Last-minute notice to Fred Klunder of yesterday's Elections Committee meeting and reinstatement as member of Elections Committee

[fred klunder]

Bill and All:

 

It's Wednesday morning at the office as I first see a secretarial note of a 16:47 phone call from you and read your emails of yesterday on this Pacifica-specific Gmail account inviting me to yesterday's PNB Elections Committee. 

 

The invitation of yesterday afternoon follows your earlier summary dismissal of me, to which I objected in several emails, and of two others from the Committee for allegedly violating a rule for automatic removal after three consequitive absences. 

 

I was not in the office at the time of your call and typically go to this Gmail account, one of many email accounts I maintain, first thing in the morning.  As a result of the dismissal, yesterday's meeting was not on my calendar.  And I was unaware of your apparent reversal of your decision and your invitation to me and two othes to attend until this moment.

 

Am I correct in understanding that I remain a member of the Committee at this time as I believe should properly be the case?  If so, please advise why not.  If so, please advise with appropriate advance notice when the next meeting will be.

 

Sincerely,

 

Fred Klunder

 

 

    

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Bill Crosier <kp...@crosierbiomed.com> wrote:

I'll try to clarify, and if anyone can tell me how this is incorrect, please cite specifics (for example, other PNB policies I still don't know about.)

Here's a summary, for those of you who have not seen all the e-mails.

After the May meeting, in which we again barely made quorum after waiting for more people to join the conf. call, I learned that three of the Elections Committee members had missed 3 consecutive meetings, without ever asking for an excused absence.  One of the members had missed every meeting this year.

Note that these are committee members chosen by their LSBs, not Directors chosen by the PNB, and we are not talking about removing anyone from the LSB here nor from the PNB -- just members of a committee (so Bylaws provisions about removing someone from an LSB or PNB don't apply).  I don't believe the Pacifica Bylaws say anything about removal of members from committees (although I know we have standing rules at our station which provide for automatic removal of voting privileges of members from our local committees for 3 unexcused absences).

I asked George Reiter, PNB chair, what we could do about those members, who were making it difficult to meet quorum and who were not representing their LSBs, and he told me they were automatically off of the committee per a PNB policy (not the bylaws).  He asked who those members were, I told him, and then he contacted their LSB chairs about getting them replaced.  Two of those members then asked me about it and I told them that they could re-apply and hope their LSB would select them again, but the policy (that I had been told of) just said they were off the committee.

Here's the relevant policy (again, that I only learned about after the May comm. meeting):

 

MOTIONS PASSED AT PNB MEETING IN D.C. October 1-3, 2004

63) Regarding committee member absences:

MOTION by Lane as amended: that the provisions in the Pacifica bylaws, Article. 5, Section 7, and Article 7, Section 9 whereby a member ceases to be a member after missing 3 consecutive meetings be applied to committees of the PNB, such that any committee member who misses 3 consecutive committee meetings shall no longer be a member of the committee, and that the chair of the committee shall notify the chair of the PNB and the respective LSB of any pending suspension from the committee.

PASSES without Objection

Today, I learned of an amendment to that policy, that was made in the October 20, 2006 PNB meeting.  The amendment reads:

The Governance Committee recommends that the PNB adopt a motion clarifying its October 2004 motion regarding committee member absences such that the provision on notification of the chairs of the PNB and relevant LSB regarding "any pending suspension" be invoked after TWO consecutive absences of the committee member in question, and also that the member him/herself be notified by phone and email at the same time.

Passed without objection.

See Russell's note below about where to find the segment of the audio recording of that meeting dealing with that motion.

George said this evening that he listened to this and verified that the amendment passed at that PNB meeting.  Please see his note about this, that he sent to this list tonight.

I'm just trying to follow whatever policy applies.  I'd like to keep people on the committee who are willing and able to participate.  I'm sorry I didn't know about these policies sooner, but I'll try to give notice (with help from the committee in reminding me about people who've missed two consecutive meetings) to members where the pending suspension may apply.

Ken, please send me the names of the committee members who've missed the last two meetings so I can give them the prescribed notice of pending removal.

And everyone, I hope that if you find you are not able to participate regularly in the committee meetings for any reason, that you'll just resign from the committee and let someone else take your place for the rest of the year, so that your LSB can be properly represented and we won't have so much making quorum.  If you are still on your LSB next year, you can ask to be elected then if you are able to participate more fully next year.

Those of you on the Governance committee -- it would be great if that committee could develop a list of PNB policies in a form that's easily searchable, and all in one place.

I'm sorry again about the confusion over this, and I'll try harder to follow the PNB policies.

Bill

At 8:07 PM -0700 6/8/10, Shawn Casey O'Brien wrote:

Bylaws trump everything.  And in order to change the bylaws you have to get a motion out of the PNB and then passed by 3 of our 5 sister stations.  That did not happen here.

Shawn

On Jun 8, 2010, at 8:02 PM, Russell Dale wrote:

June 8, 2010

Hi Melinda and everyone.

    If you go to the archive of PNB meetings, and listen to the PNB Special Meeting of October 20, 2006, the second audio file there which you can go to directly with this link

http://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb061020/pnb061020b.mp3

and, if you go to 15:48 (15 minutes, 48 seconds) into this audio file, you will hear the discussion about the amendment to the 2004 motion.  The amendment, which was presented by Bob Lederer and it passed without objection.  You will hear this clearly on the audio.

    Also, the original 2004 motion was motivated precisely because the Pacifica Bylaws do not address absences from PNB committee meetings, but only absences from LSB meetings.  The 2004 motion was to fix this lacuna.  The October 20, 2006 amendment to the 2004 motion was just to make sure that people are notified before they are removed from a committee.  It still provides that three unexcused absences results in removal from a committee, but requires that before a removal can occur, after the second unexcused absence, a notification be made to the committee member involved.  So, if that announcement has not been made, the removal from the committee is illegitimate.

Yours,
Russell

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Melinda Iley-Dohn <iley...@yahoo.com> wrote:

2003 By-Laws online- http://kewg.org/bylaws/art5sec7.html

This is removal based on absences from the board meetings. What I want to
know is this. If this is a change to this rule, wouldn't this require a
vote to be done by all five of the stations to change the By-Laws rules
concerning attendance? It is my understanding that a vote of the PNB alone would not be sufficient to change the By-Laws.

 (2003 By-Laws web reference address- http://kewg.org/bylaws/art5sec7.html)

The following is the wording as found in the By-Laws.

Article Five, Board of Directors of the Foundation, Section 7: Removal of Directors

Consistent with applicable law, any Director shall be removed from the position of Director, and cease to be a Director upon the occurrence of any of the following:  (C) failure of a Director to attend three consecutive Board meetings, which absences have not been excused by a majority vote of the Directors present and voting at the meetings in question; (D) upon the fair and reasonable determination by a 2/3 vote of all the Directors on the Board (excluding the Director in question) after a review of the facts that said Director has exhibited conduct that is adverse to the best interests of the Foundation;

 
          

--- On Tue, 6/8/10, George Reiter <gre...@uh.edu> wrote:

> From: George Reiter <gre...@uh.edu>
> Subject: Re: [PNB_Elections:526] removal (or non-removal) of Elections comm.  members
> To: "Bill Crosier" <kp...@crosierbiomed.com>
> Cc: "Fred Klunder" <fredk...@gmail.com>, "Dan Siegel" <danms...@gmail.com>, "Manijeh Saba" <manije...@gmail.com>, pnb_el...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 8:27 PM

> This seems the appropriate action. I
> have listened to the tape, and there is no doubt the
> amendment passed. I will check with R Paul Martin, who has
> been the secretary of the governance committee for at least

> much of the last six years, to see if there was anything
> subsequent to the 2006 motion that came from the committee
> on this issue. 
> George
> On Jun 8, 2010, at 6:27 PM, Bill Crosier wrote:
>
> > Fred and Manijeh, please confirm that you got the
> message below (or this one), and please send me your phone
> numbers.  I hope you can join the conference call this
> evening -- you should have receieved the automatic reminders
> yesterday morning and this morning, too.
> >
> > I already spoke with Dan and he has a class tonight
> and is asking for an excused absence because of this.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > At 4:06 PM -0500 6/8/10, Bill Crosier wrote:
> >> I have not been able to reach George Reiter this
> afternoon, who was the person who told me that committee
> members were automatically off of the PNB committees if they
> missed more than three consecutive meetings, but I'll assume
> that the information that Russell sent is correct and that
> the amendment was approved by the PNB in 2006 as he stated
> in his e-mail.
> >>
> >> In this case, it sounds like Fred, Dan, and
> Manijeh are still on the committee, since we did not provide
> proper notice of their impending removal.  However, I
> want them and everyone to remember that we do need regular
> attendance in order to make quorum, avoid delaying the start
> of our meetings, and ensure that all LSB's have good
> representation.
> >>
> >> Fred, Dan, and Manijeh, please consider this
> notice of your impending removal from the Elections
> Committee due to excessive absences.  I hope you'll be
> able to join us tonight.  I'd like to ask the committee
> that until we get complete clarification on this, that we
> allow the person who was to replace Fred (Raymundo Raynoso)
> to participate in the meeting tonight, as I'm sure he was
> planning to do.
> >>
> >> If any committee members can't make any meeting,
> and have a good reason for it, please send the committee
> list a request for an excused absence and the committee can
> decide whether to accept it.
> >>
> >> I apologize for the confusion over this and thank
> those who have helped to bring me up to speed (at least I'm
> partly there) on awareness of PNB policies.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >>
> >> At 12:56 AM -0400 6/8/10, Russell Dale wrote:
> >>> June 7, 2010
> >>>
> >>> Dear Bill,
> >>>
> >>>   One issue that I hope can be
> addressed is the matter of the removal of Fred Klunder (and
> perhaps others) from the Elections Committee.  I
> understand that Fred was removed because of a PNB motion
> from October 2004 that provided that three unexcused
> absences should lead to removal of a member from a PNB
> committee.  However, an amendment to that motion was
> made in October 2006 (the October 20, 2006 meeting the audio
> of which is on the <http://kpftx.org>kpftx.org archive
> page and I have listened to).  I am attaching to this
> email a copy of the minutes from that meeting which I got
> from Bob Lederer who participated in that meeting, as well
> as an excerpt from the minutes that contains the amendment
> approved at that meeting.  The amendment reads:
> >>>

> >>>   The Governance Committee recommends

> >>>   that the PNB adopt a motion clarifying its

> >>>   October 2004 motion regarding committee

> >>>   member absences such that the provision

> >>>   on notification of the chairs of the PNB and

> >>>   relevant LSB regarding "any pending

> >>>   suspension" be invoked after TWO

> >>>   consecutive absences of the committee

> >>>   member in question, and also that the

> >>>   member him/herself be notified by phone

> >>>   and email at the same time.   Passed without

> >>>   objection.
> >>>
> >>> Thus, any person to be suspended must be
> contacted by phone AND email after the second of two
> consecutive unexcused absences.  If that did not happen
> in Fred Klunder's case, then he cannot properly be
> suspended.  If Fred was not properly suspended, I
> believe that he should be reinstated immediately.
> >>>
> >>> Probably this was just an oversight on the
> part of the committee due to the fact that there really is

> no repository where motions can be easily looked up,
> creating a sort of institutional blind-spot on the proper
> procedure here.  But, I believe that we can and should
> remedy the situation easily enough by reinstating Fred
> Klunder.
> >>>
> >>> I hope that this can be addressed at the very
> beginning of the meeting.  I will bring it up as a
> point of order, if you would like.  This should
> certainly be discussed.
> >>>
> >>> If you want to listen to the meeting of
> October 20, 2006 where the amendment was passed, download
> the file:
> >>>
> >>> <http://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb061020/pnb061020b.mp3>http://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb061020/pnb061020b.mp3
> >>>
> >>> and listen in starting about 15 minutes into
> the file.  Let me know if you have a problem finding
> the exact spot.
> >>>
> >>>   Also, I would like to make a
> motion that we make the limit for talk 2 minutes per person
> rather than 1 minute.  Can that be added to the agenda
> early on.  It should only take 5 minutes to decide the
> matter, I believe.
> >>>
> >>>   Thank you very much Bill.
> >>>
> >>> Yours,

> >>> Russell

-- 

Bill Crosier
kp...@crosierbiomed.com      713-641-4941
Support KPFT - Radio for Peace - 90.1 FM Houston   http://kpft.org
Progressive Action Alliance     http://progressiveactionalliance.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PNB Elections Committee" group.
To post to this group, send email to pnb_el...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pnb_election...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pnb_elections?hl=en.

[Bill Crosier]

Hi, Fred,

Yes, I agree the last minute notice yesterday was not sufficiently in advance to let you know of the meeting last night and in my opinion should not be counted against you, since we had earlier informed you (erroneously, due to not being aware of the 2006 amendment to the 2004 policy) that you were off of the committee.

However, if you miss the next one then the 3 consecutive absences will apply and you would then be off of the committee, since you missed the two meetings before last night, also, and now you have advance notice.

I hope you'll be able to join us at the next meeting, and thanks for your interest in the committee.

Bill

[fred klunder]

Bill,

 

Thank you for your notice of my continuing membership and advisement that I should consider myself to have missed two prior meetings. 

 

I do not see a response to the query in my prior email about the date and time of the next Elections Committee Meeting.  Please reply as soon as possible about it so that I can have the time to adjust my schedule if need be to ensure my much-desired attendance.

 

I look forward to the opportunity to work with you.

 

Regards,

 

Fred Klunder

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Bill Crosier <kp...@crosierbiomed.com> wrote:

Hi, Fred,

Yes, I agree the last minute notice yesterday was not sufficiently in advance to let you know of the meeting last night and in my opinion should not be counted against you, since we had earlier informed you (erroneously, due to not being aware of the 2006 amendment to the 2004 policy) that you were off of the committee.

However, if you miss the next one then the 3 consecutive absences will apply and you would then be off of the committee, since you missed the two meetings before last night, also, and now you have advance notice.

I hope you'll be able to join us at the next meeting, and thanks for your interest in the committee.

Bill

At 8:23 AM -0700 6/9/10, fred klunder wrote:

[Bill Crosier]

The next PNB Elections Committee meeting is on July 6 at 8:30 PM EDT.

All committee meetings are listed at http://www.kpftx.org/pacalendar/index.php and that is updated regularly as new meetings are scheduled or changed. If there is any change to the Elections Committee meetings, you and other members wil get an e-mail notice.

Bill

At 12:03 PM -0700 6/11/10, fred klunder wrote:
>Bill,
>
>Thank you for your notice of my continuing membership and advisement that I should consider myself to have missed two prior meetings.
>
>I do not see a response to the query in my prior email about the date and time of the next Elections Committee Meeting. Please reply as soon as possible about it so that I can have the time to adjust my schedule if need be to ensure my much-desired attendance.
>
>I look forward to the opportunity to work with you.
>
>Regards,
>
>Fred Klunder
>

>On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Bill Crosier <<mailto:kp...@crosierbiomed.com>kp...@crosierbiomed.com> wrote:
>
>Hi, Fred,
>
>Yes, I agree the last minute notice yesterday was not sufficiently in advance to let you know of the meeting last night and in my opinion should not be counted against you, since we had earlier informed you (erroneously, due to not being aware of the 2006 amendment to the 2004 policy) that you were off of the committee.
>
>However, if you miss the next one then the 3 consecutive absences will apply and you would then be off of the committee, since you missed the two meetings before last night, also, and now you have advance notice.
>
>I hope you'll be able to join us at the next meeting, and thanks for your interest in the committee.
>
>Bill
>
>
>At 8:23 AM -0700 6/9/10, fred klunder wrote:
>
>>Bill and All:
>>
>
>
>It's Wednesday morning at the office as I first see a secretarial note of a 16:47 phone call from you and read your emails of yesterday on this Pacifica-specific Gmail account inviting me to yesterday's PNB Elections Committee.
>
> The invitation of yesterday afternoon follows your earlier summary dismissal of me, to which I objected in several emails, and of two others from the Committee for allegedly violating a rule for automatic removal after three consequitive absences.
>
> I was not in the office at the time of your call and typically go to this Gmail account, one of many email accounts I maintain, first thing in the morning. As a result of the dismissal, yesterday's meeting was not on my calendar. And I was unaware of your apparent reversal of your decision and your invitation to me and two othes to attend until this moment.
>
>Am I correct in understanding that I remain a member of the Committee at this time as I believe should properly be the case? If so, please advise why not. If so, please advise with appropriate advance notice when the next meeting will be.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Fred Klunder
>
>

[Renee Bowser]

When is the next Elections Committee meeting?  I was out of the country from June 7 through June 13.

Thanks,
Renee Bowser
WPFW LSB Chair

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Bill Crosier <kp...@crosierbiomed.com> wrote:

Hi, Fred,

Yes, I agree the last minute notice yesterday was not sufficiently in advance to let you know of the meeting last night and in my opinion should not be counted against you, since we had earlier informed you (erroneously, due to not being aware of the 2006 amendment to the 2004 policy) that you were off of the committee.

However, if you miss the next one then the 3 consecutive absences will apply and you would then be off of the committee, since you missed the two meetings before last night, also, and now you have advance notice.

I hope you'll be able to join us at the next meeting, and thanks for your interest in the committee.

Bill

At 8:23 AM -0700 6/9/10, fred klunder wrote:

-- 

Bill Crosier
kp...@crosierbiomed.com      713-641-4941
Support KPFT - Radio for Peace - 90.1 FM Houston   http://kpft.org
Progressive Action Alliance     http://progressiveactionalliance.org

[Renee Bowser]

Is there any progress on setting the automatic PNB notice to give an additional day's notice??

Renee

[Bill Crosier]

(I changed the subject line.)

The next PNB Elections Committee meeting is July 6.

All PNB committee meetings are listed at http://kpftx.org/pacalendar/index.php so save that for future reference. Or just go to http://kpftx.org (this is the web site that Otis Maclay maintains, and which also has audio archives of meetings) and click on the "Link to Pacifica Calendar".

re: your other question about more advance notice/reminder from the automated system (which uses the kpftx calendar): I asked Otis about that and will follow up -- don't know yet if it's easy to change the first reminder date.

Bill

At 1:28 PM -0400 6/14/10, Renee Bowser wrote:
>When is the next Elections Committee meeting? I was out of the country from June 7 through June 13.
>
>Thanks,
>Renee Bowser
>WPFW LSB Chair
>