1 – Please detail your qualifications for the NPR Board.

I am an effective NPR board member who knows board issues and process.  Since 2004 I’ve served on the board and now seek reelection.  I attended NPR board meetings as president of the WSPR and Rocky Mountain regional organizations (1999-2003.)  I have a strong work ethic, thoroughly prepare for board meetings, and show curiosity and skepticism.  I’ve championed the Local News Initiative, board transparency, and stand up for the concerns of member stations. I’m very familiar with NPR and public radio issues, having worked for over 30 years in the system, the last 14 as GM at KNAU / Flagstaff . My public radio experience includes a wide variety of stations – small, medium and major market; community and institutional licensees; and minority controlled.  I worked as a Morning Edition producer in Washington for 2 ½ years. I am qualified to work for all of us – stations, NPR, listeners

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

While serving on the board, I have been very careful to evaluate any potential conflicts of interest.  NPR’s greater good and the stations’ collective interest must always take precedence.  NPR succeeds by aggregating station resources through collective investments.  By serving on the board I help advance the interests of all stations, including KNAU and member stations that may be in direct competition with my station.  Board members are especially valuable when we take actions that transcend station self-interest of format, market size or geography.  I’ve supported increased NPR investments in NPR Digital and efforts to increase the voice of major market stations.  Neither decision strengthened KNAU but both strengthen 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? 

I have two and a half years experience on the Finance and Administration Committee and served as vice-chair the past year.  The Committee determines where NPR invests its financial, personnel and capital resources.  With management, we decide where NPR takes risks, makes investments, and where it reduces commitments.  These are highly consequential decisions given today’s on-demand, multiplatform media environment.  The Finance Committee also plays a pivotal role in the planning process for NPR’s new building, another critical decision.  Finance Committee Chair Cephas Bowles steps down from the board later this year.  I have the qualifications and background to succeed him.  The single most important decision facing the board Committee of the Whole in the next three years is CEO succession. Will the board open a CEO search?  I have demonstrated that I have the experience, knowledge and assertiveness to meaningfully contribute to that discussion and decision. 

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

NPR pricing policy is essentially fair although it may need adjustments.  It is based on sound principles: equity, preserving system diversity, return on investment, and providing universal access. Our listener hour-based system avoids many of the inequalities of the old Total Station Revenue model.  Unlike TSR, our present pricing system hasn’t caused widespread conflict or necessitated many hardship waiver requests.  I am concerned about implementation of the Personal People Meter disrupting the listener hour standard.  Some markets will have their numbers skewed by PPS-based data while others continue using diary-based data. That could cause inequities.  NPR staff will run many variations of pricing models before recommending changes. They will examine factors such as whether stations are receiving adequate ROI.  Board, member stations, and staff will then evaluate the proposed pricing structures before adoption.   

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?

Lack of a quorum is a problem and I have ideas how to solve it.  We can boost attendance at the Annual Meeting by convincing new managers that system participation is important.  We can design more entertaining and informative meetings. The Iraq coverage and political election sessions at this past year’s system meeting were a good start.  Schedule the Annual Meeting at the same place and same time as another public radio meeting such as PRDMC, PRPD or DEI. Make the Annual Meeting more affordable by holding it in a less expensive and more centrally located city. We can discuss reducing the size of the quorum.  The larger question is whether it is desirable for NPR to continue as a membership organization.  I believe we should keep the membership model intact because the public benefits from NPR’s unique network – station partnership. It makes possible both localism and quality national programming. 

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

No, I do not support restructuring of the board with stations losing two seats, reducing stations to a minority position of eight seats on a 17-member board. I serve on the board’s Governance Task Force and have voiced my disagreement with the consultant’s proposal.  NPR is the only national news broadcast organization controlled by broadcasters.  Our governance structure helps ensure that NPR continues to be a serious news organization.  The governance report fundamentally recommends that the NPR Inc. transition to a corporate, “resource development” fundraising board.  I agree that NPR can more greatly benefit from civic leadership.  But before we seriously consider the board restructuring proposal, we must conduct a more holistic analysis.  What is the role of the NPR Foundation in fundraising?  Is it permissible for NPR to fundraise in member station markets?  Until we answer those questions, it is premature to change NPR board composition.  

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

During my last three years of board service, I’ve been impressed with the people who make up the board.  Although our board deliberations can be cumbersome and time consuming, we’ve made productive, forward looking decisions and NPR is in excellent overall shape.  I believe the board is responsive to stations although stations are not a monolithic entity and possess divergent interests. Board members listen carefully to what managers say in public radio meetings and electronic communications.  Board discussions and decisions invariably consider how our decisions impact stations. I do not expect another Bob Edwards fiasco to occur under our watch.  The board can do much more to communicate with stations.  The board is newly dedicated to “communicate more clearly and frequently about board deliberations and decisions.”  We might consider creating a regularly updated NPR board blog to increase communication and transparency.   I would love to help write it.

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?

There is a legitimate perception that the NPR board conducts an inordinate amount of business behind closed doors. The board is subject to the open meeting provisions of the Public Broadcasting Act.  Exceptions to holding an open meeting are extensive: matters relating to individual employees, litigation, some purchasing discussions, confidential financial information, and proprietary information.  The interpretation of “proprietary information” may have been applied too broadly.  Not enough board discussion of important issues is conducted in open session.  As a member of NPR’s Governance Task Force, I urged the consultant to include observations and recommendations about NPR transparency in her report.  She recommends, “every effort should be made to do as much business as possible in view of the public.”  I’ve suggested the board respond by adopting a more formalized open meeting process.  Closed executive sessions would require both a motion stating reason for confidentiality and majority approval.