Putting the cart before the horse. Why’s there no public record of the Foundation having a Secretary, the only person authorised to receive this by-laws petition? Has the petition been validated, not least that c. 465 signatories are members in good standing? – open letter to Pacifica IED John Vernile

Tomorrow, Sunday, the Pacifica National Board meets at 6.30pm EDT with a single purpose, “Set Bylaws Amendments Notice Date”. (It hasn’t been given the necessary seven days’ notice – Article 6, Section 4; page 20 – but what’s new?) However, in the absence of a statement from the head of Pacifica’s administration, Interim Executive Director John Vernile, this PNB meeting puts the cart before the horse. The purpose of the meeting begs a number of questions, which only he is in a position to answer; &, as the principal administrator, to do so is his responsibility on behalf of Pacifica, not least the members. Moreover, to help give legitimacy to the process that’s started, they’re questions IED Vernile needs to answer unequivocally, & citing all the necessary evidence.

The questions concern two matters arising at the very start of this by-laws process: the Foundation Secretary, & petition validation. Does Pacifica have a properly installed Secretary to receive this petition? And has the petition been validated, not least establishing that c. 465 signatories are members in good standing?

This open letter is an attempt to cajole the IED, hitherto reticent, a man of few public words, into doing everyone a favour by making this process as transparent as possible. He may also be able to reassure everyone that the Foundation, in being rushed, isn’t being exposed to litigation.


Subject: Evidence that the Foundation has a properly installed Secretary; evidence of verification of the by-laws petition, not least the signatories

Dear Mr Vernile,

The cart is being put ahead of the horse. What are you going to do about it? The available evidence about the by-laws petition is unambiguous. Yes, you’re the servant of the Pacifica National Board, serving at its pleasure. But you also have the responsibility to protect the Foundation from litigation. Moreover, you have a responsibility not to carry out an ‘illegal’ order, one egregiously violating the by-laws of the organisation. As Pacifica’s principal administrator, the Interim Executive Director, you bear this double responsibility. So what are you going to do?

1) A highly disturbing petition has been published. To the unwary reader it’s promoted as an attempt to improve Pacifica’s governance. But this is disingenuous, given its authors & its content. Instead, the by-laws proposal is their chosen means to set in train decisions that irreversibly break up Pacifica, transform particular stations (WBAI is a prime target), & gut decision-making hitherto exercised by members, staff, & affiliates.

The nine authors of the petition, by their own statements & public associations, are the latest expression of those who work to break up Pacifica, destroying the network. Indeed, two of them have published plans detailing their intent: Peter Franck in September 2018, & Carol Spooner in 2012.

The movers of this petition, just like their words, cannot be trusted.

The proposal’s own title is misleading in saying it’s ‘amending & restating’ by-laws. No, it’s a complete set of new by-laws. What’s proposed isn’t narrow & shallow, but broad & deep: the scope of change is comprehensive. As such, it’s a new constitution, refounding the Foundation, making it a completely different organisation.

The proposal also requires ushering in an abhorrent, anti-Pacifican form of governance: a ‘100-day’ dictatorship, of between 92 & 114 calendar days, exercised solely by six outsiders to Pacifica, all handpicked by the breaker faction: “the At-Large Directors shall constitute the full Board of Directors and shall be authorized to take any and all actions they deem necessary” (proposed Article XV, Section 1; page 16, my emphases).

The movers of this petition can only have nasty surprises, anti-Pacifican surprises, up their sleeve.

This Board – the only one left after abolishing the five local boards – would be detached from the membership, from the staff, from the listeners. It would be able to invoke the much-misused blanket confidentiality provision. As such, it would be immune to scrutiny; be able to avoid meeting even once in public; be accountable to no-one. Ensconced from view, their deliberations would lack Pacifican participation, transparency, accountability.

The rallying cry of the breaker faction is clear: AntiDemocracyNow!

Breaking up Pacifica is dissolving Pacifica: it’s the Acid Bath Strategy.

2) There is a clear division of responsibilities, & so activities, between the Pacifica administration & the PNB. You are the principal administrator of Pacifica Foundation Inc. As such you have responsibilities concerning two matters arising immediately from this petition:

  • you must know that the Secretary of the Foundation, properly installed, is the only officeholder who can receive a petition; &
  • you’re responsible for verifying that a petition is bona fide, valid: this is not the responsibility of the PNB, nor of the Secretary of the PNB.

a) Concerning the first matter, the relevant by-law is clear: for the petition to be “considered ‘proposed’ [it] must be delivered to the Foundation’s Secretary” (Art. 17, Sec. 1(A); p. 42).

So, some elementary questions, given the complete absence of publicly available evidence:

  • who is the Secretary of Pacifica Foundation Inc.?
  • when did the PNB last elect the incumbent for their one year in office?
  • when did they assume office?
  • where is the relevant minute from a PNB meeting?
  • surprisingly, none of this info is on Pacifica’s website, so where is the official Foundation notice of all this?

Please send me a copy of all this evidence if, indeed, the Foundation has a current Secretary. In so doing you will be demonstrating that there can be no doubt that a properly constituted Foundation Secretary is in post (Art. 9, Sec. 2; p. 29).

Also, please note the following elementary point: the PNB annually electing its own Secretary is quite different from it annually electing the Foundation Secretary. Words matter, as we know all too well from court proceedings. The PNB Secretary may act as if they’re the Foundation Secretary (such as signing bank forms), but that doesn’t make them the Foundation Secretary (impersonator, comes to mind): only a specific annual election by the PNB can make someone the Foundation Secretary.

I think you’ll agree, this is so obvious it hardly needs stating.

b) After the petition is properly delivered to the Foundation, your second responsibility is supervising Pacifica’s administration as it tries to establish whether the petition is bona fide, genuine. It needs validating in all respects. Not least is gathering the evidence that c. 465 signatories are Pacifica members in good standing, evidence that can be inspected by any Pacifica director, evidence that safeguards the Foundation in any litigation. (465 is 1% of the 46 505 membership, per National Elections Supervisor Penaloza’s latest report that gives absolute numbers, 5Sep2019.) In this, as a first step, you obviously need to be satisfied that the 10 station membership rolls are materially accurate – and you’ll be aware that they weren’t at 29Oct2018, as declared by the then NES, Graeme Drew, orally on 29Oct to ED Maxie Jackson & in writing on 30Oct to the PNB.

c) Please note that proper receipt of the by-laws petition by the Foundation Secretary sets the record date for validating signatories. (This record date isn’t to be confused with the notice date of a proposed by-law amendment, which is established by decision of the PNB.)

