pretty pic
cap
[Not as long as you fear.
[UPDATE … regrettable delay: will be posted before . . . the Earth falls into the Sun. With the pseudo-election underway, the die is cast – although it isn’t a die but a death, that of Pacifica. It’s obvious that there is, as last time, only one organised force in this charade: the breakers. They’re on course to win the KPFK contest, meaning that having three of the five stations – both their LSB’s & so the directors they elect – they can push thru almost anything . . . all that’s excluded are two areas: by-law amendments requiring a majority of the voting staff members (Art. 17, Sec. 1(B)(4)) – but turned their way if the directors make WBAI a repeater station, eliminating the staff, whilst the vote takes place (sic); & amending the articles of incorporation, per the two-thirds rule, so 15 of 22 directors, & 16 of 24 station delegates (Art. 17, Sec. 2(B)(2)(i)). Like Obama in his first term, the anti-breakers have wasted their chance – and structural change will be ushered in during 2024, & 2025. Thoughts & prayers. Thoughts & prayers.
https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/index.html
~
[A separate post will explain – again – why Tanaka & the other Berkeley hillbillies are spinning a dangerous yarn when endlessly repeating that the Articles of Incorporation require station self-sufficiency. This was put to rest at this blog back in Nov2021: self-sufficiency pertains to Pacifica as a whole – which is why the Article says “the facilities”, the Pacifica facilities, not anything to do with an individual station. But the evidence & the argument will have to be repeated because it’s obvious that this mantra is already being made a core message of the breakers’ delegates election campaign, be it held in 2023 or 2024.
[In Nov2021, in a post under the sub-heading ‘But don’t the Articles of Incorporation require station self-sufficiency?’, it was made plain that the statement of the existential basis of Pacifica’s incorporation used a carefully chosen formulation, effectively rejecting others that are considered below:
But don’t the Articles of Incorporation require station self-sufficiency?
A common belief, yes, but no, a mistaken belief. Article II identifies purposes, & sub-article (b) says, “the purposes of this corporation shall be: (a) […] (b) To establish and operate for educational purposes, in such manner that the facilities involved shall be as nearly self-sustaining as possible, one or more radio broadcasting stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission […]” (emphases added; article as amended 19Aug1948 – https://pacifica.org/articles.htm). Making explicit what’s here, by separating the subordinate clause, we have “the purposes of this corporation shall be […] To establish and operate for educational purposes […] one or more radio broadcasting stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission”, & “in such manner that the facilities involved shall be as nearly self-sustaining as possible”. The corporation’s facilities, the Pacifica facilities. The organisational unit stamped with ‘self-sustaining’ is Pacifica, not each station. So ‘self-sustaining’ is the attribute of facilities, not stations – and it seems obvious that it was said in this deliberate way to be consistent with the originary funding conception: Pacifica is an endeavour paid for collectively by the members & listeners – not outsiders, such as grantors & underwriters.
So not saying ‘in such manner that the stations involved shall be as nearly self-sustaining as possible’. So not saying ‘To establish and operate for educational purposes one or more as nearly self-sustaining as possible radio broadcasting stations’. So not saying ‘To establish and operate for educational purposes one or more radio broadcasting stations, each of which shall be as nearly self-sustaining as possible’. No: the “self-sustaining” pertains to “the facilities”, undifferentiated facilities, the facilities collectively, the Pacifica facilities – not the facilities of each individual station. That’s why the linguistic construction is what it is: the particular concerning “the facilities” is slotted in, splitting the sentence – so much so, it warrants being enclosed by a pair of dashes, not commas.
Section 3, ‘The “in balance” unargued mantra’, part of blogpost ‘Today KPFK is losing money at a rate of ~$3 500 a day, ~$105k a month, ~$1.26m a year, as per the docs. Why does no-one publicly recognise the scale, the urgency?’, 19Nov2021, original emphases – 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/
~~~
PacificaWatch 