<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=MailContainerBody
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TEXT-DECORATION: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"
leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 acc_role="text" CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area"><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>
<DIV>Hello Bill and Ted,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks for sharing the information. Now what do I do with it?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Being quite enterprising and interested in what others have to say, I have
read the note from Ted and, naturally have more questions than answers
with just a few statements and thoughts that are based on Ted's notes.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is not totally clear what happened here, for one who tries to stay away
form the conflict at KPFT, but I would guess the author of the minutes has very
strong feelings about what transpired at the meeting. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It appears that a relatively small group of folks have control over
the programming changes of what is truly a public station, and an even
smaller subset, a group within a group, has the real power.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Why are meetings closed? If the meetings where the decisions are made
all deal with "personnel issues" then perhaps there is a bigger problem than
many of us perceive. Wow, is that possible?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Why is there a need for secrecy? Does this relate to national security or
just info that some don't wish to share? Does the Freedom of Information Act
apply here?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Why is there no procedure for meetings, quorums and minutes? Is there such
a thing as consensus at KPFT and it's boards, councils and committees?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Why is there no discussion on the methodology? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Isn't the methodology something that the contributors to the station
deserve to know - how decisions about programming are made?? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Don't the Pacifica Bylaws, below, suggest that the methodology of how
programming decisions are made is important?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>How else can a member of Pacifica feel comfortable that the bylaws have
been complied with? (read the applicable sections from the bylaws below)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Is this about the means justifying the ends?</DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Don't comments about decisions made in closed session because of
"personnel" issues suggest that some folks are sitting in judgment of
others, and exercising power over them rather than exercising power with
them?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>According to the bylaws meetings are to be open to the public. If a closed
meeting is held, an explanation is to be provided to the public. Isn't
suggesting the number of meetings held in secret is due to "personnel"
matters a stretch? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>What does this mean: "The survey that is distributed has assimilated
results."?</DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What survey? Calls to listeners? Why wasn't I
called? But wait, the input from listeners was not used to make program
change decisions? How were decisions about the program changes made?
Is this why the methodology is a secret? ( I must admit, as a frequent, but
sporadic listener, I am disappointed in the last set of program changes and I am
not overly excited about the upcoming changes.......and what is happening
to Flashpoints)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>The portions of the bylaws that Ted was kind enough to send us suggest
that at least a portion of how programming decisions are made (methodology)
is not only important, it is a requirement. If these decisions and
how they are made are secret, how can a member of Pacifica feel comfortable
that the bylaws have been complied with? Sounds like George Bush,
"trust me". I suggest "trust, but verify"</DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The proposed changes to programming, mentioned below, do not
include all of those reflected on the link sent to this list serve within the
last week. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>From the minutes below, I get the impression that most of the talking and
presenting was done by people other than the Program Council, since the minutes
below suggest the PC are the ones that reached some sort of consensus. I
find that somewhat surprising. It also appears that certain members
of the LSB are more in the loop than others? Why are some folks invited
"in" and not others? Some say groups within groups are not real healthy
and point to concerns about leadership.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>While the bylaws are clear that "<STRONG>The (Program) Council shall be the
body authorized by KPFT Management to work collaboratively with the LSB…to
facilitate all on-air programming at the station",</STRONG> it appears that the
PC is working with KPFT management and only a portion of the
LSB <STRONG>.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV>While the word consensus is used, I think, to describe the position
reached by the PC, it does not appear that the entire LSB is included in the
consensus. As mentioned above, they, the LSB, are to collaborate with the
PC. Is there or was there a problem with the collaboration between the PC and
LSB?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>While the Community Advisory Board is mentioned in the bylaws as having
input, there is no mention of their input in the meeting minutes.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The bylaws imply that minutes of meetings are to be taken. If there
is a reason why this meeting was a closed meeting, the public is to be advised
why, according to the bylaws. If the meeting is not closed, it would
appear that the leadership of this and other KPFT meetings is required by the
bylaws to get minutes taken and to share them with the public.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If Ted's notes are not accurate, and I am not implying that they are
not, or if they are slanted to express his feelings at the expense of
other's, (not suggesting that either) perhaps the KPFT management can ensure
that minutes of meetings are taken and distributed to the public.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Anyone else have any thoughts about Ted's notes?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Paul</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A
title=mailto:paa@crosierbiomed.com href="mailto:paa@crosierbiomed.com">Bill
Crosier</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=mailto:discuss@paa-tx.org
href="mailto:discuss@paa-tx.org">PAA Discussion List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, April 14, 2006 10:47
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [PAA-Discuss] Minutes of KPFT
meeting on program changes-from TedWeisgal</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Ted Weisgal, member of the KPFT Local Station Board (and PAA),
asked me to send the information below to this list.<BR><BR>Bill<BR>- - - - -
- - - <BR><BR>Friends:<BR><BR>I hope you will read these minutes/notes of KPFT
General Manager Duane Bradley's meeting last week. I have tried to produce a
dispassionate, accurate report of what happened. A number of things were said
and they are noted here. Examples: providing the LSB with the full
questionnaire and answers; the experts who helped in developing that
instrument. Please also note the laws, rules, bylaws, agreement, and
dictionary definitions at the end (in footnotes of a kind).<BR><BR>Ted
Weisgal<BR>Member, KPFT LSB<BR><BR>- - - - - - - -<BR><BR>Minutes of Duane
Bradley’s Meeting on Program Changes (4.5.6)<BR><BR>Dear Members of the KPFT
LSB,<BR><BR>The following are my minutes of the meeting called by Duane
Bradley that was held at the Alliance Francis on Wednesday, April 5, 2006.
