Lost email exchange documents Glorious Leader sparring with Traitor Hadrian!!!

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!!!!

Need to contact the Inner Party? Email  keepkbooaskboo@gmail.com

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