Web site of the Friends of KOOP .|. Back to Save KOOP Radio home
Board of Trustees member Mac McKaskle rudely dismisses the concerns of volunteer Carol Teixeira
Board of Trustees member Mac McKaskle rudely dismisses the concerns of volunteer Carol Teixeira
Carol Teixeira is a long-time volunteer with KOOP Radio. She wrote on open letter to the Board of Trustees which expressed her concerns about their dismissal of volunteer staff's concerns, and how the Board seems to attack anyone who disagrees with them. Not surprisingly, a Board member attacked Carol for making her statements. (They're nothing if not predictable, huh?)
After Carol posted her letter to KOOP's email discussion list, Board member Mac McKaskle sent a very hostile reply to the email list. Several people posted their support for Carol, and their dismay at Mac's remarks. Nobody posted in support of Mac's remarks.
February 16, 1998 [posted to email list on Feb. 24]
I attended the Board of Trustees meeting on Monday, February 9th. I was disappointed by the events of this meeting.
I expected the Board to allow time for discussion of the staff concerns about the program committee election process. The discussion began with a Board member addressing the concerns, but was quickly sidetracked by a completely different proposal. The new proposal to change the vote of *volunteer/programmers* to a vote of *membership* was inappropriate for the following reasons:
[Dismissal of volunteer staff's concerns]
More disheartening were comments by two Board members. Both made comments to the effect that the vote made at the staff meeting was not significant or valid. The arguments for this seem to be: this is a personality issue, the staff was not well informed, the vote was not representative of the staff and the staff is not representative of the community. I would like to address each of these points.
[Attacking those who disagree]
During the meeting, one Board member stated that the only reason the staff members are against the program committee election process was because programmers were afraid that increased democracy might cost them their show. This person said that the staff has a history of rejecting steps towards greater democracy because they want to hold on to the power that comes with smaller numbers.
I cannot put into words how offensive those comments were. I cannot measure the extent to which these accusations are unfounded. Only one Board member made these statements, but no other Board member said anything to counter them. The message sent to the staff was this:
"If you don't agree with us and you try to become a part of the policy making process at KO.OP, you will be dismissed (see paragraphs above) and then criticized and attacked."
This is how I felt at that meeting. My first response was to give up on any meaningful involvement with the station. I would just do my show and the minimum volunteer hours and leave it at that. I have since changed my mind, but I wonder how many others left the meeting with that same feeling.
[Closing]
I don't want there to be a big showdown between the Board and the staff. I don't want the station to be divided, everyone picking sides, feeding the conflict that keeps us from doing our real jobs. I don't need a Board vote on a proposal or an official response to this letter. I'm just presenting these ideas as something to consider.
Thanks for your time.
Carol Teixeira
February 24, 1998
That was a well written letter, Carol. I think it supports your points that the Women's Collective reached consensus at its two most recent meetings that we are not satisfied with the current process either, especially the fact that the board has not passed a policy that one person cannot hold two elected positions at the station.
Elaine Wolff
[ Carol's quoted text in
brown ]
[ Mac's reply in black ]
[ My comments in green
]
February 27, 1998
I attended the Board of Trustees meeting on Monday, February 9th. I was disappointed by the events of this meeting. ...The new proposal to change the vote of *volunteer/programmers* to a vote of *membership* was inappropriate for the following reasons:
- A policy that determines how the Programming Committee is formed is a significant policy. A significant policy being considered by a Board of Trustees of a cooperative body should be posted for review and given a meaningful length of time for the staff and/or membership to respond before being voted on. To make such a drastic change with only a matter of minutes for consideration or debate is irresponsible.
- It had already been determined that there was only twenty minutes to discuss the staff's concerns. Making this new proposal confused the issue, volunteers and Board members werenít sure which issue was being discussed and the brief twenty minutes were made even shorter.
There was no drastic change if you had listened to the proposal you would know that the change was one of wording as there are no classes of individual membership at KOOP which was stated at the meeting, in other words there are no volunteers/programmers as a class of voter at KOOP. The term for members at KOOP is members not staff, staff is used at KOOP for two sets of people, the paid staff which now is Jenny and Ellen and volunteer staff that coordinates areas of volunteer work at KOOP. Jenny tells me that you have worked at pledge drives before so I know you have heard us promise that members who pay dues vote in KOOP elections.