This closed meeting had no established rules except those established along
the way by Mr. Bradley and others to whom he deferred.<BR><BR>Present are
members of the KPFT Local Station Board, Susan Young, chair; Melinda
Isley-Dohn, Lee Taylor, Evelyn Bethune, Sandra Rawline, Burt Samples, Michael
Woodson, Wendy Schroell, Teresa Allen, Ken Freeland, Joe Montes, Sandy
Weinmann, Deb Shafto, and ex-officio member and station board General Manager
Duane Bradley and myself, Ted Weisgal. Also present are Program Council
members Massoud Nayeri, KPFT Program Director Ernesto Agular, Hank Woji,
Natalie Jay. Richard Uzell is also present. It is not clear as to whether he
is an official member of the KPFT Local Station Board since Page Keller’s
resignation has not been officially announced at an LSB meeting. <BR><BR>This
meeting, announced to begin at 7pm, begins at 7:21.<BR><BR>Duane Bradley
announces the order of the meeting; Susan Young will tell the history, Evelyn
Bethune will describe the PC’s process and Massoud Nayeri will also speak. Mr.
Bradley begins by telling us the new schedule will roll out on Easter
Sunday.<BR><BR>Susan, not a member of the PC, says “we” thought it was a good
way to bring everyone up to speed with how the process began. She announces
the people who helped create the PC. She explains that many details were
anguished over and that none are necessarily right.<BR><BR>Evelyn says we, the
PC, took it upon ourselves to tweak the document that created the PC and gave
it to management and says it’s now “a pretty good document.” She adds,
“Ernesto was very, very helpful.” Decisions were made in closed meetings, she
notes, because they were “personnel issues; we tried to host open meetings one
time every quarter and the minutes are on the web site” later in the meeting,
acknowledging that attendance at these “open meetings” (with no quorum since
the PC has established it’s own rules) is very poor. She says that instead of
small changes we did what was possible within the limitations of the station.
It’s not all we would like to do. When asked what the PC would have liked she
says, we got “99%” of what we wanted. She also announces, “We’ll talk about
results but not about methodology.” <BR><BR>Hank Woji says, “Susan Darrow [the
former chair of the KPFT Local Advisory Board that dwindled to six members
appointed by former General Manager Garland Ganter before the interim Pacifica
National Board forced it to merge with a group of 18] put the questions
together and Massoud produced the report. Susan is now a part-time volunteer
programmer. <BR><BR>We are told that the survey “has no bearing on the final
report” and it has a margin of error of 11%. <BR><BR>The PC and some members
of the LSB called listeners. Their comments indicated that listeners want
debate. The program schedule that is later unveiled shows no significant
increase in debate. We are told we will be given the listener comments as well
as the questionnaire that will be emailed later. <BR><BR>The survey that is
distributed has assimilated results. At this time, we are told we will be
given “a couple of minutes” for questions. Sandy Weinmann states, “75 people
is too small a sample” for a radio station with 10,000 members. Evelyn
responds, “We’ll get more by the end of the year. This is to show you what we
have.” Susan announces, “We’re not here to discuss methodology.” Wendy says
she’s “glad you’re doing this,” and then says the “Listener Assessment” should
be called a “Listener Members Assessment” since the people called are all
current donors. The survey focuses on issues related to news because the PC
decided they “wanted to see if people really listen to our news.” They
also found out how listeners feel about other stations. At this point that we
are told, “we did not use this to make any programming decisions. It was not a
tool. We wanted to show you what we were doing,” says Hank Woji. When asked,
“why?” the answer is, “If you like it fine.” We’re told that experts on
surveying were consulted and Susan Darrow can provide the information.
