wbai.net Pacifica/WBAI history   events   links   archive   bylaws etc   bylaws revision
PNB   LSB   elections   contact info   opinion   search

Minutes of the WBAI bylaws revision subcommittee

MINUTES of the tenth public meeting of the WBAI area subcommittee of the Bylaws Revision Committee
Held at DC 1707, on Varick St. in Manhattan on June 4.
by Brad Taylor, notetaker
(Please note: This is not a verbatim account. Please do not quote it as if you were quoting people's exact words. Speakers are indicated by the name or description of the speaker and a colon. Also note that there is a small group of people who attends nearly all these meetings and these people tend to speak the most.

PNB - Pacifica National Board
iPNB - interim Pacifica National Board
LAB - Local Advisory Board
LGB - Local Governing Board
SB - Station Board
SGB - Station Governing Board
(Note that LAB, LGB, SGB, and SB are parallel.)
GM - General Manager of the station
CPB - Corp. for Public Broadcasting
ED - Executive Director of the Pacifica Foundation
PR - proportional representation


IN ATTENDANCE: Janice K. Bryant, member of the iPNB and co-chair of this subcommittee; Leslie Cagan, chair of the iPNB and approx. 20 - 30 people


MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER. Larry Romsted takes the role of temporary chair-person - announces an agenda of a group of presentations and asks that questions be held for between presentations rather than being posed Ain the middle of presentations@. Presentations are to be as follows: Larry will give a slightly detailed explanation of the proportional representation election model and a proposal for inserting diversity requirements into that model - moving into a discussion of the KPFA election model; Steve Salchow will do an explanation of Aproportional voting@; Bertold Reimer will give a summary of an Elections Committee proposal for running elections in the WBAI signal area and Eve Moser will give an over-all summing up of this. After the second presentation, we would take a break and talk about the upcoming meeting (Saturday).


Larry begins, goes over a ABackground and Introduction@ handout he has compiled and distributed for proportional representation voting (its purposes, values, etc.). Displays a signal area map/diagram. Generally explains his view of the intentions of PR voting as it relates to diversity requirements/diverse community involvement. Quotes Lani Guanier and Cynthia McKinney discussing PR. Calls for questions.

Steve Brown notes that within this discussion of PR (relative to candidacy for SGB members), there is the notion that if a producer or SB member, etc. were to endorse a candidate on-air, this would trigger a disqualification of that candidate. Says this is unworkable as a candidate could be disqualified purposely by someone by endorsing them on-air in order to subvert their candidacy.

Larry says that that would be a problem, but that it could be reworked and that in the KPFA guidelines for these elections, such issues are left up to the election coordinator for adjudication.

Susan Lee says this situation would constrain free speech in a general way.

Larry answered that people could say whatever they wanted off-air, but on-air, endorsement of candidates would be confined top programs specifically designed for candidacy discussions.

Fred Nguyen: So this candidate search committee - how are its members chosen?

Larry: It comes from the station board.

Fred: That's self-selection because they're already in the majority, so they're going to choose candidates who favor them.

Larry: They are supposed to seek out candidates to run who represent diversity - they are charged with that.

Fred: They are in charge and they will choose candidates who look like them.

Larry: If they choose, but they are supposed to be fair and cultivate diversity.

Fred: No, they will choose candidates who look like them.

Larry: So be it. Well.... there are multiple levels of meaning in the things Fred just said and some of them I'm going to address here and some of them I'm going to let pass. The part that I'm going to ignore is the part where he implies that I have said things against the LAB in the past - they're wrong - I have never criticized the LAB that way publicly. The other thing here is that you need some mechanism for recruiting candidates - some way of getting them to run, and besides, anyone who wants to run can run independently representing other groups. So the job of the LAB becomes primarily to foster diversity.

Paul Surovell: It would be instructive if we could show what happened in the first election at Berkeley which happened before these systems were put in place so we could see the difference between the elections with and without diversity requirements.

Larry: I can't do a compare-and-contrast of something that doesn't exist. Steve Salchow is going to give a presentation of how the elections happened in Berkeley.

Janice: I have seven people on the list to speak - we're running low on time - should we set a time limit?

Meeting: Yes.

Janice: Ok we'll stop this after Steve (not Steve Brown - the other Steve).

Steve Brown: This is for what Susan was saying about on-air endorsements - you have to think of it like what if a judge in a legal proceeding made a public statement endorsing one side or the other, that would be very prejudicial.