[(1) Mac's opening statement is plainly untrue: Changing a voting body from programmers only to the general membership is a REAL change that affects who will vote; it's not just a wording change. (2) Mac's claim that volunteers/programmers are not a "class of voter" is also untrue: volunteers/programmers *are* listed as a voting body in KOOP's bylaws. But even if they weren't, there's nothing to prevent the Board from allowing volunteers/programmers to participate as a body in the programming committee election. (3) With Mac's run-on sentences it's not entirely clear what he means at the end of his paragraph, but he may be saying that "volunteer programmers" should not be called "volunteer staff". However, it's common and not unusual at all to refer to volunteer programmers as volunteer staff.]
It is the policy at KOOP meetings to limit discussion of items to twenty minutes, then extend the time if people want more discussion. No one brought up the need to further discuss this issue as you state you were at the meeting yet you did not at the time say you would like to hear more on the issue nor did you bring up the above objections, if you had it would have been explained to yo,and your opinion heard.
[Mac's claim that Carol's "opinion would be heard" is laughable. This hostile reply to Carol by Mac demonstrates the degree to which Carol's opinions are heard by board members. And Mac obviously made no effort at the meeting to facilitate Carol's effort to submit her input, preferring to punish her and disallow her speaking time because she was allegedly unfamiliar with the meeting rules.][The board used the excuse that] "The [volunteer] staff was not well informed." Before the meeting, many of the staff had studied the Board's program committee election process; it had been discussed and debated on the 'email lists, in the office and on the 'phones. At the meeting, the staff had a written description of the election process that was explained verbally by a Board member. Several members of the Board had multiple opportunities to respond to questions and comments about the process. I believe the staff was very well educated on the issue.
I have the highest regards for the knowledge of the members of KOOP,
[That is not evident from this blow-off letter, or from Mac's continual dismissal of volunteer programmers' concerns.]
many of whom I have work with for years and know that they are some of the most intelligent people in this country that is why our news and public affairs shows are the best possible its also why we don't need liberals to" limit our voting for our own good".
[What is Mac referring to when he says that we want to "limit voting for our own good"? Is it our opposition to the idea that the Board wants to let "special" people at the station vote more than once? (Under the Board's plan, Mac is one of those special people.) It is our idea that people should not be able to use their position of power on a governing board to elect themselves to yet another powerful position at the same time? Is it our idea that the volunteer programmers -- who do the bulk of the work at the station -- should be allowed to vote as a body in the upcoming election? It's unclear which of these things Mac thinks is an attempt to "limit" voting.]
I find it hard to believe though that you are well educated about any thing at KOOP when you call station meetings staff meetings you don't have any grasp of the definition of membership as described in our two page bylaws,
[In fact, Carol understands quite clearly how membership is defined. Mac is just trying to use a definition of membership to exclude programmers from voting as a group, when the definition of "membership" has absolutely no bearing on whether programmers should be allowed to vote as a group. As for referring to station meetings as staff meetings, since the bulk of the attendees are volunteer staff, this is hardly a major fault. It's certainly not as bad as attacking a member for sharing her concerns, or for railroading the democratic process.]
you knownothing about our meeting proceedures asyou have shown in the above statements.. Also you and others who are so opposed to democratic voting on the programming committee and so very concerned yet when this issue was being discussed for several month posted at the station you did absolutely nothing until you found a way to disrupt the station management.
[Carol lived in another state temporarily during the time that Mac chides her for not being more involved. As for the other opponents of the Board's plan, we *have* been opposing this plan from the very beginning!][The board used the excuse that] "The vote was not representative of the staff." The implied argument is that the only votes that are valid are those that have 100% participation.
This statement was never made what was said was that the station meetings are not representative of the programmers nor of the membership or staff for that matter.
[Okay, look at the statement that Carol put in quotes above, and then look and see how what Mac says was actually said is basically the same thing! Mac knows that Carol is referring to volunteer programmers when she says "staff", because he already chided her for using that term earlier in this email.]
The rules for station meetings are that they are for the distribution of information to programmers and other members of the Cooperative, only one member of a program or a collective is required to be there so that large numbers of active members were surprised to learn that it was a platform for voting on policy. Also the person who started all this himself admitted that he made no effort to educate or announce this as a voting meeting!