Lastly, if this petition process progresses, I trust you will be receiving daily evidence from each station that they’ve made their three announcements, creating a time-stamped & station-stamped audiofile of the 675 announcements (3 x 5 x 45), the number required by by-law Art. 17, Sec. 1(B)(1); pp. 42-3.

3) As head administrator, as a minimum, you need to be in a position to tell any inquirer, not least a director:

  • the name of the Foundation Secretary, & when they were elected by the PNB into office for one year;
  • when the by-laws petition was received by the Foundation Secretary (setting the record date for the validation process);
  • the content of your plan for validating the petition;
  • who validated the petition;
  • when this started;
  • when it finished;
  • how many signatories were rejected, & why; &
  • which validating materials were used (e.g. station membership rolls), etc.

4) If the PNB do indeed set a notice date for the proposed by-law amendments, & instruct you to act upon it, then, given your responsibilities, you will have first validated the petition before money is spent & before on-air announcements are made. You need to have an evidenced belief that the by-laws proposal is proper, that it’s valid. And that requires, in part, Pacifica’s administration validating a minimum c. 465 signatories as Pacifica members in good standing.

As stated, you need no reminding that part of your job is protecting the Foundation from legal action. Before the PNB meets to determine a notice date for proposed by-laws amendments, you need:

  • to ensure that any petition has been received by a properly installed Foundation Secretary, thereby turning the petition into a potential by-laws amendment proposal; &
  • if that’s been established, to ensure that such a petition is bona fide, that it’s valid, thereby turning it into an actual by-laws amendment proposal.

Would you please convey your informed judgment on these two matters concerning the mentioned by-laws petition.

5) Given all that has been said, directors should decide on Sunday that the motion to set a notice date for proposed by-law amendments is void, as it puts the cart before the horse.

Directors should then vote (a) to ask the IED to confirm who’s the Foundation Secretary, voted into office by the PNB within the last 12 months; (b) to remind the IED that it’s his responsibility to produce all necessary evidence allowing him to decide the genuineness of the petition; & (c) to require the IED to give a full report, covering all the questions asked above.

6) As all the details asked of you are elementary, & simple, would you please send them before the PNB meets at 6.30pm EDT this Sunday, 29 September. This is a courtesy deserved by all in ‘the Pacifica family’, the members, the staff, the listeners.

Yours sincerely,

Jara Handala


Is PNB Director Robin Collier undermining Pacifica by setting up Association of Affiliates, a non-profit, Tu24Sep?

. . . fishing for fish, not affiliates . . .

Please note that all eight links bar one are embedded in the text. I’m not wholly convinced that the pale blue stands out enough, so don’t be surprised if I revert to how things were.


Things are moving fast in PacificaWorld.

Robin Collier isn’t from Laos, but Taos. New Mexico. He’s President of Cultural Energy which owns KCEI, a Pacifica affiliate. The PNB elected him one of the two Pacifica directors coming from the affiliates, & they took their seats 31Jan (19:28).

These days, Robin’s been going a lil freelance. Tuesday just gone, 24Sep, he submitted to the New Mexico Secretary of State the articles of incorporation of Association of Affiliates. The next day he got the rubber-stamp. Here’s what Maggie sent him, the certificate of incorporation (download, or read online via the Clouseau symbol).

Please note that “Pacifica National Foundation” (Article II; page 3 of the PDF) is not Pacifica Foundation, Inc., which holds the FCC licences for KPFA, KPFK, KPFT, WPFW, & WBAI. So, PNF? Cursory internet inspection drew a blank.

Hopefully Robin’ll soon explain what he has in mind.

Wonder if Ursula Ruedenberg, longstanding director of the Pacifica affiliate programme, is in the loop on this?

IED Vernile, too – or is this an IED for him & for those trying to stop Pacifica being broken up?

And things get even more interesting. The official history of the Pacifica affiliate programme says this in passing about the committee that made the successful proposal to the PNB back in 2003: “community radio station managers also served on the committee, including Norm Stockwell from WORT, Madison”. Yup. The same Norm Stockwell who’s one of the at-large directors carefully selected by the breaker faction.


In this context it’s of note that Mr Collier, the last evening the PNB met, Th19Sep, supported the breaker faction candidate in the crucial, tied, vote for the temporary Chair (38:57).

(That was the meeting that spawned two fundraiser premiums for Pacifica, the ‘A’ Audiofile & the ‘B’ Audiofile. The gift-wrapped super-premium, in the sleeve notes, came with this unforgettable remark from the highlights of the lowlights: “Adrienne shows she’s having problems getting into the swing of things: fails to appreciate why electing a pro tem Chair to take over from the Vice-Chair is needed immediately before electing the new Chair – give her time”. https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2019/09/20/pacifica-release-their-latest-fundraiser-premium-after-the-bloodletting-the-rancour/)

So, Robin, what’s going on here? We all believe in transparency, don’t we, Robin? Spill the re-fried beans, dude.

The website of Cultural Energy has a “FFC” (sic) link, & this FCC page gives Cultural Energy’s as the station website. But, unlike Pacifica’s website, it carries no financial info, none whatsoever. KCEI’s FCC licence was granted 2016, expiring 31Jan next year.

(Just a minor detail on the topic of such licences expiring: that for WPFW is in half a week’s time, Tuesday next week, 1Oct. Obviously IED Vernile is on the case – Johnny’s such a tease, a real drama queen.) [UPDATE: an extension was applied for, & granted 1July, thru to 29Dec this year: https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=91488. So it’s odd that the station’s FCC public file says the licence expires 1Oct, hence my note: https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/fm-profile/wpfw, the link that appears in the FCC section of one of this blog’s pages, ‘Sources on Pacifica’. So the FCC gives apparently contradictory info, apparent because, for example, the extension may have been revoked or shortened. Thanx to Tracy Rosenberg for giving, M30Sep, the link to the extension: https://www.facebook.com/groups/PacificaRadiowaves/permalink/1335091679979446/.]

