The "hybrid model for elections
of local station boards
11-29-02
From: Leslie Cagan
Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 7:14 pm
Subject: message from Donna Gould
Please share this memo with others.
------------------------------------------------
MEMO TO:
Members of the IPNB
LAB Chairs - please distribute to your LAB members
Executive Director
Several listseves
FROM: Leslie Cagan
DATE: November 29, 2002
Below is a memo that Donna Gould has asked me to forward
to everyone who received her memo dated 11/26. (By the way,
Donna asked me to forward these because she did not have the
email addresses for the LAB chairs and IPNB members and she
is only on one list.) Please note that the second half of
her message is the text of what she presented to the IPNB
during our meeting in Houston last weekend.
You will also notice that Donna's memo points to several
places where her hybrid model is out of date or no longer
compatible with where the IPNB stands on a number of issues.
She did not mention one very important issue. That is, there
was strong (I do not recall right now if it was unanimous
but I know it was very strong) support for one election model
being established for all five LSBs...we rejected the notion
that each station could have it's own election structure.
I also want to take this opportunity to clarify one issue.
That is, the LABs were asked by the IPNB to discuss both the
KPFA model and the hybrid model and let us know where they
stand when the IPNB convenes again in Washington the weekend
of Dec. 6,7, 8. Just as the IPNB has taken straw polls and
not yet made any binding decisions, what the LABs do during
their meetings this week will not be their final chance to
vote on this important bylaw matter. There will be another
opportunity for the LABs to cast their actual votes on this
matter. Although the time line on all of this is not yet worked
out, I believe that will happen after the IPNB has completed
this phase of its work and is able to pass along to the LABs
the whole package, a complete draft of new bylaws.
Finally, I want to thank the LABs for responding to our request
to meet before the Dec. meeting in DC. We know this is not
easy for everyone and we appreciate the flexibility and spirit
of cooperation in making these meetings happen.
Leslie
--------------------------------------
from Donna Gould 11/29/02
Response to Critiques of 11/26 Posting of Hybrid Proposal
I feel people are due an explanation of why I presented a
hybrid election proposal at the recent IPNB meeting in Houston
and an apology for the version that Leslie Cagan posted on
11/26 at my suggestion.
As I stated in the meeting, I presented the model because
I hoped that, when considering bylaws relating to the election
of LSBs, the IPNB would leave room for this possible compromise
proposal to be adopted by WBAI. I was careful to acknowledge
that my proposal had not been presented to nor discussed by
the WBAI LAB, the WBAI bylaws committee, or the WBAI Unity
Caucus. In my view, strong arguments have been made for both
the Constituency and the KPFA election models. I think both
have strengths and weakness. Recently, the WBAI LAB chose
the Constituency Model over the KPFA Model in an 8-3 straw
poll with one abstention. The WBAI Bylaws committee most recently
chose the KPFA Model over the Constituency Model in a 28-10
straw poll with 2 abstentions. All together, 52 people expressed
their preference in these straw polls - a very small proportion
of the listener sponsors!
The 500 or so signatures supporting the KPFA Model on the
petition circulated by the WBAI Committee for a Unified Membership
are some indication of people's preference but they do not
necessarily represent choice made in response to thoroughly
explicated and discussed presentations of the two models.
Were we able to have discussion among a larger number of listeners
of these two models and the compromise I offered, we might
be able to agree on a compromise which could be supported
by a larger number of listeners than either the KPFA or the
Constituency Models.
I did not suggest sending the Hybrid Model to the LABS, and
I am not sure it was a good idea to do so since it has perhaps
not been sufficiently worked out to be ready for their consideration.
I merely hoped that the IPNB would not foreclose on the development
and considerations of these models in the WBAI listening area
by their decisions at the Houston IPNB meeting.
The proposal that Leslie posted was worked on by Bob Lederer,
of the Unity Caucus and myself. Our goal was to give the proposal
greater clarity and bring it up to date in terms of recent
IPNB polls defining membership and staff/listener ratios and
the changes that I made when orally presenting it. However,
I agree that what we drafted is different from what I presented
at the IPNB meeting in both tone and substance.
I believe I was in error in passing on a proposal that differs
so from my original proposal. Therefore I am withdrawing the
recent version of my proposal entitled "Clarification
of "Hybrid" Proposal For Constituency Inclusion
in Local Station Boards" and posting the version that
was distributed at the Houston IPNB meeting entitled "Hybrid
Election Proposal Based on Unity Caucus and KPFA Election
Proposals" However, I want to point out a number of ways
that it is out of date or incorrect:
1.Paragraph 2 is no longer relevant because in the meeting
I verbally accepted the definition of membership selected
by the IPNB in Houston. So wherever the text reads "listener-member"
it should now read "listener-sponsor member".
2.I said 6 seats would be allotted to staff, but this differs
from the IPNB's position on listener/staff ration. According
to their current thinking, for a 36 seat board, 9 seats (1/4)
would be allocated to staff. Notice I have not adopted their
24 seat limit for LSBs.
