Many faithful cadre have been distraught at the silence of Glorious Leader this past week.
Bereft of her guidance, they've been seen haunting People's Coop, listlessly trying to interest passers by in circulars promoting the Inner Party directives for transparency without revealing the source of the Inner Party directives. Only those of the Right Stuff, who do not question this contradiction, are given directions to the Sooper Sekrit Cabal Headquarters.
Nonetheless, it has been a gruelling week. After recruiting only 4 new Outer Party members(and two of them had just stopped for directions to the bathroom), cadre was about to throw in a Che Guevara collectable towel.
Well, despair no more, Comrades!! Glorious Leader has not abandoned us! She was battling for the Cause, sparring with the fiendish Traitor Hadrian, the day before the KBOOM!!
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Kboo Supporters keepkbooaskboo@gmail.com wrote:
On June 20, 2013, KBOO Board
member Hadrian Micciche sent an email to a number of local news outlets,
stating, among other points, that the upcoming Board meeting would address
A
report that KBOO is on track to lossing [sic] its broadcasting license for
failure to have a Community Advisory Board, as the FCC and our By-laws require,
and that this failure of KBOO to follow its By-laws has been reported to the
state’s Attorney Generals [sic] office.
(for response to other points in that email, please see the post at http://savekboo.org/2013/06/21/the-corporate-faction-shows-its-hand/)
For reasons detailed below,
we believe that the station is in full compliance with licensing requirements
in this respect, and that the FCC is likely to recognize this compliance as it
has done in the past, acknowledging that the Program Advisory Committee serves
as the station's Community Advisory Board. We encourage the Board to direct
staff to notify Board officers in the event the FCC contacts the station about
licensing requirements related to this Community Advisory Board. We regret that Board member Micciche evidently
preferred to bring his concerns to the media before consulting other, more
knowledgeable and experienced Board members, staff, or volunteers, who would
have been able to allay his concerns.
In
a June 21, 2013 email to news media outlets and the board, Board member
Micciche stated
I have an item on the agenda for our meeting this coming
Monday that calls for the KBOO Board to direct our Programming Committee
to take action to create such a CAB and report their progress at the following
Board meeting. If the Board would like the FCC to approve our
license renewal and the state Attorney General to see that KBOO is taking
action to comply with our by-laws, you will support this motion.
It's easy enough to create a Community Advisory Board. The Board
just needs to recruit people from the communities of people we ought to be
serving but are not, people who have the ears of their community and a voice
that can speak to the KBOO Board in an informed way about their community's
needs. I don't believe KBOO has ever had such a CAB. Certainly, we do not now.
According to the By-laws [1] and the FCC [2], we need to.
[1] "The Program Committee shall also serve as the
corporation's Community Advisory Board. In that capacity, it shall review the
programming goals established by the corporation, the service provided by the
corporation, and the significant policy decisions rendered by the corporation;
advise the Board of Directors with respect to whether the programming and other
policies of the corporation are meeting the specialized educational and
cultural needs of the communities served by the corporation; and make such
recommendations as it considers appropriate to meet such needs." http://kboo.fm/bylaws
[2] "Service Delivered to Underserved Audiences"
"The principle of
localism requires broadcasters to take into account all significant groups
within their communities when developing balanced, community-responsive
programming, including those groups with specialized needs and interests. While
the FCC has observed that each broadcast station is not necessarily required to
provide service to all such groups, it has nonetheless recognized the concerns
of some that programming – particularly network programming – often is not
sufficiently culturally diverse."
"The FCC has tentatively
concluded that licensees should convene and consult with permanent advisory
boards made up of leaders from the community of each broadcast station. In addition to
informing broadcasters of issues of importance to their communities in
general, such advisory boards should include representatives of all
segments of the community,
to ensure that those community elements have a continuing opportunity to
communicate their group’s perceived needs and interests to their local
broadcast station management." http://benton.org/node/9258
(This article is focused on TV stations. However, with a little
searching, we would find the FCC has the same concerns and requirements for
radio stations.)
As
this message notes, KBOO's Program Advisory Committee has served as the
corporation's Community Advisory Board.
As the message also acknowledges, the second link provided is not from
the FCC and does not address radio stations.
In
past years, during the license renewal process, the FCC has consistently
recognized the Program Advisory Committee's service as Community Advisory
Board. We know of no reason to think this established structure will not
suffice this time, and in particular, we see nothing in the FCC's newer
language to change that belief.
