KPFT’s broadcast licence was due to expire Su1Aug – but you wouldn’t know it if you relied on the local management & Executive Director Lydia Brazon. Ditto the Local Station Board & the Pacifica National Board. No-one thought the members, listeners, & staff deserved to know. No-one thought they deserved to be reassured that all was in hand, that the application had been submitted on date X & a decision was expected by date Y. But communication & courtesy are skilled accomplishments, an achievement, even for those who think they’re professionals. But those running PacificaWorld are those running PacificaWorld.
Hence the post here on 13July, ‘Three station FCC licences expire this year: KPFT 1Aug, KPFA 1Dec, KPFK 1Dec’. It was welcomed in Houston, because even delegates on PNB cttees were unaware of the upcoming expiration.
Today, the public file of KPFT on the Federal Communications Commission website bore good news: “[t]his is to notify you that your Application for Renewal of License 0000142229, was granted on 07/22/2021 for a term expiring on 08/01/2029.” – https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/fm-profile/kpft.
[This post will be written up properly by Su25July. The audiofile of the Tu20July mtg., 57mins (apologies, as the recording starts with the end of agenda approval): audible & downloadable athttps://mega.nz/file/JBlAmKYI#mPcRo4UMezIDyhdCbzdQ_AHsjPuNB82n0VMEUrJpBkE. Because Jorge Diaz, principal auditor of Rogers & Company, goes thru the FY2020 auditor’s report, citing page numbers, one can use the withdrawn draft, viewable & downloadable athttps://mega.nz/file/gc9h3SDQ#SG2SVOaJaniikB8-1oWcohAcp6KZVfd36dsLK4uYBsA. At the meeting, Chair ‘hapless’ Eileen missed an opportunity to partially redeem herself, forgetting to ask the Cttee if it wanted to carry out one of its crucial legal duties, so instead it passed the Cttee by, like a ship in the night: no motion was moved for the Cttee to accept the auditor’s report, as required by CA Government Code § 12586(e)(2). Oh.]
~
For the FY2019 audit, the auditors never appeared publicly, in front of either the PNB Audit Cttee or the Pacifica National Board. Their last time in the limelight was Th16July2020, at the PNB (TS). Name. They also turned up x days before, at the Audit Cttee (TS). LINKS
The FY2020 auditor’s report filing with the CA AG fiasco …
What underlies all this is the cosy relationship PNB Audit Cttee Chair Eileen Rosin has developed with Pacifica’s bookkeeper & accountant, NETA, & with a NETA principal, Anita Sims, who is also Pacifica’s CFO. A consequence of this is that the PNB Audit Cttee has failed to maintain its strict independence from management, as required by both the established norms governing an audit cttee’s actions, & the California Government Code. LINK to the §, & to the audit cttee guides from KPMG et al. https://mega.nz/folder/Vd82AKJK#-i5tz0eVe5ejeWKSK8vR9w (& https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/auditor-s-reports/the-auditor-speaks-audiofiles-2004-present/)
Chair Eileen Rosin apologising to Cttee peeps for preventing them doing their legal duty – and explaining why she chose to do this
By the California Government Code, a charity corporation with Pacifica’s turnover has to have an audit cttee that has to … . LINK The Cttee has done none of this. Chair Eileen Rosin (WPFW listener-delegate) is responsible for this. She needs to make two apologies: for preventing the Cttee doing its work; & for causing Pacifica to break state law. But don’t expect any Cttee member to ask for these two apologies – and to ask her to explain why both deficiencies arose. For that, this public charity needs a culture of accountability – this it patently lacks.
Pensions audit fiasco
The latest publicly available info is that the last pensions audits attempted were XX. One needs to say attempted coz with them not being publicly available one can’t assume they were completed. Big difference. No-one has ever remarked on what the auditor’s opinion has been over the years – just the uninformed, commonplace, ‘the audit’s done’. For all anyone knows, maybe for years they’ve been issuing a disclaimer of opinion, even an adverse opinion. We simply don’t know – partly because all the pensions auditor’s reports are kept secret, & especially because no Audit Cttee member or director bothers to ask in a public meeting.
