 |
|
The NYC "Unity Caucus." attacks wbai.net and dominates WBAI airwaves 6-2-03 |
[ The messages below were posted on the various Pacifca discussion lists. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewPacifica contains most of the strings. ] -------------
From: Roger M [editor of wbai.net]
sheilahamanaka [NYC "Unity Caucus."] wrote [full message below]:
"Has the NYC Unity Caucus hijacked the iPNB?" is not a biased headline, it is a serious question that must be asked. So everyone, what is your answer to that question? Please cc your answer to webmaster@wbai.net if possible. Also my question (below) "any positive responses? [to Lubell's draft]" is a serious question. As was my question to Leslie Radford looking an honest answer from her as to why she cares about what gets posted on wbai.net. [By the way, her response to Spooner's proposal was posted on the site earlier this week] Wbai.net is under heavy attack by The NYC "Unity Caucus." "Unity Caucus" member Cerene Roberts, WBAI part time producer reached new heights in hypocrisy on the air Weds. night by hosting a program on bylaws revision/diversity language where the guests from the "Unity Caucus" outnumbered those in opposition by at least 4 to 1 and then accusing wbai.net of being "biased." This is at least the 3rd recent governance program that she's had a hand in stacking in this ridiculous manner. She should be removed from producing governance programming at WBAI.
The NYC "Unity Caucus" has convinced WBAI
general manager Don Rojas
to order links to wbai.net to be removed
from the new bylaws/governance
section of wbai.org (though not from the site entirely).
Is wbai.net biased because it posts items critical of NYC "Unity Caucus" ? The NYC "Unity Caucus" is causing Pacifica harm and wbai.net includes information regarding this. It is Pacifica community news that is not being posted regularly on other sites, and certainly not being reported by Pacifica. I've personally invited responses from the key authors/designers of the "Unity Caucus" proposals and lobbying efforts, Mimi Rosenberg and Bob Lederer, but they decline. None the less, wbai.net posts every proposal they've ever presented. I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of people in the Pacifica community who are familiar with what's going on support wbai.net. Maybe this is a good time for people to let Don Rojas[who I wish to support], the "Unity Caucus" and the "official" Pacifica community know this.
Thanks,
-----
Shiela Hamanaka wrote:
[A response to above Roger M post]
----
From: Rafael Renteria
"Has Carol Spooner and her "Anti-Encumberance Crew Hijacked the
iPNB"?
This is an unbiased headline, if Roger Manning's standards are to
be
applied.
It's just a question that demands to be asked, right?
That's why all notices from the Chair of the iPNB Bylaws COmmittee
should come to me first, so I can highlight them, right?
I am not trying to spin the question or prejudice the reader, any
more
than Roger is...
Next:
"All People of Color Who Support Affirmative Action on Pacifica's
Listserves Under Heavy Attack"
Actually this is true, although other pretexts are used to justify the
reality.
But I wonder if Roger would post this as an unbiased, "informational"
question regarding a matter "that must be addressed."?
You don't need any guesses at all.
---
[Response to Renteria]
The main architects of proposed
Pacifica affirmative action policy are white.
From: Stephen M Brown
Don --
I had some trouble with my email server, so to make sure you get this,
I am re-sending my answer that I can be at the Tuesday meeting provided
you are able to schedule it between 2:30 and 6:30 pm.
The rest of this message is my personal opinion, and so is not "required reading."
I understand that, at the request of certain people, you have censored one of the links on Wbai.org that points visitors to Wbai.net. I hope, when you get back, you will change your mind and undo this decision, since:
Under Roger Manning, Wbai.net played an indispensable role in rescuing the network during the hijacking. It is one of the last independent, unbiased, and even-handed sources of information on Wbai-related issues that is not under the UC's thumb.
The small insider-group that comprises the UC has been repudiated consistently, and often, for the last three years by a majority of Wbai listeners, not only in large open assemblies but also in the by-laws committee and on the list-servs, because of their anti-democratic proposals, their questionable procedural tactics, and their shameless race-bating. Yet because the UC members now hold many, if not most, of the levers of power at Wbai (you may not have noticed, Don, but you're "surrounded"), they feel they can ignore such disapproval -- just as those who held the levers of power among George Bush's allies in the recent war on Iraq felt that they, too, could ignore the disapproval (70% in Turkey, 80% in Great Britain, 90% in Spain) of their populations who disapproved starting such a war.
The UC has delayed and sabotaged the national Pacifica bylaws process for the better part of a year. And here, at Wbai, its members are increasingly seeking to put themselves in a position to occupy and control all the positions of influence, power, programming, communication, outreach, and employment at the station.
And they seem to be succeeding.
For example, UC leader Bob Lederer (and I know he is your right-hand man, so I make no comment about him) controls content for the entire Wbai website -- and the entire Wbai Folio. Bernard White, as Program Director, controls all of Wbai's programming and air-time allotments, and also decides who gets to host special shows -- such as putting Cerene (another UC leader) in charge of Wbai's on-air programs dealing with Pacifica governance and the bylaws controversy. (Talk about fairness. Read some of the angry reviews of her last supposedly "balanced" program on the bylaws, in which four UC speakers were invited to take part, but only one speaker from the other side -- who was constantly shouted down and interrupted with no comment from Cerene, the supposedly unbiased moderator.)
You might get a better idea of what the UC is up to, how they have been behaving, and how they are regarded by talking to Carol Spooner, who can provide a wider, national overview and a better perspective on the significance of what they are about.
Ok, lecture over.
Regards,
Stephen M. Brown
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 4:13 PM
Evan Davis wrote:
Permission granted to publish the following post elsewhere as may be desired.
Yesterday I received an e-mail invitation from Cerene Roberts to
participate in an on-air discussion of by-laws issues on a 2:00 am
program at WBAI. I was told there would be several other guests and
that one of them would be Leslie Radford. From the sound of things I
assumed that all of the other guests would be supporters of the DLC
"majority report" / Unity Caucus by-laws draft ( "Draft A") which
contains a provision by which representatives may be added to the
local station boards after the local elections have been tallied if a
local committee determines that such additions are needed to fulfill
"diversity targets" based in some un-specified way on local
demographic data that same committee will be charged with gathering.
Draft A has come to be known as the "added seats" model.
I was chosen, I presume, because I have been an advocate of the
"Draft B" by-laws which reflect the original proposal from Dialo
Kantambo regarding the "Committees of Inclusion" and the show's
producer, Cerene, wanted to have an instructive debate ( or so she
said). What I was not told was that I would be up against no less
than 5 advocates of the added seats model and that interruptions and
combativeness would set the tone.
From the beginning of the program ( or at least from the point at
which I was connected) Leslie Radford and others made what I felt
were a number of mischaracterizations that I felt compelled to
challenge but I never felt I had the opportunity to express myself
coherently because of the frequent interruptions and constant
changing of the subject.
Here's a little inventory of what I felt those mischaracterizations were;
That's an incomplete list but these are some of the main ones.
I made the statement that I didn't know anyone in Pacifica who
didn't feel that affirmative action was both needed and desirable. I
was immediately challenged and questioned on whether I really knew
what everyone at Pacifica was thinking and where I get my information
from. I explained that I had been folowing the dialogues on various
lists as well as having attended a number of meetings and having met
with individuals, etc. Cerene then stated that most Pacificans are
not on the internet but later the question of who said what on this
list or that came up repeatedly and Cerene kept giving out web
addresses for various websites.
I encourage anyone interested to listen to the show. It is archived here;
One fellow by the name of James from WBAI kept insisting that I
discuss any legal implications the particular mechanics of
proportional voting and STV voting may have - or specifically which
aspects may have generated complaints. I tried to answer him but he
interrupted to accuse me of twisting his words and disrespecting him
so I asked him if he would please describe the added seats portion of
Draft A so that we could all have a point of reference. I said;
"Rather than make myself vulnerable to any charges of
misrepresentation why don't I just ask you to describe ( that
model)?" He took offense at that and refused to entertain my
invitation. Instead he insisted that my use of the term "un-elected"
to describe the people who would be added after the elections was a
gross mischaracterization ( but he refused to elaborate).
David Moore was on the call and was, in my mind a real
disappointment. He took a long time to describe the struggle in what
seemed like meta-philosophical terms and while he had a few good
points to make much of what he said felt somewhat tangential to the
discussion at hand. Then he got a second wind and spoke passionately
in support of adopting "the strongest affirmative action requirements
humanly possible" - but his argument was never explained or
substantiated with regard to the questions I had raised about it.
