Web site of the Friends of KOOP .|. Save KOOP Radio home

Comments about the board's failings by some volunteer members

• Comments by John Duncan
• Comments by Jerry Chamkis
• Comments by Carol Teixeira

The lack of consensus at KOOP right now is mind boggling. This should be a red flag for anyone in a policy making position at the station but instead it has become a standard manner of doing business and making decisions. Not only has the input of the G.M. and the programmers not been requested but it has been ignored when given.

Case in point #1: the hiring of the assistant general manager.
The GM stated flatly at a board meeting that it is in her job description to hire and fire the paid staff, and there was a general agreement among the programmers that this should be the G.M.'s perogative. Instead, the BOT insisted on undermining the G.M.'s authority and having the final say on who would be the AGM. [more on this issue]

Case in point #2: the structure of the programming committee.
When a re-vamping of the programming committee (aka "PC") was first aired at a monthly stationwide meeting some time ago it was controversial to say the least. Several monthly meetings went by, one in which all the programmers sat around in a big circle and expressed their feelings about "what would increase their comfort level" at KOOP. Despite poor attendance by the BOT and CB there appeared to be a glimmer of hope that KOOP would start to work as a united organization. Next thing I know the Board passed a proposal on the election of the PC at a meeting in the same month. What is wrong with this picture? Perhaps instead of getting all warm & fuzzy about our comfort level at KOOP the programmers should have been briefed on the proposal to re-vamp the committee and given a chance to weigh in on the matter. [more on this issue]

Case in point #3, and perhaps the most egregious: the decision to stop airing Pacifica and make no effort to negotiate with Pacifica regarding the terms of the contract.
In the end, a lack of preparation on the BOT's part dictated an emergency on KOOP's part and the deal was done before most of us could raise a hand to object. If this is democracy and cooperation I would like to know what organization we're modeling ourselves after. I've seen a better sense of fair play amongst good ole boys at the Texas Legislature. At least they have rules and it's up to us to catch them breaking them. Instead, decision making at KOOP reminds me more of back room deals made between the Austin City Council and the next large incoming coporation that has its eye on Austin's "quality of life." [more on this issue]

Next on the Board's agenda is to re-write the G.M.'s job description and put her in charge of operations and create another position, something akin to a chief financial officer, that would answer to the BOT and not the G.M.

This is a bad idea that most non-profit/cooperative Boards wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Pretty soon Jenny will have to ask the Board if she can leave the room to go the bathroom. And what if Jenny is ousted? Clearly, considering the intolerable working environment that the BOT is creating, Jenny's resignation would not be unwelcomed by the BOT. What kind of G.M. would work for this kind of BOT? You couldn't hire anybody worth a damn under these conditions. The major experience needed for this job would be rubber-stamping and shaking your head up and down.

But let's assume, just for a moment, that the Austin community supports the BOT and the CB in their decisions, that the CB and BOT are simply more in touch with a constituency that does not include the G.M., volunteer staff, programmers or volunteers at KOOP. Please tell me who is going to implement the policy and agenda of the BOT and CB? A board that undermines the G.M. and is at odds with the volunteers will get nowhere. Execution of operations and policy will come to a halt and the organization will be stuck in a gridlock of power play, indecision, and low morale. The G.M. is the link between the policy of the Board and the volunteers at the station (which are almost 90% programmers). At a cooperative, the volunteers would be the group who would give the policy wings, execute it on a daily basis. It's not as though KOOP has, or even wants, paid staff working at KOOP day and night implementing policy that comes from the Board. I, as a programmer and volunteer, answer to the G.M. Not only would it be inappropriate for me to answer to the BOT but it would be very poor governance on their part. A strong Board works through the G.M., not through the programmers (much less against the G.M.) Tell me, who is it that is going to make this grand and mighty machine work? Who is going to follow through on all these beloved ideals? Six board members and, at best, twenty Community Board members? Not only is this not feasible, it goes against the very grain of a cooperative. The fundamental spirit of teamwork has all but disappeared at KOOP. It may exist in isolated pockets like the women's collective or the music library but as a whole KOOP is washing up upon the rocks when it comes to this ideal. When CB and BOT members openly attack the G.M. at programmer's meetings, all semblance of leadership goes out the window. There isn't the slightest appearance of unity between these decision makers. In this kind of environment you can bet that there will be even less unity amongst the troops.

John D.

Back to Top

I truly appreciate the arduous work the BoT is doing and do my best to offer assistance in every way I can. I foolishly assumed that included pointing out what I considered brutally inappropriate behavior at the meetings and I think we all know the results. The majority of the BoT has branded me a sexist and a racist and shuns me as a pariah. This does NOT give me faith in them as I KNOW they are deadly wrong on both these accusations. I've been a progressive activist longer than almost anybody associated with KOOP is old. In my entire career, only one other person has called me a racist; the so-called 'reverend' Frank Garrett when I was associated with KAZI. If you don't know that story you can do a search on my name at the Austin Chronicle web site as it was the cover story in the Nov. 17, 1995 issue. Suffice it to say that on this issue the KOOP board is aligned with VERY unsavory company.

I'm totally unmoved by [Gerald Thomason's] statement that the board doesn't have time to post the agenda by themselves. Nobody is suggesting they need to do everything by themselves. This is a very easy task to delegate. Clearly Ricardo has time to do it and what kind of thanks does he get for it from the minions of KOOP's present leadership? The sad truth of the matter is that members of the KOOP board have stated clearly that they have no interest in communicating via electronic means. Don't bother arguing this point -- I have it on tape.

Back to Top

...If there had been a motion for "The Board needs to be concerned when so much of the staff is unhappy with their policies." then I would have voted for it. The feeling I get about how things are now is similar to how things were when I was Station Manager at KVRX....

Leaders in a cooperative environment are not like Presidents or Generals, I think of them more as 'mediums'. I see the role of the Board of Trustees as that of communicating with the members and being the medium through which their ideas and concerns are put into policy. Right now I hear a lot of "We are the Board and we are right!" instead of "We are the Board and we think this policy reflects the ideas and concerns of the station."

Back to Top .|. Save KOOP Radio home