Milosz: Pacifica’s reality

~

A Song on the End of the World

On the day the world ends
A bee circles a clover,
A fisherman mends a glimmering net.
Happy porpoises jump in the sea,
By the rainspout young sparrows are playing
And the snake is gold-skinned as it should always be.

On the day the world ends
Women walk through the fields under their umbrellas,
A drunkard grows sleepy at the edge of a lawn,
Vegetable peddlers shout in the street
And a yellow-sailed boat comes nearer the island,
The voice of a violin lasts in the air
And leads into a starry night.

And those who expected lightning and thunder
Are disappointed.
And those who expected signs and archangels’ trumps
Do not believe it is happening now.
As long as the sun and the moon are above,
As long as the bumblebee visits a rose,
As long as rosy infants are born
No one believes it is happening now.

Only a white-haired old man, who would be a prophet
Yet is not a prophet, for he’s much too busy,
Repeats while he binds his tomatoes:
There will be no other end of the world,
There will be no other end of the world.

~

Czeslaw Milosz, A Song on the End of the World, Warsaw, 1944, translated by Anthony Milosz, in Czeslaw Milosz, New and Collected Poems 1931-2001, HarperCollins Publishers (New York), 2003, pages 56 & 776 – free download at https://libgen.is/search.php?req=milosz+collected&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def

~

[Pertinent is the successful 2022 news blackout, keeping secret even the concrete topics of any significant PNB decision (made in the famed ‘executive sessions’), the cherry on the top of the increasing number of open meetings either lacking a publicly available audio recording or even closed to the public thru the withholding of joining details when they aren’t streamed. Every lil bit helps. This exercise in opacity makes it even more likely that Milosz is right, that “There will be no other end of the world, / There will be no other end of the world.” – “And those who expected lightning and thunder / Are disappointed. / And those who expected signs and archangels’ trumps / Do not believe it is happening now.” Gotta luv it. Only goes to prove that when Pacifica decision-makers really put their mind to something, even without coordination, they can come up trumps. Now there’s a thought.]

~~~

Advertisement

More joy: monthly lists of apparent CPB violations, per the declarations at pacifica.org & kpftx.org . . . 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 – https://mega.nz/file/cY8XCYLb#4IGXyzfasCgfm-GdaYYm6WPn2XaD4UcMJR8ZPTo-Q8c … 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). https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/rfp/ce8434e0/Grant%20Guidelines%20Radio%20CSG%20for%20FY%202022%20-%20New%20Applicant%20Guidelines.pdf

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. https://cpb.org/sites/default/files/stations/radio/generalprovisions/FY-2022-Radio-General-Provisions.pdf (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: https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/auditor-s-reports/auditors-reports-summary-notes-2/auditors-reports-summary-notes/ (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) – https://www.cpb.org/files/stations/non-compliance/CPB-CSG-Non-compliance-Policy-Effective-January-1-2016.pdf (extant policy, as evidenced by https://www.cpb.org/stations/non-compliance).

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: https://www.cpb.org/files/reports/WCBE-FM-Columbus%20-Determination-Letter.pdf (7pp.). (WCBE is a $1.8m annual revenue station, so the size of WPFW – https://www.wcbe.org/sites/wcbe/files/wcbe_2020_audited_financial_statements_0.pdf (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 – https://cpb.org/sites/default/files/stations/radio/generalprovisions/FY-2022-Radio-General-Provisions.pdf. The interpolated quote is from both the CPB open meetings webpage, https://www.cpb.org/stations/certification/cert1, & its 1June2021 Compliance Booklet (p. 3; p. 4 of the PDF), https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/stations/certification/csg-compliance-booklet-2021.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): https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/stations/certification/cpb_certification_req_2018.pdf, & https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/stations/certification/cpb_certification_req_2019.pdf

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.

~~~

FY2020 auditor’s report published – but not by Pacifica … they say it’s “completed”, so why not publish it, as required by law? … “they were submitted to the AG today”, said PNB Chair Alex Steinberg to the W30June PNB Coordinating Cttee … & the closed discussion for the PNB closed session

FY2020 auditor’s report

https://mega.nz/file/gc9h3SDQ#SG2SVOaJaniikB8-1oWcohAcp6KZVfd36dsLK4uYBsA

Pacifica’s 4° disclaimer (FY2017, FY2018, FY2019, FY2020); the 8° going concern warning (FY2010, FY2011, FY2015, FY2016, FY2017, FY2018, FY2019, FY2020).