In
the 1/24/08 Report (FCC-07-218A1.doc), "FCC Adopts Localism Proposals to
Ensure Programming is Responsive to Needs of Local Communities," the FCC stated (emphasis added),
25. Community Advisory Boards. The Commission’s former ascertainment requirement directed broadcasters to
comply with detailed, formal procedures to determine the needs and interests of
their communities, at the time that they initially sought their station
authorizations, asked for approval to obtain a station, and sought license
renewal. The record before us here
shows that new efforts are needed to ensure that licensees regularly gather
information from community representatives to help inform the stations’
programming decisions, but we are not persuaded that the appropriate measure
should be reinstatement of the former ascertainment mandates. As when the
Commission eliminated those procedures in the 1980s, we do not believe that
their potential benefits justify the costs. We do tentatively conclude, however, that the same
fundamental objectives can be achieved through other means, including regular, quarterly licensee meetings with
a board of community advisors and improved access by the public to station
decision makers.
26. As noted supra, a number of licensee commenters have reported the
benefits of community advisory boards in determining matters of local interest
for broadcasters. We tentatively
conclude that each licensee should convene a permanent advisory board made up
of officials and other leaders from the service area of its broadcast
station. We believe that these
boards will promote both localism and diversity and, as such, should be an
integral component of the Commission’s localism efforts. Accordingly, we seek comment on this
proposal. Will such community advisory boards be able to alert each broadcaster
to issues that are important to its community of license? How should members of the advisory
boards be selected or elected?
Should the former ascertainment guidelines be a starting point to
identify those various segments in the community with whom the licensees should
consult? How can the advisory boards be composed
so as to ensure that all segments of the community, including minority or
underserved members of the community, would also have an opportunity to voice
their concerns about local issues facing the area? How frequently should licensees be required to meet with
these advisory boards? We
believe that, generally speaking, if a licensee already has formal groups in
place with which it consults to determine the needs of its community, it should
be deemed to have satisfied this requirement. We also seek comment on
under what circumstances a licensee should be deemed to have satisfied this
requirement with its current practices.
In
its July 2008 document on "The Public and Broadcasting"
(http://www.fcc.gov/guides/public-and-broadcasting-july-2008), the FCC states
again,
Licensee
Discretion. Because the Commission
cannot dictate to licensees what programming they may air, each individual
radio and TV station licensee generally has discretion to select what its
station broadcasts and to otherwise determine how it can best serve its community of license.
(http://www.fcc.gov/guides/public-and-broadcasting-july-2008#DISCRETION). Thus, we conclude that KBOO continues
to be fully in compliance with its licensing requirement to provide access by
the local public to station decision makers regarding programming decisions.
Traitor Hadrian replies:
From: Hadrian Micciche <hmicciche@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: KBOO: FCC license and community involvement
To: Kboo Supporters <keepkbooaskboo@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Kipilman <jbkip@comcast.net>, Lyn Moelich <boardbliss@gmail.com>, Matthew Bristow <myst567@gmail.com>, Paula Small <kboopaula@gmail.com>, Rabia Yeaman <kbooboardrabia@gmail.com>, "S. W. Conser" <conchdotcom@gmail.com>, lloving2002@yahoo.com, papadop@peak.org, Lynn Fitch <manager@kboo.org>, "newsroom@oregonian.com" <newsroom@oregonian.com>, "bwalth@wweek.com" <bwalth@wweek.com>, "news@portlandmercury.com" <news@portlandmercury.com>, "News@theskanner.com" <News@theskanner.com>, "pmnews@kboo.org" <pmnews@kboo.org>, "editor@theportlandalliance.org" <editor@theportlandalliance.org>, "ThePortlandAlliance@gmail.com" <ThePortlandAlliance@gmail.com>, "njaquiss@wweek.com" <njaquiss@wweek.com>, "amesh@wweek.com" <amesh@wweek.com>, "adamewood@wweek.com" <adamewood@wweek.com>, "stevelaw@portlandtribune.com" <stevelaw@portlandtribune.com>, "jimredden@portlandtribune.com" <jimredden@portlandtribune.com>
Thanks for
extensively quoting my email. However, I've since done some additional
research and have provided links to sources that address the requirement
for a Community Advisory board for radio licensees.
It's regrettable you don't reference them as they were widely shared
with the folks who sent you the email you do quote.
