Apologies for name misspellings.
Send corrections to

Directors present:
David Fertig, Carol Spooner, Teresa Allen, 
Pete Bramson, George Barnstone, Leslie Cagan, 
Robbie Robinson, Janice K Bryant, Ray LaForest, 
Jabari Zakiya, James Ferguson,  Bert Lee

Not present: Charles Smith[got food poisoning last night], 
Marion Barry, Dick Gregory

Closed meeting regarding personnel matters 8:30- 9:45
Public meeting convenes 9:55 am 

Chair Cagan - A lot of work to be done. Will cut off work at 3:00pm to 
plan and schedule finishing the work.

Brief presentation on Proportional representation voting

Rashad Robinson from Center for voting and Democracy in D.C.
presents...
His organization is working to promote alternative 
voting systems in communities. The current winner-take-all
system used in most places 100% of the power to 51% of
the voters... the majority of their work his with governments
and voting systems 
around the country in order to help people get 
better representation and the majority of his
work is with voting rights cases and
working with people of color around the country
and to connect them with alternative ways to get
representation in local government. Doesn't usually work 
with non-profits, but they see working with organizations
that promote polices that are in line with
better government to be a good thing. They aren't so much 
about specific issues, but about how to get people
better represented.
The system used in Berkeley is called Choice voting 
It's a system of ranked candidates that lowers the
threshold that a candidate needs to gain a seat.
It's a system that increases peoples choices, 
voter turn out, better racial representation. 
Used around the world, in Cambridge MA, as illustrated
on a sheet that has been handed out at the meeting
which illustrates greater racial representation and
how choice voting increases the level of democracy.

Cagan - describe what happens with choice voting

Rashad Robinson - a ballot goes out with all the candidates 
names on it, people write in their fist, 2nd, 3rd choice
and so on for candidates. A threshold is set for the number
of votes required to win a seat which is calculated depending
on the number of votes cast and seats to be filled. 
The more seats open, the better chance to get one's
constituency represented. When someone's first choice 
candidate reaches the threshold, they are 
seated and any votes above the required number are transferred
to the next choice that the voter has filled in on their ballots.
This process is repeated until all the seats up for election
are filled and allows candidates with smaller constituencies
to benefit from the partial support they receive from other
candidates supporters and to gain a seat.
Larger constituencies are represented in proportion
to their size because they're choices will be part
of electing more seats.
The majority has rights to make decisions, but
the minority has rights to be representation which
is what should how democracy is in this country,
but generally isn't.

Questions:

Fertig - Is Proportional representation different
than choice voting?

RR - Proportional representation says that constituencies
should have representation in proportion to their size.
Choice voting is a form of PR. 
Types of PR used around the U.S. and around the world.
33 full fledged democracies around the world use
forms of PR to elect their high legislatures.
England, France, U.S., Canada , India and Pakistan
some of the Caribbean
don't use PR to elect their major bodies, so it's like
England and France and their former colonies don't
us PR ... [laughter]

Fertig - any good books?

RR- authors:  
Real Choices, New Voices- Doug Amy 
[see his diagram here], 
Tyranny of the Majority - Lani Grenier - implications of communities of color
and proportional representation. 

LaForest - are there different PR systems for different situations?

RR- yes, depending on many factors.
It's not one size fits all and there are places that
PR hasn't worked, but that's generally because it wasn't
applied properly.
Choice is the best [particularly for Pacifica's situation]

Spooner - Can choice voting work for Pacifica's staggered 
elections and many constituencies?

RR - yes. It will break down effectively for staggered
elections. Cambridge example is a good illustration.
Choice voting works well at building consensus
where there are many different constituencies because 
candidates work together on the issues, less divisive 
because they are not only campaigning to their own 
constituents but those
of the other candidates as well for the chance to
pick up their 2nd and 3rd choice votes etc. 
Choice voting requires a lot of work and
real involvement in the community and dealing
with the issues and other people's concerns.
Results in more accountable board members.
Many people in the Congressional Black caucus
have come out in support of Proportional representation
as a way to get the make-up of congress to more 
accurately reflect the population.

Ferguson - Does RR more materials than what's been
handed out today?

