Re: The other parts (pt 2)ext_4074826April 1 2017, 16:12:02 UTC
Another wrinkle, and a really important one, is that we have volunteers concerned for their personal safety. Sometimes they're the only person in the building even during day hours when the building is supposed to be left open. I'm not going to discount that anxiety, and I won't put the onus back on them by saying it's their choice to be out in the world, that they don't need to have a radio show. The people with that concern were among the first to support the latest push for cameras, and good for them. I'm cursed with this opinion that the station is a collective of individuals who respect and are concerned for each other, and for our mutual investment of effort and time and care, despite so much evidence to the contrary.
KMO wrote, "Little did I know that the conversation was taking place over two email lists; one for content creators and one for board members... It turns out that someone on the board members list did object to the proposed security system arguing that if there's money available for such a system, the building has other needs, like a leaky roof, that should take precedence." Two email lists, yes, plus the building's other stakeholders (the tenants and owners). None of it secret or hidden, but there were and are separate conversations going on that sometimes overlap (non-members can't post to the closed email lists, so things fork). The dissent mentioned was from a tenant, not a board member. She raised good points about other things that need attention, but the radio station has no purview over building improvements; and the couple hundred bucks for a cheap camera system (which the building owners aren't on the hook for and have no part in beyond granting permission for it) won't go far in fixing the problems cited.
As noted, the money pledged for the camera system was entirely unsolicited. The initial pledges came from longtime intimates of the station who are familiar with its successes and failures over the years, and know where its strengths and weaknesses have been. Two people have spoken up passionately with reasoned responses against the system on general grounds (KMO isn't passionately against it so isn't one of those two), and I actually do agree with them, and with KMO's large context points. There's also been a lazy "me too" against, which offered nothing of substance. The nays currently trail by a wide margin.
The board hasn't met to discuss it yet, though, and I expect they'll reject it again on principle, without offering any alternatives, time, or on-the-ground involvement for dealing with the issues a video system in the studio is intended to address. Me, I'm done taking care of those problems whether or not there's surveillance. This push is for the benefit of whoever steps into that vacuum next.
KMO wrote, "Little did I know that the conversation was taking place over two email lists; one for content creators and one for board members... It turns out that someone on the board members list did object to the proposed security system arguing that if there's money available for such a system, the building has other needs, like a leaky roof, that should take precedence." Two email lists, yes, plus the building's other stakeholders (the tenants and owners). None of it secret or hidden, but there were and are separate conversations going on that sometimes overlap (non-members can't post to the closed email lists, so things fork). The dissent mentioned was from a tenant, not a board member. She raised good points about other things that need attention, but the radio station has no purview over building improvements; and the couple hundred bucks for a cheap camera system (which the building owners aren't on the hook for and have no part in beyond granting permission for it) won't go far in fixing the problems cited.
As noted, the money pledged for the camera system was entirely unsolicited. The initial pledges came from longtime intimates of the station who are familiar with its successes and failures over the years, and know where its strengths and weaknesses have been. Two people have spoken up passionately with reasoned responses against the system on general grounds (KMO isn't passionately against it so isn't one of those two), and I actually do agree with them, and with KMO's large context points. There's also been a lazy "me too" against, which offered nothing of substance. The nays currently trail by a wide margin.
The board hasn't met to discuss it yet, though, and I expect they'll reject it again on principle, without offering any alternatives, time, or on-the-ground involvement for dealing with the issues a video system in the studio is intended to address. Me, I'm done taking care of those problems whether or not there's surveillance. This push is for the benefit of whoever steps into that vacuum next.
Reply
Leave a comment