However, lets focus on this specific email and your argument that the existence of a committee which ought to be functioning as a Community Advisory Board means that it is.
The specific FCC language you cite is, "We believe that, generally speaking, if a licensee already has formal groups in place with which it consults to determine the needs of its community, it should be deemed to have satisfied this requirement.
To my knowledge:
1. The Board does not consult with the Program Committee to determine the needs of the community.
2. The Program Committee does not report to the Board about the needs of the community.
3.
The legal record of the Board and the activities of the Program
Committee reflect this lack of compliance with this requirement of the
KBOO by-laws. Our minutes lack any reference to consultation or reports
about community needs.
The Attorney General's office was contacted about this failure of the Board to exercise it's Duty of Obedience to KBOO by-laws.
You would do us a great service if you can find specific evidence of compliance in our legal record, the KBOO Board minutes.
You would do us a great service if you could also point out which members of the current Program Committee are leaders from diverse segments of our local community, as the FCC requires.
All
my motion asks for is for the Board to direct the Program (and
Nominating) Committee to do all that the by-laws require them to do, and
report back their status at the subsequent meeting. If they can report
then that they are in compliance with the by-laws, this will be a
settled matter. However, all evidence now available indicates that they
are not now in compliance and have not been for quite some time.
I understand the Program Committee did at one time, long past, have such a Community Advisory Board, which not only existed but also did what was required of it.
Not many KBOO members or even Board members know that as a Public Benefit Corporation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and a community radio station:
1. The State of Oregon requires KBOO to serve the community, not just our 5000 members.
2. The IRS requires KBOO to serve the community, not just our 5000 members.
3. The FCC requires KBOO to serve the community, not just our 5000 members.
4. The KBOO Strategic Plan calls on KBOO to serve more of the community.
The KBOO Program Charter calls upon us to "be a model of programming, filling needs that other media do not, providing programming to unserved or underserved groups. KBOO shall provide access and training to those communities..."
There are unserved and underserved groups that KBOO does not serve.
We are not engaged as we need to be with leaders of these groups who
can advise us of their community's needs, as well as represent KBOO to
their communities to help recruit people to get trained and provide
programming for their communities. What I describe here is a Community
Advisory Board. It is a vital and necessary resource for KBOO to keep
its commitments to the State of Oregon, the IRS, the FCC live up to our
Programming Charter and realize our Strategic Plan. Having such a Community Advisory Board will also bring us into compliance with KBOO's by-laws.
KBOO is underdog radio. However, we need to let all of the underdogs in our door.
As one member commented at the public meeting at Tabor Space on May 4th, " I would like to note that this looks like, including myself, a very homogenous group. Portland is rapidly becoming less homogenous. We need to reach out to communities that are not here. I brought this up with programming frequently while
there is some limited programming for Native Americans, Pacific
Islanders are excluded, eastern Asians are excluded, Latin Americans
minus a few Tejano shows and a great Tuesday afternoon show is largely
excluded. Brazilian
music, South American is excluded. East Asian again Pacific Islander,
all sorts of communities are excluded. We need to check with the broader
community and bring them in so that were not so homogenous."
Segments of the local communities unserved and underserved -- even by KBOO.
That should not be so. How do we do what our mission calls for us to
do? How do we reach out and listen to the needs of the communities we
ought to serve, but do not?
A Community Advisory Board.
Lets
stop pretending we have one. Lets not make excuses for not having one.
Let's walk our talk, act with integrity, and serve all of the underdogs
as we should.
Dasterdly Hadrian implies KBOO is a corporation, under the Iron Thumb of the State:
Not many KBOO members or even Board members know that as a Public Benefit Corporation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and a community radio station:
1. The State of Oregon requires KBOO to serve the community, not just our 5000 members.
2. The IRS requires KBOO to serve the community, not just our 5000 members.
3. The FCC requires KBOO to serve the community, not just our 5000 members.
4. The KBOO Strategic Plan calls on KBOO to serve more of the community.
It's a battle between the Iron Thumb and the Iron Rice Bowl, comrades! Who gives a flying frack about 5,000 Outer Party members who can't be bothered to parrot the Inner Party line? Or these so called State of Oregon regulations and acronyms?
Do not fear! Our Leader battles on against these and other Enemies of the People!!!!
Glorious Leader wants to hear from YOU.
Only with YOUR mindless and unquestioning support can the Glorious Radio Worker Paradise be Achieved!
SOLIDARITY
-Meresa Titchell
