1 – Please detail your qualifications for the NPR Board.

I have been in public broadcasting since 1975.  I began my career in commercial television in 1967 in Cleveland and, after 8 interesting years, joined the Teleproduction Center at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, where I worked as a producer and manager providing programming to the Wisconsin Educational Communications Board.  In 1983, I moved to Bemidji , Minnesota to manage KAWE public television and built a new station, KAWB, in Brainerd.  While in Bemidji , I developed an interest in public radio because my wife Eileen worked for MPR as the local station manager for KCRB.  That interest caused me to seek a joint license opportunity at WQLN TV and FM in Erie , PA. In 1995 I decided to focus on public radio and moved to Bellingham , Washington to manage a very small, 125 watt station.  That station was unable to sustain itself with local support in a very competitive public radio market and we merged with the Northwest Public Radio Network in Pullman , WA .  I worked with Dennis Haarsager for the next few years and helped to develop new stations in Port Angelus and Omak , Washington .  I was then drawn to Alaska to manage the Alaska Public Radio Network and ultimately co-joined APRN with Alaska Public Telecommunications and added the management of KAKM TV and KSKA FM.  Just a few months ago, I accepted the position of General Manager of KPLU TV, Tacoma/Seattle.  During my career I have served on numerous regional and national committees, worked with NPR staff on a variety of projects, served on community and state boards and task forces and have worked both in the community and university environment at both large and small stations.  I feel my varied experiences lend themselves to service on the Board of Directors of NPR

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

I am well prepared to consider the interests of NPR independent of my station's self-interest.  I know it is the responsibility of a member of any Board to consider first the interest of organization for which you serve as an elected member.  Nevertheless, it is the personal experiences and the perspectives that you have formed that lead you to be of value to the Board on which you serve.  Therefore, in discussion and debate, I feel it would be my job to represent the interest of stations and to express my opinion based on those values learned over the years.  I feel that I am a person who can listen to reasonable debate and make decisions based on the logic presented and to also recognize when my personal point of view needs to be sublimated for the good of the body whole.  When a Board reaches a final decision, every member of that Board must get behind the decision and support it.  Therefore, I think an enlightened self interest of a Board member can bring breadth and depth to the conversation and, at the same time, be able to ultimately reach agreement on the direction to be taken for the good of all.

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? 

I am currently most interested in two areas within the Board of Directors of NPR.  The first is Governance and the related issue of what it means to be a member.  I would like to join this discussion and help to shape the future of NPR.  While I will entertain ideas that shift the thinking of NPR as we move into this uncertain future, we either need to preserve the membership character of NPR and retain station control, or we need to find a model that does not rely on stations for financing of the enterprise.  And that leads to my second area of interest.  I am very concerned about the cost of programming, the investment in new program ideas and the ability of NPR and stations to adjust in the new world of media opportunity.  While I don't think our transmitters are in serious danger at this moment and the public still overwhelming listens to radio versus receiving their information through the internet or podcasts or other technologies, it is inevitable that we must adjust to this changing world or become extinct.  The delicate balance between the network and the powerhouse programs produced at NPR and the station's ability to reach out and touch listener's needs to be preserved.  Maneuvering through this changing landscape will take our full creative energies and I would like to be a part of that planning.

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

As I briefly mentioned above, this is an area of great interest to me.  I think are funding system is flawed and we are in danger of losing the franchise.  I do not have an easy answer to this solution and feel that this issue needs careful, external analysis.  We are so close to the issue that we are no longer influenced by reason and almost immediately jump to the bottom line.  Stations are not likely to continue revenue growth, in fact, many are already seeing declines.  Programming costs are not going to go down.  We have little or no ability to invest in R & D.  We resist, with reason, the marketing of our signature programs beyond the station airwaves.  The audience is beginning to change the way they listen to us.  Just last Sunday I heard the person who was selected to be on-air with Will Short say I get the weekly puzzle by podcast, not even mentioning a station call-sign.  We need to avoid the train wreck and find a different way to ensure the enterprise, protect our investments and provide service to the public I would like to be a part of that discussion.

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?

Is this truly a problem?  Perhaps... but at the same time, stations and NPR have been able to continue with business over the course of the last 5 years.� I think this is an issue for stations to resolve.  If stations want their voices to be heard and participate in governance, they must commit to participating in the meetings.  While I know electronic discussion is possible and voting can be done through various vendor systems on the web, the interpersonal exchange of ideas and debate cannot be managed well unless it occurs in person.  I would have thought the discussion last year would have brought a quorum to D.C. but that did not happen.  I don't think that NPR or the Board of Directors can solve this problem; instead, I think the burden is on stations to recognize that a big part of their doing business and being part of a system is to commit to this one business meeting a year.  I know that meeting annually in D.C. is an issue for some, and while I think that concern is miss-directed, I think we should probably schedule a meeting in the mid-west and determine if a central location will actually increase attendance and gain the quorum we desire.

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 support that particular recommendation.  I do think the report has done a great job of stimulating important discussion on this topic and would look forward to being a participant in the on-going review which I hope will lead to positive changes that will be beneficial to NPR and to station members.

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

I have had the privilege of working with many of the members of the NPR Board of Directors over the years.  I am absolutely convinced that they are dedicated to the enterprise and work very hard to serve in the best interest of the system as a whole.  The commitment of time and energy is enormous and we must remember that the station manager members of the Board also have responsibilities at home wrestling with issues of the same importance at their stations.  The public members care deeply for public radio and give considerably of their time to provide a perspective uncolored by the direct experience of managing a station.  In many ways, they represent our audience better than we ever could.  I am very satisfied with the performance of the Board and even if I disagree with some decision or another, I fell they have collectively given the issue the attention it deserves, demands information and transparency from the staff and shares well with member stations.  I have never found a Board member unwilling to discuss an issue with me as a member station manager.

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?

In general, I believe the meetings should be conducted in open session and certainly no vote or decision should be taken in Executive Session.  Executives Session should be limited to discussion that is related to specific personnel issues and potential litigation.  In addition, certain negotiations need to remain confidential while being conducted, for example the specifics of the purchase of a new building, but need to be brought to open meeting as soon as decisions are ready to be made.  In order to be effective and engender full trust, those items discussed in closed session must ultimately be fully explained in open meeting or preceding open meeting, shared in writing with the membership.