 |
|
Repsonse to message sent to Pacifica affiliates regarding bylaws 6-20-03 |
[ original message below ] --------------------
From: Liam Kirsher
Dear Mick, Look before you leap! While this message may sound reasonable at first, there is, as I think you suspected, a lot more to it than meets the eye. See below for some specific comments.
It is worth noting that the bylaws process has been going on over
a year now. Pacifica's listener-subscribers in all 5 signal
areas have had ample opportunities for input -- indeed, they are
the ones who created the bylaws. The bylaws vote that will be
taken on 6/26 is indeed going to be a teleconference, but that
was decided at the previous board meeting in March. I am
speculating that the reason this is suddenly an issue for Ms.
Hamanaka is that she fears the vote may not go the way she would
like it to.
This is clearly a mischaracterization of the issue. Proponents
of both factions are in favor of affirmative action. But what
exactly is affirmative action? In order to understand how Ms.
Hamanaka's message is deceptive, you need to look at what she is
calling affirmative action.
Affirmative action is an employment strategy in the work world,
and an admissions strategy in academia. Those are situations
where a group that already has power (employers or universities)
uses it to favor selected demographic segments of applicants. It
is designed to remedy a pattern of discrimination. It makes sense
to me in those situations, because it can actually (as opposed to
merely symbolically) effect progressive changes in society.
Pacifica as an employer licensed by the Federal Communications
Commission has, and must maintain, an affirmative action hiring
policy. Both bylaws drafts require Pacifica to go beyond these
legal requirements. Both drafts include a commitment to diversity
in "programming, staff, management, committees and governance."
But "affirmative action" in elections is a different matter, and
I think using the term is disingenuous. The whole point of the
electoral process is to determine who will be in power. If
Committees of Inclusion (COI), or bylaw requirements or any other
mechanism have the capability to advance some candidates over
others after the voters have voted, that power has essentially
been subtracted from the power of the people who voted. Their
electoral choice is being adulterated.
If power is not democratically distributed to each individual,
where will it reside? Well, according to Draft A, it would reside
in a COI -- an unelected body that would have the power to
alter the outcome of elections by adding members to the Local
Station Board (LSB).
The other argument against Draft A is that it is illegal. The
Pacifica National Board, and others, have sought legal opinions
on this topic. Others are better able to discuss the fine points
of the law -- but I'm convinced that passing Draft A would lead
to legal challenges that would a) bankrupt Pacifica, whether we
were to win or lose, and b) lead to judicial decisions that would
endanger real affirmative action programs across the nation
that I support.
First, bylaws are intended to codify the governance structure of
an organization. Anti-racism and anti-sexism training throughout
Pacifica might be a great policy that Pacifica management could
adopt, but it does not belong in the bylaws. I think there is
probably considerable support for such training within Pacifica.
But the question you should ask yourself when reading the above
is: Who adds the 5 seats to the 24-seat LSB? In other words,
who is on the Committee of Inclusion and how did they get
there?
As Ms. Hamanaka makes clear, the COI has the ability to make
dramatic changes in the outcome of the election. Assuming that
Draft A passed, the power to appoint COI members would be in the
hands of the LSBs as they are constituted at the time the bylaws
are adopted. And guess who are the most ardent supporters of
Draft A? The current members of the WBAI LSB!
This situation has led to the allegation that proponents of Draft
A are interested in maintaining power as Pacifica transitions
from its current system of governance to a new, democratic one.
That may be. I'm sure there are some Draft A supporters who are
sincere in believing that diversity in Pacifica will best be
served by Draft A's extra-electoral measures. To my mind,
however, and regardless of the motivations imputed to Draft A
supporters, it would be reckless to give that much power to an
unelected, unaccountable body.
I suggest you first inform yourself about what is really going
on. Then contact the board with your comments. It is an
important issue.
The fact is, there is room for improvement at every station.
But the remedy is not the procrustean Draft A! In the paragraph
above, Ms. Hamanaka singles out some areas which do deserve
attention. But you could just as easily cite successes. KPFA,
for example, has 22.3% African-American, 14.1% Asian and 14.2%
Latino programmers. So, in my opinion, Ms. Hamanaka has only
told one side of the story.
Here are some other interesting stats regarding Pacifica. I
think it would be hard to make the case that there exists a
pattern of racial discrimination at Pacifica.
Note that Draft A will lead to some pretty harsh consequences.
Here's the introduction to Draft A, Article 8, SECTION 4:
Now, WPFW is 100% people of color, and that's almost 100% African-
American. So to improve diversity at WPFW, under Draft A
Pacifica would be required to reduce the number of African-
Americans at WPFW and augment the number of Asians, Latinos and
Whites to the level of the demographic of the station's signal
area.
Here are the 2000 Census demographics for Washington, D.C.
only. The WPFW signal extends into the surrounding states which
have substantially higher numbers of white persons. (I couldn't
find the stats for the WPFW signal area.)
As can be seen from the figures, to match even just the
demographic of Washington, D.C. (let alone the WPFW signal area!)
Draft A would require substantial changes at the station --
"adjustments" to bring the African-American representation at
the station down to 60%.
Supporters of Plan B emphasize the importance of outreach prior
to the election, in order to create a racially diverse pool of
qualified candidates. It is thought that the combination of a
diverse pool of candidates plus proportional representation will
result in a diverse board -- without the murky machinations of
a COI!
Underlying the arguments of the Draft A supporters is the
supposition that white Pacifica listener-subscribers won't vote
for people of color. Their apprehension has not been borne out
in the only elections to have taken place so far, at KPFA.
Requiring membership doesn't seem unreasonable to me, frankly.
But that is an issue that has already been widely discussed.
Anyway, there's a few thoughts. Ms. Hamanaka says "you be the
judge." I say, you be an inquisitive and thoughtful searcher for
the truth! If you want further information you will want to
check out www.wbai.net, where the drafts and opinions about them
are available.
Best,
original message sent to Pacifica affiliates
-------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:39:06 -0400
Yesterday the opponents of affirmative action got their wish - the iPNB
rejected Ray Laforest's motion to hold open town hall teleconferences in the
five signal areas for the bulk of the bylaws and a full meeting of the board
in NY in August to debate and vote on diversity. Instead, all the bylaws
will be decided next Thursday - in a webcast teleconference, closed to
public comment or question.
SUPPORT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN PACIFICA
In a few days the interim Pacifica National Board (iPNB) is going to vote on
a new set of bylaws in a closed teleconference. Why so shy? Pacifica Radio,
the nation's leading alternative media source, might be on the verge of
voting down affirmative action.
The iPNB's Diversity Language Committee, chaired by militant Haitian union
organizer Ray Laforest, created "Draft A." It has met stiff resistance from
Bush-fearing proponents of "Draft B," who predict Pacifica will be sued by
whites deprived of a seat on its non-profit boards.
Both Drafts A and B utilize Single Transferable Voting (STV), a form of
proportional representation elections, to elect Local Station boards (LSBs).
Both claim to support affirmative action. You be the judge:
DRAFT A
DRAFT B
A third, Draft C calls for B plus extended candidate recruitment periods.
WHAT CAN I DO? SPREAD THE WORD!
BUT DOES PACIFICA NEED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?
Thus the "electorate" that "B" supporters lionize, when they claim that
Proportional Representation is "aggressive affirmative action," is racially
and politically skewed. Not to mention the fact that you have to pay at
least $25 to become a Pacifica "member" to vote, or donate 3 hours of time.
This undemocratic bar also skews the electorate by class and race. Even
registering and signing for a waiver rules out undocumented groups. As we
all know these populations are vast and suffer discrimination and political
persecution under the Patriot Act.
|
top of page | bylaws revisions process info page | governance proposals | bylaws etc | home |