 |
|
DAILY REPORTS and Documents | iPNB Berkeley meeting info Towards a Cooperative Pacifica |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Presented at the iPNB meeting in Berkeley June 21 - 23, 2002 by Ken Freeland [ kenfree@EV1.net ] and Evan Davis Newly revised and published for presentation at the Pacifica Now! Conference, New College, San Francisco, June 18-31 Preface to the second edition: This revised version of the paper "Towards a Cooperative Pacifica" is intended primarily to serve as a springboard for further discussion about the Cooperative alternative at the Pacifica Now! Conference preceding the PNB meeting in Berkeley, June 2002, and among all members of the Pacifica family who have an interest in the vital question of the future organization of Pacifica. Far from carving anything in stone, this paper should be regarded as a work-in-progress, and if it seems to reflect more of a dialogue than a position paper, that is not accidental. Time constraints are one reason why this paper could not be "tightened up" into more "finished" form, but another is that this dialogue never ends and new ideas spring eternally from the fertile ground of Cooperative theory. It is our hope that readers of this introductory essay on the subject will be inspired to "grow their own" contributions to the vision of a Cooperative Pacifica.
Ken Freeland
Preamble
"Definition: 'Criminal: a person with predatory instincts who has not
sufficient capital to form a corporation.'"
With the corporate form, good intentions all too easily pave the road to Hell. The recent subversion of Pacifica from within, still fresh in our collective memory, only typifies the kind of threat that the corporate form of organization, designed as it is to sustain decision- making control in the hands of the few, may facilitate. Why should we at Pacifica continue to tinker with a form that is designed to facilitate top- down control - in other words, dictatorship? In Lew Hill's time, the prospect of an alternative to this standard legal mode of organizing economic and social activity might not have been evident to most, but it is useful to recall that when KPFA went into its earliest financial crisis, it was a Food Cooperative, not a corporation, that stepped in to help Pacifica's founder save his daring project. If Lew Hill was unable at the time to appreciate the benefits of the cooperative over the corporate form, let's not be too critical: his concept of listener-sponsored radio was radical enough in itself, and perhaps just keeping in mind how - Page 2 - "cutting edge" this was for his time, we can realize our own responsibility to be cutting edge with our own ideas in our own time. Listener-sponsored radio is already a commonplace on the FM dial, so there's nothing challenging about that idea these days. But recognizing the crisis in the world economy caused by the decay of modern corporate capitalism, we should feel inspired enough by Lew's earlier example to consider reforming Pacifica into cooperative mode, so that we can serve as both an example and a resonator of cooperative values, and help precipitate the wave of the future: the cooperativization of our own, and the world's, social and economic activity.Cooperation is more than a merely formal alternative to corporatism, rather, it is a movement, and one for which Pacifica is natural suited. Food co-ops, such as the one which came to Lew Hill's aid, are a classic example of "consumer cooperatives." Basically, cooperatives fall into two broad categories - the other one is called "producer cooperatives," which consists of co-ops owned by workers, whose primary purpose is to provide them a means of income in some socially responsible productive pursuit. This latter model does not recommend itself to Pacifica's use, however. While a "worker- owned" Pacifica is not inconceivable, a listener-sponsored radio network needs the more accountable (to itself) model of a consumer cooperative, which is a co-op "owned" by the people who make use of its product or service, for the purpose of providing affordable, high-quality goods or services for their personal use. As these "end-users" organize and capitalize the consumer coop, they are also the ultimate decision-makers as to the direction and future of the concern. All management and directors are responsible to these end-users as a whole, and are appointed and/or recalled by them according to strict democratic principles. However, it must be emphasized that a primary purpose of the consumer cooperative, as the pioneer Rochdale Consumer Cooperative demonstrated in Victorian England, is to keep a quality product or service affordable by "cutting out the middle man," and doing much of the work for themselves. Thus, in classic food cooperatives, the mutual owners took turns working at the store, stocking the shelves and totaling up purchases, doing the book