kpftx says “Not Recorded”, so here it is: audio of the laughable M13Mar2023 PNB Strategic Planning Cttee . . . Jim goes all Dolores

. . . Jim Dingeman Dolores Umbridge, of Harry Potter fame . . .

. . . “Argh, some people have said we have no strategy. Argh, I have to differ with that because the strategy at all times, at every station, is t-to increase audience and increase the ability of the programming to, urgh, engage with the, urgh, the station [sic], and hence create more listener members. Argh, that’s to me always the stra-strategy of a broadcast institution – which we are. Um, so, one, I take umbrage with these comments that there is no strategy” – Dolores Umbridge Jim Dingeman . . .


[UPDATE: Via Zoom, i attended the Sa18Mar2023 PNB Technology Task Force – for less than 5mins before being expelled, without warning, for no good reason by the Chair, Director Jim Dingeman. A presentation was being made by two bods from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, so i made a comment in the chatbox, explaining, with the linked evidence, that any CPB Radio Community Service Grant application, by a Pacifica station for the monies to be disbursed in FY2024, will necessarily fail, not least because two kinds of submissions, with deadlines of 15Feb & 28Feb, haven’t been made. Please see, as i said in my chatbox comment, Section 15(C) of the 2023 Radio Community Service Grant General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria, October 2022, page 18,

[Having given the evidence, a few seconds later Chair Jim retorted, “Not true Jara[,] and if you want to simply state constant [sic] negativity about all this[,] time to go”. Within seconds i asked, “@JimDingeman, what’s not true?” Within 5secs i was expelled from the Pacifica public meeting! Simple as. And automatically refused when trying to re-attend. Oh dear.

[On this a post will be made, along with four on non-petulant matters: the directors violating § 312(a), California Corporations Code by not hiring a Chief Financial Officer; the directors violating § 12586(e)(2), California Government Code by electing four members of staff to the PNB Audit Cttee; the PNB majority violating Pacifica by-law Art. 4, Sec. 8 by extending delegate terms; & ED Steph ‘The Breeze’ violating by-law Art. 4, Sec. 4 by not hiring a National Elections Supervisor on either 1Mar or 2Mar (in the context of the timeline, per Art. 4, Sec. 5), given that the PNB hadn’t invoked that section’s “exigent circumstances” provision & set by 30Nov2022 a new timeline. Quadruple oh.

[But on the subject in hand, that post will include three screenshots showing Chair Jim’s appalling autocratic, authoritarian action on Saturday. (I hesitate to call it un-Pacifican given the history of peeps who get into positions of Pacifica decision-making. Jim, a hypocrite? No, that’s another universe, its own honour by desert.) The content of the post will be used in an open letter to his 20 fellow Pacifica directors. They need to have their attention drawn to three things: (1) they need to know that in the next 4wks, Pacifica can spend its time more productively by not trying to make CPB applications (it’s 4wks coz, although no-one has mentioned it in a public Pacifica meeting, other than PacificaWatch minions, the Radio CSG money is allocated on a first-come, first-served basis; (2) they need to know that Director D has brought his office into disrepute by his action, an expression of both his inability to accept the evidence staring him in the face, as well as his inability to accept that in a forum open to the public that he can’t legitimately expel from the meeting those who present evidence he doesn’t like (moreover, that linked to the prospective grantor’s website); & (3), if these 20 fellows respect their office then they will censure Director D for being a dick, for being disreputable. An apology is irrelevant: the remedy is for Ungentlemanly Jim to publicly commit to stop being an autocrat, to stop acting as an authoritarian. But does he have the character to do this?

[Note that i wasn’t given time by Nuker Jim to post the illuminating contextual evidence showing how the CPB has deliberately, & explicitly, shaped the current situation for Pacifica, making plain the obdurate reality. That is, the Section 15(C) i cited needs to be read in conjunction with the CPB informing Pacifica, in no uncertain terms, that “[t]o be considered for re-entry to the CSG program, the Radio CSG program must be open to new applicants[;] Licensee and Stations must demonstrate full compliance with the General Provisions at the time of application[;] and Licensee and Stations must fulfill all requirements outlined in the March 28, 2013 letter” – CPB letter to ED Lydia Brazon & PNB Chair Alex Steinberg, 22May2020, emphases added (& to aid comprehension, semi-colons replace commas), So the CPB didn’t simply choose ‘comply’ – which is emphatic enough. No. That’s not at all how the CPB feels about Pacifica. Oh, no. So bears repeating: “must demonstrate full compliance” – no ifs, no buts. This isn’t doing a deal in a back alley, doing a deal without paperwork – this isn’t PacificaWorld: this is RealWorld.]

~~~~~ oh dear ~~~~~

The PacificaWatch TikTok message: audiofile at; key quote at 20:38.


The PacificaWatch long form message . . .

The M13Mar2023 PNB Strategic Planning Cttee meet was chaired, this year as last, by Director Jim ‘I know I talk a lot, but I know I’m the best at knocking it out’a the park, OK’ Dingeman.

Those present (they were all directors last year): Director James McFadden (KPFA listener-delegate), KPFK Listener-Member Beth Gunten, WPFW Listener-Member Donna Grimes, WPFW Listener-Member Julie Hewitt, WBAI Listener-Member James Sagurton, & Director Jim himself (WBAI listener-delegate).

You may ask, why the two radically different kinds of designation? Well, as mentioned above, this is per Pacifica’s by-laws – it’ll be fully explained in a coming post, titled something like ‘On the cuckoos, the LARP’ers, the impostors: illegally extending delegate terms, 20Oct2022 PNB’.

But we need to stay focused on those at the 13Mar2023 PNB Strategic Planning Cttee meeting, those selected by their esteemed colleagues on the PNB as the cream of the cerebral crop. Their distinctive skill sets standing out from the crowd, easily recognised by their peers. The PNB had sent them on a mission to the Cttee, to exercise their cognitive capacities, to deliver the goods of strategic thinking: visions; scenarios; gathering/commissioning necessary evidence; scaled scenarios, temporally & spatially; thoughts; intuitions; sketches; ideas (inchoate, preferably formed); statements; arguments; paragraphs; gathering new evidence; initial working papers; initial document; collective document; getting even more new evidence; revised document; re-revised document; presented document; document recommended by the PNB Strategic Planning Cttee to the PNB; document adopted by the PNB; then monitoring the implementation of the policy by management; & mini-cycles re revisions. The whole production cycle, an exercise in iteration . . . And the deliberations this Monday evening, 13Mar2023, what did their strategic thinking yield, what did they put on display for the world to see? Please consider for yourself the evidence – that is, the presence of absence – not least at 22:17 & 35:31.

The audiofile

The audiofile isn’t at, the curious, benign visitor being greeted with a defiant “Not Recorded” – this despite Chief Recorder Otis Maclay, who effectively owns Pacifica’s calendar & meetings archive because he owns the copyright to the contents, not just being present during the meeting but actually taking up the invitation of Cttee Chair Jim to contribute his opinions to the discussion (sic).

Chair Jim didn’t have the courtesy to ask his esteemed fellow committee members if it was OK to ask someone who hadn’t been accepted as a guest in the approved agenda, moreover one granted speaking rights. To be honest, in the spirit of inclusion, purportedly a Pacifica value, it was a surprise that the station cat wasn’t asked to comment, along with the termites, busily gorging themselves on the foundations, displaying teamwork unparalleled in PacificaWorld.

The audiofile, 1hr18mins, 108MB:

The key quote: Mr D not only asserts that Pacifica has a strategy, he describes it

Director Jim Dingeman, to use his words, takes “umbrage” at those who say “we have no strategy”. The passage:

Alright, the next thing I had on the agenda was to talk about short-term strategic policy, argh, and comments on the current situation. Now, um, we all know that argh, there are some difficult decisions in motion right now, argh, that are due to many reasons. Argh, some people have said we have no strategy. Argh, I have to differ with that because the strategy at all times, at every station, is t-to increase audience and increase the ability of the programming to, urgh, engage with the, urgh, the station [sic], and hence create more listener members. Argh, that’s to me always the stra-strategy of a broadcast institution – which we are. Um, so, one, I take umbrage with these comments that there is no strategy. Now the question is whether this particular strategy is working right now, and it clearly has not, as far as I’m concerned. Argh, we wouldn’t be in this situation, fiscally, if we had not got to the point where our audiences had [sic] basically diminished, due to a whole variety of reasons, argh, and be thinking about having to re-boot and take, argh, decisions that are, argh, quite Hobbesian, to say the least [. . . and on he droned]

Chair & Director Jim Dingeman (emphases added, 20:46), M13Mar2023 PNB Strategic Planning Cttee – (He mixes up Hobson’s choice & Hobbesian trap, when neither applies; & decision-makers are faced by neither a dilemma (there are more than two options) nor zugzwang (inaction is an option) – no, this is a deteriorating situation, fiscally & otherwise, because in the immediate & short term the pecuniary forces at work are so strong that their causal effect overwhelms any action/inaction; the situation is so out of control that it’s experienced as independent of all options, & so independent of volition, even of the will of the 21 directors, as they endlessly decide how to make decisions to direct with directions from their thrones. Whatever, say the millions & millions who don’t even know what a radio is because they never visit a museum.)

Serious, Jim?

The doc, Jim?

Give us a break, baby.

The 5-yr record of the PNB Strategic Planning Cttee, since 12Mar2018

This committee, the PNB Strategic Planning Cttee, has produced one document in its 5yr existence (sic), since meeting on 12Mar2018. This doc is all of 4½ pages (sic). This was an offering on 5Jan2021 by then PNB Chair Alex Steinberg (WBAI listener-delegate). That evening it was passed by the Cttee, without objection; however, without the Cttee’s agreement it was presented in quite a truncated form to the 25Feb2021 PNB, where it was passed unanimously with two slight amendments. (The sordid history of this Cttee is at section 1 of this PacificaWatch post – not least the doc simply never being used, never quoted in a public Pacifica meeting or document, never even cited . . . stillborn . . . (this link is given coz the ‘strategic plan’ was never posted on a Pacifica site, & even if the Cttee minutes were indeed passed they’ve never been made public, posted to; &

To date, yielding a single document of 4½ pages, how many meetings has the PNB Strategic Planning Cttee had? Eighty: i’ll put it in figures, 80 (66 open, 14 closed). With the doc presented at its 38th meet. The sorry procession: 2018, 15 (14 open, 1 closed; 12 sets of open meeting minutes missing, although 3 drafts are linked); 2019, 11 (11 open, 0 closed; 11 sets of minutes missing); 2020, 11 (11 open, 0 closed; 11 sets of minutes missing); 2021, 12 (12 open, 0 closed; 12 sets of minutes missing); 2022, 25 (15 open, 10 closed; 15 sets of open meeting minutes missing); 2023, 6 (3 open, 3 closed; 3 sets of open meeting minutes missing). In all, 64 sets of open meeting minutes missing (sic) – only 2 alleged sets of minutes are publicly available (the very first two meetings of the Cttee – sic)., etc.

Some 2nd grade math (as Andrew Weiss would say, “Bart, you may now leave your chair, pick up the chalk, and do the calculation for the class, then please put down the chalk, and return to your desk. You have 30 seconds”):

80 meets x 2hrs = 160hrs = 4 whole work-weeks;

4 whole work-weeks x 8 Cttee members = 32 whole work-weeks (assuming a prudent 8, understating a typical complement of 5 station directors plus affiliate director, PNB Chair, Pacifica Secretary, Executive Director, Chief Financial Officer, the Pope, attendants – in 2022 the membership was a magnifico 13); &

32 whole work-weeks = 4½ pages.

As a practitioner of billable time, i must say there’s something not quite right here. (Incidently, & as a public response to queries i have received over the years, i did offer my pro bono services to Pacifica in 2018, just after ‘the bankruptcy’ drama broke. I received no reply – except no reply.)



ED Steph refuses to disclose that the Feds seized $305k of Pacifica’s cash – and the directors & treasurers collude, not mentioning it either. What is wrong with these people? Weird, or truly creepy? Tu13Dec2022 PNB Finance Cttee

Oh, dear.

As if −$305k makes no difference.

Transparency of events & proceedings is not for them. And they do it with no shame. Or sense of betrayal.


A $11m annual turnover public charity, with the likes of these in charge?



Here: (b-file too) . . . congratulations, uploader!


ED Steph ‘The Breeze’ didn’t mention Pacifica losing $305k. And neither did anyone else.

But she was directed to make a disclosure: even though station after station is currently in fund-drive, there won’t be enuf cash around on Sa31Dec to pay FJC their quarterly interest, this time $55 402.99 (working is below).

This coming after her start, “I don’t have a lot to report”. So that kind of report.

So all hell’s breaking loose, then.

Her report:

“I don’t have a lot to report, umm, not a lot has changed since last week […] umm, really not too much else […] And I think that really is, at this point, is about it, if anybody has any questions.”

That was it.


Chair ‘wooden as a chair’ Sagurton was straight in: what about FJC?

“[Pause …] Ah, yer, that’s, umm, that’s the number one, really, on our aged payables, and payable of concern. We do not have any funds that are set aside to be able to prepare us for that payment. Umm, it is due on the 31st. We did mention it to Arthur [Schwartz, General Counsel], umm, a few weeks ago, that we were concerned that we weren’t going to be able to make that interest payment, umm, and then he and I also spoke about it as well, so he was going to give them a call and see if we again [this a new disclosure] could have a couple of, umm, a couple of days of grace with that, or if we can just make, you know, wh-wh- – what we are planning on doing is paying what we can when we have it, and then hoping to extend that out [?]”

Of course no-one asked whether Arthur had phoned FJC, & what they said.

(Also note – contra Susan ‘blah-blah’ Young (23:15), a KPFT listener-delegate – FJC, as explained for 4yrs on this blog & elsewhere, never allows a borrower to default: when a loan is designated as “potentially impaired” it’s sold, without discount, to the Marty & Dorothy Silverman Foundation, the money that largely founded FJC.)

ED Steph ‘The Breeze’ Wells (19:32; her report all of 123secs, 19:45-21:48), Tu13Dec2022 PNB Finance Cttee. (The FJC interest rate went up from 9.25% to 10%, effective Th3Nov. Working: ((2258821 x 0.0925 x 33) ÷ 365) + ((2258821 x 0.1 x 59)÷ 365) = 18890.550 + 36512.449 = $55 402.99.)

So all that’s going to work out well . . . everything under control.


Steph ‘The Breeze’. PMC thru-n-thru. An operator. Of her class stratum. An advert for NGO management.


And ‘The Breeze’ volunteered no update on ‘the server problem’, that is, being shut out of Pacifica’s digitised books of account. And everyone was polite enough not to ask. So obviously not merely a problem, but a problem affording no progress. No progress at all. Proving intractable.

These people are unbelievable. They really are.


Nor even a hint of a waft regarding progress on the pesky outsiders from National being impertinent, trying to directly view station bank accounts. Trying to find out what the hell’s going on. Again, decorum prevailed amongst Pacifica’s financial wizards, leaving the non-event well alone, as still as a sleeping dog, as tranquil as dead air.


Last, as is a habit of Pacifica decision-makers, confidential info gets disclosed. Even of the medical condition of individuals. This time Mr Lawrence Reyes, longstanding KPFK listener-delegate & director. Let’s hope he’s well soon.


More joy: monthly lists of apparent CPB violations, per the declarations at & . . . Pacifica has four short months to be fully compliant

. . . 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 – … 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).

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. (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.

In Jan this year, a PacificaWatch review was made of the 2020 compliance for two kinds of Pacifica bodies: the five station community advisory boards, & the PNB Development Task Force. The performance was appalling: (half way down, immediately below the soothing video).

And what happens if a station gets the wrong side of the CPB? “Stations that certify their compliance but are subsequently found to be non-compliant will be subject to […] a penalty of $5,000 per infraction” (CPB, CSG Non-compliance Policy, Jan2016, p. 1, emphases added) – (extant policy, as evidenced by

A vivid illustration of the degree of scrutiny that Pacifica is opening itself up to is provided by a lil radio station in Columbus, Ohio, owned by the skool district: (7pp.). (WCBE is a $1.8m annual revenue station, so the size of WPFW – (p. 4; p. 6 of the PDF).)

There you go, says Lydia.


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.

CPB, 2022 Radio Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria, Part I CSG Program, Section 2 Communications Act Requirements, Sub-Section B: Closed Meetings, October 2021, p. 5, emphases added – The interpolated quote is from both the CPB open meetings webpage,, & its 1June2021 Compliance Booklet (p. 3; p. 4 of the PDF), – note that on this p. 3 the first two paragraphs have the wrong reference: it’s actually § 396(k)(4), & it appeared correctly in the June2018 & June2019 editions of the text (there was no 2020 version):, &

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.


FY2021, only KPFA made an unaudited net income after adjusting for windfalls, per Sep2021 monthlies

Here are the unaudited FY2021 net income statements of the 5 stations, per the NETA-produced Sep2021 monthlies. They’re adjusted to exclude the windfalls: the forgiving of the two loans received from the Paycheck Protection Program that benefited all stations, & a property donated to WBAI.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .KPFA . . . . . . . KPFK . . . . . . . .KPFT . . . . . . WPFW . . . . . . . . WBAI . .


revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 861 315 . . . .3 120 159 . . . . .667 024 . . . . 1 774 741 . . . . . 1 713 203

less PPP #1 & #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~891 475. . . . .~735 972 . . . .~117 373 . . . . .~273 411 . . . . . .~255 715

less donated property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . . . 200 000

total revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~$3 969 840 . .~$2 384 187 . . .~$549 651 . .~$1 501 330 . . . ~$1 257 488


Central Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .471 456 . . . . .500 868 . . . . . 161 628 . . . . . .208 176 . . . . . . .253 344

other expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 216 336 . . . 2 671 995 . . . . .580 498 . . . . 1 351 266 . . . . . 1 399 170

August tower rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0. . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 6 000 . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

total expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$3 687 792 . . $3 172 863 . . . .$748 126 . . . $1 559 442 . . . .$1 652 514

net income/(loss):

FY2021 net income/(loss) . . . . ~$282 048 . .(~$788 676) . . (~$198 475) . . .(~$58 112) . . (~$395 026)

depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~77 310 . . . . . ~15 461 . . . . . .~26 882 . . . . . ~13 900 . . . . . . ~16 282

FY2021 net income/(loss) . . . . ~$204 738 . .(~$804 137) . . (~$225 357) . . .(~$72 012) . . (~$411 308)

The stations as a whole:

• one net income, ~$204 738

• four losses, ~$1 512 814

total loss (net), ~$1 308 076

Sources: Sep2021 monthlies,; &, for the FY2020 audited depreciation charge, please see page 36 (page 39 of the PDF) of the FY2020 auditor’s report,


Explanations of estimates, etc.:

• this statement supersedes the one derived from the Aug2021 monthlies – in the section ‘Discussion: General’ of

• why the PPP amounts had to be estimated: “[t]he distribution of PPP #1 (& #2, for that matter) hasn’t been made public. But in the NETA monthlies are the Jan2021 & Aug2021 totals for ‘Miscellaneous/Other Income’, within which they’re posted. The Jan2021 totals per the July monthlies, the latest to have PPP #1 posted within FY2021: KPFA $440 828.47, KPFK $393 653.02, KPFT $58 199, WPFW $141 119.64, WBAI $126 557.47, PNO $50 180.54, PRA $46 755.67, consolidated as $1 257 293.81. That’s $663.81 more than the loan – and, indeed, that’s the figure left in the Jan2021 statement of the Aug2021 monthlies, when PPP #1 was deleted from the FY2021 consolidated & put in the FY2020 one. With no other info, in the KPFK computation above, the perhaps overstated $393 653 has been used” – link just given, in the ‘Discussion: General’ section, problem P#5. The size of the forgiven loan: “[t]he PPP loan [#1] was granted to the Foundation on June 19, 2020 in the amount of $1,256,630” (p. 19; p. 21 of the PDF) –

• the $200k property, donated to WBAI, & booked June2021 – report to WBAI Local Station Board (p. 1) by its Treasurer, R Paul Martin,

• the revenue data in the Sep2021 monthlies differ from those in the Aug ones. There’s no change for KPFK, WPFW, & WBAI. However, KPFT has 1 change: the June2021 ‘Listener Support’ was reduced by $200. And KPFA has 9 changes, almost half of them material: 3 were unchanged (Oct, July, Sep); 5 differed by <$5k each; but 4 were larger, with Dec rising by $39 757, Jan falling by $48 377, Feb falling by $127 606, & Mar rising by $373 303. Booking adjustments are made all the time, but management are interested in patterns. It would be reassuring – not least because KPFA’s bookkeeper, Maria ‘if you don’t stop your nasty questions I’m off this call’ Negret, has been holding up the production of NETA’s monthlies – if CFO Anita Sims provided a written public explanation of why the last 4 bookkeeping totals were changed.

R Paul Martin on the bottleneck: “[at the 9Nov PNB Finance Cttee,] NETA Controller Julia Kennard substituted for the interim CFO […] She said that she hoped that the September financials would be out soon. She said that KPFA is still getting their revenue numbers in, and that it always takes long time to get that in. She said that she didn’t know why the software KPFA uses makes that a challenge” (p. 2) – Fiefdoms. Provincial priorities. The Berkeley Hillbillies.

The KPFA material differences: Dec2020 rising $39 757 (562875 ⭢ 602632), Jan falling $48 377 (604089 ⭢ 555713, rounding), Feb falling $127 606 (381092 ⭢ 253485, rounding), & Mar rising $373 303 (374292 ⭢ 747595).

• KPFT Aug2021 tower rent charge: all year the charge is ~$6 500 rising to ~$6 700, except for Aug, which is ~$776. With no explanation given, it’s prudent to add $6k.

• depreciation estimate: this charge is absent, as a matter of course, from the net income statements constituting the NETA monthlies. It’s computed from the relevant asset balances destined for the balance sheet, a statement that first appears when it’s presented to the auditors. Given this, as mentioned, the estimate used is simply the audited FY2020 charges found in the auditor’s report (p. 36; p. 39 of the PDF) – Note that KPFA’s charge is anomalous in Pacifica terms, & exactly x5 that of KPFK: they’re buying assets, presumably to improve their service to the listeners, whilst the struggling stations are dying on their knees . . . this is the inverse of the implementation of a Pacifica network development plan. We need a rational response to the uneven & combined development that is Pacifica Foundation, Inc. – as The Lion may have put it.


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?

. . . KPFK is in the distance, just left of centre, set in the Hollywood Hills; the transmitter is upper right, Mount Wilson; foreground is that urban beauty, Pregerson Interchange, with Harbor Freeway (Interstate 110) heading north, & Century Freeway (I-105) running west-east . . . LA, 2009 – not a composition by the excellent Edward Burtynsky, 60 x 75 ins. (a sight to behold) . . .

[Today is another example of the civilisatory decay that is the USA. Rittenhouse shows there’s no safety on the streets. The coming history, exacerbated by elections, will show that Rittenhouse isn’t an anomaly. Some social scientists, including political strategists, have used an approach glossed as ‘in & against the state’; now we shall see an acceleration of ‘in & with the state’. Intensifying the integral state. Vigil, Latin = awake. If you can’t make it into the police & military, making a career out of defending the social order, no prob: just serve the community, do some community organising, weaponising it with a vigilante group, protecting women, property, the good life, apple pie. Acting local, thinking national. Awake, stay woke, be watchful, then act, extinguishing the danger. Fair & reasonable. Right & proper. Erwachen, Amerika! Vigilantes, the new social justice warriors. Another new golden dawn for Amerika.

[Meanwhile, back in PacificaWorld . . . this is the first of three posts on KPFK’s crisis. Programming has turned away listeners; only one net income in the 15yrs, FY2006-2020. It has meant that for the period, the gross cumulative loss is ~$2.851m (an average of ~$204k per deficit year), & the net cumulative loss is ~$2.732m. What’s different now is a reinforcing dynamic: the station’s rate of pecuniary loss has a velocity escaping the ability of Pacifica to amass cash to pay creditors. It’s inevitable that KPFK will continue to shrink. But the crisis only becomes existential for Pacifica, & KPFK, if there’s excessive delay – worryingly, a delay already displayed by the directors & Executive Director Lydia ‘Fabian’ Brazon since Jan2020, so before the epidemic started in southern California.

[(This post is long, so it’s also made available as a four-parter.)

[The other two posts in this KPFK triptych: the latest fund-drive, Tu5Oct-F5Nov; & its immediate context, the fund-drives since Oct2018.

[UPDATE . . . the Sep2021 NETA-produced monthlies are now available, so another post will show if this changes the estimate. UPDATED UPDATE . . . the Sep & Oct monthlies were used for this purpose in a 22Dec2021 post,]


The great & the good haven’t told us – but their documents show the reality. The headline is where KPFK, & Pacifica, is at.


Why bother to estimate KPFK’s current rate of loss-making? Because the scale of loss-making per unit time, such as per month, needs to be known by management, especially in giving meaning to estimated cashflow. It provides a baseline: if nothing changes, & the current financial performance persists for 12mths, say, this is how bad it’ll be. The presentation of this figure with evidenced argument isn’t in the public domain – hence this attempt. The current rate of loss-making is a measure of the generative power of the present, a representation of the present as future, the unfolding of what’s already there.

To be clear, the formulae used here are an attempt to estimate KPFK’s current rate of loss-making, & then using the typical period of one year to illustrate its meaning. Judgement is applied to the latest available historic info to put a number on each of the constituent variables. The result is an estimation of KPFK’s total loss at 5Nov2022 if nothing changes.

The KPFK headlines, not read on the Pacifica Evening News:

• current total revenue, annualised: $1 674 811 per year . . . $139 568 per month . . . $4 588 per day

• current total expenses, annualised: $2 936 208 per year . . . $244 684 per month . . . $8 044 per day

• current rate of loss-making, annualised: $1 261 397 per year . . . $105 116 per month . . . $3 456 per day

• so, loss-rate of over $1.25m a year . . . over $100k a month . . . over $3k a day

cuts needed to be in balance: 43% (42.96)


This is an emergency. Pacifica needs to act urgently. The directors & senior managers need to act as a Cttee on the Present Danger.


The coming seven sections, some quite petite, plus an appendix:

•1• the Th18Nov PNB rises falls to the occasion

•2• “[t]he financial goal would be to balance our FY22 budget against our lowest-income expectations” – KPFK station manager, Miquel Calçada, Su17Oct2021 KPFK LSB

•3• the ‘in balance’ unargued mantra

•4• formulae re current loss-making: total revenue; total expenses

•5• assumptions re current loss-making, & why: general; revenue; expenses

•6• workings re current loss-making: total revenue; total expenses; total loss

•7• discussion: general; revenue; expenses

•A• appendix: how many employees work at KPFK? the average personnel cost?

. . .

•1• The Th18Nov PNB rises falls to the occasion

This scale shows how naive were the proceedings at last nite’s Pacifica National Board meeting. Otherworldly. It really was. Saving $30k here, $40k there. Simply doesn’t cut it.

The pearls of wisdom adorning our leaders, for all to see:

Um, ok [pause], argh [pause], it’s a serious situation and, urgh, it’s pretty obvious that we have to do something” (PNB Chair Alex ‘Miguel, report to me in 3 minutes, & Blair, you’re a loser, get outta here’ Steinberg, WBAI listener-delegate, 12:35 into the KPFK item –; not yet in the meetings archive . . . [UPDATE: still not at as of F10Dec. For more than 6wks now, there have been less audiofiles in the archive. Obviously coincidental.]) . . .

. . . Alex. Exercising all his skills & expertise honed from tens & tens of meetings chatting on the PNB Strategic Planning Cttee, a body that even now has only produced one document, on 5Jan2021 (4:14) – A document so important it took over 7wks before the PNB bothered to look at it, on 25Feb (13:18) – no minutes at kpftx, but audiofile, Then promptly buried – never put on a Pacifica website, never cited in public. Never. That’s been its practical value. Even its title is wrong: “Strategic Recovery Plan for Pacifica Radio, Inc.” – but then Alex had only been first seated as a director on 29Jan2010, & when submitting the doc he’d only been in post for a year as Chair of the Board of Directors, the custodians & trustees of the assets of the public charity registered as Pacifica Foundation, Inc.. Jesu.

PacificaWatch found the doc on the Aaron/Rosenberg anti-breaker 2nd-referenda site, Pacifica Democracy Project, & even there it was buried in ‘Resources’ – but it’s so thin, physically & conceptually, why the surprise – It’s a mere 4½ pages. Occupying two pages are all of “Emergency Strategic Plan: Immediately address deficits at the stations” (I kid you not), “Short Term goals: Addressing the Loan” (ditto), & “Medium term goals: Restore CPB funding” (I give up). This left the opportunity for musings, some sky-blue thinking, as in “I wandered lonely as a cloud / That floats on high o’er vales and hills”, freeing Alex to discourse for 2½ pages on “Long Term Strategic Plan and Goals”. Priorities. Easier to think of the future than the present. Perhaps an expression of his political formation.

Ah, the PNB Strategic Planning Cttee. A jewel in the crown of recent PNB’s. A light not to be hidden under a bushel. Its gestation was the late 2017-early 2018 threat of bankruptcy, transformed into debt, courtesy of the Foundation for the Jewish Community, known to most as FJC. The Cttee first met 12Mar2018, &, like a photo of a 1918 Bolshevik Central Cttee, only Cdes Alex & Jan of the original 11 are left standing (& they topple off the mortal coil of PacificaWorld in a few weeks’ time, terming out): Carole Travis (not McMichael), Mansoor Sabbagh, Joseph Davis, Alex Steinberg, Tony Leon, Tom Livingston, Nancy Sorden, Janet Kobren, Jan Goodman, Efia Nwangaza, Sam Agarwal. (The memories, the memories.) The Cttee’s purpose: “[t]he mandate of this committee is to propose to the PNB the implementation of a financial recovery plan to address both the short term and long term requirements of the Pacifica Foundation. As such this committee is charged with the responsibility to consider all options for raising funds and/or liquidating assets as well as restructuring the business model of Pacifica” (emphases added – minutes of the inaugural meet, 12Mar2018, Never got near. But not for lack of trying. In 2018 met 15 times. In 2019 met 11 times. In 2020 met 11 times. Then the golden dawn on 5Jan2021, the 38th meet. Being on a roll, why stop? Met 9 times since. And there’s still another 6wks to the year. For their 50th, maybe they’ll give each other medals. Especially as there haven’t been any new draft docs to hand around. Stakhanovite – and yes, Стаханов was an Алексей, Alexey.

(And Chair ‘Fabian’ Steinberg is displaying bad manners as he tries to cope with a situation he has helped create. It seems almost as an afterthought that Miquel was even invited to the meeting, causing him to put it on the record that “I have the encouragement of my iED – I cannot talk the same way regarding the PNB. I was aware of my presence in this meeting just half an hour ago, and this is an urgent meeting to discuss KPFK financial situation” (49:08, emphases added; an intelligent verbatim transcription; responding to a question from DeWayne Lark, 2020 PNB Vice Chair, & KPFT listener-delegate, but crashing out in the recent LSB election to the likes of Sister Mama Sonya, but achieving the rank of 5th alternate – could have been worse). And then the dismissive disdain delivered to KPFK Finance Cttee Chair Fred Blair by a 1-2 from ‘Fabian’ & his side-kick, PNB Finance Cttee Chair James Sagurton sounding like one of Jimmy Hoffa’s capos with his “do we want him back for the closed session?”, evoking from ‘Fabian’ a bored “I guess so, huh” (53:46). Uncouth. This followed the attempted humiliation of Fred by ‘Fabian’ the week before, as if he was personally responsible for the disastrous fund-drive (15:21) – Tu9Nov PNB Finance Cttee, Deplorables.)

And the pearls from last nite’s PNB just kept on glistening:

“[s]o, argh, so your budget will be reduced by about 70 [$70k] a year just with that one [cough] excuse me – that one, argh, re-do of our telephone services” (Executive Director Lydia Brazon, 13:15 into the item);

then Miquel:

“I don’t want to fill you in-in-in peanuts, like printers. We have seven printers [laughs], in a station that doesn’t print, that we have to pay our-our-our, argh, um – anyway. Argh, so these are minimum things. There are other things that-that concern me, but even this-this [sic] lil things, um-um, it’s really frustrating and difficult to move, argh, to move ahead” (GM Miquel ‘yes, I am indeed as demoralised as I sound’ Calçada, 22:34) . . . Miquel, better get used to it – or resign & spend Christmas in Catalonia.

The luminaries of the PNB Finance Cttee also couldn’t wait to get in on the act:

Chair James ‘oh, R Paul, I didn’t tell you Berthold was presenting the FY21 budget tonite?’ Sagurton (WBAI listener-delegate) tried to move a motion, Chair Steinberg & ED Brazon asphyxiated him, Jim cried out with a “[sigh] I’m going to object to that, mmm [whimper]” (45:07), the assault continued, there was no ‘I appeal the ruling of the Chair’, & the world was to hear no more;

loser in the Chair election, Chris ‘I’m no Sisi’ Cory (KPFA listener-delegate), knowing there’s no point being on a committee unless you speak, spoke, excelling himself, exercising all his critical faculties, eliminating tertiary, even secondary questions, getting right to the heart of the matter, putting his query to Miquel, crafted, concise: how many members does KPFK have? (50:38) . . . bless us & save us. (‘Janus’ has just won a staff-delegate seat, & if the rulers of the KPFA LSB deign to follow by-law Article 4, Section 8 next month he’ll be seated in a seat with armrests . . . but the meetings archive shows that not even one KPFA meeting is noticed, for anything . . . his term ends c. 1100 PST 14Jan2023 (first seated as per, maxing out the 6yrs, with Richard Wolinsky the 1st staff alternate. [UPDATE: a LSB was noticed 24Nov for Sa18Dec.]); &

Beth ‘I’m really Queen Liz III, but no need to bow – well, not until I become Chair of the PNB, ascending another throne’ von Gunten (KPFK listener-delegate) found the proceedings somewhat common, & to avoid being sullied, refrained from comment, preferring the dignity of silence whilst dining leisurely in her chambers with a slice of Marie Antoinette & a cup of Earl Grey – served to her on a silver tray, of course. The Queen of PacificaWorld distains public proceedings, preferring privacy, unencumbered by all those CPB rules, safely ensconced, from prying eyes, secreted away, deciding Pacifica’s future. The Golden Age of Appointed Boards, GAAB, was so much more suited to the disposition, to the station, of Her Maj.

However, the other director on that Cttee, Julie Hewitt (WPFW listener-delegate), was a lil different:

“one thing that’s kind of interesting about this conversation so far is that we have spent a lot of time talking about telecom, and, you know, even if we started realizing that $70,000 savings tomorrow, argh, that wouldn’t knock a dent in but one month’s deficit, and so that’s the sense in which I think we need to make sure that we don’t focus too much on one thing, and make sure that we’re looking at the big picture, and honestly, um, you know, what-what I think we really have to do is come up with – I say ‘we’ coz I want to think of this as one Pacifica, right – um, think of a way that we’re gonna really raise revenue because there really isn’t, um, you know, a cushion of cash around the Foundation that-that we can, you know, kind of let KPFK work itself out, work its issues out over time, and so what I’m hoping is that, urgh, your work with the LSB will-will turn out to be fruitful in-in the very near term, and then if it really isn’t, that you have a Plan B that you start executing, you know, where you’re maybe asking some of the other stations for help in terms of pitching because if you don’t have people who are good at it at KPFK, urgh, or who are experienced, maybe, you know, folks from other stations can help you out, at least through this December pledge-drive, and really make this December pledge-drive a kind of a bang-up, urgh, you know – do other kinds of advertising to make sure that people are listening to the station, you know, use your networks of people to, you know, post things on Facebook, and-and Twitter, and what not, to-to-to build up your listener base” (26:07, emphases added – this all the more impressive for Julie probably not being aware of the composition style of Thomas Bernhard).

“[M]ake sure that we’re looking at the big picture”. Now there’s a thought . . .

But no sooner was the very idea mentioned, the blank canvas was turned around, the frame propped against the wall, out of mind’s eye. Instead of inspiring the outline of an approach, it died. There & then. Not even evoking a glimmer of enlightenment from others. Not even a mumbling of the p-word – except in a remark by Lawrence Reyes (15:22), KPFK listener-delegate, so un-serious that he didn’t even follow it up when Miquel evaded.

But all this happens when the directors fail to provide leadership. Passive. Thru & thru. The directors: allowing themselves to be overrun by events – well, allowing KPFK to be drowned in debt. But then, if one station bites the dust, run on a minimal budget, just like KPFT has been these last 6yrs, then maybe that’s not so bad coz it reduces competition for cash when the next station ‘falls’ on hard times. Hostile brothers, if not sometimes “einen Kampf der feindlichen Brüder”, a struggle between enemy brothers, as Chuck put it.


•2• “The financial goal would be to balance our FY22 budget against our lowest-income expectations” – KPFK station manager, Miquel Calçada, Su17Oct2021 KPFK LSB

If he’s a man of his word, & not a hypocrite, the budget will be ~$1.675m. That means cost-cutting of ~$1.261m (2.936 − 1.675). That’s 43%.

Miquel, a man of his word?

Source: (the quote as per the text), & (36:17).


•3• The ‘in balance’ unargued mantra

For an accounting unit, a station, to be ‘in balance’ is neither an operational imperative nor a moral one. No. Concerning money, the relevant organisational unit is not a station but Pacifica; therefore the relevant accounting unit is not a station but Pacifica. This is the conceptual framework for a substantively rational Pacifica budget-formation process, one that prioritises amongst the needs of the constituent operational units, the stations. This means there has to be a Pacifica network development plan – the expression of a comprehensive vision. From this is derived how much each station gets to spend.