[What Mac fails to understand is that the volunteer staff vote was not taken as a policy vote, but was taken merely as a way to demonstrate to the Board that volunteer staff was overwhelmingly opposed to the Board's course of action. (Not that this made any impact on the Board.)]A reasonable response to this situation would be to make a concerted effort in outreach and recruitment...
Glad to hear this Carol we are now making outreach to community organizations and other outreach started by this board for the first time since KOOP has been on the air I know we will see you participate in this outreach right?
[In fact, the Board has had a lot less time for outreach because they've been spending their time doing things like attacking volunteers and setting up an unfair process for the election of the Programming Committee.]An unreasonable response to this situation is to dismiss the current staff as invalid and insignificant until the time that perfect representation is achieved.
This statement was never made nor even thought the board has complete respect for the members and programmers at KOOP its just this sort of outright lying that disgusts and disheartens the station.
[Outright lying? Above this, in this very same email, Mac admitted, "what was said was that the station meetings are not representative of the programmers nor of the membership or staff for that matter." The board has certainly communicated that the "no confidence" vote at the station meeting did not represent the volunteer staff!]For better or worse, the current staff is the only staff; they spend hours preparing for their shows, they attend meetings, plan benefits and make the pledge drive a success. The Board may not agree with them, but the Board should always listen to them and respect them.
This is simply an out rage our members are for the better! the present programming committee rules you hate were and are for increasing the participation of KOOP members in the running of the station something this board has pushed to open up ever since we were elected by these very members whose ablities to make decissions you seem to under estamate.
[Mac thinks the Board is "opening up" the Programming Committee? Mac's idea is to require that the PC be elected with the deck stacked in the favor of KOOP's ruling bodies (such as the idea that "special" people at KOOP should get to vote more than once). This is "increasing participation"?.]
If you are so concerned about the opinions of the members of KOOP then why is your number one focus at the station limiting who they can vote for and who can vote? Why are you so damn afraid of Democracy?
[Mac's idea of "democracy" is a system in which (1) "special" people at KOOP (himself included) get to vote more than once, (2) people in positions of power at the station can use their power to elect themselves to another position of power which they can hold simultaneously with the first, (3) the common members of the station have only 25% of the power in electing candidates, and (4) volunteer programmers as a class cannot be a voting body. Some democracy!]During the meeting, one Board member stated that the only reason the staff members are against the program committee election process was because programmers were afraid that increased democracy might cost them their show. This person said that the staff has a history of rejecting steps towards greater democracy because they want to hold on to the power that comes with smaller numbers.
Once again taking things out of context I was speaking about that handful of people, a possibility of maybe ten at the most who are trying to prevent a democratic election process, ( I continue to notice that you had no objections to the previous unelected programming committees). How else do you explain the constant harping on how to limit the voting and who can run for elections at KOOP from this small group of people?
[Mac here is yet once again ignoring the fact that THIRTY-SEVEN volunteer staff members voiced their objections to the Board's election process through a vote at a station meeting. Only eight people voted against, with 6 of those 8 being members or former members of the Board of Trustees. This vote was taken so that the Board could no longer say that it was just a "small handful of people" who were opposed to their election process. Yet somehow they persist.]
The part about losing their shows is total fabrication this board has never made a threat to any one's show and that goes especially for me who has constantly had our shows attacked and cut to promote others people's agenda. Once again this is is just a lie.
[I wasn't at this particular Board meeting so I can't comment on Mac's defense, but considering his track record for accuracy in the rest of this letter, I certainly have my doubts about the accuracy of this defense.]I cannot put into words how offensive those comments were.
You are right on this one your accusations are completely offensive.
[The Board's message to members seems to be:] "If you don't agree with us and you try to become a part of the policy making process at KO.OP, you will be dismissed (see paragraphs above) and then criticized and attacked."
The message to the members is that we totally trust you and we are not going to let a small group of people at KOOP push their patronizing agenda that will decide who you can elect and which of the members can vote.
[Mac's dismissal of Carol's concerns proves her point. Oh, the irony! See above for Mac's claims regarding a "small group of people" and "which of the members can vote".]This is how I felt at that meeting. My first response was to give up on any meaningful involvement with the station. I would just do my show and the minimum volunteer hours and leave it at that. I have since changed my mind, but I wonder how many others left the meeting with that same feeling.
