[Kzyxtalk] Proposals for MCPB-KZYX Election and Board Policies

[Dr Richard Louis Miller]

Dear Dennis:

I have been thinking about publicly  informing  the KZYX  Board of
Directors that unless they are willing to meet monthly and also immediately
establish the PAC along with standard Board committees (finance, planning,
fund raising, etc),  they ought to all resign in an orderly fashion.

The Board's  unwillingness to act like a real Board is a disgrace to our
community and make a travesty of our important community station.

Your thoughts?

Richard


Richard Louis Miller, M.A., Ph.D.
Clinical Psychology
Wikipedia: Dr Richard Louis Miller
Wikipedia: Wilbur Hot Springs
MindBodyHealthPolitics.org
Psychepedia.org





On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:48 AM, <dennisobrien at sharejerusalem.com> wrote:

> To the MCPB/KZYX Board of Directors:
>
> Below is my reply concerning the proposals for amending the Election and
> Board Policies.  I am sending this to each director to make sure it can be
> considered before next week's meeting, as there have been reports that the
> public is unable to reach the full board using the address on the website,
> i.e., that the communications are being "filtered".  Unfortunately, I will
> be having minor surgery on my back that day and will be unable to attend.
> If anyone has any questions or wishes to discuss the proposals, please
> contact me.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dennis O'Brien
> Member
>
> The following proposals were sent to MCPB/KZYX Board of Directors on
> September 23, 2015, asking for specific changes to the written Policies and
> Procedures for the Board and for Elections.  The responses by Board
> President Meg Courtney are in italics, followed by my replies.  The first
> six proposals concern elections, the last six communications.  They will be
> presented to the full board for possible action at the November 2 meeting.
>
> 1.  Allow members who join in January and February to vote in the election
> that year by *extending the deadline for voting eligibility from December
> 31 to February 28* (the list is certified March 1).
>
> *This is problematic. It takes Diane a fair amount of time to come up with
> a complete and accurate list of members who are eligible to vote. Neither
> our membership database (Donor Perfect) nor our accounting systems are set
> up so that we can get that information with just a few mouse clicks. There
> are quite a few parameters to consider, and it takes consultation with the
> staff to make sure that all volunteers are included. So, practically
> speaking, we could not delay the process as long as Dennis suggests and
> still have time to get the list, create the mail merge for the letters,
> ballots, etc., order the printing of all the materials (envelopes,
> different colored paper, etc.) and get this all put together in a timely
> way to meet the timings for the candidate forum and voting window. It just
> seems like a lot of work & disruption for dubious benefit.*
>
> Although the logistics of maintaining a membership database must always be
> considered, it is difficult to imagine that any of the tasks that you
> describe would take two months to complete.  Given proper management, all
> of the information could be entered and ready to finalize at the end of
> February, with perhaps the addition of a few last-minute memberships.  Not
> having an automated database that can do this instantly suggests that our
> current data storage system needs to be reviewed and possibly replaced.
>
> Even if the above tasks cannot be automated, it would not take more than a
> week to manually prepare a list.  Thus there is no reason that the deadline
> for becoming a member-eligible-to-vote should be any earlier than February
> 21.  This would not create any additional work, as all the memberships need
> to be input anyway.  And it would not be a disruption to work, as there is
> plenty of time between now and then to spread out the necessary tasks.
>
> Nor are the benefits “dubious”.  By generating more interest in the
> station, its policies, and the candidates for the board, the later
> eligibility date will increase total memberships and increase member
> participation/engagement in station governance.  Both of these goals are
> enshrined in our bylaws and in the laws/regulations that govern membership
> nonprofits and public radio stations.
>
> 2.  *Publicly announce the availability of Simple Living and Volunteer
> memberships* during the election period, including the winter membership
> pledge drive and the January mailing to the members.
>
> *Both of these get announced at various times and places. We do not want
> to make a big deal out of either one, because frankly, we are seeking
> higher paying memberships. People tend to give what is asked for.  There
> really is no good reason to make it more public than it already is, and
> certainly not announce it in print mailings or during a pledge drive when
> we are trying to maximize our income.*
>
> This is a moral question for the board and the organization.  By your
> statement, you are placing the bottom line ahead of the fulfillment of the
> individual listener and maximum public involvement in public radio.  For
> many of us, that is simply wrong.  It is certainly contrary to our bylaws
> and regulations which encourage us to maximize public participation.  In
> addition, your assumption that announcing the simple living and volunteer
> memberships will reduce income is unsupported by any statistics.  We may
> very well increase income from having more members, enough to offset any
> who choose to pay the lower amount.  Having more members on the books will
> also encourage funding sources like the CPB to increase funding.  Finally,
> a station that is honest and open about its member’s options is more likely
> to retain a core of loyal members.  There’s a lot to be said for the
> economic benefit of doing things morally right.  If we at least tried it
> for a year and compared the results the board could make a more informed
> decision.
>
> 3.  *Facilitate communication between candidates and the media/public* by