Liquidity gibberish
No-one noticed this, either on the PNB Audit Cttee or the PNB:
FY2020 (dated 30June2021, & never filed with the CA AG), Notes 4 & 5: p. 14; p. 16 of the PDF … $129 823 magically becomes $218 023
The gibberish: “[f]inancial assets that are available for general expenditures within one year of the statements of financial position date” (emphases added) – so necessarily excluding “[c]ontributions receivable” that are “[d]ue in one to five years”. Yet Rogers include this amount as available “within one year”. But as ED Lydia says, in Kurtian fashion, there you go.
And what’s Pacifica’s liquidity policy? “The Foundation strives to maintain liquid financial assets sufficient to cover 90 days of general expenditures” (FY2019 a’s r, p. 14; p. 16 of the PDF). Seems harmless, but what does it mean, what does it add up to? The 90 days is ~$11.868m ÷ 4 ≃ $3m (ditto – loc. cit. in Academese, loco citato, the same passage). And the corrected figure for the coming year’s available liquid assets is $89 678, not the stated $354 278 (sic); & assuming the $32 651 contributions receivable come in at a uniform rate, the 90-days total figure is ~$22 420 – stacked up against the $3m, that’s <0.75% (sic) of what’s required per policy, just 1-in-133. That’s the picture of a financially troubled public charity.
Covenant gibberish
No-one noticed this either:
ss of “Bequests received by the Foundation beyond April 19, 2021 are subject to additional interest charged by the lender to varying percentages depending on the direction and restriction of the gift (0% if restricted, 50% if a general, unrestricted gift and 30% if directed to a particular station).”
. . . cap . . .
FY2019: Note 7, p. 16; p. 18 of the PDF
FY2020 (dated 30June2021, & never filed with the CA AG), Note 7: p. 16; p. 18 of the PDF
The gibberish: “[b]equests received by the Foundation beyond April 19, 2021 are subject to additional interest charged by the lender” – the Foundation for the Jewish Community, operating as FJC, is charging interest on a particular kind of income received by Pacifica?
Net current liabilities concealment
The last time net current liabilities were disclosed in an auditor’s report was FY2016 (p. 2; p. 5 of the PDF) – https://pacifica.org/finance/audit_2016.pdf. That was the last audit done by Regalia & Associates. Once Rogers & Company came in, things changed: net current liabilities weren’t disclosed – neither on the balance sheet nor in an accompanying note. Even if Rogers gave no disclosure in the report they presented to the PNB Audit Cttee, the Cttee, & indeed the PNB, could have asked for a change. If it valued financial transparency, facing reality, it would have.
But there’s an external reason too. Disclosure is desirable for a financially troubled public charity like Pacifica because any possible grantor, for example, will simply apply the g-dhead of accountancy, auditing, & risk assessment, namely, prudence, & in erring on the side of caution they’re more likely to overestimate Pacifica’s net current liabilities. Concealment is counter-productive.
Having net current assets is also known as being liquid, having liquidity. Contra the common misconception, liquidity is a difference, not a term: having lots of cash doesn’t necessarily mean the organisation has liquidity. Furthermore, liquidity is not just a positive difference but a time-specific one: having more assets available to be used up in the next accounting period, usually a year, than the liabilities falling due in that period. Hence the talk of ‘current’. And the size of liquidity is the excess of current assets over current liabilities, the difference.
By contrast, Pacifica has a negative difference: for over 11yrs, being illiquid, having illiquidity. That’s why its CFO is actually the JIC, the Juggler-in-Chief, with an able team of five station managers who double up as MMJ’s, Mini-Me Jugglers. ¡¡¡Presente!!!, shouts Lawrence from the seats up with the g-ds.
So the $3.165m owed to the Foundation for the Jewish Community, operating as FJC, becomes a current liability in 3mths’ time, on 31Oct2021, because contractually Pacifica has agreed to pay that debt by 30Oct2022 (FY2019 auditor’s report, p. 15; p. 17 of the PDF – https://pacifica.org/finance/audit_2019.pdf).
A motion to remove Chair Eileen Rosin for dereliction of duty
. . . Maybe the Cttee peeps don’t realise the legal duties they acquired, maybe they just wanted to be on the Cttee. Maybe they don’t care if they break California law – I mean, it’s hardly the first time, & who’s going to do anything, this is PacificaWorld, right, it’s not RealWorld, is it?
~
The questions that need to be asked of Chair Rosin, the Rogers’ auditor, CFO Sims, ED Brazon, & all the directors
• re an alleged extension of the 30June2021 deadline for filing the audited financial statements (& accompanying notes) with the CA AG, why has no-one cited a letter from the AG granting such an extension?
• raising the question, why has no Pacifica director or other LSB delegate even thought to insist on seeing the supporting evidence for the assertion?
• indeed, correlatively, why is Pacifica’s alleged request for an extension not in the public record of the AG, the Registry of Charitable Trusts, in the section named, surprise, surprise, Filings & Correspondence?
• &, surprise, surprise, why is there no AG extension letter in the Registry?
• why have all concerned consistently spoken of the auditor’s report being completed, & never of its filing – which is the actual nature of the task in hand? Yet again, words are shown to matter.
• what is the claimed sequence of events:
when did Pacifica request an extension for filing the FY2020 auditor’s report?
who submitted it – the CFO, the ED?
how did the CFO & ED find out that an extension is possible, not least because the AG’s own webpage says, unambiguously, “[Q:] Does the extension for filing IRS Form 990 also apply to the completion date for the audit? [A:] No. The statute does not provide for an extension of time.” (emphases added – https://oag.ca.gov/charities/laws#collapseFAQs8)?
(This fact is consistent with what the law says, it ascribingno discretionary power to the AG or anyone else: “[t]he audited financial statements shall be available for inspection by the Attorney General and by members of the public no later than nine months after the close of the fiscal year to which the statements relate” (emphases added), CA Government Code § 12586(e)(1), so for Pacifica this is 30June, given its 30Sep year-end.)
when did the AG grant their extension?
when was this received by Pacifica?
by whom?
when did each of the ED & CFO learn of the AG’s decision?
So many questions – but they all need answering if this public charity, with a membership of c. 42 500, is to earn a reputation for both transparency & holding office-bearers to account for their acts of both commission & omission.
• (But let’s be honest, there is no extension correspondence, is there? As quoted above, the law gives no discretionary power to the AG, or to anyone else, neither CA’s governor nor any former AG, even if they now happen to be the current vice-president of the GOC, G-d’s Own Country.)
• [UPDATE: re the important revision of the pensions liability estimate, what is the sequence of events, not least what newevidence turned up after W30June, & when? who discovered it? how quickly did Rogers & Co. change their mind on the estimate? Also, when did ED Brazon instruct what she called “the non-profits lawyer” to halt their review of the FY2020 auditor’s report they had received on Deadline Day at 6.30pm EDT from CFO Sims herself (her report to the Tu13July2021 PNB Finance Cttee, 56:46 – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/210713/finance210713a.mp3; & (approved?) minutes, unpaginated but p. 2 of the PDF – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/210713/finance210713_7122_minutes.pdf)? 7.30pm? 8.30pm? 9.30pm? If it wasn’t because of the pensions matter, what was the reason? Also, why would a lawyer – any lawyer – be paid to look at an auditor’s report, to what purpose? what expertise could they provide? And this from a lawyer who is only “licensed to practice law in both Pennsylvania and Florida”, so neither in California nor in Washington, DC where lives the Corporation for Public Broadcasting – https://www.lawyers4nonprofits.org/team. This is all a crock, yes?
The lawyer: turns out it’s Jeff, Jeff the Brief, trading as Lawyers for Nonprofits – proudly denoted in its logo emblazoned across the masthead of its homepage, & then twice again, as “VIRTUAL LAW OFFICE”: https://www.lawyers4nonprofits.org/. So, Jeff, maybe working out of Mom’s basement. Jeff, apparently scrutinising an already done-‘n’-dusted auditor’s report – what for? Spelling errors? arithmetical errors? typos? formatting inconsistencies? Maybe a director, this side of the Styx, will ask ED Brazon what expertise Jeff, uniquely Jeff, brings to ‘the Pacifica family’.
Lawyers for Nonprofits: well, not so much ‘lawyers’ as Jeff, witness the ‘Our Team’ tab mentioning … only Jeff. Just Jeff. So, Jeff for Nonprofits. But Jeff Fromknecht is a busy guy. The bottom of each webpage says, “Lawyers for Nonprofits is a project of Side Project Inc., a 501(c)(3) public charity”. “Project”? The ‘About’ tab adds nothing, but money often talks, & the ‘Get Involved’ page, alongside more caps, “DONATE”, is more literal: “Side Project, Inc, [is] a 501(c)(3) public charity that operates Lawyers for Nonprofits”. Finally a verb, not a noun. Disclosure of a control structure. And surprise, surprise, who’s their CEO & Managing Attorney? Yup. With another Fromknecht, young Daniel, being a director – Side Project, Inc.’s website, https://www.dosomeorganizing.org/officers-and-board. Indeed: ‘do some organizing’. Charity, literally, starts at home.
Why is it that the sellers of specialist services to The Liberal Conscience of the Nation, non-profits, never themselves end up in North Kennedy Tract, or the Fashion District, or Far North, or Brentwood, or Hunts Point?
•••• ••••• •••••
~~~
The basics
• another disclaimer of opinion, the 4th (FY, ). Paying auditors so that they find themselves forced to say ‘materially’;
• another going concern warning, the 7th (FY, );
•
• unaudited net loss of ~$1.060m ($893 363 per NETA-prepared management accounts + ~$170k depreciation (the unaudited FY2019 charge was $188 398 – p. 6))
This was posted Tu20July to the two main Pacifica Facebook groups, Pacifica Radio Supporters, & Friends and Fans of Pacifica Foundation (the name since 2020 of Pacifica Radiowaves). These remarks followed on from an appeal to the breakers to let it go, to accept that they failed to persuade Pacificans to adopt their proposed new constitution. It turned on losing the staff-member referendum, 255 — 180.
That cancelled out winning the listener-member referendum, 6 640 — 5 216. Nevertheless, this result was remarkable:
•three percentage-point metrics, showing breaker swings, using as the base the Mar2020 listener-member referendum result: +75.7 (sic) when expressed as a proportion of the anti-breaker vote(–48.4 ⭢ +27.3); +21.7 amongst those who voted (33.7 ⭢ 55.4); & +7.38 amongst the membership (7.70 ⭢ 15.08);
• the anti-breakers performed so badly, enthusing & mobilising so inefficiently, that with turnout increasing 23.4% (9 714 ⭢ 11 986), their vote went down a damning 17.7% (6 340 ⭢ 5 216).
The crushing result demonstrates the political bankruptcy of the anti-breaker prominents, namely, of both their style (form) & their messaging (content), expressed in & thru an alienated & alienating relationship with the members, reducing them to exhorting from on high . . . the moment of realisation, of calls falling upon deaf ears.
~
Nevertheless, the listener-member referendum result shows the political bankruptcy of the anti-breaker PNB majority. It showed that their bureaucratic approach of not organising & mobilising amongst the membership (unlike New Day), & instead relying on tired & dying networks of likely voters to spread the word, has reached its inefficient & inefficacious limit. The anti-breaker prominents (one can’t say leaders) are exhausted as a political force. Anti-politics, it’s been shown it can only do so much work. It’s only a matter of time. Their necrotic process has accelerated markedly.
Devoid of ideas & unable to generate hope, they have confirmed that objectively they exist as breakers themselves: they have shown they are unable to motivate members to believe & co-create a revived & vigorous Pacifica network that isn’t just desired & possible, but feasible.
In their stead, will such a political force arise within PacificaWorld?
[WHOOPS, a crucial correction: the wrong section was cited. Like most of us immersed in PacificaWorld – seeing it all too often run as a private club, not a public charity – it seems to operate for mutual benefit, legally a non-profit mutual benefit corporation . . . but no: it’s a public benefit one. Who knew? It’s not mentioned in the Articles of Incorporation, the by-laws, nor on any Pacifica website; but it is by the California Registry of Charitable Trusts: “Entity Type: Public Benefit” – https://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Search.aspx?facility=Y (quickest way to search is 011303, Pacifica’s state charity registration #).
[The correct sections: § 5342(d), & § 5033. §5342(d), re “termination” of a membership class: “[t]he articles or bylaws may impose additional requirements regarding termination of all memberships or any class of memberships” (bold added). § 5033, re what counts as approval by the members: “approval shall include the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding memberships of each class, unit, or grouping of members entitled, by any provision of the articles or bylaws […] to vote as a class, unit, or grouping of members on the subject matter being voted upon” (bold added). There is another section, § 5151(e), concerning “corporate actions”, but presumably, in context, that doesn’t include the action that is a whole membership vote. These sections are easy to access from the hypertexted contents of Title 1, Corporations, of the CA Corporations Code: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=CORP&division=&title=1.&part=&chapter=&article=&nodetreepath=2.
