Tillicum Foundation
Work Session on Goals
Thursday, November 02, 2006
5:00pm, Tillicum House
OFFICIAL APPROVED MINUTES
Attendance: Directors Ambrose, Cullimore, McLaughlin, Merritt, Newman, Price, Westerberg. Staff
members: Hammock, Menetrey-Grant, Rideout
Meeting opens 5:05pm
1. Tillicum House driveway sign. Merritt reports John Rippey is ready to do sign as shown at
meeting.
Motion: to accept sign as presented. Ambrose moves, Westerberg seconds. Unanimous.
2. Letter received by Ray Merritt from Marylou & James McAdoo re Special Election Edition of
Current. McAdoo suggests changes be highlighted whenever amendments are proposed to make
them easier to understand, and also to distribute a dissenting if there is one.
Cullimore knew that would be the case and that the legal requirement was to clearly mark it,
but because of the extent of the changes everything would have been struck; and, also, that
there was a rush to get the edition published and distributed.
Westerberg agrees that the way it was done is terribly confusing.
Newman noted that KBOO (of which she is also a member) recently made changes to its
Bylaws and did not distribute the dissenting opinion, which was cause for great concern among
the membership and the resignation of a director. However, there was no dissenting opinion to
the proposed changes to the Tillicum Foundation’s Bylaws. She reiterated Cullimore’s comment,
saying that the Bylaws were completely reformatted so it was difficult to present them in the
strikeout method. With smaller changes we can and have done that.
3. Annual meeting.
Motion: That the annual meeting not be broadcast live. Ambrose moves.
Westerberg seconds.
Discussion:
Hammock said we have a transmission pass so there’s no barrier in terms of providing a
signal; however, it will be a challenge to microphone properly. Westerberg liked the idea initially
but is now opposed, having considered the poor quality of sound in the room and that it would
require preempting “Skinamarink” and “Car Talk.” Merritt agreed about the poor sound quality
and is concerned that the setup for a radio broadcast might make things worse. He is also
concerned about overworking the staff. Ambrose agreed with the acoustic issues and said the
part where everybody introduces themselves will make for horrible radio. Price said she has
posted a notice of the live broadcast on the web and to the KMUNies group and has gotten a few
messages appreciating it as a good idea.
Ayes: Ambrose, McLaughlin, Merritt, Westerberg. Nayes: Price. Abstaining: Cullimore, Newman.
Motion passes.
Hammock asked if we’d like to record the meeting and use the audio on the website or as a
report to the membership that would be broadcast at a later time. Staff is willing to give it a shot
and to edit it.
Motion: For staff to make an effort to record pertinent parts of the annual meeting and edit
them for later broadcast. Ambrose moves. Westerberg seconds. Unanimous.
Merritt asked Ambrose to ask Florence Sage if we can borrow her p.a. system for use at the
annual meeting.
4. OPB gestures. Hammock reported OPB is not presenting itself as being as interested in a
partnership proposal as they were some months ago. As an alternative, Steve Bass has asked
whether we’d be interested in selling our KCPB license to them; if so, they would employ a third-
party broker to valuate the license and the facilities. Hammock doesn’t think he can present
himself as an unbiased evaluator of whether we should consider this or not; he has a lot
invested emotionally in the station.
Hammock said we have four options. One, we and OPB can go our separate ways. Two, we
could attempt some joint cooperative agreement. Hammock’s stance is that the disposition of the
OPB translator is a deal-breaker; if they’re going to turn it on, there’s no point in our opening our
airwaves to them. Also, we’d need clarification from the FCC about broadcasting on-air pledge
appeals from a separate licensee. Three, OPB buys us out. Four, we buy OPB out.
Hammock noted that having a broker valuate the station doesn’t commit us one way or
another and would be at OPB’s expense.
Merritt said he’d at least like to know what KCPB is worth.
Hammock said they’re going to ask how serious we are. “Serious enough to get an appraisal,”
McLaughlin replied.
That’s what Hammock will communicate to Bass.
