On Co-ops and their Survival, Prosperity, Growth and Name/Reputation--in General
My understanding is that KBOO is a member-owned co-op structured through the KBOO foundation and because all members cannot pay attention to strategic imperatives for the survival, vitality, prosperity and and name/standing/reputation of KBOO they elect and "entrust" such duties to the KBOO Board. Since the KBOO Board cannot conduct the day-to-day tactical operations and duties of KBOO, the board hires and "entrusts" such duties to Staff at KBOO and leave the day-to-day operations in the hands of the Staff as long as those operations and duties do not involve activities and machinations that undermine or corrode both the day-to-day as well as strategic viability, imperatives, survival, vitality, prosperity and name/standing/reputation of KBOO in which case the Board must become involved.
Now in any collective, because there are always contending egos, agenda, interests, ambitions etc. In order not to compromise KBOO and its ability to raise funds from and recruit new members, in order to encourage participation and volunteer work of members, in order to ensure quality programming, in order to provide a safe environment for all members, some mechanisms must exist for due process when someone is banned, someone cannot be banned without due cause properly established with due process for all, there must be a process for review and unbanning if possible of anyone banned, and above all, all members, from whom we have accepted money for membership, regardless of any status as a banned person, must be allowed to give their views (including on the air as banning persons from call-ins really results in banning, or prior restraint of ideas, something that no collective, especially one that claims to be "progressive," should do), There must be concern that any machinations and summary orders, by Staff members, may give the appearance of cover-ups (no need to cover-up what is clean, only what is dirty), may appear that running from various and some allegations (no need to run from allegations if untrue) of management and some staff, and may give the appearance of backroom intrigue and anti-democratic and unsafe-for-a co-op's practices, and other negative allegations that will only sit there unanswered and even unacknowledged. This can only undermine the long-term, and even short-term viability, standing, reputation and ability to raise new funds and members by a given co-op. This also will appear to be pretextual efforts to avoid examination of various positions advanced by contending parties, requested over and over with no apparent responses, and also, will add to the dysfunction, corrosion, divisions, and drop-offs of memberships alleged by some to be going on at various co-ops..
For all these reasons, it is my opinion that the interests of all co-ops (perhaps not those of particular members of staff, "advisory" committees or Board members of those co-ops) will be best advanced with open, transparent, accountable and recorded proceedings open to all who have paid co-op membership regardless of banned status. Those aginst whom particular allegations have been made, have no standing, and are in an inherent conflict-of-interest position, with respect to their own recommendations that may well result in the banning of ideas or allegations or even persons made against themselves.
Not only all over the world, but in many co-op radio stations that appear to be imploding with internal divisions and corrosion, the types same allegations: of backroom cabals; anti-democratic practices not consistent with the mission, vision and values of the stations; lack of transparency and accountability; backroom intrigue and disparate treatment of insiders versus outsiders; demi-empires being built-up with the resources entrusted by members; cover-ups; intimidation of some members; co-ops being treated by some insiders as personal country clubs, or feudal estates, or military barracks, or little cults; covert puppets and puppet masters; etc; are being made and in some cases discovered with some serious "restructuring" and re-organizations going on. These are serious issues especially when dealing with co-ops financed and supported by members many of whom are unemployed, homeless, poor, under pressure to donate to many causes etc.
I say let all ideas contend, that all persons be allowed to present their views and what they regard as supporting evidence and reasoning for their positions, that allegations against anyone be allowed rebuttal with counter-evidence and counter-reasoning provided in defense, and, as they say in China, "Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom, Let ALL Ideas Contend". If anyone gets out of line at the meeting then they can be removed for cause that would presumably be evident to most or all present with no allegations of cover-ups etc plausible.
Otherwise, this station will eventually implode and those who trust us, who have no voice except through KBOO, will be betrayed and those who intend a fascist America will be given aid-and-comfort and emboldened (without exaggerating KBOO's standing or power or influence at present).
Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii