Latest misnoticing of proposed by-laws amendments. PNB Chair Alex Steinberg finds himself unable to read – Su12Dec KPFK Delegates Assembly

. . . 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.

The four PBA’s:

• allow compensation for incurring financial damage – https://pacifica.org/documents/bylaws_211010/Compensation_for_Financial_Damage.pdf

• allow disqualifying acts for membership – https://pacifica.org/documents/bylaws_211010/Removal_of_members_rev.pdf

• allow limits on the frequency of referenda initiated by membership petition – https://pacifica.org/documents/bylaws_211010/Frequency_of_membership_petitions_rev.pdf

All four are here, in a one-click viewable & downloadable folder: https://mega.nz/folder/EctnDaSD#vDCapBSlS9nUCOz06X9XFQ.

~

The sections:

•1• The process

•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.

https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art17sec1.html

•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.

https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2021/10/18/important-correction-two-of-the-oct2021-proposed-by-laws-amendments-only-trigger-a-members-s-referendum-if-either-of-them-is-approved-by-both-pnb-three-or-more-lsbs-erroneous-public-comment/

• 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.

•3• Su12Dec KPFK Delegates Assembly

So what happened yesterday in Los Angeles? https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kdelegates/211212/kdelegates211212a.mp3

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

39:52 (original emphases), Su12Dec KPFK Delegates Assembly – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kdelegates/211212/kdelegates211212a.mp3

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

The notices:

NoticeM8NovTu9W10Th11F12Sa13Su14M15Tu16
8Nov-8Dec PBA ❌❌❌❌❌❌✅✅✅✅✅✅
10Oct-8Nov PBA ✅✅❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌
LSB election results✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅❌❌❌❌
ED vacancy✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅❌❌❌❌

. . . Pacifica notices per the Wayback Machine, https://web.archive.org/web/*/pacifica.org (PBA are proposed by-laws amendments) . . .

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.)

• The timestamps tabulated are paired: the first is termed a redirect by the Wayback Machine, & it slips thru to the second one; the redirect has its own URL (the first here is https://web.archive.org/web/20211108101642/pacifica.org, so 10:16:42 UTC – or 04:16:42 CST), but after clicking on it one never goes there, being redirected to its companion page (https://web.archive.org/web/20211108101646/pacifica.org, so 4secs later).

• The 30 timestamps (Central Standard Time):

M8NovTu9W10Th11F12Sa13Su14M15Tu16
04:16:4205:28:0505:58:3106:51:4308:10:3009:07:5810:17:2011:06:3000:39:22
04:16:4605:28:0805:58:3606:51:4808:10:3909:08:0310:17:2311:06:3400:39:26
22:52:5507:41:2023:52:0019:42:5317:55:4112:22:43
22:52:5807:41:2323:52:0219:42:5617:55:4212:22:47

. . .timestamps of the Pacifica notices per the Wayback Machine, https://web.archive.org/web/*/pacifica.org (hrs:mins:secs) . . .

•6• The noticing errors

The pre-history is the Jacobson fiasco

• 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.

https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/governance/210331/governance210331a.mp3; https://elections.pacifica.org/wordpress/pacifica-articles-of-incorporation-amendment-proposal/; https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art17sec2.html; https://mega.nz/file/cNV0DTKR#5B9mf5RSO_lauOW0VHRWijYQp-g6uGtweUehfpyOEQ0 (NES final report on the 2021 by-laws referenda)

First notice

• Never posted: superseded by the second one.

Second notice

• 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 . . .

There you go, says Lydia.

~~~

Advertisement

Important correction: two of the Oct2021 proposed by-laws amendments only trigger a members’ referendum if either of them is approved by both the PNB & three or more LSB’s. Erroneous public comment, Su17Oct2021 KPFK LSB

[Two sections: the error, & a possible explanation; & the actual comments made at the LSB. Another post will provide, & discuss, the four proposed by-laws amendments.]

~

I made an important misinterpretation of a by-law in my public comment at the Su17Oct KPFK LSB. I’d first spotted the four proposed by-laws amendments on the Pacifica homepage on Tu12Oct, & started writing about them straight away. One of them would extend the term of office of a director; another would erode the voting rights of the members. Given this, would each require a membership vote, that is, a referendum – yet another one? On checking the by-laws – Article 17, Section 1 – I formed the firm view, quite quickly, that not only was this so but, crucially, that merely proposing them triggered a referendum: it didn’t need approval by the Pacifica National Board & a minimum of three local station boards. The proposers had, perhaps unwittingly, opened a Pandora’s box.

https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art17sec1.html

D’oh! I was wrong. Badly wrong.

Yes, two of the proposals are each pointed for a referendum trajectory – but for lift-off the proposal needs the support of at least three LSB’s & the PNB, with the by-law not stipulating (contra Pacificese folklore) the order of voting.

Oh.

I made my false claim three times, in each of the 10min tranches of public comment at the Su17Oct KPFK LSB (1:14:34, 1:48:57, 3:31:49). It was only after Lawrence Reyes (listener-delegate, & director) tied himself up in knots (again), that someone corrected me, LSB Chair Michael Novick making this contrary assertion:

I have a response. I believe that Jara’s incorrect: if they’re defeated, there was [sic] no reason for a membership vote

3:33:58 – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpfk/211017/kpfk211017a.mp3

He was adamant that a referendum requires the prior support of boards. He was unequivocal. I checked Art. 17, Sec. 1(B), & it was only after the meeting closed that I realised he was perfectly correct.

Double oh.

As I say, it was a considered view, firmly held. What threw me, I think, was Sec. 1(B)(2)(iv) saying “[i]f any proposed amendment is not approved by the Board and Delegates, then it shall be submitted to the Members for approval and shall be adopted if approved by the Members” (emphases added). “Shall”, not ‘may’: necessity.

But this requirement is not unconditional: it pertains not generally but to a special situation. As this sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-section (iv) starts off by saying, “in the case of amendment(s) proposed by Member petition”. To repeat: “by Member petition” – not by a group of directors.

🤦

I was probably also influenced by Sec. 1(B)(3) saying “[i]n the event that a proposed amendment would do any one of the above-mentioned things, it shall not be adopted unless also approved by the Members” (emphases added) – not pausing to wonder why the also is there. But the killer is at the very start of this sub-sub-section:

[t]he Members shall vote on any proposed amendment approved by the Board and the Delegates

(emphasis added), Art. 17, Sec. 1(B)(3) – https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art17sec1.html

And yes, at next month’s KPFK LSB I’ll correct my error in a public comment. (Note, it’s not on the usual Sunday, but a Wednesday, 17Nov, at 1800 PST: the new station manager, Miquel Calçada, had asked at the Su17Oct LSB, in his audiofile report, that there be no weekend meets (28:03 – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpfk/211017/kpfk211017a.mp3). The text he read, with some additional words, mainly for emphasis, is at https://www.kpfk.org/support-kpfk/lsb-cab-and-pnb/.)

This webpage, usefully, also carries the monthly reports to the LSB from the directors who bother to write them; no other LSB provides this service to Joe & Joanna Public. But then scriptophobia (& empty archives) is endemic within Pacifica: Executive Director Lydia Brazon has published nothing, absolutely nothing, in her time since 5Dec2019, hasn’t committed herself to print in almost two years – ‘the prosecution’s work, y’ Honour, has been severely hampered by the lack of documentary evidence, which, m’ Lud, warrants being treated as evidence of evasion, of an attempt to obstruct the course of justice, &, ultimately, evidence of culpability concerning the charges before you, & so, ladies & gentlemen of the jury, this is yet another reason why you must deliver a guilty verdict in this case’.

As an aside, make sure to keep an eye on crafty director Ali Lexa Al-Hilali, who has never been known to lift a pen, so, if the Chair asks him to report, he says “I’d rather give it after Beth”, von Gunten, knowing hers is always detailed, in part coz she has the self-discipline, decency, & courtesy to spend the time beforehand, systematising her thoughts as an array of pixels. Ali one step back – simpler than One Step Forward, Two Steps Back’ Lexa: these are the lengths some peeps go to so they’re the right side of a PNB closed session. And yes, Ali’s a staff-delegate, from the most threatened Pacifica station.

~

The three public comments, Su17Oct KPFK LSB

Where needed, correcting interjections are italicised & enclosed by the usual square brackets.

#1: Re the four of the proposed by-law amendments posted at pacifica.org on either October 11th or 12th, i would like to make two points. (1) None has the names of the six (or more) directors who proposed them. And (2), those for extending the director term of office, & the frequency of member petition amendments, each requires a referendum [no, not true]. Are Pacifica members aware of this?

#2: Two points. (1) It’s an excellent practice to have a tranche of public comment not only immediately after the directors’ reports, but to also allow the directors to respond to those comments. Congrats to the author of the proposed agenda, Chair Novick, & the body for agreeing to this. (2) Lawrence Reyes just said he was one of six directors – but proposing what? So five questions to Lawrence, in the spirit of transparency facilitating accountability: (a) did you sign all four proposed by-laws amendments?; (b) who signed the two that each requires a referendum because they adversely & materially affect all members’ voting rights [the 1st mentioned is also coz it’s an extension]: the proposed extension of a director’s term, & proposing to reduce the frequency of amendments springing from a members’ petition?; (c) when you submitted them, were you aware that each required a referendum? [no, false]; (d) are you aware, & i emphasise, this is a Pandora’s box, & now released, even if rejected by the PNB & the five LSB’s, there has to be a membership referendum for each? [false]; & lastly, (e) why did you choose just now to be opaque, & choose not to name the signers?

#3: Just for the record, director Lawrence Reyes chose not to answer four of the five questions i put to him. The questions again: (a) did you sign all four proposed by-laws amendments?; also, skipping a question, (c), when you submitted them were you aware that each required a referendum? [false]; (d) are you aware that this is a Pandora’s box, & now released, even if rejected by the PNB & the five LSB’s, there has to be a membership referendum for each? [false]; & lastly, (e) why did you choose in your own director’s report to be opaque, & choose not to name the signers? Given Lawrence & others decrying the $50k or so expense [in 2020] of a [stand-alone] referendum, & especially given the current financial crisis at Pacifica, why on earth have they released two proposed by-laws amendments that each require [false] a referendum of the whole membership? How is this possible?

~~~