LAB recall of PNB members is faster; each LAB is responsible for the candidates that it promotes. There should, however, be an ability by the PNB to remove members or refuse to seat appointees, though it should not be easily done. As for a listener recall of PNB members, I believe the expected membership of Pacifica, once the new by-laws go into effect, will achieve the numbers required to make the 5% Rule effective. That means 5% of all members can call for a meeting on specific issues via signed petition. Also, understand that a recall can only be done _once_ per term of an elected person. That alone _should_ act as a bar to those who simply want to try and remove someone for less than adequate cause; my fear is that there will be those who act too quickly, not be able to convince enough people to vote to recall, and thus give this person 'carte blanche' to do what they wish, secure that they are now immune to action. Likewise, in a staggered term election, those subject to recall are those elected in the same election. If 8 people were elected, _all_ will stand to be recalled even if you are only targetting _one_ person. -- ====================================================================== Mark Hernandez markh@repairnet.com KFCF Volunteer | FFCF Member/Director | KPFA Volunteer/LAB Member ====================================================================== On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, ignatzmouse73 wrote: > Not a necessary measure, provided that all LABs incorporate Station > Board recall provisions of the KPFA model into their respective > election models. Successful listener recall votes of the station > boards in each signal area would force the recall of their respective > members from the national board, thereby reconstituting the national > board. (A national recall vote would only be logical if listeners > directly elected all national board seats -- if you favor such an > election, your proposal makes sense, of course.) > > Bryan Williams > wbai listener > > > --- In NewPacifica@y..., cgunther@i... wrote: > > One possible solution to this mentioned as a possibility by Carol > Spooner in the last > > few weeks is to have the LABs elect the PNB, but have a direct > recall process for the > > entire PNB by listeners if situations really got out of hand and > listeners were > > completely dissatisfied. This would be a "break glass - use only > in emergency" kind of > > an option that would require a very significant number of > signatures to activate. > > > > Carl > > > > > > On 29 Jan 2002 at 13:45, evan davis wrote: > > > > > Tom; > > > It might behoove you to take some time and read back a ways > through > > > the past two years of e-mails - do a search by subject to find the > > > relevant threads. The majority of questions you are asking have > been > > > discussed at length some time ago. That is not to say that they > should > > > not be asked again periodically but you might find satisfaction in > > > reading what lots of folks have already said about them. > > > That being said; there is no planned "screening process" for > > > candidates to the PNB other than the democratic gauntlet of the > LAB's > > > which are the bodies authorized to elect representatives to the > PNB. > > > The LAB's are tasked with screening applications for the station > > > managers positions but the final authority for hiring / firing > rests > > > with the PNB who employs an E.D. for that purpose. > > > Why we can not have direct listener elections of the PNB is > because > > > to do so would undermine the accountability of the LAB's which are > > > also elected. If the listenerselect the PNB which employs the > station > > > managers but the LAB's are the policy-setting bodies for the > stations > > > whose job is to supervise and review those managers then you have > > > essentiaally created a closed circuit in which the division of > labor > > > is obliterated. Can you imagine the listeners in a given area > electing > > > an LAB then also electing a PNB member who is at odds with the > LAB? > > > Who, then, is accountable to whome? > > > Evan Davis > > > > > > t_g7 wrote: > > > > > > >Before the issue comes up, I want to register my opposition to > any > > > >unfair screening process that might be proposed for the upcoming > > > >Local Advisory Board/Station Board and/or Pacifica National Board > > > >Elections. > > > > > > > >For instance, the Pacifica National Board or LAB might try to > screen > > > >candidates, so that the voters would only be allowed to choose > from > > > >among the candidates that are picked for them by the LAB or PNB. > Or > > > >they might try to propose overly restrictive requirements, such > as > > > >1,000 signatures on a petition. Such a requirement could be met > by > > > >programmers who have air time to announce meetings at which > > > >signatures could be gathered, but non-programmers who do not have > > > >access to the air waves could not gather enough signatures. I > would > > > >think that 50 listener-subscriber signatures on a petition would > be > > > >enough. I would extend the definition of "listener-subscriber" to > > > >include people who donated to the dissident campaigns. > > > > > > > >I also want to ask, why can't we have direct election of the > Pacifica > > > > National Board by listeners? I think this would give us more > control > > > > over how our contributions are spent, and would provide a double > > > >safeguard, so that if the LAB got taken over by people we did not > > > >want, we could vote for PNB members to reverse the takeover, and > if > > > >the PNB got taken over by people we did not want, we could vote > for > > > >LAB members who would reverse the takeover. > > > > > > > >Tom Gregg > > > >WBAI Listener > > > > > > > > > > > >New Pacifica Working Group > > > >http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica > > > >'Save Our Stations!' > > > > > > > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > >NewPacifica-unsubscribe@e... > > > > > > > > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to > > > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > > > > > [] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New Pacifica Working Group > > > http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica > > > 'Save Our Stations!' > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > NewPacifica-unsubscribe@e... > > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > > > 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/