The W22Dec PNB closed session had one item: “[i]nterviews with candidates for Executive Director” – https://kpftx.org/archive.php. There were three, apparently. Hopefully they’re fully cognisant of what they’re letting themselves in for.
~
Imagine some ships, or one ship, and a state of affairs on board something like this. There’s the shipowner, larger and stronger than everyone in the ship, but somewhat deaf and rather short-sighted, with a knowledge of sailing to match his eyesight. The sailors are quarrelling among themselves over captaincy of the ship, each one thinking that he ought to be captain, though he has never learnt that skill, nor can he point to the person who taught him or a time when he was learning it. On top of which they say it can’t be taught. In fact they’re prepared to cut to pieces anyone who says it can. The shipowner himself is always surrounded by them. They beg him and do everything they can to make him hand over the tiller to them. Sometimes, if other people can persuade him and they can’t, they kill those others or throw them overboard. Then they immobilise their worthy shipowner with drugs or drink or by some other means, and take control of the ship, helping themselves to what it is carrying. Drinking and feasting, they sail in the way you’d expect people like that to sail. More than that, if someone is good at finding them ways of persuading or compelling the shipowner to let them take control, they call him a real seaman, a real captain, and say he really knows about ships. Anyone who can’t do this they treat with contempt, calling him useless. They don’t even begin to understand that if he is to be truly fit to take command of a ship[,] a real ship’s captain must of necessity be thoroughly familiar with the seasons of the year, the stars in the sky, the winds, and everything to do with his art. As for how he is going to steer the ship – regardless of whether anyone wants him to or not – they do not regard this as an additional skill or study which can be acquired over and above the art of being a ship’s captain. If this is the situation on board, don’t you think the person who is genuinely equipped to be captain will be called a stargazer, a chatterer, of no use to them, by those who sail in ships with this kind of crew?
[UPDATE … question 28 of 31 did wonder, “And will the joining details for the December meeting be changed yet again, to keep the public out?” And sure enough, Queen Liz III couldn’t help herself: “Access via MaestroConference (Never a charge to the calling party) phone (323) 393-4046 access code 504 258 # (Same as last Month.) Access information will remain the same for future meetings until further notice. (Please disregard any other access information from any other source. Beth)” – sent out 40mins before the meeting, “Monday, December 27, 2021, 05:50:09 PM MST”. So that’s a promise, yes?
[Her unthinking authoritarian disposition was also on display again – not horizontal/collegiate but top-down, not an intercourse of equals but others as objects – enclosing what she described as “Agenda”, rather than ‘suggested agenda’. This email was forwarded to PacificaWatch by members of the inner circle & their confidants.
[What do they say about leopard & spots? And what is this problem she has with Joe & Joanna Public? Given that she’s shown yet again that she’s really more at home in the cosy world of appointed boards, secreted away from scrutiny, she should reconsider her position within an ostensibly democratic culture such as Pacifica, & do the decent thing, yes? She really is like a fish out of water here.]
~
. . . the new number & access code for the M27Dec meet, plus the inner circle of courtiers . . . remember the PacificaWatch mantra, its masthead: “helping to make the Pacifica radio network more transparent, making it easier to hold decision-makers to account” . . .
The next day the anti-Pacifican forces went to work, sending a new number to the inner circle, those personally invited by Chair Beth von Gunten. The new info going to the anointed ones:
2030 EST, M27Dec PNB Development Task Force: please join the call with 408-520-2444, access code 618 715#.
As per M20Dec2021 email to the email list of the PNB Development Task Force
The inner circle:
Fred Blair, Chris Cory, Heather Gray, Bruce Greif, Rosalie Hoffman, Eric Jacobson, Steve Kaiser, Kim Kaufman, Michael Novick, King Reilly, Lawrence Reyes, Ziri Rideaux, Cerene Roberts, Jeanine Rohn, James Sagurton, Anita Sims, Nancy Sorden, Tom Voorhees.
The current email list of the PNB Development Task Force
~
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has told Pacifica that if it wants any of its money then it has to “demonstrate full compliance with the [Radio Community Service Grants] General Provisions at the time of application”. So why is Chair von Gunten choosing to violate the CPB open meetings requirement, thereby ensuring disqualification?
Oddly, why has she changed her behaviour, having invited the public to the M27Sep Task Force meeting but then deliberately excluded them from the Oct, Nov, & Dec meetings?
Task Force Chair von Gunten has the added responsibility, as a director of Pacifica Foundation, Inc., of being a trustee of its assets, a so-called fiduciary. Her behaviour concerning the possibility of CPB funding endangers the viability of those assets. Doesn’t this warrant her disqualification as a director?
Doesn’t this certainly disqualify her candidature as a 2022 director?
Also, why is she choosing to violate the Pacifica by-law open meetings requirement, an institutionalised attempt to inculcate & maintain a culture of transparency & to prohibit opacity, this being the substantive content of by-laws Article 6, Section 7 & Art. 7, Sec. 6?
She says taskforce meetings don’t have to be open to the public – which poses the question, why has she never explained why she prefersmeetings to be secret?
Why does someone with a demonstrated secretive & exclusionary disposition not just want to be a Pacifica member but to be a Pacifica decision-maker, even one at the highest level?
More so than merely taking the opportunity to practice secrecy & exclusion, why is she so insistent on keeping Pacifica proceedings secret?
And why have something as basic as minutes not been posted on a Pacifica website – not even one set for a deliberative body that has been meeting since 24June2020?
What does she want to conceal? What information does she want to deny to Pacifica members, listeners, & staff? Why doesn’t she want them to be informed, to be educated, about what is happening in Pacifica? Why does she want to be the info gatekeeper?
~
Most worryingly, why do the invitees to these secret meetings, the inner circle, choose to collude in this anti-Pacifican behaviour?
Is it simply because they’re afraid they’ll lose the privilege of being emailed the joining details?
Are they afraid of upsetting Queen Liz III, losing their privileges, being banished from the realm, reduced to relying on the goss?
Don’t they realise they’ve allowed themselves to become dependants, the clients of a patron who’s in a position to disburse privileges?
Don’t they realise they’re helping to reproduce a corrosive political structure of bonding with some rather than others, encouraging loyalty to the leader, creating an in-group/out-group dynamic, setting Pacifican against Pacifican?
