[rfu-membership] AON Qs, William Jones

[Mike Lehman]

While part of our mission is to make radio available to as wide a 
variety of news and arts, we have to constantly keep in mind that we 
have an absolute obligation to keep the station as whole on the air. 
Between the violations themselves and the lack of contact or response 
when these issues were raised, AON has been an example of exactly what a 
programming group should NOT do if they want to stay on the air. They 
received numerous instances of feedback from other RFUistas, but they 
just ignored it for the most part.

I do know that having received training, they were aware of the issue 
with inappropriate content. In fact, the initial response I received 
indicated that this was clear to them. Perhaps we need to revisit what 
is specifically said about inappropriate content during training and 
certainly add in the _consequences_ now that we have a specific policy 
to address such violations. It would also be good to remind new people 
that with the archiving system as it is now, such mistakes don't simply 
disappear if no one is listening at the time. Archiving means that such 
material is subject to review by anyone else at the station -- and the 
public itself, who may not be so kind and accommodating as we are to 
getting people back on the right track with just a single violation.

But I don't feel that this is something that should excuse what AON did, 
since they had multiple opportunities to clarify things -- if the rules 
really were all that unclear to them after receiving the feedback they 
did, then they should ask, not keep on testing what they think they can 
get away with. What is played on the air is absolutely the DJs 
responsibility and they must bear the consequences when they violate the 
rules  -- especially when it's repeatedly (and even shamelessly as it 
was during the second instance) after they've already been put on notice.

Furthermore, we all need to remember -- especially since there are 
recordings being made -- that these things may come back to haunt us. If 
someone has already copied the offending shows and sent a copy off to 
the FCC, then the only mitigating circumstance we have to offer is that 
those involved were dealt with under station policy -- and the only 
thing this will do is maybe cut the cost of any potential fine. So if we 
let AON skate, we're effectively saying that, as a station, we are 
consciously lax in regard to FCC rules. And that is a very bad thing for 
any station with the limited resources we have. It's not just about AON 
-- it's about our responsibility to everyone else at the station and our 
legal responsibility to the FCC.

We must remember that our own internal policies are, at best, a fig 
leaf. A violation is still a violation in the eyes of the FCC, even if 
it's just a mistake and the very first time. AON went way beyond that, 
which makes things especially troubling.

I can also understand being young and inexperienced -- but the solution 
to addressing this issue, if they are contrite and want to continue in 
the future at RFU, is to sit out for awhile and then come back, making 
clear that the lesson has been learned and internalized for anyone in 
the new programming group that was involved in a previous violation(s), 
to apply for a different slot.

And if we let AON slide when things were as blatant as they were, then 
the next group that gets in such a fix will be similarly looking for 
flexibility. Then we're on a slippery slope to things going to hell in a 
handbasket as far as keeping things under control enough to keep our 
license.

I favor letting those involved know that they can re-apply for another 
slot in the future, but I think we should lay out the conditions. First, 
there needs to be a decent interval. I propose that no one listed as a 
member of the AON programming group be allowed to apply as part of 
another programming group for three months. Furthermore, I think that 
any person from a terminated progamming group will place a new 
programming group they become a member of on an automatic three month 
probation -- any violation will result in the loss of the slot. This 
sounds fair to me and we should consider adopting something along these 
lines as policy for any future incidents involving other groups.

I hate to be a hardass, but we're risking the investment that the 
community and other RFU members have made in putting the station on the 
air and keeping it there whenever anyone engages in such behavior, even 
once. I wish things weren't this way, but this is out of our hands. Once 
we took responsibility for the license, we agreed to comply with the 
rules as the are -- not as we wish they would be. I'm uneasy with the 
flexibility we've shown so far, but I also think it's a risk worth 
taking to put radio in the hands of more diverse voices. But I also 
think we've taken all the risk we can at this point -- and AON has not 
given me any confidence that this problem will not repeat itself, even 
after 10pm.

As for the Saturday evening slot for live broadcasting, I can't remember 
for sure, but I think this was a decision made by the membership -- and 
we'll have to return to them to change it. If I'm mistaken, then we have 
more flexibility. But I tend to agree that it is better to keep it open 
for the time being and revisit the question if it looks like it won't be 
regularly used enough to make it worthwhile keeping open.
Mike Lehman

