. . . test launch of the KPFK repeater station, the Ojai Valley, Ventura County, the whole event supervised by local hip-hop sensation, MC False Decorum, PNB Vice-Chair Queen Liz III . . .

~

[UPDATE: with a 22-day drive report given to the W26Oct KPFK Finance Cttee, the original calculations arising from the 12-day report had to be revised (see below). So the numerical portion of the post’s title had to be changed to, ‘current annualised rate of loss-making is $1.3m $1.260m, up $219k $143k on the August FY2023 budget … total revenue now down 20% 13%, covering only 80% 87% of personnel costs, 51% 56% of operating costs, & 40% 43% of total costs’.]

[FINAL UPDATE: after the drive ended, an oral report – all of one sentence – was given to the W9Nov KPFK Finance Cttee by GM Michael Novick. The calculations, revised again. So the final post title: ‘current annualised rate of loss-making is $1.260m $1.282m [show it as $1.28m], up $143k $165k on the August FY2023 budget … total revenue now down 13% 15%, covering only 87% 85% of personnel costs, 56% 55% of operating costs, & 43% 42% of total costs’. The original URL remains.]

~

Which brings us to Julie’s co-conspirator, both locally & nationally, Eileen ‘I know I’m the Audit Chair, but as I don’t like the resolution I’ve torn it up & blocked it being sent to the PNB – and yes, I do think I’m a democrat’ Rosin & her dirty lil secret: Eileen Rosin, who is also the Vice-Chair of the WPFW LSB, termed out 22June2022, having been seated 22June2016, & winning in the elections of 2016 & 2019. So far she has improperly – illegally – attended at least 17 Pacifica meetings: PNB Audit Cttee (3 open, 2 closed), WPFW LSB (4 open, 3 closed), WPFW Finance Cttee (3 open), WPFW Financial Stability Cttee (attended at least 1 meeting; one of the five members; Cttee’s existence is missing from kpftx.org), WPFW Communication Standards & Enforcement Cttee (attended at least 1 meeting; one of the three members; Cttee’s existence is missing from kpftx.org), other WPFW LSB cttees (x no.) … Minutes of 22June2016 WPFW LSB, item V: “Motion: Tony Norman[.] I move that we fill two seats where we had resignations advertised. Then wait 30 days to fill the seats for the resignations during this meeting. No objections[.] New LSB members are: Cliff Smith[,] Eileen Rosin.” Eileen was then elected twice as a listener-delegate: 2016, came in 5-6th, the 2nd “count”, certified by True Ballot, Inc., 20Oct2016 (p. 13 of the PDF), with NES Serpe’s final report, if ever written, not publicly available; & 2019, 7th, the 13th “round”, certified 15Nov2019 (NES Peñaloza’s final report, pp. 1 & 6-7; pp. 3 & 8-9 of the PDF). And yes, minutes/audios/suggested agendas across June2016-Oct2022 show her unbroken attendance – also that the above Mr Norman currently sits next to her on the WPFW Finance Cttee … Eileen ‘honestly, with Trump running that year, 2016, I completely forgot I joined the June LSB’ Rosin … https://kpftx.org/pacalendar/showfile.php?id=4410&type=minutes … https://elections.pacifica.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/0731601-certification-letter-6.pdf … https://mega.nz/file/8IN3RbbI#N2AmLp-WzCIcBaXDcMJ7EJWlEZaNp2YHio7_KHymuCc (Ms P’s report) … https://kpftx.org/archive.php … Last, the unambiguous by-law wording: “[a] Delegate may serve a maximum of two consecutive 3-year terms […] If a Delegate serves as elected or alternate for an incomplete year, those month/s of service must be counted towards the six years cumulative limit” (Art. 4, Sec. 8; all emphases added – especially the heavy-dutied “must“) – https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art4sec8.html . . . Harby, the carrier pigeon, is readying to fly to Cde First Secretary Vasilieva with the news . . .

~

. . . back to KPFK’s trajectory . . .

