Chapter 4

In the early 60′s, there was a main general decision-making body called the University Council. It contained representatives of faculty and others. There were sub-bodies of this, such as the Residence Halls Council, Student Council (Student Government), and Communications Council, which was essentially a committee whose purpose was to review campus and communications issues and make recommendations to the entire University Council.

After receiving the Lueck WCBQ carrier current station proposal in 1962, the Communications Council failed to act. In March 1963, President Morris issued a policy statement which charged the CC with the duty “to make recommendations to the University Council on all proposals for adding to or deleting from the University communications media.” Shortly thereafter, Richard Moore, then Student Body President-elect, requested the CC act on the Lueck proposal. In June, 1963, the CC did act. They recommended that the University Council approve it in principle, with the suggestion that “either the Residence Hall Council or Student Council submit a more specific proposal for review and approval” that would contain:

1. Details of a student organization that would operate the station
2. Programming goals and details about how the goals would be met
3. A plan for University engineering assistance so FCC standards would be met
4. A “Student Control Board” (with possible faculty participation) that would have authority to remove any individual from the station for cause
5. Faculty “advice and counsel,” possibly from Broadcasting Service
6. Control of advertising and revenue therefrom

In August, 1963, the University Council rejected this, sent the matter back to the CC, and told the CC to first get the proposal redrafted and then resubmit to the UC. In November, 1963, the CC instead decided that there should be an “Advisory Board for the Carbondale Campus Closed Circuit Radio Station,” comprised of:

1. Three faculty advisors
2. Student Body President
3. Student Council President
4. Residence Halls Council President
5. Inter-Greek Council President
6. Station Manager

and this board should prepare the revised proposal. This was only the CC’s recommendation; it could not proceed without UC approval.

In January, 1964, the UC rejected this. Instead, the UC instructed the CC to “investigate the alternatives for making the present FM programs (on WSIU-FM) available to the residence halls.” The UC felt that the student need could be addressed if students could just receive WSIU-FM. The idea of a student-run carrier current station was going backwards.

The CC then dutifully engaged Buren C. Robbins, Director, and Founder of the SIU Broadcasting Service, to prepare a report on the feasibility of making WSIU-FM available to all dorm residents, and how WSIU could address student needs. The CC also snuck in an additional item: Robbins should also evaluate how well a carrier current station would satisfy students’ needs.

Robbins’ report was issued in April, 1964. Its main purpose was a cost/benefit analysis of a university-funded installation of FM receivers in dorms so students could listen to WSIU-FM! The report enumerated these alternatives:

1. Installing 1200 all-channel FM receivers (one in each then-existing dorm room) at a total cost of about $50,000
2. Installation of the same receivers, but only in dorm lounges, at a total cost of about $12,000
3. Installation of carrier-current AM transmitters in dorms to rebroadcast WSIU-FM, so WSIU would be made available to students on AM, at a total cost of about $7,000 plus $50/month for phone lines
4. Same as 3, but the AM would have separate programming for an hour or so each day for “student announcements”
5. Same as 4 but the AM could also be separated at any time for “announcements to students at any time”
6. Same as 5 but separate the AM for more extensive original programs by and for students (but only with “strict control and supervision of the Broadcast Service”)

Robbins’ final conclusion was to recommend 4, based on cost and to “prevent the programs’ getting out of control were students to control all, or part, of that programming.” Robbins did say that if funds became available it might be OK to proceed with expanded student programming, but only “with great caution.”

After Robbins’ report became public, at least several students protested in letters. Students wanted the experience of managing and operating a radio station and making their own programming decisions. The members of the Communications Council seemed to understand this. While they reluctantly acknowledged that choice “d” was the best way for WSIU-FM to reach students, the CC members pointedly stated that this would not provide the experience students wanted. The CC then became defiant by insisting that their prior recommendations (to create an interim board and authorize a student station in principle) be reconsidered. Their April, 1964, report also said:

3. The Communications Council suggests that it might be in order for the University Council to recommend an overall review of WSIU-FM standards of programming in terms of both presentation and content.

The effort to create a student station was the victim of a “turf battle” between (on the one hand) administrators and faculty who wanted to facilitate student opportunities and (on the other hand) the broadcast service’s interest in controlling all campus media; as well other University Council members were concerned with “out of control” students making programming decisions. The CC did not seem to hold WSIU-FM in high favor. It appears that the University Council again refused to accept the CC recommendations.