5. Strategic Plan.
Merritt thanked Staff for their rebuttal to the draft 1.3r, for Hammock’s “General Comments”
and for Hammock’s draft 2.0, and wished he’d had the material a little bit sooner than yesterday
for a more complete review. He noted that people are getting upset because they hear we’re
making plans but they don’t know what. He says that Board and Staff members are calling him,
and recently there have been a couple of emails in the KMUNies group. Newman asked if we’re
sure the concerns are about the strategic plan. Merritt said no, but he doesn’t want people
unnecessarily upset about anything.
Price said she’d had some time to review the draft 2.0 prepared by Hammock and Staff, and
was impressed. She suggested we begin our review based on it, since that’s what we wanted to
begin with. Cullimore concurred. Cullimore noted that it’s important to reassure people that this is
just a plan and that our plans change periodically.
Ambrose suggested we focus on the fiscal section for tonight’s meeting and save the rest for
later.
[Note from Price: Draft 2.1, attached, includes the changes discussed at this meeting. The
following notes don’t reflect every little discussion about word changes but, rather, the
substance of the discussion if any.]
FISCAL STEWARDSHIP
Introduction. Ambrose asked if Hammock really wanted to involve himself in producing a “rolling
five-year financial forecast.” Cullimore said that was the Treasurer’s role. Hammock said that the
further away from today we get, the hazier the forecast. Everyone at the table realized the
language came from the previous plan, which was for five or six years, and that “three” years is
the proper length.
Ongoing and short-term (3-6 months)
Section 1. Cullimore asked: What investment of cash assets? Hammock said we still have four
bank accounts -- we’ve had up to seven -- and only one is an interest-bearing account. We haven’
t had a very robust fund accounting system; when we got a grant it went into a bank account.
For the last two years all checks have been deposited into the interest-bearing money market
account; the only transfers or checks that are written from that account are to a checking account
from which the bills are paid. We also have the Shorebank account that continues to collect the
remaining auto-withdrawal payments; this account will eventually be closed. Key Bank holds our
credit card deposits; Ambrose will investigate whether this is still the best place. We also have a
mutual fund that we took a bath on in the late ‘90s during the dot-com crash but that has
recovered somewhat.
Section 2. Cullimore suggested “Reconstitute” isn’t the right word because the Development
Committee is meeting. The word “Galvanize” was suggested, with some amusement.
Section 3. Cullimore asked who will “identify and utilize sources for training” etc. Price said it’s a
multi-faceted role depending on the need. Hammock agreed and offered examples from DEI
(development) to the NFCB (board).
Section 4. Hammock said that the next deadline for the Meyer Memorial Trust Small Grant
Program (up to $15,000) is November 15. Arlene has done some groundwork and Hammock
thinks we can meet the deadline for a capacity grant -- (def: to build our capacity to do
something). NPR is also offering a news grant.
Section 5. Deleted; moved to section 4.
New Section 5. Cullimore asked how we’re going to incorporate a sweepstakes when we’re so
short of staff. Merritt noted that we’ve considered a sweepstakes before and found there are
legal problems. Newman said KBOO does it.
New Section 6. Hammock said KBOO also does some periodic mailers; Newman said the mailings
are usually just before their on-air pledge drive and have the intention of decreasing the length
of the on-air drive. Hammock said he and Arlene are starting soon enough this year to have a
shot at a year-end mailing. He said the system in place hasn’t been rigorously adhered to but in
theory a member receives three letters every year: one a month before the membership expires;
one the month of expiration; and one the following month. He and Arlene have talked about
replacing one of those letters with a postcard that’s both flashy and cheaper to mail. Hammock
considers it a requirement for himself, Arlene and the new front desk person to tighten these
procedures.
New Section 7. Agreed.
New Section 8. Westerberg asked how our membership rates relate to the underwriting price
structure. Hammock said he and Arlene have simplified and generally raised our rates. We used
to have a too-large menu of discounts; we still offer cash discounts. He and Arlene are now
beginning to develop a new rate card considering the dual stations, etc, and to figure out what
the market will bear.
New Section 9. Cullimore asked what it means to “recruit underwriters.” Hammock replied: “Get
more of them.” Cullimore asked: What is a traffic system? Hammock said that small pubrad
stations don’t have much experience in it but it’s almost an accounting function in larger and all
commercial radio stations. Traffic includes scheduling, documenting performance, billing and
collection. There are expensive software systems that combine all of that. We do it all by hand
and it’s cumbersome; plus, it’s not something that our programmers, paid or volunteer, have in
the forebrain. But an underwriting contract is a contract that says we’re going to run something
at a certain time. We need to inculcate our volunteers with this ethic. We also have to make sure
our logs accurately document what happened and when, should we need documentation to
clarifying a billing question.
Westerberg asked how many underwriters we have. From his look at the log it appears we
have maybe 30, and that we could certainly grow that number.
Hammock said that to responsibly grow we need to improve our traffic control. Tom Hartland
has made some progress in FileMaker Pro for billing that can be linked to scheduling. More
program can be made by retraining ourselves.
Newman asked whether “delivery of announcements” included training for programmers.
Hammock said it definitely does.
Cullimore said this is a very ambitious section for such a small department and that the Board
will have to take a very active role. Hammock said that some of the items represent ongoing
actions and that some others -- for example, the new Section 9, are healthy for us to include.
Medium Term (6-18 months)
Section 1. McLaughlin suggested we consider the “certain percentage” at a later meeting when
we can determine the amount.
Section 2. Deleted. (It was moved to Long Term.)
New Section 2. Agreed.
------------------------------------------------------
We then moved on to consider the section on PROGRAM CONTENT.
Ongoing and Short Term (3-6 months)
Section 1: Agreed.
Section 2: Newman asked if the two public affairs programs -- “Friday” (host, Jim Wilkins) and
“Talk of our Towns” (host, Donna Quinn) -- are under the news department. Rideout said they
are now, particularly because she is acting as Wilkins’s producer until another one can be found
(and there may be one in line). Newman wondered if the two half-hour programs couldn’t be
used in a better fashion to cover some of the reporting Joanne would like to do, and cited
examples when “Friday” didn’t cover local issues. Hammock said staff concurs that “Friday”
should be kept to local issues. Newman asked whether “Talk of Our Towns” can’t return to a
focus on public affairs. Rideout said the program has to be fun and rewarding for the volunteers
because they’re coming in on their own time, so it’s been left up to the public affairs programmers
to choose their guests. Newman reiterated that the two half-hour programs could be better used
for newsworthy issues. Cullimore said the programs are working and don’t need to be changed.
Rideout said if we want more news, we need more staff.
Section 3. McLaughlin asked what “KMUN and KTCB programming” means, since they are one in
the same. Hammock said that although at the time the programming is the same, there is an in-
house convention to refer to the programming as KMUN and KTCB. If in the future we get
programming that is broadcast only on KMUN or KTCB, we could change the wording.
Price noted that in the rebuttal Hammock said this is an unfunded mandate. She asked what
costs are involved in adding KMUN/KTCB programming to the KCPB schedule. Hammock
responded that while it should be possible to record these programs directly into the SIM and
automat them for KCPB, he and the computer staff haven’t been able to configure the SIM to do
that. Some money will need to be spent on technical expertise. Price asked whether, given the
budget constraints this year, Hammock would prefer to move this goal further out. Hammock
responded that it is an important priority, that it shouldn’t cost that much for the consultations,
and we should be able to make it happen.
Cullimore asked if adding such programming changes the nature of KCPB. Hammock said the
programs won’t be simulcast and that it has always been a goal for the 9am KMUN/KTCB public
affairs programming strip to become an 8pm KCPB strip. Merritt asked if Cullimore is implying she
would prefer these programs not be broadcast on KCPB. Cullimore responded that if the
programs are of the quality of, for example, the Ship Report, no; but that some of the other public
affairs programs don’t meet the requirements of the KCPB audience.
Section 4. Hammock said that we could and should be doing more in the area of renewing our
commitment to the Forum, particularly to publicizing it.
Section 5. Menetrey-Grant said training volunteers to use our tools more effectively is a key
priority. Hammock said Content Depot has finally really started to deploy and, when it does, will
put us in an operational mode that will last for some time, so that second-stage training will be
appropriate. Westerberg said one thing volunteers can do simply is to cross-program. Menetrey-
Grant said some do it beautifully and some don’t at all.
Section 6. Cullimore suggested ending this section before the list, to allow for greater flexibility;
Menetrey-Grant said the list was useful as guidance and requested it be kept.
