On October 10, 2005 a meeting of the KPFA CAB was held at the KPFA performance studio. The meeting had been convened as a result of months of informal communications between CAB member Sakura Saunders and Program Council Community Representative Stan Woods, LSB members Joe Wanzala and Sepideh Khosrowjah and General Manager Roy Campanella. There were also about 10 community members present. The main issue on the agenda was the question of how to expand the membership of the CAB which currently consists of four members, Sakura Saunders, Celia Rodriguez, the Rev. Elouise Oliver (appointed by Rosalinda Palacios) and Ben Bagdikian (appointed by Roy Campanella). The two CAB members present (Sakura Saunders and Celia Rodriguez) took the position that the current CAB members themselves should be able to expand their number to seven members and then these seven members can develop and present a proposed mechanism for adding CAB members to the LSB for approval. The position of the LSB members present (who do not necessarily represent the views of the whole LSB on this matter) was that the current CAB members had been misinformed and it is not within their prerogative to self-select their membership.* This meeting was the culmination of several months of confusion about the process for forming the CAB stemming from the expedient resolution passed at the March 2005 meeting of the LSB which apparently gave the Chair and the GM the authority to appoint CAB members to fulfill the basic CPB requirements because of the looming deadline. The LSB had not addressed this issue during its first term.
I opposed the resolution because I did not understand why the original resolution could not have been designed to include a wider group of the LSB rather than just the Chair, who cannot be representative of the full LSB - especially if tasked with forming a representative body. Statements were made during the meeting by some LSB members that the LSB should not get involved in forming the CAB.
At any rate, the main cause of the confusion was the language of the resolution. The resolution was written based on the [false] rationale that the CPB would not find an ‘interim’ CPB accpetable. I pointed out that the language of the resolution has nothing to do with the CPB, it is an internal LSB procedural matter. The CPB does not review the LSB's resolution, only the actual report generated by the CAB.
So it remains unclear what the KPFA LSB understood it was doing when it rejected the amendment. I disagreed that the meaning was or should have been that the governance committee would take up the issue at its earliest convenience and then propose an alternative model. This is inherently problematic because we do not know what the supposed term is of the CAB currently being formed by the GM and the Chair. (This idea was also muddied by the GM's contention that the CAB has nothing to do with governance) My understanding was that the Chair consult with the governance committee after the meeting in the process of working with the GM to form the CAB.
After the meeting, myself and some other LSB members sent Rosalinda the following letter stating our position:
“The undersigned LSB members are concerned about what happened at the February 26, LSB meeting regarding the formation of the Community Advisory Board ("CAB".)
“When some LSB members proposed to amend the resolution that the GM and the Chair empanel the CAB to add a provision that the issue be taken up by the Governance Committee or a committee created by the LSB, several LSB members claimed (erroneously - see below) that the LSB was not supposed to get involved in setting up the CAB (this along with the GM's protest that the CABs were not part of governance). Why would these same LSB members then proposed that the KPFA Chair (an LSB member) work with the GM to set up the CAB, and reject the (aforementioned) amendment on the grounds that it would be unacceptable to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)? This is also untrue. If the issue was expediency then the GM should have formed a CAB on his own and presented the results of his action to the LSB. Or better yet, he might have approached the LSB to consult with them on forming a CAB. Given the expedient nature of the circumstances, it makes even more sense for the GM to rely on the LSB and work that the LSB has already done in this regard in its erstwhile capacity as an advisory board. Indeed, technically the CABs are the old LABs as far as the CPB is concerned.
“The rationale for not accepting the proposed amendment also made no sense. The rationale was that sending it to a committee would not be acceptable to the CPB. In fact the CPB leaves it up to the each station to decide how to form the CAB and what methodology to employ in generating a report and as such the CPB is not going to review any LSB resolution - only the actual report. Thus, the amendment was unfairly rejected and the LSB conducted its proceedings based on wrong information. Our understanding of what happened is that the proposed amendment was rejected with the understanding that the LSB would remain involved in the process. Article seven of the Pacifica Bylaws state that the LOCAL STATION BOARDS....powers, duties and responsibilities are among other things:
"To perform community needs assessments, or see to it that separate "Community Advisory Committees" are formed to do so."
“It does not say that the GM should form the Advisory Board (though it does not say the GM cannot), but given that the GM reports to the LSB, then the LSB should supercede the GM.
“Putting aside the deeply problematic nature of the LSB proceedings, the understanding of the undersigned is that the essence of the resolution was to initiate the process. However, given that the Chair cannot purport to represent the LSB and especially given that the LSB is factionalized with the Chair associated with one faction, the chair should appoint 3-4 LSB members from each faction of the LSB to join the chair and GM (as ex-officio) on the committee.”
I then made a follow up phone call to Rosalinda after the meeting and expressed my concern that more LSB members should be involved in setting up the CAB and she stated that she was not amenable to the idea of expanding the committee to include additional LSB members, though she said she will think about it but has not yet read our letter. Needless to say, I found it problematic that the Chair would not welcome the idea of expanding the Committee. This issue then came up at a subsequent LSB meeting and I received verbal reassurance from the Chair Rosalinda Palacios that she had made her appointments because of the expedient circumstances surrounding the CPB deadline and that the rest of the LSB will be able to get involved with setting up the CAB. This was inconsistent with the apparent understanding she had with the CAB members – i.e. that they will go about adding members on their own without any input from the LSB other than the LSB approving their process.
Thus the CAB meeting on Monday, 10, 2005 was an attempt to resolve this conflict of understandings between some members of the LSB and the members of the CAB which as far as I can tell was brought about by the less than straightforward actions of the Chair of the KPFA LSB. During our discussions both Sakura Saunders and Celia Rodriguez expressed misgivings about ‘democracy’ as not necessarily being the best way to go about forming the CAB and said that one of their reasons for being opposed to the LSB having a role in the matter was because they were concerned that the factionalism of the LSB would spill over onto the CAB and that the LSB members would try to influence the CAB and undermine its ‘independence’. I allowed that this was a legitimate concern but reminded them that the democracy train has already left the station and that if this was a real concern they should not have accepted their appointments to the CAB since they were appointed under the aegis of the LSB.
I don’t quite know where things go from here. I have a resolution pending at the LSB and have brought this matter up with the Governance Committee of the KPFA LSB. However, based on my assessment of the discussion on Monday, we could end up with a situation where the CAB goes ahead and appoints additional members on its own and presents the LSB with a fait accompli. Already one of the sitting CAB members – and ironically the most communicative – was appointed to the CAB by the Chair without the knowledge of the LSB – that is she was appointed after the original three were appointed for the purposes of meeting the requirements of the original resolution.
Joe W.
*(note that the ‘Community Advisory Board’ is distinct from the Local Station Board which is the governing board of the station. Under Corporation for Public Broadcasting guidelines, all stations that receive funds from the CPB are required to have a Community Advisory Board, or some such entity to do community needs assessments and ensure that the station’s programming remains responsive to the communities in its listening area. see http://www.cpb.org/stations/certification/cert3.html . Unfortunately, since the LSB’s were formed, not much attention has been paid to the CABs since they have no governing power unlike the LSB’s. And the CAB’s at all the station areas have remained thus far been pretty much ignored.)
_________________________________________________________________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/