[grc] Pacifica and WBAI

[Tracy Rosenberg]

Yes, that is entirely correct, Brian and thanks. It basically represents a
failure to understand how collectively run organizations actually operate
and to impose partial and haphazard horizontal democracy principles without
any guard rails. With predictable results.

Actually it doesn't require a 2/3 vote to recall a national board member
from the national board. It requires 2/3 of those PRESENT at a meeting, so
as few as 10/15 or 12/18 can recall a national board member. If it is a
very poorly attended meeting, less people could recall a board member than
elected them in the first place. It simply wasn't thought out and attempts
at reform have generally focused on less democratic impulses, not more
democratic impulses.

Tom will likely be recalled with 12 or 13 votes which will be entirely and
exclusively votes from LSB members who did not vote for him the first
place, rendering the decision essentially meaningless as  an evaluation of
his actual performance on the PNB.

My hope would be that public shaming would prevent that outcome, but I'm
not optimistic that people who would do such a thing respond to public
shaming.



On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:03 PM Brian Shiratsuki via grc <
grc at maillist.peak.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:56 PM Lisa Dettmer via grc
> <grc at maillist.peak.org> wrote:
>
> > ...And as someone who has worked in ACT-UP and many other grassroots
> organizations that had a modified consensus basis I have seen how process
> that is Democratic can work and Pacifica is NOT democratic  because the
> intention to respect each other and actually communicate isn’t there...
>
> pacifica adopted a hybrid proportional and winner-take-all system
> which inherits the worst of either option. it chooses a board somewhat
> proportionally, which in pacifica's case means a board divided near
> the middle between two parties or factions. then the resulting board
> attempts to make decisions using winner-take-all, instead of any sort
> of consensus basis which might yield a proportional outcome.
>
> the bylaws also reflect a poor understanding of a proportional system
> in its rules regarding filling vacancies, and in removing board
> members. for example, each station has twenty-four delegates who
> proportionately choose three from among themselves to send to a
> national board. the method used requires the support of seven
> delegates to elect a national board member.
>
> it would be reasonable, then, to require the affirmation of at least
> the balance plus one, ie eighteen delegates, to recall any board
> member so elected. but the bylaws only require two-thirds, or sixteen
> delegates, to recall a national board member. so now it appears that
> at one of the stations, proportionality will be thwarted and a third
> of the station's membership will become unrepresented at the national
> level.
>
> maybe the bylaws authors should have checked out these modified
> consensus bases. or maybe they did, and lost to the majority who
> favored constant jockeying for a small numerical advantage.
>
> brian s
> _______________________________________________
> grc mailing list
> grc at maillist.peak.org
> http://maillist.peak.org/mailman/listinfo/grc
>


-- 
Tracy Rosenberg
Executive Director
Media Alliance
2830 20th Street Suite 102
San Francisco, CA 94110
www.media-alliance.org
415-746-9475
510-684-6853 Cell
Encrypted email at tracy.rosenberg at protonmail.com
Text via Signal

-