Web site of the Friends of KOOP .|. Save KOOP Radio home
Ignoring concerns
of membership
by Michael
Bluejay
Ignoring concerns
of membership
by Michael
Bluejay
Introduction
A fundamental principle of cooperative organizations is that a co-op's Board of Trustees should reflect the wishes of its membership. After all, a co-op is organized by and for the benefit of its members.
But KOOP's board goes out of its way to avoid representing the membership. They've made one bad decision after another, even over the overwhelming objections by KOOP's volunteer members.
When I criticize the failings of KOOP's board, I know what I'm talking about: I'm on the board of directors of another local cooperative (the Inter-Cooperative Council), which is much larger than KOOP, whether measured in economic terms or in terms of how much member labor is performed each week. And I'll tell you this: if huge numbers of my co-op's membership came to the board and told us that they didn't agree with the direction we were taking, I would either change my votes so they were in line with what the members wanted, or, if I truly felt that what the members wanted would be really harmful to the co-op, then I would resign. But in no way would I attempt to lead a co-op in opposition to its membership!
Here are some examples of KOOP's board ignoring the wishes of volunteer membership.
Failure to renew the General Manager's contract
When members suspected that the board would try to get rid of the General Manager (Jenny Wong), 42 of the General Manager's supporters attended the board meeting in June 1998 to speak in her favor or otherwise show their support. On the other hand, only three people not on the board spoke against the General Manager. (Two of these three people were Paul Odekirk and Eduardo Vera -- no surprise there.) Did it give the board pause that they were considering a course of action that the volunteer members were nearly unanimously against? No. It was a similar situation at the next stationwide meeting. Large numbers spoke in favor of the GM, with only a tiny handful speaking against. Despite these numbers, the board voted in July to not renew the General Manager's contract. [more on this issue]
Hostile reply to a member who dared to share her concerns
Carol Teixeira, a longtime KOOP volunteer, wrote a very polite open letter to the Board of Trustees expressing some concerns she had about the board ignoring the concerns of volunteer members. In response, board member Mac McKaskle sent an extremely hostile public reply. Carol tried patiently, without success, to get the other board members engaged in meaningful dialogue. They blew her off. Read Carol's article about her incredible experience.
Interfering with the hiring of the Assistant Manager
Some months ago, long before firing the General Manager, the board insisted that it should have a role in hiring the Assistant Manager. This is clearly contrary to procedure, since the General Manager's job description plainly specifies that the GM is responsible for hiring staff. (This is standard for both other co-ops and for regular corporations as well. And that's how we do it in the ICC co-op: the board hires the GM, and the GM hires the rest of the staff.) The board's interference with the process of hiring the Assistant Manager is a clear example of their overstepping their authority, and their desire to micromanage the station. And volunteer members were certainly opposed to this course of action. To demonstrate dramatically how many people opposed the board's action, at a station meeting attended by dozens of KOOP volunteer members, I asked for a show of hands as to how many people supported the General Manager's authority to hire her own staff, as per her written job description. Easily 90% or more people raised their hands. Did the fact that overwhelming numbers of members were opposed to their plans have any effect on the board? Not at all. The board followed through with their plans and assumed an improper role in the hiring process of the Assistant Manager. In fact, after that vote, Eduardo Vera (a board apologist) immediately dismissed it by stating that our concerns didn't matter because the board has the ultimate decision-making power and that they represent "the community" while volunteer members do not.
But this issue goes beyond the fact that the board overstepped their authority: Their refusal to let the GM hire her own staff meant that KOOP was left without an Assistant GM for over five months, leaving the GM overburdened and the station severely understaffed. The board later blamed the GM for mismanagement, although the problems they cited were in large part caused by their own interference which left the GM without any other paid staff assistance.
Stacking the election of the Programming Committee
In a similar situation, in February 1998 the board had plans for deciding how the Programming Committee would be elected, a process that was widely viewed as being fantastically unfair. The board's plan would allow "special" people (such as certain board members) the ability to vote three times, and would allow them to elect themselves to the Programming Committee. To demonstrate the overwhelming opposition to these plans, Ricardo Guerrero suggested that the proposed procedure be changed to allow for only one vote per person, and to prohibit board members from electing themselves. He asked for a show of hands of those who supported these revisions, and the vote was 37-8. And six of the eight voting against were current or former members of the board! Did the fact that that the majority of the station opposed their plans give the board pause? No. They passed their plan anyway, consolidating their power even further. [more on this issue]
When volunteer Carol Teixeira sent an Open Letter to the Board expressing her concern that they had so handily dismissed the programmers' concerns, rather than consider her statements, board member Mac McKaskle made an incredibly insensitive public reply. Carol wrote an article about how the board completely blew off her concerns.
Refusing to discuss concerns with station engineer Jerry Chamkis
Jerry Chamkis, KOOP's station engineer and Friends of KOOP member, wrote a letter to Board of Trustees member Aida Franco, which was highly critical of her actions on the board. His letter was admittedly very aggressive and he did apologize to her for his aggressiveness. (In contrast, board members never apologize to members for their own hostility toward members, and board member Mac McKaskle and community board member Eduardo Vera are certainly more guilty of spewing hostility than Jerry ever was.)
After Jerry apologized, he made it clear that despite his language, that there were still issues that needed to be addressed. He made every effort to meet with Aida Franco to try to resolve their differences, but she refused. You can listen to a RealAudio clip of Aida refusing to meet with Jerry. Notice how Eduardo Vera, who is not even a member of the Board of Trustees, still speaks for the board. The speakers on this clip, in order of appearance, are: