|
Some proposed bylaws 4-9-02 |
Submitted by: Steve Brown WBAI Bylaws
Subcommittee
Twelve Additions to the Bylaws Nobody Has Proposed (Yet) 1. Each local station shall “own” the last 5 minutes of every
hour.
Explanation: . This would eliminate the frustrating, often
humiliating process by which listeners, Local Boards, even Station Managers and
Program Directors, are forced to negotiate with (i.e., beg) producers to run
important carts or announcements (only to be turned down).
Instead, announcements could be instantly scheduled – not as a”favor,” but
“as of right,” and without the need to provide days or weeks of “advance
notice”. This would expedite mini-reports to the listeners, as well as carts for
demonstrations, public meetings, governance matters, program changes, and
community events – not to mention issues of such overwhelming importance
(station elections, for example) that need to be repeated on every program,
every hour, in order to ensure that virtually no listener will miss them.
2. The National Board shall “own”15-minutes of each day at each station. Explanation: This 15-minute segment – from 5:45 PM to 6 PM each
day – would be used for purposes similar to those described in 1, above.
3. Salaries and job-duties of everyone (everyone!) shall be publicly posted. Explanation: Yes, privacy is important. But so is transparency
– and the prevention of abuse and corruption, which were rampant for many
years at both WBAI and the national office.
The listeners who pay the bills are entitled to know where their dollars
are going, and to whom they are being paid. The LAB is entitled to know this too
– if it ever expects to exercise intelligent budgetary oversight.
Some may ask – Why post everyone’s salary? Why not just the “top”
ones – say, over $50,000, as one iPNB member has suggested? That won’t
work – Pacifica salaries are so low, that this would exclude virtually everyone,
and defeat the purpose of disclosure. Salary-creep, bizarre expense accounts,
and featherbed jobs were rife under the old PNB. To prevent their recurrence,
we must set up new and intelligent standards of disclosure.
For example, let us say the national office were to list 5 “assistants” at
$30,000 each. I would feel much better if I knew – not just their titles – but
their names, and exactly what they were (supposed to be) doing. For as
bureaucracies grow – indeed, as Pacifica’s national office under Pat Scott and
Bessie Wash grew like The Thing From Outer Space – “assistants” tend to
multiply, often becoming no more than glorified gofers, car-parkers, and
“personal shoppers” for their bosses. Or, worse, their sons, daughters, and
brothers-in law.
For a good (or bad) example, check out the NYC Housing Dept. scandal now
coming to light. It seems that the incompetent son of Ray Harding, the NY
Liberal Party boss, was plunked into a cushy $180,000-a-year sinecure in return
for daddy’s support in Giuliani’s election campaign. He then proceeded not only
to pad the payroll with his sleep-all-day buddies, but also to shower them – and
himself – with luxury sports cars for their own personal use, all-expenses-paid
vacation trips to Europe, lavish “department” parties at local strip clubs, etc.
– all paid for by taxpayers, out of the department budget. This was possible in
large part because no specific breakdowns were required, and no public oversight
was in place. Could this happen (again) at Pacifica? Why wait to find out – when
we can prevent it in advance?
As for an employee’s right to privacy – that cuts more than one way.
I suppose if I were a man making $40,000 a year – doing at the same job for
which the woman sitting next to me was only being paid $30,000 – I would not
want this information publicly posted. But the woman certainly would want it
posted. So would all the listeners who believe in "equal pay for equal work".
After all, it is no secret that, before the “coup”, WBAI was rife with
crony-ism, favoritism, and the awarding of the best jobs, highest salaries, and
most coveted air-time to friends of the “in-group”. That situation hasn’t
changed. But it must – and the public posting of duties, responsibilities, and
salaries – for all staff members, all programmers, all producers – will help end
it. And help restore the listeners’ and the staff’s faith in Pacifica as a fair
and just employer.
Which brings up a related issue.
Do you know the difference between “paid” and “unpaid” programmers – other
than, of course, the fact that one gets paid and the other doesn’t?
I mean, how come WBAI paid Earl Caldwell for hosting his show, but not,
say, Mike Feder or Bob Fass for hosting theirs? Or how come WBAI paid
Bernard White as the host of Wake-Up Call, but not Fred Hershkowitz as the host
of Home Fries, or Janet Coleman for hosting Cat Radio, or Gary Null, or
Bob Lederer, or R. Paul Martin, or Max Schmeid?
How much was Utrice Leid paid to host Talk-Back? Does Hugh Hamilton get
paid to host it now? If so, how much?
And what about Gary Bird? Bernard White (surprise!) has evidently just
awarded him a huge chunk of the WBAI programming schedule, without the slightest
notice or discussion with anyone – in fact, without even having the courtesy to
notify the programmers Bird would be throwing off the air. (They had to read
about it in the newspapers – maybe Bernard should have delivered the news to
them by telegram at 8 AM in the morning, the way Utrice let him know that he had
just been thrown off the air during the Christmas coup. Plus que &ccedi;a change ...)
Is Bird being paid? If so, how much? Did Bernard sign a contract with him?
Nobody has any idea, not even the LAB. And if we ever decide to cancel Bird,
will we suddenly be faced with one of those (surprise again!) secret “golden
parachutes” like the infamous severance packages, totaling hundreds of thousands
of dollars, lavished on Bessie Wash, Utrice Leid, Garland Ganter, and Mark
Schubb?
The foregoing speculations neither judge nor question the value of any of
the abovementioned persons (except maybe Wash, Leid, Ganter, and Schubb) – but
seek only to raise the issue of how these things are decided. And by whom.
Can you believe that “600-pound gorilla” of jobs and salaries – so vital to
every staffer and every listener, and which is seething constantly beneath the
surface at all five stations – has so far never been publicly
discussed? Or even privately discussed? Why is that?
My daddy and mommy used to tell me I was too young to discuss family
finances – but only while I was still a cute little kiddie. Should WBAI and
Pacifica management still be treating the listeners as cute little
kiddies?
Posting the duties and salaries (or lack thereof) for all Pacifica
personnel – local or national, paid or unpaid, staff or management, producer or
volunteer – is the first big step towards an adult discussion of finances. (I
mean, let’s remember exactly whose finances they are, anyway.)
4. Limiting large and/or corporate donations. A. Neither the Pacifica Foundation nor the National Board
nor any Local Station shall accept donations or support (either in cash or in
kind) from any source other than a living individual or his or her estate,
except as noted below. Nor shall such donations or support exceed the value of
$50,000 from any one source in any one calendar year, unless agreed to by a 2/3
majority of National Board members and a 3/5 majority of Local Station Boards,
and then only after full disclosure and open debate before the listening public.
B. Neither the Pacifica Foundation nor the National Board
nor any Local Station shall accept donations or support (either in cash or in
kind) from any government agency, public entity, corporation, foundation, or
institution, unless agreed to by a 2/3 majority of National Board members and a
3/5 majority of Local Station Boards, and then only after full disclosure and
open debate before the listening public.
5. Funding (and restricting the funding) of the National Board. A. The National Board shall not be empowered to approve
its own budget. The operating budget of the National Board, including special
projects, shall be submitted to the Local Station Boards for approval, which
shall require a 3/5 majority vote of all the members of all the Local Boards
voting as individuals.
B. The National Board shall not be empowered to fund or
raise money for its own budget. The National Board shall be entirely
dependant for its budget and operating funds upon a subsidy remitted from each
Local Station. How much of the national budget each station should pay shall be
based upon a fair assessment of their respective finances, and shall be decided
amongst themselves by a 3/5 majority of all the members of each Local Board
voting as individuals.
C. The National Board shall not be empowered to hold
or dispose of any funds it may have acquired from outside sources. In some
cases, the National Board might be required to serve as the legal conduit for
certain funding (e.g., from the CPB, or from some foundation or other donor). In
such cases, these monies shall not be placed in the National Board’s “general”
account (from which it would presumably fund its normal activities) but in a
special “distribution” account, which, although in the Pacifica name, would be
administered by a group comprising one member from each Local Station Board. The
members of this of this group would hold exclusive signatory power and the right
to assign those funds based on a 3/5 vote of the Local Station Boards and a 2/3
vote of the National Board.
*Justification: This bylaw is important for being perhaps the best
possible way of ensuring that the National Board cannot run away with itself by
procuring funding independent of the stations.
6. Local Station Boards shall not be “self-selecting”.
A. This means no “appointed seats”. Listener
seats shall be filled only through direct election by the listener-voters. Staff
seats shall be filled only through direct election by the staff-voters.
B. Filling vacancies. If a listener or staff seat
fall vacant, it shall be filled only by the next-highest vote-getting candidate
in the previous listener or staff election.