work, etc. The obligation to contribute labor to the cooperative was originally a condition of membership - in other words, all cooperators were initially expected to be volunteers, a point not without relevance to Pacifica and its operation! (Before going on to talk about the refinement of consumer-Cooperation we propose, a word about "ownership:" Ownership is a key element of both types of cooperatives, however, the lack of literal ownership in the case of Pacifica would not present any problem to the implementation of cooperative organization. As the specific proposal will detail, Pacificans can be "virtual" owners, while at the same time exerting complete, effective democratic control, which is another key value of a cooperative (and not of a corporation!). Pacifica National Board members could be recognized for what they theoretically and ideally are: stewards on behalf of the larger Pacifica community - the matter of legal ownership is moot so long as there is strict accountability, or answerability, to those who appointed them to this highest level of responsibility. ) - Page 3 - Corporatism and commercialism"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism . . ." -- Benito Mussolini (from Encyclopedia Italiana, Giovanni Gentile, editor) It was Eldridge Cleaver, I think, who coined the phrase: "You're either part of the problem, or part of the solution." Herein lies the problem with a "corporate" approach to the management of Pacifica: corporatism IS a large part of the contemporary problem (and being the problem, it cannot therefore serve as the solution). The modern profit- oriented corporation IS the beast, at least, it is the form that beast takes when doing its everyday dirty work in the modern world. Lew Hill certainly had at least an inkling of this when he strongly urged, in penning Pacifica's original mission statement, that programs be aired that explore the economic underpinnings of war and social injustice. It is just because corporations put profits before people (and there are ultimately no exceptions to this rule) that they pose the ethical problem they do, and on all fronts: labor, environment, consumer, human rights, world peace, progressive religious values, not to mention the ever-increasing population of the incarcerated and the homeless - all suffer at the hands of corporations . . . all but a few isolated but empowered stockholders. (All of these victims of the New World Order of corporate capitalism form the natural support base of Pacifica broadcasting, of course!) But this is the paradigm within which economic success is pursued America today. And so Pacifica until recently was being remade in the modern corporate image: a self-selecting, autocratic board of directors, a small group of "majority stockholders" (high-rolling big donors), who are given special privileges, fêted, and given considerable clout regarding the program format (which is tailored to their "apolitical," entertainment-oriented tastes) on the one hand, while on the other hand, essentially out of the loop, existed a much larger group of disgruntled, disenfranchised workers (staff) and consumers (progressive listeners and potential listeners). Significant dissent on the part of staff was met with banning and firing, and serious protests from the listeners with legalism , P.R. "spin" and ultimately, in both cases, the police, in defense of sacrosanct "proprietary rights." All of this is boilerplate -- standard operating procedure in today's corporate America. In my original draft of this paper, written well over a year ago as a somewhat more callow student of Pacifica's history, I wrote the following:
"...it was lassitude in this area of fiscal
responsibility that provided the power vacuum into which these corporate
types were drawn, for better or for worse, to save Pacifica (from
itself). This, brothers and sisters, and not any ideological lapse,
best explains how the political membrane of Pacifica was penetrated by
those who neither fully understand nor therefore fully share in
Pacifica's bona fide mission. Therefore, we must be extremely wary of
ideological nostrums that propose to solve a problem politically that is
essentially economic in nature."
- Page 4 -
I think this represents only part of the picture. It's important
to examine how the whole notion of "financial solvency" evolved within a
context of the commercial radio ideology. I could do half a day of
philosophizing and pontificating on this but the key point with regard
to our proposal has to de with how the listeners are defined in a
cooperative versus a commercial model. In the cooperative model the
listeners are "owners" or "stakeholders" whereas in the commercial model
they are "consumers". In the Cooperative model the organization has as
part of its mission "serving" the listeners whereas in the commercial
model the listeners are "appeased" or "attracted".
- Page 5 - - Page 6 -
No Need to Reinvent the Wheel!
The question then asks itself: if not corporate style management, then what? It is indeed
on this question of whether or not this "corporate" approach can be reformed to serve
needs beyond itself that we find the true dividing line between today's radicals and liberals.
Liberals believe that there is nothing essentially wrong with the standard corporate
approach to everyday productive and retail enterprise, as well as to nonprofit endeavors. It
is only a matter of making them more democratic, or "representative." Radicals reject this
paradigm out of hand, noticing that corporate power is all of a piece, whether in the profit
or non-profit sector, and that many of the same foundations and other plutocratic
institutions end up in de facto control of the direction of both.
Well, if corporate-style boards (like Pacifica's)have a demonstrated tendency to
recapitulate the politics of alienation, what is the alternative? Most people are aware of
only one alternative: the "statist" (centralist/ideological) paradigm, and the Cooperative
approach. The history of the Cold War has given many of us a fair taste of the former
paradigm. In abreaction to the tyranny of private capital, the statist opposes a tyranny of
ideological control. Market forces are replaced by dogmatic ideology as the ruling force.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view) most modern
progressives have renounced both of these models as essentially dictatorial, as not
conducive to true intellectual freedom and as ultimately stifling of creativity.
Also fortunately, a "third way" does exist. It has been gestating beneath the surface of
capitalist political economy for about a century and a half and is called Cooperation.
Cooperatives consist of essentially two types: "producer cooperatives," where an
industrial or service establishment is directly owned by the workers involved, and
"consumer cooperatives," wherein a (usually) retail enterprise is owned and operated by
the very people who are the end-users of its product or service, who cooperate to
undertake the tasks normally performed by the various "middle men" in the capitalist
economic system, in order to assure quality and save expense. It is this latter model which
naturally suggests itself for emulation by Pacificans.
Evan strongly agrees with this, but adds:
I would expand [this analysis] later, though, to include the notion of
"vertical integration" and "primary" versus "secondary" cooperatives
since the Policy
- Page 7 -
Obviously Evan's suggestions here provide a useful framework for expanding the dialogue
in fruitful directions, especially in helping to redefine the role of the PNB to the stations.
I noted with more than a little interest this item from the early history of Pacifica radio as
related by Neil Maclean:
However we might rue this lost opportunity for synergy, it is never too late to make up
for it. Indeed, refocusing on this cooperative approach to Pacifica management and
process is exactly what is needed today.
Towards a Pacifica Co-op
I assume that most people reading this essay have a basic understanding of the
cooperative approach to enterprise. Obviously, the traditional model could not be
adopted verbatim by Pacificans for this reason: actual ownership of the Pacifica stations
legally rests with the Pacifica Foundation. This is as it should be, always assuming that
the members of the PNB are actively promoting the implementation of Pacifica's
mission at the station level. However, it is entirely possible to adapt the
consumer-cooperative approach to
the real conditions of Pacifica as a way of ultimately democratizing it, and helping it
thereby to fulfill its original mission. What follows is a visionary approach to just this
possibility, intended not as a technical blueprint, but rather as an inspiration to those
who understand the inimicability of the existing corporate-board
- Page 8 -
The Pacifica National Board
Board members would be chosen always with reference to their commitment to
cooperative values and organization of Pacifica. Some board members would be
actively recruited who have had some experience in cooperative management (which
differs in fundamental ways from corporate management). The fundamental task of
the PNB, in addition to its inexorable fiduciary responsibilities, would be to monitor
the program content of Pacifica-owned stations to insure its congruency with the
mission of the Pacifica Foundation, and to ascertain that Pacifica's resources were
being fully utilized to that end. The Board would periodically issue a completely
transparent periodic budget report, and assess levies for its own support to the various
stations in an equitable way, which would then need to be formally reviewed and
approved at each station co-op level. A secondary but vital function of the PNB would
be to promulgate community radio in population areas presently not served by Pacifica
or other alternative, community radio (as well as to expand Pacifica's affiliate network)
and to investigate the possibilities of Pacifica broadcasting via other media (such as
TV, the Web, etc.) [Note: this paragraph is from the original version. Evan's proposal
(see following note) advocates greater autonomy for the station vis a vis the PNB.]
