![]() |
|
Houston DAILY REPORTS and Documents | iPNB Houston meeting info Daily notes from the iPNB meeting on bylaws, Houston 11-24-02 |
11-24-02: Sunday
Apologies for name misspellings.
Directors present: David Fertig, Carol Spooner, George Barnstone, Leslie Cagan, Robbie Robinson, Janice K Bryant, Ray LaForest, Jabari Zakiya, Charles Smith, James Ferguson Not present: Teresa Allen, Pete Bramson , Bert Lee, Marion Barry, Dick Gregory Meeting convenes 9:30 am Chair Cagan - goes over what's left to be covered in Pacifica bylaws drafts consolidation A1s, A4s5, A5, grandfathering issue Jane Jackson, KPFA area - asks for clarification on question of eligibility and diversity requirement Bob Lederer, WBAI - CA law - SA5S1c needs to examined also SECTION 3. PRINCIPLES, POLICIES AND PRACTICES Cagan - aks Lederer to present Bob Lederer, WBAI - Presents Statement of principles Proposal in 2 parts. The first, a preamble which doesn't re-write Articles of incorporation but reinforces them. The 2nd part, a set of binding items, is like a bill of rights. Cagan - reads from the pre-amble: The Pacifica Foundation will maintain a strong noncommercial radio network that: a. is committed to peace with social justice b. offers progressive political information and analysis as a tool for positive social, political, economic and cultural change; c. promotes the most progressive currents of culture, arts and ideas and provides a venue for non-mainstream artistic presentations that are rarely heard on other electronic media; d. exposes injustice and inequality of all types, both nationally and internationally; e. educates about the fundamental role of capitalism, corporate globalization and global apartheid in the ecological, social, political and economic devastation of this planet; f. recognizes the critical importance and provide an outlet for the global grassroots movement for human rights, social and economic justice and sustainable development to the survival of this planet; g. advances the self-empowerment and self-determination of exploited, oppressed and/or disenfranchised communities, populations and nations; h. respects the rights of all workers to be treated equitably and respectfully; i. encourages the free expression of controversial, marginalized opinions; and j. seeks to involve in its governance and operations individuals committed to these broad principles. Barnstone - Has a problem with item e. Disagrees with a negative blanket reference to capitalism Fertig - Likes A and J, but the rest has got to go. This is a statement of a specific political prospective. Pacifica is above being simply a leftist organization. Agrees with the principles, but not for having them in the bylaws. [applase] Ferguson - Appreciates D - exposes inequality. A and J are good, the rest are rather out there. Spooner - - Doesn't want to go from the artfully, beautifully written broad statement of purposes in the Articles of incorportaton to specific bylaws language that's signifigant to us today when things may change years for now. The current Articles incorporates all of this. These principles will actually end up limited us, not opening up horizons. Prefers not to do this [ applause ] Smith - Agrees with not making political statements in the Articles of incorporation. Agrees with Spooner in keeping it broad. Cagan - Agrees with principles presented but has a problem with statement in general and in specific areas. Agrees with Spooner that the mission is flexible with very well written. Doesn't want to adopt this pre-amble. To adopt any of the language would be a very involved process. Unnecessary, at least at this point. Berrisford Jones, WBAI area - Has distributed statement proposing a slight addition to the end of the mission statement ... it's critical that Pacifica has a guide to alert to them to their responsibility in informing the public to the truth regarding the destructive policies of the powers that be. Cagan - we have 2 things presented... Fertig - supports adding items A and J be added to section ARTICLE ONE section 3 of the bylaws a.is committed to peace with social justice; j.seeks to involve in its governance and operations individuals committed to these broad principles. Straw poll: for adding A and J from the proposed statement of principles preamble [ see above ] 6 for 1 against 3 abstain LaForest - interested in adding some other items Spooner - the more specifics, the more problems We have a wonder statement of purposes and to add to it is a mistake [ applause ] Cagan - Agrees. Asks for a straw poll as to whether the iPNB wants to continue discussing proposed preamble items further. [ LaForest is trying to inject, - he came in lateand has missed some of the discussion ] MOTION: to continue discussion of preamble? 