[How? In 2021 this effect was caused by what was involved in the Opus Deists’ New Dayists’ proposal to differentially change the class voting rights of staff-members, of how they would vote to get a member of their class onto the Pacifica National Board. New Day devised an amendment to terminate the staff membership class (& not the listener class) – replacing it with two new classes (paid staff, unpaid staff). One effect re class voting rights would be to discriminate against the class of staff-members: unlike the class of listener-members, they would lose the class right to be involved, to vote, in electing into position a station-specific staff director on the PNB, so five in total; at present that class voting right is exercised by 30 individual staff-members, the six staff-delegates on each local station board. Putting it the other way, under the proposed amendment, listener-members from each station would still vote into position a listener director specific to their own signal area, whereas staff-members (now in two classes) would lose that class voting right because their new class voting right would have a different spatial quality, trans-Pacifica, not station-specific, their ballots being aggregated nationally (in the two new classes).
[Yes, this proposed amendment has a differential class adverse material effect re voting rights; one reason why in 2021 there were referenda (one for listeners, one for staff), not a referendum – so two results.
[It remains to be seen whether the breakers can get around this by-laws obstacle & still achieve their aims.].
~~~
This was posted Tu20July to the two main Pacifica Facebook groups, Pacifica Radio Supporters, & Friends and Fans of Pacifica Foundation (the name since 2020 of Pacifica Radiowaves).
The FB post has another part, & it’s the next blogpost. It’s addressed to the other protagonist, the anti-breakers: the listener-member referendum result demonstrates the political bankruptcy of the anti-breaker prominents, namely, of both their style & their messaging, expressed in & thru an alienated & alienating relationship with the members, reducing them to exhorting from on high.
~
New Day are being disingenuous, as it’s implausible to imagine they’re ignorant: a separate staff-member referendum was required by California law coz the new Pacifica constitution proposed by New Day created a new class of membership (two in fact: a paid staff class, & an unpaid staff class). Here’s the relevant mandatory clause of the law, in full, the CA Corporations Code Section 7813(f):
[a]n amendment must also be approved by the members (Section 5034) of a class, whether or not such class is entitled to vote thereon by the provisions of the articles or bylaws, if the amendment would […] (f) Authorize a new class of memberships [sic]
A digression worth making: today Chris Cory was added to the 2021 KPFA LSB nomination list. “Interesting”, as the man himself would say. Moreover, as a staff-member. (When he was elected in 2018 it was as a listener-member; the five who then ran as staff were the successful Sabrina ‘if you think I’m obnoxious, just wait untiI I bother to try’ Jacobs, Tim Lynch, Frank Sterling, & the unsuccessful Philip ‘I’m so sly you may even start off liking me’ Maldari & Darlene ‘there’s more to me than sadomasochism & black lesbians’ Pagano.) Re C ‘Pharaoh’ C’s biography, in Pacifica has that ever happened before, peeps getting onto the LSB, then getting a show? I wonderwheel . . .
Also making a return is Sherry ‘Donny is abrasive, I prefer the scalpel’ Gendelman: the breakers are continuing their Eurocommunist interpretation of Gramsci, working in & against the state, the state not of Denmark but of PacificaWorld.
~
Applications all on schedule?
Raises the question, what’s in these three preparation schedules? Where are the links, so Pacifica management can be transparent in their work, & that they, & the directors, can be held accountable for their acts, of both commission & omission?
Why have the 2021 licence applications, especially for KPFT, not been mentioned in any Pacifica meeting, those either open to the public or with an audiofile in the Pacifica meetings archive?
Bit of a prob at KPFT, praps, coz the station manager, David Baes, finishes work this Thursday. But then, it’s only some government rule – why would they mess with Pacifica? Rules are for other peeps, right?
Tomorrow is the KPFT Local Station Board. Nominally starts at 8pm EDT. It’s expected that the proposed agenda has 30mins public comment from 9pm EDT (the jargon is ‘at time certain’). Will anyone ask about the licence renewal application? Will it rise up the agenda above the items most amenable to point-scoring? Find out, joining by either phone or Zoom.
[Originally posted 8July, as an addendum to a discussion of the FY2020 auditor’s report in relation to California law. Upon request, it’s re-posted separately. Agreed – even a case of light & bushel?]