Framework-&-plan is the best reason for rejecting the ‘pull y’self up by y’bootstraps’ folk naivety, the self-financing idea for the parts of the whole.

Ok, a comprehensive vision is a somewhat un-Pacifican idea for many, but it’s needed to meet the urgency of already being in the 3rd decade of the 21st century, & over 50yrs since the glory days of the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations. RealWorld has moved on. PacificaWorld hasn’t. Suffocating in a time warp. The radio isn’t what it used to be. But what’s going on is a lot more than what’s to hand: it reaches much, much further, for a new horizon has opened up for humanity: digitisation. As I put it June last year, in an earlier appeal for an approach adequate to the scale of Pacifica’s problems:

[i]n any case, a radio signal isn’t what it used to be. Digitisation has caused broadcasting to be transcended by providing. The broadcast schedule, transcended by the download list. The position on the dial, transcended by reputation, sustained by social media, enhanced by branding. The radio, transcended by mobile digital devices. Radio is 20th century, it’s passé. It’s one reason why the BBC since 2018 no longer speaks of radio but of ‘sounds’: not a device, but an output.

PacificaWatch, ‘Two-stage emergency plan; & signal-swap to release cash. Response to remarks by Mr Burton’, 11June2020 –; &

Under present conditions, only a signal-swap can provide the necessary cash for implementing a Pacifica network development plan. That’s out of the picture, if only because agreeing a swap can take a number of years. Therefore, present conditions need to be changed not from without but from within: the course of action required is creating the political conditions for a planned, holistic, systematic shift of spending from KPFA to the other stations – not so much to stop their suffering but to give them the cash to have the opportunity to flourish. There is no other possibility. Obviously it requires a thorough overhaul of management – national & especially station – to ensure that the money is spent not just in a satisficing way but in an exemplary way. As reactionaries are quick to say, every crisis is an opportunity. It’s about time Pacifica learnt from the enemy.

If this doesn’t happen, not Groundhog Day as such but Groundhog Day in a tailspin. As the tormented Sardinian hunchback with the Albanian name put it, “[l]a crisi consiste appunto nel fatto che il vecchio muore e il nuovo non può nascere: in questo interregno si verificano i fenomeni morbosi piú svariati” – the crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid phenomena appear.

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 – 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.

That’s why Pacifica needs a network development plan – to stop the firefighting that inevitably arises because not all stations are adequately resourced to achieve resilience with a stable cashflow, making them vulnerable when adversity strikes; & the firefighting has been continuous because some stations have been allowed to degenerate, & languish. Rooting Pacifica in the present, never envisioning the future. But will Pacifica political conditions ever allow such a plan?


The remaining sections:

•4• formulae re current loss-making: total revenue; total expenses

•5• assumptions re current loss-making, & why: general; revenue; expenses

•6• workings re current loss-making: total revenue; total expenses; total loss

•7• discussion: general; revenue; expenses

•A• appendix: how many employees work at KPFK? the average personnel cost?

. . .

•4• Formulae re current loss-making: total revenue; total expenses

• total revenue = fund-drive revenue + background listener support & donations + other revenues

= (120 days x 5836 pledged daily x 0.78 fulfilled, the last two per the 5Oct-5Nov drive) + (245 days x daily average of April & July 2021, per the Aug2021 NETA-produced monthlies’ KPFK net income statement) + (other revenues, per the FY2020 auditor’s report, p. 34, being p. 37 of the PDF)

• total expenses = 12 x average of June, July, & August 2021 expenses, per the Aug2021 monthlies’ KPFK net income statement

• To be clear, these formulae are an attempt to estimate KPFK’s current rate of loss-making, then using the typical period of one year to illustrate its meaning. Judgement is applied to the latest available historic info to put a number on each of the constituent variables. The result is an estimation of KPFK’s total loss for the year thru 5Nov2022 if nothing changes. One doesn’t need reminding that the $3.165m loan from FJC, taken out 2Apr2018, falls due at this time, on 30Oct2022 (FY2019 auditor’s report, p. 15, being p. 17 of the PDF; that for FY2020, p. 16, being p. 18 of the PDF).

FJC policies, publicly stated: the maximum duration of a loan is 5yrs; & it never takes defaulters to court, instead selling the debt, without discount, to the Marty & Dorothy Silverman Foundation. If it doesn’t look like Pacifica is coming up with the cash, then FJC will either sell the debt in Oct2022 or extend 3mths, say, if the money is likely to come thru from another lender. The two policies are fully evidenced at


•5• Assumptions re current loss-making, & why: general; revenue; expenses

These follow the sequence of the terms in the formulae.


• In this attempt to estimate KPFK’s current rate of loss-making there’s no fine tuning, no adjusting of published figures. Both uncertainties & contingencies are many, plus the latest info in the NETA monthlies is August, so almost a quarter of a year ago. Adjusting would only create the illusion that precision is accuracy. We also have to accept, as with the climate emergency, that tipping-points, unknowingly, may have already been passed – our knowledge imperfect, even dangerously so.


• Assume 120 days in drive. A 1:2 split for the year. (For FY2021, so thru 30Sep2021, drive really was driven: a mind-numbing 186 days, 51% of the year (dates given below). Pausing to absorb this, one’s reminded of the title of a memoir by Frigyes Karinthy, Utazás a koponyám körülA Journey Round My Skull.)

• Let the daily pledged be the average of the last drive, 5Oct-5Nov, $5 836 (186761 ÷ 32 days) – KPFK Treasurer Fred Blair (10:06) to the 9Nov PNB Finance Cttee, (Although, with KPFK in decline, it can be reasonably argued that this figure should be slightly deflated for the coming 12mths, not least because of donor fatigue; however, doing so by 10%, say, wouldn’t cause a material change given the rate of loss-making.)

• Let the fulfilment rate be the latest provided, 78%, as per the “about 78%” on Tu9Nov from Chair Blair, big cheese of the KPFK Finance Cttee, a veritable double-air cheeseburger, melting into oblivion (answering a query at that PNB Finance Cttee from Chair James Sagurton (30:18) – link above). The previous rate given publicly was 76.8%, by KPFK business manager Barry ‘The King’ Brooks (18:17), for the Tu20Apr-F4June drive (16June KPFK Finance Cttee –

• Background listener support & donations:

(a) there’s no one-to-one mapping between the NETA monthly revenue categories & those appearing in the subsequent auditor’s report: the unaudited monthlies have “Listener Support”, “Website Income”, & “Major Donor Income >$1K/Yr”; whereas the auditor’s report has “Listener support and donations, net”, & “Grants & contributions”.

Re KPFK’s FY2020 revenue, the Aug2021 NETA monthlies give ‘Listener Support’, $2 108 695; ‘Website Income’, $409 470; & ‘Major Donor Income >$1K/Yr’, $67 868; whereas the auditor’s report gives $1 951 112 for ‘Listener support and donations, net’ (p. 34; p. 37 of the PDF). That’s why ‘Website Income’ can’t be assumed to be solely from listeners – although one wonders who else gave the money & why. (These docs are linked at the end of this ‘Revenue’ section.)

The auditor’s report has only one other sizeable revenue category: ‘Grants and contributions’, $644 644. Audited total revenue is $2 635 743. This contrasts with the unaudited NETA total of $2 793 326 – an overstatement by $157 583 (~6%, 2793326 ÷ 2635743 ⇒ 5.98%). It would be nice to see an explanation of this, & others & similar – maybe the KPFK Finance Cttee can ask NETA.

Pacifica, if only as a courtesy to the members, staff, & listeners should have a publicly available note explaining the mapping. In that absence we have the spectacle of the elite parading in front of the plebs: the insiders talking about x, y, z when hardly anyone is in a position to contradict them or even ask an informed question. The quiet work of the info gatekeeper usually goes unnoticed & unrecognised, invisible, taking the form of the presence of absence – but this sentinel is essential for the Pacifica secrecy culture;

(b) given no explanation of the mapping, a paucity of information, & even less confidence in the posting accuracy of station-level bookkeeping, not least because Pacifica doesn’t use a uniform chart of accounts, the only rational course is to solely use ‘Listener Support’, per the August monthlies, for the auditor’s category, ‘Listener support and donations, net’. The April & July 2021 totals are taken because they’re the only months in FY2021 largely free of fund-drive, & less likely to have received money from the previous drive: 19 days free in April (the previous one ended 7Mar; re-started 20Apr); 19 days free in July (the previous one ended 4June; re-started 20July). No adjustment has been made to them not being free of drive days – again, immaterial given the scale of KPFK’s rate of loss-making; &

(c) no deflator applied to the April & July 2021 totals, as just reasoned.

• Other revenues: again, no deflator applied.

• Sources: 186 fund-drive days in FY2021 (various audiofiles, for Th1-Sa31Oct2020 – 31 days, Tu1-Th31Dec2020 – 31, M1Feb-Su7Mar2021 – 35, Tu20Apr-F4June2021 – 46, Tu20July-Tu31Aug2021 – 43); 5Oct-5Nov fund-drive (Chair Blair, 10:06),; Aug2021 NETA monthlies,; FY2020 auditor’s report,


• The expenses are calculated as the average of the June, July, & August 2021 totals, per the August monthlies. The last three months are used because (a) the trend in 2021 is downwards; (b) July is 6% up on June; (c) August is suspiciously low given that being all month in drive, many of the associated costs weren’t there, not even as invoices from previous drives: within the much reduced ‘Development Expenses’ there was no ‘Telemarketing’ charge, & the charge for ‘Premiums from Other Vendors’ was way down; & so, (d), it’s prudent to average total expenses over those 3mths.

• The depreciation charge is absent, as a matter of course, from the net income statements constituting the NETA monthlies. KPFK’s is so low it makes no sense to use an estimate in the current exercise. (Audited FY2020’s for KPFK was $15 461 (p. 36; p. 39 of the PDF), & for Pacifica, $154 415 (also at p. 7; p. 9 of the PDF); KPFA’s charge is anomalous in Pacifica terms, & exactly x5 that of KPFK: they’re buying assets, presumably to improve their service to the listeners, whilst the struggling stations are dying on their knees . . . this is the inverse of the implementation of a Pacifica network development plan –

• Source: Aug2021 NETA monthlies,


•6• Workings re current loss-making

Workings re KPFK annualised total revenue

total revenue = fund-drive revenue + background listener support & donations + other revenues

annualised total revenue from 6Nov2021 = (120 days x 5836 pledged daily x 0.78 fulfilled, the last two per the 5Oct-5Nov drive) + (245 days x daily average of April & July 2021, per the Aug2021 NETA monthlies’ KPFK net income statement) + (other revenues, per the FY2020 auditor’s report)

= (120 x 5836 x 0.78) + (245 x ((47899 + 62636) ÷ 61)) + (2635743 − 1951112)

= (120 x 4552) + (245 x 1812) + 684631

= 546240 + 443940 + 684631

= $1 674 811

• Sources: 5Oct-5Nov fund-drive (Chair Blair, 10:06),; Aug2021 NETA monthlies,; FY2020 auditor’s report,

Workings re KPFK annualised total expenses

total expenses = Central Services + other expenses

Central Services, per month = $41 739 = $36 829 Pacifica National Office + $4 910 Pacifica Radio Archives

Central Services, per year = $500 868

annualised total expenses from 6Nov2021 = 12 x average of June, July, & August 2021 expenses, per the Aug2021 NETA monthlies’ KPFK net income statement

= 12 (⅓ (200695 + 213133 + 195007) + 41739)

= 12 (202945 + 41739)

= 12 x 244684

= $2 936 208

(The latest, Aug2021, is the lowest. Much different? No: 203k − 195k = $8k, so only $96k less for the year.)

• Source: Aug2021 NETA monthlies,

Workings re KPFK annualised total loss

total loss = total expenses − total revenue

annualised total loss from 6Nov2021 = 2936208 − 1674811

= $1 261 397


•7• Discussion: general; revenue; expenses


Most of this section draws attention to various non-trivial defects in the NETA-produced monthlies, the set of nine net income statements. But first, a demonstration that, despite the bland picture painted by the leaders, each Pacifica station made a FY2021 loss once extraordinary revenues are removed, the losses aggregating as ~$1.79m. This is then followed by two features of the KPFK fund-drive, discerned when one generalises from the monetary performance of the last one, Tu5Oct-F5Nov.

• When windfalls are removed, what’s the estimated FY2021 financial performance? Each station made a loss. Was it KPFA that made the smallest loss, ~$66 847? The answer may surprise you . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .KPFA . . . . . . . .KPFK . . . . . . . KPFT . . . . . . .WPFW . . . . . . . .WBAI . .


revenue thru Aug2021 . . . . . . . . 4 198 165 . . . .3 062 380 . . . . .640 125 . . . . 1 742 786 . . . . .1 601 038

less PPP #1 & #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~891 475. . . . .~735 972 . . . .~117 373 . . . . .~273 411 . . . . . ~255 715

less donated property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . . .200 000

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~3 306 690 . . .~2 326 408 . . . .~522 752 . . . ~1 469 375 . . . .~1 145 323

September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~110 000 . . . . . ~88 000 . . . . .~30 000 . . . . . . ~35 000 . . . . . . ~73 000

total revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~$3 416 690 . .~$2 414 408 . . .~$552 752 . . ~$1 504 375 . . ~$1 218 323


Central Services thru Aug2021 . . .432 168 . . . . . 459 129 . . . . .148 159 . . . . . .190 828 . . . . . . 232 232

other expenses thru Aug2021 . . 2 945 594 . . . 2 460 371 . . . . .494 885 . . . . 1 239 146 . . . . .1 287 254

Aug tower rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0. . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . . .6 000 . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 377 762 . . . .2 919 500 . . . . .649 044 . . . .1 429 974 . . . . .1 519 486

Sep: CS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 288 . . . . . . 41 739 . . . . . .13 469 . . . . . . .17 348 . . . . . . . 21 112

Sep: other expenses . . . . . . . . . . . ~250 000 . . . .~190 000 . . . . . ~40 000 . . . . ~110 000 . . . . . ~124 000

total expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~$3 667 050 . ~$3 151 239 . . .~$702 513 . . ~$1 557 322 . . ~$1 664 598


FY2021 loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~$250 360 . . .~$736 831 . . ~$149 761 . . . . .~$52 947 . . . .~$446 275

add depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~77 310 . . . . .~15 461 . . . . .~26 882 . . . . . .~13 900 . . . . . . ~16 282

FY2021 loss (incl. dep’n) . . . . . ~$327 670 . . .~$752 292 . . ~$176 643 . . . . .~$66 847 . . . .~$462 557

And they don’t tell you this on the Pacifica Evening News – or at the KPFA LSB.

A five-station loss of ~$1 786 009. A loss of ~$1.8m.

That’s the so-called underlying performance.

The leaders – the directors, ED Brazon, & CFO Sims – continue to act as if they’re not aware of the powder keg they have created . . .

. . . there you go, says Lydia.

Sources: NETA-produced Aug2021 monthlies,; & for the FY2020 audited depreciation charge (p. 36; p. 39 of the PDF),

(Coming home to roost, all those KPFA personnel costs out of control since at least FY2016, as discussed by PacificaWatch back in January – section 3 of

(Miquel knows all about ‘underlying performance’ & how, unless corrected, this finally breaks thru as all there is, a broken, losing performance: FCB.)

[UPDATE . . . this estimate was made with the Aug2021 monthlies; here’s an improved one, using the Sep monthlies:]

. . .

• But back to KPFK. Ever wondered how much extra comes in because of a fund-drive? It must be a fair bit, yes? No. These days it’s surprisingly low: the extra is only 1½ times the drive-free figure (per day, $4552 − 1812 = $2 740; & 2740 ÷ 1812 = 1.51; details above, in ‘Workings re KPFK annualised total revenue’).

• And that isn’t the biggest surprise: having drives now brings in less than an extra ~$102 300 for the year (546240 − 443940; computation below) – ‘less than’ coz 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. Computation: if fund-drives total 120 days, the drives bring in $546 240 (120 x 4552), & the rest of the year brings in $443 940 (245 x 1812). The 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.

. . .

• Now the NETA monthlies. Six examples of the problems, P#1-P#6. Financial statements are standardised, communicating to the world a particular kind of monetary expression of the organisation. By contrast, management statements, using elective constituent account categories, are a monetary expression tailored to the decision-making needs of managers. For them, primary is timeliness, secondary is accuracy. They need to act using information generated by the accountants, a trusted team because of their earnt reputation for producing info that is credible enough to function as practically adequate knowledge. The most efficient organisations have these statements within days – Pacifica distributes theirs, at best, 6wks after period. Not good. And even then, it’s only a set of net income statements – never aged accounts payable (the many creditors) or aged accounts receivable (the few debtors), or a balance sheet, or a bank reconciliation statement. There you go, says Lydia.

• P#1 … The NETA monthlies are a set of nine net income statements: Pacifica as a whole (the ‘consolidated’ tab), & the eight accounting units (five stations, plus PNO, PRA, PAN – Pacifica National Office, Pacifica Radio Archives, Pacifica Affiliate Network (it’s not Affiliates), the last-mentioned since 1Oct2020, having been disaggregated from PNO). It isn’t declared on what basis they’re prepared: accrual, cash, or a dangerous hybrid of accrued revenue & cash expenses (only recognising them when they’re paid: the ‘just-slip-the-invoice-in-the-drawer’ approach). A case in point: PAN, having the lowest volume of monetary events you’d expect the least problems, right? Wrong. The statement per the Aug2021 monthlies shows that only five of the 11 months had a Central Services charge, with no regularity to the five, & only two being the same sum. Oh dear. Dangerous? How prevalent is this nonsense? . . . if only Pacifica had an internal auditor.

