[Kzyxtalk] CAB Programmer Policy

Sun May 1 21:22:00 PDT 2016

'membership control' has meant at least two things...usually it's been 'control by
electing board members', but in the minds of some, it's meant something more
populist...a wish that has yet to be enfranchised by the board.

we might turn to the thread of who actually decides our calendar of programs [eg
will the style still be autocratic, or something more inclusive?].

meantime we can hope both advisory bodies will find ways to be helpful.
---

It is true that the PAC was advisory.  There is one sentence in the policy that
allows the PD final say. This is unfortunate and most certainly the cause of the
PAC's inefficacy.

There is, however, other language that states the PAC should strive to work through
consensus, and if consensus is stifled by one person unwilling to work with the
group (perhaps the PD) then the group should use the grievance process to ameliorate
the dispute.

Unfortunately, there had been a breakdown in the committee system, and the grievance
process was not effectively administered. I doubt the PAC even knew it had that
option when staff chose not to heed its "advice".

My feeling, after many discussions with ex PAC members, is that the thing was
sabotaged from the beginning by those who wished to subvert the democratic process
in order to maintain control over what we are allowed to say and hear on our
community radio station.

Hardly "membership control" in my book.

No matter, all those who sought democratic change are gone now, and the CPB has made
up for the loss of their contribution.

Doug

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 1, 2016, at 1:44 PM, Tim Gregory <tgregory at saber.net> wrote:
>
> that's not how i remember it, doug...the programming advisory council was made
> explicitly advisory, by board language. it had nice people, but it was dead in the
> water.
>
> long before the PAC was 'won' by the community groups, there was a moat around
> philo. others may characterize events as they like, but i don't see, nor wish to
> see
> the same culture returning.
>
> in essence the CAB addresses MCPB as a whole. the PAC, when it re-arrives, will
> likely concentrate on our programming in its particulars...
> ---
>
>
> One other thing. Many people get confused about the PAC as if it is the same as
> the
> CAB.
>
> The CAB is required by the CPB to gather community input, it was given the power
> to
> appoint one member to the PAC which actually had the power to make programming
> choices.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On May 1, 2016, at 12:42 AM, Tim Gregory <tgregory at saber.net> wrote:
>>
>> the PAC right off was given their homework by the PD and met what, 4 times a
>> year?
>> all the replacement members were chosen by her also, as i recall. the CACs and
>> CAG
>> were gone...
>>
>> this was the time when the moatbridge was raised by the board, not lowered, for
>> community involvment with our programming...
>> ---
>>
>>
>> I don't think the PAC was a big fail because of the way it was set up. I think it
>> failed because staff did not feel like working with it, so chose to ditch it.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Apr 30, 2016, at 9:48 PM, Tim Gregory <tgregory at saber.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> not to split hairs, but with a few notable exceptions, the CAB has been the pro
>>> forma
>>> requirement for grant money.
>>>
>>> The CAG was made of reps from CACs, committees of boosters in different parts of
>>> the
>>> footprint...until the creation of the PAC, which most would now agree was a big
>>> fail...
>>>
>>> i look forward to CAB possibly producing something insightful, but not holding
>>> my
>>> breath.  new PAC parameters have been promised...
>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>> The CAG was the old vernacular for the current CAB. Hard to keep it all together
>>> sometimes...
>>>
>>> I don't think Campbell is on the CAB, just Bushansky.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Apr 30, 2016, at 5:31 PM, Scott Peterson <scottmartinpeterson at hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just found this little gem:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "T Gregory: Previous CAGs failed because the most interested parties were
>>>> programmers,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and could not serve on the CAG (on advice from a lawyer in DC). Board is
>>>> discussing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CAG requirements, not talking about hearing from the public. I question the
>>>> authenticity
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> of the effort. It's seen as a formality, with everything round-filed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> it's from KZYX meeting minutes here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.kzyx.org/images/pdf/mtg_minutes/KZYX%20Board%20mtg%20minutes%2012-08.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The 'CAG' here stood for 'Community Advisory Group' .. which I'm assuming is
>>>> the
>>>> 'CAB' or
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'Community Advisory Board' we have today ..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> so in summary -- according to a DC lawyer -- programmers shouldn't serve on the
>>>> CAB ..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> which takes us to Bob Bushansky and Stuart Campbell .. Mr. Bushansky is now a
>>>> programmer ..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> with a very exciting show titled, 'Politics - a Love Story' .. So is Mr.
>>>> Campbell
>>>> .. with a riveting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> show of his own titled, 'Consider This' .. all reported on the KZYX website
>>>> here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.kzyx.org/Board/KZYX%20State%20of%20the%20Station%20Report%20January%202016.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> so assuming this 'lawyer in DC' knows what they're talking about -- how can two
>>>> programmers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> serve on the Community Advisory Board? .. and if they're not serving on the
>>>> CAB,
>>>> then who is?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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