~
The breakers decisively win the listener-member referendum (6 000 — 5 800?, maybe 6 050 — 5 750?) – but lose the war … with maybe 220 blocking 6 000
An important indicator of the likely referenda results was disclosed by a frazzled Renée Asteria Peñaloza, the National Elections Supervisor, at the Th8July PNB. She said the electorate was ~44 000 listener-members & 1 035 staff-members (40:32 after roll-call; UPDATE: that time seems to be in error, it being 42:55 according to the now published audiofiles; the agenda item starts at 0:27 on the ‘b’-file, & the electorates are given at 1:12 –https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb210708/pnb210708b.mp3). Prior to this, the latest figures disclosed by Pacifica were 42 491 & 993, respectively, at 2Jan2020, the record date for the first by-laws referenda. (The anti-breakers won both referenda: 6 340 — 3 273, & 331 — 177.)
• total electorate up, +~3.4%; mostly a net extra ~1 500 listener-members. Have the anti-breakers been on a recruitment campaign? We know who’s been organised, been organising, & been mobilising peeps for a few years now
• this is surprising, to say the least: according to official figures (buyer beware), Aug/Sep2015 ⭢ 2Jan2020, total listener membership in this 4⅓yr period fell at the rate of ~2 340 a year. So, going against the grain current, we may have here 1500 + 2340 = 3840. Where did these people come from? Who’s been recruiting/retaining over 3k peeps, all in little more than a year? This contrasts with the lack of a ‘bump’ before the first referenda. This time is different. (The ~2 340: (52582 − 42491) ÷ 4⅓) – https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/non-financial-pacifica-data/the-knell-pacifica-membership-passing-over-time/
• listener-member referendum: at the Tu6July KPFT Development Cttee, Robin Lewis (Membership Lead) disclosed that membership “is at 2 900” (57:54) – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpftdev/210706/kpftdev210706a.mp3. At 2Jan2020, it was ~4 537 (~4 368 listeners, ~169 staff), so a drop, in unemployment CoronaTimes, of –36.1%. If this membership has dropped (moreover, at the only station where the breakers won a 2020 listener referendum, ~453 — ~423), whilst membership has grown for Pacifica as a whole, there’s only one rational conclusion: it’s the breakers who’ve been recruiting massively, & on the West Coast – whilst the anti-breakers sat on their laurels, singing Freddy Mercury
• staff-member referendum: membership +4.2%, but with much smaller numbers involved it’s more uncertain who the recruiters are
• turnout: compared with the Mar2020 by-laws referenda voting, listener-member turnout, as a share of an increased electorate, is +~17.9% (22.9% ⭢ ~27%), & staff-member turnout, as a share of a decreased electorate, is –~18.6% (51.6% ⭢ ~42%). The killer stat is the +~17.9%. Seriously. And one needs to say again: have the anti-breakers been on a recruitment & mobilising campaign? We know who’s been organised, been organising, & been mobilising peeps for a few years now
• listener-member turnout: in 2020, 42491 x ~22.9% = 9714; in 2021, 44000 x ~27% = ~11880. Increase of ~2 166, by +~22.3%. (Assuming the ~1 500 net increase to the electorate all voted, that means at least ~650 ex-abstainers voted – peeps more likely to be roused by the call for a new day, a new beginning, than holding fast to the status quo.) Is anyone seriously suggesting that the anti-breakers, who had no unified national campaign, & got into the action so, so late, magically got even 1 000 new peeps to turn out to vote for them?
• staff-member turnout: in 2020, 993 x ~51.6% = 512; in 2021, 1035 x ~42% = ~435. Decrease of ~77, by –~15.0%
Only one rational conclusion is derivable from the evidence.
Conjecture: listener-member result = 6 000 — 5 800, maybe 6 050 — 5 750, a win by 200-300. (Excludes invalid ballots: 101 in the last referendum. The main assumption is the anti-breakers suffering attrition by a ⅐th (900) of their Mar2020 referendum support; also, the breakers mobilising 800-850 other new members or former abstainers, plus winning 1 900 out of the described 2 166 increase.)
As noted in previous posts, the breakers may win the listener-member referendum, & even win the staff-member referendum at three of the stations (as in 2020), but lose the staff referendum coz the highest turnout rate remains at WPFW & WBAI . . . so with ~435 Pacifica staff voting, 220 may block 6 000 . . . a voting potency of x27.
NES Peñaloza said she may have the results tomorrow afternoon (East Coast), otherwise on Monday (42:28 after roll-call; UPDATE: at 0:45 on the audiofile). In a typical lack of precision, from a purported elections supervisor, she didn’t speak of either the certification of the results or the announcement of the results. But the stuffing has been knocked out of her.
