Here's my response to the ruling by the NES regarding candidate
disqualification based on the content of a candidate statement.

This ruling is violation of a candidate's free speech right to craft his
statement as he wishes.
http://pacificana.org/nes-peters-disqualifies-wbai-candidate-solomon
<http://pacificana.org/nes-peters-disqualifies-wbai-candidate-solomon>

A person is qualified to be a candidate by meeting the qualification
requirements in the Bylaws. A corporation may not add additional
qualifications by policy that would circumvent the qualifications of the
Bylaws. By adding a qualification that demands a candidate complete a
statement according to guidelines puts a qualification on top of a
qualification that is not permissible.

Certainly, certain procedural requirements may be necessary as requiring
a
candidate to sign nomination papers to indicate they are agreeing to the
nomination, but this would not be an additional qualification, only an
attestation to their qualification.

Requiring certain content in a candidate statement as a qualification to
run
is a horse of a different color.

It is obvious from the ruling that the real issue is the alleged
"racially
charged content of the candidate's statement. It is also clear that the
NES
felt he did not have grounds to disqualify the candidate on the basis of
the
words themselves. Therefore is appears that a bogus justification was
concocted to disqualify the candidate on other grounds.

The ruling depends on the question of what is a "valid candidate
statement."

The ruling states, "A precedent was set for such circumstances in 2003
at
KPFK when Chris Condon and John Wenger were disqualified as candidates
for
not having submitted valid candidate statements in a timely manner." It
is
not clear from this whether the so-called precedent cited means that no
candidate statements were provided in a timely manner, or whether the
statements provided in a timely manner were held to be invalid, or for
what
reason. Thus, the precedent is not adequately described in the current
ruling in a manner that supports the ruling.

Here there is no question that a candidate statement was supplied in a
timely manner. There are two issues: First, whether the statement was
valid,
and if not, second whether an invalid statement is disqualifying or
simply
not publishable.

The ruling does not provide enough information to answer the first
question,
and I would argue as a matter of law that the second question must be
answered that even if the content of the statement were "invalid" in
some
manner that disqualification is not a valid remedy.

Now the NES claims

<blockquote> However, in the case of Albert Solomon, whose
racially-charged
entry has been deemed offensive by Pacifica activists nationwide, not
only
the spirit but the letter of the Bylaws was violated, in that his
statement
contained no information "introducing himself/herself and his/her
interest
in, or qualifications for, serving as a Delegate."</blockquote>

Where in the bylaws does it say a candidate must introduce himself and
his
interest in the corporation or state his qualifications in his candidate
statement? Nowhere, that's where.

Here are the status qualifications to run as a delegate:

<blockquote>ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION 2. ELIGIBILITY; NOMINATION OF
DELEGATES

A. ELIGIBILITY

Any Listener-Sponsor Member in good standing, except radio station
management personnel or Foundation management personnel or staff
members,
may be nominated for the position of Listener-Sponsor
Delegate for the Foundation radio station with which s/he is affiliated
by
the signatures of fifteen (15) Listener-Sponsor Members in good standing
who
are also affiliated with that radio station, provided, however, that no
person who holds any elected or appointed public office at any level of
government , federal, state, or local , or is a candidate for such
office
shall be eligible for election to the position of Delegate. A Delegate
shall
be deemed to have resigned the position of Delegate if s/he becomes a
candidate for public office or accepts a political appointment during
his or
her term as a Delegate. This restriction shall not apply to civil
service
employment by governmental agencies.</blockquote>

If the candidate is a member in good standing and is duly nominated by
the
requisite number of valid signatures and is not a public officer in
government, then the person is qualified to be a candidate.

Here are the procedural requirements to be a candidate:

<blockquote>ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION 2. ELIGIBILITY; NOMINATION OF
DELEGATES
B. NOMINATION PROCEDURES

Each Member seeking to be a nominee shall submit: (1) the required
number of
nominating signatures on the form provided by the local elections
supervisor; (2) a statement of whether the candidate is running for
election
as a Listener_Sponsor Delegate or a Staff Delegate; (3) a written
statement
of up to 500 words in length by the candidate introducing
himself/herself
and his/her interest in, or qualifications for, serving as a Delegate,
which
statement shall be distributed, or otherwise made available, to the
Members
entitled to vote along with the written ballot; and (4) a statement
acknowledging that s/he has read and understood the "Fair Campaign
Provisions" set forth in Section 6 of this Article of the Bylaws. The
names
of up to five (5) of the candidate's nominators may be listed at the end
of
a candidate's statement. Each candidate also may, but is not required
to,
for informational purposes indicate his/her gender and racial or ethnic
heritage. </blockquote>

The requirement of providing "a written statement of up to 500 words in
length by the candidate introducing himself/herself and his/her interest
in,
or qualifications for, serving as a Delegate, which statement shall be
distributed, or otherwise made available, to the Members entitled to
vote
along with the written ballot;" can only be interpreted at most as being
mandatory for purposes of having a statement form 1 to 500 words, not
for
content of the words.

Though there is the stated content that the candidate should be
"introducing
himself/herself and his/her interest in, or qualifications for, serving
as a
Delegate" what that means must in a free election be open to the
interpretations of the candidate, not the election officials.

If I were a candidate and I presented the poem "Mary Had a Little Lamb"
as
my candidate statement, then that poem must be taken as my way of
introducing myself, my interests, and my qualifications. It
would be my metaphorical statement who I am and what my interests and
qualifications are. No one else can put words into my mouth or demand
that I
say, as my way of introducing myself or stating my
interests and qualifications in words that suit them, not even the NES.

I am amazed once again that Pacifica places itself in a position that is
opposed to the free speech of candidates for election. It is amazing
that
self_identified "liberals" and "progressives" find that the doctrine of
free
speech in a free society can so easily be discarded when their personal
ox
is gored. The purpose of free speech is not just to protect the speech
we
agree with form the objections of others, but equally to protect exactly
that speech we find to be objectionable from us and our objections.

By disqualifying a candidate who was previously told he qualified and
prior
to an election, the NES has put the election into jeopardy by not
allowing
the voters to have a fair and reasonable election
for the choice of candidates.

Gregory Wonderwheel






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]