The station is currently in fund-drive. The Oct biggie. Michael Novick, hitherto Local Station Board Chair, became General Manager Novick effective M26Sep, replacing Moe Thomas, Magister Pacifica Peripatetica. Two days later he gave drive details to the 28Sep KPFK Finance Cttee: it starts in the dark, at the very beginning of Tu4Oct, & “the plan is probably to be in fund-drive for, urgh, the remainder of the month; ostensibly talking about a $350 000 goal for that, argh, which, unless we can really improve our performance, then the on-air fund-drive [goal] is un-unlikely to be met” (27:58, from 24:38). 350k? Well, thru M31Oct, so 28days, 350k ÷ 28 = $12 500 pledged per day – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpfkfin/220928/kpfkfin220928a.mp3.

Three points: (a) the FY2023 budget presented to both the W24Aug KPFK Finance Cttee & the Su28Aug KPFK LSB has each of the five mthly drives as 30days, not 28days ((5 x 30) + 12 in Dec = 162days); (b) the budgeted daily pledge level is $5 333, not $12 500 (why $5 333? Presumably, $5333 x 3 = $16k, & the 30 is 10 x 3, so the mthly drive goal = $160k pledged – so nothing like Oct’s $350k, a figure probably to do with what’s needed from The Magic Money Tree to keep the station on life support); & (c) even budgeting pledges at $5 333 isn’t justified by the publicly available evidence: the drives, Oct2021 (32days) & Dec2021 (15days), delivered pledges at $5 836 & $5 961, respectively, but this dropped, with the Aug2022 drive, after 23days, averaging $4 990 (Treasurer Kim ‘(sigh) yes, Bella (sigh)’ Kaufman, 35:27, 28Aug KPFK LSB). https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2021/12/22/7-21dec-kpfk-fund-drive-hourly-pledges-up-5dollars21cents-on-the-last-drive-daily-gross-proceeds-up-98dollars-a-total-of-1463dollars-drive-brought-in-only-58pc-of-the-8044dollars-daily-expenses-can-th/, & https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpfk/220828/kpfk220828a.mp3

So how’s it going? Unlike recent drives, such as last Dec, there’s currently no progress thermometer on the station’s homepage, https://www.kpfk.org/, or hidden away on the website. And there have been few public details, the latest seems to be thru day #12:

“[D]aily average, so far in this drive, for a week, is $3 600”

Kim Kaufman (53:26), Tu11Oct PNB Finance Cttee – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/221011/finance221011b.mp3 … Tu4-M10Oct, so yes, 1wk

“The fund-drive is making $3 500 a day”

KK (2:29:18), Su16Oct KPFK LSB – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpfk/221016/kpfk221016a.mp3 … presumably thru Sa15Oct, so 12days … so, assume actual pledged 12×3500=pledged $42k (sic), @.78=$32760 cash, @.91=$38220 cash – so doing well if it’s $35k gross proceeds

So falling, slightly, not materially – but ~⅓ below the budgeted $5 333. Oh. But what about that phrase of Kim’s, the drive “making $3 500 a day”? So cash, not pledges? Well, one may think that – as have some minions at PacificaWatch – but there’s killer evidence that shows the talk about drives, whenever it’s ambiguous, it’s almost always about pledges, not the $$$ generated.

Kim herself made it plain during her presentation to the 24Aug KPFK Finance Cttee: “we will start with Listener Support […] The total of umm, revenue, according to that, is $790 245”, & she gave the “that” as 162 drive-days, at $5 333 a day. Well, $5333 x 162 = $863 946 … & 790245 ÷ 863946 = 0.9146, so that’s the fulfilment rate, ~91%. (Not that anyone asked why she hadn’t mentioned the rate, & what it was, & how it compared with, say, the last 10 drives, or how it can be justified – why not 90%? Or 85%? Or 80%? Or the stable 78% from May & Oct 2021? Given the public evidence, in the below calculations it’s prudent to use 78%, & not the budgeted 91% which was neither explicitly disclosed nor even mentioned – and certainly with no attempt made to justify this jump to 91%, justified with the presentation of an evidenced argument.)