3.Paragraph 4 is no longer applicable since there are no
subclasses of listener members. Rather, people seeking a constituency
nomination could be nominated by 50 listener-sponsors members
who declare themselves to be members of the same constituency
as the nominee. Under this stipulation, listener sponsor members
would not need to register in constituencies. (I have stayed
with the 50 signatures instead of 15). This does leave open
question of what method, if any, would be used to verify that
those nominating a constituency candidate are members of that
constituency.
4.Likewise, the section "Quorum and other minimum requirements
for registration and voting" is not applicable because
there are no longer subclasses of listener members in this
proposal. It might still be desirable, however, to specify
the minimum number of votes necessary to seat a nominee in
a mission constituency.
As you can see, neither I, nor anyone else, has worked out
all of the questions that need to be addressed by this model.
I apologize for the confusion and consternation I caused by
posting the 11/26 version of the Hybrid Model. I hope this
posting clarifies the confusion. If you have any questions
or comments you can e-mail me at donnagould@e... or better
still, call me at (212) 366-9279 as I am not an avid-emailer.
As a final note, I would like to reiterate that the LAB's
are not now being asked whether they want to institute these
add-on seats for constituencies at their own stations, but
merely whether they support authorizing any LAB the option
to do so if it chooses.
-------------------------------
HYBRID ELECTION PROPOSAL BASED ON UNITY CAUCUS AND KPFA ELECTION
- By Donna Gould (presented to IPNB meeting 11/23/02)
Because I see advantages and potential problems and shortcomings
in the election models of both the KPFA and the WBAI Unity
Caucus bylaws proposals, I am offering a hybrid proposal that,
in my opinion, combines the best aspects of both proposals.
Put simply, it keeps the nomination process of the Unity Proposal
but alters its election process to make it more like the KPFA
election process. Members of constituencies would nominate
constituency representatives. Seats would be set aside for
constituencies but all voters would take part in choosing
who of the constituency candidates for each seat would fill
that seat.
As in the Constituency Proposal, there would be two classes
of members: listener members and staff members. "Listener
members" would be any natural persons who self-identify
as listener and register with the station. "Staff members"
would be any natural persons who meet the qualifications for
either paid staff or unpaid staff and who register with the
station at which they work.
There would still be 36 Local Station Board seats. Fifteen
of these would be allotted to the 13 Mission Constituencies
described in the constituency proposal. Fifteen would be at
large* and 6 would be allocated to staff.
Nomination of Election of Listener Representatives
Nominations for listener representatives to the Local Station
Board shall occur during a nomination period which shall include
a member's convention at which members may either, in general
session or in smaller groups, discuss and pass resolutions
on Pacifica issues and encourage or endorse the nomination
of members for board seats. Any listener members may be nominated
for a board seat by the signatures of 50 listener members
who are members of the same subclass as the prospective nominee
(either one of the 13 mission constituency classes or the
at-large class).
There would be only one election. All listener sponsor members
would vote at the same time. The ballot would contain 14 boxes,
one for each mission constituency and one for the at-large
constituency. The nominees in each constituency would be listed
in the box for their constituency. Each listener sponsor member
may vote in all of the constituencies. For the mission constituencies
in which there is more than one seat, and more candidates
than there are seats, voters can indicate their 1st and 2nd
choice and the instant runoff method would be used to determine
the winners. In the at-large category, if there are more nominees
than seats, voters would rank their preferences and the single
transferable vote method of proportional representation would
be used to determine the winners.
Once the votes were tallied, the same process as used in
the KPFA model would be used to ensure at least 50% people
of color and at least 50% women are seated.
Nominations & Elections Of Staff Representatives
Any staff member may be nominated for a staff seat by the
signatures of 5 staff members who are members of the same
subclass (paid or unpaid staff) as the prospective nominee.
The staff members for each station area shall elect six representatives
who shall sit on the Local Station Board, according to the
following breakdown by subclass:
Unpaid staff (4)
Paid Staff (2)
One third of the staff representatives shall be elected annually
by the staff members of each radio station area by in-person,
secret paper ballot, subject to diversity criteria. The proportional
representation "single transferable voting method"
shall be used. There shall be a three-week period for balloting
and the ballots shall be counted and the election results
certified by the Election Board not later than December 29th
of each year.
Quorum and other minimum requirements for registration and
voting
A. If at the close of the voter registration period, any
subclass of listener sponsor membership has not been selected
by at least 50 members the registration period will be extended
for any such subclass until the day before the start of the
election period. If by the start of the election period, a
subclass has still not been selected by at least 50 members
the Delegate seat or seats assigned to that subclass will
remain vacant until the following years election.
B. For purposes of any election or written ballot, a quorum
of the members shall be as follows:
a. For the "At large" subclass of listener sponsor
members, 10% of those entitled to vote
b. For each of the other subclasses of listener sponsor members
at least 50 registered voters
c. For each of the two subclasses of Staff Members, one third
of those entitled to vote
C. If an election for any subclass has not fulfilled its
quorum by the end of a two week extension, and the minimum
ballots cast are still insufficient, the seat(s) for that
subcategory will remain vacant until the following election.
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.
|