2 for the rest aganinst Cagan - in current bylaws draft goes to: SECTION 3. PRINCIPLES, POLICIES AND PRACTICES RECOMMENDATION Hybrid Statement Consisting of: KPFK UNITY CAUCUS COLLABORATIVE PRINCIPLES The activities of the Foundation are supported by communities of listeners, volunteers, paid and unpaid staff and contributors. Because the basis of the Foundation’s governance is democratic, and because of the primacy of the tradition of volunteerism in the Foundation, all of the roles and relationships within the Pacifica communities should promote collaborative processes, where to the greatest extent practicable, all affected persons are consulted and given an opportunity to be heard, both within the structure of governance, and in the management of the Foundation. Zabari, Spooner - Are against considering this language for the bylaws. Straw poll: to not use statement of policies and practices 6 for 1 against 3 abstain Cagan - reads proposed binding policy (8)items from Statement of principles Bryant - What does binding policies mean? Bob Lederer - The aim to establish a sort-of bill of rights that are in the bylaws and hard to remove Zabari - has a problem with item 8 Barnstone - agrees with Zakiya. Item 4 diversity requirement would exclude white males. Zabari - moves that these binding policies not be part of the bylaws LaForest - but what about the provision against the gag rules? Fertig, Spooner - these are good, but for policy manual, not bylaws Lederer - Item 3 [accessibility] has already been supported by the iPNB MOTION: to NOT have these binding policies be part of the bylaws for 8 against 1 abstain 1 Spooner, Cagan Article 1, section 3 should be called "Principles" Cagan - Moves on to local station board diversity goals - article 4 , section 5 Barnstone - asks about some item that turns out of been scratched. Debbie Campbell, KPFT area - is there anywhere in the bylaws that states that the bylaws will be augmented by various policies of the board? Cagan - That doesn't need to be stated in the bylaws. Cagan - ...Asks people to sit until called on... This [elections processs] is a tough, controversial subject. There was much dicussion yesterday, asks people not to revisit everything that's already been said Two main issues: uniformity of elections procedures thoughout the network and what the election process would be. There's is a new compromise proposal to be presented. Calls Paul Surovell to present, though allows Berrisford Jones to speak first. Berrisford Jones, WBAI - [ forcefully, brilliantly and somewhat disruptively ] clarifies that the WBAI bylaws subcommittee as well as 500 WBAI listeners and staff are overwhelmingly OPPOSED to the constituency model [ Cagan starts to interupt, but Berriford continues ] It is wrong to treat the constituency model as if it is the choice of the WBAI bylaws committee. [ applause ] Why is the iPNB considering giving WBAI the right to chose their own elections policy when that is not the wish of the WBAI bylaws committee? Also, although Gould's hybrid elections proposal is well intended, if the constituency model is illegitimate it is as well. Comments on iPNBs' inconsistancy in their votes regarding a requiring universal elecions policy thoughout Pacifica. Feels that the WBAI bylaws committee would reject Gould hybrid model... Cagan - The compromise elections proposal about to be presented was put together last night and is not the Gould hybrid model. Let's hear what the proposal says and take some other comments as well. Paul Surovell, WBAI area - presents new compromise compromise elections proposal where Local Station Boards would adopt the KPFA model and have the OPTION to follow the general 50-50 diversity requirements but additionally set aside categories for specified constituencies. David Greene's (KPFA elections coordinator) analysis is this is workable. Miguel Maldanado, WBAI LAB - the intent of this is that it brings people together LaForest - who was involved in developing the proposal? Surovell - the "WBAI committee for a Unified Membership" [ a new organization of which is a key part of ] Smith - how many people in the in the WBAI area? How do we address the changing population dynamics in the future? How does one determine the specific categories? Spooner - This is a compromise proposal that doesn't necessarily have agreement from the many people in NY that are against the constituency model. Goes over Surovell proposal for clarification. It's basically the same as the KPFA model except that the Local station boards would have the option to implement some additional diverisity measures in the form of setting aside up to 5-7 catogories. It is a workable system according to KPFA elections coordinator David Greene. Smith - The policy should be adaptable to future circumstances such as the dynamics of a new listening areas if Pacifica has