(This P.S. will be incorporated into a post made tomorrow [UPDATE, Th15July: please see the end of this note] on the worrying habit of the NES, the ED, & other Pacifica decision-makers to continually speak, & in the NES’ case, write, of ‘the referendum’ rather than the referenda. By by-law Article17, Section 1(B)(3), both (v) & the final sentence, & (4), both classes of members have to approve any change having a differential material adverse effect on voting rights: “the Members shall vote in classes and the majority vote of the Members of each class shall be required to approve the amendment” (emphases added). This has been explained in previous posts. Also please note the confused question put by Lawrence Reyes to the NES, & her reply (58:54 after roll-call; UPDATE: at 17:11 on the audiofile). https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art17sec1.html.)
[UPDATE, Th15July: two posts will appear in the next few days: (1) on the referendum/referenda idea, focusing on the most obvioussufficient reason, per California law, that requires two referenda, namely, Corporations Code, Section 7813(f), the (f) – https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CORP§ionNum=7813; & (2) a quantitative & qualitative account of the referenda results announced M12July, including the political effects –https://elections.pacifica.org/wordpress/bylaws-proposal-petition/. Note, the NES’ statement twice says “[r]esults”, not ‘certification of results’; just sloppy? Her announcement also says “[t]he final report will be published by July 26th, 2021”.]
Disclaimer of opinion means that the auditors haven’t vouched for the material accuracy, the ‘fairness’, of any of the figures in the statements in their report: neither the financial statements for Pacifica as a whole (the consolidated) nor the management statements for the accounting units (the stations, etc.).
All parts of the statements lack the credibility that the appropriate third-party professional could have given them, but having taken the cash, they found they were unable to say, one way or the other.
For a potential grantor, that’s a warning about the past year; the going concern warning is about the current year & possibly beyond.
Wishful thinking to the contrary is precisely that.
~
Audiofile of the W30June PNB Coordinating Cttee
Eventually published W7July. PNB Chair Alex Steinberg on the auditor’s report: “they [sic] were submitted to the AG today” (30June, 3:43). Inadvertently, the audiofile included the Cttee’s closed discussion for the Th8July PNB closed session (16:40). Oh. (On the copy, linked below, 3:45 & 16:42 respectively.)
Why hasn’t the FY2020 auditor’s report been published by Pacifica, as mandated by California law?
As related Tu6July on this blog, Pacifica announced in writing that day that “the FY2020 audit” (sic), at 30June, had been “completed but was not filed”. So why has Executive Director Lydia Brazon chosen not to publish it to the public, as required by California law?
And contrary to the claim made in Pacifica’s 6July statement, the law doesn’t admit the possibility of extending its filing date with the California Attorney General:
[Q:] Does the extension for filing IRS Form 990 also apply to the completion date for the audit? [A:] No. The statute does not provide for an extension of time.
And how do the higher-ups at Pacifica explain the initial statement & then its retraction?
So, any chance at today’s Pacifica National Board that a director will ask for an explanation of:
• why hasn’t the FY2020 auditor’s report been published, as required by California law?
• why hasn’t it been filed with the Attorney General, as required by California law ?
• and how does ED Brazon & PNB Chair Steinberg explain misinforming the public about its filing? And who, other than Chair Steinberg, made this statement?
Is there no transparency of proceedings? Is there no accountability for behaviour?
Is Pacifica a rule-bound operation? Does any of this matter?
What is Pacifica: private club or public charity?
~~~
[Addendum: deriving meaning from the revealing referenda info provided by National Elections Supervisor Peñaloza to the Th8July PNB.]
The breakers decisively win the listener-member referendum (6 000 — 5 800?, maybe 6 050 — 5 750?) – but lose the war … with maybe 220 blocking 6 000
An important indicator of the likely referenda results was disclosed by a frazzled Renée Asteria Peñaloza, the National Elections Supervisor, at the Th8July PNB. She said the electorate was ~44 000 listener-members & 1 035 staff-members (40:32 after roll-call). Prior to this, the latest figures disclosed by Pacifica were 42 491 & 993, respectively, at 2Jan2020, the record date for the first by-laws referenda. (The anti-breakers won both referenda: 6 340 — 3 273, & 331 — 177.)