Kim Kaufman (from 42:35, with the cash figure at 43:18), 24Aug KPFK Finance Cttee; Michael Novick’s Q (41:26) was whether the actual Aug pledge level was the figure used in the budget – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpfkfin/220824/kpfkfin220824a.mp3

… the change: $ 1233525 − 1117158 = $116 367 … 116367 ÷ 1117158 = 0.1041

[UPDATE: at the W26Oct KPFK Finance Cttee, GM Novick reported on the drive: “I think [cra ckle: incredibly, WordPress won’t accept that word on its own within square brackets without a space!] the 22nd day of the fund-drive [well, the previous day was that; …] Through today, upto a point today, we’ve raised about $92 000 […] raising about $4 200 a day on average” (52:05; $4200 x 22 = $92 400) – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpfkfin/221026/kpfkfin221026a.mp3. The below calculations (that used $3 600 as the daily pledge level) have been revised, treating the $92k as pledged thru Tu25Oct. This amounts to an attenuation of the variance by ~$76k: $(4200 − 3600) pledged daily x 0.78 fulfilment rate x 162 days = $75 816. So, for example, the increase of the budgeted annualised rate of loss-making becomes $ 218981 − 75816 = $143 165.]

And what does the $103 740 buy you? For the period of the drive, personnel costs were ~95.9% of that, leaving $4 288 to pay everything else – giving the station a daily budget of $130 (sic), & that’s the during-drive situation, remember. (Daily expenses? $6 081 – with vendors being $4 708 … see the budget below.) So worth repeating: 33 days of drive = personnel costs (for those 33 days) + $130 from each of those 33 days towards paying all the other expenses incurred on those days . . . with KPFK then dropping thru the trap-door into the out-of-drive situation: total revenue of $855 a day.

One reason why the PNB focusing on selling a building – be it that housing KPFK/PRA or KPFA or KPFT – is missing the point.

… (1100000 ÷ 365) 33 ≃ $99 452 … 99452 ÷ 103740 ≃ 0.9586 … 103740 − 99452 = $4 288 … 4288 ÷ 33 ≃ $129.94 … 2219403 ÷ 365 = $6 080.55 … 1718535 ÷ 365 = $4 708.31 … 312k ÷ 365 = $854.79]

~

total loss ……………………………………………. $1 117 158

(A full note is at the end of this post.)

~

So what?

The 7sec read:

KPFK current annualised rate of loss-making is $1 336 139 ≃ $1.3m . . . an extra $218 981 on the FY2023 budget figure $1 260 323 ≃ $1.26m . . . an extra $143 165 on the FY2023 budget figure $1 281 805 ≃ $1.28m . . . an extra $164 647 on the FY2023 budget figure

Working [updated immediately below]: annual loss per FY2023 budget (presented to Su28Aug KPFK LSB) + reduction in fund-drive revenue (evidenced by 12days of current drive) = $1117158 + (((5333 − 3600) x 0.78) 162) = 1117158 + ((1733 x 0.78) 162) = 1117158 + (1351.74 x 162) = 1117158 + 218981 = $1 336 139 ≃ $1.3m

Working: annual loss per FY2023 budget (presented to Su28Aug KPFK LSB) + reduction in fund-drive revenue (evidenced by 22days of current drive) = $1117158 + (((5333 − 4200) x 0.78) 162) = 1117158 + ((1133 x 0.78) 162) = 1117158 + (883.74 x 162) = 1117158 + 143165 = $1 260 323 ≃ $1.26m. The change is $ 218981 − 143165 = $75 816]

Working: annual loss per FY2023 budget (presented to Su28Aug KPFK LSB) + reduction in fund-drive revenue (using GM Novick’s after-drive report) = $1117158 + (((5333 − 4030) x 0.78) 162) = 1117158 + ((1303 x 0.78) 162) = 1117158 + (1016.34 x 162) = 1117158 + 164647 = $1 281 805 ≃ $1.28m. The change is $ 218981 − 164647 = $54 334]

[UPDATE: compared with the drop in total revenue per the 12-day drive report, that indicated by the 22-day report is a third less: 1 − (143165 ÷ 218981) = 0.346] [FINAL UPDATE: the report after the drive shows a quarter less, 0.248]

• total revenue down 20% down 13% down 15%

[UPDATE: per the 22-day report, total revenue down 13% … (1102245 − 143165) ÷ 1102245 = 959080 ÷ 1102245 ≃ 0.870] [FINAL UPDATE: per the after-drive report, total revenue down 15% … (1102245 − 164647) ÷ 1102245 = 937598 ÷ 1102245 ≃ 0.850]

• total revenue only covers 80% of personnel costs only covers 87% of personnel costs only covers 85% of personnel costs

