Save Grassroots Radio

mission · Guest

There's also some more info at http://openkrfc.org. Here's the current mission statement (which can also be found on the
KRFC web site at http://krfcfm.org/who/mission.html):

mission · Guest

This is what the Board unanimously approved as a replacement. They have not said whether all three documents, mission, vision, and values, will be protected the same under the bylaws as the current mission statement.

bame · Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 35

Here are several of my concerns with the proposed new mission:

The Board passed the mission unanimously but apparently without using
the mission/vision suggestions from members, volunteers, underwriters,
and others involved in strategic planning meetings. If they believe the
new mission accounts for people's inputs, they didn't explain how that is.
Members have a 21-day period to petition for the new mission to
require a membership vote according to the bylaws. But the board has
not said when the period starts, ends, nor informed members of these rights.
I asked the BoD this in an email on Monday and offered to help.
Greg says they will discuss it at tonight's BoD meeting.
Strenuous objection by members and volunteers to changing the mission goes
back at least to February 2005 (I recall meetings with then
board member Jim Volpa). The BoD has never satisfactorily answered
the concerns but only said "trust us the process will be good".
The reasons given for why a new mission is so important are all
easily challenged. For example, other long-time, successful, community
radio stations have missions like ours, and their existance is proof
that having a professional/corporate-style mission isn't required, so
why did the BoD push so hard for it, especially over constant objections?
There are strategies for grant writers to use when missions are lengthy,
and we also as a station have no consensus about whether we want to have
more or fewer grants, so tuning our mission for grant writing seems at
least premature.
I was at the SPA meeting and the public meeting following it. The
time was WAY too short for people to do a good job. Why does this
incredibly important discussion have to be pushed so fast? Don't
we want the best... and buy in?
When questioned about it, BoD members always said don't worry, the
mission change process would be inclusive, and compared to some other
big changes it has been -- which is to the credit of everyone involved.
However members were not involved in the decision, only in "giving input"
(which looks to have been ignored). I feel it is about as inclusive as
when I send Sen. Musgrave a letter and she says "thank you for your input".
"Democratically managed" has disappeared from the new proposal. This
seems consistent with the feeling I get that the structural powers (BoD
and GM) act more like bosses and less like they are in service to the
listeners and members. Ignoring member input during this very process is
illustrative.
The original mission was protected specially in the bylaws because it
was seen as the heart and soul of why we're coming together at KRFC.
The BoD is not specific about whether the three new pieces: vision,mission,values; would be protected by the same bylaws.
This is essential since if we get the new versions forced upon us, the
values contain much of what the original mission contained.
The current mission is what brought many volunteers into KRFC and
fired our passions. The new mission is a limp dead fish by comparison.
There's no excitement, nor even identity. There's no way to tell
we're different from KUNC really. There's no way to tell if we
play the same stuff everyone else does or not. This is NOT better
for KRFC than the old mission.
If the proposed mission is adopted, I worry that new members and
other people (sponsors, funders) will only see the mission, and not the
values. How would they know to support us or not without seeing either
the current mission, or the new values? I'm afraid the new mission is
SO bland, it won't excite supporters.
A strategic plan can be made based on the current mission -- we
don't need a new one for that.

Paul · Guest

Can we also suggest in the new mission statement that KRFC stops trying to do liberal news broadcasting? How can we act like a "community" radio station by pandering to only the lefties in the community? I'm lefty myself, but KRFC will continue to be pigeon-holed as a lefty radio station as long as we only support half of the community. I know all the BS about how other media outlets slant to the right, and hence the need for a voice on the other side, but why not stop playing the game and be an honest "community" radio station? It appears that the opposition to the new mission statement is just the liberal faction complaining about folks that are just trying to do a better job at what they're already doing. I know the KRFC GM, President, and board are being financed by Marilyn Musgrave and that they're really anti-abortionists working under the auspices of the Patriot Act, but can't we trust that they have only the best intentions for the community that is KRFC and the listeners? They're good people and deserve some support! In other words, how about some positive vibrations? One love! One community!

Kathleen · Guest

I don't believe the above post by "paul" is to be taken seriously. That being said, I hope future posts about this topic will be more constructive than the above rant. It is an important time for KRFC. Each day is a new experience and we need to stay positive.