I was able to speak to at least ten non board members that were at this meeting many of whom informed me on their own that they were happy with this board meeting you were the only one who seems to feel this way and strangely silent about it at the meeting it self.
[It's unclear where Mac found such strong support for the Board, considering that at the previous station meeting only 8 people voted against the programmers' changes to the Board's election process, with 6 of those 8 being current or former Board members. Certainly nobody posted to the email list to support this email of Mac's, although several people did post to denounce Mac's reply and to support Carol. The Board seems to have little support outside of itself besides Paul Odekirk and Eduardo Vera. And for the record, Carol is not the "only one who seems to feel" that the Board dismisses member concerns at their meetings. That's why KOOPers voted overwhelmingly to state their lack of confidence in the board at the special membership meeting.]I don't want there to be a big showdown between the Board and the staff. I don't want the station to be divided, everyone picking sides, feeding the conflict that keeps us from doing our real jobs. I don't need a Board vote on a proposal or an official response to this letter. I'm just presenting these ideas as something to consider.
Yes I bet you did not want a response to this letter, you pick the middle of pledge drive to attack me and other board members on issues that could have been resolved by a fifteen minute phone call yet you are not trying to divide or cause harm to the station?
Depending on the thought we would be to busy to reply? Several people have told me the reason you wrote this e-mail was that you work for KVRX and are trying to disrupt KOOP during a time of financial crisis(which I notice you did not care enough to write pages of e-mail on ) I am not one to believe in conspiracies but there are many KOOP members who are wondering about this.
One of the great things about Democrtacy at KOOP is that the Baord was elected by the members and are members as well as programers, so I warn you any attempt make to seperate us will be futile!
[If anybody had been giving Mac the benefit of the doubt up til now, I guess this would be the point where he lost it.]
Enclosing please learn a little about KOOP before you write two page letters on what the membership( not staff think) think, speak up at meetings don't walk off to pout afterwards, learn our meeting procedures, don't be so afraid of working with people who are different from you , don't sit and worry about who the membership will vote for the members of KOOP are very capable group of people with years of experience in community affairs they can vote for the right committee and the bylaws of the cooperative give them the means to do it and the Board of Trustees are glad to make sure there is no bar in the way of people voting or running. Next time don't feel afraid to phone and talk to board members may be next time you leave the meeting you will understand what goes on and not be paranoid about KOOP.
Mac McKaskle
[See above for what Mac really means when he talks about not "barring the way people vote or run". As for Mac's comment that all Carol had to do to get accountability from the Board was to telephone a board member, Mac's email slam on Carol is more than ample proof that phoning Mac wouldn't have done any good.]
February 27, 1998
Mac McKaskle wrote:
I have the highest regards for the knowledge of the members of KOOP, many of whom I have work with for years and know that they are some of the most intelligent people in this country
This is not at all apparent from statements and behaviors at the board meetings- to put it as mildly and politely as possible.
that is why our news and public affairs shows are the best possible its also why we don't need liberals to" limit our voting for our own good".
This says it all. No improvement is even possible, much less desirable. This tells you everything about where Mac is coming from...
February 28, 1998
Mac McKaskle wrote:
Several people have told me the reason you wrote this e-mail was that you work for KVRX and are trying to disrupt KOOP during a time of financial crisis(which I notice you did not care enough to write pages of e-mail on ) I am not one to believe in conspiracies but there are many KOOP members who are wondering about this.
This is probably the most shameful piece of bullshit I've read so far in any of the e-mail chatter that's been going on through these lists. Carol does not work at KVRX, she hasn't for years. Whoever told you otherwise and insinuated to you that she is "trying to disrupt KOOP during a time of financial crisis" is uninformed, paranoid, and extremely ignorant. If you know little to nothing about the current situation with KVRX and their current attitude towards KO.OP, are you not then practicing the same ignorance you criticize Carol for in your response.
[Les was mistaken about Carol not working at KVRX, since in fact at the time she still did some volunteer work there as well as for KOOP. (Here's Carol's clarification on KVRX.) But, of course, Les is correct that Mac is in outer space when he suggests that Carol was trying to sabotage KOOP!]
It scares me that an open criticism like Carol's can be attacked so viciously by a person who in the same breath professes to the ideals of democracy and diversity. Even if we assume that Carol did not know certain rules or procedures at KO.OP (which are always difficult to decipher), to blast a member/volunteer for a misunderstanding of station procedure so aggressively betrays any attempt to bring new people -- particularly non-programmers -- to this station. If you believe in outreach, you should now that this is an immature attitude to take with people who are new to KO.OP. (And it should be noted that Carol is not a newcomer to the station by any means, and deserves to be respected as any other dedicated volunteer, supporter and member should be).
I am not writing this as an attack on you, Mac, but as a criticism of your response to Carol. I recognize your passion and dedication, but I question the need to be so defensive to the point where you appear to belittle the person making the initial criticism. Your response came off as very arrogant to me, and it is this same arrogance that fuels the elitism that oppresses the communities this station is supposed to support.
If there is anything you want to know about KVRX, its current management, its current relations with the TSP Board (the real threat to KO.OP radio), its current attitude toward KO.OP, etc. please let me know and I will do my best as an active member of both stations to keep you as informed as humanly possible. I know there is a bad history involving these two stations, but it wouldn't be fair to equate history with the present without learning more about said present. Publicizing the notion that anyone at KVRX is conspiring to bring down KO.OP without any remote evidence of that only serves to betray the efforts of people at both stations to progress past that bad history. And if "there are many KOOP members wondering about this", I offer them my services and hope they will be intelligent and brave enough to research their theories before spreading rumors and ignorance...
ayo.
Otilio Lesley Jacobs Jr. (Les) ACME ThinkTank Whatever Provider...
KVRX/KO.OP 91.7fm Austin TX
House of Phat Beats/Dolla Holla Show
Thursdays 11p-1a/Fridays 2p-4p
March 2, 1998
...the unpleasant fact remains that there are some decisions that must be made and disagreements that must be aired. It's hard to walk a fine line between strong, forceful arguments and the civility that is necessary to achieve compromise and progress with those who you sometimes disagree, but that's what we must try to do.
Mac may indeed be a "nice guy", but that sure isn't apparent from the defensive and often downright nasty tone of his e-mail of 2/27. It seems to me that before we deal with WHAT is being said, those of us contributing to this forum must learn HOW to say things. Carol may indeed have been mistaken on some points, but this pales in comparison to the vitriol spewed by Mac. Waiting a day or two for tempers to cool down can sometimes be a good idea, as Vickie pointed out.
Carol's e-mail was respectful and positive. Mac, on the other hand, may have made some good points in his response, but I wouldn't know, because I was so totally put off by the tone. Don't you realize, Mac, that when you use words and phrases like "if you had listened", "you don't have any grasp", "you know nothing", "until you found a way to disrupt", "outright lying", "disgusts", "offensive", "pout", et cetera, you are not communicating with anyone, and any valid points you make will most likely be ignored?
Also, the sarcasm fairly drips off your "Glad to hear this, Carol" paragraph....
There are programmers at KOOP who do not neccessarily think that every organized body of individuals at KOOP needs to be elected. This does NOT mean that such programmers are evil smoke-filled-room "liberals" (oh, the horror!) who want to "limit our voting for our own good" and are "afraid of democracy". This is complete nonsense. Because one disagrees with the neccesity of having an elected Programming Committee, this does not make one an enemy of democracy.
This sort of "If you're not with us 100%, then you're against us" sentiment is what has alienated many of KOOP's current programmers from this BOT. I find it the height of irony that Mac refers to Carol as "paranoid", when his entire e-mail pretty much defines the word.
In a couple of places, Mac mentions "a small group of people" and "a handful of people" who are supposedly trying to "prevent a democratic election process". Once again, creating an enemy where there isn't one and also implying that this small group of people are just a bunch of malcontents who can be safely ignored. Isn't this the same tactic that Pacifica uses to try to smear the members and programmers who are resisting its current corporatization?
I have news for you, Mac. There are a lot more of us malcontents out here than you might think.
To refer to concerned individuals' discussion of an issue of station structure as "constant harping" demeans and belittles the opinions of other KOOP members.
And finally, the tactic of speading a wild, unsubstantiated, and ridiculous rumour and then trying to deny responsibility for it by saying "I am not one to believe in conspiracies" is both reprehensible AND cowardly.
Mac, you claim that this "board has complete respect for the members and programmers at KOOP". Yet the tone of your entire e-mail, as well as several specific statements, conveys the opposite impression.
