1 – Please detail your qualifications for the NPR Board.

I have been in broadcasting for 24 years…3 years in commercial radio and 21 years in public broadcasting.  Throughout my career I have held various leadership positions, including radio program director, vice president for programming, general manager, and now president and CEO at WMFE-FM/TV.  I have also had previous NPR Board experience, serving four years from 2000 through 2003.  While on the Board, I served on various key committees and chaired the Distribution and Interconnection Committee.  I believe I brought a diverse perspective to the Board, provided insight, and always asked the tough questions.  I am now ready to serve the system again, and feel that my experience both as president & CEO at WMFE and as a former NPR Board member will position me to be an effective member of the Board.

2 - As a Board member, how will you separate your station's self-interest from network interests?

Separating one’s station’s self-interest from the network’s interest is key to service on this or any board.  Having served on the NPR Board already, I understand the separation of interest and feel I accommodated that very well.  My primary interest in serving as a Board member is to protect this valuable member-station supported system known as NPR.

3. - If elected to the NPR Board, on what Board Committee – or in connection with what issue – do you believe you have the most to offer NPR? 

Finance and governance.

I understand numbers, and served on the finance committee while on the NPR Board.  While some managers shy away from reading spreadsheets and audits; that is where the most important work as a board member can take place.  I am a strong fiscal manager and feel I can contribute in that area greatly.

Regarding governance, we are at an important crossroad with our system-wide discussion in this area.  I believe I bring experience and a level head to these discussions.  Again, having served as a board member already, I have insight on the workings of the board.  I’ll bring that experience and my experience of managing my own board to the table.

4. Would you recommend any changes to the way in which network program providers charge stations for programming? 

I don’t bring any recommendations in this area.  What I do want is a fair and equitable system for all stations.  I want to have a role on how the new HD channels are distributed to stations, how NPR charges for those channels, and how we will all deal with the associated rights issues.

5 - Since the institution of the A-Reps meeting format, NPR has not achieved a quorum for its Annual Meeting.  Do you view this as a problem?  Do you have any recommendations for engaging more stations in the citizenship of the annual meeting?

I do not view the quorum issue as a “real” issue.  The issue is how does NPR improve the annual meeting to get a higher level of participation from the system…and I mean everyone, not just A-Reps.  While I don’t recommend going back to a PRC , I will promote, as I did at the A-Rep meeting this Spring, that our annual meeting be tied with either PRPD or the Development Committee.  (My actual recommendation is for all three to be at the same time…but that may be too big an issue to tackle!)  Having the annual meeting combined with, as an example, PRPD will not only – I believe – encourage more managers to attend…but it will also introduce new young minds to our system wide discussion.  That is citizenship.

6 – Do you support the proposed changes in NPR Board composition and structure described in the recently issued NPR Governance consultant’s report? 

I do not agree with the recommendation to change the ratio of board members.  I strongly believe that member stations should always have the majority on the NPR Board.  That being said, I do agree with most all other recommendations.  I strongly believe that the current system to elect board members is flawed and discourages many of you to run.  I believe the Board should be stronger and more involved with the evaluation of the CEO , and I believe the Board should do a better job of communicating with its member stations.

7 - What is your overall assessment of the NPR board?  Is it responsive to stations?  Is it sufficiently high profile?   

I think the NPR Board is doing a great job, but there is plenty of room to improve.  It’s a thankless job that requires lots of time.  I salute those who run and those that serve.  That being said, the Board does not do a good job of keeping stations informed.  I would recommend that the NPR Board Chairman identify, either from the board or from staff, a station communications Czar who would be responsible for communicating on ALL board related issues to the system.

Does the board have a high profile? No.  Neither does the Chair.  And they both ought to have a higher profile.  I believe the Foundation Board has a higher profile…while I appreciate what the foundation does for NPR, I sometimes wondered who was the “real” board.  To change that, the Board Chair has to be stronger…and the Board has to be stronger.

8 - As an NPR Board member, how would you distinguish between the types of business you believe the Board should conduct in Executive Session versus the business that should be conducted in Open Session?

Simple.  I think everything, except personal or proprietary issues, should be conducted in Open Session.  The overuse of Executive Session can take a board down the wrong road, and has created an atmosphere of mistrust.  This is unnecessary, and I would encourage the Board and committees to hold as many of its meetings in Open Session.