> asking candidates for their email addresses and permission to disclose to
> any media or other person/group seeking to contact them.
>
> *Because people are running for election to a non-profit Board does not
> make them public figures, necessarily, nor eliminate their right to some
> privacy. Anyone who really wanted to get in touch with a candidate could do
> so through the office, and I see no reason to make this change. What is the
> real benefit to the station?*
>
> During last year’s election, when the media contacted the station in order
> to contact the candidates, management refused to provide contact
> information.  Therefore, your statement that the media “could do so through
> the office” is historically inaccurate.  Asking candidates for their
> permission to release contact information addresses any privacy concerns.
> Indeed, if it is really your position that the media/public can get this
> information from the office, then you MUST obtain permission from the
> candidates to release it.  The real benefit to the station is an increase
> in public awareness and participation, and an increase in information for
> members to make an informed vote.  These serve the goals of increased
> membership and member engagement, as noted above.
>
> 4.  *Provide written notice of the annual membership meeting* with the
> election materials.
>
> *Sure, we could add that into the letter, and/or on the ballot.*
>
> Thank you very much for agreeing to do so.  Two years ago, when I pointed
> out that such notice was required by state law, the then-President and
> General Manager spent a lot of time and energy in opposition.  In order to
> make sure that future boards/staff do things properly, I again ask that you
> memorialize this decision by amending our Election Policy.
>
> 5.  *Prohibit use of the organization's resources by board and staff for
> campaigning* for or against any board candidate.
>
> *In principle, there is no problem with this. However, would it prohibit
> staff from expressing their preferences in private emails or on phone calls
> to members they happen to know. It would be impossible to sort out the
> source of that contact information. We could prohibit any staff member from
> using our database to look up a member’s contact information in DPO for
> purposes of campaigning, but the GM, for instance, has lots of member’s
> contact information in their personal phone and personal email address
> book. Some is gotten from them personally, but some is a result of station
> business, and there is no way of making a determination of which source.
> The staff all use their personal phones to conduct station business,
> because our business phone costs for local calls are so high, and it saves
> us money to use personal phones that have unlimited talk & text time.*
>
> This proposal would have no effect on an individual’s use of their own
> phone or email account, even if people use their personal resources for
> station business.  It is directed only at the use of the station’s media
> resources, including its internal email lists.  If “the organization's
> resources” is too vague, then I request a specific prohibition against the
> use of internal email lists for campaigning.  It is the hidden campaigning,
> under the guise of official communication, that is the problem.  Such a
> limited prohibition would not trigger any of the concerns you have raised.
>
> 6.  *Establish written procedures for replacing ballots.*
>
> *Yes, we can certainly do this.*
>
> Thank you very much for agreeing to do so.  Could you please make sure
> that such procedures are adopted no later than the January 2016 board
> meeting, and subsequently included in the election materials that are sent
> to the members?  Last year there was confusion, causing delay and possibly
> missed votes.  Also, please make sure that the written procedures are made
> part of the official Election Policy so that future boards/staff have
> guidance.
>
> 7.  *Create member email list* for periodic notices, schedules, and
> outreach.
>
> *We have some email information now, and do ask for it, but many don’t
> provide it. We are not using this information in any way, and have no idea
> whether or not that information in DPO is accurate. This is a larger issue,
> one that needs to be discussed in depth. It’s not so simple a thing to
> adopt these changes.*
>
> It is difficult to imagine a membership nonprofit NOT using the internet
> to stay connected with its members, especially a public community radio
> station that is supposedly media-savvy and has a duty to engage with the
> membership/public.  It would be very simple to input the currently known
> email addresses into a new list, using the same programming that now
> maintains the internal list serve (see above).  We already routinely
> request member’s email addresses on our membership form, and it is a
> required field for online donations.  All that is needed now is the will to
> use the information.  The immense benefit to the organization and its
> members from such communication (e.g., a quarterly post with station news
> and the current program schedule) should make the policy decision simple.
> Indeed, your response seems to agree with the policy, though it suggests
> that membership information is not routinely being updated by the staff
> assigned to do so.
>
> 8.  Either establish an *interactive internet discussion service* on the
> kzyx.org website, or announce the availability of member-established
> services, e.g., KZYXTalk.
>
> *People can interact through our Facebook page. It would take staff time
> to moderate a kzyx.org <http://kzyx.org> interactive forum, because we
> could not just allow anyone to post anything they wanted; it could become a
> free-for-all. As for posting information about the KZYXTalk listserv on our
> station webpage, wouldn't this establish a bad precedent? Wouldn't we then
> have to do the same for any other group? What would the standard be? The
> station webpage should be for official station business only.*
>
> I can understand not wanting to dedicate staff time to maintaining an
> interactive internet discussion service.  But there is no reason why you