The Pacifica-Station Listener Coop
Each co-op would consist of all dues-paying listener-sponsors in a given signal
area, including those serving as volunteer programmers. Each contributing household
would have a voice and a vote in the general assembly for the Pacifica-owned station in
question. Qualifications for membership would consist of explicit endorsement of
Pacifica's mission, and a financial contribution to Pacifica's operational expenses
commensurate with household income level (see discussion below). All decisions
regarding the station, especially including funding and expenditures, would be made
by this body. Programming policies at the station would be ultimately accountable to
this consumer cooperative (within the scope of the Pacifica mission), which would hire
and fire any and all station managerial personnel. (The Pacifica National Board would
no longer have anything directly to do with selecting station personnel.)
Evan here recalls his earlier alternative suggestion:
The model I see working is to have the national board supply the
managers on a contractual basis ( "manager on contract"). The national
board also has to have legal accountability for and from the managers as
the sole employees entrusted with the stewardship of the broadcast
licenses.
- Page 9 -
Evan writes, continuing his earlier remarks on this subject:
First of all our most crucial target audience is the one with the least
money to contribute. On the one hand we might hope to , as Steven Starr
envisioned, make up for that with sheer numbers but what even Starr
overlooked at least in that portion of my interview with him was that
the folks with less money also require more convincing to get them to
part with their $5 than the Volvoista requires before cutting that $100
check. That's an argument for more relevance in programming and better
access for the folks we need to reach but it is also an argument for
including those disadvantaged listeners as "owners" or "members" AND FOR
SETTING A LOW FINANCIAL THRESHOLD FOR MEMBERSHIP. Remember; we are
seeking the intangible ( commitment/ loyalty/ interaction/ volunteerism)
as well as the tangible ( cash) resources.
This prepares us for the next step in our discussion, a consideration of progressive
financing of Pacifica by its listener-subscribers, following from the Cooperative
principle of "equity," (See Appendix I: Cooperative Values).
The "price of admission" to a station co-op, or "stake" that would make one a
stakeholder, would vary with household income level. Just as the grass-roots cooperative
model opposes itself to the top-down corporate model, so the progressive dues structure
of a cooperativized Pacifica opposes itself to the current approach, which caters to
upscale donors. As demonstrated in the model which follows, the progressive nature of
this membership requirement could go well beyond a simple "percentage of income"
approach to funding,. But first we must clarify the philosophical basis of this focus on
household income.
There is no more significant correlate of a person's socio-economic status than
disposable household income. It is economic lifestyle, measured by claims on the product
of industry, that best operationalizes the concept of "class" in our time. Personal income
is no secure measure of this. People who live in multiple-income households do not
consume according to personal income, but according to household income. Obversely,
the best predictor of the "class interest" of an individual is the relative position of his or
her family's total income, hence, of its level of aggregate (vs. personal) level of
consumption. (It is to be hoped as well that Pacifica broadcasts are also "consumed" by
family households, and not merely by individuals, though clearly this is not always the case
. . .)
So much for the sociological argument. Politically, we recall again that the
existing Pacifica approach is to focus appeals on those who can afford to expend the most
to support Pacifica, after which their economic privilege is translated into a degree of
political privilege, expressed by the de-radicalization of program content in favor of
inoffensive entertainment-oriented fluff. Thus, in the
- Page 10 -
Economically, then, we would be embracing the old progressive principle of "from
each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." People of no means (the
homeless, the incarcerated) would contribute nothing financially, and where possible make
any contribution in the form of "sweat equity" (performing a few hours of useful
volunteer work around the station). Households of very limited means would pay a
nominal amount, with a suggested minimum dues requirement of $12 per year, or $1 per
month (anyone who can afford a radio can generally afford $1 per month, but sweat equity
would always exist as an option). Now, bearing in mind that this is only an example of
how it could work, and not a proposal carved in stone, let us say that our progressive,
or graduated dues assessment might work something like this: Households with less than
$20,000 annual income pay the minimum (which actually works out to about .01% of
annual household income). For higher-income families:
Such an approach assures that everyone "pays his/her dues," but dues are assessed
(on the honor system, of course) progressively, assuring EQUITABLE payment (rather
than EQUAL payment) for each member household. In this way, economic justice
(distributive justice) is incorporated into the very structure of the organization. [Under
such a system, not only would the Rockefeller Brothers not insinuate themselves into
Pacifica's news reports via sponsoring foundations, but if they wanted to openly join, they
would undoubtedly find the cost prohibitive!] In a sense, this approach serves as a means
test for participants: either they must demonstrate a low income, or be willing to sacrifice
considerably more of a higher one in order to gain membership to the co-op.
- Page 11 -
Of course, there is no guarantee that such an approach to funding would "cover
the nut." Shortfalls might still have to be made up in the traditional ways, assuring that
those who wished to contribute something to Pacifica, but not to the extent of paying full
dues, would still have a role to play in helping to fund Pacifica, a role not very much
different from that offered to most listener-supporters at the present time (except that they
would be getting a lot more for their money!).
Progressive underwriting helps address race issues
A word about the issue of race: an approach such as this indirectly but effectively
addresses this question in the one way this can be done progressively: as a substratum of
the larger "social question". Racial minorities typically disproportionately come from
working-poor families. This dues structure would entitle each of them to a fully equal
voice and vote in the direction and programming of their local Pacifica station, while
asking of them very little financial support in return. In this way, the participation of
people of color in the co-op is facilitated TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE
ECONOMICALLY OPPRESSED. Any other way of addressing the issue of race runs a
most serious risk of reinstituting elitism, favoring the most economically advantaged
among the various racial minorities. (Should Condoleeza Rice be given any more
consideration than a white single parent working for minimum wage? Yet this is where
such logic leads, like other attempts to view the issue of color in isolation from the larger
social problem, that of class oppression.)
Secondly, it is assumed that the New Pacifica will eagerly and openly invite all
groups who can help fulfill its mission to submit their ideas, and to come to the station to
learn the skills to do progressive radio. If there turn out to be more good ideas than there
is programming space, that would not be a problem! Cooperatives who reach their natural
limits commonly employ a principle called "hiving off." A second Pacifica station could be
underwritten in the same signal area with start-up funds from the first. (What a luxury!
Imagine having two progressively-oriented Pacifica stations to choose from in the same
signal area!)
Evan interjects:
Thirdly, initial recruitment of membership for the co-op and for local programming
(the two tend to go hand-in-hand) would tend naturally to focus on those under-
represented by the existing programming structure (or lack thereof) of their local Pacifica
station. These will include a
- Page 12 -
In sum, we could say that a disciplined adherence to Pacifica's mission as well as a
reasonable assurance of fiscal viability both constitute necessary conditions of a successful
Pacifica. Neither, in the absence of the other, will suffice. The PNB of the 90's, before its
more recent profligacy, focused on the second at the expense of the first, while any plan of
action that focuses on the first without addressing the second runs a serious risk of an
equal and opposite error: the same one that precipitated the advent of the ousted regime at
Pacifica: those virtual philistines whose one talent was "making the trains run on time."
The only reasonable hope to circumvent future crises at Pacifica, whether political or
financial, is the development, promotion and implementation of a plan that addresses both
of these questions overtly and effectively. It is our belief that a progressive-cooperative
approach to the organization of Pacifica would best accomplish both of these conditions.
