that individuals who claim to care about keeping Lambert House open would do something so potentially damaging as to bring to the press what should be an internal matter, and I am also dismayed that the Stranger would publish an article about a worthwhile organization without really doing the research it deserves.

My experience as a drop-in center volunteer with Lambert House has been overwhelmingly positive. I feel so positively about Lambert House's mission and confident about Ken Shulman's administration of the organization that I started researching and writing grants on a volunteer basis to procure additional funding for programming and operating costs.

I must admit to being extremely frustrated to now have that funding jeopardized because dissidents are too nearsighted to see that they risk bringing down the entire worthwhile organization, not just an ED they disagree with.

Working in the nonprofit fundraising field, I know how difficult it actually is to raise money. From what I have observed, Ken has been extremely dedicated to the organization's mission and to keeping the House solvent - it shows in his interactions with volunteers and with youth, as well as in his tireless work towards a secure financial future for the organization.

I hope this fracas does no lasting damage to the House, as I would hate to see such an important resource for GLBTQ youth disappear because of a handful of people who don't seem to have all the facts.


Susan Shea

Seattle, WA

Dear Stranger Editor,

There are some great big holes in your article on Lambert House, and I urge you to fill them before you further assail its leadership.

For starters, have you explored the motivation of the accusers ("former staff members")? What do the board members have to say about the accusation? Does their inferred satisfaction automatically make them "Shulman loyalists" or might it just mean Shulman is doing a good job despite the handful of detractors?

What do the customers - the youth served - have to say? Are their lives better? Is Lambert House getting better at meeting their needs - or worse?

What's the problem with a 21-year-old staying up for an all-night conversation? Does he have any complaints? He's an adult, you can ask him.

What organization more successfully competed for the city funds, and how?

Most importantly, what's the organization's performance, measured objectively? Is it meeting its mission? Is it better off or worse off now than when Ken Shulman started?

I'm sorry, but it's not enough to complain of a "rough period" at the center for Gay youth. Exactly what's the problem? Will Lambert House be better off if Shulman is forced from the helm - into a better compensated and less thankless job?

Eli Sanders and editors of the Stranger, if you are seriously interested in improving Lambert House's service to Gay youth, try improving your service to readers and your responsibility to the whole truth. That might actually improve the lot of Gay youth in ways that the article you published never could.


Steve Bryantt

International Readers
We want to learn about you and have you tell us about Gay Life where you live.
Please click here

Seattle Gay Blog
It's new!
A blog created
by the SGN staff
so you can be heard

2nd Annual WA State
Gayaight Alliance Network Banquet




working for the freedom to
marry since 1995

copyright Seattle Gay News - DigitalTeamWorks 2006