KRFC is a gem among the coal nuggets found in modern radio broadcasting. It began a place where under-served voices could be heard and great music played. KRFC offers a wide variety of programs filling those niches specific to this community. To simply state that KRFC is a lefty station, is inaccurate. What specifically bothers people about KRFC programming? (I really want to know specifics) KRFC is not talk-radio. There are many aspects to it, many shows to choose from. KRFC public affairs programming does not offer 30 second sound-bites, that get repeated over and over again. The various PA programs (local and syndicated) offer thoughtful and in-depth interviews, specials, guest speakers and other aspects of show production, that cannot easily be found in other public outlets..
The intrinsic value of this programming is knowing that KRFC is offering programs not offered anywhere else. Listening and absorbing this information can sometimes be difficult, confusing, challenging, enlightening, or re-assuring depending on your past experiences. Whatever direction you are coming from, you can learn something. Part of KRFC's intent is to educate. Sometime we learn when we are least expecting it.

If you have something to say, we welcome it. News On the Range is a program which airs 7:30am and 5pm weekdays. It offers a Soapbox segment where community members can voice their opinion. OR you can leave a message at 221-5075 x 20. The NewsRangers will compile the messages and they can get played on the air.

Democracy is not always fun, but it is vital in a community radio station that serves its listeners and members. I firmly believe that when you offer people a chance to participate and hear their concerns, then try to satisfy those concerns; a stronger outcome will arise. The more people participating and feeling that "ownership", a stronger KRFC will emerge. Participation is key.

I have attended the public meeting and am also a member of the Strategic Planning Advisory committee. This has been a very interesting process. I had high hopes for its openness and clarity. However, after the experience of the first round of meetings and seeing the outcome - I question whether or not these meetings (public and spa) have any real impact on the decision making of the BoD and GM. It feels like an empty gesture to get people to come to a meeting, hear their ideas and concerns, or ask questions - only to disregard them in the final proposals. This process doesn't feel like democracy, but it is the one presented to us to work-within. And I intend to continue to participate in it.

Perhaps, this strategic planning process should slow down a bit and we need an open discussion about democracy at KRFC. Lots of community radio stations go through growth spurts and times of difficulty, its important to remember everyone is working towards a better KRFC. No one wants to harm KRFC. It just that, the "vision" is different for different people involved at KRFC.
The second round of meetings for the public and SPA committee are tomorrow at A Place for Peace in Ft Collins. Hopefully we can clarify this vision, make amends and continue to produce excellent non-commercial, independent, volunteer-driven radio.

Those are my thoughts,

Kathleen

bame · Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 35

Thanks to Jack for replying to my questions:

kathleen · Guest

Hello,

Although at times tense, I feel a lot of good will come out of today's meetings. Many views were expressed and heard. Lots of ideas for overall improvement at krfc, a future vision, healing the past, and helping each other understand the unique and beautiful animal that is krfc.

I look forward to reviewing the minutes and moving forward.

Kathleen

petition · Guest

there is still plenty of time to sign the petition see http://openkrfc.org

61strat · Guest

Sure there's still time to sign the petition, but think about it before you do. If you are one of 50 signatures, you kill the mission statement because 2/3s of the membership will never show up to vote on it. Read the bylaws.

In effect you tell the leadership that you have no trust in their motives. You tell people who called in numerous favors and brought us over $100,000 scott-free and saved us from bankruptcy more than once that they're power-hungry tyrants.

You tell the GM who has brought in countless grants and grown the station by leaps and bounds in just two years that she is unfit to lead us.

She was asking for a simpler, more concise mission statement so that she could approach more sophisticated entities as a respectable organization, for monitary support.

You tell the board who give up countless hours trying to do right by you that they are suspicious just by virtue of being decision makers.

Maybe the station leaders don't do everything perfect, but I don't think you have any idea what good hearts you break when you sign that petition.

Arbuthnot · Guest

I attended the meeting of March 4. What I saw and heard was disturbing. There were at most five people who consistently dominated the discussion for what seemed to be a fostering of their own selfish interests in regards to changes in the mission statement. The thinly veiled insults leveled at the board of directors and station manager were beyond belief. I still marvel that those present were able to keep their collective cool under such harsh criticism.

I believe the board and manager have done very well in refining the extant mission statement into one that is simple, condensed, effective, and most importantly, repeatable from memory. I believe the board of directors and the station manager have done a fine job of ensuring that KRFC continues to be an integral asset to the community of Fort Collins, one that represents all equally and favors no one.

KRFC makes great radio that is local, noncommercial, and volunteer powered.

