As per your letter of 12 June 2000, here is the text of the letter which is being faxed and sent by regular mail to your office today. Sent via e-mail carol.benard@crtc.gc.ca Trent Radio c/o Trent University Peterborough, Ontario K9J 7B8 23 June 2000 Carol Bénard Licensing Analyst Ontario Operations Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission OTTAWA ON K1A 0N2 (819) 997-4653 phn (819) 994-0218 fax Re: Application no. 200014077 response to CRTC Letter 12 June 2000 Dear Ms. Bénard, Thank you for your letter dated 12 June 2000 requesting information pursuant to an application by Trent Radio to renew the broadcasting licence for CFFF-FM. Following receipt of your letter, and needing answers from the Commission in order to answer your questions, we had two conversations with "Ownership Signal Distribution" staff at the CRTC. The difficulties we are facing, which were acknowledged by Commission staff, pertain to the newness of the Commission's recently amended policies and the question of how we are to interpret these policies in regards to Board structure and composition. The policy (CRTC PN 2000-12) contains certain words and terms which may have a serious organisational impact and carry substantial legal significance for us. In general, we are concerned that compliance with the Board structure provisions of PN 2000-12 interpreted according to legal or common definitions, would put us beyond our constitutional competence, and erase our character as a student organisation - with one resultant being the loss of full-time student funding. We are also concerned that conforming to the "letter" of the policy would destabilise the organisation, make us less able to create and maintain effective balance, and force Trent Radio into an extra-legal or even illegal state under the laws of the land. Having said that, we believe that our organisational principles, operational practices, and quite simply our history is pervaded by our commitment to balance and to meeting the diverse communication needs of our geographically and/or culturally located communities. It was thus that Commission staff suggested that in response to your letter, that we make a detailed and forthright outline of our concerns regarding ownership interpretation as possible, as we all (applicant and regulator) move forward under the new policy. In that spirit we submit the following concerns to you in the forms of both questions and statements, with the preface that, if at all possible, we wish to comply with Commission's policies, and support simple and effective mechanisms to ensure that we can fulfil our role and responsibilities as a licensee. [1st fragment CRTC LETTER 12 June 2000 - begins] In order to complete your above-noted application to renew the broadcasting licence of CFFF-FM, please provide the following information by 23 June 2000: * The Commission's revised policy for campus radio expects the board to include balanced representation from among the student body, the associated college or university, station volunteers, and from the community at large. Please provide the name of the group that is represented by each member of the board of directors listed in your application. [1st fragment CRTC LETTER - ends] We believe that to simply answer this question would be to trap ourselves into a false position. Representation, according to both the legal and common dictionary definition means to stand in for someone or some group, and/or the state of serving as an official and authorised delegate or agent. We understand that at some campus radio organisations the Board is "constructed" without reference to a Membership, if one exists at all. Some Directors are named by the university's student association, with others are named by other constituencies, &c. However, at Trent Radio, in each and every case our Directors are elected by the Membership to represent the Membership of Trent Radio. The Ontario Corporations Act, under which Trent Radio is incorporated, is quite explicit that the Directors may only represent the Membership, and that the Membership can requisition a General Meeting of Members to dismiss any or all the Directors. The students who sit on the Board maybe "drawn from" the student body, however, they do not represent it. In order to meet the "representative test", it is conceivable that a campus-wide plebiscite could be held to determine student representatives, however, there is no current mechanism at the university to poll all the students at once, being stratified into full-time, part- time, and graduate students, etc., each with their own timetables of governance. At Trent Radio, student members number about 4,000 while the number of community members, while growing, runs at about 100. Each pay different fees, although no one is refused a Membership due to financial hardship. Section 130 of the Ontario Corporations Act does provide a corporation such as Trent Radio access to balancing powers such that it allow the division of some of its members into groups that are composed of common interest groups, which may elect some or all of its directors, on the basis of the number of members in each group. Generally our Board is composed of four students and three non-students, resulting in 43% of the Directors being non-students. Should Trent Radio decide to divide the membership into groups as provided by law, in 2000, the non-student members would have the right to elect about 2.5% of the directors, while the student members would have the right to elect the other 97.5% of the Board! We doubt that this arrangement would satisfy the particulars of PN 2000-12, however, it does reveal the conundrum we face, and we ask the Commission to confirm this. We need to know if a Board composed of 2/7ths or 3/7ths non- students, meets the requirements of balance as set out in PN 2000-12, keeping in mind that all our programming is directed to the community as a whole, while about 40% of our programmers are non-students. When it comes to determining the representatives of the "community at large", we ask, "what mechanism could be invoked to determine this?" Should the Board ask our Membership for leave to negotiate with the municipalities within a certain contour coverage area to hold elections for our Board along with their own, and if this were done how would the results be aggregated to determine who would sit? Under the law, Directors must be Members of the corporation, in addition to being answerable to the Membership. Would this change the status of these representatives from being members of the "community at large" to Trent Radio community Members, who would no longer be "at large"? We need to know how the