Pacifica affiliate rejects proposed new Pacifica constitution – why provoke the affiliates into becoming Bostonians?

The work of the breaker faction is making waves in PacificaWorld. The first public response seems to come from a Pacifica Network affiliate, Riverton Radio Project Association (RRPA), & REC Networks. They unambiguously oppose the constitutional proposal of those who have proudly published plans to break up Pacifica. A prime reason is because “[t]he current plan would completely gut the board”.

RRPA & REC Networks say affiliates spread the Pacifica message, & rightly have representation on the Pacifica National Board, providing two of the 22 directors. It’s unjust to exclude them from decision-making. Exclusion/inclusion: we all know which is the Pacifica value. This isn’t voter suppression by the breaker faction, it’s worse: it’s disenfranchisement. “The Pacifica affiliates deserve a voice at the table. They worked hard to achieve a louder voice. Let’s not silence that voice.” The view of RRPA & REC Networks is definitive: “[s]ay ‘no’ to this petition”.

In recent months, the Pacifica affiliate programme has been given more prominence, being linked from Pacifica’s homepage, https://pacifica.org/. The programme’s work is at the heart of what Pacifica is trying to do: “[t]he Affiliate Program has over 200 contracted affiliates generating approximately $200,000 in fees”. It has now become its own accounting unit within Pacifica. https://pacificanetwork.org/resources-3/affiliate-representation-on-pacificas-national-board/

So why jeopardise this? Why have the breaker faction deliberately chosen to exclude affiliates from direct decision-making within Pacifica? Why are they trying to deny representation to those who are co-funding Pacifica?

Summarily, why is the breaker faction trying to turn the affiliates into Bostonians?

The statement was issued this Wednesday, 18Sep. Here it is, in full:

Joint position statement of REC Networks and Riverton Radio Project Association
There is currently a petition being circulated to make some major changes on the board of directors at Pacifica Foundation. This board includes representatives from all Pacifica-owned stations (KPFA, KPFK, WPFW, WBAI and KPFT). Starting recently, the board also has representatives of the Pacifca affiliates. These are the many LPFM and full-service FM community stations that promote the Pacifica Mission through the airing of programming and through the submission of programming to other affiliates.  
The current plan would completely gut the board, including those who I know, who are working hard to “fix” Pacifica from the inside. This current plan also eliminates the local station boards which are the voices who represent the unique cultural needs of each of the 5 Pacifica-owned stations. 
REC’s main concern is around the affiliates. We note that the petition does not even have a space for affiliates to fill out a petition if they wanted to. Its only limited to paid members and staff of the 5 stations.  Under the proposed plan, affiliates can be represented by “at large” members appointed by the new board however there is no requirement that they do.
The Pacifica affiliates deserve a voice at the table. They worked hard to achieve a louder voice. Let’s not silence that voice.  
Say “no” to this petition.
Michelle Bradley
on behalf of both REC Networks and Riverton Radio Project Association


Details of the signatories, as per their statement:

“REC Networks is an unincorporated entity owned and operated by Michelle Bradley. Since 1984, REC has been providing inforomation, entertainment and support which today, includes regulatory advocacy related to spectrum access, especially for community broadcasting. REC also provides programming for J1 Radio, a Canada-based cluster of internet radio stations providing Japanese-language entertainment world-wide and one English-language network, REC-FM.”

“Riverton Radio Project Association is a Delaware non-profit corporation operating under the direction of Michelle and Eva Bradley and the operator of a Part 15 broadcast station is an affiliate of Pacifica Network.”

The breaker faction make their move. Intro to their seven Sep2019 docs

. . . the Pacifica of their dreams . . .

. . . no flowers in their office, no flowers in their hair . . .

[This synthesises, & develops, the comments made to the seven separate doc posts. It’ll be completed W25Sep (apologies for the delay).

[Obviously, this post will come before the docs, but, as it’s written after the posting of the seven, a copy of this intro will appear with a 25Sep date for a week or so, to alert readers who use the home page or blog roll/feed.]



context (post-Sep2006 financial decline; Cali push for breaking up Pacifica) — summary of the new constitution — will the resistance prevail? (assessment of both sides’ constituencies) — why have the resisters never developed a plan, let alone a persuasive plan? (the need to transition from resistance to leadership; the aspiration, by becoming the majority, to transform Pacifica, restoring health & achieving growth)

[not EH, Office in a Small City, 1953]

Pacifica release their latest fundraiser premium . . . after the bloodletting, the rancour . . .

So much for the breaker faction’s attempt to forge a new beginning for Pacifica, a new dawn, Pacifica 2.0 . . .

Pacifica’s finest emerge from the basement to greet the world . . .

Last night’s Pacifica National Board, in all its glory:

https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb190919/pnb190919b.mp3 (35:42)

Please note that Interim Executive Director John Vernile witnessed all this, but was obviously lost for words: he was as mute as the button.

Quiet John, corporate music careerist, formerly VP, EMI Music North America, also had a seat at the carnage that was the private session. The butchery was so thorough it splattered about for an extra hour, making the second public session start at 11.50pm EDT. Seems today’s COINTELPRO draws on the Bagram/Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo manual.

Highlights of the lowlights:

the first public session, the ‘a’ file premium:

7:14 Ralph makes an appeal to the world

29:47 Tom shares his private thoughts

35:51 Adrienne shows she’s having problems getting into the swing of things: fails to appreciate why electing a pro tem Chair to take over from the Vice-Chair is needed immediately before electing the new Chair – give her time

second public session, ‘b’ file premium:

15:45 Chair Sabrina, Nancy, & five-year-olds

18:36 Chair laughs at Grace’s move to extend time

23:01 after the calm, the storm

25:18 Adrienne has her Ariana Grande moment: the “oh my fucking god” release

27:00 Parliamentarian Tatum sums up the progress made so far, in those 79 long & heart-felt Pacifican minutes . . . the answer won’t surprise you

31:03 Alex, ever the philosopher, brings all back to earth

35:04 Wild Bill gives the executive summary (same as his by-laws proposal, really)

P.S. This all happens again, next Thursday, 26Sep. You have to admire their stamina – these peeps are well-motivated, the committee equivalent of endurance athletes. Maybe the Cali stations can organise a special fundraiser: The Pacifica Death Valley Triathlon, with an opening concert by The Grateful Dead, with each PNB faction entering their own team.

