Here is a somewhat longer summary of what occurred at the Pacifica Board meeting last weekend.

On Saturday, September 27, the Board Development Committee met. Roberta Brooks indicated that in response to concerns within the Pacifica community and because it was "critical to get these issues behind us," she, Mary Frances Berry, and Jack O'Dell were proposing:

1. (1) That each Local Advisory Board continue to nominate two representatives to the Governing Board:
2. (2) That the Governing Board increase the number of at-large representatives by four; and
3. (3) That each LAB be asked to find someone from its area to act as a "significant" person in connection with the 50th Anniversary Campaign.

This proposal followed Nan Rubin's statements to the committee on behalf of the Council of LAB Chairs, my conversations with Roberta Brooks, Mary Frances Berry, and other Board members, and a meeting Wednesday evening in Washington with Mary Frances Berry, Ken Ford, and others.

In her remarks Nan Rubin stated that the proposed changes would engender conflict within the organization and would disempower local boards. She indicated that the plan had been to have extensive discussion of the changes within the organization, particularly with the LABs, but that had not occurred.

In response, Jack O'Dell stated that it was important to build the LABs. The proposal submitted by Roberta was adopted unanimously.

When the Board meeting began on Saturday afternoon, Mary Frances Berry indicated that the meeting would be taped. It was. The Board approved the seating of the persons present to act as members for the meeting. Five names were mentioned, but I could only hear three: Alexis Gonzales, Cheryl Fabio-Bradford, Ralph McKnight.

Mary Frances Berry stated that she thought that the Pacifica bylaws were unclear as to what the Board's role was in approving people nominated by the LABs. That issue was not resolved on Saturday.

On Sunday, Dave Acosta presented the report of the Board Governance Committee. He stated that the committee recommended that the bylaws changes not be approved. He stated that in the committee's view the addition of the "signal area representatives" was not justified and that reducing the number of LAB nominated representatives would be a departure from Pacifica's historical practice.

There was then a discussion of whether two-thirds Board approval should be required to elect at-large representatives, LAB nominated representatives, or both. After some discussion the Board concluded that a majority vote should be required in each case. The main justification for this conclusion appeared to be that a majority vote was sufficient since the LAB nominated representatives would have already been "vetted" by the LABs and the at-large representatives would have similarly been vetted by the Board Development Committee.

I was then given an opportunity to speak and made the following points:

1. 1. The solution to the governance issue is to build strong local boards. This will insure democracy, build listener support, and insure that good LAB representatives will be selected.
2. 2. Pacifica must be open. Secrecy breeds paranoia. You should guarantee access to meetings agendas, minutes, etc., and welcome dissent.
3. 3. Learn from other organizations that deal well with building their local units and with internal differences.
4. 4. Dr. Berry and others should go on the road, visiting with listeners, board members, etc., at all five stations.
5. 5. The articles and bylaws should be completely rewritten in order to have clarity in the documents.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Mary Frances Berry indicated that she will visit all five stations for meetings and on the air discussions; that Pacifica will be open when it comes to meeting agendas and minutes; and that she will run the Board with openness and integrity. Minutes will be posted on the Internet and made available at the stations.

There was a final discussion about the bylaws, with agreement that the bylaws will be clarified to provide for Board election by a simple majority to seat all members. This appeared to be a vote, although it was also stated that the language would be finalized by the Board's attorney, so it is somewhat unclear as to whether there was final action taken or not.

All in all, I thought that meetiing was very positive, particularly in the role of the new chair and her willingness to listen to various points of view and to include others in decision -making.

 Dan Siegel