portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary portland metro

arts and culture | media criticism

Don't let KBOO become undemocratic without a fight

KBOO is important for all movements and people who are concerned about democracy and justice! fight to keep it!

don't let KBOO become an organization which just sees you as consumers! let's retain the grassroots, democratic element of the board as our representatives. keep them accountable through direct democracy!

go to  http://kboo.fm/audio/Documents/bylaws.pdf for the KBOO democracy movements opposition view which KBOO has been reluctant to let you see!
Members of the KBOO board of directors are trying to push through massing changes that turn it from a Member-run democracy that runs through an elected board to an organization that claims to support democracy whilst, interally, promoting autocracy.

They propose three bylaw changes which you at read at:
 link to kboo.fm

I've been listening to KBOO all my life. I was proud to be a member since i was 8. I was proud when KBOO stood up to Pacifica when it stiffled disent.

IMHO, here are what these changes will do:

if you have a serious conflict at KBOO, it currnently goes to a group of people who have many different roles in the community it is public - everyone has the right to hear what is being said about them. misunderstandings can be adressed.

if #1 passes, it will remove the current procedure and put it at the discression of the station managers with no requirements of due process. ONE PERSON WILL BE IN CHARGE.

currently at KBOO, members elect who they think will best represent them. this means that the board, hopefully, represents the variety of views in the KBOO community: there are conflicts but just like a funcition congress, the minority views are essential for truly representing the community. If the person turns out to be impossible to work with or doesn't really represent the communiyt, there is a procedure whereby the rest of the board can call a special meeting and allert the community that things aren't working, states why they arn't working and asks the community of members to vote on a removal.

if #2 passes, then majority views prevail and boardmembers with minority viewpoints can be removed by the majority of the board without letting the membership decide if it wants that member removed. maybe the one lone voice has a point but the rest of the board doesn't want to or can't hear it. WE THE MEMBERS will no longer decide when a person is to be removed from the process.


#3 creates term limits which in some cases is good, but not in this one. It is unnessisary and removes institutional memory. Board members decide to not run all the time. some stay for a long time because they continue to have the support of the community. If the membership decides that they don't want someone they can remove them. there is not pattern of incumbancy that we have to fight- this is about kicking out old-timers who hold to the old values of a democratic and member-concidering board.



so far they have only had a few small shows where EVERY SINGLE CALLER WAS OPPOSED. But just tonight when asked why NO OPPOSITION VIEWS were printed, one board member said that they didn't have the time to include different views and that most of the opposition just didn't understand what they were talking about. sounds dangerously like bush to me.


PLEASE RESEARCH AND READ AND CALL KBOO RADIO SHOWS TO DEMAND MORE DEBATE.
Why do you want to fight? 22.Sep.2006 18:01

I don't want to fight..

It yields bad results, fighting does. We can talk, debate! Oh arm wrestle if you must. But if you wanna fight, go join a football team.

It sounds to me like some of the new rules and by laws are designed to *prevent* fighting. Reading from kboo.fm, the manager's report, it sounds like fighting has been a problem. A problem they are trying to solve. He tells a tale of a board member bringing someone to tears. That sounds like a problem to me. Abusive.

And this is not un-democratic -- the issue is not one of squelching an unpopular opinion. It is about board members who cannot function in good faith. Who snarl all manner of progress. Who are not accountable. It is about recognizing that some things are not working. It's about making things right.