Medium-Term
Sections 1 through 4 were easily agreed upon.
-----------------------------------------------
We then moved on to consider the section on ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY.
Introduction. Cullimore asked about the meaning and uses of the various boards and
committees listed. Hammock said that, given KMUN’s history and institutional structure, Guidelines
continues to have a place and a very valuable role. He noted the inequity of the FCC requiring
only community licensees to have a Community Advisory Board, whereas university and other
public radio stations are not. Very few stations have any idea what to do with their CAB, but
there are some good exceptions and he’s looking for models. They can, for example, be a
recruitment and training ground for future board members.
Sections 1 through 4 are agreed upon with minor wording changes.
Section 5. Deleted as redundant.
New Section 5. Hammock noted that because of the politicization of pubrad fundraising,
Congress requires CPB to scrutinize stations regarding whether they are spending money on
lobbying efforts. Because of the size of our budget and the lack of activity Hammock is
legitimately able to say we spend none. Hammock says this is definitely a team effort that should
be led by the Board.
New Section 6. Accepted with wording changes.
New Section 7. Deleted as redundant.
-----------------------------------------
It being almost 7:30pm, further consideration of Draft 2.0 was tabled until November 9 at 5:00pm.
Merritt asked if there were any other topics for discussion
Price asked who was going to be charge of finding an auditor. Hammock said he’ll draw up a
list of potential vendors by Nov 10, then go over the details with Ambrose to come up with a
request for proposal letter that could be sent by Nov 15. The object is to have a short list of
vendors for the Board to select from at the December Board meeting.
Price also said that she will be traveling and thus be absent from the December meeting.
7:35pm Meeting Adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Price
Secretary
4 November 2006
Upcoming meeting dates:
Thurs., Nov. 9, 5:00pm, Tillicum House: second planning session on Strategic Plan.
Sat. Nov. 11, 9:00am, Grace Episcopal Church. Annual Breakfast and Membership meeting.
Approved by the Tillicum Foundation Board of Directors
January 18, 2007
with one nay: Margarita Cullimore, for unspecified “numerous errors”
Work Session on Goals
Thursday, November 02, 2006
5:00pm, Tillicum House
OFFICIAL APPROVED MINUTES
Attendance: Directors Ambrose, Cullimore, McLaughlin, Merritt, Newman, Price, Westerberg. Staff
members: Hammock, Menetrey-Grant, Rideout
Meeting opens 5:05pm
1. Tillicum House driveway sign. Merritt reports John Rippey is ready to do sign as shown at
meeting.
Motion: to accept sign as presented. Ambrose moves, Westerberg seconds. Unanimous.
2. Letter received by Ray Merritt from Marylou & James McAdoo re Special Election Edition of
Current. McAdoo suggests changes be highlighted whenever amendments are proposed to make
them easier to understand, and also to distribute a dissenting if there is one.
Cullimore knew that would be the case and that the legal requirement was to clearly mark it,
but because of the extent of the changes everything would have been struck; and, also, that
there was a rush to get the edition published and distributed.
Westerberg agrees that the way it was done is terribly confusing.
Newman noted that KBOO (of which she is also a member) recently made changes to its
Bylaws and did not distribute the dissenting opinion, which was cause for great concern among
the membership and the resignation of a director. However, there was no dissenting opinion to
the proposed changes to the Tillicum Foundation’s Bylaws. She reiterated Cullimore’s comment,
saying that the Bylaws were completely reformatted so it was difficult to present them in the
strikeout method. With smaller changes we can and have done that.
3. Annual meeting.
Motion: That the annual meeting not be broadcast live. Ambrose moves.
Westerberg seconds.
Discussion:
Hammock said we have a transmission pass so there’s no barrier in terms of providing a
signal; however, it will be a challenge to microphone properly. Westerberg liked the idea initially
but is now opposed, having considered the poor quality of sound in the room and that it would
require preempting “Skinamarink” and “Car Talk.” Merritt agreed about the poor sound quality
and is concerned that the setup for a radio broadcast might make things worse. He is also
concerned about overworking the staff. Ambrose agreed with the acoustic issues and said the
part where everybody introduces themselves will make for horrible radio. Price said she has
posted a notice of the live broadcast on the web and to the KMUNies group and has gotten a few
messages appreciating it as a good idea.
Ayes: Ambrose, McLaughlin, Merritt, Westerberg. Nayes: Price. Abstaining: Cullimore, Newman.
Motion passes.
Hammock asked if we’d like to record the meeting and use the audio on the website or as a
report to the membership that would be broadcast at a later time. Staff is willing to give it a shot
and to edit it.
Motion: For staff to make an effort to record pertinent parts of the annual meeting and edit
them for later broadcast. Ambrose moves. Westerberg seconds. Unanimous.
Merritt asked Ambrose to ask Florence Sage if we can borrow her p.a. system for use at the
annual meeting.
4. OPB gestures. Hammock reported OPB is not presenting itself as being as interested in a
partnership proposal as they were some months ago. As an alternative, Steve Bass has asked
whether we’d be interested in selling our KCPB license to them; if so, they would employ a third-
party broker to valuate the license and the facilities. Hammock doesn’t think he can present
himself as an unbiased evaluator of whether we should consider this or not; he has a lot
invested emotionally in the station.
Hammock said we have four options. One, we and OPB can go our separate ways. Two, we
could attempt some joint cooperative agreement. Hammock’s stance is that the disposition of the
OPB translator is a deal-breaker; if they’re going to turn it on, there’s no point in our opening our
airwaves to them. Also, we’d need clarification from the FCC about broadcasting on-air pledge
appeals from a separate licensee. Three, OPB buys us out. Four, we buy OPB out.
Hammock noted that having a broker valuate the station doesn’t commit us one way or
another and would be at OPB’s expense.
Merritt said he’d at least like to know what KCPB is worth.
Hammock said they’re going to ask how serious we are. “Serious enough to get an appraisal,”
McLaughlin replied.
That’s what Hammock will communicate to Bass.
5. Strategic Plan.
Merritt thanked Staff for their rebuttal to the draft 1.3r, for Hammock’s “General Comments”
and for Hammock’s draft 2.0, and wished he’d had the material a little bit sooner than yesterday
for a more complete review. He noted that people are getting upset because they hear we’re
making plans but they don’t know what. He says that Board and Staff members are calling him,
and recently there have been a couple of emails in the KMUNies group. Newman asked if we’re
sure the concerns are about the strategic plan. Merritt said no, but he doesn’t want people
unnecessarily upset about anything.
Price said she’d had some time to review the draft 2.0 prepared by Hammock and Staff, and
was impressed. She suggested we begin our review based on it, since that’s what we wanted to
begin with. Cullimore concurred. Cullimore noted that it’s important to reassure people that this is
just a plan and that our plans change periodically.
Ambrose suggested we focus on the fiscal section for tonight’s meeting and save the rest for
later.
[Note from Price: Draft 2.1, attached, includes the changes discussed at this meeting. The
following notes don’t reflect every little discussion about word changes but, rather, the
substance of the discussion if any.]
FISCAL STEWARDSHIP
Introduction. Ambrose asked if Hammock really wanted to involve himself in producing a “rolling
five-year financial forecast.” Cullimore said that was the Treasurer’s role. Hammock said that the
further away from today we get, the hazier the forecast. Everyone at the table realized the
language came from the previous plan, which was for five or six years, and that “three” years is
the proper length.
Ongoing and short-term (3-6 months)
Section 1. Cullimore asked: What investment of cash assets? Hammock said we still have four
bank accounts -- we’ve had up to seven -- and only one is an interest-bearing account. We haven’
t had a very robust fund accounting system; when we got a grant it went into a bank account.
For the last two years all checks have been deposited into the interest-bearing money market
account; the only transfers or checks that are written from that account are to a checking account
from which the bills are paid. We also have the Shorebank account that continues to collect the
remaining auto-withdrawal payments; this account will eventually be closed. Key Bank holds our
credit card deposits; Ambrose will investigate whether this is still the best place. We also have a
mutual fund that we took a bath on in the late ‘90s during the dot-com crash but that has
recovered somewhat.
Section 2. Cullimore suggested “Reconstitute” isn’t the right word because the Development
Committee is meeting. The word “Galvanize” was suggested, with some amusement.
