<div><br></div><div><br></div>I concur with BC in that the syndicated NPR direction was a " conservative" choice. It was the direction John C chose after realizing the station was in such a bad way financially. BC is also correct when he says the locally produced programs are more time intensive to produce and requires dealing with radio personality types, which presents a variety of unknown factors,drama etc. I believe this is the reason we have seen more NPR etc. over the last six years.<div>
<br></div><div>To clarify. The PAC is a programmer advisory committee, created by the board to make programming decisions by consensus. The CAB is the community advisory board which is mandated by the CPB in prefer for us to receive their funding. The CAB is charged with gathering pertinent information from the community.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I agree with Tim that the failure of the original PAC was largely due to its lack of "teeth." When it was developed under GM Belinda Carlyle it was assumed that the committee would work through the consensus of the group. After John C became manager the interpretation of the language changed so that the "consensus" was merely "advisory." One member of the PAC described to me how "the air went out of the tire" for the group when this decision was made. Why have an advisory PAC when the station already has a CAB? </div>
<div><br></div><div>I am not stuck on the current incarnation of the PAC. As Tim suggested, perhaps a smaller committee would be more functional. I have always felt the programming committee would work best if at least some, if not most or all, were elected directly by the membership. Could you imagine having this classic NPR argument on air and a membership vote which directly determined how much NPR we heard? Such elections, with results resulting in real change, would undoubtably increase participation in the elections and turn them into something the members would really care about. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I do not wish to belittle the music programming or the effort made but my major emphasis is on the public affairs programming because this most directly relates to the radio stations ability to facilitate political dialogue ensuring free speech to minority groups. I think the concern, at least from my point of view, is that minority groups are not fully represented and KZYX is not entirely fulfilling this important aspect of its mission. Also, it seems from survey evidence that people in our community would like to hear more local talk. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I don't think the issue with having one person choosing programming with no transparency requirements is not so much one of trust as one of information. I think the members as well as those applying for programs deserve a transparent process so we see what program choices are available, and get to know potential programmers as they learn more about what it takes to be on the radio. Also, when a program idea is turned down, but the potential volunteer does not know why and sees no formal process utilized and has no recourse to a second opinion about their program pitch, they tend to feel alienated. I think staff should at least be required to write a formal communication explaining why a program idea has been denied. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I have spoken with two people recently who applied for shows but were declined. Also, the impetus behind Kathrine Massay's letter to the FCC was caused by the way her proposal for an art history program was dismissed. I knew a guy who wanted to host a variety show on KZYX. He had just retired here from Santa Cruz where he had hosted an award winning variety show on Public Access TV in the Bay Area. Mary did not like the idea. He called me for years to see if anything had changed but even as a board member I had to tell him there was nothing I could do.</div>
<div><br></div><div>These people deserve some kind of a process, and if a program idea is turned down, I think it would be good to give the potential volunteer other avenues of volunteer service that may eventually lead to a program. Bring them into the fold and see if they might become better suited for a program in the future. </div>
<div><br></div><div>This whole issue has been my top priority for the station since before my time on the board and is the reason why I have always advocated for the PAC or any other form of transparency in the program decision making process. I believe that the lack of transparency in this area is the root cause of almost all the conflict at KZYX over the last ten years, up to and including the recent crisis. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The truth is nobody but staff knows how many and who has applied for what kind of program for a long time. Staff tells us it is hard to find good people who are qualified and willing to volunteer the time. They are concerned about producing "bad radio" and ensuring that the production value of each program produced adheres to certain standards.</div>
<div><br></div><div>These notions are entirely rational, considering aforementioned demographic changes ect. but I have been concerned that staff has set the quality bar too high and has done so at the expense of content. I have felt that interesting and diverse content should be prioritized over production value (content is free, production value usually costs money) but that runs the risk of sounding hoky and unprofessional. For me PV vs. content is like the yin/yang of audio production, we need to find the balance that works for us. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks again for this discussion, your feedback is really helping me clarify and express my ideas in a way that is productive, though I really should get back to work.....</div><div><br></div><div>Doug</div>
