WFIU Community Advisory Board Meeting
The Virgil T. DeVault Alumni Center, Metz Boardroom
December 2, 2013 at 4:00 p.m.
Notes Prepared by James Gray
Attending: Janis Starcs, Catherine Hageman, Janet Stavropoulos, Ellen Sedlack, Lewis Ricci, Peter Jacobi, David Bowden, Charlotte Zietlow, Miah Michaelsen, Martin Donnelly, Alain Barker
Absent: Carolyn Calloway-Thomas, Pam Davidson, Laura Ginger, Raina Polivka, Lynn Schwartzberg, Walt Niekamp, Rebecca Cape, Mary Hall
Janis called the meeting to order at 4:00pm. Minutes amended and approved.
Old Business: Strategic Plan
• Strategic plan and survey options have been sought out by Will and John. Will explained that it makes more sense to him to do a survey of quantitative information this year, but there may be pursuit of a media audit (qualitative) next year. Questions will be solicited from the board and staff. As of right now, it seems Chris Cage is probably the best option for a quantitative survey.
• Janis Starcs: How large of a sample will we need?
• Will Murphy: We were told by Lilian Yahng that we will need about 500 or so people. A fraction of these will be WFIU dedicated listeners.
• Lewis Ricci: It seems to me that audience data should come before the strategic plan, but the mission should not be informed by the data alone.
• Miah Michaelsen: Right, but also, we don’t want to do research to justify a presumption.
• Ellen Sedlack: Is the focus of the survey to be on Monroe County?
• Will Murphy: Yes. This is what our budget allows for now.
• Alain Barker: Can you provide examples of qualitative questions?
• Will Murphy: I will find some examples to send to the CAB.
• David Bowden: Will Chis Cage be able to track other forms of listening data that is transmitted outside of radio? Streaming data?
• Will Murphy: He claims to be able to track satellite and streaming information.
• Alain Barker: What will be the objective of the survey?
• Will Murphy: How often people listen. Where we rank. What shows are popular.
• Lewis Ricci: People consume things different from what they value, and this should be reflected as well.
• David Bowden: It seems that we need a conversation that includes audience perception. We will need the mission first. As I understand it, there are about 4 mission statements with some significant differences.
• Will Murphy: I feel that the mission statements all pull in the right direction, but I agree that the mission statement does need to be revisited. The survey will work as a tool to see where we are and how we are doing. We need questions that allow for action.
• Peter Jacobi: What are the administrations expectations?
• Perry Metz: There are no directives from the administration and I take that as a good sign. I do not solicit those opinions because they might lead some quarters to advocate us as a PR tool. This occurred several administrations ago. I would also like to point out that marketing is a continuous process. I would like the data that Will is pursuing. However, there are directions that we will not pursue even if the public says it is of interest (example: Top 40 Country Hits)
• Will: I anticipate sending the board media audits, NPR surveys, a solicitation for questions, and various mission statements
Code of Integrity
• Will presents the Code of Integrity,
• Will Murphy: I’m just looking for a straight vote: approve or not? This isn’t the sort of document that we make minor edits to, or slight tweaking of phrases.
• Perry Metz: As stated at the bottom of the document. Many professionals worked for months to: A) codify public media, and B) prepare a statement at a time when no serious threats are on the table. This way, if a threat were to arise, a statement would be ready.
• David Bowden: Does point 6 (“Encourage understanding of fundraising operations and practices, acknowledge program sponsors, and disclose content-related terms of sponsor support.”)hurt Earth Eats?
• Perry Metz: No. This is about acknowledgement and disclosure.
• Janis: I move to approve the Code of integrity.
Approved. No Nays
Fund Drive Wrap-Up
• Will: James shared the fund drive numbers in the notes. We were fairly close to our goal. Some money is still tricking in, but it is hard to distinguish from regular mail.
• David Bowden: Was there any damage from the changes over the summer?
• Perry Metz: I read all of the comments. Some people tried to punish us this year. Perhaps, that accounted for $5,000 but I believe those contributors may return. There were five or six that were strident, and they may never return their pledges.
• Janet Stavropoulos: The fund-drive messaging can be confusing. The money does not go to one show. It goes to the whole station. The message sometimes sounds like money goes just to one particular show when you pledge.
• Miah Michaelsen: It seems that the pledge drive is an opportunity to collect more data with additional questions.
• Will Murphy: I’m interested in seeing the board increase its engagement and begin paying attention to term limits. My end of the year pitch is to start thinking about governance.
• Janis Starcs: I agree. I would like to hear someone express interest in being chairman of this board.
• Lewis Ricci: Perhaps, a group of 3 board members can do research on the history of the board’s governance.
• Miah Michaelsen, David Bowden, Peter Jacobi, and Lewis Ricci are appointed as the team (headed by Miah).
• Alain Barker: Perhaps, we can have an update at the next meeting on the 6th?
• They agree to present a progress report.
Next Year’s Meetings
• Janis Starcs: Let’s review meeting dates for the next year.
• David Bowden: Would it be beneficial to move the meeting from July 7th to June 30th in case people are traveling for the holiday?
• It is agreed that this may be beneficial, and that it will be kept in mind.
Next meeting is January 6.
Janis made a motion to adjourn. Peter Jacobi seconded.