Home

NES Peters Disqualifies WBAI Candidate Solomon

26 October, 2007 - 12:56 — national-editor

The Candidate Packet issued to all persons who expressed an interest in running for any of the five Local Station Boards contained a checklist of nomination requirements and copies of Fair Campaign Provisions with guidelines on candidate statements. The checklist reads, in part: In drafting your statement, you may begin with your name, include your experience, skills, and the main theme you want to emphasize in your opening paragraph, as this is all many voters may read.

Pacifica Bylaws Article Four Section 2-B sets forth required documents that the nominee for Local Station Board shall submit. Point (3) requires: a written statement of up to 500 words in length by the candidate introducing himself/herself and his/her interest in, or qualifications for, servings as a Delegate, which statement shall be distributed, or otherwise made available, to the Members entitled to vote along with the written ballots. When candidates submit statements which may be considered inappropriate, we need to look for compliance with the Bylaws. Pacifica Election Supervisors are not an investigatory body, nor a court of law. We do not have the time and energy, the expertise, nor the legal authority to hold hearings and weigh evidence.

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."
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. Therefore, Mr. Solomon has not qualified as a candidate for the WBAI Local Station Board.

[Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:09:37 -0400
From: "Vote WBAI" votewbai@gmail.com

Edict on the statement of Mr. Albert Solomon
by National Elections Supervisor Casey Peters]

Technorati Tags:

Comments

29 October, 2007 - 14:05 — GregoryWonderwheel

Ruling Against Solomon Sets Pacifica Against Free Speech

This ruling is violation of a candidate's free speech to craft his statement as he wishes.

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

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."

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:

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.

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:

ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION 2. ELIGIBILITY; NOMINATION OF DELEGATESB. 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.

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 mandatary 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 from 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.

Cross posgted at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewPacifica/message/80234
and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacificaparl/message/1382