FAQ for Mission Based Bylaws
by Jabari Zakiya
Go Back to the WPFW
Mission based proposal
1. What is the purpose of your Bylaws?
2. Why did you wait this long to produce your
Bylaws?
3. What do see as the major problems of the current
drafts?
4. Why do you feel your Bylaws proposal is better?
5. What are the salient features of your Bylaws?
6. What/why is your definition of “Foundation
Member”?
7. So how are people monitored to establish meeting
membership criteria?
8. Won’t your Bylaws allow for unmanageable
LSB sizes?
9. Why are your Bylaws simpler?
10. Why are your Bylaws less costly to implement?
11. Why do your Bylaws eliminate Local Station
Board elections?
12. What are the flaws in the various constituency
models?
13. Do your Bylaws allow for more participation
of diverse people?
14. Why are your Bylaws more in harmony with
the Pacifica Mission?
15. Don’t your Bylaws limit the number
of people who can be Members?
16. Aren’t your Bylaws unfair to people
who can’t meet the membership criteria?
17. Don’t people who donate have a right
to determine the running of Pacifica?
18. Won’t your Bylaws deter people from
donating to the stations?
19. How long did it take you to write your Bylaws?
20. Do you really think your Bylaws have a chance
of being adopted?
1. What is the purpose of your Bylaws?
I wanted to provide a complete set of bylaws as an alternative
to whatever the official iPNB Bylaws process will (if ever)
produce. It is my estimation that the increasingly deteriorating
Bylaws process will either not produce a legally valid document,
or will (eventually) produce a complex and convoluted document
that will be detrimental to the future governance and development
of Pacifica.
[top]
2. Why did you wait this long to produce your Bylaws?
At our regular WPFW Bylaws meeting a couple of days before
the special DC Oct. 13-14, 2002 iPNB Bylaws meeting, a member
(Jane Gatewood) proposed the concept of using a person's participation
in Pacifica mission related activities as the basis for being
a LSB member. After discussion, I grew to conceptually like
it. I took that concept and created an initial alternative
draft proposal, which I presented at that October meeting.
It was essentially ignored.
After sitting now through two special iPNB Bylaws meetings
(DC and Houston), it is clear to me the process for creating
the bylaws has deteriorated into chaos. It is also clear to
me that as long as the Bylaws institutionalizes conflicts
between groups of people by creating a finite number of seats
on the LSBs, people will act to fight for them, and there
will never be true consensus that will come out of this process,
even if it is possible to get enough people to accept one
bylaws version.
Thus, after suffering through the even more chaotic, and
unproductive, special iPNB Bylaws meeting in Houston, Nov.
22-24, 2002, I realized that only by producing an alternative
draft Bylaws will people be able to not only grasp the concepts
of my initial proposal, but also recognize the deep hole this
current process has dug us into, for which there is no viable
way out.
An old African proverb goes something like:
The only thing necessary to show someone
that the glass they drink out of is dirty,
is to place a clean one beside it.
I present my version as a clean glass to the current one
we are drinking out of.
[top]
3. What do see as the major problems of the current drafts?
The major philosophical mistake has been to view Pacifica
as a governmental structure, and then use the language and
concepts of “democratic government” as the basis
for generating bylaws.
PACIFICA IS NOT A GOVENMENTAL ORGANIZATION, NOR DOES IT HAVE
GOVERNMENTAL GOALS AND PURPOSES.
This philosophical mistake is manifested in a noninclusive
concept of what a“Member” of the Foundation/LSBs
is. This is the basis for assuming there need to be elections,
which limits the members on LSBs. And as long as there is
this institutionalized limitation of LSB members, who get
to elect the Directors of the Foundation, there will only
be institutionalized infighting, i.e. assuming one group will
be able to eventually ram their version of the elections process
down the other listening areas throats.
[top]
4. Why do you feel your Bylaws proposal is better?
My bylaws eliminates the structural conflict zone of a limited
number of LSB seats, and the election process to fill them.
People become part of the LSBs (and other future such bodies)
by performing tangible, documented, mission related work.
Anybody who really wants to WORK to fulfill the mission of
Pacifica can become a member of an LSB solely based on their
desire to apply for membership and fulfill mission based work
criteria.
[top]
5. What are the salient features of your Bylaws?
Foundation membership is not restricted to a finite size.
Anyone who applies for membership and meets the mission based
work criteria can join. When people stop doing work they relinquish
member status Thus, LSB elections are eliminated. I also pruned
things I considered bylaws bloat, and used more concise and
efficient language, and put things in a more logical order.
[top]
6. What/why is your definition of “Foundation Member”?
By definition, a “Foundation Member” is a natural
person who has the right to vote for, and become, a Director
of the Pacifica Foundation. In radio operations (Pacifica's
only current operations) Members in each listening area comprise
the voting (but not exclusive) members of the LSBs.
This model eliminates the need for costly yearly elections
at each station to determine who acquires these limited number
of seats. It puts the emphasis on Members being people who
want to work to fulfill the Pacifica Mission. No limitation
is placed on the number of Members. This is good.
The more people who can be encouraged to engage in tangible
and consistent Mission based activities means Pacifica is
really working to fulfill its Mission. The people doing the
work are, also, all equitably recognized as having votes and
right in the governance of Pacifica.
[top]
7. So how are people monitored to establish meeting membership
criteria?
This is the one area where I haven't figured out all the details.
However, there are models that already exist that we can work
from. But at some level there will have to be written records
kept of people's activities and time. The key is creating
criteria that are rigorous enough to ensure that people are
performing real and substantial mission related work, but
not too restrictive so as to severely limit the number of
people who will become members.
[top]
8. Won’t your Bylaws allow for unmanageable LSB sizes?
NO. The LSBs primarily exist to identify, and perform, specific
Mission related tasks and activities around the stations.
The focus is not on having LSB meetings, but engaging in work
activities and tasks at the committee (station) level. The
LSBs structurally exist to connect and monitor people's activities
in fulfilling The Mission. Periodic meetings of the full LSB
would normally be administrative. If the size of the LSB would
ever cause a need for a larger meeting space, that wouldn't
be a problem, that's success!
I'm actually more concerned that each LSB have at least 20
people who will continually do the work to remain members.
[top]
9. Why are your Bylaws simpler?
No costly yearly LSB elections. No campaign periods. No election
corruption. Short, concise, and clear. Easily understood,
implementable, and amendable. No bylaws bloat. Eliminates
self-imposed land mines for liability and lawsuits.
[top]
10. Why are your Bylaws less costly to implement?
Costly yearly LSB elections are eliminated, including the
cost, time, and distraction, of conducting yearly on-air campaigns
for candidates. It also eliminates provisions exposing the
Foundation to nuisance lawsuits.
[top]
11. Why do your Bylaws eliminate Local Station Board elections?
These elections are a breeding grounds for contention among
groups of people, based on demographics historically used
to create inequality and oppression. They would be a yearly
inefficient use of time, money, people’s energy, station
operations, and still not achieve LSBs that would have people
on them who would do actual work to fulfill The Mission.
[top]
12. What are the flaws in the various constituency models?
These models accept institutionalized exclusiveness as the
basis of participation. They use external demographic characteristics
as a presumed basis of importance for membership on LSBs.
This is because these models inherently see Pacifica as a
governmental structure which exists to represent constituent
interests, instead of a mission based non-profit corporation
which is created to engage in specific activities, which individuals
can choose to support, and work for achieving.
The issues of diversity, representation, et al, do not belong
in the Bylaws. They are best dealt with in personnel and programming
policies and practices.
If you start with the wrong philosophical premise you can
never create an organizational structure that will achieve
the claimed desired results.
[top]
13. Do your Bylaws allow for more participation of diverse
people?
YES. No one has to fight for a limited number of set aside
seats. Membership is totally dependent on each individual
working in any manner they can to fulfill The Mission.