• P#2 … Another reason to be careful using the monthly net income statements is that they don’t always square. Oh. They seem to be entered manually: they’re not reports generated automatically. Double oh. An example, so simple, one wonders how it wasn’t spotted, again from the Affiliate Network. (Guess Ursula isn’t pulling her weight, checking her net income statement before the LSB’s get the monthlies.) Re the statement in the July2021 monthlies, the analysed bottom half doesn’t agree with the totals at the top. Why? The July ‘Expenses Before C/Services’ wasn’t entered, & it was the sum of the row that ended up in the totals column. So an actual year-to-date loss was turned into a net income. Brilliant! The magic of NETA! (It was corrected in the August monthlies.) Question is, how prevalent is such sloppiness? (A more egregious example comes up in a sec.) (the July2021 NETA monthlies)

• P#3 … But le magnifique spectacle is in the Aug2021 monthlies, what NETA did to the first Paycheck Protection Program loan (PPP #1): pulled out of the consolidated FY2021, but not the units. The $1 256 630 loan had been approved 19June2020 by the Small Business Administration. With the lender having forgiven it on 12Jan2021, the incoming FY2020 auditor agreed to recognise this as an after year-end event, treating it as FY2020 income, a grant (auditor’s report, p. 19, being p. 21 of the PDF –

So in the August monthlies, NETA correctly pulled it out of ‘Miscellaneous/Other Income’ in the Jan2021 column of the FY2021 consolidated net income statement (to post it in the FY2020 column as ‘Grant Income’), but incorrectly left it in the units’ FY2021 statements. In the public record, why has this been met with deafening silence – has no-one noticed? What NETA’s done is distorting: the unit total revenues & net incomes/losses are overstated – materially so. It’ll catch out the inattentive – especially as there’s no warning note. Taking KPFK as an example, one sees ~$3.060m total revenue & ~$143k net income, whereas the adjusted figures are ~$2.660m total revenue & ~$257k loss. Oh. (Aug2021 NETA monthlies)

Inexplicably, having done this restatement, NETA then stopped: they didn’t change all of the FY2021 totals! So, re the consolidated net income statement: the Jan2021 total revenue wasn’t reduced by $1 256 630, it was left as it had appeared in the previous monthlies. So, as expected, adding the monthly totals, the row, exceeds the correct FY2021 end column total. And as in all good tales, there’s a twist: NETA used a false figure as the Aug2021 total – but not a completely random gibberish number but a repeat of the July2021 total, $673 751.91 . . . which looks even odder coz the number immediately above it, which includes the PPP #2, has an extra digit: $1 222 741.63 . . . there you go, says Lydia.

• P#4 … There’s also a prob with the FY2019 comparative used in the NETA monthlies to date. The FY2019 auditor in their report issued a disclaimer of opinion upon the NETA-produced financial statements, so deciding they couldn’t vouch for their material accuracy. (Those statements appear again, reproduced, in the FY2020 auditor’s report as the comparative – in the consolidated at the front, & in the units at the back.) Thing is, the statements differ from those carried in the NETA monthlies – without saying so, & why. They haven’t been restated in the monthlies. That’s not a trivial matter.

That’s apparent in these four examples, with the Aug2021 monthlies carrying overstated, & at least one understated, FY2019 primary totals. For Pacifica: total revenue is overstated by 5.4%, $658 013 … (12814681 − 12156668); & total expenses, after omitting the unaudited depreciation charge, are understated by 14.5%, $1 696 122 … (9983328 − (11867848 − 188398)). For KPFK: total revenue is overstated by 8.7%, $296 456 … (3717740 − 3421284); & total expenses, after omitting Central Services & the unaudited depreciation charge, are overstated by 10.0%, $298 645 … (3293787 − (3575200 − 500868 − 79190)). (CS omitted coz it’s the same in both docs.); &

Explanation of the anomalous understatement, of Pacifica expenses: NETA haven’t followed the FY2019 auditor’s treatment of Democracy Now! forgiving Pacifica’s $2 361 828 debt (p. 4; p. 6 of the PDF). The auditor has it ‘below the line’, the net income line, as an extraordinary item, a contra against what was hitherto a liability; whereas NETA, in the monthlies, contradicts this by having it within the net income statement, as a contra (of debt incurred eons ago) against FY2019’s total programming charge, making it a huge negative number, of more than $1.5m – albeit understated by exactly $36k, for an undisclosed reason.

In the public record, no-one, on a LSB finance cttee, the PNB Finance Cttee, or the PNB, has pointed any of this out.

• P#5 … As a complement, in the Aug2021 monthlies, the FY2020 comparative hasn’t been restated in the light of the findings by that year’s auditor. Consider these four examples, with the Aug2021 monthlies carrying overstated FY2020 primary totals. For Pacifica: total revenue is overstated by 7.6%, $879 936 … (12386996 − 11507060); & total expenses, after omitting the audited depreciation charge, are overstated by 3.6%, $403 720 … (11491271 − (11241966 − 154415)). For KPFK: total revenue, after adding PPP #1 as a grant, is overstated by 20.9%, $551 236 … ((2793326 + 393653) − 2635743); & total expenses, after omitting the audited depreciation charge, are overstated by 4.9%, $159 774 … (3435348 − ( 3291035 − 15461)).

The main explanation for the anomalous KPFK revenue overstatement is that the unit-level net income statement in the FY2020 auditor’s report has all of PPP #1 posted to PNO; for an undisclosed reason, the parcelling out to the units has been deemed secondary, & so with PNO being the middleman that’s the unit treated as the recipient of the grant. As such, the most public of Pacifica’s financial documents carries a material distortion of revenue effectively received by the units.

The distribution of PPP #1 (& #2, for that matter) hasn’t been made public. But in the NETA monthlies are the Jan2021 & Aug2021 totals for ‘Miscellaneous/Other Income’, within which they’re posted. The Jan2021 totals per the July monthlies, the latest to have PPP #1 posted within FY2021: KPFA $440 828.47, KPFK $393 653.02, KPFT $58 199, WPFW $141 119.64, WBAI $126 557.47, PNO $50 180.54, PRA $46 755.67, consolidated as $1 257 293.81. That’s $663.81 more than the loan – and, indeed, that’s the figure left in the Jan2021 statement of the Aug2021 monthlies, when PPP #1 was deleted from the FY2021 consolidated & put in the FY2020 one. With no other info, in the KPFK computation above, the perhaps overstated $393 653 has been used.

(The Jan2021 booking of PPP #1 varies depending on which NETA monthlies you look at. Consolidated $1 257 282.90 (per Feb & Mar2021), $1 257 293.81 (Apr-July2021, +$10.91); KPFA $365 434.51 (Feb-Mar2021), $365 445.42 (Apr2021, +$10.91), $373 572.76 (May-June2021, +$8 127.34), $440 828.47 (July2021, +$67 255.71); KPFK $322 200.86 (Feb-June2021), $393 653.02 (July2021, +$71 452.16); KPFT $35 142.78 (Feb-June2021), $58 199 (July2021, +$23 056.22); WPFW $111 422.44 (Feb-June2021), $141 119.64 (July2021, +$29 697.20); WBAI $93 946.23 (Feb-June2021), $126 557.47 (July2021, +$32 611.24); PRA $46 755.67 (Feb-July2021); PNO $282 380.41 (Feb-Apr2021), $274 253.07 (May-June2021, −$8 127.34), $50 180.54 (July2021, −$224 072.53).)

The NETA monthlies folder:

• P#6 … Finally, to return to a Pacifica darling, PAN, Ruedenberg’s baby. In the Aug2021 monthlies, comparing the consolidated & PAN statements, the former’s ‘Income from Affiliates’ is understated by $20k: May2021, $2 192 per consolidated statement, $20 192 per PAN statement; & July2021, $10 852 per consolidated, $12 852 per PAN (when applicable, per May/June/July/Aug2021 monthlies). Guess Ursula not pulling her weight again – as well as everyone else reviewing the draft before duly authorised distribution to their high excellencies.

The NETA monthlies folder:

Given the silence, a warranted digression: ever wondered how much PAN pulls? An average of $2.50 per affiliate per day. That’s the price ED Brazon thinks the affiliates can bear – for broadcasting & streaming Pacifica programmes, even done at the same time as a Pacifica station (the FY2019 contract, unpaginated, being p. 1 of the PDF: Calculation re the 233 affiliates: per the PAN net income statement in the Aug2021 monthlies, annualised revenue is $ (194646 ÷ 11) x 12 = $212 341 … ÷ 233 = $911 (sic) per affiliate per year … ÷ 365 = $2.496 = $2.50 per affiliate per day. A bottle of water? PAN = BWP. [UPDATE . . . the Sep2021 monthlies became available 30Nov, & per the PAN net income statement, the figure went up to $2.76 … 234473 ÷ 233 = $1006 per affiliate per year … ÷ 365 = $2.757 = $2.76 per affiliate per day. ] (list of the 233); & Aug2021 monthlies,

At the mo, of the 233, only three outside the US (Liberia, France, Switzerland). So, John Lennon, & as an accident of the denary number system, 1000 x $5 x 365 = $1.825m pa … so x8.6 … or 2000 x $2.5 x 365 = $1.825m pa … going global, not just the anglophone world, but where English is a working language, a proper Pacifica marketing campaign could convince 750 stations somewhere in the world, yes? As PacificaWatch has been arguing, do that signal-swap, release that cash, implement a Pacifica network development plan.

• These are just a sample of the problems with the NETA-produced monthlies, & they’ll have to be discussed properly in another post. The lesson, analogously, caveat emptor.


KPFK revenue structure

• For context, what’s the scale of KPFK revenue, & how does it compare with the other stations? Given KPFK’s revenue collapse in FY2021 we should focus on that year, putting the previous one aside. We also need to clear away confusing leaves, omitting windfalls, such as PPP forgiven debt, & bequests. KPFK’s annualised adjusted total revenue for FY2021 is ~$2.4m, per the unaudited Aug2021 NETA monthlies. As per the estimated FY2021 net income statements presented in ‘Discussion: General’, the Pacifica revenue order is: KPFA $3.4m, KPFK $2.4m, KPFT $0.55m, WPFW $1.5m, WBAI $1.2m. So, KPFK < WPFW + WBAI. (Note, this $2.4m figure, for the whole of FY2021, is materially different from the $1.7m estimated in this post for the current rate of annual revenue generation. This shows the need for being attentive to what one is addressing, how it’s conceptualised, & the questions crafted.)

• At KPFK, what proportion of revenue comes from LSD, listener support & donations? Inspecting the unaudited Aug2021 monthlies, with little confidence that postings to some of the different revenue categories are materially accurate (has Pacifica ever had an internal auditor?), other than LSD the station relies more on scrap metal than being in the wonderful world of public charities fed by grantors. Using ‘Listener Support’ alone as the proxy for LSD, as discussed in ‘Assumptions: revenue’, & assuming $48k for September (as per the lowest, April), that’s ~$1 591 147 for the year. And assuming $88k total for September (48k + 30k website income + 10k car donations), & removing the two PPP amounts, adjusted total revenue is ~$2 414 408. So LSD is ~65.9%.

Audited FY2020, LSD is 74.0% ($1 951 112), with other revenues $684 631 – p. 34, being p. 37 of the PDF,

For all the stations, audited FY2020: KPFA 63.1%, KPFK 74.0%, KPFT 86.8%, WPFW 94.3%, WBAI 98.7%. (In station order, LSD: $2 190 787, 1 951 112, 601 308, 1 315 134, 1 230 132; total revenue: $3 469 457, 2 635 743, 692 815, 1 393 924, 1 245 732.)

So KPFK’s unaudited year-on-year fall in LSD is ~$359 965, ~18.4% … (1951112 − 1591147) ÷ 1951112 = 359965 ÷ 1951112.

Relying on one revenue stream is intrinsically risky. But this is how Pacifica started off, how the organisation was designed. Later, to sustain a workforce of 150 & more, it became reliant on grants, not least from the Feds. With the last CPB grant being received c. Oct2012 (with the Mar2013 payment withheld, then cancelled), it’s been back to the LSD. Supplemented, of course, by the ray of sunshine emanating from the membership’s age structure, the upside of the downside, the grateful dead, the bequests – the Necro-economics of the Golden Corpses. The drying up of both has caused the current flood of pain. And across the Styx, as far as ever, lies the promise of the Bio-economics of the Network Development Plan.

The politics of revenue streams

In PacificaWorld, where money comes from in a contested topic, it’s a politics. Given this, & given the cash crisis, it would be helpful if those who decry advertising, the reality of the euphemistic underwriting (Saint Greta Grace & the multitude), & those who decry grants (Jonathan Markowitz et al.), present feasible 3, 6, 12, & 18 mth plans – with implementation of all having already started yesterday – of how to power a radio station by what is a revenue stream turning into a trickle. That would put meat on the bare bone of a sincerely held value, give it some substance & relevance in what is a political struggle conditioned by forces regulated by the material imperatives of an obdurate generative reality that becomes recalcitrant when challenged – not least in the case of the social law of money, exercised in capitalist society partly thru the institution of the court allowing a creditor to claim their cash. Pacifica listeners, members, & staff deserve more than rhetoric.

How should PPP #1 as income be accounted for: for all the units or just PNO?

Most peeps don’t think about accounting & auditing, & if they do they assume it’s pretty black & white (or black & red). Numbers. But they aren’t always as ‘hard’ as they seem – especially when different words can be harnessed to them. Conveying the most salient meaning is an achievement. There are accounting & auditing standards, quite detailed, but they necessarily embody some incompleteness & also ambiguity. All this means judgement is always involved, in conditions where material interests are at stake (such as wanting to be hired for the next audit), & so at work when they’re recognised. Enron isn’t unique. Choice, albeit bounded, is existential.

It popped up in FY2018, in how to account for the disposal of the ‘Nakapon’ land & building, Berkeley: should it be treated as a KPFA asset or a Pacifica asset? The PNB decided Pacifica, & the PNO accounting unit was used. (p. 31; p. 34 of the PDF)

A choice also arose in FY2020, with the forgiven PPP #1 loan, an after year-end event, transforming the sum from a liability into grant income. And it draws attention to the difference between financial accounting & management accounting. Concerning the former, the event appears, correctly, in the Pacifica net income statement, within ‘Grants and contributions’ (p. 5; p. 7 of the PDF). But there’s a choice in how to treat it in the net income statement of the ‘Supplementary Information’, the unit level disaggregation (p. 34; p. 37 of the PDF). Should it be PNO’s income, or split up according to how much went to each of the seven units?

Well, it depends on the primary meaning one wants to convey, this an expression of the primary semantic purpose, be it chosen or a default of orthodox training. If it’s shown as PNO income – as it was – then the windfall goes no further, it doesn’t pump up station (& PRA) income, so it shows them without that one-off distortion. But the reader of the statement needs to be aware that this has happened, that lacking the subsequent distribution it shows both an understatement of effective station (& PRA) total revenue, & an overstatement for PNO. That there was a choice, was never publicly discussed – probably coz no director or other delegate understood what was in front of their eyes.

EIDL, praps $2m – not an income (it’s a 30-yr loan), but seen by some as a saviour

This topic was broached in January, section 6 of The COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan programme is run by the Small Business Administration. As reported in the earlier post, the loan is 30yrs, with a fixed 2.75% annual interest. “Monthly payments of principal and interest will begin at the end of the deferment period and will be paid over the remaining 28 years” (p. 4). Pacifica has received three payments, totalling $500k: a $10k advance in early Apr2020; a then $149 900 balance arriving on 13Nov2020; & $340 100 c. late Oct2021. The repayment level isn’t as low as some may think: for the max loan of $2m, repaying the principal over the 28yrs is at a constant annual rate of $71 429; & if the interest charge were of an untouched principal – which it isn’t – the 30yr total would be $1.65m (÷ 30 = $55k, or ÷ 28 = $58 929). By contrast, the $3.165m loan from FJC has incurred an annual interest charge since 16Mar2020, at 6.25%, of $197 812.50 – the cost ancillary to the principal that falls due 30Oct2022.; &

For this EIDL programme, at 17Nov, ~3.8m loans had been approved, totalling ~$299bn (averaging $78k). In California: ~582k loans, totalling ~$53.5bn (averaging ~$92k) – so Pacifica in trying to top up the loan to $2m, that’s x22 the CA average. Have to cross more than fingers. (p. 2; weekly aggregate updates are at

And what hurdles has the SBA erected?

• “Collateral[:] Required for loans greater than $25,000″ (emphases added). Oh. “[Loans] $500,001 – $2,000,000: Security agreement (UCC-1) lien required on business assets and a best available mortgage on real estate owned by the applicant business” (p. 4). So FJC has already accepted a second lien on a Pacifica land & building that they already hold as collateral? And re the new application, agreed for both properties to be ‘seconded’? And accepted being second fiddle to the Feds – or not? Why has no director or other delegate asked this in public of the CFO or ED?; &

• “As part of its underwriting, SBA will perform a cash flow analysis to confirm the business’ ability to repay the proposed COVID EIDL loan as well as its existing debt obligations. Once Applicant completed the inputs for revenues, COGS [cost of goods sold], expenses as appropriate, the system will automatically calculate the maximum eligible loan amount.” (unpaginated, p. 5 of the PDF, emphases added). Oh. Current liabilities are those falling due within 12mths, & since 31Oct2021 the $3.165m owed to FJC, is a . . . current liability. Double oh. (And, yet again, the capitalist state gets sight of info denied to the plebs, milked for their flow of cash to Pacifica Foundation, Inc.)

• SBA demands something on a pan-Pacifica scale that the KPFK Finance Cttee finds impossible to get for its own station: a list of accounts payable – Oh.

• But it doesn’t stop there: “[t]he information contained in this schedule is a supplement to your balance sheet and should balance to the liabilities presented on that form”. Oh. So NETA has to get all the station data, & PNO & PRA & PAN; do all the reconciliations for the eight units; then make eight unit trial balances; before producing a consolidated trial balance; & finally turning this into both a Pacifica balance sheet & a Pacifica net income statement. Big oh. (And NETA tell us that KPFA is holding up a prelim like the monthlies. And NETA tell all & sundry that at this time a balance sheet can’t possibly be produced for a station, let alone for Pacifica – that sort of work can only be done once all the preparations have been made for a visit by the doctor auditor.)

Concerning the lil matter of current items, Dr & Cr, the last balance sheet date at which Pacifica had audited liquidity, the luxury of working capital, an excess of current assets over current liabilities, was 30Sep2009. Yes, 2009. (Working capital is a difference: the phrase isn’t a synonym of cash.)

A coda … Effective 8Sep, the COVID-19 EIDL programme changed: “[m]aximum loan cap increased from $500,000 to $2 million”. Great news. And? “For loans greater than $500,000, applications will not be approved until after […] October 8, 2021, but applications can be submitted before then” (emphases added –; please also see

Hang on a sec. The application for the extra $1.5m could have gone in straight after 8Sep, if Pacifica was ready? Does this matter? After all, two months later, at the PNB Finance Cttee last Tuesday, 9Nov, ED Brazon 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).

So, any need to rush? Well, the SBA has the answer: “[t]he program ends December 31, 2021 or when funds are exhausted, whichever occurs sooner” (p. 2 (see also p. 1), emphases added).


In fact it’s worse than that: “[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

Double oh.

Guess Lydia, 9Nov, saying “we will be, argh, subsequently applying for, um, more of the loan […] and we wanna do this before the year-end”, doesn’t cut it, does it?


KPFK expenses structure

• For context, what’s the scale of KPFK expenses, & how does it compare with the other stations?

KPFK’s annualised total expenses for FY2021 are ~$3.15m, as per the estimated FY2021 net income statements presented in ‘Discussion: General’, using the unaudited Aug2021 NETA monthlies (the monthlies exclude the depreciation charge: audited FY2020 totalled $154 415, with just over half at KPFA, & KPFK’s being $15 461 – auditor’s report, p. 36, being p. 39 of the PDF,

Total expenses = Central Services expense + other expenses. So . . .

