FY2020 auditor’s report published – but not by Pacifica … they say it’s “completed”, so why not publish it, as required by law? … “they were submitted to the AG today”, said PNB Chair Alex Steinberg to the W30June PNB Coordinating Cttee … & the closed discussion for the PNB closed session

FY2020 auditor’s report

https://mega.nz/file/gc9h3SDQ#SG2SVOaJaniikB8-1oWcohAcp6KZVfd36dsLK4uYBsA

Pacifica’s 4° disclaimer (FY2017, FY2018, FY2019, FY2020); the 8° going concern warning (FY2010, FY2011, FY2015, FY2016, FY2017, FY2018, FY2019, FY2020).

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.)

https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/coordinating/210630/coordinating210630a.mp3; a copy’s at https://mega.nz/file/ZRsUjTrS#nZu_r45iO5e2ufya1XHtIxfq2X2DpWNGEUh30YkpliY

~

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.

https://oag.ca.gov/charities/laws#collapseFAQs8

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?

https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2021/07/06/fy2020-audit-fiasco-intensifies-pacifica-said-things-were-sent-when-they-weren-t-and-auditor-s-report-was-completed-but-it-isn-t-and-claims-due-date-is-16aug-whereas-ag-says-no-the-statute-says-no/

(No-one seems to mention the 120-day reporting rule found in both by-law Article 12, Section 6, & in the FJC loan agreement, Section 6.1 – https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/auditor-s-reports/auditors-reports-summary-notes-2/auditors-reports-summary-notes/. So we won’t either.)

~

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.)

https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/non-financial-pacifica-data/the-knell-pacifica-membership-passing-over-time/; & https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2020/03/30/referenda-station-results-approx-absolute-numbers/

So,

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.

She didn’t say, but the results announcement may be at the site she runs, https://elections.pacifica.org/wordpress/ – and presumably soon after on the Foundation’s homepage, scrubbed clean today, ready & waiting, https://pacifica.org/.

(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)

Advertisement

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s