Evan adds:
. . . the ideology of commercialism is not the only threat to our
success and I believe this is why the Rochdale pioneers also held to a
policy of political ( meaning partisan) "neutrality". This is important
because the cooperative model, though revolutionary in many ways is
independent of any of the more traditional ideological world views. That
is not to say our model can't be equally embraced by people with a
variety of ideological backgrounds or that in itself it is blind to the
inherent class struggle but rather just to emphasize that where our
model functions with a "mission" component the mission we have already,
Pacifica's, is a good one and is adequate to our present needs.
Afterthought: Toward a Cooperative "University of the Airwaves"
- Page 13 - - Page 14 -
Simply put, the model would institute Pacifica as an educational cooperative, in which
every subscriber (i.e. "underwriter") recognized the educational mission of Pacifica, and
sought to promote it. While this may seem a subtle distinction, it could help inform
programming decisions around a strictly educational purpose, leading to journalism that
informs, public affairs programming that instructs, and artistic offerings that edify. The
distinction Evan made earlier between the needs and the "preferences" of the listeners
might be more usefully explored in a strictly educational context: what does the listening
community feel it NEEDS to be more educated about. What obvious pockets of local
ignorance need to be filled by securing programming that addresses them?
Borrowing again from Evan's model of the PNB or national office of Pacifica serving as
secondary cooperative, in other words, a cooperative of primary cooperatives designed to
serve the needs and facilitate the work of the primary cooperatives, I have discovered a
model of such an educational service cooperative, and I urge readers to study it on line at
their convenience. A brief outline of the purposes and structure of Minnesota's Southeast
Service Cooperative is appended to this paper for reference. The website address is
http://www.ssc.coop/. An additional example of some relevance is the Edivisions
cooperative, also of Minnesota: http://www.edvisions.com/ As far as cooperative schools
themselves go, they are very rare in this country, but one exists here in Berkeley,
California. According to Kim Koontz, academic coordinator for the Center for
Cooperatives at University of California, Davis, Maybeck High School " is technically a
worker co-op (teacher controlled) but consensus and other forms of democratic decision
making on interwoven into just about every aspect of their program."
- Page 15 -
In his definitive work, Cooperative Principles Today and Tomorrow (1986, Holyoake
Books). W. P. Watkins explicates the principles that underlies cooperative theory and
practice. "It seems reasonable," he writes, "to seek the elements of the Co-operative
idea in certain fundamental and universal facts or situations of human nature and
experience:
Corresponding to the six social facts . . . are six Co-operative Principles as follows:
Association (or Unity); Economy; Equity; Democracy; Liberty; Education. (p.13)
[Note: The text above is copied verbatim from the original. Male pronouns are
understood to be inclusive of both genders. Italics and bold-faced type were added.]
- Page 16 -
PURPOSE
Purpose - To perform planning on a regional basis and to assist in meeting specific
needs of clients in participating governmental units which could be better provided by a
Service Cooperative than by the members themselves.
Declaration of Policy - To make general and uniform opportunities available to all
member agencies in the state; to encourage cooperation in programs and services most
efficiently and economically provided by a consortium of several public/governmental
agencies.
Design of the Service Cooperative - The boundaries of nine of the designated Service
Cooperative's shall coincide with the governor's planning regions.
State planning and development regions one and two shall be combined to form a
single Service Cooperative.
Two or more Service Cooperative's may, upon approval by a majority of the members
in each affected Service Cooperative be combined and administered as a single Service
Cooperative.
Membership - Public school districts of the state shall have full membership.
Nonvoting associate memberships are available to nonpublic administrative units.
Membership will also be offered to cities, counties, and other governmental agencies
and non-profits. All memberships are voluntary.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top of page | DAILY REPORTS and Documents | iPNB Berkeley meeting info iPNB index | governance proposals | home |