According to the Pacifica Calendar, next Thursday is 7.30pm & 10pm EDT for public, 8.30pm for private. Please note the earlier start, again, of 7.30pm.

The main change in the notices is the 7.30 not trying to elect a new PNB Chair; instead the breaker faction have a single focus, giving the meeting one purpose: “Set Bylaws Amendments Notice Date”. Crucially, let’s hope directors insist that proof & verification details are offered by IED Vernile that c. 465 of the petition signatories (that is, equivalent to 1% of the membership) are Pacifica members in good standing – otherwise the petition is invalid for its purpose.

Incidently, the notices for the 8.30pm & 10pm, Th26Sep, were posted on Th19Sep before those memorable three meetings (at 5.21pm & 5.25pm). These were done, as before, by ex-Chair Grace: see how she anticipated there was every chance the business wouldn’t be completed first time round? No flies on Grace. (Except when she was ousted.)


So, guaranteed more material for fundraiser premiums.

Foundation for the Jewish Community, FJC, FY2019 auditor’s report

. . . this isn’t a Quinten Massys, 1514 . . .

2Apr2018, Pacifica took out a $3.7m loan (now $3.265m) from the Foundation for the Jewish Community, FJC, a donor-advised funds holder. A week or so later than expected, this is the auditor’s report on their FY2019 financial statements (year-end 31Mar), dated 27Aug2019:


For a summary of what the loan has made Pacifica do, please see https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/what-fjc-has-made-pacifica-do/.

P.S. Promise I didn’t get the pic from Patty Lipshutz, MoMA employee, the Museum of Modern Art, NYC, its longstanding chief legal counsel & Secretary – also Vice-President & Secretary of the Marty & Dorothy Silverman Foundation. Perhaps no surprise she’s married to a Silverman, Lorin, who happens to be not only President & Treasurer of the Marty & Dorothy Silverman Foundation but also President & Treasurer of FJC, and founder & President of F. Y. Eye, Inc., an advertising broker, which Pacifica has a $37k contract with for on-air & website advertising, the euphemistic underwriting.

[Analysis will follow by Tu24Sep (apologies for the delay). A focus will be on their Agency Loan Fund, ALF, cited in the 6Apr2018 Pacifica press statement, announcing its loan from FJC, & devoting a paragraph to ALF. This is the KPFK link (it’s also on the WBAI website): https://www.kpfk.org/blogs/kpfk-and-pacifica-news/post/pacifica-announces-settlement-with-empire-state-building-and-empire-state-realty-trust/.

[Note that, despite what some Pacifica directors & others say, FJC do sell on their loans, to the Marty & Dorothy Silverman Foundation. Just ask Patty, or Lorin – or daughter Allison, a director of the Marty & Dorothy Silverman Foundation, and VP, Strategy & Operations of F. Y. Eye, Inc. Selling on a loan happened again in FY2019: “[d]uring the year ended March 31, 2019, the private foundation purchased one loan totaling approximately $1,018,201” (p. 17, my emphases; p. 19 of the PDF). This is as per policy: “[s]ince its inception, any loans that were determined by FJC to be potentially impaired were purchased in full by a private foundation” (p. 11; p. 13 of the PDF). That’s right, folks, FJC never wait for a borrower to default. Pacifica’s loan, & the liens on its properties, may just get sold on without the chance to go to court. Capitalist right is capitalist right, the right to dispose of one’s assets as one sees fit.]

Bios of the six directors at-large and the three alternates

Pacifica Restructuring Project, document 7 of 7

[On Tu24Sep (apologies for the delay) will be posted an analysis of this latest attempt to break-up Pacifica, & it will examine, in context, these seven docs. The post will synthesise & develop the comments already made.]

Significantly, you’ll search in vain for any reference here to Pacifica. It’s striking that none of their bios mentions Pacifica, none gives any connection with Pacifica – not a Pacifica member, not a Pacifica donor, not even appearing in a Pacifica broadcast. Scratching amongst the scratchings, all we have is an alternate who works at a radio station “that carries a number of Pacifica programs”. Well, knock me down with a feather.

In a nutshell, these non-profit/academic worthies have nothing to do with Pacifica.

Nevertheless, I can acknowledge that Ms Boghosian & Ms Ransby (please read her book on Ella Baker) are Calvinistic, striving to do good works on our mortal coil. Whether that may extend to PacificaWorld is an open question.

After all, the breaker faction have presented no evidence of the views of these worthies on Pacifica. Now, why is that?

It isn’t rational to vote for a set of by-laws, with individuals locked in, without knowing what they think about Pacifica, & what directions they see it going in. Trust has to be earnt. Trust doesn’t spring from a sculptured bio.

Note that although Ms B is a co-host of the invaluable Law & Disorder, a WBAI programme, that wasn’t judged as persuasive, as worthy of inclusion in her bio, a fact that could be used to help her become a Pacifica director – odd or what? Yesterday: https://lawanddisorder.org/wp-content/uploads/lawanddisorder20190916.mp3.

(The extra-size heads seem strangely appropriate, yes?)

Sources: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MWZAASjhKpIFPWfBW4FoK3X6NouJnKj8sitJAi7-5D8/edit (at-large directors; 3 pages) & https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aTNTG_KYGHlABmFdC_YQ1AcnLI02VduFq5ELRFaXbrE/edit (alternates; 1 page)


The Gang of Six:

Proposed Transition At-Large Directors for Pacifica

Click on names below for more information about each person

Heidi Boghosian is an attorney and executive director of the A.J. Muste Memorial Institute in New York, a charitable organization providing grants and support to activist organizations. As national executive director of the National Lawyers Guild from 1999-2014, she oversaw the growth of the Guild’s Legal Observer program after the attacks of September 11, 2001 and through the Occupy movement. Her nonprofit background includes serving as associate director of an alternatives-to- incarceration program for youth, serving as director of development at the Big Sister Association of Boston, and providing organizational management assistance to grassroots AIDS organizations through the Community Service Society of New York. She planned donor cultivation events for basic biomedical research at The Rockefeller University. She also worked in commercial operations at the ABC affiliate WCVB-TV in Boston.