[Carol said that the Board's attitude seemed to be:]
"If you don't agree with us and you try to become a part of the policy making process at KO.OP, you will be dismissed (see paragraphs above) and then criticized and attacked."
Mac's response to Carol proves the truth of her statement.
Calling 'em as I see 'em,
Paul K.
"Jamaican Gold" KOOP 91.7 FM Sundays 11:00a-12:00p
March 2, 1998
Mac wrote:
Several people have told me the reason you wrote this e-mail was that you work for KVRX and are trying to disrupt KOOP during a time of financial crisis(which I notice you did not care enough to write pages of e-mail on ) I am not one to believe in conspiracies but there are many KOOP members who are wondering about this.
Les replied:
This is probably the most shameful piece of bullshit I've read so far in any of the e-mail chatter that's been going on through these lists. Carol does not work at KVRX, she hasn't for years.
Carol responds:
To clarify so there aren't more misunderstandings, I do still work for KVRX. I have recently written a program for them to help them manage their rotation and reporting of new CDs. They are going to test it out this month and start using it regularly sometime in April. I'm planning to be a co-host with my friend Carol (a different Carol) on Friday nights every now and then and I will be involved in the 10 year Student Radio Task Force Reunion plans for April.One of the things I'm most proud of during my time as Station Manager of KVRX was being part of the peace that settled between the two stations. I have no bad feelings for either one, I love them both dearly.
Carol Teixeira
[ Carol's original text in
brown ]
[ Mac's reply in purple
]
[ Carol's response in green
]
February 2, 1998
Carol: I attended the Board of Trustees meeting on Monday, February 9th. I was disappointed by the events of this meeting.The new proposal to change the vote of *volunteer/programmers* to a vote of *membership* was inappropriate for the following reasons: A policy that determines how the Programming Committee is formed is a significant policy. A significant policy being considered by a Board of Trustees of a cooperative body should be posted for review and given a meaningful length of time for the staff and/or membership to respond before being voted on. To make such a drastic change with only a matter of minutes for consideration or debate is irresponsible...
It had already been determined that there was only twenty minutes to discuss the staff's concerns. Making this new proposal confused the issue, volunteers and Board members weren't sure which issue was being discussed and the brief twenty minutes were made even shorter.
Mac: There was no drastic change if you had listened to the proposal you would know that the change was one of wording as there are no classes of individual membership at KOOP which was stated at the meeting, in other words there are no volunteers/programmers as a class of voter at KOOP. The term for members at KOOP is members not staff, staff is used at KOOP for two sets of people, the paid staff which now is Jenny and Ellen and volunteer staff that coordinates areas of volunteer work at KOOP. Jenny tells me that you have worked at pledge drives before so I know you have heard us promise that members who pay dues vote in KOOP elections.
Carol: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but I will try to respond. The motion was to change the "programmer/volunteer" vote to a "membership" vote. I'm not sure why there isn't a classification like this, it would be simple enough to see who has a show and who has volunteer hours. Whether or not the "programmer/volunteer" category exists was not brought up as a reason for the change. Regardless of the reasons, a significant change to the process and I don't think it should have been done without time for discussion or review.
Mac: It is the policy at KOOP meetings to limit discussion of items to twenty minutes, then extend the time if people want more discussion. No one brought up the need to further discuss this issue as you state you were at the meeting yet you did not at the time say you would like to hear more on the issue nor did you bring up the above objections, if you had it would have been explained to yo,and your opinion heard.
Carol: I did not have an opportunity to ask for more time. The moderator had said that the meeting would end at ten. At ten, she adjourned. I don't understand the argument "If you didn't say it then, it isn't valid now." I took the time to collect my thoughts, process my emotions and write a letter. I believe that is an acceptable way to communicate.
Carol: [The Board suggested that] "The staff was not well informed." - Before the meeting, many of the staff had studied the Boardís program committee election process; it had been discussed and debated on the email lists, in the office and on the phones. At the meeting, the staff had a written description of the election process that was explained verbally by a Board member. Several members of the Board had multiple opportunities to respond to questions and comments about the process. I believe the staff was very well educated on the issue.Mac: I have the highest regards for the knowledge of the members of KOOP, many of whom I have work with for years and know that they are some of the most intelligent people in this country that is why our news and public affairs shows are the best possible its also why we don't need liberals to" limit our voting for our own good". I find it hard to believe though that you are well educated about any thing at KOOP when you call station meetings staff meetings you don't have any grasp of the definition of membership as described in our two page bylaws, you knownothing about our meeting proceedures asyou have shown in the above statements.. Also you and others who are so opposed to democratic voting on the programming committee and so very concerned yet when this issue was being discussed for several month posted at the station you did absolutely nothing until you found a way to disrupt the station management.