[top]
14. Why are your Bylaws more in harmony with the Pacifica
Mission?
I feel my version harmoniously and organically creates a structure
which best implements the Pacifica Mission. Using and institutionalizing
structures which implement the mechanics of inequality and
limitation is philosophically in conflict with the principles
and goals of the Pacifica Mission. My version seeks to reduce
institutionalized sources of conflict within the bylaws.
[top]
15. Don’t your Bylaws limit the number of people who
can be Members?
YES. Under the current drafts, anybody who merely makes a
sufficient monetary donation, or volunteers a minimum number
of work hours, gets to become members of the Foundation. This
universe of people is always going to be substantially larger
than the people who would actually do consistent work to fulfill
The Mission. But it is the latter group of people I feel should
be granted the right to determine the direction of the Foundation.
[top]
16. Aren’t your Bylaws unfair to people who can’t
meet the membership criteria?
NO. The membership criteria are designed to create a minimum
standard basis for bringing people into Pacifica that are
serious about doing things to promote Pacifica's mission,
instead of just paying lip service to it. Almost everybody
can figure out how they can manage their time and resources
to do some real work, on a consistent basis, if they want
to. And if they don't want to, or just can't, then they can't
become a “Foundation Member.” They still can be
a supporter, and participate on committees and volunteer,
they just won't be a “Foundation Member”.
This is essential for Pacifica. The people who become Directors
should have a demonstrated history of working to accomplish
The Mission, who are known by others to tangibly work for
The Mission, and understand the issues of Pacifica, and have
a track record of a committed work ethic.
[top]
17. Don’t people who donate have a right to determine
the running of Pacifica?
NO. Again, Pacifica is a non-profit corporation, not a governmental
organization. People who merely give money to Pacifica to
fulfill its mission have no more right to determine the running
of Pacfica than people who donate to the Red Cross, or any
other non-profit organization, have a Right to run them.
The mere act of providing monetary support confers no inherent
Right to control.
[top]
18. Won’t your Bylaws deter people from donating to
the stations?
NO. People have up to now given to primarily the station in
their listening area while not even knowing, or fully understanding,
what Pacifica is, how it operated, or wanting to run it. People
donate mostly because they want to continue to receive the
programming they listen to. They will continue to do so.
[top]
19. How long did it take you to write your Bylaws?
I started Tuesday, November 26, 2002, using the existing consolidated
bylaws generated from the Nov. 22-24, 2002 Houston iPNB meeting,
and plan on finishing by Monday, December 2, 2002. I’ll
probably put in about 12 hours to complete it.
It took parts of two day (Thanksgiving and the Friday), in
a total of about 8 hours, to create a final draft of the FAQ.
Compare this to over six months, and the many hours and dollars
spent on this effort so far, which have only moved the process
to this current unfinished state.
[top]
20. Do you really think your Bylaws have a chance of being
adopted?
YES. I believe that when enough people understand the totality
of the benefits my version provides, and finally become thoroughly
disillusioned, disenchanted, and/or disgusted with the present
bylaws process, then my proposal can be accepted.
[top]
Current Election Models Supported By The Various
LABs:
The KPFA Model
additional documents regarding this model
How this model works
(by Carol Spooner)
The "Hybrid" Model
[WBAI]; revised as of 11/29
additional documents regarding this model
the 11/22 Draft
the 11/25 Draft (written
after the 11/22 Houston meeting)
The "Unity Caucus"
Model
The "Mission
Based" Model [WPFW]
additional documents regarding this model
Frequently Asked
Questions
Models That Were Used Earlier On In The Bylaws Revision
Process:
Click here
to read the WPFW subcommittee proposal (or
the first (A) draft).
Click here
to read the Fertig/KPFK proposal (or the
third (C) bylaws draft).
Click here
to read the KPFK subcommittee proposal.
Click here
to read the KPFT subcommittee proposal.
Click here
to read comments sent in by the public regarding the various
proposed models.
[top]
|