Bertold Reimer: In agreement with the idea of the prejudicial nature of imbalance in air time - like when one candidate in an election is rich and the other isn't, that rich candidate can buy a lot of advertisement and win the election with his money - and if you want to assume that most white candidates have more money than most black candidates, etc. - and so therefore you have to equalize the whole playing field and that's basically the way to go about it.

Paul: Taking issue Larry's use of the idea of Atinkering@ with the election results relative to the invoking of diversity requirements at the end of the election process. Why would it be improper to adjust the outcome of the election along guidelines of diversity requirements if those requirements were fairly agreed upon in advance of the election - they would simply be a legal and proper part of the election itself. And just very briefly, you're advocating a nominations committee -

Larry: No - a candidate search committee.

Paul: A candidate search committee - to... nominate candidates?

Larry: No, to find and select candidates - and help them get their petitions.

Paul: Is this in effect that they're being nominated by the committee?

Larry: No.

Paul: Ok - and would it be known by any of the voters that certain candidates went through that process?

Larry: No.

Paul: And why would that be? And could the candidate announce that they were recruited by the committee in that process? And as it relates to political parties - we're talking about a process where if a particular political party gets 10% of the votes, they get 10% of the seats in the assembly - and that's a completely different situation.

Fred: That's the constituency model.

Larry: First to the use of the word Arigged@ - I in one e-mail to Paul used the word Arigged@ - I subsequently backed off of that - the would substitute the word Acontrolled@ - whatever - the use of quotas (diversity mandates?) to adjust the outcome of the election at the end is what I oppose. People can choose to do that. I just feel that we should set up a system that respects the decision of the electorate, and when they decide, that's the result. As for countries, you're right that countries use it, and KPFA has used it as well and Gregory Wonderwheel mentions that the results of the election were roughly proportional to the races and genders of the candidates that were available. Now, they had a requirement, so after the election they adjusted the results - they skipped some candidates that actually won - I am opposed to the adjustment.

Leslie: I have several things. One of the C. McKinney's points about Afull-fledged democracies@ - I don't know if such a thing exists. Also, one point that you make is that when someone is elected they would then be responsible to the people who voted - there is overwhelming evidence that just because someone is elected, doesn't mean they're responsive to the people who elected them. Next, I'm a little surprised by the strong reaction to the notion you mention of the candidate search committee - I believe I'm right to say that the committee does not nominate anyone - it finds, encourages people to run. I think we all should be search committees in that way, and if there's a more organized way to do that, I personally have no problem with it. Could be a useful thing, and it certainly would not keep anyone not recruited that way from running. Such a group would not keep anyone else from doing the same thing (recruitment), it would just make sure that somebody was doing it. But another thing I wanted to mention, as I understand it. PR has been designed so you don't end up with one political party having an overwhelming dominance. But here, we're basically talking about individuals, I wasn't necessarily talking about groups of people, or slates -

Larry: I'm not talking about slates - but groups could campaign for people on the street, or things of that sort, they just couldn't do it on-air.

Leslie: But as an example, if ten seats are open, a candidate needs only about ten percent of the votes to win - my question is about how do we do our best to protect the mission here - how do we keep people who are not clear about their relationship to the mission from slipping in?

Larry: In KPFA, they give out a questionnaire and how they respond to these questions is known, so people hear how the candidates feel about protecting the mission.

David: They can lie.

Larry: Anybody can lie.

Leslie: No, suppose everybody tells the truth, but we just know that one of the candidates is weaker about how to protect the mission, they can still slip in with that 10% of the votes... Larry: But it's always subjective who is weaker and who is stronger.

Listener: How is this different from the top ten vote-getters getting the job?

Larry: Can you just wait for S. Salchow's presentation?

Eve: Campaign search committee - I disagree with Larry (along the lines of what Fred said) as to how he would set it up. I would say that the LAB should be responsible to see that the committee was set up and doing the work, but none of the LAB members should be on it - they should just see to it that it exists. It should be open to anybody.

Carolyn: LAB should set up a committee, but only to verify basic requirements, that their petitions are in order, that they live in the signal area, etc., but only that verification of qualifications role, no anointing of candidates as being otherwise acceptable to the LAB or committee.

Steve: Of any objection to a search committee set up by the LAB, if it's not created by the LAB, how else would it be created? And if anybody can petition to be a candidate, I wonder whether than applies to non-listeners, non-members?

Larry: I think there should be a set of criteria and one of those criteria would be that you have to be a full-fledged listener-member.