[UPDATE: per the 22-day report, total revenue only covers 87% of personnel costs … 959080 ÷ 1100000 ≃ 0.871 … (yes, the revised budgeted total revenue doesn’t even cover the single class-item of personnel costs)] [FINAL UPDATE: per the after-drive report, total revenue only covers 85% of personnel costs … 937598 ÷ 1100000 ≃ 0.852]

• total revenue only covers 63% of ‘core’ costs only covers 69% of ‘core’ costs only covers 67% of ‘core’ costs

[UPDATE: per the 22-day report, total revenue only covers 69% of ‘core’ costs … 959080 ÷ 1392000 ≃ 0.688] [FINAL UPDATE: per the after-drive report, total revenue only covers 67% of ‘core’ costs … 937598 ÷ 1392000 ≃ 0.673]

• total revenue only covers 51% of operating costs only covers 56% of operating costs only covers 54.6% of operating costs – so almost half of these debts arising in FY2023 will be unpaid at year-end

[UPDATE: per the 22-day report, total revenue only covers 56% of operating costs … 959080 ÷ 1718535 ≃ 0.558] [FINAL UPDATE: per the after-drive report, total revenue only covers 54.6% of operating costs …

in other words, new debt to vendors budgeted to be created in FY2023 is an incredible $780 937.

Another reason why the PNB focusing on selling a building – be it that housing KPFK/PRA or KPFA or KPFT – is missing the point.

… 937598 ÷ 1718535 ≃ 0.5455 … 1718535 − 937598 = $780 937]

• total revenue only covers 40% of total costs only covers 43% of total costs only covers 42% of total costs

[UPDATE: per the 22-day report, total revenue only covers 43% of total costs … 959080 ÷ 2219403 ≃ 0.4321] [FINAL UPDATE: per the after-drive report, total revenue only covers 42% of total costs … 937598 ÷ 2219403 ≃ 0.4224]

• even if the fulfilment rate is 91% (91.47), not 78%, total revenue only covers 43% of total costs, so +3pcp (43.21 − 39.79 = 3.42) only covers 47% of total costs, so +4pcp (47.20 − 43.21 = 3.99) only covers 46% of total costs, so +4pcp (46.06 − 42.24 = 3.82)

[UPDATE: per the 22-day report, even if the fulfilment rate is 91% (91.47), not 78%, total revenue only covers 47% of total costs, so +4pcp (47.20 − 43.21 = 3.99) … extra cash from a 91% rate = $4200 (0.91 – 0.78) = 4200 x 0.13 = $546 pd, & x 162 = $88 452 pa … ⇒ (959080 + 88452) ÷ 2219403 = 1047532 ÷ 2219403 ≃ 0.47198] [FINAL UPDATE: per the after-drive report, even if the fulfilment rate is 91% (91.47), not 78%, total revenue only covers 46% of total costs, so +4pcp (46.06 − 42.24 = 3.82) … extra cash from a 91% rate = $4030 (0.91 – 0.78) = 4030 x 0.13 = $523.90 pd, & x 162 = $84 871.80 pa … ⇒ (937598 + 84872) ÷ 2219403 = 1022470 ÷ 2219403 ≃ 0.4606]

• even in eternal drive, total revenue only covers 60% of total costs only covers 68% of total costs only covers 66% of total costs

[UPDATE: per the 22-day report, even in eternal drive, total revenue only covers 68% of total costs … revenue in eternal drive = $(365 (4200 x 0.78)) + 312000 = 1195740 + 312000 = $1 507 740 … & ÷ 2219403 ≃ 0.6793] [FINAL UPDATE: per the after-drive report, this becomes 66%: $(365 (4030 x 0.78)) + 312000 = 1147341 + 312000 = $1 459 341 … & ÷ 2219403 ≃ 0.6575]

• current rate of loss-making is 6.0% more than the rate at 6Nov2021 estimated by PacificaWatch is the same as the rate at 6Nov2021 estimated by PacificaWatch is 1.6% more than the rate at 6Nov2021 estimated by PacificaWatch

[FINAL UPDATE: per the after-drive report, current rate of loss-making is $1 281 805 pa … at 6Nov2021, it was estimated as $1 261 397 pa … so despite all the measures taken, the rate has increased very slightly, by $21 482 pa, +1.617% . The ratio of total costs to total revenue has cranked up to 2.37 (2219403 ÷ 937598) … so although the rate of incurring costs has fallen 24.4% ($2 936 208 → $2 219 403), that of revenue-generation has collapsed by 44.0% ($1 674 811 → $937 598): the difference between the rates increasing x1.80.]