Section 3. Cullimore asked who will “identify and utilize sources for training” etc. Price said it’s a
multi-faceted role depending on the need. Hammock agreed and offered examples from DEI
(development) to the NFCB (board).
Section 4. Hammock said that the next deadline for the Meyer Memorial Trust Small Grant
Program (up to $15,000) is November 15. Arlene has done some groundwork and Hammock
thinks we can meet the deadline for a capacity grant -- (def: to build our capacity to do
something). NPR is also offering a news grant.
Section 5. Deleted; moved to section 4.
New Section 5. Cullimore asked how we’re going to incorporate a sweepstakes when we’re so
short of staff. Merritt noted that we’ve considered a sweepstakes before and found there are
legal problems. Newman said KBOO does it.
New Section 6. Hammock said KBOO also does some periodic mailers; Newman said the mailings
are usually just before their on-air pledge drive and have the intention of decreasing the length
of the on-air drive. Hammock said he and Arlene are starting soon enough this year to have a
shot at a year-end mailing. He said the system in place hasn’t been rigorously adhered to but in
theory a member receives three letters every year: one a month before the membership expires;
one the month of expiration; and one the following month. He and Arlene have talked about
replacing one of those letters with a postcard that’s both flashy and cheaper to mail. Hammock
considers it a requirement for himself, Arlene and the new front desk person to tighten these
procedures.
New Section 7. Agreed.
New Section 8. Westerberg asked how our membership rates relate to the underwriting price
structure. Hammock said he and Arlene have simplified and generally raised our rates. We used
to have a too-large menu of discounts; we still offer cash discounts. He and Arlene are now
beginning to develop a new rate card considering the dual stations, etc, and to figure out what
the market will bear.
New Section 9. Cullimore asked what it means to “recruit underwriters.” Hammock replied: “Get
more of them.” Cullimore asked: What is a traffic system? Hammock said that small pubrad
stations don’t have much experience in it but it’s almost an accounting function in larger and all
commercial radio stations. Traffic includes scheduling, documenting performance, billing and
collection. There are expensive software systems that combine all of that. We do it all by hand
and it’s cumbersome; plus, it’s not something that our programmers, paid or volunteer, have in
the forebrain. But an underwriting contract is a contract that says we’re going to run something
at a certain time. We need to inculcate our volunteers with this ethic. We also have to make sure
our logs accurately document what happened and when, should we need documentation to
clarifying a billing question.
Westerberg asked how many underwriters we have. From his look at the log it appears we
have maybe 30, and that we could certainly grow that number.
Hammock said that to responsibly grow we need to improve our traffic control. Tom Hartland
has made some progress in FileMaker Pro for billing that can be linked to scheduling. More
program can be made by retraining ourselves.
Newman asked whether “delivery of announcements” included training for programmers.
Hammock said it definitely does.
Cullimore said this is a very ambitious section for such a small department and that the Board
will have to take a very active role. Hammock said that some of the items represent ongoing
actions and that some others -- for example, the new Section 9, are healthy for us to include.
Medium Term (6-18 months)
Section 1. McLaughlin suggested we consider the “certain percentage” at a later meeting when
we can determine the amount.
Section 2. Deleted. (It was moved to Long Term.)
New Section 2. Agreed.
------------------------------------------------------
We then moved on to consider the section on PROGRAM CONTENT.
Ongoing and Short Term (3-6 months)
Section 1: Agreed.
Section 2: Newman asked if the two public affairs programs -- “Friday” (host, Jim Wilkins) and
“Talk of our Towns” (host, Donna Quinn) -- are under the news department. Rideout said they
are now, particularly because she is acting as Wilkins’s producer until another one can be found
(and there may be one in line). Newman wondered if the two half-hour programs couldn’t be
used in a better fashion to cover some of the reporting Joanne would like to do, and cited
examples when “Friday” didn’t cover local issues. Hammock said staff concurs that “Friday”
should be kept to local issues. Newman asked whether “Talk of Our Towns” can’t return to a
focus on public affairs. Rideout said the program has to be fun and rewarding for the volunteers
because they’re coming in on their own time, so it’s been left up to the public affairs programmers
to choose their guests. Newman reiterated that the two half-hour programs could be better used
for newsworthy issues. Cullimore said the programs are working and don’t need to be changed.