Janice: I'm not sure how you can control producers or what people say on-air.

Larry: You can't control what people say, but you can make it that if a producer endorses someone on-air, his/her candidate is disqualified. This would discourage that from happening.

Janice: You're going to have someone listen for this round the clock? And my other comment is, what does the word Aaffirm@ mean?

Larry: Well it's not a guarantee - an Aaffirmation@ means you make an effort to do something. And in my mind, if you put that responsibility within the station board, then those people are elected and are responsible to make sure that there is a diversity of candidates.

Janice: And in your personal opinion, what's wrong with guaranteeing?

Larry: Because guaranteeing starts to say who the candidates will be. They are not independently selected any more.

Janice: This is when we were going to have a break before Steve's presentation.

Larry: No I've only done part AA@. Manicheh: What about when a producer that doesn't like a candidate asks about the candidate?

Larry: Well that's when the judgement call would come in and you have to have an independent group who makes a decision about that.

Susan Lee: You have to have a rule.

Larry: Well even with a rule, you still have to have a judgement as to compliance with the rule.

Susan: But will we be allowed to talk about the election? Will we be allowed to talk about anything?

Larry: I think they have to be scheduled programs.

Susan: You mean we shouldn't encourage people on our programs?

Larry: When you're doing elections, you have to treat the candidates equally.

Susan: I didn't say candidates, I said the people who -

Larry: Why don't you listen to the KPFA guidelines? I'm going to try to do this quickly.

Larry: Ok. This is the KPFA election guidelines written in 2000 - before the settlement agreement - so it includes stuff put in there because it was anticipated that the LAB or the station board might not want to cooperate. Those are no longer relevant. I'll try and cut all of that short. The only thing they say is that after the elections they are to replace the current LAB that's there with a station board. Then what they have is a thing called an Aelections coordinator@- an independent person who oversees the election process. That was David Green. Et cetera. He goes over the KPFA guidelines (from a handout).

Janice calls for questions on the KPFA model.

Steve: I'm concerned with the idea of a member of s political minority being brought to fill a vacancy by the elections coordinator or by these diversity requirements - I'm concerned that this minority member would become the majority in some vital matter.

Larry: I think you're mixing two things - at Berkeley they used PR and it would take a huge discussion of the station board and probably an election of the electorate to change the election guidelines. But it would, in some cases, change the political inclination of the board - and that's democracy - there's no guarantee as to outcome.

Jim: I sort of vaguely like this model except it uses what I call the Ashort list@ for diversity along the lines of a diversity list from the 1960's instead of the longer list of what diversity really is, so I think that if it was corrected to that, it might actually be the best model. Secondly, I'm a little confused - in my experience, corporations have one set of bylaws and here it talks about ASB bylaws@ and I don't see how a station board can have a separate set of bylaws from the corporation.

Larry: Let me answer that a different way - right now we have no formal bylaws -

Leslie: That's not true.

Larry: Well, I mean in the sense that we've agreed on them.

Leslie: We have bylaws. We're in the process of changing them.

Larry: Right - but what I'm driving at is we have old bylaws and we're in the process of changing them to new bylaws.

Jim: I understand that.

Larry: Ok. And the outcome is not certain. And one possible outcome is that the speparate stations could have their own bylaws.

Jim: I don't see how the law permits that. It's one corporation - it's not five.

Larry: I don't like that idea myself, but I believe that it is possible to have both (national bylaws and station bylaws), but I'm not a lawyer - Bob, can you speak to that?

(Bob Bogen - elections expert) Bob: That's a matter of California state non-profit corporate law, but I believe that it is possible to have both (where the two do not disagree) with the national bylaws taking precedence over the local bylaws. Or you could have bylaws with associated policies, or standards, etc.

Janice: I'd like to note something here relating to what you just mentioned - that some of these things we're working with here are not going to become bylaws - as such - but will become like rules or standards for operation at the stations.

Larry: So one way to think of it is that election guidelines are not necessarily bylaws.

Jim: So you could figure that the ones in Houston could be hell on wheels based on how things are there now.

Larry: Well but we can't go there now because those are hypothetical possibilities and all we're doing is discussing what these things mean.

David: First of all I don't like the idea of having to vote the whole thing over when you have one bad egg, you have to go through all that to get him out - but here's the question: When you've decided that you have a bad guy (like you find out that one of the LAB members is that guy from Tulia, Texas who framed all those pepople, etc.) and you want to get him out - you need to get the word out to people about this bad guy, how do you get it out? How does that work? How do you let people know?