~

At 7+13secs, 20secs, that read is a ⅕ of the time Markisha took when she debuted as Pacifica’s NBM CHC, at the 25Oct PNB Finance Cttee:

after the removal of the last wisp of cotton wool, Markisha was led into the room by Steph, to make her first public appearance, the Tu25Oct PNB Finance Cttee (54:48). She spoke for exactly 100secs, 100secs, so Pacifica members are really getting their money’s worth (55:21-57:01). She said two things, and two things only, but they spoke volumes: she doesn’t have a report, & in fact she isn’t the NBM but the CHC, the Creditor Hotline Clerk. CHC Markisha. Apparently she can’t do any national, or local, business managing coz she spends all day getting calls from creditors, angry calls – all day long. Markisha really needs to tell her union steward she has to file a misrepresentation claim against her employer – and for displaying the truth, yet again, of the Peter Principle. https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/221025/finance221025a.mp3

~

CHC Markisha came in to fill a new post – the chief financial officer position has been left vacant. But does a corporation incorporated in California have to have a CFO? It may be advisable, a good idea, but is it mandatory, say by law? Yes:

“312. (a) A corporation shall have (1) a chairperson of the board, who may be given the title of chair of the board, chairperson of the board, chairman of the board, or chairwoman of the board, or a president or both, (2) a secretary, (3) a chief financial officer, and (4) such other officers with such titles and duties as shall be stated in the bylaws or determined by the board and as may be necessary to enable it to sign instruments and share certificates.”

California Corporations Code, Section 312(a), emphases added … “shall have” … – https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CORP&division=1.&title=1.&part=&chapter=3.&article=

“15. ‘Shall’ is mandatory and ‘may’ is permissive.”

Ditto, § 15 – https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CORP&heading2=GENERAL%20PROVISIONS

Seems a bit odd to ask, but if a corp doesn’t have someone with that job title (form), or doesn’t have someone doing that work (substance), does the law recognise someone as the CFO? Yes:

“5213. (a) A corporation shall have (1) a chair of the board, who may be given the title chair, chairperson, chairman, chairwoman, chair of the board, chairperson of the board, chairman of the board, or chairwoman of the board, or a president or both, (2) a secretary, (3) a treasurer or a chief financial officer or both, and (4) any other officers with any titles and duties as shall be stated in the bylaws or determined by the board and as may be necessary to enable it to sign instruments.”

This is in the specific law applied to non-profit public benefit corps, such as Pacifica. In the same passage, it has something else to say about this figure, the “treasurer”:

“Unless otherwise specified in the articles or the bylaws, if there is no chief financial officer, the treasurer is the chief financial officer of the corporation.”

Ditto, § 5213(a), emphases added – https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CORP&division=2.&title=1.&part=2.&chapter=2.&article=1.

So PNB Finance Chair James Sagurton (WBAI listener-delegate) has been the CFO, per California law, since Th22Sep, when NETA left?

This is the rub: no. Pacifica by-law Article 8, Section 3:

“[…] The chair of the Finance Committee shall be a Director who may be referred to as the Board ‘Treasurer’. However, the Board Treasurer shall not be an officer of the Foundation. The Foundation’s Chief Financial Officer shall be an employee of the Foundation and shall not be the Board Treasurer. […]”

Art. 8, Sec. 3, emphases added – https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art8sec3.html

So Mr Sagurton can’t be Pacifica’s CFO, in the eyes of Pacifica law, & hence in California law. Which . . .

. . . means . . .

. . . that given having a CFO is legally mandatory for Pacifica, & Pacifica doesn’t have one – by either of the two legal routes – this means that Pacifica is breaking state law, yes?

And remember, in California law it is the directors who, ultimately, are responsible for protecting Pacifica’s assets, responsible for the organisation being in good order, re its financial management system, & otherwise. It’s because it’s not easy to achieve this standard of performance that directors authorise the hiring of expertise, like certified public accountants, & other suitably qualified & experienced accounts & internal audit staff. People who know what they’re doing. Effectively, protecting the directors from the consequences of their ignorance. But . . . if the directors think they can get by on their own, or they run out of perceived options (not imagining that KPFA’s ~31 full-time equivalents can be reduced in order to fund a CPA) . . . Well, that’s a different matter. With likely different results. Such as personal liability. When, for example, deficit endowment accounts, of hundreds of thousands of dollars, come before the court.

