[Community] Re: RFU
Elizabeth Simpson
elizacorps at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 15 22:28:53 CDT 2009
Mike-
It's an ongoing process, for sure... keep CC posted on how we can support both the internal RFU and RFU-steering connections.
Be well,
Elizabeth
I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.
-Harriet Tubman
________________________________
From: Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
To: Elizabeth Simpson <elizacorps at yahoo.com>
Cc: Carly Nix <nix.carly at gmail.com>; Danielle Chynoweth <danielle at prometheusradio.org>; Nicole Pion <nicole.pion at gmail.com>; JOY <imcbooks at gmail.com>; Carol Ammons <carolammons at gmail.com>; Lori Serb <lserb at shout.net>; community at lists.chambana.net
Sent: Thu, October 15, 2009 10:09:58 PM
Subject: Re: RFU
Elizabeth,
Very good points. I'll be at Sat's meeting and will do my best to reconnect things that seem to have been tripped over and explain things that seem mysterious.
Mike
Elizabeth Simpson wrote:
> Hi All,
> What we talked about at community connections was that WRFU will need to address its own stuff at that meeting, and 'barging in' will not help relationships. (Unless it's been made an agenda item by them already)
>
> Also, that this can be handled in a way that helps strengthen RFU's internal communications, which seems to be struggling anyway, by going through the right channels- i.e. the spoke.
> We discussed talking to Lori, asking who is the spoke (recommending that someone else be instead of her, to spread the love, workload, and accountability), and discussing with them (Lori and Spoke) the problem of communication of steering to RFU members and vice versa.
> If these channels can be remedied, clarifying/reminding RFU members that they are the IMC and the IMC is them will help. On this note, I recommend that people talk about steering and workgroups, not IMC and workgroups, which creates a divide in language that reifies the perception.
> Reporting from CC, Elizabeth
>
> I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.
>
> -Harriet Tubman
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Carly Nix <nix.carly at gmail.com>
> *To:* Danielle Chynoweth <danielle at prometheusradio.org>
> *Cc:* Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>; Nicole Pion <nicole.pion at gmail.com>; JOY <imcbooks at gmail.com>; Carol Ammons <carolammons at gmail.com>; Lori Serb <lserb at shout.net>; Elizabeth Simpson <elizacorps at yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Thu, October 15, 2009 8:33:52 AM
> *Subject:* Re: RFU
>
> Thank you for all of the responses to my email about RFU. It would be
> great if people could come to the meeting at 1 on Saturday to talk
> about these things. I had misunderstood Nicole and thought everyone
> had already planned on being at the meeting, so I'm asking now: can
> you please come to the RFU meeting at 1 on Saturday?
>
> Sorry if that didn't make sense; it's early and I haven't had coffee yet.
>
> -Carly
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Danielle Chynoweth
> <danielle at prometheusradio.org <mailto:danielle at prometheusradio.org>> wrote:
> > I think this is exactly the kind of conversation that we need to have in
> > person to hash out facts etc. I think there are many problems of perception
> > here and different people hold different pieces of the story.
> >
> > If someone wants to see the spreadsheet of how costs broke down (I was
> > project manager on the construction project), or details on how WRFU could
> > be at full broadcast with the current budget, I am happy to provide it.
> > Petri, founder of Prometheus, is visiting Urbana in December and has offered
> > to consult on this.
> >
> > I do not appreciate or agree that WRFU feelings about IMC go back to when I
> > objected as an WRFU member to WRFU hiding in the basement or a windowless
> > studio, and find that accusation to skew the conversation, but Mike is
> > obviously entitled to his opinion. Mike, I really am baffled at why you
> > think bringing that up helps this conversation be fruitful and productive.
> >
> > Let's figure out the right in person forum to take this conversation.
> >
> > For now, I am leaving Andy and Prometheus out of our internal wrestling
> > matches.
> >
> > - Danielle
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net <mailto:rebelmike at earthlink.net>>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> It wouldn't be the IMC without a difference of opinion, so here are a
> >> couple of things that I have a different view on.
> >>
> >> The Remodeling
> >> I think it's quite a stretch to claim that half of the remodeling costs on
> >> the first floor were attributable to the RFU studio. Clearly, it was part of
> >> the project, but most likely less than 25% of the total, given that this
> >> also involved building a secure addition behind the PO service desk area
> >> that was 4 times the square footage of the studio, a secure area on the
> >> loading dock that was 3 times as large as the studio, and
> >> moving/reconfiguring the PO box area, while adding the double door front
> >> entrance to the IMC area.