RR - yes, but didn't want to bog people down
with too much information initially.
Website: http://www.fairvote.org

Cagan - all the iPNB and LAB members should have a solid
bundle of information on proportional representation/choice 
voting because the LABs are going to have to vote on this

Rashad - they have something along these lines that
they will put together 

Fred Nguyen, WBAI - We've heard much about choice voting
and it's often presented as a magic bullet for bringing
democracy, but let's be a bit practical about this.
Would choice voting work with the proposed system
of voting by mail and campaigning on-air - no
requirement for direct contact; with around 50 - 100 candidates 
and 2,000 - 4,000 voters and no direct democracy? 

Cagan - asks Fred to finish 

Fred - how can you guarantee that the people
who run are representative of the constituency
the claim to be?

RR - They're elected. 
[laughter]
The people have an opportunity to not
re-elect them if they don't come through.

Roger Manning, wbai.net - Point of information:
There is a nice brief overview of
Proportional Representation/choice voting on wbai.net,  
There are links there to Rashad's site and the other 
stuff he's mentioned. It's a quick read, copies have 
been handed out at this meeting.

Ted Friedman, KPFA - PR used at KPFA and it's been 
very effective.  The voting rules also included special 
ethnic and gender equity rules, but they turned out 
not to have been needed as choice voting alone did 
the job of bringing about full diversity in the election. 

Bernie Eisenberg, KPFK - There is a good 15 minute video on 
choice voting which he can help get to people.

Andrea Fishman, WBAI - Likes that every vote counts
with choice voting.

Rashad Robinson - PR/choice voting is a REAL way to 
represent communities and issues.
The right to decision making belongs to the majority,
the right to representation belongs to everybody
[applause]

Chair Cagan - brings the meeting back to the bylaws draft comparison 
grid 

Duties of the station board continued...

From KPFA draft B, ARTICLE EIGHT, Section:4 duties of the
station board

local board participate in fundraising for the
station

(7)  to assist in the fundraising activities 
of the station. 

-agreed

Next station board duty (from KPFA draft)

(8)  to form open committees to carry on the
work of the Local Station Board so that station
listener-sponsor and staff members may join the
committees and assist the board to the extent
appropriate, taking care to keep confidential personnel,
legal and proprietary matters. 

Ferting - Wants "open" defined more specifically,
supports rewording.

Spooner - intent is that any member of the Pacifica
foundation may participate in these committees

section committees accepted unanimous

Next station board duty:  outreach (from KPFA draft)

(9)to actively reach out to
 under-represented communities to help the
station serve a diversity of people of all races, 
creeds, colors and nations, classes,
abilities, and to reach out to community 
organizations to help build collaborative
relations with other organizations working for
similar purposes. 
			
accepted unanimously		


Next station board duty: community assessment (from KPFA draft)

- passed yesterday

Next station board duty:
Bob Lederer - "Unity Caucus", WBAI area - Reads 
Max Blanchet proposal to mandate that the make up of the 
staff reflects the make up of the people in the community.
[ "Unity Caucus" proposed statement of principles ]

Spooner - At KPFA this would work backwards with regard to
insuring diverse staff as now there is a higher proportion
of underrepresented people on the staff than exist
in the community.

Bob Lederer- True, and the wording could easily
be changed to make more sense.

Cagan - The intent is that the station board
has responsibility to make sure that the station
staff is diverse.

Barnstone - To have more than a representative
ratio of a group isn't fair either

Fertig - this proposal is very problematic,
though there needs be some application of
it's intent.

Spooner - supports intent. Pacifica needs to make
sure it is diverse, but it would be better if
demographics weren't the criteria.

[some back and forth and confusion etc...]

Lederer - mandate should go beyond race to
include gender and sexuality as well

Straw Poll:
That local board is mandated
to make sure of staff diversity

9 for 1 abstain

_____,WPFW area - Hiring truly qualified people will
bring about staff diversity because there are 
qualified people in all the segments of the community.

Cagan - is there any other duties of the
local station boards that we missed?

Spooner- presents another additional duty:
From KPFA draft, 
ARTICLE EIGHT, Section 3 -Power and authority:

Now renamed, "additional powers and authority"

By resolution of the Board of Directors, the Board of
Directors may delegate to a Local Station Board any
corporate powers of the Pacifica Foundation with
regard to that radio station, subject to revocation of that
delegated power at any time by the Board of Directors.
Any resolution of or policy adopted by a Local Station
Board may be overridden by majority vote of the Board
of Directors. The powers delegated to one Local
Station Board need not be the same for all Local Station
Boards, and delegation of such power and authority
shall be on a case by case basis. 

The intent is that there might be a set of duties
that the national board might want to delegate
to the local station board to deal with. The
PNB could delegate the authority but can override
the action of the LSB if in disagreement with
what they end up doing.

Bryant - are FCC concerns affected? A: no

Barnstone - how is this different from the 
version on the grid?

Cagan - virtually the same, "shall" has been
changed to "may"

- agreed unnaminously as to intent

Other proposed duties of station boards

Michael Pimental - that the local board participates
in selection of executive director

Curt Gray - that local boards have some kind of
role in in union negotiations

Cagan - There will be people from the local boards
on the national board, therefore local will be participating
in these things, but doesn't feel that board members
should be sitting in on contract negotiations, that's
a management function.

Andrea Fishman - the issue is that of local vs. central
power, which is where there were problems in the past.

Spooner - people sit on local and national boards 
concurrently, fostering connectivity and providing
recall etc.

Bryant - also, people from local boards don't change
because they go to national!...

LaForest - actually, that people change attitude upon 
gaining a seat on the national board is a legitimate concern

[Some disruption as Fishman tries to further comment,
the chair asking her not to.]

Fishman - Recall is not enough, please discuss this more...

Cagan - threatens to cut off mike...moves the agenda.

Next station board duty: election of officers of station board.

Chair, vice chair, secretary, treasurer, elected
for term of one year, and for no longer than their
term on local board.

agreed unanimously

Errol Maitland, WBAI - supports ex-officio status on local 
board for national board members 

Next station board duty: frequency of meetings

Meetings minimally every other month?

Some discussion as to minimal number of 
meetings

Ratcliff, Markowitz - supports monthly meetings

Lydia Brazan, KPFK LAB - monthly too much

Marion Borenstein, WBAI LAB - monthly tough, 
should be up to individual stations

Ferguson - there's no argument here as 
station 

Bernie Eisenberg, KPFA area - The issue is transparency,
supports monthly meetings.

LaForest - monthly would be too much,
much of the work needs to happen committees
anyways

Spooner - the intent is for the SB to meet
as often as necessary to get the work done with 
a minimum number of meetings set.

Raphael Renteria - regular monthly meetings set up a flow
that more greatly promotes momentum for listener participation
and getting work done.

Cagan - To have to mandate too many details in the bylaws 
works against the 

Jonathon Markowitz, KPFK - there have been KPFK LAB meetings
cancelled for political reasons, so it's important
to mandate a minimum number of meetings.

Straw Poll: required frequency of station board meetings

once a month
2 for 

every other month
 5 for
 
quarterly
2 for

Next station board duty: responsibility for setting up
station board meetings, publicizing etc (from WPFW draft)

Time and place:  The time  and place of each meeting
 shall be designated by a majority vote of the Local
 Advisory Board members. Meetings shall be held in
 facilities large enough to accommodate both the Local
 Advisory Board and interested public, preferably
 in the station.

 Public participation: Local Advisory Board meetings,
 excluding meetings dedicated exclusively to discussion of
 local radio station personnel matters, shall be open to the
 public and shall include a public comment period of
 no  less than one half hour.

 Public notice: The public shall be notified of each
 Local Advisory Board meeting that is open to the
 public.  Four on-air announcements, made during
 prime time on the radio station on four different
 days prior to the meeting, are considered to be adequate
 notice. 
 
Ted Wiesgal, Parliamentarian - Some of the language regarding
"facilities large enough to interested public" could allow
meetings to ruled illegal if a crowd too big to fit in hall
shows up.

Cagan - asks Robinson if we could change that item. A: yes

LaForest - concerned about having too much specific stuff

Allen - there needs to be some standing rules in the language

Unanimous that station board is responsible for setting
up the meetings and following standing rules to be ironed out

Next item: Quorum for local board

Ferguson - asks Robinson why 1/3?

Robinson - WPFW draft proposes a 36 member 
station board

Straw poll: - one half of station board present required
for a quorum

Passes unanimously


Next: Conflict of interest policy for station boards

Spooner - doesn't need to be in the station
board section of bylaws as it's covered elsewhere

Next:name of station boards
Cagan - what should we call local boards?

MOTION: by Spooner
to use Pacifica's 1984 term
"Local Station Board"

7 for 2 against

Cagan - ask board if it's alright to 
hear some brief presentations.
Some discussion...

