Here's something new:
In an editorial, http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry_id=1713
the SF Bay Guardian says:
"KQED, San Francisco's venerable public radio and television outlet, is trying to summarily abandon internal democracy.
The station's management is sending out letters this week asking its 190,000 members to vote on a bylaws change that would eliminate direct election of board members and shift complete control of the station's operations to a self-appointed board.
The proposal would also strip members of the right to vote on future changes to the bylaws.
This is a horrible idea and KQED members should reject it."
The Guardian quotes a KQED spokesperson as saying the elections cost $250 thousand, the change is aimed at simplifying how the non-profit is run following the merger with San Jose's PBS station, KTEH.
The KQED spokesperson is indirectly quoted as saying that none of the other big stations in the Public Broadcasting Service system have elected boards.
The Bay Guardian opined, "KQED has always needed independent watchdogs. For years, the station has poured money into bad projects and wasted cash on overpaid executives — at the expense of its primary mission, which is (and ought to be) to provide quality local programming. There's no KQED TV news show (although there used to be). Other than Michael Krasny on the radio, there's precious little in the way of local public affairs shows."
After pointing out how past board members who didn't go along with managements' proposals have been good for the organization, the editorial concludes "This is the last chance members will ever have to halt the corporatization of KQED. Most members just throw their ballots out; this time, it's worth taking a minute to vote no on the new bylaws."
The Peninsula Press Club spotted the item and did some followup:
http://penpressclub.org/2006/09/members-asked-to-end-board-elections.html#links
"We haven't been able to find any stories in the newspapers about this change. Nor is there any information on the KQED Web site http://www.kqed.org/ about this proposal to do away with board elections.
It would appear that if this proposal is approved, the current board would have the sole power to elect successors to those who depart the board. Here's a link listing the current board and senior staffers of KQED radio and TV. http://www.kqed.org/about/board-directors.jsp"
Is KQED in need of saving from itself?
Ted
In an editorial, http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry_id=1713
the SF Bay Guardian says:
"KQED, San Francisco's venerable public radio and television outlet, is trying to summarily abandon internal democracy.
The station's management is sending out letters this week asking its 190,000 members to vote on a bylaws change that would eliminate direct election of board members and shift complete control of the station's operations to a self-appointed board.
The proposal would also strip members of the right to vote on future changes to the bylaws.
This is a horrible idea and KQED members should reject it."
The Guardian quotes a KQED spokesperson as saying the elections cost $250 thousand, the change is aimed at simplifying how the non-profit is run following the merger with San Jose's PBS station, KTEH.
The KQED spokesperson is indirectly quoted as saying that none of the other big stations in the Public Broadcasting Service system have elected boards.
The Bay Guardian opined, "KQED has always needed independent watchdogs. For years, the station has poured money into bad projects and wasted cash on overpaid executives — at the expense of its primary mission, which is (and ought to be) to provide quality local programming. There's no KQED TV news show (although there used to be). Other than Michael Krasny on the radio, there's precious little in the way of local public affairs shows."
After pointing out how past board members who didn't go along with managements' proposals have been good for the organization, the editorial concludes "This is the last chance members will ever have to halt the corporatization of KQED. Most members just throw their ballots out; this time, it's worth taking a minute to vote no on the new bylaws."
The Peninsula Press Club spotted the item and did some followup:
http://penpressclub.org/2006/09/members-asked-to-end-board-elections.html#links
"We haven't been able to find any stories in the newspapers about this change. Nor is there any information on the KQED Web site http://www.kqed.org/ about this proposal to do away with board elections.
It would appear that if this proposal is approved, the current board would have the sole power to elect successors to those who depart the board. Here's a link listing the current board and senior staffers of KQED radio and TV. http://www.kqed.org/about/board-directors.jsp"
Is KQED in need of saving from itself?
Ted