<div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div><div> <br><br>On Tuesday, May 20, 2014, Diane Paget <<a href="mailto:dpaget@mcn.org">dpaget@mcn.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
No, I probably have the name wrong.<br>
<br>
Diane<br>
<br>
<br>
Liz Helenchild wrote:<br>
> Diane,<br>
><br>
> Your history & analysis thereof clangs a gong with me.<br>
> Do you mean SAB (Station Advisory Board) is something other than the<br>
> CAB (Community Advisory Board)?<br>
><br>
> Peace,<br>
><br>
> Liz<br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> *From:* Diane Paget <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'dpaget@mcn.org')">dpaget@mcn.org</a>><br>
> *To:* <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org')">kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 18, 2014 3:36 PM<br>
> *Subject:* Re: [Kzyxtalk] Local vs syndication<br>
><br>
> A lot of what Doug says in this post reflects my experience of the<br>
> station since it first went on the air. I used to be a very active KZYX<br>
> volunteer, hosted a month public affairs segment for a while, helped my<br>
> kids host Rubber Biscuit, wrote and tallied the first two listener<br>
> surveys, helped in pledge drives. Then my life got busy and I didn't<br>
> have as much volunteer time. When that kind of time returned to my life,<br>
> I went back to see if I could help the station out again and found the<br>
> atmosphere much more defensive and less welcoming to volunteers. I'm<br>
> still a member because I do listen sometimes and I wouldn't want to go<br>
> back to what it was like before KZYX, but I listen a lot more to KPFA<br>
> and give them more money because I like their programming better.<br>
><br>
> One of the things that has changed in the past 25 years is the<br>
> demographics of KZYX's listeners. In 1990 a greater percentage of the<br>
> station's members were people who moved here in the 70's and 80's as<br>
> young hippies, back to the landers, political activists and mom and pop<br>
> pot growers -- the kind of folks who like the homemade feel of locally<br>
> produced community radio. As more baby boomers have retired or<br>
> semi-retired here from urban areas and university towns, where they were<br>
> accustomed to NPR type public radio stations, there is more acceptance<br>
> of (and maybe even a preference for) syndicated shows. Unfortunately<br>
> those folks who have moved here from the city in the past 15 years have<br>
> lots more money to contribute to the station than those of us who have<br>
> lived here since the 70s. So if you are running the station as a<br>
> business or even if you are just trying to pay off a lot of debt, there<br>
> is going to be a tendency to let the money speak. But the station<br>
> started in debt and paid off that debt while providing lots more local<br>
> (and edgy -- don't forget the Beth Bosk had a show for years)<br>
> programming and half an hour of locally produced news.<br>
><br>
> A PAC might be able to address the problem of local vs. syndicated<br>
> programming if it had the authority to make decisions and there was a<br>
> mechanism in place to ensure that the members of the committee were<br>
> representative of the membership of the station. The recently restarted<br>
> Station Advisory Board members seem to have been hand picked by members<br>
> of the Board and maybe the staff. If there isn't a fair, transparent<br>
> process for selecting the members of the PAC, it could be just window<br>
> dressing.<br>
><br>
> Doug, do you know if the FCC regs or the station By Laws say anything<br>
> about one? What does the current board policy that created the<br>
> Programming Advisory Committee say about how it will be selected and<br>
> what its powers would be?<br>
><br>
> The PAC has come and gone over the years. It would be interesting to<br>
> look at that history and see why it failed, when it did.<br>
><br>
> Diane<br>
><br>
><br>
> doug mckenty wrote:<br>
> > Tim,<br>
> > I am glad that you have been enlightened as to this issue as it has<br>
> > been central for me for some time. As the host of Open Lines, I have<br>
> > heard this complaint for years. That KZYX is going too NPR, too<br>
> > pre-recorded, not enough locally produced material etc. The surveys<br>
> > the CAB has put out for years have showed at least 50% of the<br>
> > listening audience want to hear more "community" radio and even<br>
> > surveys of our own membership (whom theoretically like the current<br>
> > programming) show that only about half of them are hardcore NPR fans<br>
> > and the other half would still like to hear less canned material and<br>
> > more locally produced content.<br>
> ><br>
> > Nonetheless, over the last ten years KZYX has severely reduced this<br>
> > type of content. Because the programming decision making process is<br>
> > not transparent, nobody but staff knows who has applied for what kind<br>
> > of shows. I have spoken in the past with many who applied for a<br>
> > program but were never contacted afterwards (over the years I have<br>
> > personally witnessed this about six or seven times and suspect that<br>
> > there are others out there). Also, our community currently has no<br>
> > ability to affect programming decisions at KZYX so while these<br>
> > complaints and surveys have shown us that more "community" radio would<br>
> > be beneficial to the station, the communities ideas have no way to<br>
> > translate into actual > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Kzyxtalk mailing list<br>
> <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org')">Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Kzyxtalk mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org')">Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>