Google "mission statement" NEAR definition, and see for yourself if those are the qualities of a good, working mission statement. Which of the two mission statements can YOU remember off the top of your head word for word?

The board should be commended for their work, not labeled as authoritarians, oppressors, or as was suggested at the March 4 meeting, even fascists.

What exactly is a fascist anyway? What are those 14 reprehensible tenets and how do they apply to KRFC???

The only criticism I have for the board is that they could have done a much better job at conveying to the membership their reasoning for selecting the proposed changes to mission, vision, and value statements.

As I examine and compare both old and new mission statements, nearly all the elements of the old can be read into the new. One is long, one is short. I can interpret enough of the old into the new one and am comfortable with the change.

I find this current controversy misguided. I urge you to examine this situation carefully, think positively, and do not sign the petition.

Guest · Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:11 am Post subject:

david · Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 29

I think there was some headway made at that last meeting towards some resolution. Also, it's my personal belief that dialog is more democratic than a petition (regardless of whether the goals are reached or not). I think that Elizabeth Bailey set a good example in trying to find a solution and I'm willing to follow her lead.

Therefore, I'm asking that my name be taken of the list of signers and instead a notation that states "Democracy through dialog." This is especially important since I am the person accepting the signatures. I am not "neutral" as was stated for the reason I should accept the letters if I have signed the petition.

Again, it is my opinion, and it has been through the course of this effort, that dialog is more important and fundamental to Democracy than a petition. A petition is a sign that Democracy has broken down and this is certainly not something I can blame wholly on the Board of Directors or Beth or the facilitator. I have to take some responsibility for this. I did not go to the board meetings and I did not communicate my concerns with the board. Nor did i communicate my concern to you about the petition. I only asked Kathleen whether anyone had approached the board about the concern. I just signed the petition and that was my mistake.

I see the weekly dialog meetings as a more healthy alternative to the petition for me, for the station and for the listeners and I will proceed with that course of action.

David Canter

kathleen · Guest

A few things..

It has been said before that posting on this forum from the safety of an alias or anonymously allows people to say things that (perhaps) they normally would not have said. Having the courage to say something and put you name behind it carries a lot more weight and is better for future dialogs at KRFC.

That being said, the By-Laws are a guiding tool, that can be referenced for the protection of the station itself. Yes, I encourage everyone to read them - they are not that difficult to comprehend. Section XI indicates the opportunity for members of KRFC to have input into the vital document known at the Mission Statement. What is wrong with that? A lot of people have provided their views as to what should be incorporated into this document. This petition is not a personal attack on the BoD or the GM. Do not try to make it one with the rhetoric above.

I will go on the record as stating I do not believe that the spa or public input was properly incorporated in the final BoD version of the mission and vision. The core values are ok - not great - but ok.

Reviewing mission statement of other grassroots - community radio stations (b/c that is what I feel we should be looking to for guidance, Not a corporate model) Its important to get a sense of character of the station. The simple one liners of the proposed mission and vision are lacking in KRFC's Soul. In this short, concise "effective" form there's not much indicating how or why KRFC is different from KUNC or even a commercial station. That bothers me.

The references above about the March 4th meetings posted by 2 anonymous people have a lot of anger behind them. I can understand that anger. The important thing to remember that that we ALL want to better KRFC. Its obvious that the "same" vision is not shared and this needs to be discussed.

There are preparations being made to offer a safe place to talk about these philosophical issues. Hopefully, a meeting can be scheduled soon to discuss the mission, vision, and values and the process that was chosen to modify the original mission. Perhaps out of that meeting, we will find language that suits KRFC better.

There was obviously a flaw in this process. In fact, at March 4th meetings - 2 members of the Board acknowledged in hind-sight, that there wasn't a second go-around for the public or spa input; and that this was an error in the process.

Kathleen

Arbuthnot · Guest

guest · Guest

Hello everyone,

Since I’m no longer a member or a station volunteer, I’ve kept mostly to the sidelines, given this current controversy. However, since I do have a morbid curiosity when it comes to controversies involving democratic governance at KRFC (animated in this case by the fact that I have been made privy to this issue primarily because I just happen to have been left on someone’s e-mail distribution list), I’d like to comment on both David’s recant of signature on the petition now being circulated and several comments recently posted to this forum.

