This was posted Tu20July to the two main Pacifica Facebook groups, Pacifica Radio Supporters, & Friends and Fans of Pacifica Foundation (the name since 2020 of Pacifica Radiowaves). These remarks followed on from an appeal to the breakers to let it go, to accept that they failed to persuade Pacificans to adopt their proposed new constitution. It turned on losing the staff-member referendum, 255 — 180.

That cancelled out winning the listener-member referendum, 6 640 — 5 216. Nevertheless, this result was remarkable:

• the anti-breakers performed so badly, enthusing & mobilising so inefficiently, that with turnout increasing 23.4% (9 714 ⭢ 11 986), their vote went down a damning 17.7% (6 340 ⭢ 5 216).

The crushing result demonstrates the political bankruptcy of the anti-breaker prominents, namely, of both their style (form) & their messaging (content), expressed in & thru an alienated & alienating relationship with the members, reducing them to exhorting from on high . . . the moment of realisation, of calls falling upon deaf ears.

~

Nevertheless, the listener-member referendum result shows the political bankruptcy of the anti-breaker PNB majority. It showed that their bureaucratic approach of not organising & mobilising amongst the membership (unlike New Day), & instead relying on tired & dying networks of likely voters to spread the word, has reached its inefficient & inefficacious limit. The anti-breaker prominents (one can’t say leaders) are exhausted as a political force. Anti-politics, it’s been shown it can only do so much work. It’s only a matter of time. Their necrotic process has accelerated markedly.

Devoid of ideas & unable to generate hope, they have confirmed that objectively they exist as breakers themselves: they have shown they are unable to motivate members to believe & co-create a revived & vigorous Pacifica network that isn’t just desired & possible, but feasible.

In their stead, will such a political force arise within PacificaWorld?

~

Fat chance.

~~~

[WHOOPS, a crucial correction: the wrong section was cited. Like most of us immersed in PacificaWorld – seeing it all too often run as a private club, not a public charity – it seems to operate for mutual benefit, legally a non-profit mutual benefit corporation . . . but no: it’s a public benefit one. Who knew? It’s not mentioned in the Articles of Incorporation, the by-laws, nor on any Pacifica website; but it is by the California Registry of Charitable Trusts: “Entity Type: Public Benefit” – https://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Search.aspx?facility=Y (quickest way to search is 011303, Pacifica’s state charity registration #).

[The correct sections: § 5342(d), & § 5033. §5342(d), re “termination” of a membership class: “[t]he articles or bylaws may impose additional requirements regarding termination of all memberships or any class of memberships” (bold added). § 5033, re what counts as approval by the members: “approval shall include the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding memberships of each class, unit, or grouping of members entitled, by any provision of the articles or bylaws […] to vote as a class, unit, or grouping of members on the subject matter being voted upon” (bold added). There is another section, § 5151(e), concerning “corporate actions”, but presumably, in context, that doesn’t include the action that is a whole membership vote. These sections are easy to access from the hypertexted contents of Title 1, Corporations, of the CA Corporations Code: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=CORP&division=&title=1.&part=&chapter=&article=&nodetreepath=2.

[And the relevant Pacifica by-law? Amending by-laws, so Article 17, & in Section 1(B) one finds (3), both (v) & the final paragraph, & (4) – https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art17sec1.html. (Their significance is shown in the separate blogpost giving this correction – https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2021/09/14/important-correction-a-separate-staff-referendum-is-required-by-sections-5342d-and-5033-california-corporations-code-shockingly-pacifica-is-a-public-benefit-non-profit-corp-not-a-mutual-benefit-one/.) Because of these two citations, in both 2020 & 2021 the voting results, not just the ballots (the quora were different), were separated, between listener-members & staff-members. If for no other reason, in each year there was a proposed amendment that, to be as succinct as possible, had a differential class adverse material effect re voting rights.

[How? In 2021 this effect was caused by what was involved in the Opus Deists’ New Dayists’ proposal to differentially change the class voting rights of staff-members, of how they would vote to get a member of their class onto the Pacifica National Board. New Day devised an amendment to terminate the staff membership class (& not the listener class) – replacing it with two new classes (paid staff, unpaid staff). One effect re class voting rights would be to discriminate against the class of staff-members: unlike the class of listener-members, they would lose the class right to be involved, to vote, in electing into position a station-specific staff director on the PNB, so five in total; at present that class voting right is exercised by 30 individual staff-members, the six staff-delegates on each local station board. Putting it the other way, under the proposed amendment, listener-members from each station would still vote into position a listener director specific to their own signal area, whereas staff-members (now in two classes) would lose that class voting right because their new class voting right would have a different spatial quality, trans-Pacifica, not station-specific, their ballots being aggregated nationally (in the two new classes).

[Yes, this proposed amendment has a differential class adverse material effect re voting rights; one reason why in 2021 there were referenda (one for listeners, one for staff), not a referendum – so two results.

[It remains to be seen whether the breakers can get around this by-laws obstacle & still achieve their aims.].

~~~

This was posted Tu20July to the two main Pacifica Facebook groups, Pacifica Radio Supporters, & Friends and Fans of Pacifica Foundation (the name since 2020 of Pacifica Radiowaves).

The FB post has another part, & it’s the next blogpost. It’s addressed to the other protagonist, the anti-breakers: the listener-member referendum result demonstrates the political bankruptcy of the anti-breaker prominents, namely, of both their style & their messaging, expressed in & thru an alienated & alienating relationship with the members, reducing them to exhorting from on high.

~

New Day are being disingenuous, as it’s implausible to imagine they’re ignorant: a separate staff-member referendum was required by California law coz the new Pacifica constitution proposed by New Day created a new class of membership (two in fact: a paid staff class, & an unpaid staff class). Here’s the relevant mandatory clause of the law, in full, the CA Corporations Code Section 7813(f):

[a]n amendment must also be approved by the members (Section 5034) of a class, whether or not such class is entitled to vote thereon by the provisions of the articles or bylaws, if the amendment would […] (f) Authorize a new class of memberships [sic]

emphases added – https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CORP&sectionNum=7813

No ifs, no buts. Nothing to discuss.

New Day have to do three things, including being gracious, being Pacifican:

• & courteously, congratulate the anti-breakers on their referenda victory.

~

Fat chance.

~

(New Day going to arbitration? “New Day yesterday [M12July, the day NES Renée Asteria Peñaloza announced the referenda results] requested arbitration as per our December 4 agreement with Pacifica to use arbitration to resolve election issues to ‘avoid litigation and expense to the Pacifica Foundation.'” – https://newdaypacifica.org/members-vote-yes-to-save-pacifica-but-pacifica-wrongly-declares-bylaws-lost/. The disingenuity.)

~~~