D.C. DAILY REPORTS and Documents | iPNB DC meeting info
Daily notes from the iPNB meeting
on bylaws, Washington, D.C.
Apologies for name misspellings.
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
top of page
D.C. DAILY REPORTS and Documents | iPNB DC meeting info
iPNB index | home