[FFCF-PNA] [Board-FFCF] Various Complaints

[Debbie Speer]

Stan,
My objections are not with the committee. They are with the BOARD's 
failure to observe due process.  I made my objections to scheduling 
evaluations before the process was even completed well known to Rych 
long before the last board meeting, and I stand by that.

And my pointing out that Janet and Rick clearly had suggestions that 
were either not considered or not included in the draft that was passed 
is NOT an "imputation of nepotism." It is is an imputation that the 
Board arbitrarily finalized a proposal prematurely, scheduled 
evaluations prematurely, and did it before the committee completed its 
work -- and, that it potentially affects Rick's evaluation!. Had it been 
completed, suggestions for revision would not be coming in after the 
fact. I consider both Janet and Rick to be honorable, thoughtful members 
of the committee as well as KFCF as a whole and would never suggest 
either of them would ever attempt to revise the evaluation form in order 
to benefit either of their shows. Both of them are more honorable than 
that, and I know it. I would hope that they would view any suggestion 
that I feel otherwise as grossly incorrect.

 They are both members of the committee which, we were told, had 
completed its work on the evaluation document. THAT is what I was 
pointing out. Rick and Janet -- full committee members -- have 
suggestions for inclusion in the evaluation, which I happen to agree are 
of great value, that  should have been included in the draft which was 
forwarded to the Board for approval. As I understand it, Rick's program 
has already been scheduled for evaluation -- and under the final draft 
that was already passed by the Board, HIS program would be one that 
would NOT include those important recommendations in the evaluation 
process. But if we want to make revisions to the approved document "as 
we go," then Rick's show (as well as Street Heat and Valley Politics) 
will ultimately be evaluated at a different standard than those that 
come after ongoing revision. And they would not have an equal 
opportunity to give input as those that come after, because those 
questions are not included in the present evaluation document.

I would ask those first-round programmers if they think THAT is fair.

I have not attended meetings regularly, Stan, because I *resigned* 
several months ago as I served on too many committees in addition to 
making multiple trips to Berkeley every month and trying not to let any 
of this interfere with my full time job. Rych was notified of that at 
the time. In fact, I felt comfortable doing so *because* I know this  is 
a hard-working,  thorough group.  I am concerned that the Board, by 
rushing to approve a document that the committee's own members are still 
making recommendations to does a disservice TO THE COMMITTEE.  And there 
is no reason in the bylaws or for any other reason that Janet should not 
be a voting member.  All members of the Foundation are permitted and in 
fact are ENCOURAGED to join committees as voting members.

I'm not going to respond to other remarks which, in fact, I find 
accusatory and recriminating towards myself and to Mark for daring to 
raise valid questions, Stan. Perhaps we need to talk.

Best,
Debbie Speer

Stanley Poss wrote:

>The PNA committee will discuss Debbie and Mark's
>accusations of failure to observe due process at its
>meeting 9 August 200s, 7:00, at the station. 
>Presumably the Board will take up the issue at its
>next meeting.
>
>Regarding Debbie's imputation of nepotism and
>collusion ("Janet Flores is a member of the PNA
>Committee, and her husband's program is up for
>evaluation"), I dismiss this as unfounded, unjust, and
>recriminatory in tone.  Janet's not a voting member of
>the Committee, unless the by-laws say otherwise, and
>Rick's program was selected at random.  Janet attends
>PNA meetings out of (commendable) interest.  She has
>no agenda I know of.  Debbie conversely has failed,
>for whatever reasons, to attend regularly.  In fact,
>she's been mostly absent.  If I were as legalistically
>preoccupied as some and if I were to observe the
>letter of the (by)law(s), I'd probably be justified in
>removing her.  
>
>As to Mark's threat to "dissolve and reform" the
>Committee, I say make your motion and be damned to
>you.  Run it up the flagpole, Good Buddy, see how the
>cookie crumbles, let the crumbs falls where they may.
>
>Not that I take any of this personally you understand.
> But I will say that putative substance aside I'm just
>a tad annoyed by the accusatory tone of the
>communications from Debbie and Mark.  It's espcially
>galling to me to see our best and brightest and
>hardest-working Board member SueEllen, to my mind the
>jewel in the Board's crown, come in for recrimination
>because of a scheduling screw-up.  Who hasn't screwed
>up one way or another?  Who then shall 'scape
>whipping?  None, evidently.
>
>Nothing I've said above reduces my appreciation for
>the labors in the Pacifica vineyard Debbie and Mark
>have performed and are performing.  I respect and 
>admire their commitment and their good works for the
>cause to which presumably we're all devoted.
>
>                  In semisolidarity,
>
>                  Subcommandante Stan
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>This e-mail is only intended for members of the Board of Directors of the Fresno Free College Foundation and the Executive Director. Any other use is prohibited.
>_______________________
>Board mailing list
>Board at mail.kfcf.org
>http://mail.kfcf.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>  
>