[Kzyxtalk] Fwd: All points of view

[doug mckenty]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *doug mckenty* <dougmck at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, February 14, 2014
Subject: All points of view
To: "Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org" <Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org>


I hope this works as I have had trouble getting all the communications off
KZYXtalk.

Ok, to address what Rick has said,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Doug McKenty.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/kzyxtalk/attachments/20140214/38f6875e/attachment.html