By May, 1965, Fred Lueck, still at SIU, had found some help. Fred prepared a new proposal, but this time, he had lined up all the dorm presidents, Student Council, Student Body President, and all of them had endorsed the proposal. In fact, they had created a “Committee for Closed Circuit Radio,” of which Fred and Mike McDaniel were co-chairs.

This new proposal had these key features:

1. Still no governing board
2. Station would be funded by “amending the Broadcast Service’s budget”
3. Had provisions for sales
4. Some clumsy organization: Staff members appointed for one quarter only, Faculty Advisor appoints a “Manager,” and the advisor must approve all expenditures, appointments, etc.
5. No engineering or programming details, not even how decisions would be made

This proposal was submitted to Dr. John Anderson, whose title was “Executive Director, Communications Media.” It appears that he was superior to the Director of the Broadcasting Service. He authorized a study on this matter by Ira McDaniel, Director of Broadcast Engineering at Oklahoma State University. McDaniel’s report was issued in August, 1965. His conclusion was remarkably astute and prophetic:

“The possibility of an open-air transmission system should be considered. Such a system would give full campus and off-campus coverage regardless of growth trends. The system would be central in nature and therefore require less material and manpower to operate it. The first costs would be lower for the open-air system. Problems with the FCC (about excessive radiation from carrier-current transmitters) would be all but eliminated. If an open-air station should happen to be commercial, the operators of the local station would be duly concerned, but that would be the case even with a current-carrier station. It should be decided which will be of the greatest concern…..the operator’s (university’s) interest, or the interests of the student body. The open-air system would seem to be the only sound system to merit consideration if a frequency is available and the author is sure there is.

“The author estimates that at the present rate in which FM channels are being filed upon in Oklahoma, there will be none left by 1969. The situation in Illinois is probably more acute. The possibility of a commercial FM for Carbondale, and both a commercial and non-commercial educational FM for Edwardsville should be considered. Once these frequencies are gone, it is probable that they will never again be available………… especially to educators.”

Sadly, this cogent and prescient analysis was obscured in an avalanche of discordant proposals, committee recommendations, and other reports. To his credit, Dr. Anderson tried to corral the issues by identifying many interested persons, rendering sets of copies of all relevant documents to them, and assembling them in an attempt to fashion some form of consensus. At this point, Dr. Anderson had assembled all the documents described so far. But there was a lot more.

In addition to their proposal to “amend the broadcasting service budget,” Lueck and McDaniel also submitted a document titled “Managerial Breakdown and Job Description of the Station Operating Policy of the Proposed Student Carrier-Current Radio Station.” A company called “H & R Broadcasting” submitted a proposal that they would operate the campus student station. John Kurtz and Buren C. Robbins presented a document entitled: “WINI–prepared for Carrier-Current.” There was a copy of a study from Michigan State University about their situation. There was a new (kind of half-baked) proposal for “Radio Thompson Point” that would feature, among other things, “announcements and music during meal times.”

Dr. Anderson was charged with the duty to render a report on this to Ralph Ruffner, Vice President for Student and Area Services. During a trip to Hawaii and Tokyo, Dr. Anderson wrote his report. While in Katmandu, Nepal, he wrote a letter “expressing his dismay” that the report had not been received yet. His report finally “turned up” in mid-November, 1966.

The long awaited conclusions were not surprises. The report stated:

1. Students really wanted to manage, operate, and program their own station
2. Buren C. Robbins really wanted the university to purchase equipment so that more students could listen to WSIU-FM
3. The University Council really wanted any student programs to be controlled by the Broadcasting Service
4. The students should have their own station, but not before the questions of who would own it (i.e. a non-university non-profit corporation) and how it would be funded were resolved (with no suggestion on how to resolve this – just that “legal counsel said it should be looked into”)
5. That students, if motivated, should devise ways of funding the station
6. No mention of an open-air station

No action recommended, except that Robbins’ idea (to make WSIU-FM available in dorms) should be funded, as it might “aid instruction,” and that WSIU do more to program to student needs. After five years of meetings, proposals, studies, reports, and analysis, the great organization and brainpower of the university responded to an obvious student need for a student radio station by suggesting further study, and spending money to obtain a student (possibly captive) audience for WSIU.

The WSIU-FM receivers-in-the-dorms idea never happened. It is unknown if there was any follow up by legal counsel to “look into” aspects of outside ownership and funding methods of a student station. Lueck and McDaniel eventually left SIU, possibly as graduates. There was some outraged reaction to Dr. Anderson’s report.