<BR><BR>Richard Uzell applauds the democratic process and announces, “This is
progress. Be proud. You get an A for effort.” <BR><BR>Deb Shafto announces, “I
was one who made a number of phone calls. People were flattered. This is how
we build audience.”<BR><BR>Mr. Bradley hands out the existing schedule. Wendy
demurely states, “Quit stalling!” He goes on to state, “most people are
satisfied” (based on the survey). He then distributes the projected schedule.
(Ken Freeland leaves the meeting) Ernesto announces that there are still four
or five programmers or future programmers to be called.<BR><BR>The “changes,”
though still tentative: Living in Rhythm” has been cancelled. We are told that
this is because neither Tierney Malone nor Oseye Mandlebe are willing to
accept a slot after midnight on Saturday. Joe Montes seems dismayed and says
it’s really sad that we no longer have any jazz programs on KPFT. After the
noon Open Journal is a 1-2pm news and public affairs block with Music Beyond
Boarders, at one time receiving 10 hours of airtime per week has been reduced
to two. Two associated music shows will also air from 2 to 3pm. From 3 to 5 is
music with the news at 5:30 moving to 5 and Free Speech Radio News moving from
mid-afternoon to 5:30. We are told that there will be no changes to the
morning schedule from 6 to 10 am. <BR><BR>Innerside, a program that previously
aired during the middle of the night on Sunday has been moved to Thursday
night at midnight. Saturday at midnight introduces a show co-hosted by Leighza
Welch a Local Station Board member (from the listener pool) called “Hot and
Bothered.” We’re told it will be an open and honest discussion of woman’s
issues including a frank discussion of sex. Abati Doe, who had been lobbying
at LSB meetings and elsewhere for a men’s show, rejected alternating with this
program because of the time slot.<BR><BR>At this point Evelyn says, “we got
99% of what we wanted but not at the time we wanted.”<BR><BR>Duane announced,
“Susan and I were invited back into the process last month. Susan said she
expressed her opinion but did not vote. We are not told what her opinion
was.<BR><BR>Evelyn says, “the buck stops with the GM.” We are told that
listeners want “news at a time that is most accessible to me” <BR><BR>Melinda
announces, “Voting to create the PC was collaboration. Like in business, we
should not micromanage. We should select them and then let them go.” Susan
says, “we’re inventing this over time.” Massoud says “how the PC voted and
what they came up with is a legitimate question; how we reached the decision
is not important…that they reached consensus is. He goes on to say the PC has
to make sure there’s quality and to bring the best from the community to our
airwaves; the bottom line is marketing; that’s the most important.” Marketing
is not discussed at this meeting. No one questions the assertion that process
is not important.<BR><BR>Hank thanks the LSB for giving the PC an extension of
time. He says this is a good accomplishment. First we saw the election of a
new government (the LSB) and then we saw a passing of power. He tells us that
what we saw this night is “how the PC operates and this is how we feel.”
<BR><BR>Natalie says, “Thanks for letting us be heard without a war.” This is
a closed meeting that is not being tape recorded, as all LSB and PNB meetings
are.<BR><BR>Mr. Bradley lists the names of all the members of the PC, the
people who were involved in reaching consensus. <BR><BR>We adjourn shortly
before 10pm.<BR><BR>As far as I know, these are the only minutes of this
meeting. I respectfully submit them.<BR><BR>--Ted Weisgal<BR><BR><BR><B>The
following rules, laws and definitions are provided so all who read the
minutes/notes of the “meeting” of April 6, 2006 may weigh them in relationship
to what was reported that night. I have tried to cite that which is applicable
and omitted what is not.<BR><BR>--Ted Weisgal<BR><BR>Pacifica Bylaws
(applicable section):<BR>Specific Powers and Duties of the Local Station
Board“To work with station management to ensure that station programming
fulfills the purposes of the Foundation and is responsive to the diverse needs
of the listeners (demographic) and communities (geographic) served by the
station, and that station policies and procedures for making programming
decisions and for program evaluation are working in a fair, collaborative and
respectful manner to provide quality programming.<BR><BR>The KPFT Program
Council agreement (applicable language):<BR>KPFT Management and the KPFT Local
Station Board (LSB) have come together…<BR>The (Program) Council shall be the
body authorized by KPFT Management to work collaboratively with the LSB…to
facilitate all on-air programming at the station.<BR><BR>CPB Community and
Advisory Board Requirements (applicable sections):<BR><BR>I. The Law<BR><BR>A.