Don’t they realise this ferments a toxic atmosphere?
Don’t they realise that a bystander who remains silent is objectively colluding with the perpetrators of a wrong?
Don’t they realise that by their acts of commission & omission they themselves are perpetrating harm?
Why don’t they take advantage of the public comment portion of a local station board meeting to express any opposition they have to this practice?
Why won’t they bring a motion to their board, be it their local station board or the Pacifica National Board, to stop this harmful & destructive behaviour?
Why won’t people in a position to act try to stop this public charity being a private club?
So why don’t the invitees vote in a new Chair, someone who isn’t afraid of being both transparent & legal, someone even eager to post a notice allowing the public to witness proceedings, so peeps can find out what’s going on in their name?
~
How has Pacifica become reduced to this – and so quickly by a neophyte, the epitome of the voguish PMC, someone who proudly told the listeners of KPFK, in a ‘meet the LSB’ session in the summer with GM Moe Thomas, that “I was recruited onto the LSB by Grace Aaron”? . . . cult-like . . . creepy . . . bestowing heirs . . . a dynasty, a caste . . . a world of privilege . . . the sense of entitlement . . . – all so alien to Pacifica, yes?
And will the joining details for the December meeting be changed yet again, to keep the public out?
Why is Pacifica descending in this way?
How low can it go?
Why are people who do know better, colluding in this destructive, degenerative behaviour?
. . . for the 15 days, Tu7-Tu21Dec2021, $195k pledge goal, $13k a day . . . & yet, & yet . . . $89 415 total pledged at 0001 PST, W22Dec, daily average $5 961 pledged, &, at 78% fulfilment, $4 650 gross proceeds per day . . . so even being in drive brings in only ~58% (less cost of fundraising) of the ~$8 044 daily expenses . . . oh . . . https://www.kpfk.org/ . . .
[UPDATE . . . the drive ended on time, with a welcome ‘thank you’: “KPFK’S ON-AIR FUND DRIVE IS NOW OVER[.] THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HAS PLEDGED SUPPORT!” (original caps & emphases, so unobtrusively to the left of the thermometer that it’s easily missed). Welcome, coz the last drive, the first under Miquel’s management, fizzled out in silence. And the gauge is still registering: at 0001 PST, Th23Dec it was $98 967, a commendable $9 552 for the day, 60% up on the drive daily average. This may be telling us something – but the motivator may be a self-interested message: “Get your Tax-Deductible pledges in before the new year” (original emphases). Ah well . . .
[0002 PST, F24Dec: $100 805, +$1 838 … 0103 PST, Sa25Dec (just after going to Mass with Miquel): $100 805, +$0 … 0309 PST, Su26Dec: $100 805, +$0, so I guess the thermometer manager is now in Honolulu (or is it Vegas?) – and good for her (or is it them?).]
~
. . . the coming gloaming, the darkness sweeping in upon the face of the deep . . .
The Tu7-Tu21Dec KPFK fund-drive ended yesterday. A disaster: it couldn’t even bring in enough to cover daily expenses – let alone create a stash to cover the weeks out of drive. Gross proceeds, so before deducting the costs of fundraising, averaged only ~58% of the ~$8 044 daily expenses.
How does the current one compare? $89415 pledged ÷ 15 days = $5 961. Oh.
The extra: $5961 − 5836 = $125 daily pledged.
But that’s pledged: what about cash in the coffers?
In that report, Chair Blair said the fulfilment rate was “about 78%” (30:18). That was a slight improvement on 76.8%, the previous rate given publicly, by then KPFK business manager Barry ‘The King’ Brooks (18:17) for the Tu20Apr-F4June drive (16June KPFK Finance Cttee – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpfkfin/210616/kpfkfin210616a.mp3).
So, $125 x 0.78 = $97.50.
So an extra $98 gross proceeds a day. An extra $4.06 an hour. (You may have thought this warranted bolding – but it’s actually worse, as explained below.)
So, an extra ~$1 463 gross proceeds for the period, compared with the last drive.
(Re the 5Oct-5Nov drive, there has been no update, as usual, on any of these basic facts: the total pledged, the fulfilment rate, the gross proceeds, the cost of fundraising, the net proceeds – and no-one seems to ask, members of either the KPFK Finance Cttee or the KPFK Local Station Board.)
~
Station manager Miquel Calçada made a special effort for this drive. To break the mould. “I-I hope that we have a webinar by Christine [Blosdale] with all the programmers” (49:29, at the W17Nov KPFK LSB; oddly, the drive wasn’t mentioned in his report, that starts 36:20) – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpfk/211117/kpfk211117a.mp3.
The complete plan for full-spectrum domination was unleashed on day #9 of the drive, W15Dec, when he told the LSB,
we got, urgh, the attention of individual programmers and the necessity of pitching. We distributed scripts, pro formas [garbled]. I spoke with many programmers personally, and they also were offered to attend [Mansoor-the-Unmuted then interrupted] a webinar by Christine Blosdale on pitching techniques [guess she charged: otherwise Miquel would have raised morale by lauding her for selfless magnanimity in supporting the station in its hour of need]
However, the yield looks like +2.1% (5961 ÷ 5836 daily pledged, or 4650 ÷ 4552 daily fulfilled). That’s the +~$98 gross proceeds a day. And that’s the gross.
As I said 19Nov, “that’s the gross figure, the fulfilment of the pledges. It excludes the cost of fundraising, those such as premiums, post & packaging, hiring pitchers, borrowing existing staff deployed elsewhere (albeit a sunk cost: already incurred, but a cost of this activity), call-centre charge, payment processing.”
So, this drive compared with the last, the extra $4.06 gross proceeds per hour is, what, $3.50 net, an extra $3.50 cash in the coffers for each & every hour of the drive? Or is it $3? Guess we’ll never know.
In that longish post I also pointed out,
[t]he pledge level is now so low that, counter-intuitively, drives may bring in less money, less net income, than if the station had no drives at all. It would be a good idea for KPFK management to do a more accurate set of calculations, for different scenarios, & think the matter thru.
So, bringing in an extra $98 gross proceeds a day.
And the current cost of the station, estimated using the KPFK net income statements in the Aug2021 NETA-produced monthlies? $244 684 per month . . . $8 044 per day. Running a loss at a rate of $105 116 per month . . . $3 456 per day.