dan blah wrote:
> On 4/23/07, Ken Urban <kurban at parkland.edu> wrote:
>> I had a quick talk with Will Hawkins (a former student of mine) on 
>> Friday night.
>>
>> They want very much to move to a time slot after 10pm.  I told them 
>> that when the station is not in use, any member is welcome to use the 
>> studio.  I suggested that Saturday night was ususally open and that 
>> they send an email to wrfu asking if there was going to be a 
>> simulcast and take over the student then.  I suggested they see if 
>> Ray will be interested in swapping times.
>>
>> I left with the feeling that Will is trying to follow the rules, but 
>> the rules forbit his type of music.  I think some onus is on us to 
>> find this show a place at WRFU where we can co-exist with the FCC.  
>> Let's see if we can move his show to after 10pm.
>>
> i do not like this trend we are getting into where shows seem to not
> be able to communicate to the station groups until their show is
> removed (we all agreed to this at both the membership and general
> meeting) or threated to be removed.  in fact they told us to bug off
> until we threatened.  if a show has a desire to play indecent material
> then they should let us know as soon as they hear the rules so that we
> can find a place for them.  in this case they knowingly violated the
> rules more than three times (we only caught then once) and can assume
> they did more.  how much work should we do for shows who aren't
> willing to work with us?
>
>> One thought is to stop the simulcasts (they aren't happening anyway) 
>> and open up the Saturday evening to regular programming, giving AON 
>> 'high priority' for an after 10pm slot.
>>
> i am not for sure i like this idea moving into a potentially busy era
> for shows where we are going to want to take advantage of that.
> excluding AON, as i do not agree we should be giving them priority for
> anything, if we start getting a consistent desire for a after 10pm
> slot we should revisit this.
>
> again, we should not be discussing what to do with AON, we already
> decided.  we should be working towards implementing policy that
> ensures we get to know our shows before this point.
>
> what does this say to all of members who do not intentionally violate
> any FCC or station policies?  the membership spoke and agreed on the
> policies we have in place for all shows and for AON.  it's simple, if
> we allow blatant disregard for rules and policies and show groups we
> have no intent on enforcing rules and policies not only will one show
> be off the air but they will take the whole station with it.
>
>> Ken
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> Ken Urban
>> Assoc. Prof., Computer Science
>> Parkland College
>>
>> Office: B129A
>>            (217)-353-2246
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>
>> >>> "dan blah" <dan.blah at gmail.com> 04/23/07 9:41 AM >>>
>> On 4/23/07, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > I finally had a chance to listen to AON's show for Friday, Apr. 27.
>> > Things were better than before -- at least they were pulling things
>> > _after_ they had obvious issues of content. But this is still missing
>> > the point that this stuff needs to be previewed before broadcast -- 
>> and
>> > technically they lost their show based on that alone.
>> >
>> > It seems from the banter on the show that someone other than the 
>> DJs may
>> > be cutting their CDs. The DJs seem to feel they can let things slip
>> > through and then chastise whoever it is didn't follow the rules -- but
>> > it is the DJs responsibility to do that and the DJs who will lose the
>> > show for not previewing their stuff for any potential problems in 
>> advance.
>> >
>> > It doesn't help that no one from AON responded to my email, came to 
>> the
>> > meeting last week, or asked for clarification so that they could be 
>> sure
>> > not to run into the same problem again.
>> >
>> > So, based on the decision at the last RFU GMM, they should lose the
>> > show. What does everyone think and what should be our next step?
>> >
>> Agreed, they should be done.
>>
>> > Also, William Jones called me Sunday afternoon about the 
>> combination. A
>> > long conversation ensued, where he thought we should be in contact 
>> with
>> > him before cancelling the show. He claimed to have submitted the 
>> survey,
>> > but I never saw a copy of it from him. I noted he never responded 
>> to our
>> > various compiled lists asking for corrections in case an error was 
>> made.
>> > Of course, if he'd bothered to ever attend a station meeting, this 
>> would
>> > not be the problem it currently is for him.
>> >
>> > I told him that he would need to send RFU-membership a message about
>> > this, but I see nothing yet from him in the archive and told him that
>> > only the RFU GMM can restore the show at this point.
>> >
>> Yeah he knows this from talking to me Sunday afternoon and the sheet
>> that was on the door.
>>
>> > The basic problem here is his attitude that once he got the show, he
>> > need make no further effort to be involved with the station as he 
>> has a
>> > mistaken sense of ownership of this slot once it was granted to him.
>> > This is exactly the opposite of how the relationship should be between
>> > programming groups and the station. People have to be proactive 
>> members
>> > and can't simply ignore all other requirements for meeting attendance
>> > and participation, including staying on the relevant email lists so 
>> that
>> > they  know what's going on with the station.
>> > Mike Lehman
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rfu-membership mailing list
>> > rfu-membership at lists.chambana.net
>> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/rfu-membership
>> >
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Daniel
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfu-membership mailing list
>> rfu-membership at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/rfu-membership
>>
>
>