~

On the 21st-century funding of Central Services: is the centre/periphery relationship nominal or real, in both senses?

The current funding policy, even after 20mths (sic), has never been implemented, & not even mentioned in public (except by PacificaWatch minions) – the new reality has never been recognised by any member on any of a station Finance Cttee, an LSB, the PNB Finance Cttee, or the PNB. Yes, the PNB Finance Cttee repeatedly recommended to the PNB that they adopt budgets using a known false CS figure, & the directors sleepwalkers duly complied, like sheep, amnesiac sheep.

In a 19Nov2021 PacificaWatch post, an estimate was given for how much this change saved KPFK for the remainder of FY2021: “KPFK would have saved an unaudited ~$78 802 19Feb-30Sep2021” (original emphases). Regrettably, no-one from the station took this up publicly – https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2021/11/19/today-kpfk-is-losing-money-at-a-rate-of-3500-dollars-a-day-105k-a-month-1-point-26m-a-year-as-per-the-docs-publicly-why-does-no-one-recognise-the-scale-the-urgency-qm/ (the ‘expenses’ part of the post’s last section)

There were two FY2015 policies, one for PNO (15% per station, but a Rachel of 8% for WBAI), another for PRA (2% per station).

Re PNO: recommended by the PNB Finance Cttee to the PNB, 16Sep2014, without objection – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/140916/finance140916_3370_minutes.pdf (unpag.; pp. 1-2 of the PDF), & https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/140916/finance140916a.mp3 (from 1:54; vote at 5:31 of the b-file). Eventually, 2mths later, on 13Nov2014, the PNB adopted a resolution by 9-7-1 (details below), just changing the title – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb141113/pnb141113_3429_minutes.pdf (unpag.; pp. 6-7 of the PDF), & https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb141113/pnb141113b.mp3 (from 25:10; vote at 54:01).

Re PRA: recommended by the PNB Finance Cttee to the PNB, 6Oct2014, without objection – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/141006/finance141006_3387_minutes.pdf (unpag.; p. 2 of the PDF), & https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/141006/finance141006a.mp3 (from 20:21; vote at 21:37). This time it took 3mths to get to the PNB, 8Jan2015, adopting a resolution 12 – 1 (Kaufman) – 3, the recommendation unchanged – no minutes at kpftx.org, but audio recording at https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb150108/pnb150108b.mp3 (from 43:43; vote at 8:40 of the c-file).

The PNB resolutions:

“National Office Shared Services Formula: To meet the budgeted expenses of the National Office not covered by other sources of income in fiscal year 2015, Central Services shall be a fixed cost set at 15% of the prior 4 years’ (2010-2013) average annual listener support. For WBAI, Central Services shall be set at 8% of that average[.]”

“[P]assed[:] 9 Yes, 7 No, 1 Abstention; Y – Edwards-Tiekert, Wilkinson; Brazon; Casenave, Reiter; Roberts; Brown, Diaz, Norman […] N – Kobren; Argueta, Kaufman, Reyes; Lamb; Birden; Gray […] Abs. – Fuentes-Roman”

13Nov2014 PNB minutes (the original semi-colons separate one station’s directors from the next, the order being alphabetical; emphases added; unpag., being p. 7 of the PDF) – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb141113/pnb141113_3429_minutes.pdf

“To meet the budgeted expenses of the Pacifica Radio Archive [sic] not covered by other sources of income in fiscal year 2015, PRA Assessments shall be a fixed cost set at 2.0% of the prior 4 years’ (2010-2013) average annual listener support for each station.”