And the response to reality is an extra $98 gross proceeds a day?
~
Those estimated rates were at 6Nov2021. GM Miquel started work 15Sep. So although there has been cost-cutting (of an undisclosed amount) since he took the job, the rate of loss-making started off higher. Nevertheless, applying the 6Nov rate for the whole period 15Sep-31Dec, his management has overseen a loss of ~$367 906 (105116 x 3½). And when the new Pacifica directors are seated Th27Jan2022, the KPFK loss for this current fiscal year, the period 1Oct2021-31Jan2022, will be of the order of ~$420 464.
Will the current PNB tolerate another ~$105k of debt for the next board to deal with? Undoubtedly.
~
Meanwhile, just up the coast, the KPFA breakers have been on the move, mimicking Putin pushing his tanks up against the Ukrainian border. Both luv it up close & personal. Sharon ‘no-one luvs WBAI more than I do’ Adams termed out as KPFA Treasurer, & Chris ‘please don’t mock my false laugh, it’s not easy being Janus’ Cory, already on the PNB Finance Cttee, replaced her, by acclamation, at the Sa18Dec KPFA LSB. This creates space on the PNB Finance Cttee for a certain Ms Gendelman. She didn’t run for any of the LSB positions – clearing the way for her to become a director, & even stand to be PNB Chair. (Riding two horses is forbidden: “Local Station Board officers may not serve concurrently as Foundation Directors”, Article 7, Section 5 – https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art7sec5.html. Shooting the stable is allowed.)
Ms Gendelman? Yes, Sherry.
• 2008 PNB Chair.
• 2008 (praps 2008-9) Executive Director (as PNB Chair, standing in): “[s]he was on the Pacifica National Board for two years and served as its Chair, and interim Executive Director of the Pacifica Foundation” – https://pacificasafetynet.org/about-psn/.
• A self-proclaimed KPFA Protector, as are Adams & Cory, a breaker alliance of Pacifica Safety Net & New Day Pacifica during the 2021 delegates elections – https://www.kpfaprotectors.org/endorsers.
• Why safety net? A circus? Clowns? Kinda, but not really: “[w]e are raising money for a ‘safety net’ of funds outside of the control of Pacifica Foundation management to protect the stations” – https://pacificasafetynet.org/about-psn/. Oh. So much for loyalty to the foundation, the usual gloss for a certain standard of behaviour, one even found in state law: “[a] director shall perform the duties of a director […] in good faith, in a manner that director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation” (CA Corporations Code, § 5231(a)) – https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CORP&division=2.&title=1.&part=2.&chapter=2.&article=3.
Let’s not mince words: the stated ambition is to set up a parallel funding operation, so necessarily competing with Pacifica. In the meantime, fund litigation to bleed Pacifica dry.
Setting the stage for what? The anti-breakers, politically crushed in the 2021 by-laws referenda. The 2021 PNB under Chair Alex Steinberg, as passive as can be. And now the breakers with a stronger presence on the PNB, able to cause frequent deadlock. Welcome to New Day Year 2022.
Quo vadis?
[UPDATE . . . another prediction bites the dust: Ms Gendelman didn’t run for the PNB, in early Jan2022. Even so, the KPFA delegates elected the same mix of directors, three breakers, one anti: Donny ‘do you think I care?’ Goldmacher (Sherry’s partner in PSN crime), Darlene Pagano, Mark Van Landuyt, & anti-breaker James McFadden. As living disinformation, Ms Pagano said in her pitch for votes that she’s not in any faction – “I am a person who is not on, or in, any – or either – faction, urgh slate or party, urgh though I have been endorsed by two slates now over the years, at different times, and I take that as, um, a sign that I’m doing something right” (29:10), https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpfadelegates/220108/kpfadelegates220108a.mp3 – yet she endorsed the KPFA Protectors candidates in the 2021 delegates elections, https://www.kpfaprotectors.org/endorsers .]
~~~
Should KPFK’s estimated rate of current loss-making be revised in the light of the later Sep & Oct monthlies?
Above, total current expenses ($8 044 per day) & the current rate of loss-making ($105 166 per month) are estimated from the KPFK monthly net income statements included in the Aug2021 NETA-produced monthlies. Since then, the Sep & Oct ones have been posted online. Should these be used instead?
Folder of the NETA monthlies (10 no.; Nov2020, & Feb thru Oct2021; note that the Nov2020 monthlies give monthly net income statements for all 7 units, plus the aggregation (‘consolidated’ in the jargon), from Oct2019, so before SARS-CoV-2 had been detected, as well as the FY2019 totals): https://mega.nz/folder/RR8XmaAB#kEhHjAFTec2X_Z6CzAC5dw
It largely turns on the total non-Central Services expenses. My working estimate was the average of June-July-Aug, ~$203k per month.
First, have the FY2021 monthly totals been restated in the later monthlies? Yes: only two changed, those for July & Aug. July was down by $2 877, & Aug down by $1 514; & 4391 ÷ 3 = 1464, & x 12 = 17568, so my estimate was overstated by $17 568 for the year thru 5Nov2022, or 0.72% (÷ (202945 x 12)). A tidy sum for an individual, but not material for a ~$3m juggernaut.
Second, & more important, are the size of the Sep & Oct totals. (In case you were asking, the Sep total is the same in both the Sep & Oct monthlies.) Sep was the highest since March: so no continuing monthly decline there (Sep was $216 016, & the June-July-Aug average was the $202 945). Then Oct came in with $161 556. Other that recognising it as an anomaly in the calendar 2021 series (or indeed the series since Adam & Eve), what is one to make of it? The new standard? Will we be at $150k by Dec?
So where does the Oct figure vary the most? Compared with the June-July-Aug average (as now adjusted, of course), personnel costs are down $14k ($119 346 ⭢ $105 058), admin down $10k ($35 778 ⭢ $25 800), programming up $2k ($12 903 ⭢ $14 694), & development down $17k ($32 634 ⭢ $16 003). The net decrease is $39 106. The line items tell you that half of that is forgoing premiums & telemarketing – but with an Oct telemarketing charge of $10 790 (÷ 31 = $348), who the hell was calling whom, & about what? Is this some standing charge, that previous station manager Anyel Fields contracted to in his wisdom? Or is it actually a call centre, processing pledges & payments during the 5Oct-5Nov fund-drive? Maybe Julia, or Kim, can tell us.
On balance, with Sep higher & Oct significantly lower than the June-July-Aug average, & without any explanation from anyone for Oct being such an anomaly, it’s prudent not to change any of the working assumptions. It may be that current total monthly non-Central Services expenses are down from $203k to, say, $173k, reducing the estimated monthly rate of loss-making to ~$75k, making the annual loss thru 5Nov2022, ~$900k. In the wider scale of things, small comfort, yes? Anyway, there just isn’t enough reliable evidence at the moment to support the claim that KPFK is currently not an annual loss-making operation of $1.25m but an annual loss-making operation of $0.9m.
And putting it that way, tells us what has to be done – N O W.
Below are the two sets of public comment made at this local station board continuation meeting. The spoken ‘quote/unquote’ have been removed, & occasional emphases & other italicisation added. At the end of each comment are the links evidencing what’s said.
PacificaWatch has been contacted by members worried about the PNB Development Task Force not noticing its meetings with either a stream or joining details. This violates the CPB open meetings requirement. Calling a Pacifica deliberative body a taskforce or working group doesn’t evade this rule. That’s why the CPB June 2021 Compliance Booklet passage on meetings of boards, committees, & the CAB’s adds the phrase, “but are not limited to”. This addition corresponds to the Communications Act of 1934 saying, “or any advisory body of any such organization”.
In fact this taskforce had an open meeting, at Zoom, on September 27th. This notice was indeed placed by director Beth von Gunten – but her October, November, & December notices exclude the public. However, one can join the call by dialling (323) 393-4046, access code 504 258 #.
On May 22nd, 2020, CPB told ED Lydia Brazon & PNB Chair Alex Steinberg that to get CPB money Pacifica has to “demonstrate full compliance at the time of application”.
Does choosing to violate this CPB rule, in the face of repeated public warnings, violate two legal duties of a director: (1) acting in the best interests of Pacifica, & (2) acting prudently? (California Corporations Code, paragraph 5231(a).)
Does this chosen behavior disqualify director von Gunten from her office? Does this disqualify her from running as a 2022 director? Isn’t such behavior alien to Pacifica?
•4• 22May2020 CPB letter from Kathy Merritt (Senior Vice President, Journalism & Radio) & Katherine Arno (Vice President, Community Service Grants & Station Initiatives) to ED Brazon & PNB Chair Steinberg (unpaginated; p. 1), https://mega.nz/file/cY8XCYLb#4IGXyzfasCgfm-GdaYYm6WPn2XaD4UcMJR8ZPTo-Q8c.
#1, it is obvious that Pacifica will explode late January & into February. But, for the record, what was the date of the PNB closed session when the directors agreed to instruct ED Brazon to hire Rogers & Co. as the FY2021 auditor?
#2, the FCC broadcasting license for both KPFA & KPFK expired December 1st. The FCC webpages show that KPFA’s has been extended 8 years, but that for KPFK has no extension. What can KPFK do?
#3, a new Central Services expense policy was adopted by the PNB on February 18th, with immediate effect. I have estimated that this has saved KPFK about $80,000 thru September 30th. But this policy hasn’t been implemented. Why? And why has no director or any other delegate mentioned this publicly?
#4, the COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, EIDL, accepted an application for a maximum top-up of $1.5m from September 8th. And the Small Business Administration website says, “the last day that applications may be approved is December 31st, 2021” – that is, if funds haven’t been exhausted. So why is ED Brazon still flapping about, 3½ months later? Simply unbelievable.
#5, Ms von Gunten is sorely mistaken in deeming my public comment “a personal attack”. Please re-read what I said: it’s a statement of facts & a set of questions.
Re #4: details of the COVID-19 EIDL, about the exhaustion of funds & the 31Dec2021 deadline, are in the ‘•7• Discussion: Revenue’ section at https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2021/11/19/today-kpfk-is-losing-money-at-a-rate-of-3500-dollars-a-day-105k-a-month-1-point-26m-a-year-as-per-the-docs-publicly-why-does-no-one-recognise-the-scale-the-urgency-qm/. This also evidences the SBA requirements: collateral; cashflow analysis; etc.. The seriousness of the public remarks warrants the actual quotes from the SBA: “[t]he program ends December 31, 2021 or when funds are exhausted, whichever occurs sooner” (p. 2 (see also p. 1), emphases added), https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/COVID-EIDL-FAQs-090821-508.pdf; they follow this up by saying, “[t]he last day that applications may be approved is December 31, 2021” (p. 13, all original emphases: an indication of their intended strictness in this matter). This contrasts with the behaviour of ED Brazon at the Tu9Nov PNB Finance Cttee, where she was still flapping about: “we will be submitting on paper 2 million realizing that 350 – well, that 500,000, urgh, is, um – it-it would be reduced by, and, um, and see how much of that is, um, you know, we end up getting. So, we’re in the process of-of doing that […] we will be, argh, subsequently applying for, um, more of the loan […] and we wanna do this before the [calendar] year-end, so we are, argh, anxious to move ahead with that” (36:18, emphases added) – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/211109/finance211109a.mp3. Just doesn’t cut it, does it?
Re #5, not a reference, but the blinding obvious: this is a matter of accountability – nothing to do with personalities. It’s called being scrutinised – for what one does & doesn’t do. Instead of assuming the role of the victim, the martyr, being precious, the rational response to public comment #1 would have been to reflect, & recognise the reality. It was an everyday exercise in encouraging the making accountable of an officeholder – and a signalling of the serious consequences of what is happening & being tolerated. Those acts of commission & omission objectively do the work of the breakers, even if the intent is otherwise. They cannot be allowed to pass in silence.
. . . transitioning from Joy Division to New Order . . .
[UPDATE: when this was written it seemed a good idea to publish monthly lists of certain kinds of apparent CPB violations. It no longer does.]
~
Given the continual egregious violations by our leaders of the form of the Communications Act of 1934 & the derivative rules of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, let alone of the Pacifica by-laws & California law, it makes sense to list the transgressions on a monthly basis, with the presentation of all available supporting evidence. One says form coz, currently, Pacifica Foundation, Inc. doesn’t receive CPB money, but on 22May2020, over 1½yrs ago, it was told by the CPB,
[t]o be considered for re-entry to the CSG program [Community Service Grant], the Radio CSG program must be open to new applicants, Licensees and Stations must demonstrate full compliance with the General Provisions at the time of application
letter from Kathy Merritt (Senior Vice President, Journalism & Radio) & Katherine Arno (Vice President, Community Service Grants & Station Initiatives) to ED Lydia Brazon & PNB Chair Alex Steinberg, 22May2020, unpaginated but page 1, emphases added – https://mega.nz/file/cY8XCYLb#4IGXyzfasCgfm-GdaYYm6WPn2XaD4UcMJR8ZPTo-Q8c … in the typical opaque practices of the usual Pacifica executive director & any PNB majority one cares to name, they’re not upfront with the members, listeners, & staff, not posting eagerly on the national & unit websites the documented reality & milestone plans, but instead they conceal & at best obfuscate; it means one has to look for scraps where one can – and collation is one function of PacificaWatch
The next cut-throat Radio CSG competition, forced deeper by the epidemic, is that for FY2023, & will presumably be waged for 3-4wks, late Apr-mid May2022 – this year the deadline was W19May (CPB, New Applicant Guidelines, no date, p. 2). It’s denoted FY2023 coz that’s when the CPB money is disbursed. It’s also first-come, first-served: “[e]ligible applicants are accepted into the Radio CSG Program in the order their applications were [sic] received” (same page). https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/rfp/ce8434e0/Grant%20Guidelines%20Radio%20CSG%20for%20FY%202022%20-%20New%20Applicant%20Guidelines.pdf
So Pacifica managers have four short months to be fully compliant.
And with CPB disbursing federal money, & being subject to scrutiny by senators, it’s a sober, conservative body, so it won’t accept a snapshot: it’ll want a recent history showing that Pacifica has been transformed, from caprice to credibility. So for how long will CPB want evidence of the imperative that “Stations must demonstrate full compliance“? Six months? A year? A year – minimum.
That means the coming period is a trial run, getting up to speed. The goal, however realistic, is a viable Radio CSG application in Apr2023, with the first money coming Oct2023, the 2nd instalment in Mar2024. Also remember that audience data is the average of the previous two spring quarters: so the Apr2023 application uses Apr-May-June 2021 & 2022 – so half of that is already set in stone. https://cpb.org/sites/default/files/stations/radio/generalprovisions/FY-2022-Radio-General-Provisions.pdf (definition F, p. 24)
~
The ongoing FCC & CPB violations are not solely perpetrated by the chosen secret behaviour of Pacifica advisory bodies labelled, in Pacificese, taskforces & working groups . . . choking the open meetings requirement, suffocating the transparency out of PacificaWorld. No. These insidious bodies simply protrude as heads wrapped in plastic bags.
The monthly lists will appear on the 11th day of the following month given that a CPB general provision is
Closed Meetings: Grantee must document why any meetings of its governing body, its committees, and CAB [“but are not limited to” these] were closed and make available to the public a written statement of the reason(s) within a reasonable time after the closed meeting (47 U.S.C. § 396(k)(4)). CPB also requires that the written statement be made available for inspection, either at Grantee’s central office or on its station website, within 10 days after each closed meeting.
The lists will first be done for this financial year, so from Oct. Then, in NETA-style, as we go forward those from the rest of calendar 2021 will be added. If a minion agrees to pay for the privilege of labouring at PacificaWatch, then calendar 2020 will be added.
~
This PacificaWorld self-harm documentary carries a parental guidance certificate.
. . . over 5 000 peeps can’t be wrong, can they? . . .
The undated final report on the 2021 local station board elections, https://we.tl/t-7yaCbPMpZk, seems to have been posted either today or yesterday. The link is from the homepage of the National Elections Supervisor, Renée A Peñaloza, https://elections.pacifica.org/wordpress/. Have to say, smart move undating a late doc; & calling it the final when it’s also the first – like getting a medal for coming last.
On Pacifica’s homepage, https://pacifica.org/, the report neither appears nor its existence acknowledged. The members, the listeners, not even an afterthought.
It’s worth pointing out that Ms P chose to force anyone wanting to see her report to leave the Pacifica elections website, only to land on a webpage that carries the name of her business not once but twice, in the URL & down in the corner – https://asteriarecords.wetransfer.com (this also promotes one of her business emails, renee@razteria.com). Oh. Given this, it’s simply disingenuous to say on the Pacifica elections site, “CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FINAL REPORT” (original Trump-caps). Double oh. And it being her WeTransfer account, she, & not Pacifica, control access to the report: “you decide how long transfers are available. Give people four weeks to download your files or make sure they stick around forever—you’re in control” – https://wetransfer.com/send-big-files. Triple oh.
Not only that, Ms P chose to not make the report viewable at the Pacifica elections site. Quadruple oh. And her choosing didn’t stop there: the report isn’t even viewable on the Asteria Records page. Quintuple oh. Yes, if one wants to see the report one has to download it – from the Asteria Records page. O M G. That way, if Ms P so desires, she can capture all the IP addresses of not just the visitors to her account but a niche market, those who download this Pacifica document. Ever the small capitalist, Asteria Records, intentionally or otherwise, sometimes as if in a dream, positions itself to augment its database – and to spread news of her business (just as PacificaWatch has done here, by talking about it).
. . . day #6 of the 8Nov-8Dec2021 noticing period, Sa13Nov – but no notice either that day or the five previous ones, per the Wayback Machine records; in fact the first notice appears on day #7, Su14Nov –https://web.archive.org/web/20211113150803/https://pacifica.org/ . . .
These days the anti-breakers have lost the political argument: the 12July2021 second referenda result was crushing, with the breakers achieving amongst listener-members a 75.7 percentage point swing from the Mar2020 referendum, when expressing their vote as a proportion of the anti-breaker vote (−48.4 ⭢ +27.3). So, as Vlad-not-the-Impaler put it, what is to be done? Well, if you’ve lost the game, change the game: change the rules. Become a bureaucratic roader: use the power of the offices – not the power of the membership – to get what you want. And, as the early Chuck observed, it’s a matter of the particular & the universal, so present the special interest as the general interest: present this as protecting the organisation.