The monthly CS charge (the set persisting contrary to the formula adopted 18Feb2021 by the PNB – on which more anon): KPFA $39 288, KPFK $41 739, KPFT $13 469, WPFW $17 348, WBAI $21 112. So, annual charge: KPFA $471 456, KPFK $500 868, KPFT $161 628, WPFW $208 176, WBAI $253 344.

And non-CS expenses for FY2021, in rough terms: KPFA $3.20m, KPFK $2.65m, KPFT $0.54m, WPFW $1.35m, WBAI $1.41m.

So, the rough totals of expenses: KPFA $3.67m, KPFK $3.15m, KPFT $0.70m, WPFW $1.56m, WBAI $1.66m. So, KPFK ≃ WPFW + WBAI.; & Aug2021 NETA monthlies,

• What’s the proportion incurred by personnel costs?

Audited FY2020: of total expenses $3 291 035, personnel is 62.4% ($2 054 311), per FY2020 auditor’s report (p. 36; p. 39 of the PDF) –

Unaudited FY2021: of the 11mth total of $2 919 500, personnel is 54.7% ($1 597 151), per the Aug2021 NETA monthlies –

As context, all the stations, audited FY2020: KPFA 65.4%, KPFK 62.4%, KPFT 32.8% (sic), WPFW 44.7%, WBAI 36.4%. ‘Cut to the bone’ = no workers. (In station order, personnel costs: $2 282 066, 2 054 311, 248 216, 598 427, 674 704; total expenses: $3 489 553, 3 291 035, 755 945, 1 509 889, 1 645 202.)

This is even more obvious when seeing personnel costs as a proportion of non-Central Services expenses, ‘the station free of the shackles’, as is the wont of the KPFA breakers. So, witness audited FY2020: KPFA 75.6%, KPFK 73.6%, KPFT 41.8%, WPFW 46.0%, WBAI 48.5%. (CS: $471 456, 500 868, 161 628, 208 176, 253 344; non-CS expenses: $3 018 097, 2 790 167, 594 317, 1 301 713, 1 391 858.)

Other KPFK personnel details are in the appendix, ‘how many employees work at KPFK? the average personnel cost?’.

• What’s the proportion incurred by Central Services expense?

Audited FY2020: 15.2% ($500 868)

All the stations, audited FY2020: KPFA 13.5%, KPFK 15.2%, KPFT 21.4%, WPFW 13.8%, WBAI 15.4%. Source as above. With KPFA revenue rising, & the fixed sum CS expense starting 1Oct2014, to the rich the riches! Whilst KPFT gets the tumbleweed – and has no cash for relocation. (But at least they have the porch – at home, not at the station.) Why even have a flat rate tax when you can go turbo regressive with fixed sum? So-called neoliberalism in spades! To get rich is glorious!

An even more appalling index of this reactionary nonsense is the ratio of CS expense to programming expenses. The ‘happy news’ folk trumpet Charity Navigator ratings, & say potential grantors like something or other to do with programming spend. So, CS as a proportion of programming, FY2020: KPFA 22.6%, KPFK 29.5%, KPFT 78.5%, WPFW 41.7%, WBAI 40.6%. This shows how wrong is the fiscal structure of Pacifica, how reactionary it is.

In fact that self-claimed “world’s largest and most trusted nonprofit evaluator” (“About Us”) hasn’t updated their computation of Pacifica’s programming expense as a proportion of total expenses: the given 44.4% is the average of the 2016-2018 Form 990’s, whereas that of the 2017-2019 ones is 45.6% (the last uses the FY2020 audited data) –

Reinforcing this message is comparing programming spend with CS, the absolute amount. Programming: the mantra for Pacifica’s renaissance. And yet . . . and yet . . . For FY2020, KPFT’s excess of programming over CS was a mere $44 233 (205861 − 161628); for KPFA it was $1 617 391 (2088847 − 471456). A remarkable x36.6 – the remuneration structure of a Chinese factory. Blaming the poor. Blaming the victims of a lack of a Pacifica network development plan. Leaving Pacifica as an archipelago, stations all strung out – an aggregation, not a network. But congratulating WPFW for being one of Lydia’s green shoots. That’s as coherent as the laissez-faire Pacifica gets.

• What’s the proportion incurred by non-Central Services expenses? The inverse.

So, for audited FY2020, 84.8%.

All the stations, audited FY2020: KPFA 86.5%, KPFK 84.8%, KPFT 78.6%, WPFW 86.2%, WBAI 84.6%. Source, as above.

The new Central Services policy, 18Feb2021 – never implemented, but how much would it have saved KPFK thru 30Sep2021?

the PNB unanimously adopted a new CS policy 18Feb2021 – but it’s never been implemented. If it had been, KPFK would have saved an unaudited ~$78 802 19Feb-30Sep2021. Why has no-one at KPFK pointed this out – and acted upon it?

KPFK’s Central Services charge changed with effect from 19Feb because of the new PNB formula unanimously adopted the evening before. The new policy, in full:

[t]hat the central services formula be based on 15% of total revenue of the stations calculated quarterly. All revenue is to be included in the calculations; however the cost of air conditioning for Pacifica Radio Archives shall be deducted from KPFK’s revenue, and the tower, studio and office rent for all stations shall be deducted from their revenue.

18Feb2021 PNB minutes, unpaginated, p. 3 – (Saying “based” is woolly: better is ‘the CS charge will be 15% of […]’)

However, CFO Anita Sims & ED Lydia Brazon have chosen not to implement it. No director or other LSB delegate has informed the public of this fact – or explained their quiescence to this insubordination. More tail wagging the dog. Not even a reprimand, let alone a punishment. The directors, allowing their instruments to abdicate their responsibilities & duties. Another example of not even taking their own decisions seriously – just like with their 11June2020 policy on loss-making stations. To be honest, they’re LARP’ers. But all is not lost: they could make a show of sincerity, of authenticity – donning clown costumes. (pp. 5-6)

• Computation for 19Feb-30Sep2021:

period = ~2½ quarters = ~⅝yr

old CS policy: annual charge = $500 868, so period = ~⅝ x 500868 = ~$313 043 (Incidently, this annual charge is ~29.9% of the estimated annualised current revenue of $1 674 811, quite different from 15%. Paying twice as much.)

new CS policy: period = ~½ Jan-Mar charge + Apr-June charge + July-Sep charge

= ~60084 + ~98490 + 75667 = ~$234 241

savings = ~313043 − ~234241 = ~$78 802 = ~$80k

So, a ~$80k saving that no-one at KPFK is talking about, with no public evidence that they even know it exists.

• Workings re new policy:

Jan-Mar2021 charge determined by total revenue Oct-Dec2020:

Oct-Dec2020 net total revenue = (399393 + 103528 + 315949) − ((3 x 4000, PRA electricity) + (3 x 1919, tower rent)) = 818870 − 17757 = $801 113

0.15 x 801113 = $120 167, & ÷ 3 = $40 056 per month

charge = 120167 ÷ ~2 = ~$60 084

Notes: (a) the $4k for PRA electricity is per James Sagurton (‘a’-audiofile, 56:03) & R Paul Martin (‘c’-file, 3:24), 19Jan2021 PNB Finance Cttee –; (b) the other data per the Aug2021 NETA monthlies,; & (c) the Dec2020 tower rent is an anomalous charge: in Jan2020 it went up to $1 919, & then in Dec2020 it was $6 919, after which it has been $1 937 per month thru Aug2021; without an explanation, it’s prudent to treat Dec2020 as $1 919.

Apr-June2021 charge determined by total revenue Jan-Mar2021:

Jan-Mar2021 net total revenue = ((541145 − ~393653) + 305355 + 221567) − ((3 x 4000) + (3 x 1937)) = ~674414 − 17811 = ~$656 603

0.15 x ~656603 = ~$98 490, & ÷ 3 = ~$32 830 per month

charge = ~$98 490

Note: per the Aug2021 NETA monthlies, the PPP #1 still sits in the Jan2021 column ($393 653) of the KPFK net income statement, so this had to be deducted. (As already mentioned, thru the June2021 monthlies the Jan2021 total was different, $322 201; then in the July 2021 set it went up $71 452. No-one on the PNB Finance Cttee publicly asked why this happened.)

July-Sep2021 charge determined by total revenue Apr-June2021:

Apr-June2021 net total revenue = (107683 + 261975 + 152598) − ((3 x 4000) + (3 x 1937)) = 522256 − 17811 = $504 445

0.15 x 504445 = $75 667, & ÷ 3 = $25 222 per month

charge = $75 667

A note on the Central Services charge

The monthly Central Services charge: KPFA $39 288, KPFK $41 739, KPFT $13 469, WPFW $17 348, WBAI $21 112. (Serving as these incomes: PNO $115 576, PRA $17 380 – total $132 956.) Expressed as an annual charge: KPFA $471 456, KPFK $500 868, KPFT $161 628, WPFW $208 176, WBAI $253 344. (Incomes: PNO $1 386 912, PRA $208 560 – total $1 595 472.)

These charges have been fixed since 1Oct2014 (sic): compare these two net income statements, (p. 19; p. 22 of the PDF) & (p. 23; p. 27 of the PDF), with the latter’s figures the same thru the FY2020 auditor’s report. Thru neglect, these charges have seamlessly slipped into their 8th year.

In FY2014 the annual total levy was higher, by $75 955, & for all stations except for WBAI (the current annual charge is in brackets): total, $1 671 427 ($1 595 472); KPFA, $487 312 ($471 456); KPFK, $524 874 ($500 868); KPFT, $193 286 ($161 628); WPFW, $245 995 ($208 176); WBAI, $219 960 ($253 344). What does this mean? Four stations shared the benefit of the $75 955 for each of the last 7yrs – plus sharing the benefit of the extra $33 384 levied each year upon WBAI. The total 7yr benefit for KPFA, KPFK, KPFT, & WPFW is $765 373, $191 343 per station, $27 335 per station per year.

WBAI’s charge rising in FY2015, at the very moment its financial crisis was extending & intensifying, is just more evidence in support of the idea, consistently propagated by PacificaWatch, that the distorting charges/benefits resulting from the initial endowment of a station be stripped from its management accounts & dumped in PNO – for example, WPFW & WBAI continue to suffer the double whammy of not just effectively subsidising KPFA, KPFK, & KPFT for enjoying Pacifica property rent-free, but having to pay their own rent for buildings & tower. That’s one reason why it’s superficial, & misleading, for Chris Cory, Sharon Adams, & Sabrina Jacobs, all of KPFA, to repeatedly castigate some stations for being less productive, inefficient, performing badly, barbs laced with digits plucked from the published station-level monetary data. Cary Grant.

The formula 1Oct2014-18Feb2021, at some point, seems to have been 15% of station listener support & donations – CFO Sims (3:31), 24Nov2020 PNB Finance Cttee, But who quantified the LSD sums subjected to the 15% appropriator, & when? That is, are they as per auditor’s report, produced whenever (for example, the FY2015 one is dated 7Aug2017)? – or is each an unaudited figure self-declared by the neutral station bookkeeper, hired by the station manager? And who decided never to change the 1Oct2014 charge level, even when NETA started producing monthly net income statements?

It’s also the case that the CS charge is somewhat nominal, in that at year-end a reconciliation isn’t made between the total charge & the actual expenses incurred, to result in either a rebate or a levy supplement for the stations. (Has it ever been done?)

The charge started being incurred by PAN on 1Oct2020, when it became an accounting unit independent of PNO. However, its size was never discussed by the PNB Finance Cttee, according to the public record, so presumably it was simply chosen, on whatever ground, by CFO Anita Sims, whenever. Also, at $26k thru Aug2021, it’s so low that it was decided, by whoever, not to reduce the station charges.

Note on the budget-formation process … The current PNB Finance Cttee practice is back-to-front: it first looks at station draft budgets before, if ever, getting to PNO. Hello! The need for a station/PAN levy exists coz PNO doesn’t have enough endogenous revenue to fund pan-Pacifica expenses. So just to be rational – that old-fashioned idea – one starts with PNO, with its estimate of coming year expenses, less estimated revenue, & that establishes the non-discretionary expense, as it were, that the units have to cover before allocating their discretionary spend. Quite simple, really. But then the directors, ED, & CFO would have to transform the obdurate generative reality, with all its recalcitrance: the Pacifica dynamic of weak centre & largely unchallenged fiefdoms. Given their enduring capitulation, that’s why the current budget-formation process is both substantively & formally irrational. (It would also require ED Brazon to take the lead – which she has consistently proved incapable of doing since taking office on 5Dec2019 –

General, a return: to what extent does the KPFK revenue structure satisfy the expenses structure?

The bringing of the two structures together.

(The unaudited FY2021, with data thru Aug2021, has been estimated –

• To what extent does listener support & donations cover expenses, be it total expenses or total non-Central Services expenses?

(a) re total expenses:

audited FY2020: 59.3% … 1951112 ÷ 3291035 (p. 34; p. 37 of the PDF –

unaudited FY2021: ~50.5% … ~1591147 ÷ ~3151239 (LSD: 1543147 thru Aug + ~48k Sep; expenses: 2919500 thru Aug + 41739 Sep CS + ~190k Sep other)

(b) re total non-CS expenses:

audited FY2020: 70.0% … 1951112 ÷ (3291035 − 500868) … a material deficiency. (Same net income statement in the auditor’s report cited.)

unaudited FY2021: ~60.0% … ~1591147 ÷ (~3151239 − 500868) … falling towards only half of those expenses.

• To what extent does LSD cover personnel costs?

As context, current personnel costs are what percentage of current expenses? It was argued – not asserted – in ‘Assumptions: Expenses’ that current expenses be calculated as the average of the June, July, & August 2021 totals, per the August monthlies. So, current personnel costs, annualised = 12 x 119411 = $1 432 932 … where 119411 = ⅓ (120690 + 113290 + 124253. And current total expenses, annualised = 12 x 244684 = $2 936 208 … where 244684 = ⅓ (242434 + 254872 + 236746). So, percentage = 48.8%.

Given that the Central Services charge has a certain arbitrariness about it (as discussed above), what context is provided by the relationship of personnel costs to total non-CS expenses? Current total non-CS expenses, annualised = 12 x 202945 = $2 435 340 … where 202945 = 244684 − 41739. So, percentage = 58.8%. Exactly 10 percentage points higher.

So, to the question posed: to what extent does LSD cover personnel costs?

Audited FY2020: 95.0% … 1951112 ÷ 2054311 … LSD wasn’t enough. And that leaves all the other expenses untouched, to be paid for by some other revenue stream: scrap metal, advertising, grants – and the miraculous windfalls (pp. 34 & 36; pp. 37 & 39 of the PDF).

Unaudited FY2021: ~92.7% … ~1591147 ÷ (1597151 thru Aug + ~120k Sep) … LSD is a lil bit more off.


. . . and the labours of Sisyphus continue in PacificaWorld:

the next fund-drive, which is gunna be, um, December 7 until the 22 [from a Tuesday to a Wednesday, 16 days]

GM Miquel Calçada to the Th18Nov PNB, 7:36 – [UPDATE (1): without giving a public reason, the Dec2021 drive started without the thermometer, continuing at least thru half of the 2nd day – but it’s now back on the station homepage, UPDATE (2): Miquel told the W15Dec KPFK LSB that the drive ends Tu21Dec, so 15 days (53:20) –]


Whither KPFK?

Whither Pacifica?


•A• Appendix: how many employees work at KPFK? the average personnel cost?

How many employees work at KPFK? More particularly, how many full-time equivalents (FTE)?

Never easy to find out. A common ploy of the Pacifica secrecy culture is to hide behind the closed meetings rule grounded in the 1934 Communications Act, & so appearing in the CPB’s rules. And, yes, it does indeed refer to personnel matters. So in the meetings archive we readily get talk such as this: “[m]eeting to discuss confidential personnel issues at KPFK, proprietary business issues at KPFT and other legal and personnel issues” (Th21Oct2021 PNB, emphases added) – Peeps switch into panic mode: there’ll be litigation! – although no-one ever cites a case sparked by what’s in an audiofile. (In PacificaWorld, fear does a lot of work – without too much effort.) But few ever read the relevant Comms Act passage: a valid ground for a closed session is “to consider matters relating to individual employees” (§ 396(k)(4), emphasis added; p. 216) – so not ‘relating to employees’, & not ‘personnel’ which can be interpreted to include anyone working for Pacifica, so including contractors – Comms Act is embedded at (Obvious didactic prescription: Pacifica management should post in the meetings archive a legal opinion, one using a minimum of five borderline scenarios, as well as case law, to illustrate the boundaries of the “individual employees” concept. But this won’t happen, will it?)

But recent info is dispersed around:

• Obviously Pacifica isn’t organised enuf to have a basic like an annual report. (Intrinsically dangerous in simply being something written down; worse still in serving as a benchmark for evaluating peeps like the directors, ED, CFO, station managers, etc.) But whilst respect for the members is missing, it’s there for the arm of the state, such as the IRS, who demand such reports. So the 2019 Form 990 says, “[t]otal number of individuals employed in calendar year 2019 [is] 167” (unpaginated; p. 1 of the PDF) – Useful in a way, but doesn’t give the FTE total – & includes those only employed for a day (it doesn’t say ‘the average number …’).

• At the 20Oct2019 KPFK LSB, just after the raid on WBAI, Grace ‘I have always exercised my fiduciary duty to the utmost’ Aaron (1:25:24) gave pan-Pacifica info, down to 2 decimal places (sic). She had examined “payroll from the second-half of June 2019”, extracting these data (ees, FTE): KPFA 47, 31; KPFK 35, 26.21; KPFT 4, 3.38; WPFW, 11, 7.87; WBAI 11, 7.57. Total: 108 ‘ees, 76.03 FTE. (She mis-spoke at the end, meaning ‘KPFA has x4 the FTE of WBAI’.) (Big gap here between the 108 & the 167 just cited – even when adding in PNO, & the 4 at PRA. Irreconcilable, yes?)

And the average personnel cost? The FY2019 personnel costs are found in three sources, that give slightly different figures: an expenses statement in the FY2019 auditor’s report dated 29Apr2021 (p. 35; p. 38 of the PDF), which in giving a disclaimer of opinion means all the figures provided by NETA are unaudited (pp. 1 & 2; pp. 3 & 4 of the PDF); & the Nov2020 & May2021 sets of unaudited NETA monthlies (Nov2020 is the earliest set in the public domain; May2021 is the last one to give FY2019 as a comparative).; Nov2020 monthlies,; May2021 monthlies,

Unaudited, per the FY2019 auditor’s report (p. 35; p. 38 of the PDF; there was a disclaimer of opinion upon the NETA-produced statements): KPFA $2 215 341, KPFK $2 015 667, KPFT $250 167, WPFW $681 384, WBAI $728 030 (the other accounting units are PNO $524 506, & PRA $279 310; the seven totalling $6 694 405).

Applying the Aaron FTE figures: KPFA $71 463, KPFK $76 905, KPFT $74 014, WPFW $86 580, WBAI $96 173 (can the last two be true?); the five stations, $5 890 589 ÷ 76.03= $77 477. Given the limitations of the evidence used, if a prudent single figure is to be offered, $75k wouldn’t be unreasonable.

Interestingly, the first three, those with their own bookkeeper, are different from the NETA monthlies, which themselves can vary (first the Nov2020 set, then May2021): KPFA $2 235 652 & $2 212 213, KPFK $1 976 259 & $2 017 857, KPFT $251 581 & $250 167, WPFW $681 384 for both, WBAI $728 030 for both. (The differences: KPFA, May2021 gives $23 439 less than Nov2020, & the FY2019 auditor’s report gives $3 128 more than May2021; KPFK, +$41 598, −$2 190; KPFT, −$1 414, 0; WPFW, 0, 0; WBAI, 0, 0; so May2021 is $16 745 more than Nov2020, & the NETA statement in the NY2019 auditor’s report is $938 more than May2021.)

• At the Su15Dec2019 KPFK LSB, then station manager Anyel ‘who cares if KPFK keeps losing money, I’m just the GM’ Fields (1:17:47) gave some personnel info: “the median [annual] income for a full-time employee at KPFK is $50 639; part-time employee is $32 635″ (emphasis added). Notice the choice of concept: “income” – not personnel costs. So what may be the median annual personnel costs? The latest monthlies giving monthly statements for FY2020 are those for May2021. KPFK’s net income statement for Dec2019 gives ‘Salaries’, presumably Fields’ “income”, as ~73.9% of the total personnel costs of $177 166. The composition: ‘Salaries’ $130 983, ‘Health Benefits’ $31 218, ‘Pension Contributions’ $2 648, ‘403B [Pension] Contributions’ $1 374, ‘Child Care’ $890, ‘Payroll Taxes – FICA’ $10 018, ‘Payroll Taxes – SUI’ $36. Applying this 73.9% proportion, Fields’ median annual personnel cost may be $68 494 (50639 ÷ 0.739).

(The median is a kind of average: it’s the one in the middle, with as many terms bigger than it as there are smaller than it. The best-known average is the (arithmetic) mean, the sum of the terms divided by the number of terms; another is the mode, the most frequent value. Presumably GM Fields chose as his measure the unusual median coz it came out lower than the mean – just like choosing “income” rather than personnel cost. Have to stay alert in PacificaWorld, peeps.)

GM Fields added: “KPFK has 23, urgh, full-time employees and 10 part-time, and a handful of temp employees that we bring in during fund-drives or in other extraordinary circumstances” (1:18:55). The only way to square this with Saint Grace’s report about the late June2019 data, 6mths before, “35 total staff, 26.21 full-time equivalents”, is that the 10 or so part-time workers amount to 3.2 FTE, so averaging ~1½days per week. Plausible?

• The penultimate info, quite revealing, comes from Mark Torres, Director of the Pacifica Radio Archives. He presented their FY2021 budget to the 13Apr2021 PNB Finance Cttee (33:35). He said there are four “staff”: MT himself; Shawn Dellis (“administrative officer”), Mariana Berkovich (“business manager”), Edgar Toledo (“production director”; also “an expert in tape transfer”). All very comfortable. So PRA get to have a business manager but KPFK doesn’t? Raising the question: where’s ED Brazon’s assessment doc that rejected NETA taking over this very low volume transaction operation?; staff list,

Per the Aug2021 NETA monthlies, there’s only one month a year – the PRA fund-drive (one day?) – when revenue, other than from Central Services (& windfalls like PPP #1 & #2), exceeds $15k, with two $10k-15k, the rest less than $6k. Meaning, the usual working day brings in ~$279. I kid you not. Poor Mariana. Frazzled. All that managing. Relieved whenever the clock strikes five. But every vacation ruined, dreading the return to the backlog.

PRA’s average takings of $279: the 11mth revenue (excluding the Central Services stream) = $225 710 … less (Nov2020 fund-drive + PPP #1 & #2) = $67 437 … ÷ 11 = $6 131 pm … ÷ 22 = $279 per working day. Poor Mariana, worked off her lil feet.

And Pacifica Affiliates Network isn’t that much better: its revenue rate is only x3 of that $279: PAN generates an average of ~$2.50 per calendar day from each of the current 233 affiliates, ~$212k a year. So, apart from CS & PPP, total revenue of PRA + PAN ≃ $ (64k drive + 74k other) + 212k = ~$350k.

Guess Mark forgot to mention how intense things are at PRA when he chatted with the PNB Finance Cttee in April. And the directors & other LSB delegates didn’t know to ask.

But I digress. The point is that these four specialised, quite experienced workers bear annualised personnel costs of ~$263 438. An average of ~$65 860. (Per Aug2021 monthlies: $237218 + the omitted Aug health benefits, 4267 (without a NETA note it’s prudent not to rely on an adjustment occurring) = $241 485, then annualised, & divided by 4.) This is $10k or so less than that using the June2019 Aaron figures. Yet one would think these PRA workers would earn above average pay, yes? Odd.

• Finally, what did station manager Miquel say at the PNB meeting yesterday? “[W]e are about 15 staff members […] we are 15” (17:38 & 18:21 into the KPFK item). Really? And he means the 15 are all full-time? No part-time?

Th18Nov PNB, [UPDATE: as of F10Dec, still not in the Pacifica meetings archive,]

August’s personnel costs, which in being higher than any month since March may include severance costs, were $124 253, an annualised $1 491 036 … ÷ 15 = $99 402 per ‘ee for the year. Plausible? So take the lowest monthly of FY2021, July, $113 290. Annualised as $1 359 480 … ÷ 15 = $90 632. Again, plausible? Ok, let’s say all these months have severance, & assume current monthly costs of the 15 as $100k (making monthly severance costs since March, $13k-24k), so an annualised $1.2m … ÷ 15 = $80k. Well, maybe still on the high side – and is monthly severance of the order of $20k? And we need to keep in mind the other estimates: Aaron’s June2019 ~$75k, & PRA’s FY2021 ~$66k – and Fields’ median of perhaps $68½k.

Aug2021 unaudited NETA monthlies,

So maybe KPFK average annual personnel costs are indeed $80k.

And to return to the question, how many FTE’s are there at KPFK? Not easy to say.

Possibilities, using the $1 359 480 (the FY2021 low, July), & the different average personnel costs computed above:

@ $66k = 20.6 FTE

@ $75k = 18.1 FTE

@ $80k = 17.0 FTE

@ Miquel = 15.0 FTE (that’s @ $90 632 – sic)

So when Miquel said 15, maybe he was referring to full-time ‘ees. But maybe he wasn’t.

If he stays long enough, perhaps someone will ask him.


KPFT’s broadcast licence extended thru 1Aug2029, granted Th22July

KPFT’s broadcast licence was due to expire Su1Aug – but you wouldn’t know it if you relied on the local management & Executive Director Lydia Brazon. Ditto the Local Station Board & the Pacifica National Board. No-one thought the members, listeners, & staff deserved to know. No-one thought they deserved to be reassured that all was in hand, that the application had been submitted on date X & a decision was expected by date Y. But communication & courtesy are skilled accomplishments, an achievement, even for those who think they’re professionals. But those running PacificaWorld are those running PacificaWorld.

Hence the post here on 13July, ‘Three station FCC licences expire this year: KPFT 1Aug, KPFA 1Dec, KPFK 1Dec’. It was welcomed in Houston, because even delegates on PNB cttees were unaware of the upcoming expiration.


Today, the public file of KPFT on the Federal Communications Commission website bore good news: “[t]his is to notify you that your Application for Renewal of License 0000142229, was granted on 07/22/2021 for a term expiring on 08/01/2029.” –

. . . there you go, says Lydia . . .


2021 by-laws referenda vote: quantitative analysis of NES Peñaloza’s report to the Th8July PNB, & a prediction

[Originally posted 8July, as an addendum to a discussion of the FY2020 auditor’s report in relation to California law. Upon request, it’s re-posted separately. Agreed – even a case of light & bushel?]


The breakers decisively win the listener-member referendum (6 000 — 5 800?, maybe 6 050 — 5 750?) – but lose the war … with maybe 220 blocking 6 000

An important indicator of the likely referenda results was disclosed by a frazzled Renée Asteria Peñaloza, the National Elections Supervisor, at the Th8July PNB. She said the electorate was ~44 000 listener-members & 1 035 staff-members (40:32 after roll-call; UPDATE: that time seems to be in error, it being 42:55 according to the now published audiofiles; the agenda item starts at 0:27 on the ‘b’-file, & the electorates are given at 1:12 – Prior to this, the latest figures disclosed by Pacifica were 42 491 & 993, respectively, at 2Jan2020, the record date for the first by-laws referenda. (The anti-breakers won both referenda: 6 340 — 3 273, & 331 — 177.); &


total electorate up, +~3.4%; mostly a net extra ~1 500 listener-members. Have the anti-breakers been on a recruitment campaign? We know who’s been organised, been organising, & been mobilising peeps for a few years now

• this is surprising, to say the least: according to official figures (buyer beware), Aug/Sep2015 ⭢ 2Jan2020, total listener membership in this 4⅓yr period fell at the rate of ~2 340 a year. So, going against the grain current, we may have here 1500 + 2340 = 3840. Where did these people come from? Who’s been recruiting/retaining over 3k peeps, all in little more than a year? This contrasts with the lack of a ‘bump’ before the first referenda. This time is different. (The ~2 340: (52582 − 42491) ÷ 4⅓) –

• listener-member referendum: at the Tu6July KPFT Development Cttee, Robin Lewis (Membership Lead) disclosed that membership “is at 2 900” (57:54) – At 2Jan2020, it was ~4 537 (~4 368 listeners, ~169 staff), so a drop, in unemployment CoronaTimes, of –36.1%. If this membership has dropped (moreover, at the only station where the breakers won a 2020 listener referendum, ~453 — ~423), whilst membership has grown for Pacifica as a whole, there’s only one rational conclusion: it’s the breakers who’ve been recruiting massively, & on the West Coast – whilst the anti-breakers sat on their laurels, singing Freddy Mercury

• staff-member referendum: membership +4.2%, but with much smaller numbers involved it’s more uncertain who the recruiters are

turnout: compared with the Mar2020 by-laws referenda voting, listener-member turnout, as a share of an increased electorate, is +~17.9% (22.9% ⭢ ~27%), & staff-member turnout, as a share of a decreased electorate, is –~18.6% (51.6% ⭢ ~42%). The killer stat is the +~17.9%. Seriously. And one needs to say again: have the anti-breakers been on a recruitment & mobilising campaign? We know who’s been organised, been organising, & been mobilising peeps for a few years now

• listener-member turnout: in 2020, 42491 x ~22.9% = 9714; in 2021, 44000 x ~27% = ~11880. Increase of ~2 166, by +~22.3%. (Assuming the ~1 500 net increase to the electorate all voted, that means at least ~650 ex-abstainers voted – peeps more likely to be roused by the call for a new day, a new beginning, than holding fast to the status quo.) Is anyone seriously suggesting that the anti-breakers, who had no unified national campaign, & got into the action so, so late, magically got even 1 000 new peeps to turn out to vote for them?

• staff-member turnout: in 2020, 993 x ~51.6% = 512; in 2021, 1035 x ~42% = ~435. Decrease of ~77, by –~15.0%

Only one rational conclusion is derivable from the evidence.

Conjecture: listener-member result = 6 000 — 5 800, maybe 6 050 — 5 750, a win by 200-300. (Excludes invalid ballots: 101 in the last referendum. The main assumption is the anti-breakers suffering attrition by a ⅐th (900) of their Mar2020 referendum support; also, the breakers mobilising 800-850 other new members or former abstainers, plus winning 1 900 out of the described 2 166 increase.)

As noted in previous posts, the breakers may win the listener-member referendum, & even win the staff-member referendum at three of the stations (as in 2020), but lose the staff referendum coz the highest turnout rate remains at WPFW & WBAI . . . so with ~435 Pacifica staff voting, 220 may block 6 000 . . . a voting potency of x27.

NES Peñaloza said she may have the results tomorrow afternoon (East Coast), otherwise on Monday (42:28 after roll-call; UPDATE: at 0:45 on the audiofile). In a typical lack of precision, from a purported elections supervisor, she didn’t speak of either the certification of the results or the announcement of the results. But the stuffing has been knocked out of her.

She didn’t say, but the results announcement may be at the site she runs, – and presumably soon after on the Foundation’s homepage, scrubbed clean today, ready & waiting,


(This P.S. will be incorporated into a post made tomorrow [UPDATE, Th15July: please see the end of this note] on the worrying habit of the NES, the ED, & other Pacifica decision-makers to continually speak, & in the NES’ case, write, of ‘the referendum’ rather than the referenda. By by-law Article17, Section 1(B)(3), both (v) & the final sentence, & (4), both classes of members have to approve any change having a differential material adverse effect on voting rights: “the Members shall vote in classes and the majority vote of the Members of each class shall be required to approve the amendment” (emphases added). This has been explained in previous posts. Also please note the confused question put by Lawrence Reyes to the NES, & her reply (58:54 after roll-call; UPDATE: at 17:11 on the audiofile).

[UPDATE, Th15July: two posts will appear in the next few days: (1) on the referendum/referenda idea, focusing on the most obvious sufficient reason, per California law, that requires two referenda, namely, Corporations Code, Section 7813(f), the (f); & (2) a quantitative & qualitative account of the referenda results announced M12July, including the political effects – Note, the NES’ statement twice says “[r]esults”, not ‘certification of results’; just sloppy? Her announcement also says “[t]he final report will be published by July 26th, 2021”.]


Diamonds are the eggs laid by the Devil – in PacificaWorld, it’s windfalls: putting off hard decisions. ED Brazon announces $1.2m Paycheck Protection Program decision, Th28Jan2021 PNB

. . . a double-edged sword, putting off uncomfortable decisions . . . (image courtesy of David Jacques, Oil is the Devil’s Excrement) . . .


• the need to end de facto federalism

• the need for a network development plan

• KPFA: five-year $643k total net loss, yet personnel costs out of control

• only guarantee of quick cash is from a signal-swap: but where?

• the second $1m+ Paycheck Protection Program loan, Jan2021

• Pacificans get their tax-$$$ back: perhaps $2.56m [UPDATE: actually $2.64m]

• digression: how can NETA be saving Pacifica money?


In Sierra Leone, diamonds are known as the Devil child, eggs laid by the Devil.

The Iraqi lamented, if only we had had onion fields, not oil fields.

The ‘father of OPEC’, Venezuelan oil minister Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo, even entitled one of his books, Hundiéndonos en el excremento del diabloSinking in the Devil’s Excrement.

And PacificaWorld? It has its own windfalls: if not The Golden Corpses, the bequests, then federal money. (Once upon a time in PacificaWorld, it was a political question whether to take fed money, from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the CPB. That’s long gone.)

A gift can be a curse.

Why a curse? Behaviourally, it distracts from the underlying reality, the causal reality; so cognitively, it deludes; & prospectively, it provides an incentive to put off difficult decisions. To adapt another’s words, ‘it’s the “natural resource curse”: showered with sudden windfalls, quickly spent, but creating thirsty projects, a cost structure that’s unsustainable when revenues crash’ (Jerry Useem, Fortune). This is the warning made for years by Kim Kaufman, the recently resigned KPFK LSB Finance Cttee Chair.; KK’s 13Jan statement, justifiably biting, (4:06), & same as part of the published agenda, (pages 1-3). (In then electing the temporary Chair, candidate Fred Blair, the longstanding former PNB Audit Cttee Chair & current KPFK Treasurer, lost out to . . . ‘Balanced Bella’, a vote of 3-4.)

The curse works insidiously. Habituated with windfalls, just go with the flow. See where it takes you. Problems? Just deal with symptoms, not causes. Firefight. Be immediate & ad hoc, focus on muddling thru. Don’t try to develop & exercise foresight. Don’t bother with a destination. Certainly don’t plan. Don’t address enduring problems, the decay (even mould). Ignore the possibility of pathology. The possibility of systemic dysfunction. Likewise, for the participants, don’t ponder the generative forces they themselves exercise in the way they live in PacificaWorld, in the way they interact with each other. But then we are, by default, creatures of the surface, attending to what’s immediately around us, rarely examining how & why things come to be, why some persist, whilst others change. Without heuristic reflection, we are, to put it onticly, condemned to be preoccupied with the generated dimension of human living, not the generative dimension. This partial understanding confers a delusional attitude, towards what’s going on & what has to be done.

This is PacificaWorld. Looking forward to the relief promised by the next fund drive. Hoping – but not hoping – another listener dies. Talking about ‘getting the audit done’ for that mil$lion from the CPB (as if no other condition has to be satisfied). All this expectation mashed up with the urgency of putting out the latest fire. Perpetual crisis mode, absorbing one’s time & energy. But this is merely the bubbling on the surface.

So what responsibility is borne for all this by Pacifica’s decision-makers? They’re not the sole determinant, but they are agents. Their responsibility lies both in what they have done & what they have not done, displayed in their acts of commission & acts of omission. The directors, legally, are the trustees of the Foundation, custodians of the assets. Given this, it needs to be recognised that, systemically, the directors have been perpetrators of an institutional failure, stemming from refusing to examine the generative dimension, the forces at work those present, those absent. In practice, the directors have functioned as custodians not of assets but of failure. The directors need to recognise their failure, learn from it, & take remedial action.


The need to end de facto federalism

What are these acts of omission? Two stand out, & they are related. The first is refusing to find a way to systematically overcome the destructive, disintegrating dynamic dominant in PacificaWorld since at least 2005. This is refusing to challenge the principal deleterious political condition, & force: de facto federalism. The federalism in a supposed unitary radio network. Organisationally expressed as fiefdoms, keeping out ‘interference’ from the centre: from those with network responsibility, the Foundation responsibility, so from the executive director, from the chief financial officer, even from the directors. (Lynden & co have met 2mths’ resistance to arranging their directors’ inspection of KPFT.) Federalism, the force proving to be the most antagonistic to Pacifica’s organisational well-being. A political force spawning its correlate consciousness: ideationally as station separatism, the politics for break-up, & affectively as excessive station pride, station chauvinism, spreading corrosively around the network to fuel resentment amongst all parties. A parochialism, exemplified by the Berkeley Hillbillies. Shredding the mission statement, that shibboleth oft-heralded, then ignored. Toxicity, not Saint Greta.

A federalism expressed mundanely in not just a continuing lack of adequate bookkeeping, accounting, & financial activity, but, crucially, in their weak regulatory means, the internal control systems. It’s because most live the delusional attitude that since the 16July2020 acceptance of the FY2018 auditor’s report, the chatter has been ‘getting ready for the FY2019 audit’, rather than the honest, ‘the auditor can’t come in yet coz the FY2019 books are still chaotic, so we don’t even have a trial balance, plus all those gaps in the supporting evidence to any draft financial statements we might eventually come up with’. Yes, NETA’s head drone, George Walter, had to cough up to the 30Nov2020 PNB Audit Cttee, the last time it met (so two months & counting, with no next meeting date set), that even a trial balance didn’t exist (9:21) – 4½ months into ‘getting ready’., & (please see the commentary, ‘And when are the FY2019 & FY2020 auditor’s reports expected?’)