8Jan2015 PNB, emphases added – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb150108/pnb150108b.mp3 (from 43:43), & https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb150108/pnb150108c.mp3 (vote at 8:40 … 12 – 1 (Kaufman) – 3); the wording is as resolved at the 6Oct2014 PNB Finance Cttee, per https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/141006/finance141006_3387_minutes.pdf (unpag.; p. 2 of the PDF)

Re charging, how much of a distortion results from still using the LSD 4yr-average of FY2010-FY2013? What’s been the drift, how big’s the disparity? So at the end of the table the latest audited LSD figures, FY2021, are given, & then contrasted with the average now corrected as ‘all-gross’ (making KPFA $2 862 995, KPFK $3 026 252, KPFT $966 340, WPFW $1 231 257, WBAI $2 557 101, total $10 643 945). However, the problem here is that starting FY2017, station annual gross LSD has never been disclosed – not least because none of the 22 directors, & the other 10 on the PNB Audit Cttee, made a sound in public when the new auditors, Rogers & Co., presented their report only disclosing the Pacifica total. (Everyone was also silent when, astonishingly, in the same report, “current liabilities” disappeared – unlike “current assets”. Probably no-one noticed . . . ships in the night . . .) (Also, thru FY2012, LSD had been given as gross in the two net income statements, with unit-level disclosure of “Premiums and shipping (for donations)” amongst expenses. But effective FY2013, this changed to net: self-injurious because it showed to the world a number ~$1m less than that handed over by the supporters of Pacifica. The saving grace is that for FY2013-FY2016, disclosure of the unit-level expense persisted, in a Note: #12 for the first two years, #6 for the last two. However, for FY2017-FY2021, the only disclosure is the Pacifica total – see Note 2: Revenue Recognition. So given that in the past only ~2% of premiums cost was incurred by PNO & PRA, below it’s assumed stations consumed the whole FY2021 expense.) Note, the percentages would be even lower if adjusted for inflation (+30.8% re from the mid-point, Sep2011, to Sep2022, per Consumer Price Index, so not one tailored to the radio industry – https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm):

	KPFA	KPFK	KPFT	WPFW	WBAI	total
LSD 4yr-total (FY2010-FY2013)	11 211 455	11 467 968	3 821 548	4 764 469	10 088 647	41 354 087
LSD 4yr-average	2 802 864	2 866 992	955 387	1 191 117	2 522 162	10 338 522
15% (8% WBAI)	420 430	430 049	143 308	178 668	201 773	1 374 228
2%	56 057	57 340	19 108	23 822	50 443	206 770
total	476 487	487 389	162 416	202 490	252 216	1 580 998
actual PNO (15%; 8% WBAI)	415 992	441 948	142 608	183 684	202 680	1 386 912
actual PRA (2%)	55 464	58 920	19 020	24 492	50 664	208 560
actual annual total charge	471 456	500 868	161 628	208 176	253 344	1 595 472
actual: excess/(saving)	(5031)	13 479	(788)	5 686	1 128	14 474
FY2021 compared w/ ‘all-gross’ 4yr-av.:
FY2021 LSD (net)	2 409 334	1 457 370	463 706	1 311 369	1 131 507	6 773 286
FY2021 LSD (net) as % of new 4yr-av.	84.2	48.2	48.0	106.5	44.2	63.6
FY2021 LSD (gross)	these	station	figures	not	disclosed	7 228 103
FY2021 LSD (gross) as % of new 4yr-av.	–	–	–	–	–	67.9

. . . today’s CS charges spring from the early months of the Tea Party: fair? . . .

These Central Services policies were solely for FY2015. There has been no mention in the last 5yrs that the PNB extended their life. It seems these policies have been applied improperly since 1Oct2015 to this very day, for all of 7yrs & counting.

Prior to this, eons ago, perhaps from the first-third of 2004, the policies seemed to have been 17% & 2.5%: “[t]he first two motions from the Finance Committee concern the formula by which Central Services are assessed. For the past decade, all stations have been charged 17% of their Listener Support to cover National Office Expenses, and 2.5% of Listener Support to cover Pacifica Radio Archive Expenses. (A few years ago, WBAI’s National Office charge was lowered to 7%[.])” (Brian Edwards-Tiekert, PNB Finance Cttee Chair & KPFA staff-delegate – 13Nov2014 PNB minutes, p. 6).

So it seems it is these early 2004 policies that should have been applied from 1Oct2015 thru 18Feb2021.

An ancestor of this has been spotted in the minutes of the 9Jan2004 PNB Finance Cttee, with talk of “20%” being deducted from the stations, 17% to PNO & 3% to PRA, making that the extant policy. (Presumably of LSD rather than total revenue.) It’s also heartening to know that conflict was alive & well, with the Big Guys trying to squeeze the Lil Guy, & give him a shave: “the Policies and Procedures manual that Lonnie [Hicks, the CFO] and Dan [Coughlin, the ED] are asking us to approve shows lowering that to 2.5%” (unpag., p. 2 of the PDF) – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/040109/finance040109_1844_minutes.pdf. Nice. Don’t y’just luv these NGO’s?

