|
|
|
The San Francisco community television community is very diverse. We like to think of ourselves as celebrating our diversity, but if that were true we would be more tolerant of differences of opinion. My main issue with Zane, is his intolerance for differences of opinion. His acts out his intolerance even when his authority is not questioned.
I believe that no matter who manages Access SF, a good number of people would be intolerant of one decision of another, and they might express it in the form of a personal attack. That's a shame.
I think the best we can hope for is an Executive Director who is more open to two-way communications with the community. Someone who will listen to different views. Someone who will take the time to discuss his or her views with the community. There is no realistic expectation that everyone will agree on any issue, but we should be able to argue (not fight about) different viewpoints. When it comes down to it, there must be someone in charge, someone able to make decisions.
Being in charge, does not dictate forgoing the need for oversight. The Executive Director must abide to all of the same rules the rest of us are subject to. Even more so, since he or she is in a position to make the rules. The Executive Director must be subject to oversight from the Board of Directors, who in turn is subject to the rules and oversight from the members and the city. In short, we are all answerable to the rules and we all answer to someone.
In my mind, there's no room for an Executive Director who sets himself above his own rules, and is not answerable to anyone. An Executive Director who hides his decisions, rules, procedures, mandates. and edicts from the scrutiny of the community will be looked upon with suspicion.
For the sake of argument, let's suppose that Zane's initiatives are good for Access SF, and we just don't see the value. If Zane were to make the effort to communicate with the community (i.e., producers, volunteers, staff, etc.) and sell his ideas, we might buy into them. We may not agree with every initiative, but some may be valid. The problem is that Zane us in such destain that we aren't worth bothering with. He had the authority, he has no oversight, so why would he bother himself with trying to convince sell his initiatives to us? His lack of communications creates an environment where we become suspicious. When questions are not dealt with adequately, they fester. Zane's unilateral actions against people who ask questions, state concerns, and request changes are intolerable.
Some philosophers believe that the best type of community is one based on a benevolent dictator. The argument is that a single person, who keeps the best interests of the community in mind, is more efficient than democratic debate. I reject that line of reasoning as being unrealistically utopian. Power corrupts over time. Any organization needs checks and balances. Rules must be enforced fairly and equitably. Oversight is imperative.
Public access television in San Francisco must be managed in a controlled manner, based on published policies and procedures enforced in a fair and equitable manner, with oversight at all levels. Some producers tell me we should go back to the good old days when producers and volunteers could do what they wanted. I don't believe that would work. We have to much investment in equipment and facilities which needs qualified personal to manage and operate. Without controls, individuals would sub-optimize usage to suite their personal goals, and that would adversely affect everyone else's needs. Controls are necessary. Staff are necessary. Management oversight is necessary.
Questions/Comments?Please report any problems with this WEB page to
.