First off, even though I no longer have any affiliation with KRFC (although I do have a history there) I am not a disinterested party. I say this now simply to avoid up front the tag of ‘rank partisan’ some may charge me with for presenting a viewpoint contrary to theirs.

No individual’s opinion or action is above self-interest. No matter if one is a board member, a GM, a member-volunteer, or one who has resigned his affiliation, each is working for the advancement of his or her own self-interest. In this case, as I see it, self-interest can be translated as meaning: the promotion of one’s own vision of what KRFC is and how it should be governed and operated. This is a fact of every organization but few ever seem to want to acknowledge this—certainly so in the discussions of this nature I’ve witnessed here at KRFC—because it clearly contests one of the standard unacknowledged assumptions of most top-down authority models: That leaders always work for the interest of everyone while those below (who dare question) always do so for purely self-interested reasons. For example, decreeing that “it appears that the opposition to the new mission statement is just the liberal faction complaining about folks who are just trying to do a better job at what they’re already doing” assumes as already proven (without the bother of either an argument or evidence) the following: that those individuals responsible for the petition have no reasonable basis for doing what they are doing and, furthermore, that they’re only doing it because they’re complainers.

As for the widening petition controversy and the building momentum of reaction to it on this forum, I can’t help but quote J.G. Ballard, the author. “Tyranny becomes docile and subservient, and a soft totalitarianism prevails, as obsequious as a wine waiter. Nothing is allowed to distress and unsettled us.”

Tacitly, David’s appeal to dialogue—as opposed to petition—is an attempt to circumvent what he sees as a distressing and unsettling chain of events. Obviously, he’s well-intentioned and his hope is to find a solution that accommodates everyone (clearly reasonable) but the implications that underwrite his change of heart trouble me, for several of the following reasons.

Regarding his comment “that dialog is more important and fundamental to Democracy than a petition”, I just don’t quite see the distinction he’s arguing. Unfortunately, it’s not as self-evident as perhaps he believes it to be. He says, “A petition is a sign that Democracy has broken down”. Well, that’s clearly debatable. One could easily argue the right to petition is one expression (there are many) of political dialogue—one that oftentimes hopefully encourages a more equitable dialogue to finally take place, which perhaps is what is now happening regarding the proposed change to the KRFC mission statement. Clearly, such a sense probably motivated that august body which did author the KRFC bylaws to include it as one of the prudent ‘checks and balances’ that would help to preserve the integrity of the station’s governing body.

Direct action on the part of individuals (i.e., petition) who feel as if they have been left out of the dialogue is understood to be one of the prime mechanisms that does help to ensure for all that democratic governance (which KRFC does advertise itself as subscribing to) is something other than simply a pretty façade.

The only form of dialogue that this is healthy as I see it—as opposed to dialogue that is simply an avoidance of something or someone potentially distressing and unsettling—is one where all parties have an equal say. And dialogue includes not only what one says but also what one does. Board members and the GM have the right to make decisions and to manage as they see fit but members equally have the right to counterbalance such decisions and management by their own right to gather enough signatures via petition to force an event greater dialogue to take place among all the members in the form of general vote.

It’s equally interesting to watch how several in this forum insist that any questioning on the part of a member (in this case in the form of a legal petition) when it has to do with a decision made by the board equates to either a ploy on the part of a few liberal malcontents or a damaging affront to those hardworking station leaders (who have apparently—given 61strat’s comments—single-handedly kept KRFC afloat since its inception).

I’ve read both the petition statement, as well as the explanation as to why some feel such a petition is necessary, and nowhere that I can see does it malign or question anyone’s motives. Nor does it present the argument that any Board member or the GM by default should be seen as suspect simply ‘by the virtue of being decision makers’. What it does say is this, I believe (forgive me if I take the license to speak for others when perhaps I shouldn’t): we feel the proposed change in the mission statement is a large enough issue that the entire station membership should vote as to whether the station adopts the change or not.

The individuals circulating the petition have taken some pains to make clear (and be open with) their reasons as why they feel the petition is necessary. Such emotional injunctions or caricatures as I see expressed here, presuming to inform everyone as to the true intent of those acting within the guidelines of the station’s bylaws, are clearly tactics that seem quite appropriate for the maintenance of Ballard’s ‘soft totalitarianism’. I would urge all to resist such tactics and allow that a general vote does take place. That seems to me to be the ‘larger dialogue’ that should take place now.

Kevin Foskin

Save Grassroots Radio

Audio

new mission statement discussion page 1