In the interview with Matthew Lasar by Doug Henwood, rebroadcast today,
http://kpfa.org/archive/id/55538
it is pointed out (among other things) that listeners do not understand the
issues or know the candidates in KPFA (or other Pacifica stations' board
elections). 
Their conclusion is that such elections should not be held.

Some of us have a different conclusion: that the station should be educating
the listeners in KPFA issues and candidates.
The station is for democracy - everywhere in the world but not at KPFA?
We know a few things about democracy:
* That it is in the interests of people being served  to have a voice in their
own governance
* That democratic governance can't be done without an educated electorate
* That the only solution to self-serving status quos *is* to let all voices be
heard and all people be empowered in shared decision making.
* That however imperfect the process, it is we the people with our impetus
for justice and fairness whose only chance is democacy and freedom
of information!
KPFA is no exception!

At KPFA the impediments to intelligent shared decision making are
* the desire of some staff & management to make all the decisions,
and the use of the airways of those staff to put forth *their* point of view
* the lack of access to the airwaves by listeners or others who are *for*
shared decision making
* the de facto "gag" rule of not having informative programs *about*
KPFA governance issues, and generally not bringing listeners into the
process in many ways: not having any/many such programs, not
publicizing them, not having access to LSB meetings, their minutes,
their archives (one could go on about this).

Our solution is to *develop* democracy at KPFA.
Those who have defacto power there want to maintain it, and they are
the ones who attack democracy as being unworkable and too expensive
- unworkable because they work against it instead of for it.

The problem is demonstrated here:  Sasha Lilley had a similar program
the last Tuesday -  Matthew Lasar and Aileen Alfandary speaking against
Pacifica democracy -  such a deep divide about this in the KPFA community,
and *one side* is excluded from the discussion. The airwaves are used
in the services of the entrenched!
http://kpfa.org/archive/id/55430 -note the Comments
Now Doug Henwood says he wants to continue the discussion - a "discussion"
without debate and another side? or a polemic? - as he again uses Lasar as
the "expert".
Should public affairs reporting on KPFA governance use "experts" to present
the status quo's ideas and consider that progressive programming?
Are "experts" "unbiased?
Lasar is not.

How about having some defenders of democracy at Pacifica on the air? Some
debates? Some opinions from the other side? On the same programs whose
listeners have already heard *one* side? On prime time.
There is another side, and it is not getting a chance to be heard.

Give democracy a *real* chance!