C. Enlarging the Board. If the Board vote to
enlarge itself, the new seats shall be filled only through direct election by
the listener- or staff-voters (as the case may be) in the next scheduled
election or, if necessary, in a special election called for that purpose.
D. Recalling the Local Board. Any Local Board
member or members shall be re-callable by the voters who elected them, and shall
be replaced by the next-highest vote-getting candidate(s) in the previous
listener or staff elections.
7. The National Board shall not be “self-selecting”. A. This means no “appointed seats”. Instead,
National Board seats shall be filled in two ways:
B. Filling vacancies. If a National Board seat
fall vacant, it shall be filled only by the Local Board that selected the
original member. If an at-large seat fall vacant, it shall be filled only
by the next-highest vote-getting candidate in the previous at-large election.
C. Recalling the National Board. Any
Local-Board-selected member or members of the National Board shall be
re-callable (and replaceable) by the same Local Board that selected them. Any
at-large member of the National Board shall be re-callable by the votes who
elected him, and shall be replaced by the next-highest vote-getting candidate in
the previous National Board at-large election.
8. Definition of a Pacifica “voter”. Pacifica voters shall be defined as either “grandfathered” or “new”.
“Grandfathered” voters shall be:
A. Anyone who has paid either the regular or special
membership fee of $50 or $25, respectively, to his or her local station during
the period from January 1998 to 90 days before the date of the Local Station
Board elections; or
B. Anyone who has contributed money to, signed an
attendance sheet of, or volunteered time for any of the following organizations
during the period from December 22, 2000, to 90 days before the date of the
Local Station Board elections: [E.G., Concerned Friends, CDP/NY, The Pacifica
Campaign, The Listeners Lawsuit, etc.– a full list should be appended.]; or
C. Anyone who has, by standards to be determined, in any
other way supported, served or assisted those fighting to remove the former
Pacifica National Board majority during the period from January 1998 to 90 days
before the date of the Local Station Board elections.
“New” voters shall be: Anyone who is not a “grandfathered” voter, and who has scored 80% or higher
on the “Pacifica Voter Test,” based on the booklet Pacifica's 50-year History
& Statement of Principles (attached to the Pacifica Electoral Ballot). The
booklet and ballot will be supplied in any language requested, and to anyone who
requests them. However, if applicant is not literate in any written language, he
or she may receive the above materials, upon request, on cassette, and may take
the Voter Test orally, over the phone.
The ballot for “new” voters will include these choices:
a. [Full payment option] I enclose my completed test and ballot,
along with the regular annual Pacifica membership fee of $50.
b. [Reduced Payment option] I enclose my completed test and
ballot. But I am a student, or age 65 or older, and therefore enclose only the
reduced annual membership of $25
c. [Sweat Equity option] I enclose my completed test and ballot.
But I am unemployed or for other reasons cannot afford either the regular or
reduced annual Pacifica membership fee; therefore in lieu of monetary payment I
agree to volunteer 5 hours of time to Pacifica during the coming year, to be
given in one block or distributed over the year, according to my schedule.
Activities during those 5 hours might include, but will not necessarily be
limited to, such things as answering phones at the radio station during a fund
drive, handing out leaflets about the station in my building or neighborhood,
addressing envelopes in my home, or other activities to be mutually agreed upon
between myself and the station.
d. [Waiver of both payment and sweat equity] I enclose my
completed test and ballot. But I am neither financially able to afford the
regular or reduced annual membership fee, nor physically able to volunteer any
time to Pacifica in lieu of payment; therefore I request that all such
requirements be waived in my case.
* Justification for using above method of defining “new”
voters. Although it would be ideal to know that every Pacifica voter was
also a listener, there is clearly no way to accurately determine who does or
does not listen to the station. Nor what it is that they may be listening to.
After all, even if someone listens regularly to, say, Armand DeMiele (Wise
Healer that he is) or to one of our “feel good” shows (no matter how uplifting)
, that person may still not be someone who we can count on to protect and
support Pacifica as intensely and as wisely as, say, a listener to Democracy
Now!
Therefore we should concentrate on getting voters who understand what
Pacifica means, and who will fight for it – even if he or she may not actually
be a listener. Heresy, right? But consider -- do you really think Noam Chomsky,
Ed Herman, Michael Parenti, Ralph Nader, et al, actually have time to listen to
Pacifica? Would you then disqualify them from voting in our local board
elections (provided they lived in the signal area)?