Heidi wrote the book Spying on Democracy: Government Surveillance, Corporate Power, and Public Resistance (City Lights, 2013); it was published a month after Edward Snowden’s revelations. Her writings have focused on the policing of protest and the intersection of government and corporate surveillance.

Judy Graboyes has worked in the financial arena for over 30 years, doing accounting, asset management for affordable housing, and community development lending. She previously served as treasurer and on the audit committee for two Bay Area boards of directors; Conard House in San Francisco and Pie Ranch in Pescadero. 

She has a Bachelor of Arts in Management from St. Mary’s College in Moraga, CA and a Master of Real Estate Development from the University of Southern California. She has dedicated her career to affordable housing, and  is also a musician, activist, and event producer.

Bob King, retired President of the United Auto Workers, like all UAW officials started out as a worker on the shop floor and worked up through the ranks.  Bob was a skilled tradesman from Local 600, the notorious Ford River Rouge Plant. All through his career King was actively supporting and building organizations of international worker solidarity and direct united action of workers in solidarity with each other.

Known for his activism and passionate belief in social and economic justice, since retiring King has remained very active in social justice causes in his community and globally. 

He has been a visiting researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, he co-taught a seminar for both undergraduate and graduate students on “Labor and the Global Economy”, and currently is a Lecturer at the University of Michigan teaching the importance of collective action and collective bargaining in winning greater economic equality in the US and the world.

In 1990 King led delegations to El Salvador to support trade unionists and church members who were victims of a long campaign of deadly bombings, death-squad murders and disappearances carried out by Salvadoran military officers trained by the U.S. military’s School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, Ga. King has long been involved in efforts to close the school because its graduates use the training received there to terrorize religious activists, community activists, trade unionists, and political activists in Latin America.

During King’s term as UAW President he assigned UAW organizers to work in Mexico with workers, students and independent unions to organize automotive facilities in Mexico.

In his earlier life, he joined UAW Local 600 in 1970 when he was hired at Ford’s Detroit Parts Depot and began his electrical apprenticeship in 1972. King, a member of the UAW International Skilled Trades Advisory Committee, was elected vice president of Local 600 in 1981 and president in 1984. He was re-elected in 1987 and was twice elected chair of the UAW-Ford Negotiating Committee.  While at Local 600 King was active in the fight to end apartheid, the successful campaign and legal action to open Dearborn parks, support for UAW Colt strikers, and many other social justice fights.

Barbara Ransby is a Professor or History; Gender and Women’s Studies; and African American Studies, at the University of Illinois at Chicago.  She is an historian, writer, and longtime political activist. Ransby has published dozens of articles and essays in popular and scholarly venues. She is most notably the author of an award-winning biography of civil rights activist Ella Baker, entitled Ella Baker and the Black Freedom Movement: A Radical Democratic Vision (University of North Carolina, 2003), which won no less than six major awards.

Dr. Ransby’s most recent book is Making All Black Lives Matter: Reimagining Freedom in the 21st Century (University of California Press, 2018). Ransby has also published in numerous scholarly and popular publications. She also wrote Eslanda: The Large and Unconventional Life of Mrs. Paul Robeson (Yale University Press, January 2013).  She serves on the editorial boards of The Black Commentator (an online journal); the London-based journal, Race and Class; the Justice, Power and Politics Series at University of North Carolina Press; and the Scholar’s Advisory Committee of Ms. magazine. In the summer of 2012 she became the second Editor-in-Chief of SOULS, a critical journal of Black Politics, Culture and Society published quarterly.

In terms of her activism, Ransby was an initiator of the African American Women in Defense of Ourselves campaign in 1991, a co-convener of The Black Radical Congress in 1998, and a founder of Ella’s Daughters, a network of women working in Ella Baker’s tradition. She has published and lectured widely at conferences, community forums and on over 50 college campuses. Professor Ransby received a BA in History from Columbia University and an MA and PhD in History from the University of Michigan. 

Walter Riley is a lawyer practicing criminal defense, civil rights, and police misconduct. Growing up in the Jim Crow South lead to activism very young. He served extensively with Durham’s and North Carolina’s NAACP and as President of the Young Adult Chapter received national recognition for organizing voter registration campaigns, lunch counter sit-ins, job campaigns, and desegregation protests in public accommodations, schools and businesses. He chaired Durham’s chapter of CORE’s Freedom Highways Project to desegregate public facilities on Highway 1 from Maine to Florida and was a CORE South East Regional Organizer in the early 60s. He has been honored in Durham, N.C. for leadership and activism in the civil rights movement. He became a student activist at San Francisco State University, joined Students for a Democratic Society, then Progressive Labor Party; opposed the Viet Nam war, Organized a Black Anti Draft Union in the community, worked with the Black Panther Party, became a founding member of Peace and Freedom Party, Co-Chaired with Eldridge Cleaver the Black Caucus of Peace and Freedom. His activism has included workers rights, labor, education/schools, anti apartheid, police misconduct, voter registration and cultural activism.

Riley is currently a member of the California Bar Association, National Lawyers Guild, Charles Houston Bar Association, the ACLU, #BlackLivesMatter, and Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI). He has served on the Boards of Global Exchange, Berkeley Jazz School, Oakland Music Conservatory and The East Bay Center For Performing Arts. Walter Riley is the Chair of the Haiti Emergency Relief Fund. He was the lead attorney for the Black Friday 14, and other #BlackLivesMatter protesters. He has received numerous awards.

Norman Stockwell is publisher of The Progressive magazine, a one-hundred-nine year-old Madison-based progressive bi-monthly. Prior to that, he served over two decades as WORT’s Operations Coordinator. He worked at the station in music and news programming since 1983. In addition to working as a journalist in the U.S., Cuba, Nicaragua & Mexico, Norm has been involved in the collective management of two Madison institutions – Lakeside Press and Mifflin Street Co-op. He is also former Director of the Old Town School of Folk Music-Madison, and served in the 1970’s as Facilities Manager for the Northwestern University Archeological Program.

