[Wpfw-lsb] Wpfw Chair's illegal vote process 2.

[Luzette King]

Mark R,

After I sent that I e-mail I realise that you could
have seen it as targeting you....However, there is
absolutley nothing "... childish and beneath the
diginity of thoughtful deliberation that listeners
expect" to ask that fairness prevail.  Why do we beat
up on Bush and Cheney for things we see as unfair and
they don't.  Isn't it the same thing here,
perception?!! 

If I were as offended as Billy Ray was I would have
joined him in the melae.   The fact that I did not join
in the argument does not mean that I did not witness
the Chair begging an LSB member to vote after it was
clear that she had no intention to vote.  If you are
suggesting this did not happen and if it did it was
alright then I am entitled to be alarmed.

This is not the first time the Chair has steered the
motions in the way that he wishes and often those
decisions are seen by me to be taking a particular 
group line.  For several meetings discussions have been
entertained on issues that were dealt with at previous
meetings.  This does not sound like impartiality to me
even though I believe in caucasing.

It is a great pity that the meeting actually ended in
the way it did after the Chair did make an effort to
bring order.  I suppose he needs time to get rid of the
partisan shackles.  He can only do this by declaring
the votes in a timely manner and not wait until some 
members decide to vote for that is what happened
lastnight!!
  
Further, why is it you can use such harsh words without
ridicule and the likes of me can never get away with
it: "beneath the diginity of thoughtful deliberation
that listeners expect" and who told you that the
listeners haven't taken notice of some of the
shenanigans.   Where are the judges on this matter?

I hope we can still continue to work together on those
issues on which we agree and without losing my right to
speak as I see no matter how "... childish and beneath
dignity".  After all your version of childishness and
beneath dignity does not necessarily have to be mine.

Luzette 

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:56:25 EDT, DcProud at aol.com wrote:

Greetings all,
 
    I was in attendance for the entire meeting last
night, and I agree with the audience member who found
the general tone refreshing for the first two hours or
so, anyway.  Somewhere around 10 PM, when the issues of
waivers came up under new business, things did
deteriorate.  But why?
 
    First, in my opinion, the two motions presented
should BOTH have been emailed to the LSB at least one
week prior to our consideration.  That way, all of us
would have time to consider the potential
ramifications, as opposed to "voting on the fly."
 
    Secondly, I reject the notion that, under those
circumstances, voting for or against this or any motion
is an indication of some CIA-plot, or suspect racial
politics.  We voted to approve the general waiver
policy suggested by the Election Supervisor and, in
essence, to decide waivers on a case-by-case basis to
anyone expressing a "sincere interest" in the station
and an inability to pay $25 and/or volunteer three
hours.  
 
    As I understand it, we rejected in a close vote a
motion to grant automatic "safe harbor" waivers to
prisoners, the disabled poor, and the homeless--all of 
whom sign a statement attesting to their condition. 
The arguments for and against were valid, in my
opinion.  I personally abstained because of my concerns
over the implementation of such a broad policy.  That
does not make me a bad person.
 
    Similarly, I did not find the actions of the Chair
offensive.  One has only to read the literature from
throughout Pacifica to see that ALL Chairs, while
seeking impartiality, can and do impact a discussion,
but not the outcome.  The tying vote was freely made by
an intelligent member of the LSB, just as the Chair is
and was allowed to cast the deciding vote.  
 
    Sometimes, particularly when faced with outcomes we
don't like, we tend to vilify those who don't happen to
agree with us.  I find this approach childish and
beneath the diginity of thoughtful deliberation that
listeners expect.
 
    Finally, as the LSB member who could only obtain
the 15 signatures by appealing to my fellow volunteers
during pledge drives, direct mail sessions, and
thank-you gift mailings, I am amused by the implication
that I came in second in the voting because of some
election flaw.  All I did was go on the air, answer
questions, file a public statement, and attend
candidate forums.  I promised to work hard, and I have
and will continue to do so.  As for what the members
were thinking when they voted or will vote, I have no
idea, but I trust their judgment to do what is best for
WPFW.
 
    Mark Roberts 

_________________________________________________
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com