Disclaimer of opinion means that the auditors haven’t vouched for the material accuracy, the ‘fairness’, of any of the figures in the statements in their report: neither the financial statements for Pacifica as a whole (the consolidated) nor the management statements for the accounting units (the stations, etc.).

All parts of the statements lack the credibility that the appropriate third-party professional could have given them, but having taken the cash, they found they were unable to say, one way or the other.

For a potential grantor, that’s a warning about the past year; the going concern warning is about the current year & possibly beyond.

Wishful thinking to the contrary is precisely that.

~

Audiofile of the W30June PNB Coordinating Cttee

Eventually published W7July. PNB Chair Alex Steinberg on the auditor’s report: “they [sic] were submitted to the AG today” (30June, 3:43). Inadvertently, the audiofile included the Cttee’s closed discussion for the Th8July PNB closed session (16:40). Oh. (On the copy, linked below, 3:45 & 16:42 respectively.)

https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/coordinating/210630/coordinating210630a.mp3; a copy’s at https://mega.nz/file/ZRsUjTrS#nZu_r45iO5e2ufya1XHtIxfq2X2DpWNGEUh30YkpliY

~

Why hasn’t the FY2020 auditor’s report been published by Pacifica, as mandated by California law?

As related Tu6July on this blog, Pacifica announced in writing that day that “the FY2020 audit” (sic), at 30June, had been “completed but was not filed”. So why has Executive Director Lydia Brazon chosen not to publish it to the public, as required by California law?

And contrary to the claim made in Pacifica’s 6July statement, the law doesn’t admit the possibility of extending its filing date with the California Attorney General:

[Q:] Does the extension for filing IRS Form 990 also apply to the completion date for the audit? [A:] No. The statute does not provide for an extension of time.

https://oag.ca.gov/charities/laws#collapseFAQs8

And how do the higher-ups at Pacifica explain the initial statement & then its retraction?

So, any chance at today’s Pacifica National Board that a director will ask for an explanation of:

• why hasn’t the FY2020 auditor’s report been published, as required by California law?

• why hasn’t it been filed with the Attorney General, as required by California law ?

• and how does ED Brazon & PNB Chair Steinberg explain misinforming the public about its filing? And who, other than Chair Steinberg, made this statement?

https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2021/07/06/fy2020-audit-fiasco-intensifies-pacifica-said-things-were-sent-when-they-weren-t-and-auditor-s-report-was-completed-but-it-isn-t-and-claims-due-date-is-16aug-whereas-ag-says-no-the-statute-says-no/

(No-one seems to mention the 120-day reporting rule found in both by-law Article 12, Section 6, & in the FJC loan agreement, Section 6.1 – https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/auditor-s-reports/auditors-reports-summary-notes-2/auditors-reports-summary-notes/. So we won’t either.)

~

Is there no transparency of proceedings? Is there no accountability for behaviour?

Is Pacifica a rule-bound operation? Does any of this matter?