Rideout said if we want more news, we need more staff.
Section 3. McLaughlin asked what “KMUN and KTCB programming” means, since they are one in
the same. Hammock said that although at the time the programming is the same, there is an in-
house convention to refer to the programming as KMUN and KTCB. If in the future we get
programming that is broadcast only on KMUN or KTCB, we could change the wording.
Price noted that in the rebuttal Hammock said this is an unfunded mandate. She asked what
costs are involved in adding KMUN/KTCB programming to the KCPB schedule. Hammock
responded that while it should be possible to record these programs directly into the SIM and
automat them for KCPB, he and the computer staff haven’t been able to configure the SIM to do
that. Some money will need to be spent on technical expertise. Price asked whether, given the
budget constraints this year, Hammock would prefer to move this goal further out. Hammock
responded that it is an important priority, that it shouldn’t cost that much for the consultations,
and we should be able to make it happen.
Cullimore asked if adding such programming changes the nature of KCPB. Hammock said the
programs won’t be simulcast and that it has always been a goal for the 9am KMUN/KTCB public
affairs programming strip to become an 8pm KCPB strip. Merritt asked if Cullimore is implying she
would prefer these programs not be broadcast on KCPB. Cullimore responded that if the
programs are of the quality of, for example, the Ship Report, no; but that some of the other public
affairs programs don’t meet the requirements of the KCPB audience.
Section 4. Hammock said that we could and should be doing more in the area of renewing our
commitment to the Forum, particularly to publicizing it.
Section 5. Menetrey-Grant said training volunteers to use our tools more effectively is a key
priority. Hammock said Content Depot has finally really started to deploy and, when it does, will
put us in an operational mode that will last for some time, so that second-stage training will be
appropriate. Westerberg said one thing volunteers can do simply is to cross-program. Menetrey-
Grant said some do it beautifully and some don’t at all.
Section 6. Cullimore suggested ending this section before the list, to allow for greater flexibility;
Menetrey-Grant said the list was useful as guidance and requested it be kept.
Medium-Term
Sections 1 through 4 were easily agreed upon.
-----------------------------------------------
We then moved on to consider the section on ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY.
Introduction. Cullimore asked about the meaning and uses of the various boards and
committees listed. Hammock said that, given KMUN’s history and institutional structure, Guidelines
continues to have a place and a very valuable role. He noted the inequity of the FCC requiring
only community licensees to have a Community Advisory Board, whereas university and other
public radio stations are not. Very few stations have any idea what to do with their CAB, but
there are some good exceptions and he’s looking for models. They can, for example, be a
recruitment and training ground for future board members.
Sections 1 through 4 are agreed upon with minor wording changes.
Section 5. Deleted as redundant.
New Section 5. Hammock noted that because of the politicization of pubrad fundraising,
Congress requires CPB to scrutinize stations regarding whether they are spending money on
lobbying efforts. Because of the size of our budget and the lack of activity Hammock is
legitimately able to say we spend none. Hammock says this is definitely a team effort that should
be led by the Board.
New Section 6. Accepted with wording changes.
New Section 7. Deleted as redundant.
-----------------------------------------
It being almost 7:30pm, further consideration of Draft 2.0 was tabled until November 9 at 5:00pm.
Merritt asked if there were any other topics for discussion
Price asked who was going to be charge of finding an auditor. Hammock said he’ll draw up a
list of potential vendors by Nov 10, then go over the details with Ambrose to come up with a
request for proposal letter that could be sent by Nov 15. The object is to have a short list of
vendors for the Board to select from at the December Board meeting.
Price also said that she will be traveling and thus be absent from the December meeting.
7:35pm Meeting Adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Price
Secretary
4 November 2006
Upcoming meeting dates:
Thurs., Nov. 9, 5:00pm, Tillicum House: second planning session on Strategic Plan.
Sat. Nov. 11, 9:00am, Grace Episcopal Church. Annual Breakfast and Membership meeting.
Approved by the Tillicum Foundation Board of Directors
January 18, 2007
with one nay: Margarita Cullimore, for unspecified “numerous errors”