Spooner - supports presentation of response
of people from  the WBAI area in response to 
the "Unity Caucus" elections model
that was given at the September iPNB meeting
in Houston.

Statement to the Pacifica Interim Board in Opposition to 
the Unity Caucus Elections Model 

Manijeh Saba, WBAI area - presents 
petition  and accompanying statements 
from the WBAI area(with over 200 signatures) supporting a unified voter body, 
unified election policies at Pacifica that address diversity
and are opposed to the NYC "Unity Caucus" proposal
[applause]
Paul Surovell - adds that this is a grass roots campaign in 
the WBAI area...

...Back to the bylaws comparison grid 

ARTICLE NINE - OFFICERS OF THE FOUNDATION

How directors are elected:

Spooner - goes over relevant KPFA draft
parts

Lee - wants to know intent of why people holding public office 
are not permitted on board

Spooner - explains that it's not in the intent
of the nature of Pacifica

Bryant - point of information that this was covered at the
recent Houston meeting

Cagan - goes over requirements for director eligibility

Raphael Renteria - KPFK draft feels that staff
on the national board is conflict of interest

Cagan - breaks down proposed requirements for
director eligibility

Requirements for director eligibility:
- must be a member of Pacifica

agreed

- must have served on local board for at least one year

-should staff be allowed on the national staff?

Allen - against staff on national board

Bryant, Robinson - feel that staff on board is
useful.

Renteria, KPFK - the board needs to fully informed
from a staff point of view, but there is a conflict
of interest. Staff could be making policy to limit
management or other people they are in opposition
to at the station. Staff has turf issues...

LaForest - asks for clarification of 
 KPFA draft
regarding staff on national board

Spooner - Clarifies. Anyone who has served on a local station 
board is eligible. Supports allowing staff on 
national board. National board
needs the direct connection to the staff and stations.
Lew Hill intended freedom of speech for the programmers.

Andrea Fishman, WBAI area - Supports staff and people are
participating in all aspects of Pacifica being on the board.

Jonathon Markowitz, KPFK area - staff on the board would 
mean that people who are the air would in a sense determine 
programming policy. Conflict of interest where people would 
determine policy over their own salary. Disagree with Spooner, 
free speech is not the issue here. 

Lee - Questions having PAID staff on national board.
Similar issues as with having elected officials on 
board

Debbie Campbell, KPFT - KPFT subcommittee supports staff
on national board, though those directors may have

Allen - Disagrees [misunderstood] some of Spooner's comments.
Supports staff being eligible by giving up their show for 
their term on national board.

Billy Ray  -  We want to basically manage from the bottom
up. The recent editorials by the iPNB will bring the FCC
down on Pacifica. Then it will be top-down management.

Lee - repeat that!

Ray - Asks iPNB to seriously reconsider what they are doing
here. Agrees that staff on board is serious conflict of interest.
The issue is whether or not Pacifica is to be programmed from top down[?]

Sam Husseini, WPRW LAB - the right hear ideas is important

Bernie Eisenberg, KPFK area - With regard to Lew Hill's writing, it is 
from another
With KPFK model, off-air staff would be eligible to serve on
the national board.

Ted Wiesgal, KPFT ... is out of order

Fertig - If the local board is selecting the staff person
that goes to the national board, they will be good people
for that position.

Lee - How about staff being ex-officio on national board?

[some discussion to define ex-officio...]

Cagan - the language would be non-voting

noise and chatter in the room etc.

Cagan - Calls for cooperation, there are big issues out in
the world, let's get through these bylaws
[applause]

Spooner - shocked that people want to lock out staff

[more disruption as Jonathon Markowitz wants to speak...]

Markowitz  - suggests staff advisory national board parallel
to national board

Bryant - protest attitude against staff having say on boards

Raphael Renteria, KPFK bylaws committee - There is definitely conflict of 
interest that Lew Hill didn't count on.

Cagan - runs down options

[more disruption as Jonathon Markowitz wants to speak...

discussion on how to vote on options...]

Can vote multibly

Straw Polls regarding eligibility of staff on national board:

-any elected local board member, staff included, can be on 
 national board

5 for

-only non on-air staff on local board could be on national
(could give up show to qualify)

9 for

-no staff can be on national

2 for

-staff may have non-voting seat

6 for

-national staff advisory board created

6 for


[Discussion as how to narrow down options...]
 