What is Pacifica: private club or public charity?

~~~

[Addendum: deriving meaning from the revealing referenda info provided by National Elections Supervisor Peñaloza to the Th8July PNB.]

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). 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.)

https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/non-financial-pacifica-data/the-knell-pacifica-membership-passing-over-time/; & https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2020/03/30/referenda-station-results-approx-absolute-numbers/

So,

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) – https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/non-financial-pacifica-data/the-knell-pacifica-membership-passing-over-time/

• listener-member referendum: at the Tu6July KPFT Development Cttee, Robin Lewis (Membership Lead) disclosed that membership “is at 2 900” (57:54) – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpftdev/210706/kpftdev210706a.mp3. 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). 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, https://elections.pacifica.org/wordpress/ – and presumably soon after on the Foundation’s homepage, scrubbed clean today, ready & waiting, https://pacifica.org/.

(This P.S. will be incorporated into a post made tomorrow 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). https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art17sec1.html)

FY2020 audit fiasco intensifies: Pacifica said things were sent when they weren’t … auditor’s report “was completed”, but it isn’t … & claims “the due date of August 16” whereas AG says “No. The statute does not provide for an extension of time”

[If g-d grants the strength – although the screenshots, logic, & semantics say quite enough – added will be a series of obvious questions addressed to those on the PNB Audit Cttee, not least the obstructionist Chair Eileen it’s Ros-in Rosin, to the directors, & to those paid by Pacifica. Will anyone on the Cttee be responsible enough to move a motion to remove ‘Egregious’ Eileen from the Chair?

After all, as discussed in the last post, “[c]harity corp audit cttee duties: ‘[t]he audit committee shall confer with the auditor to satisfy its members that the financial affairs of the corporation are in order, shall review and determine whether to accept the audit’ (emphases added), [California Government Code] § 12586(e)(2) […] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=12586“.

How can an Audit Chair choose to stop all this by choosing not to call meetings, committing all these acts of omission, & get away with it scot-free? Like certain governments, in Pacifica can decision-makers act with impunity, without consequences? Is there no accountability in Pacifica – even when California law is at stake?

What is Pacifica: private club or public charity?]

~

The PNB Audit Cttee was due to meet this evening, the first time since M26Apr. But at 4.04pm EDT this cancellation notice was posted (note, the “Eileen Rosin” is from the original noticing – but she may well have made the update):

https://kpftx.org/pacalendar/cal_show1.php?eventdate=20210706

The same, but without the “4:04 PM”:

https://kpftx.org/

Contradiction

“[I]t was completed” – yet it isn’t: it’ll be filed “at that time [16Aug], or sooner if it’s ready”.

Even if the final draft of today’s statement happened to be incoherent, is there no-one in the room, a fresh pair of eyes, to spot the nonsense?

(We won’t mention submitting/filing the “FY2020 audit” rather than the auditor’s report – although this is of a kind with Cttee members & directors repeatedly talking about NETA “doing the audit” rather than making all necessary preparations for the audit.)

False statement on the law

The statement says, “we are not required to file our FY2020 audit with the CA AG office until the due date of August 16”. Yet . . . yet . . .

https://oag.ca.gov/charities/laws#integrityact

Oh.

~

Can we expect a correction of the correction, made on the last day of referenda voting on the breakers’ proposed homogenising, authoritarian new constitution? . . .

. . . hang on a sec . . .

. . . Come to think of it, things are quite authoritarian already, yes? And the supposed anti-breakers, without even trying, are doing their lil bit to help break up Pacifica, yes?

~

(Also note, before cancelling, at 3.46pm EDT, ‘Egregious’ Eileen noticed another PNB Audit Cttee meeting, for Tu20July, at 8.30pm EDT; “Purpose: Review audit documents”, so more than the auditor’s report? or other than the auditor’s report? or plain sloppiness? – https://kpftx.org/pacalendar/cal_show1.php?eventdate=20210720.)

~~~

Breaking the law to comply with the law – and PNB Chair Alex Steinberg chooses not to apologise for the sorry tale of the FY2020 audit … the pressure of a threatened CA Attorney General investigation: 30June was never about the CPB

[Here just the headline & some cursory details. Will be finished Su4July – better still, do it once 10 comments are made.]

~

At the W30June PNB Coordinating Cttee, PNB Chair Alex Steinberg sheepishly disclosed that earlier in the day the FY2020 auditor’s report had been sent to the California Attorney General.

The audio of the meeting has yet to be posted at https://kpftx.org/archive.php, but for the livestream, dutiful PacificaWatch minions in all signal areas were transfixed by their crystal sets, hanging on every word. The meeting’s job was to agree the draft agenda for the next PNB meet, Th8July, & it was unusually short, lasting ~14mins after roll-call. The electric moment came when Cttee Chair Chris Corey was already in conversation with PNB Chair Alex, & at 2:08 after roll-call he slipped it in, asking if the auditor’s report had got to Sacramento.

[UPDATE: no audiofile available as of Su4July – just like the FY2020 auditor’s report, both may be posted after by-laws referenda voting closes on W7July.] [. . . audiofile posted a few hours before the referenda polls closed, W7July. It was a bonus drop: TechGuy forgot to cut the stream, so the discussion for the Th8July closed session is included. Oh. (Audiofile has been copied, & will be posted before that PNB meeting. Meanwhile it’s still public: https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/coordinating/210630/coordinating210630a.mp3 (31:57 total).)]

~

. . . elaboration, incl.:

Charity corp audit cttee duties: “[t]he audit committee shall confer with the auditor to satisfy its members that the financial affairs of the corporation are in order, shall review and determine whether to accept the audit” (emphases added), § 12586(e)(2): the cttee has to do this: it’s mandatory work, it can’t be delegated to the board of directors, or to a group of directors, or to an individual director – even to the Chair of the board. Given that the PNB Audit Cttee hasn’t met since M26Apr2021, & so failed to “confer with the auditor”, failed to “review […] the audit”, & failed to “determine whether to accept the audit”, will the AG decide that the financial statements have been improperly submitted, rejecting them, & take the appropriate action under the law because Pacifica failed to discharge its legal duties? https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=12586 . . .

