[Newspoetry] RFU 1st Meeting Notes

[Mike Lehman]

Thursday evening, 14 people attended the first Radio Free Urbana
meeting.  There was a general agreement that the folks present desired a
fairly open approach to the station's mission, but one with a clear bias
in favor of popular participation and limited bureaucracy.

Danielle proposed that there be a fairly clearly construed mission
statement be agreed to and that was met with general support.  This is
not something we need immediately, but we should try to make efforts to
develop one with everyone's particpation.  Those having a particular
interest in working on this might want to contact Danielle with ideas
about this.

It was agreed that a listserve should be set up for RFU.  Bill W agreed
to manage it.  People who are on the Newspoetry, School for Designing A
Society and Socialist Forum e-mail lists should send a message to
<wendling at ganymede.isdn.uiuc.edu> if they wish to participate in the RFU
listserve.  There will probably be occassional messages to these lists
in the future about RFU, but we would like keep this from clogging up
those lists with masses of details about RFU.

What follows is a rewriting of an e-mail that I sent to Mark E about
some questions that we need to work on to make RFU happen.  It has been
rewritten based on info found since...

> 1. Is this something that SDAS, SF and Newspoetry wants to do?
It was generally agreed---yes! We want to get one of 100 watt licenses,
which will allow reception in most of C-U.  If we get a 10 watt license,
there is still a relatively large area that could be served, mainly
Urbana.  Internet feeding of our signals can extend our reach.

> 2. SDAS (or PWE) is the only one of the 3 (the other's being SF and
> Newspoetry) that is actually 501 c3 at the present time.  Also, for
> purposes of  applying for the FCC license, it is important to be able to
> prove at least 2 yaers ongoing existence.  That may be how they judge
> the application in this regard.
The FCC regs will allow SF and Newspoetry to qualify as non-profits, but
it makes sense to use an already existing structure and the ongoing
existence of PWE makes it the best fit.  At least 75% of the board
members must reside within 10 miles of the transmitter. But see below...
 
> 3. Several folks have already expressed an interest in other groups
> joining.  We should have a flexible system set up to deal with this.
It was generally agreed that it makes the most sense to set up a station
board composed of people representing each of the groups that will be
involved in the station collective, rather than have people acting as
individuals representing themselves. The size of the board will be
determined, but this allows each of the groups involved to choose a rep
in their own fashion.  The process of adding organizations will also
need to be decided.

> 4.  Bill Taylor has offered the possibility that the 501 c3 that he
> works with in Central America, PCP, a radio to the people project, may be able to > serve as the umbrella
> group.  Their board would have to approve that, but he thinks that is
> possible.  A catch may be that since they aren't right in the community
> in Urbana, and the licenses are tied to residence in the community where
> the station is to be located, it may not work.  I'm unsure.
Peter M said that this might also work.  We need to check further, but
PCP could be an interesting addition to our group if it was formal.  It
wasn't mentioned last night, but the possibilities of doing sister
station type projects with groups in the 3rd World could be an exciting
addition to the RFU project mix.
  
> 5.  Participation by folks associated with WEFT may have to be evaluated for > compliance with the provisions by the
> FCC to insure that there isn't cross-ownership of these new licenses
> with already existing one's.  Board of director's must not overlap (or
> institutional ownership); beyond that is a big gray area about what will
> be OK and what isn't.  If think we should be able to have overlapping
> volunteers and think that would actually be a good idea to a certain
> extent, if individual basis is OK with the FCC.
This area needs further research.  We would like to make RFU a project
that complements the mix of community service oriented media in C-U.  We
also want to be sure that we are careful to meet the obligations the FCC
imposes.  Although there can be no formal relationship or agreements
with WEFT, because of FCC reqs, we do intend to do evertything possible
to insure the success of community radio in general in our area.  

> 6. I will propose that there should be a Board formed.  We can figure
> out how the groups will be represented and how to allocate seats to
> current and future members. Having people to represent themselves or the
> involved orgs needs to be decided.  
See answer to 3.

> 7.  Having a seperate broadcasting board will help insulate the SDAS
> from having to deal directly with station business.  A representative
> body has important implications for journalistic integrity, community
> representation, etc that are important to such a project.  The
> relationship between the Board and SDAS/PWE or PCP would need to be
> defined.
There was general agreement on this point.

> I don't need to have answers to all these questions tonight, but we need
> to have them in the near future. Bill Taylor has offered to help with filling
> out the application, which takes a real concern off my shoulders.  Even
> if all the details aren't settled, we can always amend it later if need
> be.  He also has a number of leads on donated equipment and will work on
> with us however we decide to set up RFU.

Next week will be the lottery for which states will be able to apply for
LPFM licenses.  We'll know more then about how soon we have to have an
application ready.  It could be anywhere between May and sometime past
the middle of next year.

After further reading of the FCC decison, it was discovered that they
will make available software to aid in frequency selection, so this may
make the engineering part of the design process a little easier.

A time for the next meeting will be announced after the lottery results
are announced by the FCC next week.  At that time we should have further
info on city zoning issues regarding potential transmitter locations.

If anyone would like to add or correct any of this, please post to the
list.

Mike Lehman