You're right - it wouldn't make sense to have a direct national recall of the PNB if they were elected by the LABs, because there would be nothing to prevent the same LABs from electing the same (or equally bad) PNB members all over again. But having a recall of every single LAB in order to recall the national board would lay waste to the entire organization at once. It would be extremely disruptive and expensive. I suspect that no one would ever want to exercise that option. It would be like using nuclear weapons to demolish a derelict building. A better approach would be one of the main ones already proposed: elect the entire PNB in a national election, maybe by having all LAB elections at the same time and combining the PNB choices and LAB choices on a single ballot (but tallied completely separately, of course). Use a similar process to that used for the LAB to elect the PNB. If there are 15 seats, elect 5 each year and have a 3-year term. (With grandparenting of ten members of the iPNB to the PNB for the first election - 5 for 1 year terms and 5 for 2 year terms - with choices decided by 2/3 or balanced majority resolution, with the judge resolving if we don't get the 2/3 or balanced majority. Maybe. That would of course be controversial, including wth me. Otherwise a full-out election of all 15, but with some seats for 1 year, some for 2 and some for 3. Less continuity that way, though.) Recall of an individual member could be done by a national petition and vote, with the vacancy filled in the same manner that a vacancy is filled in a LAB election - by basically considering the "next" person who would have been elected had the vacating member not be running in the first place. That way, if the member who people wish to recall believes that the recall will win, she or he can save everyone the trouble of a recall election by simply "resigning under pressure," which will cause the slot to be filled by the next person in line from the election. It would be slightly more "pure" to recall the entire board rather than one member and then just hold the entire election over again. That is in fact the only kind of recall process supported by the KPFA process for the KPFA LAB. The reason that it would be more pure to recall the entire PNB than a single member is because proportional representation allows a member with an unpopular viewpoint to be elected by a minority of the voters, and so it is a violation of this philosophy to allow a simple majority or even a super-majority to *remove* an individual member, because that member may represent a legitimate minority viewpoint. But since the replacement would be from the same election process, the enormous practical and economic benefits, as well as stability benefits, of not having another election would probably be worth the slight lack of purity. And the replacement would be reflective of even more of a minority view, so it is unlikely that a majority would have a motive to knock out a minority PNB member only to replace that member with one from an even smaller minority. Unless, of course, the member had committed serious offenses against the entire community - and that is the situation that a recall process should address. We should allow this only if there are other candidates from the last election who *could* replace the recalled member. Otherwise, the entire PNB should have to be recalled in order to get rid of the individual offender. It is not acceptable for the majority to be able to yank out minority reps at will and replace them by majority vote with its own candidates. That would invalidate the entire proportional process. Perhaps the above approach could resolve the recall problem. Carl On 30 Jan 2002 at 20:04, 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. > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > ADVERTISEMENT > Click Here! > > > > > > > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------ 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/