Section 396(k)(8) of the Communications Act provides that:<BR><BR>“(A) Funds
may not be distributed pursuant to this subpart to any public broadcast
station…unless such station establishes a community advisory board…”<BR>“(B)
The board shall be permitted to review the programming goals established by
the station… The board shall advise the governing body of the station with
respect to whether the programming and other policies of such station are
meeting the…needs of the communities served by the station.<BR>“(C) The role
of the (CAB) shall be solely advisory in nature except to the extent other
responsibilities are delegated to the board by the <I>governing body of the
station</I>. In no case shall the CAB have any authority to exercise any
control over the daily management or operations of the station.<BR><BR>B.
Nature of the Community Advisory Board<BR><BR>The law provides that “the role
of the board shall be solely advisory in nature…” It also stipulates that the
board shall advise the governing body of the station and therefore must be
distinct from and independent of the governing body. The purpose of the
advisory board is to provide a vehicle for effective community input to the
station’s governing body about station programming…<BR><BR>C. Relationship of
the Community Advisory Board to the Governing Board of the Station<BR><BR>1.
The law segregates the management and operational functions of the governing
board from the functions of (sic) advisory board…”<BR><BR>III. MINIMUM
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS<BR><BR>A. Each station must…<BR><BR>1. establish a
community advisory board that is independent of the…governing body; <BR><BR>5.
advise the governing board of the station whether the programming and other
significant policies of the station are meeting the specialized educational
and cultural needs of the communities served by the station. The advisory
board may make recommendation to the governing board to meet those specialized
needs.<BR><BR>OPEN MEETINGS REQUIREMENTS<BR><BR>I. THE LAWS<BR><BR>A. Section
396(k)(4) of the Communications Act provides that:<BR><BR>“Funds may not be
distributed pursuant to this subsection of the Public Broadcasting Services…or
permittee of any public broadcast station, unless the governing body of any
such organization, any committee of such governing body, or any advisory body
of any such organization, holds open meetings preceded by reasonable notice to
the public. All persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the board,
or of any such committee or body, and no person shall be required, as a
condition to attendance at any such meeting, to register such person’s name or
to provide any other information. Nothing contained in the paragraph shall be
construed to prevent such board, committee, or body from holding closed
sessions to consider matters relating to individual employees, proprietary
information, litigation and other matters requiring the confidential advice of
counsel, commercial or financial information obtained from a person on a
privileged or confidential basis, or the purchase of property or services
whenever the premature exposure of such purchase would compromise the business
interest of any such organization. If any such meeting is closed…the
organization involved shall thereafter (within a reasonable period of time)
make available to the public a written statement containing an explanation of
the reasons for closing the meeting.”<BR><BR>B. Section 397(5) of the Act
provides that:<BR><BR>The term ‘meeting’ means the deliberations of at least
the number of members of a governing or advisory body, or any committee
thereof, required to take action on behalf of such a body or committee where
such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of
the governing or advisory body’s business, or the committee’s business, as the
case may be, but only to the extent that such deliberations relate to public
broadcasting.”<BR><BR>IV. SUGGESTONS FOR COMPLIANCE <BR><BR>Each station is
encourage to fashion its own maximum involvement of the community beyond the
minimum requirements. It is the CPB’s position that only through enthusiastic
and vigorous efforts can the intent of the Congress, as reflected in the law,
be fully realized. Therefore, CPB recommends that stations make copies of the
minutes of all open meetings available to the public website, by mail, or at
the stations office upon request. A reasonable change to cover copying… If a
member of the public wishes to inspect the minutes at the station, it would
not be unreasonable to require an appointment with the station be made as long
as the process is not burdensome to the public.<BR><BR>B.
Certification<BR><BR>1. CPB currently requires each recipient of a CPB station
grant to certify its continued compliance with the open meetings requirement.
The annual certification…must be filled out by each CPB station
grantee.<BR><BR><BR>col·lab·o·rate</B> <BR><I>intr.v.</I>
<B>col·lab·o·rat·ed,</B> <B>col·lab·o·rat·ing,</B> <B>col·lab·o·rates <BR>
<DL>
<DD>1.<X-TAB> </X-TAB></B>To work
together, especially in a joint intellectual
effort.<BR><BR></DD></DL><B>del·e·gate</B> <BR><I>n.</I>
1.<X-TAB> </X-TAB>A person authorized to act as
representative for another; a deputy or an agent.<BR><X-SIGSEP>
<P></X-SIGSEP></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>