Proposed Hybrid Election Model
11/25/02
During the meeting of the Interim Pacifica National Board
this past weekend we were offered something called the Hybrid
Proposal. This was presented by Donna Gould, a NYC listener
activist who has been involved in the bylaws revision committee
in that city.
Below is a clarification/explanation of the proposal from
Donna. She asked me to help circulate her memo so everyone
can read it for themselves. Please feel free to pass this
along to others.
Leslie Cagan
--------------------------------------------------
CLARIFICATION OF "HYBRID" PROPOSAL FOR CONSTITUENCY
INCLUSION IN LOCAL STATION BOARDS from Donna Gould - 11/25/02
I am a longtime listener activist at WBAI, have been active
with the Bylaws Revision Committee, and am unaffiliated with
any of the bylaws-related advocacy groups. The following is
a clarification of my "hybrid" by-laws proposal,
which the iPNB has asked all LABs to review, along with the
KPFA model. My proposal follows the KPFA elections model with
the addition that it permits each outgoing Local Advisory
Board, IF IT CHOOSES, to add - within set guidelines - other
elected seats to insure inclusion of Listener-Sponsor Members
from particular disenfranchised and geographic communities.
These seats would be voted on by all Listener-Sponsor Members.
This is an important way of fulfilling Pacifica's mission
to promote dialogue about the causes of racial and national
antagonisms, by assuring that members of communities traditionally
locked-out by society have a seat at the table of station
governance. This plan is a compromise or "hybrid"
between the KPFA election model and the "Constituency
Model" which was proposed by the WBAI Unity Caucus.
Under this proposal:
1. The KPFA model - at-large elections via mail ballots for
Listener-Sponsor Member and Staff Member seats, using proportional
representation and diversity goals so that the results include
at least 50% women and at least 50% people of color - is to
be followed by all 5 stations as the foundation of their systems
for electing Local Station Boards.
2. In addition, each outgoing LAB has the option to add other
elected seats on the new Local Station Board to guarantee
inclusion of Listener-Sponsor Members (according to the KPFA
definition) from up to 13 disenfranchised communities and
up to 4 geographic regions within the signal area. Candidates
for such seats would be nominated by signatures of 50 Listener-Sponsor
Members who self-identify with the relevant community or geographic
region (but would not have to register with the station as
such). These nominees then appear on the general ballot (grouped
according to their community or region in a separate section
from the at-large candidates). Listener-Sponsor Members would
have the opportunity to vote in every category of communities
and regions, as well as in the at-large category. Candidates
who are part of a disenfranchised community may choose to
run either for their community's designated seats or as at-large
candidates.
3. Whether or not the above is adopted, each outgoing LAB
could determine the size of the new Local Station Board, choosing
a range of between 16 and 36. (The iPNB's straw poll supported
granting LABs the choice of between 16 and 24 members.) I
believe that the larger number should be available to those
LABs who want to allow more leeway to maximize the diversity
of Listener-Sponsors on the new Local Board. Experience of
people serving on large non-profit boards (up to 50) shows
that meetings of such boards -- if well-run under a clear
set of guidelines -- can be both efficient and democratic,
while providing many more committed people to do the important
work of numerous committees. I would request that when each
LAB votes on this, if a ceiling of 36 fails, the LAB also
vote on ceilings of 32 and 28.
Please be aware that if any LAB expresses straw-poll support
for this by-laws proposal, it is NOT necessarily agreeing
to adopt either of these add-on provisions at its own station.
Rather, it is merely supporting by-laws that authorize any
LAB the OPTION to do so if it so chooses.
I think it's important that any LAB have the opportunity
to try this approach at this time, knowing that we can all
evaluate it and compare it to the KPFA model at the Pacifica
by-laws convention (which the iPNB has recommended occur some
time after the first round of elections). At that convention,
a permanent Local Board election system can be recommended
for a vote by the Listener-Sponsor Members.
---------------------------
I hope that LAB members will give serious consideration to
the concepts behind these proposals. I am now formulating
specific by-laws language which I will post as soon as I can.
If you find particular aspects of this proposal problematic,
please let me (and everyone, through the Pacifica bylaws listserve)
know ASAP which parts you would change, and how, as I am open
to modifications. You can send comments or questions to donnagould@earthlink.net
Looking forward to further dialogue, Donna Gould
Background info:
Example of constituencies that could be granted designated
seats on Local Boards:
1. African Ancestry
2. Asian & Pacific Islanders
3. Latinos
4. Native/Indigenous
5. Arabs & Muslims
6. Immigrants
7. Rank-and-file Labor & Unemployed Workers
8. Youth
9. Women
10. People with Disabilities
11. Prisoners
12. Lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered
13. Cultural Workers (Artist/Arts Community)
Geographic regions that could be granted designated seats
on Local Board (examples, for illustration only, from WBAI
signal area):
1. New York City
2. New Jersey
3. Long Island
4. Upstate New York/Connecticut
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.
|
