PNB Meeting - Jan 2007 - Executive Director Report

GOVERNANCE

GOAL

Ensure that involvement in the election process doesn't drop and that as many people as possible are actively involved

Although the most recent elections saw a modest increase in turnout and the National Office was more proactive in making certain that stations complied with fair campaign requirements, the situation remains far from ideal. The report by the National Election Supervisor provides a comprehensive review. One of my own observations has been that a small number of people have attempted to convey the impression that the process is somehow corrupt, that nefarious forces are conducting some sort of internal coup, or that Pacifica still is not democratic enough. This amounts to a form of negative campaigning, which can obviously help someone to accumulate enough votes to obtain a seat on an LSB. But it also perpetuates an atmosphere of confrontation and mutual suspicion.

Local Boards frequently experience rude outbursts and other disrespectful behavior at meetings. Roberts Rules of Order are too often abused, turned into a weapon to obstruct rather than promote rationale discussion. E-mails are sometimes used to spread rumors and promote debates of marginal relevance. Productivity suffers and, in some cases, questionable behavior runs the risk of opening the organization to legal liability. All this has the effect of alienating potential supporters or future Board members.

Beyond that, there are several fundamental questions. Do the elections bring the needed talent and resources to Pacifica? And do those elected actually represent the broad interests of listeners, or instead the specific local interests of small groups able to mobilize enough votes to reach the election threshold? Hundreds of thousands listen to each Pacifica station. Of this total, perhaps 10 percent make financial contributions, qualifying them as listener members. And of this total, no more than 16 percent – in most areas little more than 10 percent – actually vote. It takes only a small percentage of that total to become an LSB member – rarely more than 300 votes. In other words, LSB members obtain their right to govern from less than one percent of listeners.

I am not arguing that the elections are meaningless or a failure. They help to clarify issues, and most of those elected are clearly dedicated to serving Pacifica’s mission. But these elections also take literally 8 months to conduct, cost about $200,000 a year, take up considerable staff and airtime, and lead to interminable debates and disputes. And after all that, do those elected truly “represent” the will of the community and bring with them all the talents Pacifica stations need? Most non-profit Boards recruit people with specific skills. Pacifica has rejected this approach, and replaced it with an election process that has created warring factions on every local station board.

Last March, I posed a question to the community: What are we trying to accomplish – to expand an extraordinary radio network, to support programming that addresses the Pacifica mission – or to create a government?

If it’s the latter, I noted, we’re not doing a bad job – we have local and national legislative bodies, factions that could soon become political parties, expensive and politicized elections, endless political gamesmanship, and the emergence of calls for the creation of what could become judicial bodies? But if it’s the former – to produce radio that challenges, informs and enlightens, we need to rethink this experiment – to take it back to the shop and debug it as soon as possible – before it makes accomplishing the mission nearly impossible.

In addition, I have urged the PNB to consider adopting a standard confidentiality statement and require that all PNB and LSB members sign it. The PNB should also consider whether or not those who refuse to sign such a statement should be allowed to attend executive sessions of the PNB or LSBs, and whether members who violate such a confidentiality provision should be expelled. Counsel has advised that local Boards would have to adopt a policy before it could force members to sign a confidentiality statement or sanction them.  The issue was tabled, but ultimately this is an issue of national policy. (See Sample Confidentiality Agreements, Appendix B)

Bylaws revision

Virtually everyone at Pacifica seems to agree that the bylaws need an overhaul. But it has been difficult to make even modest changes, and some people fear a bylaws convention because one or another faction might “hijack” the process. Nevertheless, many elements of the current document are unclear or cumbersome, and I am constantly being asked to have our corporate counsel interpret provisions.

I urge Pacifica to adopt a comprehensive approach, including a review of bylaw sections relating to elections (see the NES reports for details), candidate qualifications, staff eligibility and recognition, hiring and termination, committee powers and structure, Board diversity, affiliates delegate elections, local and national responsibilities, and a clearer definition management vs. governance. No doubt others will have their own lists.

For example, Pacifica currently accepts varying definitions of who is an unpaid staff member for purposes of eligibility to vote, based upon the varying rules of unpaid staff member organizations. Lack of uniform voter eligibility qualifications at stations effects the selection of PNB members, and raises questions of fairness. Unpaid staff organizations can certainly decide for themselves who may join, but only those who meet a single national definition of work effort should be allowed to vote. A related issue is whether and under what circumstances recognition of an unpaid staff organization might be withdrawn.

Concerning committees, those of the PNB or LSBs are sometimes unable to deal with pressing issues in a timely way. As a result, staff may not be able to proceed in situations where deadlines or changing conditions are factors. Committee structure and responsibilities deserve some study as part of an overall bylaws review.