He is active in the National Federation of Community Broadcasters, the GrassRoots Radio Coalition, IndyMedia, and AMARC: the World Association of Community Broadcasters. His reports and interviews have appeared on Free Speech Radio News, Democracy Now!, and AirAmerica, and in print in Z Magazine, the Capital Times, AlterNet, Toward Freedom, the Tico Times, the Feminist Connection, and elsewhere. He is co-editor of the book REBEL REPORTING: John Ross Speaks to Independent Journalists.

He has covered the WTO meetings in Seattle & Cancun, the FTAA meetings in Miami, the Democratic Conventions in 1996, 2000 & 2008, 2012, and the Republican Conventions in 2004, 2008, 2012 & 2016, and the Spring 2004 & 2009 presidential elections in El Salvador, Mexican presidential elections of 1988 and 2006, and the November 2013 presidential election in Honduras. He has coordinated community radio coverage at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre in 2002, 2003 & 2005, and the Polycentric Forum in Caracas, Venezuela in 2006, the WSF in Nairobi 2007, Belem in 2009, Dakar in 2011, & Tunis in 2013 and 2015, Montreal in 2016, and the US Social Forums in Atlanta & Detroit. He also coordinated the IraqJournal website in 2002-2003. In 2011, he regularly reported on protests in Madison, Wisconsin for Iran’s PressTV and other outlets. 

Stockwell also is an experienced graphic designer and artist, and has prepared numerous successful grant applications.


The Three In-Waiting:

Alternate Transition At-Large Directors, 

if any of the ones listed here decide to withdraw 

before new Directors are seated in 2020

Terri Burke has been Executive Director of the ACLU of Texas since 2008. In those years, the Texas affiliate has grown from a staff of seven to a staff of 70. Headquartered in Houston with offices in Austin, Dallas, El Paso and Brownsville on the border, the ACLU of Texas has been a leader in supporting immigrant rights, criminal justice reform, voting rights and in holding the line in the Culture Wars battles at the Texas Legislature. Instead of law school, her “postgraduate work” after the University of Texas was in reporting on how the sausage is made in two very different state legislatures; as a business reporter covering a boom and a bust; and as a senior editor and an editor-in-chief, leading two different staffs to Pulitzer Prizes. A native Houstonian, her newspaper career took her through Dallas, Austin, Albuquerque, Abilene (Tx) and Hartford, Ct. She served on the boards of Planned Parenthood of West Texas, Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas and the Day Nursery of Abilene (a non-profit preschool and day care). Burke served for 10 years on the board of the Texas Association of Managing Editors, including a two-year term as President, and five years on the board of the Nonprofit Management Center of West Texas, which served nonprofits in 24 West Texas counties, including a three-year stint as board president for an organization that provides resources, training and support for nonprofits ranging from direct service providers to arts associations and museums and civic engagement organizations. She is married with two daughters, one son-in-law and a practically perfect in every way granddaughter.

Mustafaa Carroll is the past Executive Director of CAIR (Council on Amercan-Islamic Relations) in Dallas and Houston, and a management consultant

Louis Vandenberg is Director and General Manager of KUCR, the University of California-Riverside radio station that carries a number of Pacifica programs

The breaker faction’s complete set of new by-laws: a new Pacifica constitution, refounding the Foundation

Pacifica Restructuring Project, document 6 of 7

[On Tu24Sep (apologies for the delay) will be posted an analysis of this latest attempt to break-up Pacifica, & it will examine, in context, these seven docs. The post will synthesise & develop the comments already made.]

The breaker faction’s petition is disingenuous in claiming it concerns “proposed Amended and Restated Bylaws”. No: it’s not as innocuous as that. No: it’s a complete set of new by-laws. Not ‘amended’ & ‘restated’, bland, ‘nothing to see here, move along’. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnX5wci404

No: it’s a new constitution.

In its scope & urgent timetable, it’s an attempt at revolutionary change. By its content, it is reactionary & authoritarian, it is anti-democratic. By its scope, it creates a new Pacifica, refounding the Foundation.

1) The LSB’s are vaporised:

Upon adoption of these Bylaws the Local Station Boards authorized under the previous Bylaws shall be terminated” (Article X; page 14, my emphases); presumably this is when ‘the people’ have spoken, that is, when the National Elections Supervisor certifies the election result, not when the Pacifica National Board votes to accept the NES’ final report.

2) The serving directors have their terms ended during the last 14 days of Jan2020 – leaving the Board solely occupied by six non-Pacificans. From this point, the whole Pacifica membership will no longer elect the majority of directors:

“By approval of these Restated and Amended Bylaws by the Members, the following individuals are appointed to serve as Transition At-Large Directors: Heidi Boghosian, Judy Graboyes, Robert “Bob” King, Barbara Ransby, Walter Riley, and Norman Stockwell. Their terms shall commence at the first meeting of the Transition Board which shall occur during the during the [sic] last two weeks of January 2020. The terms of the previous Board of Directors shall expire on that date.” (Art. XV [their typo], Sec. 1; p. 16)

3) These six directors, all alone. Accountable to no-one, least of all the Pacifica members. Able to decide to do whatever they want, taking whatever seductive advice is fed themsuch as a detailed version of the Peter Franck break-up plan, the one published less than a year ago, on 23Sep2018 (please see the posting of it here, https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2019/09/13/peter-franck-plan-b-a-friendly-divorce-to-save-the-stations-23sep2018/).

The facts are plain: they are a committee, a junta, a dictatorship of six, a hexumvirate. The Roman conception of a dictatorship was an individual selected to rule, for a definite period, in a state of emergency, through special measures, & here we have the collective version: the Gang of Six do what they want for between 92 & 114 calendar days, until a date during the first 10 days of May next year (1+29+31+30+1 = 92 calendar days, & 14+29+31+30+10 = 114):

“the At-Large Directors shall constitute the full Board of Directors and shall be authorized to take any and all actions they deem necessary for the Board of Directors to take that are not in conflict with law or these bylaws.” (same passage, my emphases)

4) Conclusion … It’s obvious from the bios of the Gang of Six published by the breaker faction that they’re patsies, none having worked in radio management, selected by the faction to rubber-stamp what must be an already prepared detailed plan.

And the content of this secret plan? With ‘Breaker’ Spooner & ‘Breaker’ Franck listed on their petition as two of the nine creating this faction, there’s only one rational answer: breaking up Pacifica.