Think for a moment about the rationale for automobile driving tests.
We don't simply hand over the keys to a valuable and dangerous 4,000-pound piece
of machinery without first making the potential driver spend 12 hours in driving
school, and then pass a driving test to demonstrate both competence and
intelligence in motor vehicle operation. Similarly, those who seek U.S.
Citizenship have to go to school and learn about America and its ideals (at
least in principle) before we give them citizenship and the right to vote in our
elections. Or consider the “Bar Mitzvah Boy”, who is accepted as a full member
of the Jewish community at age 13 – but only after taking long courses in Torah
and Jewish secular and religious history.
We should require no less for Pacifica voters. If applicants can pass
a test based on Pacifica’s history and principles, its struggles and
achievements – we know they will be informed and alert. Even if they were part
of a right wing fifth column, at least we would have a chance of converting
them. (“Gee, before I read your booklet, I thought you were just a gang of
fetus-killing, Commie-loving, America-hating creeps .”) As for dishonest people
who may try to join without paying, I am confident that few if any who can look
at themselves in the mirror will check the no-payment options.
Because no one is excluded (anyone may request a ballot and vote – if
he can pass the test), the above way of defining a voter should satisfy almost
everyone. No “poll tax” of money or labor would be required – although they
would be welcomed and encouraged as always. Yet we would still be confident that
each voter had indeed committed himself to learning and mastering the history
and principles of Pacifica. What more could we ask?
Note that everyone will have to take the test, even those who pay
or volunteer time. Which brings up the next bylaw
suggestion.
9. All National and Local Station personnel (paid or unpaid, staff
or management) must read Pacifica's 50-year History & Statement of
Principles and score 80% or better on the “Pacifica Voter Test” – as a condition
of present or future employment.
10. Definition of a Pacifica “member” (not the same as a Pacifica “voter”). A Pacifica member shall be any member of the Pacifica National Board, and
any member of the local station board of one of the five Pacifica stations. [To
make every listener subscriber a “member” would render impossibly large the
minimum number of registered and consenting member signatures required to
institute a lawsuit against the foundation; whereas limiting “membership”, as
above, to approximately 115-130 local and national board members means that even
in times when “most” of the boards could conceivably be corrupted, it would
still be possible to find 5-7 “honest” board members nationally or locally --
i.e. the 5% needed to legally challenge the foundation in court.]
11. Why create a “shadow” LAB?
If we wish to continue to accept CPB funding (at least until we are
solvent) we must comply with their regulations by creating a proper LAB.
Therefore, after the voters elect Local Governing Boards (LGBs), the
members of each LGB shall then create, and appoint the members of, an entity
named “Local Advisory Board” (LAB). The sole purpose of the new LAB would be to
comply with any FCC or CPB regulations, as far as we can understand them, so
that, if desired, Pacifica can continue to qualify for CPB grants. The new LAB
will possess no power or governance functions, but will be limited solely to
gathering input from the community on issues of interest and/or concern, which
will then be presented, on an advisory basis only, to the management of the
station for its consideration.
12. Creating National (and Local) Ombudspersons.
A. The ombudsperson shall the power (like an Inspector
General) to investigate any grievance or complaint that could not be handled by
local or national management – due to conflict of interest, or insufficient
“distance”. Ombudspersons shall not be chosen by or through any of the local
governing boards or the national board, but rather through direct election by
the listeners – since they may very well find themselves representing the
listeners' interests “against” those of the station managements, or their staffs
or producers, or the national board and/or its staff.
For example, KPFT’s “Buzzanco affair” might have been better handled
by a neutral ombudsperson, instead of being fought out by a series of escalating
charges hurled between two opposing camps, each with its own bias and agenda.
B. An ombudsperson might also help when it is charged that
the mission is being subverted. It might prove a less costly and disruptive
“intermediate” step – before resorting to the painful remedy of recalling a
board member, or an entire board. Since mission “perversion” can only be
committed by station personnel or by a local governing board – or the national
board itself – it is therefore something only the listeners can correct --
by recall, if necessary, but much more easily through an ombudsperson.
Of course, rulings by an ombudsman should, be subject to appeal – by some
as yet undetermined procedure, perhaps a Pacifica “Supreme Court”.
Stephen M. Brown |
top of page | governance proposals | bylaws etc | home |