Carol: I'm not sure why calling "station meetings" "staff meetings" is so offensive. I don't think it means that I know nothing about KO.OP. As a reminder, I voted against the proposal to change the Programming Committee election process. My letter did not adress the contents of that process, that is not my concern. My concern is how the discussion about that process has been handled. I have been active in this debate since I returned to Austin in January, I don't think I can be faulted for not being involved when I lived in Portland, Oregon.
Carol: [The Board suggested that] "The vote was not representative of the staff." - The implied argument is that the only votes that are valid are those that have 100% participation.Mac: This statement was never made what was said was that the station meetings are not representative of the programmers nor of the membership or staff for that matter. The rules for station meetings are that they are for the distribution of information to programmers and other members of the Cooperative, only one member of a program or a collective is required to be there so that large numbers of active members were surprised to learn that it was a platform for voting on policy. Also the person who started all this himself admitted that he made no effort to educate or announce this as a voting meeting!
Carol: It was stated at the meeting something similar to "only 37 people voted for it, that's not very significant". I disagree with that idea for the reasons I stated. The vote at the station meeting did not follow an official voting procedure because it was not an official vote, an 'official' vote from the programmers and volunteers is not defined. It was only an expression of how some programmers and volunteers felt.
Carol: A reasonable response to this situation would be to make a concerted effort in outreach and recruitmentMac: Glad to hear this Carol we are now making outreach to community organizations and other outreach started by this board for the first time since KOOP has been on the air I know we will see you participate in this outreach right?
Carol: I'm not sure of the argument here. I think the Board has done a good job on the outreach issue. I appreciate their work on that.
Carol: An unreasonable response to this situation is to dismiss the current staff as invalid and insignificant until the time that perfect representation is achieved.Mac: This statement was never made nor even thought the board has complete respect for the members and programmers at KOOP its just this sort of out right lying that disgusts and disheartens the station.
Carol: I agree that the argument "the programmer/volunteers do not represent the community" wasn't made at the Board meeting. I should have noted it as such in my letter. I believe it has been an issue in the long term, as related to the Program Committee election process and the relations between the Board and the programmer/volunteers in general. There are at least a few other programmer/volunteers who believe that it has been an issue.
Carol: For better or worse, the current staff is the only staff; they spend hours preparing for their shows, they attend meetings, plan benefits and make the pledge drive a success. The Board may not agree with them, but the Board should always listen to them and respect them.Mac: This is simply an out rage our members are for the better! the present programming committee rules you hate were and are for increasing the participation of KOOP members in the running of the station something this board has pushed to open up ever since we were elected by these very members whose ablities to make decissions you seem to under estamate. If you are so concerned about the opinions of the members of KOOP then why is your number one focus at the station limiting who they can vote for and who can vote? Why are you so damn afraid of Democracy?
Carol: As I said above, I don't hate the Programming Committee election process. I did not vote at the station meeting to change the election process and I think it will work fine for the coming elections. I do think it could be improved, and I think it should be readdressed before next year's elections so that a process can be developed that more people can agree on, but I'm not adamently opposed to the process.
Carol: During the meeting, one Board member stated that the only reason the staff members are against the program committee election process was because programmers were afraid that increased democracy might cost them their show. This person said that the staff has a history of rejecting steps towards greater democracy because they want to hold on to the power that comes with smaller numbers.Mac: Once again taking things out of context I was speaking about that handful of people, a possibility of maybe ten at the most who are trying to prevent a democratic election process, ( I continue to notice that you had no objections to the previous unelected programming committees). How else do you explain the constant harping on how to limit the voting and who can run for elections at KOOP from this small group of people? The part about losing their shows is total fabrication this board has never made a threat to any one's show and that goes especially for me who has constantly had our shows attacked and cut to promote others people's agenda. Once again this is is just a lie.