Panic over WBAI is simply being used as a political pretext, as a persuasive means, as a rhetorical device.

No trust can be placed in the movers of this complete set of new by-laws, a new constitution, refounding the Foundation.

Pacifica has serious problems, but this is not the way to go.

This by-laws proposal must be emphatically rejected.

Source: https://app.box.com/s/scpjw0ejfmxy7fbu9ut1qg5il14n0i5e (19 pages)

Here, read online (click the ‘magnifying glass’) or download: https://mega.nz/#!77YFgSyD!0gUc8su6NPL6154QN-1YNQbbrg8NTlptPahjv-M4VRY

‘Comparison of Current and New Bylaws’ – suppressing member participation is ignored

Pacifica Restructuring Project, document 5 of 7

[On Tu24Sep (apologies for the delay) will be posted an analysis of this latest attempt to break-up Pacifica, & it will examine, in context, these seven docs. The post will synthesise & develop the comments already made.]

The change envisioned by the breaker faction isn’t piecemeal, as implied by the form of this document, which takes part of an existing by-law & compares it with an amendment. No, that’s a gross misrepresentation of their by-laws proposal. The breaker faction’s petition is disingenuous in claiming it concerns “proposed Amended and Restated Bylaws”. No, it’s not as innocuous as that.

No: it’s a complete set of new by-laws. That’s why they don’t reproduce from the current manual, by-law after by-law after by-law, page after page after page, all that’s in the current by-laws having no correlate within their proposal. For if they did that, it would be plain to see how fundamentally different it is. Just compare their 19-page proposal with the 45-page, smaller font, Pacifica By-laws manual, 1Jan2016 version, which alone has a four-page Contents: https://mega.nz/#!qyBgCK6J!99O3H916evVwa5U0FSef2ONlL8pkQU4OZKLZIfXzq6Y.

So what does the new Pacifica constitution do?

  • guts the organisation of membership participation in governance;
  • makes outsiders a permanent majority of the PNB;
  • only one director from each station means giving monopoly representation to each station majority: it eliminates the diversity of views at each station, homogenises what is heterogeneous by effectively denying that the others exist, & leaves only one director voice to address the station’s Community Advisory Board;
  • abolishes what remains of local decision-making by members;
  • cuts in two the number of local discussion forums;
  • centralises decision-making, institutionalising PNB supremacy;
  • concentrates the focus of the organisation onto a PNB that now has a non-profit/academic outlook, one tilting to the outside, away from the Pacifica members;
  • . . . one could go on . . .
  • . . . just to say, given all this, why would anyone stay a Pacifica member?

All this means that the breaker faction are moving against the members. The breaker faction wresting from the members their rights. The naive would say this is surprising within Pacifica – but there are many reactionaries in PacificaWorld, of all sorts of stripes, not just secrecy/pseudo-confidentiality fetishists.

As illustration, a principal member’s right is participating in Pacifica’s governance – and participation is a primary democratic quality & value. So the breaker faction is an anti-democratic force. Eat yer 💗 out, Amy G.

In its scope & urgent timetable, the by-laws proposal of the breaker faction is an attempt at revolutionary change. By its content, it is reactionary & authoritarian, it is anti-democratic. By its scope, it creates a new Pacifica, refounding the Foundation.

Source: https://docs.google.com/document/d/167GWfIlL4gF1URtLGTa8rdXuAWWqxLSv1GyneoOfTxY/edit (4 pages)


Comparison of Current and New Bylaws

This is a summary that compares the current Pacifica Bylaws, approved in 2003 with amendments since then, and the new proposed Amended and Restated Bylaws of 2019. For detailed comparison, please refer to those documents.

Membership Contribution.

Under the proposed new Bylaws [italics added throughout for readability]:

The Listener-Sponsor annual Membership contribution will be $50, or fifteen (15) hours of volunteer service. 

Staff-Membership requirements are unchanged.

Under the current Bylaws:

Listener-Sponsor annual Membership contribution is $25, or three (3) hours of volunteer service. 

Changes in Board of Directors: Composition and Manner of Election.

Under the proposed new Bylaws:  

The Board of Directors will consist of 11 Directors:  Six (6) At-Large Directors and five (5) Station-Representative Directors.  There will be no designated “Affiliate” Directors’ seats on the new board.

The six At-Large Directors will be elected by the Board of Directors as a whole (except for the Transition Board, see below.)

The five Station-Representative Directors will be elected directly by the membership at each station (KPFA, KPFK, KPFT, WBAI and WPFW), one from each station, with both listener-members and staff-members voting together.

There will be no Staff seats on the new Board of Directors.

Under the current Bylaws:

The Board of Directors consists of 22 members:  20 Directors elected by the Delegates (members of the Local Station Boards) – 4 from each of the five Pacifica stations — plus 2 “Affiliate” Directors are elected by the Board of Directors from nominees from stations which air some Pacifica programming but are not owned by the Pacifica Foundation. 

Currently, the Delegates at each station each year elect 3 listener members and 1 staff member from among themselves to serve on the national Board of Directors.

Directors’ Terms and Term Limits

Under the proposed new Bylaws

Directors’ terms will be three (3) years with a two-term limit, requiring a 1-year hiatus before being eligible to run again.  Terms will be staggered so no more than 1/3rd of the terms will expire in any given year.

Under the current Bylaws

Directors’ terms are one (1) year.  Directors may serve no more than 5 consecutive years.

Local Station Boards and Delegates

Under the proposed new Bylaws:

There will be no Delegates, no Delegate elections, and no Local Station Boards.  The members of the current Local Station Boards may join their station’s Community Advisory Board (CAB) but will have no role in governance.  A CAB is required at each station by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and will operate under the CPB requirements.  https://www.cpb.org/stations/certification/cert3

Under the current Bylaws

The members at each station elect 24 Delegates – 18 elected by the Listener-Sponsor Members and 6 elected by the Staff Members.  Half of them are elected in each of two consecutive years, and the third year there is no election.

The Delegates elect from among themselves 4 Directors each year – 3 Listener-Sponsor Members and 1 staff Member.

In addition to electing Directors, the Delegates serve on Local Station Boards (LSBs) for their stations, with the station General Manager as a non-voting member.