> cannot let people know that such a service has been established by one of
> our members.  You can use the usual disclaimers to let folks know that it
> does not represent KZYX policies, etc.  Nor would this open the floodgates
> for anyone to demand access to the official website.  The board of
> directors can make an individual determination as to whether a member’s
> offer of time and resources will benefit the station by fostering
> communication and engagement.
>
> The underlying issue seems to be that the board does not want to announce
> any forum that might have comments in opposition to current policies and
> procedures.  But that is precisely what engagement is all about.  Without a
> diversity of viewpoints, and the ability to share them, the station will
> stagnate.  It is far better to allow discussion and benefit from it than to
> spend time and energy fighting it.
>
> 9.  *Create a Programmers Page* for information about programmers.
>
> *Good idea, but who is going to create it, write it, manage it as things
> change, etc.? We have no one to do it, and there are more pressing needs.
> Cannot not spend staff time on this; not a high priority.*
>
> After further research, it looks like the website already has this
> capability (see, e.g., http://kzyx.org/index.php/music/music-rock/dead-air).
> It appears that each programmer can use the "blog" function to post their
> playlist and other information, though it also appears that this function
> has been dormant for a long time.  Perhaps the Program Director can help
> facilitate the use of this resource by the programmers.  I recommend that
> the PD input contact information for each programmer in the title field for
> each show (a one-time task that the programmers can't do).  The programmers
> themselves would be responsible for any additional postings about their
> show in the blog section.  The programmers should also be allowed to post
> information about their other activities, which would also encourage their
> use of the site.  Right now those pages are an underused resource.
>
> 10.  *Improve outreach to members *for membership on standing and
> advisory committees.
>
> *Yes, the Board could do a better job of this. But why do we need a policy
> change? Not everything needs to be immortalized in policy. The Board could
> take responsibility for making on-air announcements, and we could establish
> a webpage for it. Though right [now] Stuart is the person managing the
> website changes (with John’s help), and do we want the GM’s time spent on
> this just now?*
>
> As with the other proposals, I am asking for a change in the written
> policy so that the current board actually commits itself to such action,
> and so that future boards will be required to do so.  As for the time
> needed, adding a notice to the election materials concerning the committees
> and how to apply would take only a few minutes.  Ditto a posting on the web
> page.  At this time, I request you adopt a policy that such an announcement
> must be included in the election materials, and then explore further means
> of outreach once a permanent GM is hired.
>
> 11.  *Provide all requested non-confidential information.*
>
> *We are already doing this. We answer requests for information a number
> times a day from people calling the station, writing the station, emailing
> the station, etc.*
>
> Thank you for agreeing with the policy.  However, as noted above, a
> personal willingness to do something does not mean that it will always be
> done, or that those who follow will also do it.  Indeed, some of your
> predecessors were not so willing to provide information.  That is why each
> of these proposals includes a specific change to Policy language.  If you
> are already doing something that you believe is proper, then there is no
> reason not to adopt this change.  It will provide direction to those who
> follow while assuring the membership that they will be provided all the
> information that they are guaranteed by law.
>
> 12.  *Fully implement the Programming Policy*, including the Program
> Advisory Committee.
>
> *The issue of the defunct Program Advisory Council does need to be
> addressed. This needs to be taken up at a later board meeting.*
>
> I respectfully disagree.  The president of a board cannot unilaterally
> declare a policy to be defunct and thereby refuse to implement it or
> indefinitely delay discussion.  The Programming Policy, including the
> Program Advisory Committee, was adopted by the MCPB Board of Directors in
> 2009 and remains in force.  The current board and staff have an obligation
> to abide by it.  Indeed, the decisions currently being made by the Program
> Director, such as elimination of the Safe Harbor hours, are invalid unless
> they are made in compliance with the existing policy.
>
> As you are no doubt aware, programming and the process of determining
> programming are among the most contentious issues facing a public community
> radio station.  The current policy is the result of extended discussion and
> community input.  It represents an effort to comply with CPB regulations
> and our own bylaws, which state that our programming and processes are to
> be controlled by the members.  You must at this time direct the staff to
> comply with the current policy.  That's their job, especially the Program
> Director's.  If you believe the policy needs to be changed, you can do so,
> sooner or later as you see fit.  But the current policy is now in force,
> and it must be implemented.
>
> Thank you again for your consideration of these proposals, and for your
> detailed response.  It appears we agree on the benefits of most of the
> proposals, though we disagree on priorities and implementation.  Please
> remember that each of these proposals is intended to help our goals of
> increasing membership and increasing member participation/engagement.
> These goals should be the touchstone for every director when making
> decisions about our public community radio station.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kzyxtalk mailing list
> Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/kzyxtalk/attachments/20151026/27a8a40d/attachment-0001.html