SALT LAKE CITY — As the 2024 installment of the Utah Pride Festival and Parade looms, the new leader of the sponsoring entity, the Utah Pride Center, says the organization is moving beyond the tumult that has characterized its operations for the past several months.

“We definitely are stable right now financially,” Chad Call, the new executive director of the LGBTQ advocacy group, said Wednesday. “We do have a very stable path forward.”

It’s required a dramatic shifting of gears, though. Call says the organization has sold its former location to offset debt incurred in the 2023 festival, dramatically reduced planned spending for the 2024 installment of the event and slashed full-time staffing from around 23 to four, which includes a contractor.

“I don’t see us returning back to a 20-person staff anytime soon. I think that we are working off the leaner model now and more sustainable model,” he said at a press conference at the center’s new headquarters in downtown Salt Lake City. Financial stability and sustainability are key goals.

Likewise, planned spending for the Utah Pride Festival and Parade, scheduled for June 1 and 2, has been cut considerably from 2023. The Utah Pride Center, he said, stemmed from an apparent “gross overspend,” though a report into the matter isn’t yet complete. This year, spending on staging and production will be cut considerably, with a reliance on Utah talent to mitigate performance fees. Smaller stages will be used, and nighttime hours will be limited to reduce spending on lighting.

More specifically, the total production budget, just one element of the overall spending plan, reflects an 80% reduction from 2023, he said, back to a level more on par with 2022 spending.

Overspending on the 2023 festival led to upheaval in the organization as Pride Center officials wrestled with financial uncertainty in the aftermath of the event. The organization temporarily closed its doors to the public last September and the new executive director brought on about that time, Ryan Newcomb, stepped down in late March due to health reasons after about six months on the job. What some viewed as high booth prices, meantime, prompted grumbling among some in the lead-up to last year’s festival.

Call, who took over from Newcomb as interim executive director before formally taking on full-time leadership duties, acknowledged the frustration the tumult may have generated among some. At the same time, he defended the organization — which operates support groups for the LGBTQ community and, significantly, manages the pride parade and festival each year — as needed.

“There’s purpose in this organization. It’s clear to me that, despite all of the turmoil and change, that this organization is still wanted, and it’s still needed by the community,” he said.

The annual festival and parade probably impacts more people in the LGBTQ community than any other single event in Utah, he said. Moreover, he emphasized increased efforts to reach out to other LGBTQ organizations around Utah, which will be able to set up booths for free for the first time at this year’s festival.

“We want to support those organizations. We want to partner with them. We don’t want to compete with them,” he said. The parade will include more than 16,000 participants while 100,000 more are expected to watch.

Call had served as a volunteer for the Utah Pride Center before taking on executive director leadership duties. “This organization has been something that has meant a lot to me over the years, and it’s something that I have seen a lot of growth in and a lot of potential in,” he said.

He previously worked as a producer for WEBB Production, a corporate production company.

After two years in Salt Lake City, Burgess is rejoining the Cougars staff.

The coach who left BYU to venture off to Utah is reversing course, again.

Chris Burgess, the one-time Cougar assistant under Mark Pope, is coming back to Provo to work for new head coach Kevin Young.

Burgess was at BYU from 2019-22 and was one of Pope’s best local recruiters during the West Coast Conference days. But Burgess left Provo two years ago to coach at Utah, his alma mater.

In his two years in Salt Lake, Utah hovered around .500 in the regular season. Last season, Utah had a late flurry of wins as it went to the NIT semifinals.

But since then, the Utes have lost several key players — including point guard Deivon Smith — and two assistant coaches. DeMarlo Slocum left to join former Utah State coach Danny Sprinkle’s staff in Washington last month.

Burgess is returning to a very different BYU program than when he left. The Cougars are now in the Big 12, the same conference as Utah. Plus, BYU has shown a willingness to invest more resources into the staff.

Young was lured from the NBA thanks by $30 million and a seven-year commitment. That level of investment has been nearly unprecedented at the school owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As for Utah, the Burgess loss is significant. Smith now has to replace two assistants and fill out a roster that is losing plenty of scoring.

The Utes are making the jump to the toughest basketball conference in the country — and the Big 12 is only getting more difficult as it adds Arizona, Colorado and Arizona State.

Smith is heading into the fourth year of a six-year deal. Utah has improved each of his three seasons. But this will be his most difficult challenge ahead.

At the Utah Republican convention Saturday, Gov. Spencer Cox wondered if all the nastiness, boos and insults he and some other candidates endured at the hands of delegates would give “more ammunition” to those who would like to discontinue the caucus/convention system.

The simple answer is yes. The conversation surrounding the future of selecting candidates is Topic 1 this week among those who follow and support political races. It’s not just about booing candidates or expressing differences. The behavior exhibited by some at the Salt Palace Convention Center Saturday was disturbing enough to make us wonder whether the system has outlived its usefulness.

Our conclusion is that it isn’t yet time to change the system, but that party leaders should beware.

We have long supported retaining the caucus/convention system in addition to the signature-gathering system for qualifying candidates for primary ballots. The two systems combined give registered Republicans the opportunity to choose from a diversified pool of candidates.

But that argument loses some of its luster when conventions are controlled by unruly and uncivil behavior. And when caucus night activities are so confusing or disorganized that only 9% of the Republican Party turn out to select delegates, as happened this year.

And while it’s true that candidates new to the political world may not have the name recognition or the resources to gather the requisite signatures, and that the caucus/convention system gives them an attainable route to the ballot, those advantages are lost when a my-way-or-the-highway ideology triumphs over common sense and productive debate.

It is both sobering and instructive to contemplate that, without the signature-gathering option as an alternative, Cox would have been denied a chance for reelection as governor. This, despite a Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll in February showing 50% of voters favoring him in the upcoming primary. The nearest competitor had 5%.

Over the last 10 years, convention delegates have often chosen candidates other than those preferred in opinion polls. Generally, they lose in the primary election.

What really ought to give Utahns pause, however, is the incivility and nastiness that some (certainly not all) convention delegates displayed Saturday. Even Gov. Cox’s Disagree Better national campaign was mocked by some in the convention hall.

When Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson posted on X that she was “mortified by the vulgarity and viciousness my young nieces were exposed to by another gubernatorial campaign’s supporters,” it raised questions about the intent of delegates who were elected to express the will of party members.

When a strong conservative such as Utah Rep. Kera Birkeland tweets about her daughters enduring mocking and shaming at a help desk, it elevates those questions.

And when former state senator and current Senate candidate Dan Hemmert tells us delegates seemed more concerned with conspiracy theories, federal issues and a candidate’s position on the new state flag than on vetting people for their ability to do the job to which they seek election, it raises alarm bells.

Is this the true nature of the state’s largest political party?

Hemmert told delegates the Republican Party has a record of electing good people in spite of the caucus/convention system, not because of it. That ought to give party leaders pause.

The convention this year seemed designed to make participation difficult. Delegates complained of long lines and technical difficulties. The convention lasted 15 hours, with the original tally of 3,886 credentialed delegates having dwindled to 2,713 by the time candidates were considered for the important Senate seat being vacated by Mitt Romney.

If the caucus/convention system were scuttled, satisfying alternatives are hard to find. The party may adopt a more open primary, in which candidates would have to collect fewer, or perhaps no petition signatures. But this would only put another flaw in Utah’s election system into high relief — the lack of a runoff election procedure for races involving multiple candidates when none receives a majority of votes cast.

Certainly, there is little appetite to go back to the days of party bosses and whatever passed for a smoke-filled room in Utah. Nevertheless, it is valid to ask, is there a better way?

We are reminded of the words of John Adams, who said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Utah lawmakers should be careful when it comes to changing or removing long-standing party nominating systems. It may not be time to end the caucus/convention system that served past generations so well. However, party leaders now have the responsibility to demonstrate that keeping it will be good for democracy in the future. After all, the goal should not be about control. It should be about participation and having one’s civil voice heard.