• total electorate up, +~3.4%; mostly a net extra ~1 500 listener-members. Have the anti-breakers been on a recruitment campaign? We know who’s been organised, been organising, & been mobilising peeps for a few years now
• this is surprising, to say the least: according to official figures (buyer beware), Aug/Sep2015 ⭢ 2Jan2020, total listener membership in this 4⅓yr period fell at the rate of ~2 340 a year. So, going against the grain current, we may have here 1500 + 2340 = 3840. Where did these people come from? Who’s been recruiting/retaining over 3k peeps, all in little more than a year? This contrasts with the lack of a ‘bump’ before the first referenda. This time is different. (The ~2 340: (52582 − 42491) ÷ 4⅓) – https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/non-financial-pacifica-data/the-knell-pacifica-membership-passing-over-time/
• listener-member referendum: at the Tu6July KPFT Development Cttee, Robin Lewis (Membership Lead) disclosed that membership “is at 2 900” (57:54) – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpftdev/210706/kpftdev210706a.mp3. At 2Jan2020, it was ~4 537 (~4 368 listeners, ~169 staff), so a drop, in unemployment CoronaTimes, of –36.1%. If this membership has dropped (moreover, at the only station where the breakers won a 2020 listener referendum, ~453 — ~423), whilst membership has grown for Pacifica as a whole, there’s only one rational conclusion: it’s the breakers who’ve been recruiting massively, & on the West Coast – whilst the anti-breakers sat on their laurels, singing Freddy Mercury
• staff-member referendum: membership +4.2%, but with much smaller numbers involved it’s more uncertain who the recruiters are
• turnout: compared with the Mar2020 by-laws referenda voting, listener-member turnout, as a share of an increased electorate, is +~17.9% (22.9% ⭢ ~27%), & staff-member turnout, as a share of a decreased electorate, is –~18.6% (51.6% ⭢ ~42%). The killer stat is the +~17.9%. Seriously. And one needs to say again: have the anti-breakers been on a recruitment & mobilising campaign? We know who’s been organised, been organising, & been mobilising peeps for a few years now
• listener-member turnout: in 2020, 42491 x ~22.9% = 9714; in 2021, 44000 x ~27% = ~11880. Increase of ~2 166, by +~22.3%. (Assuming the ~1 500 net increase to the electorate all voted, that means at least ~650 ex-abstainers voted – peeps more likely to be roused by the call for a new day, a new beginning, than holding fast to the status quo.) Is anyone seriously suggesting that the anti-breakers, who had no unified national campaign, & got into the action so, so late, magically got even 1 000 new peeps to turn out to vote for them?
• staff-member turnout: in 2020, 993 x ~51.6% = 512; in 2021, 1035 x ~42% = ~435. Decrease of ~77, by –~15.0%
Only one rational conclusion is derivable from the evidence.
Conjecture: listener-member result = 6 000 — 5 800, maybe 6 050 — 5 750, a win by 200-300. (Excludes invalid ballots: 101 in the last referendum. The main assumption is the anti-breakers suffering attrition by a ⅐th (900) of their Mar2020 referendum support; also, the breakers mobilising 800-850 other new members or former abstainers, plus winning 1 900 out of the described 2 166 increase.)
As noted in previous posts, the breakers may win the listener-member referendum, & even win the staff-member referendum at three of the stations (as in 2020), but lose the staff referendum coz the highest turnout rate remains at WPFW & WBAI . . . so with ~435 Pacifica staff voting, 220 may block 6 000 . . . a voting potency of x27.
NES Peñaloza said she may have the results tomorrow afternoon (East Coast), otherwise on Monday (42:28 after roll-call). In a typical lack of precision, from a purported elections supervisor, she didn’t speak of either the certification of the results or the announcement of the results. But the stuffing has been knocked out of her.
(This P.S. will be incorporated into a post made tomorrow on the worrying habit of the NES, the ED, & other Pacifica decision-makers to continually speak, & in the NES’ case, write, of ‘the referendum’ rather than the referenda. By by-law Article17, Section 1(B)(3), both (v) & the final sentence, & (4), both classes of members have to approve any change having a differential material adverse effect on voting rights: “the Members shall vote in classes and the majority vote of the Members of each class shall be required to approve the amendment” (emphases added). This has been explained in previous posts. Also please note the confused question put by Lawrence Reyes to the NES, & her reply (58:54 after roll-call). https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art17sec1.html)
For those lucky enough not to be acquainted with this living Thanatos, please appreciate their distinctive qualities, personality structure, & techniques from this astute analysis:
PacificaWatch 