Carol: If you were speaking to only a a few members, that wasn't made clear. It sounded like you were speaking to everyone who was against the Program Committee election process, which is at least 37 people. I don't understand the argument "only a handful of people don't like the election process". The reason the programmers/volunteers took that vote is to try to communicate that it is more than just a handful of people.
I did not say that a threat was made to take away people's shows. I said that a Board member stated that folks were afraid of increasing democracy because that would get more people involved with the station and because of the increased numbers, they might lose their shows.
Carol: I cannot put into words how offensive those comments were.Mac: You are right on this one your accusations are completely offensive.Carol: [In effect, the Board is saying] "If you don't agree with us and you try to become a part of the policy making process at KO.OP, you will be dismissed (see paragraphs above) and then criticized and attacked."
Mac: The message to the members is that we totally trust you and we are not going to let a small group of people at KOOP push their patronizing agenda that will decide who you can elect and which of the members can vote.Carol: This is how I felt at that meeting. My first response was to give up on any meaningful involvement with the station. I would just do my show and the minimum volunteer hours and leave it at that. I have since changed my mind, but I wonder how many others left the meeting with that same feeling.
Mac: I was able to speak to at least ten non board members that were at this meeting many of whom informed me on their own that they were happy with this board meeting you were the only one who seems to feel this way and strangely silent about it at the meeting it self.
Carol: It is a good question "Is this the opinion of one person, or do others feel that way?" I think this would be important to find out. We could argue that you talked to ten people, and I talked to ten people also, but we are probably talking to different people. We could ask at the station meeting tonight if anyone else has the same concerns. What is frustruating about this is - this is what Ricardo did. He went to the staff and said "Are there folks who agree with me" and thirty seven people said "yes". After that you still dismissed the concerns as belonging to only a handful of people.
Carol: I don't want there to be a big showdown between the Board and the staff. I don't want the station to be divided, everyone picking sides, feeding the conflict that keeps us from doing our real jobs. I don't need a Board vote on a proposal or an official response to this letter. I'm just presenting these ideas as something to consider.Mac: Yes I bet you did not want a response to this letter, you pick the middle of pledge drive to attack me and other board members on issues that could have been resolved by a fifteen minute phone call yet you are not trying to divide or cause harm to the station?
Carol: I expressed my opinion about how a Board meeting made me feel. I did not intend for it to be a critisism of the Board as a whole, I am not unhappy or angry with ya'll in general. *** I think the people on the Board spend a lot of time and energy doing difficult and important work that sometimes doesn't get any thanks at all. I'm glad ya'll have made that commitment to the station, KO.OP wouldn't survive without it.***
I shared my experience in an effort to communicate, that's all.
Mac: Depending on the thought we would be to busy to reply? Several people have told me the reason you wrote this e-mail was that you work for KVRX and are trying to disrupt KOOP during a time of financial crisis(which I notice you did not care enough to write pages of e-mail on ) I am not one to believe in conspiracies but there are many KOOP members who are wondering about this.
Carol: Wow. I'm not sure how to respond to that one. Did I also work on the Mardi Gras benefit to try to destroy KO.OP? Did I work the pledge drive as a plot try to mess up the membership database? Did I clean the station with the Music Collective to try to bother the allergies of folks who are allergic to Pledge? Did I offer to help with the KO.OP web page and mail list in an effort to spread a computer virus? When I do Live Bait, do I play subliminal messages saying "listen to KVRX!"? Was all my work in promotions in 1996 all a plot too?
Mac: One of the great things about Democrtacy at KOOP is that the Baord was elected by the members and are members as well as programers, so I warn you any attempt make to seperate us will be futile!Enclosing please learn a little about KOOP before you write two page letters on what the membership( not staff think) think, speak up at meetings don't walk off to pout afterwards, learn our meeting procedures, don't be so afraid of working with people who are different from you , don't sit and worry about who the membership will vote for the members of KOOP are very capable group of people with years of experience in community affairs they can vote for the right committee and the bylaws of the cooperative give them the means to do it and the Board of Trustees are glad to make sure there is no bar in the way of people voting or running. Next time don't feel afraid to phone and talk to board members may be next time you leave the meeting you will understand what goes on and not be paranoid about KOOP.
Carol: This letter didn't provide any new information about the issues. I don't think the problem is that I am not informed, I just think we disagree.
Carol Teixeira