So how are the interests of non-member listeners or communities that lack membership protected or represented in this form of governance?

To me it seems that since the nature of broadcasting is public and certainly reaches beyond a paid organizational membership, there would ideally be some mechanism to ensure non-member interests or important issues not addressd by the current paid membership are included somehow.  I don't know what the answer is, but limiting governance to dues paying volunteers can result in the station becoming marginalized because its board can be too narrowly focused.

In public access TV, the rights of the producer are ususally privileged over the interests of viewers or others.  Free speech is very important but is there any way to consider viewership or other measures in the equation?

Greg Boozell
gboozell@juno.com


-- "Joseph Wanzala" <jwanzala@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Some organizations protect themselves by establishing formal membership and
>membership dues - which drives most of the loons out, but many members
>oppose such a solution as undemocratic.  So far, the community association 
>I
>am a part of resisted that solution, but the board is divided.

Pacifica does not have this 'problem' but then $25 may or may not be a 
prohibitive amount for 'loons'. The low-average for listener sponsor 
donations to Pacifica is about $100 per year. Also, the core of the Pacifica 
listenership is not necessarily as fluid as Doug might have it, most 
listeners are long-time residents of the given station areas and longtime 
supporters.:-

http://www.pacifica.org/governance/PacificaBylaws-new.html

ARTICLE THREE
MEMBERS OF THE FOUNDATION

SECTION 1. MEMBERS DEFINED...