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

Stacking the Programming Committee
by Michael Bluejay

---

What is the Programming Committee?

The Programming Committee (PC) decides what programs KOOP airs. They approve or deny program applications, and decide where in the schedule to place programs. Since ultimately what KOOP does is to air programming, and the Programming Committee decides what we air, the PC obviously has a lot of power.

Previous makeup of the Programming Committee

In the past, PC members got onto the PC through various combinations of being elected, being appointed, or volunteering. Since the station is still in its infancy and there has always been more work to do than people to do it, establishing an official mechanism for getting people onto the PC had not been a big priority. The Board of Trustees (BoT, "board") decided to establish an official procedure for electing members of the PC. This in and of itself was not necessarily a bad idea. But the procedure the board set up is incredibly flawed and grossly unfair -- and they set up that procedure over the objections of the overwhelming majority of the volunteer members.

How & why the Programming Committee was targeted

Why would the Community Board (CB) and BoT want control of who's on the PC? Well, first, as we mentioned, the PC has a great deal of power because they're the ones who decide what goes out over KOOP's airwaves. Probably a second reason is that the PC was headed by Ricardo Guerrero, who is one of the most vocal critics of the board.

Here's how the BoT initially decided the PC would be elected:

• 2 members elected by the BoT
• 2 members elected by the CB
• 2 members elected by Collectives
• 2 members elected by volunteers/programmers

At first glance we see that 50% of the slots are filled by the ruling bodies of the station -- by Eduardo Vera's CB, and by the BoT (which is chaired by Teresa Taylor, Eduardo's wife). But then there are the Collectives: Eduardo is ALSO a member of the Latino Collective, and most BoT members are also members of other Collectives. So they would get to exert their influence again by voting in their Collectives, too. And finally, ruling board members are also volunteer programmers, so they would get to vote yet again.

One person, one vote?

At this point you may be thinking, "Wait -- I thought a basic co-op principle was 'one person, one vote'?" Ah, but that only works at democratic co-ops, not at KOOP Radio. I attended the board meeting at which this proposal was introduced by board member Carol Hayman. I asked Carol if the proposal meant that a BoT or CB member who was also a member of a collective and also a volunteer programmer would get to vote THREE times? Carol stared at her own proposal for a minute, since what should have been an obvious fundamental flaw had evidently never occurred to her. When she finally answered, she simply said, "Yes." I replied, "Do you not see a MAJOR problem with that?" Eduardo Vera was quick to chime in, predictably saying that the "one person, many votes" idea was in fact MORE democratic because people on the BoT and CB were selected by the community and thus the community had placed their faith in them to have that extra power. And of course, Eduardo is one of those people who would get multiple votes. (Surprise, surprise!)

Diluting volunteer staff's votes even more

Could a bad proposal get even worse? You bet it could! Stacking the deck in their favor wasn't good enough for the BoT. They wanted the deck stacked EVEN MORE. They knew that volunteer programmers support people on the PC like Ricardo Guerrero and Rod Moag (who have been critical of the CB and BoT), and apparently giving volunteer programmers responsibility for selecting even 25% of the PC was more power than the BoT wanted volunteer programmers to have. So, instead of having 2 PC members elected by volunteer programmers, the BoT changed it so that those 2 PC members would be elected by the entire general membership at large. The volunteer programmers' votes would then be diluted with those of the general membership.

Setting themselves up to be elected

Now you may be thinking, "Okay, but surely that's as bad as it could get, right? I mean, surely even this BoT wouldn't have the gall to try to consolidate their control of the PC even further, would they?" Think again. They way they set it up, not only do the BoT and CB have incredible influence in selecting who's on the PC, but BoT and CB members themselves could also get themselves elected to the PC! And they could use their multiple votes to do it. In fact, this is exactly what happened: board member Carol Hayman was elected to the PC by the CB. (Incidentally, the CB, which Paul Odekirk sits on, elected Paul's domestic partner Tony Truong to the PC. See Nepotism.)

Ignoring the wishes of volunteer staff

But surely the BoT would listen if people protested their plans, right? Nope! Volunteer members were rightfully alarmed at the multiple-votes provision and the ability for board members to get themselves elected to the PC. So at the February 1998 station meeting, Ricardo Guerrero asked for a show of hands to see who supported this statement: "We, the volunteers, members, and programmers of KO.OP Radio support the following:

• That no person at the station should hold more than one elected position at the same time;
  
• That the delegates chosen by the Collectives to elect their 2 seats on the Programming Committee not also be candidates for those seats;
  
• That the Board of Trustees make these 2 changes to the current Programming Committee election process prior to it actually taking effect next month.

