[cma-l] Response to Steve Buckley re CMA Charter

[Phil Shep]

Dear Steve

Thank you for your contribution to the debate on the revisions to the
charter for the CMA.  It is certainly useful to have the benefit of the long
view and the thinking behind the original version.

Before I respond in more detail and on a point of information, the decision
to review the charter was flagged up on the CMA lists in the autumn of last
year and it has been a subject of debate within Council regularly since that
time.   Again, this has been reported to the lists as part of my periodic
updates   The process was then brought to the lists for comment alongside
the original a week ago in advance of the circulation of the 2011 AGM
documents.  We certainly intend that it will provoke a meaningful debate at
that event.

Your comment on the personal preferences of the drafters being reflected are
both disappointing and at odds with my experience of this process which has
been carried out with integrity and good will.  Our proposed version ­ like
your own before it ­ represents a carefully crafted compromise contributed
to by numerous members reflecting the diversity of our movement.

We are however grateful for the positive suggestions you also offer in your
letter, so to address the specific points in turn:
(please note the objective reference numbers cited below refer to the
original not revised charter)
           
Ref Preamble
The purpose of the revised draft is to include the full range of community
media practice ­ whether practiced by organisations, informal un-constituted
groups or individuals.   Community media is characterised as an approach
underpinned by an ethos as expressed in the detail of this charter. I t has
been our intention that this overarching purpose is reflected in each
paragraph of the revised version.

We will welcome further debate on all the points you and others have raised.

Ref Objective 1
Content and process are at the core of what we enable.   The reference is
not intended to be proscriptive nor does it read as such in our view.

Ref Objective 2
In our view it is essential to include reference to the means of
distribution  and its regulation.

Ref Objective 3
The attached version 11 addresses your point on the weakening of this
objective.

Ref Objective  4
Agreed and amended
Ref Objective  5

Agreed and amended

Ref Objective 6
The Œfair reporting right of reply¹ paragraph was argued closely in Council
and eventually removed.  I am replacing it in version 11 - for discussion.

Ref Objective 7
Council is happy with this redraft ­ for discussion.

Ref Objective 8
Yes agreed a poor omission ­ re-introduced for discussion.

Ref Objective 10
There were strong arguments made for including the higher level aspirations
in the preamble ­ this paragraph unchanged ­ for discussion.

Informed by your helpful comments we look forward to taking our proposed
revisions to conference.

Kind regards

Phil

Phil Shepherd
Chair of  CMA Council