> >>
> >> All RFU wanted was a very simple studio. It is where it is and costs what
> >> it did because both parties felt that its visibility was important, even
> >> when plans to set aside adding more windows fell afoul of sound control and
> >> code issues. As for honoring past agreements, it's important to remember
> >> that the IMC and RFU agreed in 2003 that Socialist Forum would provide the
> >> license and the IMC would provide the space to build RFU, with RFU agreeing
> >> to cover an allocated cost to cover utility overhead for the space it would
> >> use.
> >>
> >> The Tower
> >> While its possible to build a microwave link to an off-site tower, that is
> >> much less than an adequate solution. The $5k number is about the minimum
> >> cost for a microwave link. Additional costs would be incurred for regular
> >> professional maintenance, because it is a much more fussy technology than a
> >> FM radio transmitter. It also requires a separate license from the FCC to
> >> operate, which is probably the least of the issues it would create. Part of
> >> the reason for a new tower is also to get the current temporary tower off
> >> the roof. Most likely, we would have to retain it or even erect a higher
> >> tower to get the microwave antenna at the PO end of the circuit high enough
> >> for reliable service, meaning that such a solution likely would not
> >> eliminate the current tower on the roof.
> >>
> >> I seriously doubt either the city or MTD would provide a no-cost agreement
> >> to co-locate on one of their towers. Most likely, we would have to pay for
> >> such an arrangement, a recurring cost to be added to the financial burden of
> >> RFU's work. Such a solution would leave RFU vulnerable to political
> >> pressures, with the recent tragedy being just one case where agitation over
> >> the work of the IMC could make such an agreement difficult or even unlikely.
> >> Also, any such arrangement would require the services of a professional
> >> broadcast engineer, because any time another transmitter(s) is co-located on
> >> a tower with a LPFM means that the FCC requires LPFMs to do a specific
> >> engineering study, since we would no longer be eligible to use the simple
> >> method in the standard licensing forms, which assume the LPFM is the only
> >> transmitter on the tower.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, any such tower would be to the east of our current location
> >> and would be unlikely to result in a better signal to the areas where it is
> >> weakest top the west. Most likely, the gain in height would be offset by the
> >> move in the opposite direction, given that FM is line of sight and the
> >> blockages to our signal are to the west. What we gain in height would likely
> >> result in additional loss of coverage due to moving the tower in the
> >> opposite direction of where the audience is. Given the likelihood that any
> >> gains on another tower would be small or non-existent (and possible even
> >> counterproductive, resulting in a smaller audience coverage), it simply
> >> doesn't make sense to bother with such an arrangement.
> >>
> >> Assuming Danielle spoke with Andy, I think the question she asked was far
> >> too narrow to deal with the specifics of our situation. I'd also heard about
> >> this line of inquiry through another source and AFAIK, none of the specific
> >> issues I've mentioned here were addressed. I'd be glad to have a
> >> conversation with Andy or anyone else at Prometheus about this, so I'm
> >> cc-ing Andy on this so we can discuss the specifics of the situation with
> >> his assistance.
> >>
> >> I certainly agree that RFU needs the help that Carly can provide.
> >>
> >> It would also be useful if the red herrings that are at least part of the
> >> past problems in the relationship between RFU and the IMC were put to rest,
> >> as they aren't really helpful and, in the case of the two issues discussed
> >> above, have been repeatedly miscast instead of being put aside to move on to
> >> a building a more healthy relationship.
> >> Mike Lehman
> >>
> >> Danielle Chynoweth wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This is unfortunate, but predictable.
> >>>
> >>> I few pieces of information that is important for this conversation,
> >>> which is very much needed.
> >>>
> >>> - In 2005, the UCIMC took out a 75 K loan, nearly half of that to build
> >>> the studio. WRFU does not pay on that loan, the whole collective does.
> >>> UCIMC is a far cry from a greedy landlord. Instead the collective as a
> >>> whole has heavily subsidized WRFU, and will continue to do so.
> >>>
> >>> - WRFU agreed to the Americorps position - and funding it - back in
> >>> November. Just because there are new people involved in WRFU doesn't mean
> >>> that old agreement should not be honored. The new people need to understand
> >>> the history and not jump to conclusions.