Thirty-seven (37) people voted for this with only 8 opposing, and about six of those eight were current or former members of the BoT. And even some of those voting against the resolution admitted that the BoT should be concerned with the programmers' concerns. One of the people voting against the resolution (Gerald Thomason) said, "I agree that the Board should address this issue. It is obvious it is of concern to a majority of programmers." And another person who voted against the resolution (Carol Teixeira) said, "I think the process is not a great one, it is too complicated and it does give more power to a smaller number of folks without good enough reason...even if the programming committee election process really is the very best idea that ever happened, if the two-thirds of the station is against it, then it should be changed."

In any event, and not surprisingly, although volunteer support for the resolution was overwhelming, the BoT ignored their concerns and passed the policy as they had written it.

An open invitation to election fraud

It just really couldn't get any worse, could it? Think again! Here's how Ricardo Guerrero put it on 2-22-98:

"On the subject of how to ensure that those people voting at the meeting ARE Members of the station, the BoT has said they intend to employ an 'honor system.' Obviously that could easily be abused by persons wishing to influence the vote. If the only certification for voting is for someone to CLAIM, 'Yes, I'm a Member of the station,' then this vote could become representative not of the Membership but of whomever can get the most people to the meeting who CLAIM to be members. And if there's no way to check if they indeed ARE, then the whole vote becomes suspect..."

Samples of the public outry

Here's a sample of programmers'/volunteers' opposition to the election process:

Carol's comments .|. Scott's comments .|. Ricardo's comments
Back to Top .|. Save KOOP Radio home page

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:

• 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.

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.

• "This is a personality issue." - It is true that personalities have played a part in this conflict. But to claim that the staff is not capable of separating their ideas about policy and their opinions about the personalities involved is insulting. The fact is that many staff members are genuinely, sincerely and thoughtfully against the programming committee election process. The Board does not have to agree with the staff's concerns, but they cannot dismiss them as a personality conflict.
  
• "The 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.
  
• "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 is poor logic for these reasons: 1) The statement of thirty-six KO.OP volunteers is always important. 2) Because of daytime jobs, families and personal lives, there will most likely never be a staff vote that has full participation. The Board's requirement for full-participation would invalidate any votes that the staff ever took. 3) The full-participation argument would also invalidate both the Community Board and Board of Trustee elections.
  
• "The staff is not representative of the community." - This statement is true. A reasonable response to this situation would be to make a concerted effort in outreach and recruitment. An unreasonable response to this situation is to dismiss the current staff as invalid and insignificant until the time that perfect representation is achieved. 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.

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.

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

Carol's comments .|. Scott's comments .|. Ricardo's comments
Back to Top .|. Save KOOP Radio home page

I have so many questions and concerns about this that I don't know where to begin. My biggest question is *why* are we doing this? Wouldn't it be easier for the BoT to simply tell the Programming Committee what they want? Specifically such and such percentage women programmers, latino/a programmers, gay and lesbian programming, etc.? Of course this kind of quota system as well as the impending PC election miss the point entirely; that is, our problem is not one of process, but one of *outreach*.

The fact is, minority programmers are not beating down our doors with program proposals, despite all our efforts to bring them in. Is this the fault of the Program Committee? Obviously the BoT and CB think so. So now we're being dragged through a potentially fractious, certainly time-consuming and energy-sapping process, whose only purpose seems to be to "democratically" validate the political aims the BoT and CB.

Since we are obviously going forth with the election, I must express grave reservations about the proposed election/composition of the future PC. First and foremost, why is the Board represented? Don't they already have final say over any PC decisions? This would be very much like the President getting to choose some of the members of Congress. Secondly, whatever happened to one person, one vote? As it stands now someone could have multiple votes; for instance, let's say someone on the CB is also a member of a couple of collectives, what then? Gee, what a coincidence, the most outspoken members of the CB and collectives just happen to be the same people who pushing this through. Democracy in action. Well the least that the BoT and CB could do is, assuming they want to continue with this ill-conceived plan, is to wait until *after* the CB elections this year; and until *after* the two new Board members are elected. That way maybe the perception that they are stacking the deck for short term political gains can in some small way be minimized. Don't count on it.

I am demoralized but still breathing. -- Scott

Carol's comments .|. Scott's comments .|. Ricardo's comments
Back to Top .|. Save KOOP Radio home page

Subject: Resolution passed at Station Meeting 
Date:    02/03/98
From:    ricardo guerrero, Musica@Bigfoot.com 

A motion I presented was passed last night at the station meeting. It stated (not exact quote):

--MOTION--We the voluteers, members, and programmers of KO.OP radio support the following:

That no person at the station should hold more than one elected position at the same time, and That the delegates chosen by the Collectives to elect their 2 seats on the Programming Committee not also be candidates for those seats. That the Board of Trustees make these 2 changes to the current Programming Committee election process prior to it actually taking effect next month.

-- PASSED 37 FOR - 8 AGAINST- 7/8 ABSTAINING --

[This may have actually been 36 FOR.]

... The ball is now in the Trustees court. Shall we explore how they appear ready to play it?...

I have been attending Board of Trustees meetings rather regulary the past few months in the hopes of influencing the Trustees to make the station more truly democratic and cooperative. I feel I have failed.

The Trustees appear quite willing to disregard the concerns I bring before them, even though at times as many as 22 member/volunteers have also brought similar concerns and suggestions to the Board. At a Board of Trustees working meeting 2 weeks ago Trustee Mac MacKaskle summed up his sentiments by saying there are about 10 programmers who disagree with anything the Board does, and hence the Board should not be concerned with what they think. He further expressed, "People are complaining about why we haven't gotten anything done in the last 6 months!" I submit to Mac and others concerned with "getting things done" at the station to look to the reason there was such overwhelming support for the above motion (well over 2/3 in favor).

Democracy IS NOT a system that is designed to be efficient. Indeed, the trains rarely run on time as they do under despotic systems of government. Yet we would take on the challenges of operating democratically as we strive for a fair, just, truly cooperative way of governing our little station.

So what does this entail, this way of governing, this democratic cooperative? I believe it entails concensus-building. And how do we build concensus on divisive issues? I say it is by seeking the input of the greatest number of people possible early in the development of crucial policies and procedures, be they a new Mission Statement, or changing the station's staff structure, or setting up a process for electing a new Programming Committee...

In my humble opinion, this is precisely what has been lacking in this process of electing a new Programming Committee. That is why _now_ that a process is about to be implemented so many programmers share a concern about that process resulting in a further concentration of power at the station. And what can be less democratic or cooperative than the concentration of power in the hands of a few? Do we want to be KO.OP radio, or OLIGARCHY radio?

I think I've failed on another account: some people seem to view my efforts as simply a personality clash with Eduardo Vera or others at the station. Other folks thank me for trying to inform them about what is going on at the station and trying to get more volunteer/programmers to be involved in the important debates going on at the station. Very few have, yet the Board, rather than attempt to increase participation of members at their meetings, has limited member input by closing debate and has refused to post up their own agenda to this list-serv. Whatever input they have received they have disregarded for the most part...

... So, how will the Board of Trustees react to the above Motion? I would hope they would be wise enough to admit the shortcomings of the process so far and do well to heed the volunteer/programmers' concerns for the fairness of the next Programming Committee. I would hope they learn from this about the importance of doing grassroots information gathering before handing down important policy. I would hope the Trustees do not simply get defensive and stop listening to the concerns being raised by folks who care so much about the station.

But I have only a small bit of hope. I look at the way the above vote broke down, with 6 of the 8 AGAINST votes coming from current or former Board/Communtity Board members (if I'm not mistaken). I hear the arguments used by the Trustees against the above motion- arguing that only a small fraction of the total membership was present at last night's vote, that the process presented is still much better than that from a few years ago, that it's too late to start over...

Will they accept the overwhelming input of the people who do so much and care so much for KO.OP? Our current Trustees will have to decide whether the station is to be a democracy or a despotic oligarchy whose trains run on time, even if it's in the NAME of the Community. I truly hope for the future of the station, and our little experiment in cooperation, that they choose wisely.

Humbly and kooperatively yours, ricardo guerrero :D

Carol's comments .|. Scott's comments .|. Ricardo's comments
Back to Top .|. Save KOOP Radio home page