WPFW Local Station Board Elections

[Jane Gatewood]

Open Letter Regarding WPFW Local Station Board Elections   TO:                Arlene Englehardt, Executive Director of The Pacifica Foundation                         and all members of The Pacifica National Board   FROM:          Jane Gatewood, Listener-member WPFW                         and current member and secretary of our Local Station Board   DATE:            August 10, 2010 I am writing today to ask you to take one small step toward better governance for WPFW and for the Pacifica network. I am writing to ask you to allow WPFW to manage its own election this year in a way that honors the intent of the bylaws and will build capacity, rather than drain it. In the elections now underway for 13 seats on WPFW’s local station board, which must be filled in December, we currently have 4 candidates for 4 staff positions and 11 candidates for 9 listener positions. Filling this year’s seats is the easy part. If you agree to this proposal, I am reasonably confident that two of this year’s listener member candidates will be happy to voluntarily take a back seat, waiting to fill vacancies that will certainly arise between now and the next scheduled elections in 2012. If (beyond the scope of my imagination) there are no volunteers, I think it would be reasonable to ask the seated members to elect the 13 seats through an STV election. Tell our NES that she has no further work to do with regards to WPFW’s election and tell our LES that we thank her for her efforts, but that her services are no longer needed. [If there is any question about breach of contract, I hope you will consult with me before you determine the best course of action. I have a list of what I consider to be specific errors and omissions, although not having seen the contract, I do not know if they carry any weight] Whatever small pot of money is saved through these measures, give this to our LSB to spend on a consultant to work with us on building our capacity to govern. Let us use it to prepare our first annual report to members – providing them avenues for ongoing involvement in the work of our board. PLEASE KNOW that the paltry response to the call for candidates at our station does not reflect disinterest on the part of our members, nor does it reflect any shortcoming in the promotion for these positions. Our programmers have dutifully delivered the call for candidates with passion and professionalism. I have personally made countless appeals to individual programmers and volunteers who I know possess valuable skills and experiences that would help our board do the work it is charged to do. The lack of candidates is quite simply a reflection of (a) a high level of awareness of Pacifica’s failed governance structure, and (b) an understanding of the critical nature of work left undone by our boards in past years. The following message I received in response to one of my appeals for candidates is representative of the latter: Jane, While I appreciate your confidence.  There are too many unanswered questions about the status of WPFW for me to want to be on the board.  There are simply too many unanswered questions and issues to be resolved, ie. the firing of the interim GM and complete financial disclosure to the programmers.  I do not think it is fair to ask someone to be a part of a body that is in such disarray.  I have served on boards before, in fact I serve on a couple at this time.  I am a bottom line, goal oriented person.  I am not a beaurocrat-I hate meetings and I am not very patient with people.  The situation is so timultuous at the station, some things could have legal implications.  I for one do not want that kind of exposure.  I will do all that I can to bring pressure to bear from the outside.  It would not be beneficial for me to half heartedly sit on that board.  In all honesty I think the elections should be postponed until many unreselved issues at WPFW are resolved. Put bluntly, these issues are enough to scare away most people with a modicum of common sense. Fortunately, there are several handsful of talented individuals that value our station so much that they are willing to risk their own personal well-being to find solutions. I can tell you that I feel very privileged to be sitting among a group of these people that are currently sitting on our local station board. PLEASE KNOW - WPFW has everything it takes to solve the problems we are facing and more! Well beyond the richness of our Jazz expertise, we have a wealth of people steeped in experience and knowledge of people’s movements as well as culture and the arts. We have people who know about participatory democracy and who know how to work effectively in organizations to achieve common objectives. We can do more that solve our own problems, we have the capacity to serve as a flagship for the Pacifica network while you work on major structural repairs at some of our other stations.  I suspect that KPFT may be prepared to watch our back if we were allowed to take on this challenge. But first we need to build our capacity for good governance at a local level and, quite honestly, we cannot do any of this within the current system of governance that has been imposed by our new Bylaws. It is clear to me from having been involved with the drafting of these bylaws that the intent was to provide an appropriate role for local control over the governance of each station. The actual effect has been the creation of a massive interlocking of national and local committees that have formed a virtual Gordian knot, making it impossible for us to do what needs to be done and stealing unconscionable volumes of precious time from people of good will who want to get some work done. Put bluntly, our current governance system guarantees that ignorant people with an ax to grind will be able to trump competency and common sense 9 times out of 10. The current lack of candidates in WPFW’s elections is an opportunity for Pacifica to begin the process of finding lasting solutions for our network. Please seize this moment and make it so.

[Shawn Casey O'Brien]

Dear Ms. Gatewood,

I can not thank you enough for your brave and blunt proposal.  Know there are real problems with these elections all across the network, due in large part to our dysfunctional bylaws, as well as a dearth of experience on the part of all the LES' and what appears to be a less than autonomous NES. 

