WBAI bylaws subcommittee straw polls
Date: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:47 am
Subject: WBAI Bylaws votes 29-10-2 for KPFA model
As a follow-up to last week's 15-4-1 straw poll endorsing the KPFA model, the WBAI Bylaws Revision Subcommittee voted last night 29-10-2 to endorse the KPFA elections model, in a straw poll that was not announced prior to the meeting.
The WBAI Bylaws Revision Subcommittee is an official Pacifica body authorized by the iPNB to develop ideas and recommendations for the iPNB and the five LABs, as part of the settlement agreement.
With these two straw polls, the Subcommittee has fulfilled its responsibility and made its recommendation twice -- clearly and unambiguously.
For the record, at least one KPFA model supporter had to leave the meeting before the vote was taken.
From: Andrew Norris [ WBAI LAB ]
to WBAI LAB members:
below is a posting of Ray on wbaibylaws 11/19/02 which is relevant to the LAB. The LAB bits are in boldface. Andy
-- I will take this opportunity to post a summary of the straw polls taken during the 11/12/02 bylaws committee meeting.
First, let me indicate, for whatever it is worth, that Susan Lee, who made all the motion leading to straw poll made the request to conduct those poll during the meeting itself, and that consequently, there was no prior notification to the public (as had happened both before our meetings and those of the WBAI LAB), that straw polls taken.
Susan made 6 straw poll motions-and in all votes, participants' choices were recorded as "yes", "no", or "abstain". (Paul Surovell recorded the exact language).
The meeting was attended by about 21 people.
1) The first poll was to ask the Bylaws Revision Subcommittee to endorse the KPFA Model. Results: Yes 15, No 4, Abst. 1
2) The next poll "urged representatives of both the LAB and the New York iPNB members to support the 'KPFA Election Model'". Results: Yes 12, No 5, Abst. 1
3) Bylaws committee invites New York iPNB to participate in its Tuesday, November 19, 2002 to discuss their views on bylaws process and their votes on election issues at the next iPNB meeting in Houston (Nov. 22-24). Results: Yes 17, No 0, Abst. 2
4) Ask LAB to set up special meeting, before *any* vote is taken on bylaws election issues and use time for discussions of and answer questions from public about such issues. Results: Yes 14, No 0, Abst. 4
5) Should LAB question period be at least 1 /2 hour, or at least 2 hours? Results: 1 /2 hour 0 Moved to assess support for "at least 2 hours" period.
6) Support for "at least 2 hours"
Results: Yes 9
3 motions were brought forth tonight and all of them passed
these are approximate numbers.
16-4-1 for the wbai bylaws subcommittee to adopt the kpfa model,
15-5-2 to have the lab and the ipnb members from nyc adopt the kpfa model ,
and another one with most people wanting 2 hours to ask the wbai lab what and why they think and when they thought it, concerning the elections bylaws and process. Almost everyone wanted 2 hours for this process
the alternative motion for 1 hour to ask the lab stuff FAILED!!!
Of course the sad thing is that the lab doesn't have to come to the meeting and everyone can vote like they want.
let's hope for the best.
patty [ CdPNY ]
The WBAI Bylaws Revision Subcommittee voted last night 15-4-1 in a straw poll to endorse the KPFA elections model and to ask our iPNB representatives to endorse it as well.
The straw poll was taken pursuant to a motion by WBAI producer Susan Lee, a member of the WBAI Fired & Banned.
The pendulum has now swung back from last week's unfortunate WBAI LAB straw poll, which hopefully will be recorded as a momentary lapse of judgment on the LAB's part.
The Bylaws subcommittee also passed a motion asking the LAB to meet with the listenership to explain individually their positions before any future vote (including straw polls) on bylaws is taken by the LAB.
The WBAI Committee for a Unified Membership, which is actively opposing the Unity Caucus elections model and its proposal for local autonomy, gave a report and led a two-hour discussion on the need for a 50-50 diversity requirement; listener-sponsor voting; voting by an undivided, unified membership; and the need of a uniform national election model.
Our committee has collected nearly 500 signatures of listeners on its petition for the above principles thus far. The signatures will be delivered to the iPNB at the Houston meeting (they include 217 delivered at the Washington meeting).
We also made it clear to iPNB member Ray Laforest, who chaired the meeting last night, that if any effort is made from a New York iPNB member to encourage the iPNB to consider the Unity Caucus's new autonomy proposal, that the same effort must be made on behalf of our committee, which is prepared to present a rigorous, comprehensive rebuttal to the autonomy proposal.
If the Unity Caucus is allowed to speak in Houston, we demand -- we insist -- on equal time.
From: Salchow & Sons, Bowmakers
This morning on Wake-Up Call, I heard that the LAB will be featured tomorrow (Thursday) morning at 8:00. Sounds like a good opportunity to ask them about last week's straw vote. I assume they will be taking phone calls.
top of page | bylaws revisions process info page | governance proposals | bylaws etc | home