Some faculty stated the obvious—the university had failed the students. It had taken five years to accomplish nothing. The school was no closer to a student radio station and/or a radio service serving student needs than it had been in 1962, or, for that matter, 1862. Generations of students had arrived and departed C’dale and there was still no local radio for students, for service, for experience, for anything.

Supposedly structured for efficiency, the administration and bureaucracy had spun its wheels, passed the buck, ignored its own paid consultants, engendered territorial battles, and completely disregarded students’ needs. The administration and bureaucracy refused to prioritize students’ needs over administrative convenience. They ignored the efficiency of open-air broadcasting and procrastinated, stalled, and delayed. This is how they “served” their paying customers–the students.

When we assemble this story with what happened with the overpass, the riots of 1966, and the SWRF, a troubling pattern is confirmed. Far from isolated, this pattern of bureaucratic behavior to place student interests last continued. This is the landscape Jerry Chabrian “inherited” when he arrived as a freshman in September, 1967. He was not aware of all of this; and it’s probably a good thing. He might have been discouraged, but, knowing Jerry, he more likely would be mad, possibly mad enough to distract his focus.

Instead, Jerry merely saw a great need and proceeded to address it. The first thing he did was seek allies. He found George Bouros, a fellow resident of the “fourth floor zoo” in Wright II. Jerry perceived that, BEFORE decisions were made about a future station, he would ask for input. Those that participated would be likely to support the final plan even if all input did not appear in the final proposal. At least people would perceive that their opinions were considered.

Jerry’s plan was to seek as much student input as possible, as well as ask for administrative and faculty input and ASSISTANCE, but not PERMISSION, to proceed. This was smart because asking student opinion would activate students, create a hue and cry to proceed, and create a cutoff and defense against last-minute derailing counter proposals. Getting as many students on the bandwagon early also limited potential last-minute opposition. From the beginning, this was to be a STUDENT station.

The climate had changed at SIU, just in the three year period since the Robbins report had been issued. There was no longer a “Student Council;” now it was “Student Government” and “Student Senate.” There was even a grudging recognition that students at the college level were not the “children” they seemed to be in the early 60′s. Whether it was the draft, the war, increased political participation, the ’66 riots, or just the way the 18-20 year olds conducted themselves, there definitely was a difference. Jerry reports that there was an incredible vitality among SIU students at that time. “Everyone knew there were things to be done, so we just did them,” he said. The student population kept rising, the times were changing and there was an obvious gap between student needs and available resources.

One painfully obvious vacuum was in radio service. Jerry and George approached student senators. They found Senators Dale Boatright and Jerry Paluach willing to “pitch in” and help the cause. Dale and Jerry sponsored a bill introduced to the senate on January 17, 1968. This bill created a special committee to hold hearings on the creation of a student radio station, and a “Student Government Radio Division” to prepare a feasibility study and budget for the station. The bill passed, with the changes being that the Senate Internal Affairs Committee would conduct the hearings and Jerry Chabrian and George Bouros would prepare the proposed budget.

The hearing was held on February 15, 1968 from 2-4 pm at the University (now Student) Center. It was publicized in the Daily Egyptian. Administrators, faculty members, students, and others were personally invited to attend. Many did. About 40 attended the hearing, which was chaired by Sen. Paluach.

Jerry and George presented the “first draft” of their proposal, which included an equipment and construction budget. First up was the issue of the “build-out,” making soundproof rooms in the space the new station would occupy. Issues surfaced about whether union labor was required to erect the room partitions; if so, the build-out price could rise $20,000 or more, which would kill the project. This was a small issue within the greater agenda of the university. The unions were a major interest group in the expansion and administration of SIU. As a result of union support for SIU, the university became a union shop, unusual in Southern Illinois. As a union shop, part of the deal was that if certain work was done on campus and/or with certain university funds, the work had to be done by union personnel at union rates. Union contracts with SIU contained many requirements and exceptions, so there were lots of questions about this, which resurfaced later as a major hurdle. At this hearing, George offered that the head of Financial Assistance said student workers could be used at the student rate.

Dr. (then Mr.) John Kurtz attended, and asked some poignant questions. First he inquired about the transmitter costs and locations. He pointed out that Jerry’s estimates were low. Then they had this prophetic exchange:

There was a spirited discussion, led by Mr. Kurtz, about the station’s news and editorial policy. Jerry asked for suggestions. Mr. Kurtz pointed out that there should be an editorial policy that sets forth who had the final decision. Several in attendance felt strongly that the decisions must be 100% student.