growth. Spooner - Bylaws need to be specific enough in order to be enforceable. Any diversity requirements would have to enforced network wide. This proposal also offers optional diversity policies to the stations. Zakiya - In any election there is finite seats and there will be struggle. Diveristy is desirable but this proposal doesn't address the main issue with elections is to come up with candidates that meet the main requirement which is supporting the Pacifica mission.. This specifying categories is unworkable. They really don't need to be in the bylaws, but in policy documents. Paul Surovell - the board has approved most all the elements in this proposal such as the 50% - 50% diversity goals etc., the road block in the process is been the effort to address the wishes of some of the people("unity caucus") in NYC. This is a proposed way of getting past that obstacle. To Smith; the categories would determined by an area's demographics and so would shift with changing times. Smith - It's critical to also pay attention to the implications of the changing demographics. Cagan - aknowedges that more people want to speak. Will hear from Byant and LaForest and then get a sense of the body first. Bryant - still torn. The issue is finding an agreement between 3 factions in NYC. Admits that she has failed to read various proposals, that she doesn't like to deal with these kinds of things, cannot concentrate and absorb them. She was against the constituency model, though LaForest strongly influenced her the other night. She had felt that the constituency model was too complex but now feels supportive, though admittedly in part as a reactionary response to various people's fears and attacks regarding the cm. Supports the concept of self determination, and believes the constituency model but it's too much at this point in time and will have to come later. Strong desire for language relative to self determination of communities in the elections process in bylaws. -- brief break for cd change -- LaForest - disagrees with Zabari that this is not an important issue. It's not true that the NY community is truly against the constituency model. The recent LAB straw poll showed overwhelming support for the constituency model. Fertig - agrees with Bryant that a proposal must stand on it own. Against cm in any of it's forms. We need real diversity, not apparent diversity which comes not from rules but actual efforts. Supports KPFA model and choice voting. We need people who diverse but not only by outward appearance. Zabari - what happens if these proposed diversity requirements are not met? Spooner - explains the procedure in the KPFA model Zakiya - the specific diversity goals doesn't really need to be in the bylaws, but in policy document so that not meeting the requirement wouldn't put the boards in violation of the bylaws Cagan - She has been against the constituency model from early on, but has never considered it "evil." The key to achieving the goal of the cm is OUTREACH. [big applause] Doesn't consider the cm workable. Is interested in unity in the network. Interested in examining the Surovell compromise proposal because it works toward that. Feels that there has not been an adequate understanding of proportional representation because it really can meet people's goals[big applause] Strongly interested in Surovell compromise proposal. Cagan - Many people want to speak. Calls for a sense of the board regarding interest in the Surovell proposal. 3 in favor of pursuing the proposal ...agenda tries to move on Barnstone - gets some clarification on the Surovell proposal election diversity mechanism...possibility of no white men on a board? [Joke made - "wouldn't be the worst that could happen" big laughter...] Zakayia - are we still on article 5, section 4 diversity goals? Are we still deciding whether to have diversity goals? A: it was agreed in previous meeting to have diversity goals. The diversity goals must be simple. Spooner - suggests that they get a sense of the body on proposal Cagan - focuses meeting and gets a straw poll Straw poll: for a uniform elections policy 9 for 1 against Patty Heffley - the currently proposed 50- 50 diversity requirement in the KPFA draft is already a compromise as there are many people who are against there being any artificial constraints on the outcome of elections. Calls for simplicity Cagan - wants to move the agenda ... Spooner - the kpfa model has been in front MOTION by Spooner to vote on adopting the KPFA model NO SECOND(!) Spooner - this needs to be done Zabari - no second of the motion. move the agenda Cagan - moves agenda ARTICLE FIVE DIRECTORS OF THE FOUNDATION C. NUMBER The Pacifica Foundation Board of Directors shall have equal representation for each station.(Alternatives are: fixed number; minimum/maximum; revisit formulas in accordance with network wide national Bylaws conventions.) Spooner - clarifies laws etc. reads KPFA draft language ...some discussion as to possible numbers Spooner - suggests 20 - 23 as number, partly to accommodate director from affiliates Bryant - seeks some clarification Zakaiya - supports smallest possible board to do work. Need to keep cost down supports 15. concerned that work and duties are never formally laid out. Cagan - 5 standing committees established. [at last night's meeting] 20-23 not too many considering all the work to be done. Smith - supports a larger board because of the workload. There are ways to reduce cost even with larger board. Robinson - agrees with Smith Spooner - restates proposal 20 at minimum, 4 from each station, 3 at large 9 for [applause] Cagan - next: SECTION 3. NOMINATION OF DIRECTORS: -covered elsewhere in bylaws next F. DUTIES: Review proposals from grid Robinson - some language in WPFW draft: The ongoing duties of the Board involve: compliance with the purposes found in the Foundation's Articles of Incorporation; compliance with corporate responsibilities and state and federal law; ensuring that routine communication with listeners occurs at all levels of governance; supervision and operation of Foundation personnel authority for officers, agents and employees of the corporation; maintenance of a regular schedule of meetings and execution of Foundation business decisions as required by the exercise of Board powers and authority, as above. Spooner - reads similar language from KPFA draft: The ongoing duties of the Directors are to ensure fulfillment of the purposes of the Foundation as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation; to ensure compliance with applicable state and federal laws; to ensure the financial health of the Foundation by adoption and monitoring of an annual budget and to oversee an independent annual audit of the Foundations books and accounts; to ensure regular communication with the Members at all levels and areas of the Foundation; to appoint, supervise and remove, employ and discharge, the Executive Director of the Foundation; to meet at such regular times and places as required by these Bylaws and to meet at such other times as may be necessary in order to carry out the duties of Directors; to register their addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses with the Secretary of the Foundation. Notices of meetings mailed, transmitted by telecopier facsimile, or emailed to them at such addresses shall be valid notices thereof. Spooner - also needs to be item regarding directors supplying their contact info as in CA bylaws boilerplate Agreed Zabari - important that it's clear that the board of directors are the ultimate power in the foundation for legal FCC and other reasons. The board members names are actually on the licenses. Bryant - prefers that the board is the "protectors" of the license not the "owners" Cagan - Zabari's concerns are covered section E - power and authority Bryant - is addressing [Zabari's] potential attitude of megalomania.. Cagan- Straw poll: to approve duties laid out above 9 for Some clarification as to yesterday's decisions on SECTION 2. TERMS: Result: SECTION 2. TERMS: The term of a Director shall be three (3) years. A director may serve two consecutive three-year terms. A Director shall not be eligible for further services as a Director until one year has elapsed after the termination of a Director's second consecutive three-year term. (FOOTNOTE: Develop language extending LSB term in an Ex Officio manner, for any Director whose term on the Board of Directors exceeds the term on the LSB with up to three such Ex Officio positions permitted.) next: B.AFFILIATE DIRECTORS RECOMMENDATION Pacifica Affiliate stations may nominate candidates for a Director's seat on the Foundation Board. The Board will duly elect one of these nominees. The affiliate stations will apprise the Board of their procedure for conducting these nominations that shall include dispersing information on the nomination process on a regular basis to all affiliate stations and/or conducting a caucus of affiliate stations at an annual community radio conference. In making these nominees the affiliates will submit a list of all affiliate stations and the affiliate representatives that voted in the nominations process to ensure that each affiliate station is granted a vote for a nominee/s. Zabari - Favors eliminating section and covering this in at large members item Robinson - Feels that it is essential, acknowledgement of the affiliates is important and overdue. Cagan - Agrees. The affiliates are a good way to address the expressed desire of expansion of Pacifica considering the current reality of limited resources. Spooner - reads from KPFA language regarding at large directors: The board of directors, or equivalent governing body, of any "Pacifica Affiliate" may nominate any eligible natural person for the office of Director. For these purposes, "Pacifica Affiliate" is defined as any non- commercial broadcaster -- radio, digital, internet, or the like - that broadcasts Pacifica programming, either by permission or by contract with the Pacifica Foundation. By majority vote of the Delegates present and voting on two Local Station Boards, any two Local Station Boards may nominate any eligible listener-sponsor member of the Foundation, who is not then serving as a station board Delegate on any Local Station Board, to the office of Director. Spooner - likes Robinson language [ WPFW draft ] Smith - contracts with affiliates may be a source of conflict of interest with affiliate representative on the national board Spooner - Cagan - the core of Smith - is participation dictated by board membership or in other ways. Having people from other organizations Robinson - the affiliate rates are set, that sort of thing shouldn't provide conflict of interest. The point is to connect with more affiliates LaForest - Have the affiliates approved this language? Spooner - Not all have discussed it. She feels that that Pacifica, not the affiliates should elect the reps but the affiliates would do the nominating. Robinson - Rereads above language Barnstone - is the Grassroots Radio Conference the only affiliates organization involved? A: no Cagan - gives overview the Grassroots Radio Conference Spooner - There is also the NFCB(National Federation of Community Broadcasters) with much overlap in membership with the GRC. Zakiya - Is uncomfortable with determining a specific item for affiliates... against over binding the foundation with details in the governance structure. Supports covering the affiliate directors through the at-large directors provision. Spooner - Suggests language defining affiliates from KPFA language [above] Ferguson - Makes friendly amendment that affiliate directors be non- voting. Not acepted by Robinson, so voted on. MOTION: friendly amendment that affiliate directors be non- voting. 3 for 6 against 1 abstain MOTION: to adopt disused affiliates language for the bylaws 7 3 12:12 lunch break [Overall mood pretty good. A lot of people representing different things getting together in small groups and discussing things..] ----- 1:15pm reconvene ARTICLE FIVE SECTION 4. ELECTION OF DIRECTORS: Spooner - suggests adopting KPFA language regarding nominating adopting the up to at-large seats which states: that 2 local station boards can join together to nominate a candidate an for an at-large director seat This helps cover the situation of affiliate director seats. Miguel Maldanado, WBAI LAB - gets clarification LaForest - What is the recall procedure for atlarge directors? Spooner - The law is that people that elect have the right to remove. ... some discussion on recall. It's suggested that it could be in the bylaws that the LSBs that put the at large director on the board have the recall. Zakiya - It doesn't work to say that each station boards count as one vote in recall or nomination... ...some discussion and attempts at clarification Cagan - tries to refocus on the intent... Zakiya - proposes that all the local station board members vote as individuals, as opposed to the LSBs each counting as one vote Mary Berg, KPFA area - Spooner - restates 2 proposals 2 LSBs by majority vote, or majority vote of all station board members. Favors first. ...there's a suggestion of requiring the approval of 3 LSBs Fertig - supports at least an at-large director from affiliates Cagan - supports at-large provision Spooner - having at-large directors who are not from one of the 5 station areas will be helpful in broadening the boards outlook Spooner - Restates proposal MOTION:that 3 local station boards can join together to nominate a candidate for an at-large director seat with a simple majority from each of the LSBs 9 for SECTION 4. ELECTION OF DIRECTORS: NOT DISCUSSED A. AT-LARGE DIRECTORS Spooner - reads KPFA draft language regarding national board procedure for electing at large directors: The Board of Directors may, in its discretion, elect up to three (3) Directors nominated either by a Pacifica Affiliate or by two Local Station Boards, by 2/3rds majority vote of the Directors present and voting, provided that notice of the nomination and vote is served on all Directors with the Notice of Meeting at least thirty (30) days in advance of the meeting date. Zakiya - makes friendly amendment that only non-atlarge directors elect at large directors Spooner accepts MOTION: To accept to the above 8 for SECTION 4. ELECTION OF DIRECTORS B. STATION BOARD DELEGATES Spooner - reads KPFA language: Each Local Station Board shall elect from among its then