~
You’d think it would be plain sailing to send in a proposed by-laws amendment (PBA), get the Pacifica National Board to approve a noticing period, twiddle thumbs for 30 days whilst the PBA sits in the notice on the Pacifica homepage, & then do some voting – all accomplished within six weeks, yes? Not in PacificaWorld. This sorry tale started at the end of summer, the Th2Sep PNB, & meandered all the way up to just before Christmas. Not six weeks, but 15 . . . x2½. Not bad, considering. At least it happened.
•2• Three attempts at noticing – there you go, says Lydia
•3• Su12Dec KPFK Delegates Assembly
•4• The notices on the Pacifica homepage, M8-Tu16Nov
•5• The 30 timestamps, M8-Tu16Nov
•6• The noticing errors
•A• Appendix: 15 screenshots, M8-Tu16Nov
•1• The process
A PBA is sent to the Pacifica Secretary. Thing is, Pacifica doesn’t have one: whenever the PNB elects a secretary they’re described as ‘the PNB Secretary’, sometimes ‘the Secretary’. As the bullied know all to well, words matter. But, hey, who’s listening? It’s not as though anyone’s litigious in PacificaWorld.
The Pacifica Secretary evaluates the PBA for propriety, then tells the PNB Chair there’s something in the house, & to expect a motion to come in to start a noticing period so all PBA’s can be posted for 30 days on the Pacifica homepage, https://pacifica.org/. But the noticing also consists in a tricky bit, at least in PacificaWorld, something to do with a radio station & broadcasting: on-air announcements – 450 of them. Yes. 3 broadcasts a day x 30 days x 5 stations. Just as well the founding mothers didn’t require transparency, insisting on a by-law requiring that the so-called traffic logs be made public, posted on pacifica.org.
After the noticing, the PNB & the five LSB’s have 45 days to vote. If the PBA is approved by the PNB & at least three LSB’s, then it’s adopted, becoming a by-law – that is unless it also needs to secure a majority in a membership vote. And the whole process has to be completed within the same calendar year. Note that in a board vote, insufficient is a majority of either those voting or those present: what’s needed is a majority of all the members of that body. So, if there are 22 directors, then a fail would even be a 11-0 vote, however many attended.
•2• Three attempts at noticing – there you go, says Lydia
• Th2Sep PNB: a notice date was agreed for Sa16Oct (23:44). Chair Alex Steinberg (WBAI listener-delegate) was absent, but temp Chair Polina Vasiliev (KPFK staff-delegate) related that he wanted that date because it was the day after voting ended in the 2021 delegates elections – per item 5 of the draft minutes (never seem to have been approved; unpaginated, but pages 2 & 3 of the PDF; link in the archive erroneously denoted as “[a]genda”), https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb210902/pnb210902_7245_agenda.pdf, & https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb210902/pnb210902a.mp3. The end date of the notice period wasn’t mentioned, but the 30th day would have been Su14Nov.
• Th7Oct PNB: a new notice date was agreed for Su10Oct (40:01). Lawrence Reyes (KPFK listener-delegate) moved to rescind what he called the noticing for Sa16Oct-M15Nov (even though that’s 31 days, not the required 30 days), & replace it with a Su10Oct notice (no minutes online – although they were approved by the 4Nov PNB (18:36) – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb211104/pnb211104a.mp3). (For the 10Oct notice, the end date wasn’t mentioned during the meeting – but 30 days would make it thru M8Nov.) One reason he gave for the change was that the current notice would prevent three LSB’s (KPFT, WPFW, WBAI) from considering any PBA’s at their regular November meeting, on the 10th, forcing them to arrange special meets. Guess this was more important than the reason given the last time: avoiding a noticing overlap with voting in the delegates elections. https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb211007/pnb211007c.mp3
On seeing the PBA’s posted at pacifica.org, I felt I had to make a public comment at the Su17Oct KPFK LSB, pointing out that two of the four required approval by a membership vote. Oddly, this was the first time that had been said in a recorded public Pacifica meeting.
• Th4Nov PNB: yet another new notice date was agreed, this time for M8Nov (19:14). Again, it was Lawrence that moved the motion, to replace what it called the 9Oct (sic) noticing with a new one starting 8Nov. Why another change? “[T]he mandated announcements had [sic] not been airing” (20:09). Oh. (The end date for this 3rd noticing period wasn’t mentioned during the meeting.) https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb211104/pnb211104a.mp3
• (The notices have many errors, & these are listed below in the final section.)
~
“[N]ot been airing”? Pacifica may have wheels but they’re fly-wheels – it rarely has cogs, allowing transmission. Admin simply couldn’t organise themselves to make three announcements a day. It’s complicated. Spread out across the day & night. At five stations. Interminable, all of 30 days. Pacifica isn’t suited for complex operations like this, requiring coordination & multi-disciplinary teamwork.
But the wheels were spun again – and that’s exactly what happened for six days, M8Nov thru Sa13Nov: wheels, not cogs. It was only on day #7 that the notice appeared on https://pacifica.org/ – at least according to the authoritative archive of the whole visible internet, the Wayback Machine, https://web.archive.org/web/*/pacifica.org. That single Pacifica webpage saved over 11 000 times, since 13Nov1996. By a well-tooled organisation, with its relentless ‘crawling, then scraping’, archiving over 636bn webpages – that’s >636 000 000 000. Remember this pedigree, as it soon becomes relevant.
~
A grounding political point. The wrecking isn’t pointing out deficiencies: the wrecking lies with the scrutinised officeholders, with their behaviour of driving on come what may, even when repeatedly warned of the harm they’re causing. The organisation needs to be protected from litigation, it needs to be protected from so-called leaders who are intent on breaking the rules, be they Pacifica by-laws, CPB requirements, state & federal law. It doesn’t matter whether anyone likes those rules: it’s just that if one carries on regardless, the day of reckoning is bound to come. And an anti-breaker violating a rule is objectively doing the work of a breaker. And the breaker can simply choose their preferred moment when to strike. With the anti-breaker having laid the organisation wide open to pay the costs. Simple as.
The KPFK Delegates Assembly met to consider the four PBA’s. PNB Chair Alex Steinberg was in the audience – sitting amongst the plebs, but in the front row, with waitress service, & filling an automated recliner with leather armrests. When he heard something he really didn’t like, he felt he had to pipe up.