Charity corp duty to the public & to the CA AG: “[t]he audited financial statements shall be available for inspection by the Attorney General and by members of the public no later than nine months after the close of the fiscal year to which the statements relate. A charity shall make its annual audited financial statements available to the public in the same manner that is prescribed for IRS Form 990 by the latest revision of Section 6104(d) of the Internal Revenue Code and associated regulations.” (emphases added), § 12586(e)(1); for the cited section (especially (d)-1(a) and (d)-2), see https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/301.6104(d)-1, & click on ‘next’ for (d)-2. (Contra the PNB talk, the law isn’t all about the AG: it’s also about the plebs, the great unwashed, including the Pacifican cash cows, & the 77% of members who abstained in the Mar2020 proposed new constitution referenda.) The FY2020 auditor’s report hasn’t been published by Pacifica in the place where it’ll end up, linked from https://pacifica.org/finance_reports.php. . . .

It’s because of this stickly law thing that there’s this somewhat worrying 22Dec2020 two-page letter from Xavier Becerra, the California Attorney General, never mentioned in any recorded Pacifica meeting – guess the topic is a clue: “RE: DELINQUENCY NOTICE AND WARNING OF ASSESSMENT OF PENALTIES AND LATE FEES, AND SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF REGISTERED STATUS” (original emphases, p. 1). Oh. No: double oh.

CT-451 1st Delinquency Notice, at bottom of ‘Filings & Correspondence’, via https://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Search.aspx?facility=Y (search with ‘Pacifica Foundation’) . . .

Xavier’s moved on to higher things, replacing Alex ‘I’ll do whatever it takes to keep my job, even stamp on Nancy Messonnier’ Azar as US Secretary of Health and Human Services. Nancy’s ignored warning, 25Feb2020, when Trump was visiting Modi in Delhi, downplaying it all: “disruption to everyday life may be severe […] I had a conversation with my family over breakfast this morning and I told my children that while I didn’t think that they were at risk right now, we as a family need to be preparing for significant disruption of our lives” (7:56), said with noticeable urgency – not panic – at her CDC media teleconference, at a time when the CDC were reporting that there were a mere 14 confirmed COVID-19 cases in the US (12 had recently arrived in the US, & 2 had known contact with an infected person). What fuelled Messonnier’s arousal was presumably what was made public the next day by the CDC: the first apparent case of asymptomatic transmission within the US, in California – https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0226-Covid-19-spread.html). The 25Feb2020 transcript (with embedded audiofile), https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0225-cdc-telebriefing-covid-19.html; & audio, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0225-cdc-telebriefing-covid-19-update.mp3 (it’s also embedded (as a courtesy – or to increase exposure?) in the webpage announcing the upcoming teleconference, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/a0225-cdc-telebriefing-covid-19.html). At the time, Nancy was the CDC’s Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. (Her bro is Rod Rosenstein – yes, who appointed Mueller as Trump-Russia investigator.)

And with Xavier’s letter we have the point. The ‘Pacifica 30June hullabaloo’ doesn’t revolve around some CPB deadline: it must have been this CA AG letter, following up on his 22June & 18Aug letters, & no doubt others, that made it plain to the PNB that the Office of the AG would no longer play softball: it had become apparent to all that if Pacifica remained delinquent, or lapsed again, then the AG would open an investigation into Pacifica. This reality has been consistently concealed from the members, the staff, the listeners, the creditors.

Xavier put the effect of losing charitable status this way: “[a] delinquent organization may not engage in any activity for which registration is required, including solicitation or disbursing of charitable assets.” (original emphases, p. 2). “[D]isbursing of charitable assets” means, for example, passing on cash held by Pacifica Foundation, Inc. to an outsider, so to a creditor, be it an employee or NETA or FJC. All assets acquired when the organisation was a charity are frozen: their ownership can’t be changed. Triple oh.

Also, the AG will have to give the California Franchise Tax Board a call, threatening Pacifica’s tax-exempt status (p. 1).

Lastly, Xavier, as his personal Xmas prezzy, reminded the directors that the state will come after their nest eggs: “[c]haritable assets cannot be used to pay these avoidable costs. Accordingly, directors, trustees, officers and return preparers responsible for failure to timely file the above-described report(s) are personally liable for payment of all penalties, interest and other costs incurred to restore exempt status” (original emphases, p. 2). Quadruple oh. (To this one can add the personal liability arising if Pacifica was broken up with its restricted endowment funds still being in deficit: at 30Sep2019, the unaudited deficit per the FY2019 auditor’s report was $579 207 (p. 19; p. 21 of the PDF – https://pacifica.org/finance/audit_2019.pdf). Even shared by 30 directors, that’s ~$20k each. Worryingly, Pacifica has never published a time-scheduled plan as to how this not insignificant deficit is to be eliminated – this increases the probability that elimination will be occurring elsewhere.) . . .