Top 3 options regarding eligibility of staff on national board:

-Only non on-air staff on local board could be 
 on national board (could give up show to qualify)

8 for

-Staff may have non-voting seat

0 for

-National staff advisory board created

4 for

Only non on-air staff on local board could be on 
national board (could give up show to qualify)
-PASSES
[applause]

LaForest - asks about bylaws revision process.

Spooner - moves for a break

Cagan - asks for volunteers to get 
sandwiches

Sam Husseini and Brad takes a collection to 
get sandwiches
Break till 1:30

1:35 pm - Sandwiches arrive , reconvene

Chair Cagan - wants suggestions for topics
to focus on in time remaining today.

Spooner - Suggest on focusing on things
that the LABs will need to approve; the
manner of election of local station boards, 
number of directors on national board...

Fertig - urges that iPNB hears the bylaws convention
proposal as it was put off at last iPNB meeting

Donna Gould, WBAI - ask that elections discussion be put off
and that uniform elections process not be imposed on
NYC because they will not go for it [ed: there are 
at least 200 people that beg to differ. See petition]

Proposal for a Pacifica bylaws convention

Fertig presents KPFK proposal for bylaws convention

Lydia Brazon, KPFK - clarifies that bylaws convention
would a year from when iPNB is elected

Allen - concerned that a year would be too soon.

Cagan - Supports that with huge workload, 2 years
would be much more practical.

Spooner - Feels that it will take at least 2 years
to evaluate the new bylaws. Also there are many
higher priority things with the world issues 
to deal with.

Leslie Radford, KPFK LAB - Thinks that the elected
PNB should have input on bylaws convention/revision
process. Supports Bylaws convention concept and one
year period. 2 years period will cause loss of
momentum from current Pacific 

Manijeh Sabah, WBAI area - supports a 3 year period.

Bernie Eisenberg - agrees with Leslie Radford.
Also, points out that some of the station areas 
are proportionally under represented on the 
current iPNB which is setting up the bylaws...

Jonathon Markowitz - feels that flaws in adopted
bylaws will be evident quickly, that 2 years isn't
needed to evaluate the new bylaws.

Eve Moser, WBAI area - supports 2 years. Disagrees
that momentum will be lost. Suggests using a range
like 1 - 3 years

Cagan - there is agreement there should be a 
bylaws convention. Suggest that the elected
national board determine when.

Raphael Renteria - Supports one year. 
Momentum an issue. KPFKs underrepresentation
an issue. [only Fertig is from KPFK area]

Debbie Campbell, KPFT - supports not losing the momentum
by keeping the current people working on bylaws involved in the
process.

Spooner - not so sure

Bryant - likes the idea that the incoming determine the period
of time to lapse before bylaws convention.

Leslie Bradford, KPFK - likes idea that incoming board
determine date.

Andrea Fishman - suggest 15 months , that would be 2
elected national boards

Cagan, Spooner - note that this an interesting
suggestion.

Bob Lederman - suggest having the incoming board

Paul Surovell- we need focus more on outreach and 
bring more people into the process

Staw Poll: on the period after new Pacifica national board
is seated before a bylaws convention takes place to 
evaluate the new bylaws:

3 years
1 for

New board should set the date
9 for

New board should set the date with parameters
0 for

Bernie Eisenberg - protest that issue hasn't been 
addressed properly

Spooner - MOTION that iPNB  reconsider mandating a parameter
for setting date for bylaws convention 

Bernie Eisenberg - the LABs (except for WBAI) have expressed
desire for a one year date for bylaws convention

MOTION that iPNB  reconsider mandating for the incoming
national board a 1-3 year parameter
for setting date for bylaws convention 

8 for [?]
PASSES

Next item: How people from the local station boards
would be elected to the national board

Spooner - presents alternative KPFA proposal (not on grid)
where the stations have number of representatives 
in proportion to size of listenership.
Each station gets a base of 3 people on the national
board. For an additional 25,000 members, they gain 1
member on the national board, over 50,000 another.
[minimum of 3, maximum of 5 members on national
board from a station area]
This a house model as opposed to a senate model

Bryant - is against this proposal, not in spirit of 
Pacifica, will cause problems...

Zakiya - This is not in line with how Pacifica operates,
we are not a government, when we're concerned with
governing we will not be addressing the real task,
which is addressing the mission.

Ferguson - Understands idea of proposal, but
feels that the result will not match the intention
There would be much more contention.
BTW, the iPNB is a governing board

Fertig - The election model needs to support
the mission. 