To summarise the chronology of Central Services policy, as voted by the directors (& what was implemented):

• upto the first-third of 2004: 17% & 3%, presumably of ‘Listener Support and Donations’, re PNO & PRA respectively;

• from the first-third of 2004: 17% (7% for WBAI, from c. 2011/2012 to 30Sep2014) & 2.5% (2% for KPFK – guess the air-conditioning argument held sway even then) of LSD;

• FY2015: 15% (8% for WBAI) & 2% of the 4yr-average of “listener support”, FY2010-FY2013;

• from 1Oct2015: by default, the continuation of the 2004-30Sep2014 policy (but this never happened: instead, the FY2015 tariff kept ticking); &

• from 19Feb2021: 15% of “total revenue of the stations calculated quarterly” (sic), with some station-specific deductions (policy never implemented: the ticking just carried on ticking)

And you need to be careful about changes in terminology. The auditor’s reports this century always refer to “Central services”; as did NETA in their monthly net income statements. But, in some of the Pacifica docs & discussions, ‘Central Services’ is also used as a synonym for the PNO, sometimes ambiguously.

One can end by returning to the title of this note, the two senses of the centre/periphery relationship being nominal or real: does money come thru?; is the centre king, or is the periphery fiefdoms? Who’s in charge? Who’s in control? The directors, or the station managers? Or is no-one in control, just flying blind? It’s why a focus of this blog is on the money dimension of the politics of control – placing boring accountancy centre stage as possibly the supreme technique for controlling an organisation. By contrast, in the conditions that are Pacifica, is it rational for the directors, in practice, to place their ultimate responsibility – and legal liability – in the care of the managers, to trust the managers to act in the directors’ best interests? Especially now with the directors having given up the ghost on financial management?

Despite Pacifica’s 5 x Oct fund-drives, with the cash draining away, will it be payroll deadline 25Nov? or 9Dec? Either way, 6Jan really does look off-limits, with $52 235.23 due 31Dec, at the new rate of 9.25% on the $2 258 821 principal, to FJC – or will it have already sold on the debt to the Marty & Dorothy Silverman Foundation? The die is cast. And the court number is . . .

[UPDATE: the interest rate rose to 10% effective Th3Nov. The charge falling due 31Dec = ((2258821 x 0.0925 x 33) ÷ 365) + ((2258821 x 0.1 x 59)÷ 365) = 18890.550 + 36512.449 = $55 402.99.]

~~~

[Working notes on CS policy:

PNB Finance Cttee minutes: 2004: [… then do 2004 PNB minutes …]

21May: so PRA charge not 3% (as per 9Jan2004 PNB FinC minutes, as mentioned in the post) but 2.5% (but KPFK’s is 2%): “A discussion was held on […] the formula for funding Central Services. [new para.] Next we discussed the situation at Pacifica Radio Archives, which are funded by a levy of 2.5% of listener donations except for KFPK which pays 2%.” (unpag., p. 1 of PDF; hereafter, -/1) – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/040521/finance040521_1848_minutes.pdf (no audio recording at kpftx.org – the 2004 ones of this Cttee are later in the year, starting with the 29Oct meet)

(3) “PROPOSAL FOR $25-50 MILLION CREDIT LINE After a discussion of Ambrose Lane’s proposal for a $25-50 million line of credit, Henry Cooper agreed to draft a motion for the next meeting that would ask Ambrose to explain the purpose and motivation of his proposal.” (sic; emphases added) – and peeps were upset by how he almost single-handedly signed the 2005 ESRT 15-year contract behind the backs of his fellow directors &, somewhat less surprisingly, blindsiding the WBAI GM & WBAI LSB. https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/041029/finance041029_1834_minutes.pdf

12Nov: “Agreement that Lonnie will contact Ambrose Lane to ascertain his ideas underlying his proposal that Pacifica establish a credit line of $25-50 million.” (sic; emphases added) – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/041112/finance041112_1864_minutes.pdf

* * * * * * * * *