[UPDATE: CFO Anita Sims told the Th4Feb2021 PNB, in her 67secs report (sic), that a trial balance still doesn’t exist, so over 6½ months after the acceptance of the FY2018 auditor’s report – but, rest assured, “George would run a trial balance, & that would go to the auditors, for them to start their fieldwork” (below clip, 0:53; audio not yet in the Archive [UPDATE: no change as of Su21Feb] … ADD LINK + TIME). So everything’s under control; as Anita said, “I feel very good about everything […] I’m feeling very, very good” (0:35, 1:11). Insincerity or the delusional attitude, it hardly matters. But listen to what she said, listen carefully: mention of lots of particulars, including dates, but they’re largely meaningless because they’re drowning in an ocean of indeterminateness: each desired outcome lacks a definite date. Every one. Seriously, listen to it. But her obfuscation, intentional or otherwise, worked: not one director asked her to speak plainly, to speak precisely. And it was as if the 30Nov2020 admission had never happened.

As mentioned, audio not yet in the Archive (the CFO ‘report’ will be at c. 2:25:00), but the ‘report’ clip is here, at]

There’s a simple rule with the punters: be straight with them. Always.

Post-16July2020 is all Mickey Mouse, the taking advantage of the naive: when the money function is managed properly, ‘getting ready for the audit’ is quite straight forward: quickly doing the final update of the needed schedules, reviewing what’s ready, getting in the auditors two weeks after year-end. So the function dysfunction persists even under NETA, contracted since mid June 2018, so struggling in PacificaWorld for over 2½ years & counting: NETA, failing to impose centralised control within their domain, languishing under six ED’s who themselves failed to impose the requisite centralised control Pacifica needed & still needs . . . Tom Livingston, Maxie Jackson, Grace Aaron, John Vernile, Lawrence Reyes, Lydia Brazon. A comprehensive, & continuing, management failure, ultimately the responsibility, & so failure, of directors sorely out of their depth – it’s elder abuse, really. Mundanely, the current audit delay is because FY2019 lacked adequate bookkeeping, accounting, & financial practices & internal control systems. And FY2020? Your guess is as good as Jorge’s.

NETA start date is evidenced by 7June2018 PNB private meeting, 5July2018 PNB, & 10July2018 PNB Finance Cttee:; (Anita Sims making her Pacifica debut, 29:42); and (ED/CFO Tom Livingston, 3:50; & Anita Sims, 7:54), & (pp. 1-3)

(Launching Major Tom into both offices violated a non-trivial by-law: “neither the Secretary nor the Chief Financial Officer shall serve concurrently as the Chairperson of the Board or the Executive Director” – Article 9, Section 1; But, hey, rules are for the great unwashed, yeah, not the entitled?)

Summarily, the directors have copped out, refusing to combat federalism, the principal centrifugal political force in PacificaWorld, the most disruptive organisationally. The directors have refused to measure up to their responsibilities.


The need for a network development plan

The other act of omission, correlated but inversely, is yet again causing the directors to be perpetrators, & so custodians, of another key institutional failure, their refusal to generate a centripetal force: implementing a network development plan. (The right sort of NDP.)

And this is no surprise: even individually, the directors seem incapable of having a vision of Pacifica’s future, any vision, even an unviable one. For them, the future collapses into the present: it doesn’t exist. Just consider the PNB Strategic Planning Cttee. Almost three years of talking; nothing published. Established by the 15Feb2018 PNB. First met 12Mar2018 . . . Christmas 2018 . . . Christmas 2019 . . . 14Dec2020, 2¾ years later, the Cttee told there were some working papers – being worked on, of course. Sure enough, the next meeting, 5Jan2021, learnt that the worked working papers had been further worked on. Anticipation mounted for the only other meet, 19Jan, but it wasn’t streamed, & the audio isn’t in the Archive. Oh. But our saga doesn’t end there: no date set for the Cttee’s next meeting. Maybe there won’t be one. After all, there’s only the need, as it stands, to hand over on F2Apr2021, $3.265m + $51 015.63 quarterly interest to the Foundation for the Jewish Community, FJC.

(Tu5Jan2021, there were some votes on what was described as a plan, and Cttee & PNB Chair Alex Steinberg (4:15, leading up to 6:31; then 28:06) spoke of presenting something to the Th7Jan PNB, but there was nothing in its public meeting, & no public report of the private meeting – in fact, the last written ‘report-out’, of any Pacifica meeting, was last year, 19Dec2020 (sic) …, & Question is, why the secrecy about what’s said to be ‘a plan’? Why wasn’t the motion read out, put into the public record, as happens every other time? Why not go public? Indeed, why didn’t the Cttee ask for planning ideas from staff, members, listeners, even their fellow LSB delegates? Why assume that the best ideas would come from the Cttee? Especially as the Cttee’s been going three years without publishing a page?)

Unable to recognise need, the directors are also unable to help create the minimal political conditions for implementing a network development plan, a plan turning an aggregate of radio stations into a unitary radio network. A network development plan sustained by an unavoidable spatial revolution in the treatment of money, in the relationship between where funds are raised & where they are spent: making some of the allocation rules those of positive discrimination, mitigating the histories of each station, not least their initial endowment, & focusing on the future by allocating funds where it’s decided they’re most needed. (Cuba, 1963-4, Che versus the Stalinists: el Gran Debate, ¿Sistema de Financiamiento Presupuestario o Sistema de Autofinanciamiento?) A network development plan sustained by imposing the requisite centralised control, one far exceeding the minimum demanded by RealWorld – by the public authorities & the social law of money, which both treat Pacifica Foundation, Inc. as a unitary legal personality.

For a unitary radio network, the analytic unit for the considering of revenues & costs isn’t the station: it’s Pacifica. Not ‘the division’: it’s the Foundation. It’s a foundation, an edifice, not an archipelago, all strung out.


KPFA: five-year $643k total net loss, yet personnel costs out of control

Besides the need both to challenge de facto federalism & to implement a network development plan, Pacifica needs to address two other proximate matters: costs, & revenue.

When the latest $1m+ Paycheck Protection Program money runs out, perhaps end of April, it may cross the minds of the directors to address Pacifica’s cost structure – and how the change in the last five years is a silent scandal: KPFA has become an unbearable burden, dragging down the network.

Comparing FY2016 with FY2020, a span of five years, whilst Pacifica’s expenses fell 7% with KPFA’s dropping a staggering 14% ($520 771), KPFA personnel expenses were out of control, shooting in the opposite direction, growing 15% (from $1 996 377 to $2 294 297), their share of the station’s expenses rising a remarkable 34%, from 54% to a bloated 72%! This is a revolutionary change of KPFA’s cost structure. It has made the number of paid staff at KPFA wildly disproportionate within Pacifica. This rendered even more stark by what’s to come at KPFK. With worsening Pacifica cashflow, this dynamic at KPFA is unsustainable. It’s also wrong. The required policy to be carried out is obvious. Yet not one delegate on a local station board, nor one director on the national board, speaks its name. An elephant unseen.; & the Nov2020 Foundation management accounts, on an accruals basis (hence the unpaid NETA billing National Office a monthly $27 500, so a yearly $330k), but excluding the perhaps ~$160k annual depreciation charge (calculation is below), (the file gives as author, “Tamra Swiderski”, NETA Senior Controller)

Comparing these two fiscal years, Pacifica total expenses fell the mentioned 7%, but personnel expenses were unchanged: so their share grew from 52.6% to 56.4%, a rise of 7%. And KPFA’s share of Pacifica personnel expenses grew from 30.4% to 34.9%, a rise of 15%. When KPFA non-personnel expenses are also considered, one sees something extraordinary, making it glaringly obvious what’s happened at the station: whilst its personnel expenses grew $297 920, non-personnel expenses were chopped by a startling 47%, $818 691, from $1 729 812 to $911 121; this shifted the excess of personnel expenses over non-personnel ones from 15.4% to 251.8%, a 16-fold rise (sic). With Pacifica last making an audited net income in FY2006 (sic), why was this allowed to happen?

Why has the CFO said nothing?!?

Pause a moment. And consider another fact, the five-year station performance, its ‘bottom line’. Although the alleged shining light of Pacifica chopped non-personnel expenses 47% when comparing FY2016 with FY2020, it increased personnel expenses by 15%, $297 920, all the while making a station five-year cumulative net loss of $642 972 (FY2016, audited $315 661 loss; FY2017, unaudited $129 012 net income; FY2018, unaudited $524 572 loss; FY2019, unaudited $205 459 net income (including the contra of a ~$100k depreciation charge); FY2020, unaudited $137 210 loss (ditto the ~$100k depreciation). (Note, the FY2016 auditor’s report seems to say the “Division” analyses are materially accurate: one must be prudent with the declarative “[i]n our opinion, the [division] information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the financial statements as a whole” (p. 1b) because it’s almost certain that the auditors, as usual, didn’t do fieldwork at all seven accounting units, & their report gives no unit-level info on their particular activities, including the scale & the accounts sampled –

To repeat, not least for the PacificaWatch scribe writing the memes: KPFA cost Pacifica $642 972, so ~$m, across the five years, 1Oct2015 to 30Sep2020.

Putting it another way, KPFA has lived beyond its means for the last five years, throughout the period benefiting from three employees effectively paid for by the Foundation, by all the stations, out of income continually sucked from each successive accounting period.

The breakers don’t tell you this at the KPFA Local Station Board meetings, that’s for sure. It’s the protection of this reality, however they understand it, that strongly motivates the KPFA breakers: the urgency of the breakers at KPFA flows from the increasing pressure upon Pacifica to find cash.

(Depreciation estimate: the last audited depreciation figures Pacifica has are FY2016, being $216 780 Pacifica, $103 229 KPFA. The financial statements in the FY2017 & 2018 auditor’s reports are unaudited, giving, respectively, $200 279 & $161 781 Pacifica, and $93 511 & $99 442 KPFA. Being imprudent, to give KPFA the benefit of the doubt, assume for FY2019 & 2020, $160k Pacifica & $100k KPFA. (please see the relevant pages).)

The concluding truth is staring us all in the face: this is where Pacifica has to make savings, at KPFA, *the personnel*, & do so immediately – and stop pursuing the self-financing unargued dogma of trying to rip out bone at KPFT, WBAI, & perhaps WPFW. (KPFK is currently undergoing its own slow-burn modification, that may become a transformation.) The directors really need to act here, for the sake of Pacifica.

(But an inkling of the truth may be starting to dawn – albeit hesitantly, partially, somewhat vaguely. Director James Sagurton (PNB Finance Cttee Chair, & WBAI listener-delegate) seemed to be saying something interesting to the 5Jan2021 PNB Strategic Planning Cttee (39:05). Something seemed to be there, as he reluctantly, timidly, almost apologetically made his point raised the topic spoke, as if he wasn’t sure whether he should even be saying it, not sure how to express it, not sure how to frame it. Well, praps it’ll turn out to be a start –


Only guarantee of quick cash is from a signal-swap: but where?

Lastly, on the revenue side, considering a three- or even five-year horizon, the only likely source of big bucks to let Pacifica breathe, other than that seeping from a row of Golden Corpses, is a signal-swap, & not necessarily WBAI’s. It may take a year or so to do, but this is the only sure way to have cash to fund a network development plan.

One station should provide more than enough cash, but which one? So, what should be the decision rules? How to rationally decide which criteria are relevant? What are the best evidenced arguments pro & con for each station? No-one suggests this’ll be easy – it’s simply that for Pacifica it’s necessary to decide.

The directors need to bite the bullet.

Make a decision, not passively watch the agony that is Pacifica.


Anti politics can only take you so far. The anti-breakers need to recognise this. Pacifica needs a politics of hope. The breakers are devising theirs, & promoting it, taking initiative after initiative. Working to change the present, a springboard to a chosen future. The anti-breakers need to learn from this. They need to stop being the prisoner of events. They need to go offense. Pacifica needs a positive vision, informing a positive politics. This is what’s needed – but who’s going to recognise the truth, who’s going to do the work, & organise it?

All told, there’s only a narrow path to success: creating & maintaining political conditions, primarily solidarity engendering cohesion, allowing a centralised control, emanating from the National Office, from the ED & CFO, to supervise the carrying out of the network development plan, a control & a plan using monitored budgets as a disciplining means. Soberly, we can see how far away this is. But to make Pacifica healthy, to bring joy, even flowers in their hair, it needs to implement a network development plan.

Diamonds. Oil. Golden Corpses, fed money.

Palliatives, distracting from the generative forces causing worsening problems.

From the necro-economics of The Golden Corpses to the bio-economics of a Network Development Plan!

Learn, and act!

Get a grip. Man up. Just do it.


The second $1m+ Paycheck Protection Program loan, Jan2021

Which brings us to last night’s Pacifica National Board, to ED Lydia, & Pacifica’s next lifeline, the Second Draw PPP loan, as the feds call it. A state lottery. Hope your ticket comes up. Round 1 was June last year, Pacifica getting what seems to be $1.2m. Round 2 started W13Jan, so Lydia was on the ball.

How much has been approved this time is unclear because of a blip in the livestream: “one-point-[blip] million”, said the ED.

[UPDATE: it’s $1.2m, according to PNB Finance Cttee Chair, James Sagurton, at their Tu9Feb meeting: “[o]ur PPP money has arrived, in a lump sum disbursement. We now have $1.2m that was deposited into our account today” (2:43) –]

[FURTHER UPDATE: “[t]he second PPP loan was granted to the Foundation on February 9, 2021 in the amount of $1,222,237”, per the FY2020 auditor’s report (p. 19; p. 21 of the PDF) –]

[FURTHER FURTHER UPDATE: “[o]n August 16, 2021, the National Finance Committee was informed that the second Paycheck Protection Plan (PPP) loan had been forgiven”, according to R Paul Martin’s monthly written report to the WBAI LSB (p. 1) – There was no meeting on 16Aug, & when the PNB Finance Cttee next met, 24Aug, it was odd that forgiveness wasn’t mentioned – not even during a suitable early item in the meeting, the Chair’s announcements (5:07).]

Round 1 was reported to the 23June2020 PNB Finance Cttee, CFO Sims saying, “I’m pretty sure it was one-point-two” (49:28). So maybe the same again. (that evening, it took almost an hour (sic) before anyone asked what the amount was – but it was the PNB Finance Cttee) [UPDATE: no surprise that it was left to other than a Pacifica meeting for the basic facts to be accurately disclosed, the FY2020 auditor’s report: “[t]he PPP loan was granted to the Foundation on June 19, 2020 in the amount of $1,256,630”, & “on January 12, 2021, the full amount of this loan was forgiven by the SBA” (p. 19; p. 21 of the PDF) –]

In the absence of the PNB audiofile in the Archive [UPDATE: it’s now posted, (59:28)], here’s the clip of ED Lydia at the very end of the meeting, making the announcement because, surprise, surprise, after more than two hours, there was no time for any reports of what anyone’s been up to:

ED Lydia Brazon, Th28Jan2021 PNB, 59:28, announcing PPP approval, of one-point-blip-million (‘clouded’ at


So what money is this? The COVID-19 epidemic in the US has spawned two conduits for disbursing federal loans to organisations, the new Paycheck Protection Program, PPP, & the pre-existing Economic Injury Disaster Loan programme, EIDL. PPP comes from the Small Business Administration, SBA, paying banks to do the work, but retaining power of audit. The First Draw started Apr2020, & the Second Draw 13Jan2021.

What Second Draw loans can be spent on, & their size:

Second Draw PPP Loans can be used to help fund payroll costs, including benefits. Funds can also be used to pay for mortgage interest, rent, utilities, worker protection costs related to COVID-19, uninsured property damage costs caused by looting or vandalism during 2020, and certain supplier costs and expenses for operations […] For most borrowers, the maximum loan amount of a Second Draw PPP Loan is 2.5x average monthly 2019 or 2020 payroll costs up to $2 million.

Those able to apply, such as Pacifica:

[a] borrower is generally eligible for a Second Draw PPP Loan if the borrower: • Previously received a First Draw PPP Loan and will or has used the full amount only for authorized uses • Has no more than 300 employees; and • Can demonstrate at least a 25% reduction in gross receipts between comparable quarters in 2019 and 2020

And forgiveness? It’s the same for the Second Draw as the First: do everything by the rules, send in the evidence with the forgiveness application, & the Agents of the Managers of Empire will smile upon you as they sprinkle the magic dust, turning the loan into a grant. Also, “[r]ecent legislation has eliminated the original requirement to deduct the amount of EIDL Advance you may have received from your PPP loan forgiveness” –

(Pacifica received an EIDL advance of $10k, in Apr2020, with the balance of $149 900 on 13Nov2020, a total of $159 900 – ED Brazon 14Nov2020 email to presumably PNB Secretary Grace Aaron & PNB Chair Alex Steinberg, KPFK LSB minutes, 15Nov2020, pp. 16-17;


Pacificans get their tax-$$$ back: perhaps $2.56m [update: actually $2.64m]

Corona-fed fed money received ($):

First Draw Paycheck Protection Program (PPP): mid June 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~1 200 000

Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL), fixed 2.75% annual

interest ($4 397.25) over 30 years ($131 917.50), + re-paying the $159 900:

advance: early Apr 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 000

balance: 13Nov2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 900

Second Draw PPP: approved c. Th28Jan2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 200 000

Total feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~$2 559 900

[UPDATE: ED Brazon told the Th4Feb2021 PNB that the PPP money will almost certainly be received F5Feb. (As of Su21Feb, audio still not posted. ADD LINK + TIME … another Pacifica Godot phenomenon: still not posted as of 19Oct2021 (sic).) . . . As subsequently updated above, the ~$1.2m rolled in Tu9Feb, as reported by PNB Finance Cttee Chair James Sagurton at that evening’s meeting.]

[FURTHER UPDATE: the FY2020 auditor’s report was the first source to disclose accurately PPP #1 & PPP #2: $1 256 630, & $1 222 237 (p. 19; p. 21 of the PDF) – Makes the total feed, more accurately, $ 2 638 767.]

Roughly $2.5m. Mustn’t grumble.

Can carry on muddling thru, without, importantly, having to think, having to choose.


[UPDATE: within days of learning of the PPP decision, it was back to normal at National Office: on Su31Jan, Pacifica’s homepage had a makeover, disappearing the National Fund Drive (never announced how much it made; nor whether it was success or failure; &, of course, not even thanking the punters for the wonga), this disappearance allowing the notice of by-law submissions to assume its rightful place, bang centre on the homepage. Brilliant. Panic over. Back to business as usual – until the next crisis. Looking inward, not outward. Notify visitors to Pacifica of the $1m+ PPP award? Are you crazy? That would require communication, being mindful of the bods who fund the whole charabanc. PacificaWorld, where alienation flourishes.]


Digression: how can NETA be saving Pacifica money?