Lee - Pacifica has moved so far from the original
mission that references are almost moot.
Secondly, the national board is a government.
There isn't a model that will make everyone
happy, but the senate model is better.

Robinson - This is, and always been, a struggle between 
the 5 stations for limited resources.
Doesn't deal with the aspects of the network
and mission. Pacifica's weakness has been it's
consistent fighting amongst our selves.
Pacifica needs to get outside it self
and connect with more people and deal in the
mission or it's pointless...

LaForest - ask what the actual numbers would be?

Spooner - NYC, Berkeley would get 4 people on the
national board, all the other stations 3

LaForest - against proposal, more divisive

Bryant - wants not to be associated with past
boards, not happy that this proposal is being
heaped on the board now

[some excitement and disruption]

Spooner - [puts it out straight and opens 
up the can of worms...]
This proposal has been out for awhile
It had been dropped, then brought back.
It has brought back mostly over concern
that WPFW and KPFT
fell the furthest from the mission
and yet have proportionally more voting
power [see chart]and their listener-members would
be less mission oriented when voting
in the upcoming elections.
[disruptive disagreement through out
room]

Allen - Doesn't want KPFT or any group be treated
as a step child

Barnstone - calls the question

[Chair Cagan - gives him a hard time at first,
but eventually concedes to Roberts Rules of order in 
which calling the question requires a vote
on whether or not to end discussion and 
to hold a vote on the issue that is on the
table ]

5 for 7 against cutting off debate

Cagan - calls for 2 non-board people to speak for each
side of the issue

Willy Ratcliff, KPFA LAB - We all agree that Pacifica 
is a network, and that there shouldn't be a double 
standard in a network. There should even number of 
representatives from each station on the national board. 
Sick and tired of double standards.

Raphael Renteria, KPFK (formally KPFA PD)- Thanks iPNB
for addressing this difficult issue. The hijacking
of KPFT still strongly affects him. He fully supports
and has fought for democracy at Pacifica, there is a real
danger in democracy with having mission ignorant voting
bodies. He supports KPFA alternative be in effect, but 
for a limited time.

Bernie Eisienberg, KPFK area - Supports same number of 
representatives at all stations. The real solution is in 
changing the programming to properly educate the voters.

Sam Husseini - Is struck with the defensiveness
of iPNB members in response to KPFA alternative 
[Lee disrupts several times, Sam thanks Lee for 
illustrating his point]
Supports that there be some provision
addressing the issue of a station having substantially 
fewer members than the other stations.

Cagan - restates options...

Straw poll regarding the KPFA proposal
of station receiving additional members on
the national board for larger station memberships

-all stations get equal number per station

11 for

KPFA alternative

1 for [ Spooner]

Spooner - thanks people who worked on the alternative
proposal

Cagan - moves to discussion of planning the rest of 
bylaws work

Zakiya - These meetings need to be run  tighter.
Urges limiting comment because it's mostly rehash. These
meetings are not for the public, but for the board.
We need to formally acknowledge that the bylaws
process will not be done by December.

Bryant - don't know why he's saying this as it's would
be impossible [to exclude non-board members]
Suggest that KPFT and WPFW being off mission needs to be 
an agenda item as it seems to be affect many of the
proposals and decisions

Allen - doesn't appreciate sieg hiel gesture made
[a non-board person stood in with arm extended
during part of the discussion a little earlier - I 
wasn't sure whether he was making a gesture, or
waiting to be called on to speak - ed]

Fertig - Suggest finishing bylaws grid work at Dec.(6, 7, 8) meeting
and having another meeting in Jan. to adopt bylaws.

Cagan - Proposes that that some of the national board put
together a draft in the next 2 weeks and circulated to
national board and lawyer and LABs to have something
more substantial to work on in December. Hoping that
Carol would take it on.

Ferguson - How much is left to do?

Cagan - National board sections, elections process, bylaws amendment 
process... [alot]

Allen - Supports iPNB members coming a day early to the 
next regular iPNB meeting for bylaws work.

Zakiya - The national board needs to get down to writing actual
language with out all the public comment until the document
comes together
[markowitz disrupts with comments , Jabari resumes with LaForest
objecting to some comments at some point]

Spooner - Runs down possible process and suggest meeting
again in November [some applause]

Lee - Can live with the process. Supports having a
non officer[?] (Zakiya) organize the remainder of the bylaws
process assisted by board members and then submitting
it to the listener-members

LaForest - Speaks in support of Berkeley's non-self serving
work on bylaws, doesn't understand Lee's reservations
with having Spooner come up with this next draft.

Cagan - restates proposed procedures

Barnstone - confused. concerned that proposed
procedure will not have entire board will not
have input on refining remaining grid items. Protests.

Cagan - yes, this would be changing the process but 
on items where there are differences, the authors will
be consulted to attempt to ammend and combine their proposals
and if this is not possible, both versions of those particular 
items would be included for consideration in this draft.

Barnstone - distressed, where's the democracy?! etc

Fertig - disagrees with Barnstone. Has faith
in Spooner, and besides the board will have
approval.

Lee - Wants Spooner to work with Zakiya

Spooner - Withdrawing from working on the draft. 

Allen - supports Spooner and Robinson doing it

LaForest - asks Carol to reconsider and that working
with Jabari would be a good thing...

Spooner - its' really a one person process and she's fine
with Zakiya or Robinson doing it.

Barnstone - objections are not with the person chosen,
but the proposed process.

Cagan - restates proposal

LaForest - that their non-iPNB straw polls be taken 
into consideration

MOTION: That the next draft be put together
in the next couple of weeks combining the results
of the iPNB straw polls on the bylaws to date and
consolidating the rest of the items on the bylaws
revision draft comparison grid .
On items where there are differences, the authors will
be consulted in an attempt to amend and combine their versions
and if this is not possible both would be included
for consideration in draft.

10 for 2 against

Robinson - Agrees to put together draft with assistance
from Zabari and Spooner. 

Agreed
[applause]

Ferguson - wants re-vote considering this new information

11 for 1 for

Next item: Location and date of next meetings

Ted Wiesgal - request that November too soon.

Spooner - Need to do it as soon as possible

Ferguson - how about 2 dates in Dec?
[collective ugh]

long discussion as to sorting out date and location
based primarily on cost...

Meeting dates:


December 6, 7, 8 to do bylaws in Houston

December 21,22 for the regular meeting in D.C. 

Cagan - Thanks to KPFK for the broadcast
[applause]

Cagan - is there other business?

LaForest - Proposes motion to extend mandate of bylaws 
revision/governance programming on the 5 stations.

It's pointed out that technically that this mandate
is still in affect.

MOTION to confirm that the iPNB mandate for a 
minimum of 2 hours weekly of 
bylaws revision/governance programming 
on the 5 stations is still in effect

8 FOR

LaForest - request that convenience of the local community
be taken into consideration when choosing the place of
the upcoming iPNB meetings.

Cagan - 

Spooner - supports better organization of meeting details
in advance

Tony Regusters , interim WPFW station manager - Thanks 
the Pacifica community for it's support. 
Concerned with Spooner's critical analysis of WPFW, feels
that she could be better informed, listen to the station
on the web.

Spooner - Thanks Tony for bringing this up. She would like to
talk about this. She has been listening to WPFW on the web.
What she and others are referring to is the lack of public affairs
programming, though there has been improvement

Tony - WPFW is  doing well enough with public affairs.

Spooner - disagrees

Ferguson - disagrees with some basic points by Spooner.
the mission is from 1949 is pre-civil rights and shouldn't 
apply now. WPFW 

Spooner - the mission has stood the test of time.
It is anti-racist, despite being pre-civil rights.

Zakiya - We have to look at all the stations as part
of the network. We need to look at each of the stations
in terms healing and moving forward together.
To come from the positive rather that from the negative.
D.C. is not a "cesspool", has problems but so do all the
other stations. Supports not criticizing but coming
up with solutions.

Spooner - Doesn't feel she's attacked WPFW, but expressing
a deep concern.

Sam Hussienni, WPFW LaB - Doesn't think that it was coincidental
that WPFW was the first station to be hijacked given the
alienation of life in D.C. 
There have been real incremental changes.
There wasn't even a news department. But there seems
to be a lack of will
There needs 

Ron Finchback, WPFW program director - 15 years at WPFW.
WPFW is evolving. Agrees with Sam as to the priorities
- news etc. Agrees that the WPFW audience needs to be 
re-educated. This needs to evolve. They/we are not the 
enemies of each other, the enemies are down at [the whitehouse]
[applause]

KhaRabia Rayford, WPFW LAB -  2 basic directions needed:
-Feel-good programming for healing etc.
-programming for issues etc.
It's one thing to report on issues
and another to covering and issue
as an activist - which is, beyond
simply covering something, it's asking what can we do.
Is WPFW going to be a jazz station with some
public affairs, or a station that is wholly
a catalyst for activism and change?
Quotes executive director Dan Coughlin as to 
what he once said he would like
to see Pacifica stations be:
"To function as a hammer against the status quo"

Fertig - Agrees. But we need to have the music
and it all.

