[Wpfw-lsb] Wpfw Chair's illegal vote process 2.
markberman1 at earthlink.net
Thu Aug 12 17:04:51 PDT 2004
Luzette: I had no argument with Ruffin's proposal; in fact had thought that
was already our policy. So, I would have supported it, but then we got into
an endless hassle over your amendment and procedural stuff, which drives me
crazy. So, I left. If I had stayed none of this would have happened; the
motion would have had 7 votes. But we all want to see a waiver for homeless
and prisoners, so it should be an easy thing to accomplish. Or am I missing
something here?? And if I am, don't tell me what it is. Not this week ,
maybe next. Finally, each of you (I wasn't there then) can interpret Jim's
action differently, but why get into an uproar and assume the worst. IF it
was a mistake, big deal; if it was an honest urge on his part to do the
right thing; big deal. Either way, it wasn't a make-or-break event. We can
still address the waiver issue and still get it right. Hopefully.
> [Original Message]
> From: Luzette King <luzette_king at justice.com>
> To: <markberman1 at earthlink.net>
> Cc: <AltExp at aol.com>; <bredwards at hotmail.com>;
<wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org>; <OurWPFW at yahoogroups.com>;
<newpacifica at yahoogroups.com>; <alliance at lists.freespeechnow.org>
> Date: 8/12/2004 4:16:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wpfw-lsb] Wpfw Chair's illegal vote process 2.
> Dear Mark,
> This is the key right here: "we seem to frequently get
> involved with, and we waste our energy for the really
> big fights out there."
> As far as the real big fights out there go, we have to
> start with being the voice for the voiceless. In fact,
> WPFW is an extension of that vision. So to have a
> debate as to whether we should try to involve listeners
> who can't afford $25 to get involved in the radio
> station is beyond me. Because you have always been
> one for telling me how offensive I am I have stopped
> short of saying it resistance is suspect!!
> I wish Billy Ray didn't loose his cool as often and in
> the manner that he does. However, he is by far the
> only one who keeps his eyes on the prize. If it
> weren't for Billy Ray we at WPFW would not have had an
> election; we would have been grandfathered. We owe him
> a great deal!! I also wish Billy Ray would apologise
> for swearing in public as he did lastnight.
> Let us get back to the issue. The Chair as far as I am
> concerned took no notice of the majority of the COI who
> said that the committee had not made a decision on the
> matter of Waivers. It was clear that Ray's motion was
> not made on behalf of the COI and that did cause some
> resentment. In any event, I don't think the LSB should
> have left it for another meeting as it would have been
> too late. Also, the motion passed and in time for the
> August 24 deadline.
> That which baffled me is the commotion that Ruffin's
> motion caused. Ruffin's motion was simply making
> easier the process of implementing the waiver policy we
> had just passed. He repeated that he was providing a
> safe haven. So for the Chair to oppose motion and to
> the extent that he did was at best bias and at worst
> I have told Jim before that he has to be seen to be
> impartial and if ever I had a doubt as to his
> partiality, last night made it clear for me. I was
> rather taken aback at the Chair's action after the vote
> turned out to be 6:5 in favour. Instead of declaring
> the board's decision he actually begged Joni to vote.
> She then voted against motion which turned it to 6:6.
> At this point, the Chair used his casting vote to
> defeat the motion.
> The matter for me is therefore, why was the resistance
> so strong? What was at stake, the voice of the voice
> or the power of a few? Is it the list of listeners
> that some of us suspect is out there to maintain
> control? Isn't Billy Ray correct to raise the issue of
> the strange results from the last election? As a
> matter of fact, I heard one of the LSB members say that
> they didn't know 15 listeners and were it not for the
> pledge drive they couldn't get enough signatories to
> them for the election. Despite this they are among the
> top 6 of the 3 year duration. I for one went out into
> my community and gathered 40 signatures and could only
> muster enough votes to get me on the 1 year list. What
> does this say for our election process when that same
> person got the second highest votes? Should I be
> surprised if I were not re-elected as am sure I have
> trodden on a few toes?
> I wish we would stop being naive or untrue to
> ourselves. There is very little difference between
> Billy and me when it comes to calling a spade a spade.
> As a matter of fact one of my motions was described as
> stink and offensive and I didn't swear. I was simply
> trying to put us on the right path. It is no wonder
> also that Simmin has left. The fact is we are not
> expected to speak the truth as this is often seen as
> So as far as I am concerned a retreat at this point can
> only be seen as a means of trying get me to conceal
> what I see.
> Instead of covering up, how do we get the Chair to stop
> showing his bias in this way? Most importantly, how do
> we ensure that the listeners who need a waiver gets it
> irrespective of anyone's fear of disenfranchisement?
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:17:36 -0400, "mark berman" wrote:
> I had to leave last night's meeting as I've had a
> slight recurrence of bleeding from my surgery. But the
> real bleeding is happening within the LSB. Hopefully
> we'll all take some deep breaths, and pull back from
> the anger and frustration. There are larger issues than
> the procedural fights we seem to frequently get
> involved with, and we waste our energy for the really
> big fights out there. I don't know if we should all get
> together and have one helluva party and get rip-roaring
> drunk...or have a retreat where we can hug and embrace
> those among us with whom we have the greatest
> disagreement, or all quit and elect a new board. I
> dunno, BUT we cannot continue to function the way we've
> been doing. There are no winners and losers the way
> we're going; we're all losers. Let's bring into our
> vision the spirit of NAP TURNER, who reached out as a
> healing, forgiving and loving person to all those with
> whom he came in contact. "Don't Forget The B
bredwards at hotmail.com;wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org;OurWPFW at yahoogroups.com;n
ewpacifica at yahoogroups.com;alliance at lists.freespeechnow.org
> Sent: 8/12/2004 11:43:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [Wpfw-lsb] Wpfw Chair's illegal vote
> process 2.
> Billy Ray,
> Your comments are primarily toxic, in your postings and
> in person. But you certainly provide a lot of
> opportunities for those who choose to respond. Your few
> comments that may be on point, in my opinion, is buried
> in to much venom to be seriously considered. You show
> no respect for any one who dares to disagree with you.
> And your stance of potential violence, and actual
> profanity, portrays the probability of serious mental
> problems. May you find help and hopefully the peace and
> love you sign at the end of your postings.
> Ray Whitfield
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
More information about the Wpfw-lsb