current Local Station Board Delegates, by majority vote of the Delegates present and voting, three Directors to represent that station on the Foundation Board of Directors, two of whom shall be listener-sponsor members and one of whom shall be a staff member. These elections shall take place in January of each year and be staggered so that one Director is elected by each Local Station Board each year. MOTION: to accept this language with working out dates later 7 for 2 abstain SECTION 5. DIVERSITY GOALS: RECOMMENDATION: In order to fulfill the Foundation's purposes and principles as set forth in Article 1, Sections 2 and 3, the Directors of the Foundation shall include at least 50% people of color and at least 50% women. Cagan - call the question? Barnstone - feels that this is racist provision Zakiya - should strike this, impossible to implement ipso-facto issue Bryant - calls for %60 minimum requirement instead of %50 Fertig - term "minority" is false. we need to aim higher Spooner - can solve the ipso-facto issue by requiring the local boards to be %50 - 50 Wants to keep the requirement at %50 which doesn't limit it from going higher. Bryant - In an ideal world Spooner is right, but the reality of the inequities supports her view on more stringent requirements favoring people of color. LaForest - agrees with Spooner that %50 is practical. Spooner - MOTION: In order to fulfill the Foundation's purposes and principles as set forth in Article 1, Sections 2 and 3, the local station boards will be at least 50% people of color and at least 50% women. the Directors of the Foundation shall include at least 50% people of color and at least 50% women. 6 for 3 against SECTION 6. SEATING OF DIRECTORS: The directors would be seated at the annual meeting which shall be in May agreed SECTION 7. REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS: A. BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS Any Director shall be removed automatically for unexcused absences as set forth in Article Five. agreed B. BY LOCAL STATION BOARD DELEGATES Any Director may be removed by the Delegates of the Local Station Board that elected him or her at a regular or special meeting by three-fifths (3/5ths) majority vote of all the Delegates for that Local Station Board, provided that the grounds for such removal are submitted with the notice of the meeting and, provided further, that the said Director shall have a reasonable opportunity at said meeting to protest his/her removal. agreed - with amendment that 2/3 vote required 7 for C. BY THE MEMBERS Upon the petition of fifty (50) of the Members of the Radio Station area that a Director represents, a Director may be removed by a majority vote of the Members of that station area voting in a recall election. If recall procedures have not been established by the Board of Directors, then the Local Station Board Committee for that station area shall determine the recall procedures within thirty (30) days of the submission of a recall petition. In the case that the Sponsor Members recall any Local Station Board delegate who has been elected to the Board of Directors of the Foundation, this shall have the effect of removing the director from the Board of Directors. Spooner - points out that this duplicates other portion of the bylaws that adresses recall of local station board "delegates." Since a national board director is also required to be on the local station board, members may recall that director locally. SECTION 8.VACANCY If a Station Representative Director's seat becomes vacant for any reason, that seat shall be filled for the remainder of the term by the Local Station Board for that station area. agreed SECTION 9. COMPENSATION: NOT DISCUSSED Directors shall serve without compensation except that they shall be allowed reasonable advancement or reimbursement of expenses incurred in the performance of their regular duties. agreed SECTION 10. RESTRICTION REGARDING INTERESTED DIRECTORS: RECOMMENDATION (KPFA): Notwithstanding any other provision of these Bylaws, not more than forty-nine percent (49%) of the persons serving on the board may be interested persons. For purposes of this Section, "interested persons" means either: (1) Any person currently being compensated by the Foundation for services rendered it within the previous twelve (12) months, whether as a full- or part-time officer or other employee, independent contractor, or otherwise; or (2) Any brother, sister, ancestor, descendant, spouse, domestic partner, brother-in- law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, or father-in-law of any such person. Some joking about the language... agreed ...some clarifications Robinson - MOVES that the iPNB board now vote on whether to accept the KPFA elections model Seconded. Spooner searches for the document... [ some hopeful excitement in the room ] Cagan - announces details of upcoming D.C iPNB meeting at which hotel is a union facilities. Other coordinating of stuff... Spooner - reads from the KPFA proposal for elections from the grid with some minor updates of various items. Proportional representation or culmlative voting shall be used. Anelle Williams, KPFT area - against the %50 requirement in order to bump an elected candidate to meet diversity requirement, that this could be an issue in Houston. Spooner - There needs to some sort on bottom limit, though choice voting does extremely well to make sure people with small bases of support get seated. Fetig - Shouldn't be a problem with choice voting Cagan - It has been proposed to lower the requirement to 1/3 from 1/2 for the minimum number of votes that a candidate being moved up must have relative to number of votes the person being bumped received. Eve Moser, WBAI area - proposes changing the 50 50 requirement to 25, 25, 25, 25 with equal for everybody including whites Bryant - glad for Williams' point Donna Gould, WBAI area - it should be clear that voting now for the KPFA model effectively eliminates all other options. Cagan - There are currently no other proposals on the table? Is unclear if hybrid elections proposal was actually voted on yesterday. LaForest - Wants to table voting on the KPFA elections model until there's a clear KPFA document. [general groans in the room] Spooner - Supports not delaying this painful decision. The material has been out for a year. This process badly needs completion. Cagan - calls for a vote on whether or not to table. Allows for some comment. Lydia Brazon, KPFK - don't table. KPFA model is a good start for the LABs LaForest - a bit more Muntu Matsimela, WBAI area - Bob Lederer, WBAI "unity caucus" - there should be a vote on Donna Gould compromise draft as well Spooner - offers to vote on both KPFA and Gould compromise models. If both receive a majority vote, they would both go to the LABs for approval. agreed MOTION: to table vote on KPFA elections model 2 for 6 against MOTION: to support KPFA model 6 for 2 abstain Donna Gould, WBAI - Gives brief review of her hybrid elections proposal MOTION: To also send Gould's hybrid model to the LABs for consideration 4 for 4 against Cagan - is hesitant as to what to do about the Gould proposal with the close vote... Fertig - even though he's against the hybrid proposal changes his vote to send the it to the LABs along with the KPFA model [general groan] because it's a better to have greater inclusion and choice for the LABs on determining the elections policy. MOTION: To also send Gould's hybrid model to the LABs for consideration 5 for 4 against Spooner - Clarifies that even if the iPNB decides on the the KPFA model, the LABs can reject it. The decision regarding the Local station board elections procedure in now with the LABs. Cagan - the LABs need to meet before Dec. 6 iPNB meeting in D.C. Miguel Maldanado - ....[took a run to restroom here] Otis Mclay, KPFT Program Director - Invites people still in town to be on governance program this evening. Next: Grandparenting (for first elections only) Robinson - issue of grandparenting not officially addressed by WPRW LAB Straw poll: to support grandparenting 3 for 4 against 1 abstain Cagan - There is members rights section of KPFK draft that hasn't been addressed. Andrea Fishman, WBAI area - points out another missing item from current bylaw consolidation from Article 17 in the Fertig draft concerned with protection of Articles of incorporation Cagan - This meeting is coming to an end. Starts discussing what the plan should be to complete the bylaws work. Spooner - clarifying that the LABs need to return their decision on number of local station board members and manner of elections. Cagan - There's only 3 hours at next iPNB meeting scheduled for bylaws, do we need a January bylaws meeting? Who can work on putting together this next draft resulting from the work at this weekends meeting? Spooner - will work with Debbie Campbell who has pretty much typed it up on the fly during the meeting. [ Debbie has truly amazing typing in the amended items as they happen on a laptop that's hooked into a projection machine projecting all the action on to a big screen ] Ted Friedman, KPFT area - Susan DeSilva, KPFA LAB - what is required by the LABs? A: to meet before Dec 6 and respond to the iPNB regarding the elections proposals and proposals for the size of boards. Fertig - Suggests that the LABs might get ahold of a pro-bono lawyer for an opinion. Cagan - that's it, thanks to all [applause] 3:12 MEETING ADJOURNED Editor's note: ...ah, the hell with it. Maybe I'll write something later... Roger Manning, NYC |
top of page Houston DAILY REPORTS and Documents | iPNB Houston meeting info iPNB index | home |