According to the Nov2020 Foundation monthly management accounts, since Oct2019 NETA has been charging $27 500 per month, so $330k per year; this, within $20, was 2.50% more than the FY2019 comparative, $321 934. (Consider some of the raise a peppercorn interest rate on the de facto loan NETA is making, the “about $200 000” they’re owed as of Dec2020 Grace Aaron’s report to 20Dec2020 KPFK LSB (2:06:20, read in her absence by staff-delegate, now ex-director but newly elected PNB Secretary, Polina Vasiliev).) When NETA was hired, ED/CFO Livingston told the 5July2018 PNB, “[t]he monthly cost, urgh, for, urgh, for their work is in the neighborhood of half of what we were paying Sam and the two senior accountants who, who all departed in the past three months” (27:59, emphases added). (This contrasts with the less informative & misleading minute: “the monthly cost will be approximately half of the total of Sam Agarwal and the accounting personnel” (unpaginated, but p. 2 of the PDF, emphases added).) Really? Twice the price? The ‘expensive three’ were annually ~$630k-$650k, so $210k+ each? Alternatively, & granted NETA may have taken on extra work, can it really be the case that, given the IRS Form 990 evidence cited below, NETA only started off at roughly ½ x ($110k + 65k + 65k) = $120k a year, $10k per month, ~⅓ of their current charge? Please. ED/CFO Major Tom was telling porkies, yes? (as noted earlier, the file gives as author, “Tamra Swiderski”, NETA Senior Controller);;, &

Internal Revenue Service Form 990’s can disclose higher paid employees, & Shailendra, aka Sam, was the only accounts staff to appear in the last two 990’s that Pacifica has published: $92 000 (2015 Form 990, p. 8 of the PDF, using FY2016 data; this was an amended return, p. 30 of the PDF), & $103 694 (2016 Form 990, p. 8 of the PDF, using FY2017 data; this also was an amended return, p. 36 of the PDF).; and, &

Final point, on the 990’s

The Form 990 is the annual return to the IRS by an organisation exempt from income tax. It’s due “by the 15th day of the 5th month after the organization’s accounting period ends” (IRS, p. 6), so for the 30Sep year-end Pacifica it’s 15Feb. The initial versions of the above 990’s aren’t in the public domain at, but the amended ones were filed significantly late, probably once the corresponding audits were finally done. (wedge on how to fill in the 2020 Form 990, 102 pages thick, with a 6-page index, dated 12Jan2021)

The 2015 Form 990, signed by ED Tom Livingston, is undated, but presumably used the FY2016 auditor’s report issued 31May2018, so at least 15½mths late; there’s also a Form 8868 application for a second extension, to 15Aug2017, albeit lacking the signer’s name, signature, & date of signing (pp. 1 & 34 of the PDF) . . . penalty for unauthorised late filing?

The 2016 Form 990, with ED John Vernile’s name on it but unsigned & undated, has a preparer’s date of 9Aug2019 (sic), a week shy of 18mths late, & presumably used the FY2017 auditor’s report issued 27June2019; the PDF also has a 8868 application to extend to 15Aug2018, hence the typed addition at the start of the 990 (pp. 1 & 37 of the PDF) . . . penalty for unauthorised late filing?

Note that to comply with federal tax law, Pacifica, as a tax-exempt organisation, “must make available for public inspection and copying its annual return”. Presumably it does this, but it has also made a habit of posting its 990 on the website. Until now. Why?;


has Pacifica filed its 2017 Form 990 (using FY2018 data) due 15Feb2019, &, if so, when?

has it filed its 2018 Form 990 (using FY2019 data) due 15Feb2020, &, if so, when?

has it filed its 2019 Form 990 (using FY2020 data) due 15Feb2021, &, if so, when?

Re these, only the FY2018 audit has been finished (albeit so incomplete that it required a disclaimer of opinion), the auditor’s report being issuable 16July2020, & published 15Aug2020 (sic) at So, given that Form 990 needs figures from all the different kinds of accounts, both those appearing in the net income statement (incomes & expenses) & the balance sheet (assets & liabilities), when did NETA first compile these financial statements for FY2019 & FY2020? Or maybe they haven’t, & the three 990’s haven’t been filed with the IRS.

After all, there may be a lil legal difficulty here: “[u]nder penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than officer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge” (p. 1 of the 990). Executive director; certified public accountant. Well, if an auditor won’t vouch for the material accuracy of the financial statements submitted to them, rendering them devoid of professional confidence, unusable by anyone (which is what a disclaimer means) . . .

Given the chaotic condition of the FY2017 financial records, no-one wanted to sign anything, hence the mentioned delay with the 2016 Form 990, due 15Feb2018, it only being submitted, possibly on 9Aug2019, after the FY2017 auditor’s report (the first to have a disclaimer) was made issuable on 27June2019 – so only after someone else had gone public with the bad news, & even then ED Vernile didn’t sign. But then neither did ED Livingston, nor ED Maxie Jackson, nor ED Grace Aaron. This, an absence, is an example of what can be missing from a director’s report to a local station board, how it can fail, the director failing to take responsibility, failing to acknowledge & disclose their acts of omission.


Station financial data, to 30June – the Tu11Aug PNB Finance Cttee

Data were given at the Tu11Aug PNB Finance Cttee that will circulate widely, despite their unacknowledged conceptual deficiencies. These necessarily make the data misleading, & so will misinform any decisions using them. (The deficiencies have been discussed in other posts, & will be elaborated in the revision of this post.) The data were in a written report by director Chris Cory (KPFA listener-delegate). The content wasn’t challenged by Chief Financial Officer Anita Sims. (Note, not a Pacifica employee but a key principal of NETA, Pacifica’s bookkeeper & accountant – so no possible conflict of interest there.) CC, not the Egyptian president, read the report to the Cttee: (10:37-19:34, then discussion).

The Cttee agreed to add the report to the minutes (19:46) however, these won’t be agreed until Tu25Aug at the earliest. Of course, no-one had the crazy idea to post the report immediately to the meetings archive, Communication remains a problem for this communications business. So it’s just as well that later today R Paul Martin (WBAI treasurer) is likely to publish it, at, as an appendix to his usual written report delivered to tonite’s WBAI Local Station Board. [UPDATE: oddly, this report still not published as of 1000 EDT, F14Aug.]

It means the content of this post is temporary, not least because, given the limited info disclosed, there are unavoidable inconsistencies in some of the absolute numbers that have been derived: station net income/loss, Oct-Dec2019 (the first quarter, Q1); station income & expenses, Jan-June2020 (Q2-Q3); & Pacifica consolidated quarterly figures.


Management accounts are designed, they don’t fall from heaven. Social, not natural. They’re designed to assist decision-making concerning internal affairs, such as operating units of an organisation – here, the five stations, Pacifica National Office (PNO), Pacifica Radio Archives (PRA), & the affiliates programme. Design means there are options, different ways of arranging the recording of the monetary transactions of the organisation, even extending to the creation of accounting units (as happened recently with Rosemary’s Ursula’s Baby, the affiliates programme). These alternatives exist even if they’re not recognised. Being a choice, it’s conscious, even if unrecognised, ill-informed, or mistaken.

For example, by accident of history, an operating unit can benefit from not paying studio rent, office rent, tower rent, so effectively being subsidised by the other stations. This has the important effect of necessarily distorting the relationship between accounting units – and the harm is compounded, unfortunately, because cost-cutting decision-making often suffers the unthinking default of focusing on the wrong level, on accounting-unit info, whereas the rational level for this work is Pacifica-wide info. Decision-makers may treat Pacifica as a federation, but RealWorld treats it as a unitary entity, Pacifica Foundation, Inc.: no station has legal personality.

And concerning the cost structure, what sticks out like a sore thumb is personnel, ~52% of the annual total, with ~56% of that eaten up by KPFA & KPFK: ~30% of Pacifica’s total costs are workers & managers at the West Coast stations (in order, [1996377 + 1728425] / 12497805 = 0.2980, the last audited figures, FY2016). (The later annual figures, generated by Pacifica but unaudited, compute as >10% higher: FY2017, ~34% ([1887557 + 1854363] / 11024213 = 0.3394); & FY2018, ~33% ([2088089 + 1793587] / 11651268 = 0.3331).) And chopping these transforms those stations, turning them from paid-producer/presenter programming to volunteer programming. In a word, war. And hence the recent defensive attempts by KPFA station chauvinists to change the by-laws, making the composition of the national decision-making body, the Pacifica National Board, proportional to station membership. (auditor’s reports: FY2016, page 26 (page 30 of the PDF); FY2017, p. 34 (p. 37 of the PDF); FY2018, p. 33 (p. 36 of the PDF))

But the truth is plain: there is no station property, only Pacifica property. A station-proprietary consciousness is a distortion of reality, it’s a mistake, it’s ideology, easily fuelling station chauvinism, especially in times of crisis. And it is in times of crisis that solidarity is needed, not separatism. Conceptualisations, like lives, matter. They have real effects.

It means all land, buildings, & towers, as well as such rents, should be stripped out of station accounts: they need to be in the National accounting unit (there is no office). And those rents, as a National expense, not a station expense, need to be paid from the central services fund, so by all stations. This simple procedure will end the double inequity suffered by WPFW & WBAI: (1) effectively subsidising KPFA, KPFK, & KPFT, allowing them to enjoy Pacifica property for free, whilst, (2), having to also pay their own rents for studios, offices, & towers. A double burden – why hast thou forsaken us, Pacifica?

Distortion of the assignment of expenses & income to accounting units, distorts the info available for decision-making concerning operating units. As noted, this is never more pertinent than when deciding on cutting costs, especially how much, & where – and smaller stations have less scope for cuts. Only comparing like-with-like is rational, & therefore fair.

Accounting matters. Accountancy is a means of control, helping to control the quality of the relations between people, not least the control of people’s access to ‘important stuff’. This makes accounting political. Accountancy is not purely technical, reducible to technique. Facts, numbers, never speak for themselves (the positivist illusion, as the epistemologists say): putative facts, claims to knowledge, need to be produced, put into a semantic context, before they have meaning. The clever Romans knew this: factum = an act, a deed. Yes, facts come out of factories, not picked up, in pristine condition, from the ground. Produced, not collected.

Nevertheless, there’s a crucial difference between the world & its representation: reality is mind-independent, not dependent on our recognition of it, & it’s discourse-independent, having its effects, even if the description is accurate. Facts are evidenced knowledge claims that have proven robust, crucially when tested in action rather than merely contested in discussion. It means descriptions, explanations, justifications, & prescriptions vary in their practical adequacy. Using facts simply improves the chance of making life easier.

Knowledge developers are fallible, but because they’re corrigible there can be growth in knowledge, improvement, & this includes being aware that accounting principles, methods, standards, & policies can be rationally challenged. This happened when the PNB majority insisted that the gain on the sale of the Nakapon building in FY2018, an income, be assigned not to KPFA but to National, thereby improving a Pacifica accounting policy. Yes, there is no station property, only Pacifica property.

Accountancy is social, a perspective on the world, & a practice in the world. And in being social, human made, it’s subject to evaluation, subject to critique. That’s the nature of accountancy, & the nature of humans.


Now the data disclosed at the Tu11Aug PNB Finance Cttee meeting. The period covered by Chris Cory’s report was the financial year to 30June, so the three quarters since 30Sep2019, Q1-Q3. (Additionally, NETA has just done the July figures – in six working days?, why not 24hrs?) He gave two sets of station net income/loss: the last six months, so 1Jan-30June (Q2-Q3); & the year to date, so 1Oct2019-30June2020 (Q1-Q3). He also gave the Q2-Q3 net income/loss as a percentage of income.

From this can be derived: Q1 net income/loss; Q2-Q3 income; Q2-Q3 expenses. Hence these data:

station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . thousands of dollars ($k) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q2 & Q3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . Q1 . . .| . Q1 thru Q3 .

. . . . . . . . . income . . . expenses . . . net income/(loss) . .|. . . ni/(l) .|. . . . . ni/(l) . . . .

KPFA . . . . 2 000 . . . . . 1 980 . . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . . . . . . 130 . . . . . . . 150 . . . .

KPFK . . . . 1 338 . . . . . 1 766 . . . . . . . . . (428) . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 . . . . . . (350) . . . .

KPFT . . . . . . 345 . . . . . . 383 . . . . . . . . . . . (38) . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . . . (26) . . .

WPFW . . . . 700 . . . . . . 777 . . . . . . . . . . . (77) . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 . . . . . . . . (18) . . .

WBAI . . . . . 714 . . . . . . 914 . . . . . . . . . . (200) . . . . . . . . . . . (14) . . . . . . (214) . . .

Note: Cory said depreciation is excluded, & rounding is to the nearest thousand


‘Interesting’ Cory also gave some Q1-Q3 pan-Pacifica figures (‘consolidated’, in the jargon), so including PNO & PRA (oddly, he was silent on the affiliates programme, so presumably their fabled net income has disappeared). These data: Pacifica had a Q1-Q3 loss of $128k, 1.5% of income; with unit net incomes of $296k for PNO, & $36k for PRA. These net incomes presumably arise largely from charges to the stations; also, being balances of intra-organisation transactions, they all drop out when composing the consolidated financial statements (a station’s central services charge is income for PNO, the net effect for Pacifica being zilch). (Note, rounding error, −$2k, re consolidation of the Q1-Q3 station net income/(loss): [150k − 608k] + [296k + 36k] − 2k = (128k).)

From this info, these data ($k) can be derived:

period — income — expenses — net income/(loss):

Q1-Q3: 8 533 — 8 661 — (128) . . . includes the elimination of PNO & PRA balances, so consolidated

Q2-Q3: 5 097 — 5 820 — (723) . . . unconsolidated

Q1: 3 436 — 2 841 — 595 . . . unconsolidated . . . [in this squaring line, the 595 is inconsistent with the 265 net income derived above (please see the table); note, 595 − 265 + 2 = 332 = the PNO & PRA net incomes]

Making them all consolidated, & assuming uniform quarterly PNO + PRA net income (so Q1, $111k; Q2, $111k; Q3, $110k):

period — income — nominal expenses – (re PNO & PRA) – adjusted expenses — net income/(loss):

Q1-Q3: 8 533 — 8 993 – (332) – 8 661 — (128)

Q2-Q3: 5 097 — 5 820 – (221) – 5 599 — (502)

Q1: 3 436 — 3 173 – (111) – 3 062 — 374 . . . [in this squaring line, the 3 173 is inconsistent with the 2 841 derived above, a difference of 332; & the net income is different from the 265 in the table – but note, 374 111 + 2 = 265]



  • in squaring the figures, inconsistencies necessarily arose
  • it seems Q1 generated a very welcome surplus, perhaps of the order of an unconsolidated $265k (per the table). (The consolidation, also derived, includes an inconsistency in its computation.)
  • given this likely Q1 net income, & because anti-COVID-19 mobility restrictions started Tu17Mar, first in CA, then NY state, it’s a pity Chris didn’t split the Q2-Q3 figures into the quarters; as it is, the scale of the effect of the COVID-19 societal crisis upon Pacifica is concealed, as is, correspondingly, the possible pecuniary progress made in 11 of that quarter’s 13 weeks; a break with his routine of solely compiling a 6-monthly rolling report would have been illuminating
  • for devising an emergency financial plan, the crucial info needed is the size of the effects of the COVID-19 societal crisis on Pacifica, especially week-by-week listener donations; all this info has to be used in producing credible FY2021 station budgets: applying prudence requires reliance on the new info since mid March, not historical data even from last year.

WBAI treasurer’s 8July monthly report

. . . right on time – as usual . . .

R Paul Martin, long-standing WBAI treasurer, & Secretary of the PNB Finance Cttee, gives a written report to each meeting of his Local Station Board. This one, five pages, was a lot easier for him: usually the national Cttee meets the evening before, calling for a page or three of details. Small mercies in These Times of the Reign of the Lunatic.

These Times of the Reign of the Lunatic. Made possible by the opportunistic Republican Party. Made worse by renegades from their scientific & public health training, bringing their professions into disrepute, bending to the opinions of The Lunatic, discarding their duty to the public, diluting CDC public health policy. Sacrificing the public, collateral in a self-serving effort to keep their jobs. Colluding with the advocate of shining the light, cleaning with disinfectant. Betraying fidelity to evidenced reason. Capitulators. Yes, these enablers are led by Sideshow Bob–Debby–&–(less so)–Tony. Sad, horrible, as The Lunatic says in public. Wimps, cucks, as The Lunatic says in private.

. . . Amerikan Karnage . . .


Meanwhile, back in PacificaWorld . . .

Remarks on the report:

  • FY2018 audit delay: will do a separate post on this fiasco
  • re eligibility for money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CPB, the lack of “the FY19 audit” (p. 3, emphasis added) largely misses the point: even if Pacifica can earn timely audited financial statements, & not an auditor’s report declaring their absence, the CPB has criteria for evidenced listenership ‘in the community’ that’ll trip up Pacifica
  • “we can’t forget that the principal on the big loan is scheduled to come due in less than nine months” (p. 4) – much, much worse than that, Paul: not only is there no plan addressing FJC’s $3.265m, there hasn’t even been the preliminaries of a public Pacifica discussion to simply identify the options!
  • corrections: NETA is not Television (p. 1), but Telecommunications; & FJC quarterly interest, due 30Sep, 31Dec, & 31Mar, is not ~$70k (p. 3), but, since 16Mar2020, $51 016 ($3.265m x 6.25% ÷ 4).


Lastly, this teleconferenced meeting isn’t being streamed. No explanation is given in the notice on It’s an open meeting, in the terms of the Communications Act of 1934, § 396(k)(4). This sub-section implies that if Pacifica is indeed receiving any money under the Act, then for a teleconferenced meeting to be compliant, Pacifica has to publicly stream the proceedings, not simply make public a recording of the meeting. That is, the meeting must be witnessed, even if only aurally; & witnessing means whilst it’s happening. (the Act, p. 216)

And what counts as a meeting? ln the opinion of the CPB, “[n]ote that deliberations do not require any formal action or vote. Any discussion of public broadcasting issues that may influence the opinions of members makes it a meeting” (all emphases added). So much for the view expressed at the 11Mar2020 LSB meeting that, in the past, decisions had been ratified at a subsequent meeting. (linked from, the homepage)

Have any audiofiles been posted on In 2020, prior to today’s meeting, there’s been six LSB open meetings, one each month, with the last four being teleconferences. But only the March has a publicly available recording – and although the box says “Archive Soon” it’s actually there, as a URL, – so no, it’s not the proposed agenda. Hidden gems do exist in PacificaWorld.

The public can obviously attend in-person open meetings, & posting a recording is a courtesy to members & listeners, & an exercise in transparency. The April/May/June teleconferences may indeed have been streamed, even allowing public comment, but Pacifica has offered no evidence that this was so. In fact, only the April & May notices show such an intention. Let’s hope that if the CPB comes auditing for compliance then the evidence exists. And if there are audiofiles, why aren’t they posted in the meetings archive,


R Paul Martin’s monthly reports, from Apr2013, are archived here: