<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b>doug mckenty</b> <<a href="mailto:dougmck@gmail.com">dougmck@gmail.com</a>><br>Date: Friday, February 14, 2014<br>Subject: All points of view<br>To: "<a href="mailto:Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org">Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org">Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a>><br>
<br><br>I hope this works as I have had trouble getting all the communications off KZYXtalk.<div><br></div><div>Ok, to address what Rick has said, </div><div><br></div><div>Is their fire in all this smoke? First, what is pissing people off so much that they would feel compelled to write to the FCC to complain? Why is the atmosphere at the radio station so contentious that at least some people are mad enough that they would rather see the station shut down than continue? I volunteered around the station for over seven years and was on the board of directors for two years and will tell you I completely understand why this group of people are this pissed off. They are not listened to. One thing a community radio station should be good at...listening and KZYX fails miserably at this. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The Mission Statement for MCPB states that the station should "give access to all points of view." Well, as the host of Open Lines I will tell you that those who called the show disagreeing with the choices of staff were called " the crazies." Is this what you would call good listening skills? After years of being treated like this some of them finally wrote the FCC to complain. While I wish it had never come to this, I cannot say I blame them. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Some of these "crazies" decided to come to board meetings to find out how they could influence the station in a way where there criticisms could be amicably heard. What they found was a complete disaster. For years, the board has not been following the bylaws nor any of the policies outlined by prior boards. Many of these policies were designed protect minority voices. With no elections committee, the GM has been choosing board members that agree with him. His belief is that he should have total control over what is aired on KZYX. He has never listened to the advice of the Community Advisory Board when it was functional, nor helped to facilitate its creation when it was not. If you like what he likes, you will be happy with this arrangement. If you don't, your voice will not be heard. This frustrates many people.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The NPR vs. locally produced, independant media dichotomy is as old as public radio itself. Every public radio station has this argument. Currently, management and staff are very pro NPR. As a board member, I witnessed the frustrated CAB discussing how many people they talked to who didn't like NPR. These people were sidelined as "a small but vocal minority." This term, along with "crazy" has been used many times over the years to describe those who disagree with staffs programming decisions. It was actually discussed at a board meeting that we needed to seek out he "silent majority" among "business leaders" and the like, to show that staffs programming decisions appeal to the apparently vast majority of county residents who are pro NPR. Problem is, all the surveys that I have analyzed, and all the old board members I have talked to agree, show about 50% of the county thinks KZYX players way too much NPR. There is no clear majority here, no matter how much staff wants there to be. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Staff loves NPR so much that they have told the volunteers they are not allowed to criticize NPR on the air. In other words, dialogue about the viability of this news source is censored as NPR is considered the stations point of view. Even if NPR was the desired news source of a clear majority of the county, should KZYX actively censor the minority perspective? </div>
<div><br></div><div>Because staff had not prioritized the production of local news, they have taken to asking volunteer programmers to do this job for them. This was an idea given to them at an NPR conference in San Fransisco about three years ago. The idea is that NPR has national news covered, no need to produce alternative voices. All station volunteers should cover local news. All volunteer programmers are independant contractors (or they would be if the Station Handbook was followed). This is done to avoid liability issues that come up if these volunteers were treated legally as employees of the station. They produce their own shows and staff cannot (or at least isn't supposed to) micromanage the programs content. Rather than producing their own local news show, which they could do using all volunteer labor, staff has chosen to impose this idea that local programming must be local, by forcing the volunteers to produce programs about local topics. National topics, especially those with view alternative to NPR, are strongly discouraged. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Despite the board policy that programming be chosen by a consensus of the Program Advisory Committee, staff has decided they would rather make all programming choices themselves, including all volunteer programs. They make these choices without the required written testimony describing why programming choices were made. In other words, when a volunteer approaches them with an idea for a show, they can, and do, blow them off without even writing them as to why their program was not selected. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Staff, opting not to utilize the PAC as directed by the board, went so far as to unilaterally remove the policy paper concerning this committee from the documentation given to new board members. This was illegal and represents in my mind the takeover (literally theft) of the station by staff, circumventing the board which is supposed to represent the will of the membership. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Board members, as John Sakowitz understands, are bound by a legal term known as due diligence. This means that board members must be able to show that they have at least tried to follow the law to the best of their ability. If they cannot show this in court, they are personally liable for losses incurred by the station. Currently, due to the actions of staff in regard to the PAC and other flagrant violations of station policy by the current board, any member (and probably any listener) could sue the station and win. This is not smoke, this is fire. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Upon discovery of the missing PAC documents, I went to the board and begged them to do something about it. John Sacowitz was the only one who tried to make a change. May I remind you that all the other board members have been personally chosen by GM John Coate in the absence of the required elections committee. Interestingly, I was treated by other board members as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" and a member of a "small but vocal minority." </div>
<div><br></div><div>While I think it unfortunate that some people felt it necessary to go to the FCC with this information, I do not blame them. I understand their frustration. In the case of John S., he is legally culpable. He is in a situation where he may need to prove in court that he was duly diligent, even when the rest of the board was not.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Doug McKenty. </div>
<br>