What irked his ire was my public comment:
[t]he proposed by-laws amendments under consideration today have not been properly noticed 8Nov thru 8Dec. The Wayback Machine has publicly available evidence that Alex’s claim that it was is false: Pacifica’s homepage was crawled 20 times for the 6 days 8Nov thru 13Nov, & the notice wasn’t there. In fact the first time the notice appeared was Su14Nov at 11:17:20 EST. Oh. That means there are presently no proposed by-laws amendments for a Pacifica body to deliberate upon. Double oh. https://web.archive.org/web/*/pacifica.org
The response of The Big A, in full: “[t]he notice on the pacifca.org [sic] web site was there from Nov 8, Nov 9, Nov 10. I just checked the wayback machine for those dates” (Zoom chatbox, 11:22:06 PST, Su12Dec2021).
Thing is, in his haste to read what he wanted to see on the webpage in question, he mistook the 10Oct-8Nov amendments notice for the 8Nov-8Dec one. Oh. But easily done: both being notices, both being in green, both set on a black background, both referring to not just ‘8’ but also ‘November’, & both notices being in English. So, yes, easily mixed up.
So I simply said in the Zoom chatbox, “[h]i, you know you’re mistaken, yes, misreading the old notice, the 10Oct-8Nov one? A person of honour would publicly state, both verbally & in the chatbox, that they made a mistake. Are you?”
No answer was the stern reply – which wouldn’t surprise anyone who knows him.
~
As far as the proceedings went, besides the Wayback Machine evidence, it was pointed out by Call-In User #5, a well-known Pacifican, with a calming, mellifluous, s***** voice, that the mandated 450 announcements hadn’t been made, as witnessed by peeps in Berkeley & NY (46:26).
Raymond Goldstone (KPFK listener-member) said that the PBA re director terms needed an accompanying PBA re Article 5, Section 3, which speaks of the annual election of directors (44:25) – https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art5sec3.html. Oh. As Art. 17, Sec. 1(B)(5) says, & I quote in full, “[n]otwithstanding any of the provisions of this Section 1(B), these bylaws may not be amended or repealed if said amendment or repeal would: (i) violate any state or federal statute or regulation; (ii) conflict with the Foundation’s Articles of Incorporation; or (iii) create conflicting provisions in these bylaws” (emphases added) – https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art17sec1.html.
A proper, general comment was made by Jonathan Markowitz (KPFK listener-member): there needs to be a wide discussion about these important PBA’s before they’re presented to a Pacifica deliberative body (42:00). Quite right. And it was in the gift of each local station board to have discussed them in October or November – and even at both meetings.
‘Hapless’ Alex also had to admit (29:08) that the PBA changing a director’s terms would also require a membership vote – one conducted by 31Dec (sic).
He could have added that the delegates assemblies at WPFW & WBAI, voting on 8Dec, had wasted their time – not simply because the process initiated on 2Sep was imploding before everyone’s eyes, but because the earliest voting could legally occur was 9Dec: “[t]he PNB and Delegates shall vote on the proposed amendment(s) within the 45 day period beginning on the day following the last day of the notice period” (emphases added, Art. 17, Sec. 1(B)(2)(i)) – https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art17sec1.html. And being Pacifica, not just one station did this but two. Priceless. You’re jumping off the cliff? Shift over, I’m joining you!
Given the evidence & arguments presented it was no surprise that the delegates voted to not consider the four PBA’s, passing the motion 11-6, with 5 abstentions, giving, as rationale, inadequate noticing (1:03:47).
~
Obeying rules. An endemic problem. Pacificans are really quite cavalier with rules. Pesky lil tings, always trying to interfere with the triumph of the will, always trying to restrain the preferred politics in PacificaWorld: unbridled voluntarism. A political & ethical disposition that necessarily holds the membership in contempt – for the objectivised force of the membership, its silent & ever-present witness & putative regulator whenever a Pacifica body deliberates, is none other than the set of by-laws, the constitution of Pacifica.
Actions without consequences; arrogance going unpunished; actors believing themselves immune, feeling invincible, able to act with impunity, devoid of a sense of responsibility. Behaviour uncoupled from accountability. But this fantasy has its limits: PacificaWorld has to interact with RealWorld. And RealWorld is a dangerous place: it has bodies specialising in accountability, both jural & ethical. And for the 2021 PNB majority this is their Achilles heel – as 2022 will show.
~
For Alex’s benefit, & for any other 11/8 truthers, appended to this post are 15 screenshots of the Pacifica homepage, M8-Tu16Nov, courtesy of the Wayback Machine.
•4• The notices on the Pacifica homepage, M8-Tu16Nov
That’s why Alex messed up, in his haste to prove himself right.
•5• The 30 timestamps, M8-Tu16Nov
• The Wayback Machine gives its timestamps as UTC, also known as GMT. (The UTC acronym was the compromise made in 1970, between English & French, between CUT & TUC: Coordinated Universal Time & temps universel coordonné. Yet another reason why the Martians thought we weren’t worth bothering with.)
• The timestamps are given below as Central Standard Time (−6hrs of UTC) because Central Time is the time zone used by Pacifica for its notices. (Note that although Pacifica’s national meeting times are given as Eastern Time at the Calendar, https://kpftx.org/ (both the linear list & the grid), the issuing of a Pacifica notice for both meetings & other announcements is per Central Time, so one hour earlier. An advantage is that at 2127, during a Tuesday PNB Finance Cttee meeting, Secretary R Paul Martin can be sent off scurrying to post a notice at kpftx for a 2030 meet the following Tuesday, & it’s all legal, complying with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting open meetings’ seven-day noticing requirement – as happened with the noticing made during the 14Sep meeting of a 21Sep meet, https://kpftx.org/pacalendar/cal_show1.php?eventdate=20210921 & https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/210914/finance210914_7126_minutes.pdf.)
• This was the first attempt by the anti-breakers to change the rules. Eric Jacobson (KPFK listener-delegate) had the idea to change the Articles of Incorporation, adding talk of Pacifica being “democratically self-governed by its members”, in an attempt to stop a new constitution being presented to a membership vote. It saw the light of day at the 31Mar2021 PNB Governance Cttee (3:05) – and that was the high point of the whole endeavour. However, in anticipation of it getting thru votes by the boards, & going to a membership vote, by being added to the ballots for the delegates elections, National Elections Supervisor Renée Asteria Peñaloza posted the proposed amendment on the elections website. At the PNB, it would need a “2/3 vote of all Directors” (Art. 17, Sec. 2(B)(2)(i)), so 15 of the 22. Not a high bar: a very high bar. But that wasn’t the main problem: even if it got thru the PNB & three of the LSB’s, it would need ⅔ of the voting members – and the listener-members had just spoken, with the breakers ruling the roost. Too late. Game over. The proposed amendment was never presented to a board.
• According to the Wayback Machine, there was no notice on the Pacifica homepage for Su10Oct, the first day of the noticing period. They archived the webpage at 5:31:29 & 17:41:35 Central Daylight Time (CDT). It wasn’t there either on day #2 at 8:15:30 – but at 19:35:31 it was. https://web.archive.org/web/*/pacifica.org
• The same source shows that the notice posted on the Pacifica homepage started off giving the end date as “Tuesday, November 9”, before switching to “Tuesday, November 8”. This notice was by order of the Th7Oct PNB, but the proceedings, as per the audiofiles, made no mention of the end date of the noticing period, & no minutes have been made public. But with a 10Oct start, the 30th day is 8Nov. In RealWorld, the calendar gives 9Nov as a Tuesday & 8Nov as a Monday. In PacificaWorld, things don’t tend to get written down – just like the mafia – so with no calendar, combined with those famous powerful quantum effects, anything is possible. Things can’t really be tied down – one reason why Tuesday can shift from one day to the next, & why no-one’s ever responsible for anything.
• The public record shows that the noticed end date changed on Tu2Nov. Maybe none of the leaders had been looking at the homepage – then, with the motion for a third noticing coming at the Th4Nov PNB, perhaps someone had a look, & thought, ‘OMG, better change that!’. And then couldn’t get it completely right.
• Notice has on-air announcements “for a period of 4530 days” – so over 12yrs. Obvious how this arose: someone cut & paste, losing the strikethru of the ’45’ in the process. Always a big ask getting someone to bother to take the time to read what they’ve done.
• Each of the four proposed by-laws amendments lacks the names of the six or more directors who proposed them. But, hey. In fact they’ve never been disclosed in print on a Pacifica website. And the only audio recording in the Pacifica archive is the Su17Oct KPFK LSB, when in public comment I asked director Lawrence Reyes who these people were. He replied: “the directors that signed on to the, urgh, urgh, to the bylaws, urgh, um, proposal […] – they are Alex Steinberg, James Sagurton, Beth von Gunten, Heather Gray, myself, Ronald Pinchback, Julie Hewitt, Tom Voorhees, and Thomas O’Rourke” (1:54:55; removed are the station affiliations he gave) – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpfk/211017/kpfk211017a.mp3. Assuming “signed on” means the proposers, guess we now know – and they were nine.
Third notice
• According to the Wayback Machine, there was no notice on the Pacifica homepage for M8Nov, the first day of the noticing period – nor for the next 5 days. It’s only on day #7, Su14Nov, that the notice appears, at 10:17:23 CST, on the Pacifica homepage.
• Notice says “Tuesday, November 8” – but 8Nov is a Monday.
• The noticing period is given as “Tuesday, November 8, 2021 thru Wednesday, December 8, 2021”, which is 31 days – whereas the by-law says “a period of 30 days (the ‘Notice Period’)” (Art. 17, Sec. 1(B)(1)). https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art17sec1.html.
• This time they corrected the noticing for more than 12yrs, only to falter by saying “for a period of 30-45 days (the ‘Notice Period’)”. It’s never easy going to primary sources.
• The notice says, “[t]he first day when a vote for the amendments that are posted can take place is 30 days from the notice date , ie. Dec 8” – which contradicts the by-law saying, “[t]he PNB and Delegates shall vote on the proposed amendment(s) within the 45 day period beginning on the day following the last day of the notice period” (emphases added; Art. 17, Sec. 1(B)(2)(i)). To state the bleeding obvious, the last day of the notice period is 8Dec, so voting can occur from the 9th – the fact that the notice period was made 31 days, in error, is besides the point.
• Again, each of the four proposed by-laws amendments lacks the names of the six or more directors who proposed them.
~
Couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery.
~
Despite everything, Alex & comrades have been reaching out, & some readers may be interested. Their website is https://11-8-truthers.org; & if you would like to donate, please go to their Patreon, https://www.patreon.com/11-8-truthers. They also have a discussion forum on either Signal or Telegram, but unfortunately PacificaWatch doesn’t have those details – either way, hopefully Homeland Security doesn’t get them confused with nutjobs. And preliminary checking hasn’t been able to adjudicate on the rumours that Alex wants to set up a TikTok & an Instagram – but you never know.
~
•A• Appendix: 15 screenshots, M8-Tu16Nov
A noticing period starting M8Nov was agreed by the Th4Nov PNB. Here are screenshots of the 15 crawls, that weren’t redirected, made by the Wayback Machine thru Tu16Nov. The first nine show that the notice hadn’t been posted, those thru Sa13Nov, 09:08:03 Central Standard Time:
. . . day #1, nothing – M8Nov2021, 04:16:46 Central Std. Time (the date is in yellow, on the black strip, top left, nearest the centre) . . .
. . . M8Nov2021, 22:52:58 Central Std. Time . . .
. . . day #2, nothing – Tu9Nov2021, 05:28:08 Central Std. Time . . .
. . . day #3, nothing – W10Nov2021, 05:58:36 Central Std. Time . . .
. . . day #4, nothing – Th11Nov2021, 06:51:48 Central Std. Time . . .
. . . Th11Nov2021, 07:41:23 Central Std. Time . . .
. . . day #5, nothing – F12Nov2021, 08:10:39 Central Std. Time . . .
. . . F12Nov2021, 23:52:02 Central Std. Time . . .
. . . day #6, nothing – Sa13Nov2021, 09:08:03 Central Std. Time . . .
. . . day #7, the first notice at Wayback Machine – Su14Nov2021, 10:17:23 Central Std. Time . . .
. . . Su14Nov2021, 19:42:56 Central Std. Time . . .
. . . M15Nov2021, 11:06:34 Central Std. Time . . .
. . . M15Nov2021, 17:55:42 Central Std. Time . . .
. . . Tu16Nov2021, 00:39:26 Central Std. Time . . .
. . . Tu16Nov2021, 12:22:47 Central Std. Time . . .
PacificaWatch 