[Wpfw-lsb] Re: [alliance] Re: Re: Directors Inspections

[DcProud at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/9/2005 2:03:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cowan at gte.net 
writes:
Whether or not one chooses to join a chorus of "Ding Dong" with the 
announced executive changes (and accepts the profligate waste of $70k of 
listener-sponsors' money so a bloated body of elites can junket to NYC 
to accomplish remarkably little that couldn't have been done by phone or 
online chat as being a cheap out compared to the alternatives), the time 
is here to assess the organization's democracy and to lay out criteria 
for an ED who can facilitate a democratized governance structure with 
openness, honesty, strength, and transparency - a mat weaver, not a 
stick binder. 
Dear Chris,

    I have been called many things in my life, but never bloated.  I imagine 
from the listener's perspective, the New York trip yielded no positive 
results.  But, as a participant on the Board, I left with a different perspective.  
Private and public conversations with fellow PNB members, LSB chairs, national 
staff and General Managers allowed me, at least, an opportunity to understand 
much better than before where our strengths and weaknesses lie as an 
organization now faced with a daunting opportunity to weave as well as sow.

    If one removes the noise, one will discover that the move to restore the 
PNB-approved process for document inspection requests will in no way impinge 
upon the absolute right of Directors to inspect.  Similarly, the decision to 
refer the matter of LSB suspensions to the Governance Committee was not an 
attempt to evade the issue, but rather to seek the reasoned opinions of 15 elected 
members from all our LSBs regarding how we should handle these matters broadly 
and as a matter of policy.  Instant resolution rarely yields lasting 
results-even if it momentarily silences one side or other of the galley.

    I know matters of fiscal transparency continue to trouble others, even as 
we receive a glowing report from the independent auditor, and our financial 
records continue to grow in detail and bulk.  The National Finance Committee, 
working with the CFO and the elected Treasurers from all five station areas, 
continues to seek clarity and depth while also recognizing the human limits of 
our rather lean national staff.  As we begin budget preparation for the FY '06 
fiscal year, I am confident the budgetary process, including reporting, will 
become even more "transparent."  But transparency alone will not address the 
issues of revenue growth, donor fatigue, asset management, or capital needs.  We 
will, all of us, have to remain vigilant, creative, and sincere.

    Finally, the recent decision by the current ED to step down does provide 
a "wake up" call for all of us.  Too often in the past year or more, it has 
been too easy and/or tempting to lay all our woes and worries on the lack of 
others--if only this one was more open, or that one more knowledgeable.  In a 
sometimes maddening rush to name scapegoats, we, at times, forget how far we 
really have come.  Our young democracy was more expensive than we forecasted--in 
both dollars and sense.  Still, here we are.

    As we continue to navigate the natural tight rope between management and 
governance, between parochial interest and global policy, we must remember we 
are no longer saddled with millions of dollars of debt, calls for 
receivership, court orders, or staggering legal bills.  Our annual revenues exceed our 
annual expenses; our affiliations are strong and growing; our audience levels 
continue to place us among the most influential and successful listener-supported 
networks in this country.  

    We have completed two election cycles (and yes we will get better at 
that), and are working to engage over 120 elected listener and staff 
representatives in the business of Pacifica.  It is only natural we would bump heads from 
time to time.  Some would argue it was the fault of the drafters of the 
by-laws.  There are simply too many people, too many competing interests,  in one 
room to accomplish much more than shouting.  I disagree.  But I do think we need 
a "larger" room--a wider vision of who we are and are not.  Both our growth 
and our stability depend on our rededication to a mission inherently broader 
than who said what to whom.

    But that does not mean we are not working to get there--once, of course, 
we decide where "there" is.  It is an exciting time for all of us--an 
important time.  I remain ready to work.  Confident, yes.  Anxious, maybe.  But never 
bloated.

    Mark Roberts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mutualaid.org/pipermail/wpfw-lsb/attachments/20050409/0f79d37b/attachment.html