Eligibility for Service on the Board of Directors

Under the proposed new Bylaws

Staff-Members and persons hosting or helping to produce a regular program airing on any Pacifica radio station will not be eligible for service on the Board of Directors, nor are any station or Pacifica Foundation employees.

No person who holds an elected office,  or is running for election for office, at any level of government (federal, state or local) will be eligible for service on the Board.

No two members of the Board of Directors related by blood or marriage/domestic partnership within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity may serve on the Board at the same time.

Station-Representative Directors must be Listener-Sponsor Members in good standing of their station at the time of nomination. 

At-Large Directors will be recruited by the Board of Directors based upon needed skills on the board and/or background and accomplishments in fields related to the Foundation’s core “peace and justice” mission. 

Under the current Bylaws

Three of the 4 Station Representative Directors from each station each year are Listener-Delegates, and 1 is a Staff-Delegate.

No person who holds any elected or appointed public office at any level of government — federal, state, or local — or is a candidate for such office, is eligible to serve on the Board.

There is no consanguinity rule under the current Bylaws.

Reduction in Number of Elections

Under the proposed new Bylaws:

After the transition, there will be 1 election every 3 years at each station where Listener-Members and Staff-Members, voting all together, directly elect one Station-Representative Director for their station.  There will be no additional elections of Directors or Delegates by the Members.

Under the current Bylaws:

There are 2 elections in every 3 years.  The members elect half of their 24 Delegates (18 Listener Delegates and 6 Staff Delegates) in each of the two elections in consecutive years.  The third year there is no election.  

Members’ Rights

Under the proposed new Bylaws

Members’ rights will remain unchanged as to inspection of Minutes and records. 

Voting rights will remain unchanged on the sale, exchange, transfer or disposition of all or substantially all of the Foundation’s assets; on the sale, exchange, transfer or disposition of any of the Foundation’s broadcast licenses; on any merger, its principal terms and any amendment of its principal terms.; on any election to dissolve the Foundation. 

Members will have the right to recall their elected Station-Representative Directors. 

Staff Members will no longer be eligible to serve on the Board of Directors.

Under the current Bylaws:

Listener-Sponsor Members and Staff-Members vote separately in the Delegate elections.  The Delegates then elect from among themselves 3 Listener-Sponsor Member Directors and 1 Staff-Member Director from each station each year.

Amending the Bylaws

Under the proposed new Bylaws:

The Board will be able to amend the bylaws by a 2/3rd majority vote of all the Directors, provided written notice is posted on the Foundation and station websites and a means is provided for members to submit comments to the Board prior to the vote.

The Members will be able to propose Bylaws amendments, by a petition of 1% of the Membership and a majority vote of the Members. 

No Amendments changing the number or manner of nomination of Directors of either class may be adopted without a vote of approval of the Members.

No Amendments that would adversely affect the rights of the Members, or any class of Members, may be adopted without a vote of approval of the Members, or class of Members, as the case may be.

Under the current Bylaws:

Currently, amending the bylaws requires the majority vote of all the Directors plus a majority vote of all the Delegates of at least three (3) stations.  Members may also propose amendments by petition signed by 1% of the Membership and, if their proposed amendments are not approved by the Directors and Delegates, then the Members may adopt the Amendments by a majority vote of the Members.

No amendments that materially adversely affect the rights of the Members, or any class of Members may be adopted without the vote of approval of the Members, or class of Members, as the case may be.

Voting on any amendments must be completed by December 31st of the same calendar year as the amendments are proposed.  Amendments proposed by petition of the Members are considered “proposed” when they are submitted to the Secretary of the Foundation.

Transition Board Provisions

Under the Proposed New Bylaws[:]

Six Transition At-Large Directors will be seated at a Board meeting during the last two weeks of January 2020.  They are: Heidi Boghosian, Judy Graboyes, Bob King, Barbara Ransby, Walter Riley, and Norman Stockwell. Their biographies are posted here.

If any of those six becomes unable to serve before the first meeting of the new Transition Board in January, then those remaining will select alternates in the order they choose from the following alternates:  Terri Burke, Mustafaa Carrol, and Louis Vandenberg. Their biographies are posted here.

The 5 Transition Station Representative Directors will be elected by the members early next year and will be seated at a Board meeting during the first 2 weeks in May 2020.

The 2019 Board’s terms will expire upon the commencement of the January Transition Board meeting.

‘FAQs’ – missing what’s important

Pacifica Restructuring Project, document 4 of 7

[On Tu24Sep (apologies for the delay) will be posted an analysis of this latest attempt to break-up Pacifica, & it will examine, in context, these seven docs. The post will synthesise & develop the comments already made.]

Six Q&A.

Source: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hx55oqvlMJd0j_h8IoKvVd8c-vijuFDwSBgwva-EvYg/edit (1 page)


FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions about the Proposed new Pacifica Bylaws

Q: What happens to people on the Local Station Boards?

A: They are merged with the Community Advisory Board for their station, and of course may volunteer at their station.

Q: Should I vote in the current Delegate/LSB elections?

A: YES! That’s still important, too.

Q: Should I wait to donate to my Pacifca station?

A: Absolutely not. Your station needs your financial support, as well as volunteer hours, to keep going. Go to your station’s web site to donate today, or do it in the next fund drive.

Q: Why are there At-Large Directors on the new national Board, as well as station representative Directors?

A: The At-Large Directors will bring additional skills and experience, professional contacts, non-profit experience, and national perspective that the station representative Directors may not have.

Q. Why the need for change to the current Bylaws?

A: See the Introduction – it explains why it’s so important to replace the Bylaws with something that will create more functional governance and a stronger network.

Q: Isn’t this effort really designed to target individuals seen as impediments to some agenda?

A: The people who drafted these Bylaws are not in agreement about what programming is best, the appropriate authority and influence of paid versus unpaid staff, or many other issues. What brought us together are the current, unambiguous realities. Our current governance structure is not leading the organization toward greater strength and stability, rather it has failed to meet the changing nature of the media environment, and it has failed to deal effectively with financial realities. This is not about individuals, programs, or management choices.  The Pacifica Restructuring Project represent a diversity of views, many conflicting. This is about being honest with ourselves about Pacifica Radio’s long-term viability unless it is restructured.