1 – Please detail your qualifications for the NPR Board.

My experience includes working at joint, university and community licensee; small stations and large stations; and both rural and urban environments.  I began my broadcasting career in 1967 in Cleveland in commercial television.  In 1975 I made the change to public television and moved to Wisconsin.  I became interested in public radio in 1983 while managing KAWE TV in Bemidji, Minnesota.  That interest caused me to seek a joint license opportunity at WQLN FM and TV in Erie, PA.  I found that I enjoyed the opportunities for localism in public radio so much more than TV that in 1995 I decided to focus on public radio and moved to Bellingham, Washington to manage a very small, 125 watt station.  While in Washington, I had the opportunity to work for Dennis Haarsager at WSU and helped to build new stations in Port Angelus and Omak, Washington.   I was then drawn to Alaska to manage the Alaska Public Radio Network and ultimately added the management of KSKA FM and KAKM TV.  In 2007, I accepted the position of General Manager of KPLU TV, Tacoma/Seattle.  During my career I have served on numerous regional and national committees, and served on community and state boards and task forces.  Currently I am the President of Western States Public Radio (WSPR) and regularly attend NPR Board meetings.

2 - 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?

The appointment to Committees is certainly the responsibility of the Chair and I would be willing to serve wherever the Chair felt I would be needed.  I would love to work on planning and on station relations with a particular interest in Governance and Membership. 

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

I think the Board fulfills its role well and even if I disagree with some decision or another, I feel they have collectively given the issue the attention it deserves.  I have never found a Board member unwilling to discuss an issue with me as a member station manager and 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 considerable 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 very well.  I don’t think the board needs to be “high profile” but should consist of key individuals who can have an impact on the future of NPR.

4 - NPR does not currently have a conflict of interest policy and procedure for Board members. What sort of policy should be established in order to handle conflict of interest situations when a board member has a primary duty as an employee or officer of a competing station, network or distributor?

It is a relatively simple matter to create a conflict of interest policy.  I’m surprised that one does not exist at this time.  I’m certain that the Board has such a policy in the past.

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 think this is a problem but not for the reasons one might think.  It is much more perception than reality that the quorum is a problem.  It’s obvious that NPR and stations can continue to work together, have discourse and conduct business without a quorum at an annual meeting.   To “fix” the problem I would advocate for lowering the requirement for a quorum, perhaps even to “those members present at the meeting”.  Station managers will attend if the meetings have value.  Those that are willing to attend will have a voice in governance.

6 - What suggestions might you have to add diverse experience and opinions to the board and management deliberative process? Would the reimplementation of working advisory committees with station staff members and others for specific topics and issues serve as a way to expand knowledge and increase awareness of station’s needs, feelings and reactions?

I don’t feel there is any specific solution to getting more input and opinion in the deliberative process.  I think more engagement at a regional level would be helpful where station manager can have a closer personal contact with NPR staff and/or the Board.  Advisory committees might be used for specific situations.  Simpler focused surveys on specific topics could be useful.  I also think stations need to take some responsibility for initiating contact and participating in the process.  There are ample opportunities to share opinions with NPR leadership. 

7 - 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.  Executives Session should be limited to discussion that is related to specific personnel issues and potential litigation.  In addition, certain vendor or partner negotiations need to remain confidential until negotiations are concluded.   In order to be effective and engender full trust between NPR and stations, those items discussed in closed session must ultimately be fully explained in open meeting and opportunity provided for comment.