[Kzyxtalk] Kzyxtalk Digest, Vol 23, Issue 16

[Doug McKenty]

Tim,

I hear where you are coming from. Sake makes a great target and his often inflammatory remarks turn people off. Having said that, Why has it been so difficult for me to get folks to talk about the real issues. 

The facts are that KZYX has lost 150k a year in revenue and 30% if it's membership over the last decade. We're these people still members I think I would have one a seat on the board by a hearty margin. 

The facts are that the station does not operate according to the bylaws or policy papers passed by prior boards. These are difficult issues to discuss because the policy papers are not publicly available and members who have asked for them are forced to sue to get them.  

Also, staff makes it extremely difficult to discuss these issues on the radio, and programmers who have attempted to democratize the process have lost there programs or left voluntarily because they don't want to work under these conditions. 

People who attempt to democratize the station are prevented from joining the CAB and other important committees, including the recent search committee.  

At this point, even those board members who have attempted to follow past policies are having a hard time finding "acceptable" volunteers to help.  

There is evidence to show that a handful of people have taken control of our communities' radio station who actively work to exclude other voices.   

The fact is that without a 85% increase in the subsidy from the CPB, KZYX would have gone out of business five years ago.  Yet nobody seems to care. Everybody seems more interested in fighting than in coming together to figure out why the station has lost so much community support. 

Most people don't even know the station has lost this support. Why?

This is crazy.  

Doug

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 13, 2015, at 11:04 PM, Tim Gregory <tgregory at saber.net> wrote:
> 
> ha, sheila...when did you start policing what is ad hominem v. what is a most apt
> analogy--did norman ask you? john maybe? or just volunteering?
> 
> at this stage my animosity to your failed group sedition/sabotage/calumny is at low
> ebb...just sad the tarbaby has co-opted so many well-meaning folk for 'his' causes,
> 'his' team strategies, to tilt at whichever windmill he chooses next...
> 
> meanwhile, i'll let the process fail, but i won't fore-doom it with you. if it does,
> i will gladly discuss the process and possible remedies in hindsight, though.
> ---
> 
> 
> Please put your personal animosity and insults aside to work on the issues and the
> process which if anything is tarred, it is certainly that.
>   Sheila Dawn
> 
> Tim Gregory <tgregory at saber.net> wrote:
> 
>> i'd like to know what solvent you use to remove tar after touching the tarbaby,
>> jim,
>> but i think j sako is best discussed as something on a petri dish: abnormal growth
>> on healthy [t]issues...
>> ---
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 11, 2015, at 12:00 PM, kzyxtalk-request at lists.mcn.org wrote:
>>> 
>>> I represent the 35% of our membership who voted for reform in the last board
>>> elections.
>> 
>> How did you arrive at the conclusion that you speak for the minority of the KZYX
>> membership who voted for the board candidates who were soundly defeated in the last
>> election?
>> 
>> The phrase “self coronation” comes to mind.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kzyxtalk mailing list
>> Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kzyxtalk mailing list
>> Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk
> _______________________________________________
> Kzyxtalk mailing list
> Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Kzyxtalk mailing list
> Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk