Reports on KPFK LAB bylaws vote
From: Don White [KPFK LAB]
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 3:25 am
Subject: KPFK LAB VOTES SUPPORT FOR "B"
~~~~ from Los Angeles...don white posting~~~~~~~~
The KPFK Local Advisory Board, in a
packed LAB meeting
Tuesday night, voted support for
proposal "B" and cast votes
reflecting little enthusiasm for
either drafts "A" or "C." at least
at this time.
In subsequent votes, proposal "A" was
rejected by a vote of
A recently proposed draft, proposal "C," was rejected by a vote of 9 against, 4 for and seven abstentions. Many LAB members commented during the vote that they were not able to support "C" partly because they had not read and analyzed it. The wording of the motion which was supported by twelve of the twenty-one voting LAB members was:
"Moved, that the KPFK Local Advisory Board approves the amended and restated bylaws of Pacifica Foundation known as Draft "B," dated April 3rd, 2003, which includes Los Angeles iPNB meeting straw polls changes, but not new diversity language."The voting followed a spirited and long discussion of the provisions, merits and comparisons of the proposals. [This vote, to some degree, reflects the work of Farah, Loraine and some of the rest of us in intensely educating and motivating "swing" votes in our signal area. Some came over to us even tonight just before the LAB meeting as a result of personal contacts and rational discussions about what's at stake. We were SOOOOooooo pleased when the final vote came in....frankly we got a couple votes which were stunning to me....Luis Garcia, for instance. We are very happy late tonight in Los Angeles --- don white]
Date: Thu Jun 26, 2003 2:19 am
Rafael is spinning/misrepresenting the vote and the content as he usually does.
Attached are the vote count and the resolution transcribed from the tape and the notes of the secretary of K LAB pertaining to the bylaws.
Notice that the motion he is referring to ( the last motion) is directly addressed to "after passing" the bylaws 'B' or 'C'. Of course the rest of his statement is direct lie but it doesn't matter does it? Such as the fact that the motion didn't pass unanimously ( one NO and three Abstain). That many specifically voted as a message for AFTER PASSING THE BYLAWS and the motion was not to postpone the bylaws.
However, the fact that 'A' only received 3 yes votes from the K LAB and a very strong 16 NO- of diverse races and gender - is the strong statement sent by the KLAB to Pacifica.
* Motion passed approving Bylaws Draft B (this motion had been tabled at the KPFK LAB May 28, 2003 meeting): Davari moved and Mirza seconded. BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The KPFK Local Advisory Board approves the Amended and Restated Bylaws of Pacifica Foundation known as Draft B, dated April 3rd, 2003, which includes Los Angeles IPNB meeting straw polls changes, but not new diversity language. 12 yes (Davari, Fertig, Garcia, Irwin, Kolhatkar, Marr, Mirza, Oaklander, Rey, Thompson, Toole, White), 8 no (Abdullah, Barnett, Brazon, Camarella, Grant, Nkrumah, Radford, Rodriguez), 1 abstain (Deary)
* Defeated Motion approving Bylaws Draft C: Brazon moved and Camarella seconded a motion approving Bylaws Draft C. 4 yes (Brazon, Fertig, Irwin, Rodriguez), 9 no (Abdullah, Barnett, Davari, Garcia, Kolhatkar, Mirza, Oaklander, Radford, Toole), 8 abstain (Camarella, Deary, Grant, Marr, Nkrumah, Rey, Thompson, White)
* Defeated Motion approving Bylaws Draft A: Barnett moved and Mirza seconded a motion approving Bylaws Draft A. 3 yes (Barnett, Nkrumah, Radford), 16 no (Abdullah, Brazon, Camarella, Davari, Fertig, Deary, Garcia, Irwin, Kolhatkar, Marr, Mirza, Oaklander, Rey, Thompson, Toole, White), 2 abstain (Grant, Rodriguez)
* Motion Passed for Post-election diversity remedy: Brazon moved and Oaklander seconded. Brazon will formulate a paragraph with specific instructions to supplement or replace the following wording: In the event that a non-remedy plan bylaws passes (Draft B or Draft C), we direct our iPNB rep to ask the judge to require the use of the post- election diversity remedy used by KPFA in their LAB elections for the first local station board member elections held by KPFK. 17 yes (Abdullah, Brazon, Camarella, Davari, Fertig, Deary, Garcia, Grant, Iwin, Marr, Nkrumah, Oaklander, Radford, Rey, Rodriguez, Thompson, Toole, White), 1 no (Garcia), 3 abstain (Barnett, Kolhatkar, Mirza)
paragraph with specific instructions to supplement or replace the following wording: In the event that a non-remedy plan bylaws passes (Draft B or Draft C), we direct our iPNB rep to ask the judge to require the use of the post- election diversity remedy used by KPFA in their LAB elections for the first local station board member elections held by KPFK. 17 yes (Abdullah, Brazon, Camarella, Davari, Fertig, Deary, Garcia, Grant, Iwin, Marr, Nkrumah, Oaklander, Radford, Rey, Rodriguez, Thompson, Toole, White), 1 no (Garcia), 3 abstain (Barnett, Kolhatkar, Mirza)
Dear iPNB and LAB members
The strongest support on the KPFK LAB - by a *Unanimous* vote in last night's straw poll - was for a plan put forth by LAB Chair Lydia Brazon that called for the iPNB to seek to implement the KPFA model with its full diversity measures as a _policy_ for a year, allwoing the network to examine the Michigan decision and avoid a deadlock on bylaws.
Plan B and other plans received significantly less support than the temporary KPFA model Brazon suggested.
The KPFK LAB has sent a mixed signal then. According to the vote any objective observer would have to say that:
1. Primary support went to the temporary KPFA model.
2. That the KPFK LAB expected a deadlock on bylaws between the various plans. The record shows that this interpretation of matters vis a vis a deadlock is correct, insofar as several speakers, both on the LAB itself and from the audience offered this analysis and insofar as no speaker at any time contradicted this analysis.
Further strengthening the point is that while the KPFK LAB voted unanimously to support the KPFA model as a compromise position, it strongly rejected Dave Fertig's Draft C.
So what can we say about the vote on "B"?
1. It is not the position with the strongest support on the KPFK LAB.
2. It was passed in an anti-democratic and unrepresentative spirit.
Not a single speaker from the listeners spoke in support of Plan B in a heavily attended LAB meeting, while many spoke in favor of added seats. This has occured on many occasions here and is a strong example of the need for democracy at Pacifica.
Unaccountable members of the LAB defied the will of the great majority of the KPFK community.
3. That it was a vote based in fear.
It seems clear that the KPFK LAB - in the absence of the fear of coercion from the state, would have never voted for "B". It had voted for the KPFA model with 66% diversity requirements. What we saw was in no way an endorsement of the "reverse discrimination" arguments put forth by many Plan B supporters.
Carol Spooner and others spread alarmism in the LAB, but apparently never bothered to really explain the terms of the bylaws debate to the objects of their lobbying.
4. That it was a vote based in ignorance.
Perhaps the most telling, and bitterly amusing moment of last night's meeting was the moment when the Chair had to explain what she meant by the term "remedy" in reference to affirmative action at Pacifica to the LAB member who was the point person on the LAB for Plan B - who was in complete ignorance of the concept.
Every new LAB member voted on bylaws. Only one of these members had ever come to a bylaws subcommittee meeting since they were seated, and the majority did not attend the bylaws orientation session held to educate them. Their votes were decisive, and the LAB was negligent in adding these members in violation of cautions against "stacking" the LABs prior to the bylaws vote.
Most of those voting for B had never attended a bylaws meeting, and had not participated in the KPFK Bylaws Convention, and had not come to the bylaws orientation held by the LAB.
In sum, no one should take the KPFK straw poll as anything other than a mixed signal that leans toward support for a compromise based on the KPFA model.
bylaws revisions process info page | LAB page | elections | home