Larry: That's a very different question from election guidelines - that's an issue of air time - and potentially has do with something like a listener show to discuss listener issues.

James: I like generally the KPFA guidelines - but I think there's nothing like experience as a source of reliable information - does anyone know of any way to access reports from people on the west coast as to how things worked out after their elections out there?

Janice: When we go out there for the national board meeting we can ask people out there how they felt about the outcome...

Jim Dingeman: I've seen the (KPFA) LAB - the elected one - work first hand. It's a pretty interesting thing to watch, but there are flaws. The flaws have to dpo with the fact that the ele4ctions took place during the conflict, so there was inadequate time for issues to be heard, debated, etc. and for instance the programming council delayed for a year and a half letting anybody on - so that's why the program council has to be reformed. But they had something like a 20% voter turn-out which is very high in spite of the inadequate announcement process, etc.

Janice: Jim, I think this is something a little different - he wants to know how the listeners feel, right?

James: Well I would actually like to hear how the listeners feel and how the LAB feels.

Jim: Yeah but since I saw it first-hand, the feed-back is that there is not enough on-air reportage of the issues - period.

Mike: There's a situation out there where a person of color was elected - because of diversity requirements - with only fourteen votes. Apparently there's no minimum number of votes to enact the diversity requirements. So the had a dilemma - they kind of had to do a little finagling over here and like that and they finally got the person to drop out. And also in both of those elections, they have the results on the web-site, if you look a t the column on the right, they had 3-4 undefeatable candidates -

Janice: After Leslie and Carolyn, let's adjourn to the other room where we have more room, etc.

Leslie: There are a couple of things that jump out at me from the KPFA guidelines - one is the thought of an election every year - too cumbersome. Two is this recalling of the entire board - it seems to me that even with PR voting, there should be some acceptable way to recall one person or a handful of people with out having to recall the whole shebang. And the other thing is this whole question of balance, where you have this idea that there should be no more than 8 men or no more than 8 women or people of color or whatever - it seems to me that it should be that you could have no _less_ than 8 women or people of color, etc. (applause)

Leslie: The other thing is that all this stuff of the details of the election guidelines should not be something to go into the bylaws, but should be a matter of policy. The other thing I would say is that I'm leaning toward the idea that there should be some consistency in the guidelines - that all 5 station areas would conduct their elections in the same way.

Larry: Steve's going to talk about PR voting and we can let Bob speak directly to the question of recall. And I absolutely agree with you about it's a minimum of 8 women, not a equal number. My understanding also is that the committee which set up that structure was divided on it, about equally, to do it or to not do it, so it was not something that they decided overwhelmingly.

Carolyn Birden: I really wanted to address the question of grandfathering - and I wanted to ask Bob Bogen about that - I was under the impression that that was an emergency measure at KPFA that was voted on in order to gain the approval of the LAB because it wasn't necessarily legally certain that there would be elections and they wanted to reassure the LAB members by grandfathering them. But now we're not in that situation - we have a settlement - there will be elections - and I'm kind of against grandfathering and I'm against elections every year.

Bob Bogen: I have no comment on the question of elections every year - that goes outside my area of expertise.

Carolyn: I thought I heard you say that you were kind of against it because it reduces the number of people coming out... -

Bob Bogen: Oh that's a separate issue - the question of staggered elections - yes - I can speak to that. If there are twenty members and ten of them are elected - each year or each two years or whatever - if there are ten members being elected, each one should represent a tenth of those voting. If there are twenty, each one represents 5% - some people would say we don't want someone who represents only 5% of the electorate. Other people would say, well since there are all these constituency groups that need representation, each one should have representation in this way. I understand the concern for staggered elections - regarding the possibility if take-over - it's a serious consideration. I think it's a matter of you can take your pick - do you want each person to represent 5% or 10% - or if you stagger elections, replacing half the seats per year, you have two people, each representing 10%. I think you can take your pick what kind of representation you want. On the question of take-over, I think there's not much experience with a choice ballot, a preferential transferable ballot - and I think that produces fear of the unknown. And as I think some of you know, NYC used PR balloting for 10 years under LaGuardia, and the results were very satisfactory except during the Cold War, either a communist or a socialist got elected and that was a good excuse to get rid of the system. But the point is that stability is produced by preferential balloting because those who choose a candidate are apt to choose that candidate next time. You don't have the tipping of 51% and 49% that you have in conventional elections where you're choosing one person for a constituency or one person for a geographic area. You don't have that delicacy that you have when you elect by gerrymandered districts which are used to manipulate democracy or to prevent democracy. So I think a lot of the resistance against PR is due to lack of experience which I think is one good argument in favor of not having all the station areas vote in the same way. Because it may be that the KPFA system is the best - I don't think so - I think it's impossibly complex and it prevents people from voting for the people they want -and to say that every man has to be represented by a man and every white has to be represented by a white is arbitrary and it prevents people from expressing their views. So it's difficult because all of us have had terrible experience with conventional elections. You see people elected because they have money and gerrymandered districts and all the rest so it's hard to argue for people to vote within a lousy system and so PR is the only system where you can really have representative government. And I think that that experience should surely happen at WBAI and the other Pacifica stations, but there may be some variations between stations, and I think that there should be some opportunity for stations to experiment and explore the variations. So there shouldn't have to be one absolute rule which has to be decided now - it should evolve over years.

