Uncomfortable Truths
Date: Nov 25th, 2008 1:25:20 pm - Subscribe
Mood: tranquil


Over recent months many people from around my local area have enquired as to why I no longer broadcast on the Community Radio Station, HFM, in Market Harborough.

I tell them the truth.
There was a difference of opinion and HFM’s management believe they have asked me not to contribute any longer.

So does this mean I was sacked?
It depends.

To be sacked means that you must have had some sort of contract. It also means that you should have been told of a misdemeanour, warned against consequences of certain actions or have gone against specific instructions and probably given reasons why certain things were not allowable.
Any proper company would also have convened some kind of disciplinary process (including a right of appeal) to deal with matters.
Needless to say, none of this occurred - but I am not talking about me.

Despite what the HFM management might have suggested (if asked why one of the few presenters who actually lived in their broadcast area no longer contributes), it was my decision to leave them.

Once I had made that decision I will admit that I was potentially guilty of a degree of deliberate antagonism. This was knowingly done to see if various baits would be taken and also to test the honesty and integrity of statements I had been given.

The only sad part from my perspective is that many of the people I met and enjoyed the company of will never get to hear my version of events first hand.

The beginning of this sorry story of radio station management having an over inflated sense of self importance actually affected one of my colleagues at HFM.
To say he did not fit the mould of the projected bland “Cheese FM” (even though he produced on of the “specialist” programmes) is probably an understatement.
I liked him.
I understood he had more to offer than would ever be recognised by the very narrow view of the station, I knew he could achieve a great deal if allowed.
He wasn’t.
Like me he lived and worked in the community.
He made efforts to embrace the community by organising events and activities to be broadcast.
Each time he presented an idea he was faced with having to tolerate the management committee watering down proposals or delaying decision making, or changing the goalposts. His programme was very popular with listeners in a deathly slot (10pm to midnight) but the management never “got” it.

My support of this young man started when I recognised the surprising euphoria expressed by some members of “management” when they received a complaint against the show. To my fair minded nature the response was in excess of the rather childish and silly prank that had taken place.
Perhaps the warning signs were there when I heard the statement “next time he’ll be out!”

I was surprised, because even at that stage I was aware of issues that I considered demanded action where none had been taken.

Fast forward to May 2008.

You would think that a community organisation would embrace a charitable event and put significant weight behind it. Most reasonable thinking people would recognise that support for fund raising for an external charity has very positive connotations.

Being fair HFM did give over a 24 hour period to the event. Being critical, it did not give up any standard scheduling of advertising, was slow in confirming that the event would proceed and changed the nature of the original proposal that had been agreed.
Basically the impression from many external observers was that HFM’s management were not totally behind an event for which there was nothing in it for them (and we are talking money!).
Despite this, the volunteer team co-ordinated did a fantastic job and both the listeners and volunteers were enthused to the extent that most were asking if this was to be an annual fixture. Cancer Research UK benefited by over £2000.

There was fall out however.

One of the participants in the event did not endear himself to other members of the team. This may not have been entirely his fault as he had been levered into the event by the management. Ultimately though it culminated in a series of rants against how HFM was run, what the event was all about and threats to bring down the concept of the event (4 people working together) by walking out if he didn’t get his own way.

Sadly this was only confirming what had been anticipated.

It is fair to say that similar outbursts had been witnessed previously (in front of many more people - volunteers who freely give up their time). Again being fair, in the past the management had elicited apologies as a consequence, but a repetitive pattern of behaviour being tolerated (by management) alienates participants.

As a consequence, my friend and I had had enough really.
I have often resolved not to have anything to do with aggressive and/or bullying personalities that are tolerated by management.
I also resolved to test HFM’s management skills in understanding that the balance between voluntary and remunerated participants is a delicate one.

My friend chose to take a proactive approach, naïve and childish perhaps but no more. He was sacked and refused any right of appeal. Needless to say the punishment far outweighed the crime.
Prior to my awareness of my friend’s fate, I was accused of similar (without any presented evidence), and another matter (which had been dealt with anyway).

On the first point I requested the evidence (this never appeared), on the second point I challenged the insinuation - why was I being accused of not complying with a non specific and untimescaled instruction when I already had?

I decided to see whether there was any genuine interest from HFM’s management to do the right thing, and provided the means with which to address a more serious matter - a senior employee rubbishing the contribution and efforts of volunteers, and criticising and undermining the process of management.

It was the initial denial of awareness of any previous issues that made my decision for me - I don’t deal with people who engage in or tolerate bullying or victimisation of minorities (my friend).
Added to this was the supercilious lecture I had received regarding how I should treat broadcasting as a privilege that had been made available to me - I don’t like moral hypocrisy either.

From this point on I had withdrawn my services.

(At the supposed investigation of my formal complaint (for which the station has no documented process) none of the witnesses were questioned and no action was taken.)

I also decided to submit a request for expenses that I had incurred for which I had been promised an “arrangement” for reimbursement. This was a blatant challenge to see if verbal exchanges would be honoured and to see if the perceived (by members of the community) “money grubbing” reputation of certain elements of HFM’s management were deserved.

The response was not a surprise - it was this that stirred up an almost apoplectic denial of any agreement that I was due any expenses.

Despite the fact that HFM had not chosen to speak to me face to face (and indeed have actively avoided that engagement), I received a letter by recorded delivery saying my contribution was no longer required.

My conclusions from all of this?

1. HFM’s management do not want anybody to stand up to them
2. HFM’s management are cowards because they refused to engage in face to face dialogue
3. HFM’s management do not tell the truth
4. HFM’s management are not the pillar of the community they have set themselves up to be.
5. HFM’s management treat participants inconsistently and without proper procedure.

I have no axe to grind despite what may have been suggested, and I am not bitter. I treat what has happened to my colleague and I as something to be learned from and an opportunity to improve.

I want HFM to be successful but from what I have experienced I retain concerns over both it’s personnel practices and the long term viability of it’s operational “model” as a community resource.

Questions that people should ask of a community radio station might fall into the following categories:

1. What proportion of the team live within the community catchment? (less than 75% might raise questions of whether it is truly local)
2. How many local independent traders advertise and what proportion of major advertisers fall outside the local catchment?
3. How much programming comes live from local events such as local school concerts, sports commentary, and other community groups?
4. What fundraising is actively supported by the radio station for causes other than station revenue? Does the station support local charities and make donations of any kind?
5. What membership activity is promoted so that people are able to join this community group and have input into it’s operational strategy?

Unfortunately, if I am asked about whether it is worth spending money with HFM I now have to say “No”. If I am asked whether or not my experience suggests that HFM will become as established and valued as, for example, the Harborough Mail I would also have to say “No”.

My observation is that HFM has not evolved as it could have. I am pleased it is successful because of my interest in radio and the community, but I think it could achieve so much more.

Maybe I am being naïve but I have taken the opportunity to move on and test an alternative venture at Radio Lutterworth against the criteria above.
So far the community focussed idealism has proven an intoxicating attraction for volunteers and advertisers alike. I sincerely hope the policy of inclusion aligned with the original aspirations of Frank Davis (Radio Lutterworth’s founder) prove successful and will be channelling my energies in that direction for the foreseeable future.

If anybody wishes to join us at Radio Lutterworth, you can contact me ian@radiolutterworth.org for more details, or look at the Radio Lutterworth website http://www.radiolutterworth.org

(And if you wish to commiserate with my sad experiences at HFM let me know at srdrockradioshow@yahoo.co.uk) or add a comment below.



Comments: (1)