Dear iPNB Majority:

Carol Spooner's Board Committee proposal poses unecessary risks for the bylaw/election process and does not assure a mission-based outcome and is therefore undemocratic. Her proposal leaves open the possibility that anti-reform elements could dominate 3 of 5 area subcommittees.

The proposal allows anyone to join the local subcommittees if they attend 3 consecutive meetings.

But in 3 of 5 station areas, the Pacifica reform movement has very small numbers of activists -- Washington, Los Angeles and Houston (in Houston only about 50 people participated in the shadow LAB election).

The subcommittee meetings will be publicized on-air. Who will respond to on-air announcements in Washington, Houston and LA? Will the LA staff -- which I understand sought to replace the LA LAB -- mobilize to stack the subcommittee there? Keep in mind that the Houston activists were able to mobilize only 50 people in their shadow-LAB election.

The iPNB should not hesitate to create a process that assures a mission-based outcome. Our victory is fragile and we have not had time to consolidate and rebuild. And we have a major crisis to overcome.

The iPNB should amend Carol's proposal to provide that VOTING members of the subcommittees be either

(1) The LAB and iPNB members of the subcommittee

or

(2) LAB and iPNB members plus listeners and producers appointed by the LAB and iPNB members on the basis that they support the Pacifica mission and that they reflect the constituencies that Pacifica seeks to represent.

Subcommittee meetings should be open for anyone to attend, to speak, to question and to submit proposals. But the actual drafting of the bylaws and election procedures should be done only by subcommittees committed to the Pacifica mission.

Paul Surovell
WBAI Membership Campaign