Paul: I think one thing you're overlooking is that in Pacifica, there are two stations where probably the majority of the listeners do not agree with the mission - they are basically music audiences.

(There is a brief break here in the transcription. When I pick it back up, we have moved to the other big room at DC1707 and a conversation is in progress about whether to/how to have a meeting on the next Saturday (6/8) and what the agenda would be.)

Jim Dingeman: ... the need for significant amounts of air time to discuss these things so that you can have a mass of people who are aware of this rather than having to conduct this as these meetings are going on. And I agree with Bob that you should have some repetition... Also I think that the mission statement should be put on (?) form as it has here, and all the variations of the mission statement - >cause that is a very important discussion and that does require a lot of time - and finally I want to reiterate that when I put those proposals in on the program council etc., I just want to have that brought out and voted on etc. be it on Saturday or whenever.

Larry: Well I like that suggestion, but I'm aware of two things. One is that if you're talking about bringing people into these meetings who have not been here previously and so might not know everything about what's going on and where we are on the issues, you need some time to brief them as to where we are and bring them up to speed - that's not trivial. That means you need to have significant amounts of time on the air explaining to them what we've been doing and between now and Saturday we can't do it.

Various free-form discussion about the general bylaws schedule (nationally), about the bullet points from Carol Spooner/the iPNB, etc. Larry noting that we are to respond to that bullet-point list and by when? Should we be trying to respond before the iPNB meeting starting the 21st?

Leslie: The original schedule was that by the 31st of May there would be a first draft. Taking the pulse of what was going on around the country, the decision was made not to do the first draft but to do the bullet-points. The idea was that before attempting to produce a draft, the thinking in all the 5 areas would be focused a group of core issues so that when it was time to have a draft ready, there would be input on all the same issues. But there was no real time frame put on when the five stations would complete their work on the bullet-point list and submit their feed-back. And then from this feed-back, a rough draft would be done. But as to the iPNB meeting, two things regarding the bylaws need to happen: one is that the board, as a board, needs to discuss the bylaws work that has happened - there has been no time for us to discuss the issues with eachother. The other thing that needs to happen is that we have to take another look at the timeline for the bylaws revision to be completed, so some idea about the timing of the first draft should come out of that meeting.

Larry: But the real question for us is when do we need to respond to this bullet-point list and then how are we going to respond?

Janice: So that is something that we could put on the agenda as one of the things we could try to do on Saturday - does that sort of answer it?

Larry: Only in the sense of if we want to try for the agenda that Bob (Lederer?) has been talking about, then it would require more outreach, then it would take more time, but if you want to narrow the focus to just going over these bullet-points, then it could be this crew of people.

Carolyn: I'd like to suggest that we aim for a discussion in which we involve a lot of new people - this is not going to be this Saturday - it's too soon. Bob's right we do need to discuss these issues - I'd like to aim for that kind of meeting after the iPNB meeting. Saturday should be a series of workshops on specific topics - I'm specifically thinking about a workshop on how to be a candidate.

Nidia: It's really Ray and Janice's judgement call as to how we should proceed on Saturday...

Janice: We could maybe workshop these bullet-points, but I'm really not interested in talking about how to be a candidate at this point - and I really want to get into some of the philosophy behind these points and maybe that might help guide us toward some solutions. So let's just do it now - Saturday we're going to have a meeting here - at 10:30 - from 10:30 to 4:00. And we're going to workshop the bullet-points. Let's get a sense of that - who wants to go with that idea - raise your hands.

Paul: What do you mean by workshop?

Janice: Divide up into groups - everybody take one and then report back. What? You don't want to do that? Ok so we'll just go through them the same way we always do.

Jim Dingeman: Carol Spooner thinks we need to go over the bullet-points, but I think people are still coming up with ideas and proposals (like mine that haven't been thoroughly covered yet) and I think we still need to get those in there.

Janice: And we can get those in there with the bullet-points - we can go over those ideas together. Steve Brown: Carol gave us over a hundred points that we're supposed to have some kind of straw poll about - there's no way we're going to accomplish all that on Saturday.

Janice: I think one problem we've been having is that this thing is so huge and there's no structure - at least the bullet-points are some structure - I think we should deal with it. (Applause) Let's just vote - who doesn't want to do this on Saturday?

Larry: Can I suggest a slightly different structure? Generally suggests that individuals or groups come up with their own language on different points, rather than the meeting trying to achieve consensus on all the points.

Joyce: Just a note that a lot of people may not come this Saturday because it's the day of the tribute to the ancestors.

Janice: Oh I forgot that. (General conversation.) Ok who does not want to come on Saturday? (Show of hands.) Ok we'll meet here on Saturday - and just hash it through.

Bob Lederer: One small amendment to go with Larry's idea for Saturday is to not take any votes, but rather to develop the differences in more detail so that if there's a split on some issue, to have both sides enumerate the arguments, so that the ideas can get better developed and also to go into a little more detail on some of the models that are a little sketchy.

Janice: So we'll be back right here on Saturday. So let's move on to Steve's presentation.

Larry: Steve Salchow is going to go over PR and the KPFA example. And Bob Bogen is hear also to answer questions.

(Handout is distributed with list of winners, list of winners before diversity criteria are met, etc.)

Steve goes into explanation of PR. Discusses a city council election (not PR) where 20% of the voters were Republican but none of the seats were won by Republicans. Then an example of a pie diagram where a pizza was divided roughly proportionate to the number of people who wanted various kinds of pizza (presumably analogous to a PR election). Goes into further explanation of a PR election KPFA example. Culminates with the observation that if African-American people, for instance, want to elect black representatives, a PR election provides them with the option to do so.

Bob Bogen: You said Aallows for the possibility@. It makes it mandatory - that you can't prevent 1/3 of the elected representatives from being black if they want it. That's the real point. If you have 50% of those who are voting, no-one can prevent you from having 50% of those who are elected - and that is not true of other systems.

Marcia: If you have a certain percentage of violent extremists, say, in the electorate, hat's to keep these people from having a say - well, there's a difference between having a say and having a vote on a decision to be made - so that we don't (theoretically) prohibit extremists from having a say, but we don't allow them to have the power to control the decision. Bob Bogen: That's the question - who votes? And that's a question of what are the requirements? For instance, in KPFA, candidates are expected to sign off on a mission statement - now if they sign off in a lie, then it's a question of whether democracy works, and we know that in large part presently, our elections do not work, and we get lousy people elected - that's because the system is lousy - partly - and partly because we don't have the information. But the point of PR is that you have the possibility of having clear representation and no-one can prevent you from having it. If the voters want Adolph Hitler - and he was popularly elected, as you'll recall - you can't keep him from being elected. So you have to deal with who votes and what's the requirement for voting, and I would say that it ought to be at least a year's involvement in the organization.

Leslie: I think what needs to be explained better is the way in which the votes roll over, and also, don't you vote additionally for 1st place and 2nd place and so-on?

An explanation (with Q&A) ensues as to how the voting happens and how the votes are counted, etc.

Janice: It's getting late - should we continue this discussion or should we go on to the other two presentations? Steve can be done in 5 minutes? Ok go ahead with that, then we'll go on.

Steve explains about the invoking of the diversity requirements at the end of the election process. Comments that there is a relationship between the number of candidates of one ethnicity or gender and the number of people elected from those groups.

Janice: Ok Bertold - your presentation, please.

Bertold Reimer goes into a discussion of the Elections Committee model as compared to the KPFA model.

Bob Lederer (announcements): At the iPNB, a committee of us are going to question the way in which the Executive Director is being chosen. We have an open letter we're circulating that we want them to be more transparent about this process. We are also having a forum in Berkeley on Thursday night to discuss these and other issues.


top of page | bylaws revisions process info page | governance proposals | bylaws etc | home