Leslie Radford announced that the KPFK LAB had , earlier that
evening; "refused to be strongarmed" (in to supporting Draft B).
Given the closeness of the vote (6 to 8 with 3 abstensions) to table
( not reject) the proposal to adopt Draft B and the low key civility
with which a few members of the LAB said they were lobbied ( I
contacted several of my LAB members to urge them to study the two
drafts and vote their consciences) I'd say "strongarm" is a
deliberately inflammatory distortion.
In the end we each had a moment for summation and I used mine to
say that I felt I had been ganged up on and that the discussion had
not been very thorough or enlightening. I offered a newly created
e-mail address (bylawsdebate@hotmail.com) where anyone could contact
me to discuss the by-laws uninhibited and uninterrupted.
Cerene also charged that the website, www.http://wbai.net was
operated by a "faction" and was therefore far from "impartial". I
have NO idea what THAT's about.
At the very end Fahima invited me to participate in a program on
WPFW later that morning where she said we would resume the discussion
on race and diversity in the by-laws.
Here's how that went;
As before Leslie began by asserting that opposition to the added
seats model reflected white liberal resistance to inclusion of people
of color and that white liberal's prefer incremental change because
they either can't or won't consider the situations people of color
face. I felt she was thereby implying that I was a "white liberal"
and I took issue with that but was interrupted. Ryme emphasized the
need for re-creating Pacifica as an institution that reflects and
draws from the wisdom and experiences of a broad variety of people
rather than omne whic dotes on issues of skin color alone ( who can
argue with that?) and she said that it was unbelievable how racism
has manifested itself among ( presumably white - that's my
presumption) Pacificans and has motivated us to try to reduce
everything to issues of race and racial division. I tried to express
agreement with part of what she said and to disagree with her last
point but didn't quite get the chance.
I did get an adequate opportunity to speak, however on a couple of
occasions and I made a number of cogent points. Then Leslie had to
leave. She was then replaced by Rafael Renteria who proceded to
launch in to one of his characteristically pedantic lectures about
how racism is a life or eath issue for people of color and about how
white people don't understand that, etc. Jabari took offence at that
and began to argue with him. Jabari said that the national board had
abdicated its authority to a bunch of ad-hoc committees that had no
business interfering with the by-laws and that Pacifica had wasted
more than $150,000 on all the delays of late just to accommodate a
seemingly endless and unproductive argument about one issue that
should be expressed as a set of policies rather that to be included
in the by-laws.
I kept quiet and let that debate procede without input from me
because I truly felt Jabari was making the same points I might have
made but that was making them more succinctly than I might have and
with greater authenticity.
The last contribution I made was to trace the history of the
"anti-racism working group" proposal from the BNew College conference
in Berkeley last June through the "Committees of Inclusion" proposal
from Diallo Kantambo and to the current multiple versions of "draft
A" which bear little resemblance to any of the works that preceded
them and which had gained popular support.
That was all we had time for.
From: liz_mclellan
If any other site HAD done teh work
to put up the records it wouldn't
be nessesary. Til then
head straight to WBAI.NET
From: Roger M
A clarification: The links to wbai.net
in the
bylaws/governance section of wbai.org
have
not yet been removed. Also, Don Rojas'
instruction
to remove the links is with the
intention of
maintaining the neutrality of the
section.
(Though, I and others believe that
this is an
uninformed decision.)
Raphael wrote:
For the record, Carol Spooner has sent bylaws drafts to
Pacifica.org and myself (for wbai.net) simultaneously.
The reason is that it is known that I am able to turn
documents around much sooner than most people and I have
helped Pacifica.org in the past in this way.
I was able to get the latest bylaws drafts (A and B) up first,
so Pacifica.org linked to the page. (and has permission to
lift code anytime, provided there is a link to the source).
In return, when I was swamped with designing the new wbai.org
under the crunch of a one week deadline, Pacifica.org stepped
up and got critical documents coded that I would of otherwise
gotten to.
People who understand will appreciate this kind of
mutual support and cooperation.
Anything wbai.net publishes, it publishes for the
entire Pacifica community. Wbai.net has alwayS invited
any Pacifica site to lift code and interconnect.
Wbai.net is a Pacifica website.
Roger M, wbai.net
---
|
top of page | bylaws revisions process info page | governance proposals | bylaws etc | home |