> >>>
> >>> - WRFU has enough money in the bank to extend its signal to the entire
> >>> community if it chose to set up a microwave or wifi link to an existing
> >>> tower. According to the Tech Director at Prometheus who oversaw the
> >>> building of WRFU, this would cost 5 K or less. MTD or the City might
> >>> provide a tower for free in return for XX hours of space at the UCIMC to
> >>> hold events or some other trade. Peter Folk at Volo.net<http://Volo.net> has offered a free
> >>> wifi link if he can colocate a wifi antenna with our antenna on a tower.
> >>> - WRFU needs an Americorps person more than ANY OTHER working group,
> >>> because it needs new blood, new people, outreach. They should embrace this
> >>> instead of resist it. but of course that is better said than done.
> >>>
> >>> - Danielle
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Nicole Pion <nicole.pion at gmail.com <mailto:nicole.pion at gmail.com>
> >>> <mailto:nicole.pion at gmail.com <mailto:nicole.pion at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hey everyone,
> >>> I'm also cc'ing Carol since she is the program director, so we are
> >>> all on the same page. Carly and I spent some time talking about
> >>> this and we feel that the best thing to do is to have some of us
> >>> meet with RFU members to discuss some of the mis-communications or
> >>> concerns, but we are asking for your support. Carly (and to some
> >>> extent, myself ) can't do our jobs till we collectively address
> >>> the relationship concerns and together come up with ways to move
> >>> forward.
> >>> The next RFU meeting is this Saturday at 1pm. Would people on this
> >>> email be able to attend (we would first have to ask if that is ok
> >>> with RFU members) or offer to meet after this meeting so concerned
> >>> people can stay?
> >>> Carly, are there other ways that we can support you?
> >>>
> >>> Nicole
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Carly Nix <nix.carly at gmail.com <mailto:nix.carly at gmail.com>
> >>> <mailto:nix.carly at gmail.com <mailto:nix.carly at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I spoke to Lori yesterday updating her on the fact that we
> >>> have more
> >>> like $11,000 in the bank instead of $18,000 as the books currently
> >>> reflect (when you take into account the depreciation, and also
> >>> the $2k
> >>> in the barn raising fund that's not actually there). Andrew
> >>> apparently had a meeting with RFU in the spring or summer and told
> >>> them that we had nearly $20,000 towards the tower. (This
> >>> information
> >>> is coming from Lori.)
> >>>
> >>> Generally, the feeling at RFU is that the IMC is taking RFU
> >>> money and
> >>> not letting RFU vote on decisions. Paraphrasing Meme, "WRFU
> >>> thinks of
> >>> the IMC as an oppressive landlord, which isn't good for the
> >>> IMC and
> >>> isn't good for WRFU." This sentiment is a problem for the IMC
> >>> and a
> >>> problem for RFU and it's going to make it difficult for me to move
> >>> forward on projects.
> >>>
> >>> Do any of you have ideas on how to fix this issue? One idea I
> >>> had was
> >>> that some IMC representatives, especially Finance, could meet
> >>> with RFU
> >>> members. Specifically to explain when certain decisions were
> >>> made, to
> >>> clarify certain things about finances, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Can someone also clarify for me the situation with Dan Blah
> >>> and the
> >>> equipment he purchased? Did it or did it not come out of RFU
> >>> accounts? If not, can I get a printout of something proving it?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Carly
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Carly Nix!
> >>> News Media Coordinator
> >>> Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center
> >>> - - - - -
> >>> nix.carly at gmail.com <mailto:nix.carly at gmail.com> <mailto:nix.carly at gmail.com <mailto:nix.carly at gmail.com>>
> >>> (office) 217.344.8820
> >>> (cell) 217.855.3519
> >>> - - - - -
> >>> print: http://publici.ucimc.org/
> >>> radio: http://www.radiofreeurbana.org/
> >>> web: http://ucimc.org/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -- Nicole Pion
> >>> Outreach and Development Adviser
> >>> AmeriCorps CTC VISTA
> >>>
> >>> Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carly Nix!
> News Media Coordinator
> Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center
> - - - - -
> nix.carly at gmail.com <mailto:nix.carly at gmail.com>
> (office) 217.344.8820
> (cell) 217.855.3519
> - - - - -
> print: http://publici.ucimc.org/
> radio: http://www.radiofreeurbana.org/
> web: http://ucimc.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/community/attachments/20091015/0941905e/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Community
mailing list