Robinson - We are all here because we love Pacifica,
particularly our individual stations.
Ask that people use humility when viewing the other stations.

Errol Maitland, WBAI - Remembers years ago when the 
Pacifica national board fired the Pacifica listeners
at WPFW and other stations and put music on the air.
The music is on, not because of the listeners, but 
the PNB put it there ["not me" - says Spooner] 
He is dedicated to making sure his community
has a voice. He demands clear guidance from the
national board to clean up the station(s) [wpfw]
and return to it to the mission.
Doesn't see it happening yet. Some of the offenders
still on the board. Meanwhile he is biding his
time [laughter] and giving the current board a
chance... Shouldn't have to tune to NPR for important
breaking events while WPFW and the other stations
are airing music. Pacifica stations should have the
ability to immediately put essential information
on the air at any time.

_______- no one station in Pacifica should considered
the standard for the rest

Bryant - This board is NOT the same board as the other
board!

Mike Wolf,WPFW native american programmer - Thanks 
WPFW program director for having the insight to 
put the native american show on. On for 6 weeks
and already getting emails from Alaska and other far away 
places. Want people to remember that he is first a 
member of the human race. Native american programming
is long overdue on WPFW and gets only an hour. Would like
to see Pacifica act more as a family. His people is a 
voice that has been silenced for too long. Would hope
that his work can help bring people together.
His grandfather said
The great spirit has given man only one tool to
judge another; it's how you treat my heart...
[applause]

Billy Ray ,WPFW LAB - The lack of mission adherence at 
WPFW is rooted in fear.
911 started an amount fear in the programming at WPFW
WPFW needs to re-learn its' mission
Reads from WPFW mission which involves
public affairs, education, and diversity.

Paul Surovell, WBAI area - There's agreement that
WPFW is evolving. Commends Spooner for taking the
stand which and reiterates the intent of the proposal
she presented, which is the issue of the mission

Ryme Khathouda - Outreach is the issue for which
real commitment is needed in the form out personnel
and some equipment. It's not happening now.

LaForest - Disagrees that the current national board
is responsible for the actions of the hijacker boards.
Interested in more contact with WPFW

Spooner - Feels that there has been some misunderstanding
of what family and criticism is. Criticism is a good thing.
She cares about WPFW the most because it needs the most help.
The same goes for KPFA too.
Criticism helps us to come together, work together....

Cagan - Acknowledges people who took risks this weekend 
putting out various positions.
This interim national board came on knowing that
Pacifica was a wreck and needed to be fixed.
The iPNB is NOT the new Pacifica board. It's job is too 
lay the ground work for the new Pacifica.
The iPNB's ability is to work with the stations to move
things forward.
Her greatest allegiance is not, as Robinson suggested, to
the her local station or even Pacifica but to the peace
and justice movement, that's why she's involved.
[applause]
We need disagreement and discussion to get things done.
We need to have a foundation wide program of political
discussion with all Pacifica  programmers to inject 
greater social awareness across Pacifica.
[applause]
The last hour of discussion has been great.
Would to like to  adjourn.
[appreciative applause]

_______ - quick question about the
bylaws draft composing team...

5:18pm meeting adjourned


Editor's note:

This weekends' meeting had moments
when things were falling apart and definitely
feeling bad, but it always bounced back to a good
place. While on the surface, it may seem to some
that not so much got done, I would say that the meeting
was extremely constructive. Important fundamental
issues of the bylaws were sorted out and understandings
established. This creates the foundation for dealing
with the rest of the articles etc.
Also,  the unplanned airing of feelings and concerns 
with WPFW at the end was a very good thing, even
inspiring at moments.

I'm also very pleased with eloquent support
from all the various speakers and the 10 to 1 straw poll
approval of the (much simplified) version of the 
proposed bylaw mandating townhall type meetings that I'd been 
lobbying for all year and in the end
had some help from Gregory Wonderwheel. (yee haaa!)

Roger Manning, NYC