Commission defines the term "community at large", and how this may be different from the term "community as a whole." The interpretation of the policy is more confusing when we try to determine who might be included or excluded in one group or another. Is someone who, having grown-up in the Peterborough area, and at the age of sixty decides to take an interest course at the university not to be considered part of the greater community? We need to know where the Commission draws the line. We believe that simply calling Directors "representatives" of one group or another, when there is no sanction from that group would be to create a falsehood, or a simulacrum of representation. We need to know how what the Commission might suggest as how we could achieve authentic representation, while the representative legally remains answerable to the Membership, and keeping in mind it should be a simple and effective mechanism. That stated the following Directors who are students of Trent University are; Emily Addison, Andra Kelly, Nancy Logger, Cliff Rutledge, and, Chris Tonelli The following Directors are not students of Trent University, nor are they directly associated with the university in the capacity of staff, faculty or administration; Grant Ball, and Alec Kirkcaldy [2nd fragment CRTC LETTER 12 June 2000 - begins] * In Schedule 3, you state: "For over twenty-two years Trent Radio's current Board structure has worked well for those living in and around the City of Peterborough interested in non- commercial radio." Again, in Schedule 6, you state that "Trent Radio is sponsored by the full-time students of Trent University and shared with the community as a whole." These statements echo the Commission's view that most campus stations direct their programming to the community at large rather than only to the campus population. However, you have also indicated throughout Schedule 3 that you do not feel that balanced representation for Trent Radio's board of directors is necessary. Please explain this apparent discrepancy. [2nd fragment CRTC LETTER - ends] Schedule 6 states that it not legally possible for the Board Members to represent anything other than the Membership of Trent Radio. As one commentator put it, "a good Board Member is one whose conduct is that of passionate disinterest, divesting self-interest or private advantage". Thus, as we understand the law, our Directors are forbidden to represent any extrinsic entity. Trent Radio is a student based community group. In order for Trent Radio receive funding from the students of Trent University, it must be a student organisation. In order to be considered a student organisation there must be a majority of students on the Board of Directors. Trent Radio cannot be "shared" with the community as a whole unless it can first be seen as situated as a student organisation. The student majority requirement does not preclude Membership by those drawn from the community as a whole, nor their welcomed participation in every aspect of Trent Radio's operations. From programming and production, to serving on various committees (where there is no student majority requirement) struck to deal with programming, finance, facilities, or nominating a new Board etc. The organisational principles, and operational practices of Trent Radio provides for balance in governance and programming. For the membership of Trent Radio the raison d'etre behind the organisation has always been is to further the exchange of ideas and experiences within the community as a whole and to offer non-professionals an opportunity to produce, experimental and innovative radio. As a student based community organisation we encourage participation in the broadcast process to anyone, without regard to their student status. This is evidenced by, among other things, the purchase and operation of community accessible studio and office facilities in the city of Peterborough off the main campus of the university, our continuing status as a registered charity which under the Income Tax Act requires Trent Radio to benefit the community as a whole, and to waiving Membership fees for those who cannot pay. We note with alarm the increasing tendency among some other campus licensees to downplay the role of students in their organisations. Student participation is seen as a liability or "unprofessional". Is it possible that some campus radio administrations have ignored their student roots, or their membership structure? At Trent Radio, membership is open to all. Specifically, the Membership consists of all full-time students of Trent University, and such other individuals of the age of 18 or over, and such corporations, partnerships and other legal entities as may be permitted by the law. It should also be understood that while the Board sets general policy, and is responsible to the Membership for all matters concerning Trent Radio, it does not deal with programming decisions on a day-to-day basis. It is our organisation practice that the Board provide for an arm's length relationship between the Board and those involved in programming functions, so long as broadcasts remain within the law, regulations and various undertakings Trent Radio has made to the Commission and various other parties. The Board's role in programming functions is indirect and supervisory. Thus there is no contradiction between the make-up of the Board on one hand and balanced programming and community access on the other. The Board is bound by Trent Radio's aims as a broadcast licensee, and these are roughly etched in stone and reaffirmed by the membership annually. The aims appear on the front page of our Programme Proposal forms, which was included with our application for renewal, and restated here for convenience. As a Broadcast Licensee Trent Radio Aims To: Maximise diversity of programming. Inspire creative contributions to radio programming. Increase awareness of the power and potential of radio. Encourage and inspire a positive use of radio. Encourage empowerment and the politics of liberation and discourage protectionism and the politics of resentment. Formalise its operations so as to promote fairness, clarity and efficiency in its decisions. Encourage access to the facilities by both the Peterborough area and Trent communities. Encourage the production of programming which reflects both of these communities. Encourage co-operation, interaction, communication and understanding within and between these communities and fully reflect this radio community to the world beyond. Originally passed by the Membership in 1984. The Nominating Committee (which itself is to be balanced) for a new Board is charged with recruiting