I currently have a motion buried on the PNB agenda to suspend these elections for 45 to 60 days in order to reorganize them.  Perhaps we can facilitate each other's mission.  But, again like you, I really wonder if anything can be done until we have, that which appears to be much more seriously needed --  A Bylaws convention.  

As this is an open letter to the PNB, I've forwarded it to the Board.

Thank you again and please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Shawn Casey O'Brien

KPFK Staff Rep & PNB member

--
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.
<Open letter to Pacifica ED and PNB.pdf>

[Jan Goodman]

If two people resigned from running , then it seems that cancelling the election would be an intelligent thing to do.  However, if there are 111 people running for 9 seats, then the membership needs to vote.
It would be against the by-laws and the intent of the by-laws for the present board to elect the next one, so, despite the cost savings, the election would need to be held.
Jan Goodman
(310) 458-7213 or (310) 729-2394

[Jane Gatewood]

Point of Clarification One of our 11 listener candidates is involved in an outstanding dispute with our station concerning wages not paid for work he says he performed under direction of our management staff. This individual, who has been a long-time dedicated volunteer at our station, is also suffering from extreme problems in his personal life that have sparked several violent outbursts in recent months. I am wondering, is this gentleman technically qualified to run under these conditions? Thanks in advance for any clarification you can provide on this point. Regardless of the answer however, I would suggest that our governance system is doing him a grave disservice to place him in a position that he cannot possibly contribute to in an effective way. To my knowledge, the only reason he is running for a seat on the board is because he wants to make certain that others will not suffer mistreatment similar to what he has felt.

[Renee Bowser]

Jane:

I had not read this email until now when it was pointed out to me.  Of course, you are entitled to your opinion.  However, when you make statements which can be proved true or false and when you make comments which contain implied facts, you may be subject to a defamation claim if your statements or implied statements are false or made negligently.  Before speaking, you need to have facts behind a statement that an individual is "suffering from extreme problems" and has engaged in "several violent outbursts in recent months."  If you do not have first hand knowledge or a reliable source, you should think twice before impugning another person's character or reputation.  Remember, if the person is not a public figure, you can be subject to liability without a showing of "actual malice;" the standard of liability for defaming a non-public figure, is usually a negligence standard.  You may have meant no harm; however, harm can come from negligently tossed statements without a proper factual basis.  Also, remember that placing a statement in the form of a question does not protect a speaker from liability for defamation.

Renee

[Jane Gatewood]

Points well taken Renee, thanks for these precautions, which I had not thought of. While my intent was to inquire about the larger issues, not the individual, I can see where concerns for the individual need to come first. --- On Mon, 8/23/10, Renee Bowser <scat...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Shawn Casey O'Brien]

Excuse me.  Ms. Gatewood did not name or single out anyone in this email, so no one was defamed, and her opinions are totally proper, whether you agree with them or not.

Also a person running in an election - any election - is, in fact, a public person, and as such is open to a higher level criticism and concern.

Renee's comments here amount to a gag rule - plain and simple.

Shawn

[Manijeh Saba]

Dear Ms Gatewood,

I learned from your original letter and appreciate your candid writing and attempt to find a solution to the problem at WPFW.  However, I find discussion of a third party's personal concerns, even in sympathy, highly inappropriate and objectionable.

Regards,
Manijeh Saba
WBAI-LSB

--
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.

--
NOTICE: Due to Bush's Presidential Executive Orders and President Obama’s refusal to rescind it, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice, and certainly without probable cause. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight.  Urge the Congress to legislate against this Executive Order and demand investigation of G. W. Bush.

[Renee Bowser]

Shawn:

Your statement that "Ms. Gatewood did not name or single out anyone in this email, so no one was defamed" demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the law of defamation.  One can bring a successful claim of defamation even though the alleged defamed party was not named.  If from all the information contained in the piece, the individual can be identified and the other elements of defamation are met, a party can succeed in his/her claim even if s/he was not actually named.  Going further, your other comment indicates your lack of knowledge as well.  A person may be a public figure but only for certain purposes.  Just running for a community local station board, I would wager, hardly makes a person a public figure for broad purposes.  Even if the person is a public figure, one cannot say anything one wants to say.  If the plaintiff proves that the statement was false or the speaker acted in reckless disregard as to whether the statement was false, there can be liability even as regards a public figure.

Secondly, discussing what constitutes defamation for non-public figures does not constitute a gag rule unless you're saying the state laws of defamation constitute gag rules.  I base my knowledge on study of the law of defamation, being a part of defending a major case containing defamation claims as well as consulting with defamation experts on various potential defamation issues.
 
Renee

[Shawn Casey O'Brien]

You don't even meet your own standard.  From what I read below, it wouldn't stick as she could be talking about any number of the candidates, particularly in the political hot house that is Pacifica.  

Like it or not, a candidate is a public figure and questions of temperament and judgement are fair game.  I'll stand by argument, that your "advice" here amounts to a gag rule - thank you very much.

Shawn