George Bouros felt that the faculty and administration should have 50% of the control, because the station needed their cooperation to access university facilities. George stated a fear that he and Jerry kept in mind:

GEORGE BOUROS:

”I think anyone can come up with a radical idea, but if they don’t know how to take it tactfully to the University, I don’t see how you’re going to get your message across. Just by presentation, they (the Administration) will say good-bye.”

This led to a discussion on key points of station control. What positions will have what power? Will they be students? Who will select the persons for these positions? Should this be the Student Senate? Will they then control the station? These questions went unanswered, for a time.

After a discussion about programming, the meeting adjourned. This hearing showed the interest and sophistication of a diverse group that supported not only the concept of a 100% student station–but its practical success as well. Jerry and George made a trip to Champaign to check out WPGU in March. There was another hearing that month. George left SIU sometime in spring, and Jerry carried on. He revised the station proposal several times. Finally, it passed muster in the Senate Internal Affairs Committee– and was sent to the Senate Floor May 29, 1968.

The final draft of Jerry’s proposal employed this opening paragraph in the preface:

The early planning of a radio station involves consideration of the market to be served, site selected, station policies, personnel, the extent of programming, and, most important, the amount of capital available. This proposal takes into consideration all of the above ideas and forms them into a workable plan for the establishment of a Student oriented, student run AM radio station.

This is what appeared on the first page:

THE SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY STUDENT ORIENTED CAMPUS RADIO STATION PURPOSE: To provide Southern Illinois University students living in dormitories with a radio program service at present unavailable (sic) to them. To provide the student body and faculty a channel of communication for the discussion and review of student problems. To provide an activities outlet for the many students interested in broadcasting.

GOVERNANCE: The Southern Illinois University Campus Radio Station is to be governed by a Board of Directors, consisting of a Faculty Supervisor, two members of the Student Senate, the Station Manager, the Student Chief Engineer, and a representative of the SIU Broadcasting Service. This board is to be entrusted with the formulation of policies regarding all facets of the station’s operation.

Jerry had done his homework. He had reviewed all of the prior proposals and their treatments. In response, he had addressed many of the groups which had expressed objections or counter proposals in the past. The Broadcast Service would be represented. The faculty would be represented, by a “Faculty Supervisor” who would not only chair the board, vote on decisions, vote twice if there were ties, but also could refer board decisions to the Dean of Students, a member of the administration. The Student Senate would have two members, more than any other group. In theory, they would represent all students at large. Thus, Jerry had proposed a board of four students and two faculty/staff members, but he made it appear that there was still lots of faculty/staff control.

Another interesting section of the original final proposal in May, 1968, was the “Programming Policies.” The music was to be “…a moderate, yet upbeat sound, the ‘young sound.’” News promised “hourly reports with the headlines on the half-hour, and bulletins as the story breaks…to keep students abreast on both (campus and other) news fronts.” Public Affairs and Editorial policies emphasized “both views,” “equal time,” “seeking out great diversity of student and faculty opinion” and “balanced presentation of controversial subjects.”

The final paragraph of programming policies was entitled:

5. GOOD TASTE. It is the policy of the station to exclude from broadcast salacious and profane material, and material offensive to religious and socio- economic minorities. This policy does not apply to the expression of ideas; however it does apply to the use of language.

The proposal contained many pages of details of how carrier current transmission works, the buildings which would house transmitters, the station proposed budget, organization chart, equipment wiring diagrams, and related info. The proposal contemplated wiring Small Group Housing, Evergreen Terrace, and Southern Hills, which never happened, due to the need to have transmitters in every building. The proposal also took a position that advertising would be sold, and the main objectors to this would be the Daily Egyptian.

Jerry’s proposal passed the Student Senate May 29, 1968. Jerry had, in only one academic year, lined up more support and vaulted over more hurdles than all the others in seven years. But this was only the beginning. That night, Jerry was severely injured in a motorcycle accident. He was airlifted to a St. Louis hospital. His life was in danger.

Jerry’s injuries were severe. He endured a lengthy hospital stay. He was only 19. Yet he returned to SIU in the Fall of 1968 and persevered in his efforts to create a student radio station. In November, the effort’s senate supporters moved ahead to insure more student control in the future station.

Chapter 5