individuals who taken together reflect a balance of skills and aptitude, of experience and passion, of those who are instrumental and those who are thoughtful. In addition and in accord with the law any Member may stand for election. As a working definition, we see that taken together the student body and those who are not students form the community as a whole. Neither are organisations, but they both provide a broad and diverse group from which the Membership can choose seven Directors to best represent Trent Radio in matters concerning a Board, at a duly constituted Board meeting. Among our Membership are people from all walks of life; someone with 25 years of experience in campus and commercial radio; another with a lifetime of military service and significant experience with Canadian Forces Radio; those who were students either at Trent or another institution, and are now doctors, teachers, musicians; and others who just finished their first year of university and are starting to catch the Peterborough "bug", and wondering if they could make a life here along with a new Canadian of seven weeks from Santiago de Cuba. We ask the Commission to determined whether the following proposed addendum to the qualification and term for the Board (Trent Radio By-lay #1 sec 3.01) would put Trent Radio into compliance with the policy as set out in PN 2000-12 "Taken together the Board shall be at all times balanced and maybe drawn from the student body of Trent University, and/or the community as a whole." If it is in compliance then a proposal to amend the by-laws in this way would be brought before the Membership for their consideration, after passage by the Board of Directors of a special resolution to the same effect. If the Commission determines that it does not meet the requirements of the policy, we request that Trent Radio be granted an exemption recognising; a) Trent Radio's constitution and legal obligations as a corporation without share capital, accountable to a Membership, and Membership is open to the community as a whole, and that effective control vests in the Membership, and, b) Trent Radio's historical and continuing commitment to community access is in accord with the spirit of balance and the need for continuity as set out in PN 2000-12, and its unique contribution to the Canadian Broadcasting system, and, c) Various Campus radio organisations have evolved over the years according the needs of their communities, and that Trent Radio has been, and will be able to meet and exceed the community element requirements of the 1991 Broadcast Act as it is now constituted, and, d) That in order to continue to receive funding from the students of Trent University, Trent Radio must be a student organisation, and, e) No complaint has ever been received by the Commission which could be construed as being due to Trent Radio not being in compliance with the board structure and composition provisions as set out in PN 2000-12. [3rd fragment CRTC LETTER 12 June 2000 - begins] Further, please provide detailed information on how you intend to bring your board of directors into compliance with the revised campus policy should you be required to do so. The Commission reminds the applicant that a licensee whose board is effectively controlled by a single organization is not in compliance with the policy. [3rd fragment CRTC LETTER - ends] We would urgently seek advice and instruction from the Commission as to how to bring our organisation into lawful compliance with Commission's regulations. It would help us immensely if the Commission could explain in more detail why it seems to have changed its policy so radically from PN 1991-118 "The Commission imposes a condition of licence on these [campus] stations requiring that the majority of board members be students."; to PN 2000-12 "the Commission will expect the board of directors of a campus radio station to include balanced representation from among the student body, the associated college or university (for example, faculty or administration), station volunteers, and from the community at large." , when all of our programming has been directed to the community as a whole since Trent Radio commenced in 1968, and was licensed to operate a broadcasting undertaking in 1984. There are also some rather blunt questions we need to pass onto the Commission for comment as we find ourselves unable even to begin making an answer. 1) Is there some other problem that we're being asked to solve? 2) Aside from the declaration to streamline and simplify, how have the fundamental goals of the Commission changed since PN 1991-118 and PN 2000-12 both of which came after the last revision of the Broadcast Act? 3) Did something happen somewhere with another or some other campus licensees which the new policy is to remedy? 4) To some commentators here, it seems like students who heavily sponsor student based radio are disenfranchised by the policy in PN 2000-12. They feel like they are being punished, they want to know why students in 1975 and beyond 1991 were given the Commission's trust to hold a broadcast licence and now they are not, and we would like to be able to answer them honestly. We understand that these questions and statements are forthright, and we ask that they be seen as testament to our desire to work *with* the Commission in resolving any problems or misunderstandings. [4th fragment CRTC LETTER 12 June 2000 - begins] * The address of the University is not acceptable as a student residential address. Therefore, please supply the complete home address of Andra Keely and Cliff Rutledge. [4th fragment CRTC LETTER - ends] As at 23 June 2000; ANDRA KELLY 174 Antrim Street, Peterborough ON K9H 3G4 CLIFF RUTLEDGE 228 McDonnell Street, Peterborough ON K9H 2V9 At the time of filing our application both Andra and Cliff lived in residence at the main campus of the university. Should a situation arise again whereby a Director is living in residence, please provide instruction as to how we should state their address. Please note that Andra's last name is KELLY and not KEELY as stated in your letter. Also, please note that your letter incorrectly addresses me as President. My position with the applicant is "Vice-president and General Manager". Finally, would it be possible to furnish us with an electronic copy of CRTC Decision 75-247 dated 27 June 1975; CRTC Public Announcement "FM Radio in Canada: A policy to Ensure a Varied and Comprehensive Radio Service", 20 January 1975; and CRTC Public Notice 1983-43 03 Mar 83, "A Review of Radio". Yours truly, [original signed] John K. Muir, Vice-president and General Manager c.c. procedure@crtc.gc.ca Emily L. Addison, President - Trent Radio