Chair Alex used odd language in his reply to Chair Chris, referring not to the auditor’s report but to “they’ve” – so presumably these three docs:

(a) FY2020 auditor’s report (as they include financial statements; due no later than 9mths after year-end, so 30June – the above § 12586(e)(1) … the law gives no discretion to the AG, or anyone else, to grant an extension: “Nonprofit Integrity Act of 2004 FAQ[.] 8. Does the extension for filing IRS Form 990 also apply to the completion date for the audit? No. The statute does not provide for an extension of time.” – https://oag.ca.gov/charities/laws#integrityact. After all, this is the age of consumer protection, where peeps can expect their charity spending to bring smiles to faces – even to others. Protecting the public not just from those who use a charity to perpetrate fraud, but also from the well-intentioned who happen to be so hapless that they can’t even keep their accounts in order, letting the public know where their money’s going, whether the charity is on its last legs, a transparency that may help to hold decision-makers to account, perhaps the most important one. The state, eh?, always interfering, sticking its nose everywhere);

(b) the 2019 IRS annual informational return (IRS Form 990; using the FY2020 data; “[f]ile Form 990 by the 15th day of the 5th month after the organization’s accounting period ends” (p. 6), so 15Feb – https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i990.pdf); &

(c) the annual renewal of Pacifica’s charity registration (RRF-1, that’s Registration Renewal Fee; using the FY2020 data; due “no later than four months and fifteen days after the end of the organization’s accounting period” (the form itself, p. 1), so 15Feb; “[t]he purpose of the Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report (Form RRF-1) is to assist the Attorney General’s Office with early detection of charity fiscal mismanagement and unlawful diversion of charitable assets” (p. 3) – https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/charities/charitable/rrf1_form.pdf. Speaking of which, effective 1Feb2020, the form has a new topic (as question #9), highlighting duties required by California Government Code Section 12599.8, effective way back on 1Jan2013, falling upon financially distressed charities, those like Pacifica with year-end negative net assets without donor restrictions (Politese for net liabilities of that kind) but custodians of restricted net assets (these are disclosed, starting with the 2019 Form 990, on lines 27 & 28 of the balance sheet section, Part X – previously, there were separate lines for temporarily & permanently restricted net assets). Pacifica first had to answer this question in its 17Aug2020 filing, using FY2019 data, rejected because the audit hadn’t been done. Oddly, not in the Registry’s depository are two docs: a re-submitted complete RRF-1, & a re-submitted complete 2018 Form 990 (using FY2019 data; “[o]ur office received the DRAFT copy of the IRS 990. We can not accept DRAFT copies of the form” (original emphases & capitalisations) – the 22Dec2020 missive from Xavier, repeating what he had said in his 18Aug2020 rejection letter (also in the depository). Unfortunately, Pacifica is still only posting the rejected form, signed 11Aug2020 – https://pacifica.org/finance_reports.php).

§ 12599.8: “For any year that the balance sheet of a charitable organization shows that it holds restricted net assets, while reporting negative unrestricted net assets, the organization shall provide an explanation of its compliance with its charitable trust responsibilities and proof of directors’ and officers’ liability insurance coverage to the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts.” – https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=12599.8

. . . speaking of which: “Report Out from PNB Closed Session of April 15, 2021. The PNB met in closed session to approve the D&O insurance for Pacifica” – https://pacifica.org/documents/pnb_exec_210415.pdf (dated 22June2021 – not within 10 days of the meeting, so a violation of CPB’s interpretation of federal law, of the Comms Act of 1934: “[t]he Act requires stations to document and make available to the public the specific reason(s) for closing a meeting within a reasonable time after the meeting. CPB also requires that the written statement be made available for inspection, either at the CSG recipient’s central office or posted on its station website, within 10 days after each closed meeting” – https://www.cpb.org/stations/certification/closed-meetings)

(Chair Chris didn’t seem to notice Chair Alex’s use of the plural.) . . .

~

PacificaWorld is governed not by the rule of law but by the rule of decision: PacificaWorld is a Reich of Carl Schmitt. The ruling PNB clique makes the decisions, unbounded by the by-laws, & in practice even unrestrained by either state or federal law – until now, that is.

That’s why the breakers will start a write-in campaign to Sacramento, to the California Attorney General.

The rebellion – not the civil war – continues, on a new front.