We could just skip the screening process you suggest, Bryan (that quaint custom called voting) and appoint people to seats, as has been suggested before. But I don't see any point in a screening committee, as it is too open to manipulation. Good advertising by people with good credentials should be enough: we need to discuss funding candidates for campaign expenses, I think, and set some limits on spending, for obvious reasons - Carolyn >At KPFA listener candidates must obtain the required number of >nomination signatures from qualified listener voters (in order to >make sure they're serious enough to go through with the process and >have at least a little support) and then fill out a voluntary >questionnaire to give voters an idea of who they are and what they >stand for. They are also asked to submit a short statement of >candidacy for the literature which accompanies the mailed out >ballots. They leave the questionnaire and campaign statement blank at >their own peril. > >At the end of the two month nomination and campaigning period, the >voters activate the "screening process": they cast ballots, thereby >screening out the bad candidates. IMHO, any checklist of required >political credentials or beliefs is either elitism or McCarthyism or >both. We been there before. > >Bryan Williams >WBAI listener > > >--- In NewPacifica@y..., "nuralanwar" <nuralanwar@y...> wrote: >> Hmm, well, after a couple of readings I don't see any "process >> for screening" at all in the KPFA process on wbai.net. Maybe I'm >> missing something, I hope. True enough that PC standards of any >> kind are no guarantee that a person will be any damn good on a >> board -- I know some so-called progressives who talk the talk to >> perfection & go through community organizations like one-person >> chain-saw massacres. Having all your dogma down doesn't mean >> diddly. So I think that there should be some way of screening >> people based on bad previous performance, inasmuch as I do not >> believe that polite overlooking of one-person chain-saw massacres >> will serve us well. The trick is to come up with some objective >> criteria for determining who is at high risk for this ... or so >> they say. With any luck, we will arrive at something that you >> will really hate, Jim. Because then we might be able to get a >> really good board. >> Vajra >> >> >> --- In NewPacifica@y..., jim Dingeman <jimdingeman@y...> wrote: >> > The criterion set in thge KPFA process for screening >> > are pretty adequate. >> > Setting absurdly high PC standards for the candidate >> > pool is the same process that others might want to >> > substitute with some etraordinary method to appoint >> > self-selected by 20 people LAB appointed reps. >> > The key issue is that the listeners are excluded from >> > the give and take and repartee of debate and colliquoy >> > on air...they are presented with a carefully filtered >> > pool of Lab candiadtes that are not produced by some >> > democratically accessible debate process where ideasd >> > and positions are discussed and freely thouught about. >> > Jim >> > >> > __________________________________________________ >> > Do You Yahoo!? >> > Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! >> > http://auctions.yahoo.com > > > >New Pacifica Working Group >http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica >'Save Our Stations!' > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >NewPacifica-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck Monitoring Service trial http://us.click.yahoo.com/ACHqaB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/xYTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica 'Save Our Stations!' To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewPacifica-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/