Happy birthday! FJC, looking forward (NYC pun) to their $3.265m from Pacifica, is 25 years old today!

. . . “these amazing heroes”: FJC proudly advertising during the 2014 Gaza Massacre that it acts as a conduit for boosting the morale of enforcers of the colonial military dictatorship over Palestinians; ad in the NYC-area Jewish News, late July/early Aug 2014 . . . when it comes to the crunch, liberalism always breaks down, here with religio-ethnic supremacism trumping individual equality, the equal worth of human groups, & even the imperative of property rights . . .

If you must sing ‘Happy birthday, FJC! / happy birthday, FJC!’, at least repeat for more than 20secs whilst washing your hands in the proper manner, as modelled by Dr Tedros, the world’s fave Ethiopian (his day job is Director-General of one of those globalist elite organisations, the World Health Organization):

Please send celebratory greetings to Lorin Silverman, President & Treasurer of the Foundation for the Jewish Community (FJC), President & Treasurer of the Marty & Dorothy Silverman Foundation (MDSF), founder & President of F. Y. Eye, Inc., & President of National Enterprises Corp.:

fjc@fjc.org & 520 8th Ave, Floor 20, NYC 10018

MDSF: 130 East 59th St, Suite 1102, NYC 10022

info@fy-eye.org & 130 East 59th St, Suite 1102, NYC 10022

National Enterprises Corp.: 130 East 59th St, Floor 11, NYC 10022

SC Group (Silverman Charitable Group): 830 3rd Ave, Floor 6, NYC 10022 & 1501 Lexington Ave, Apt 5T, NYC 10029-7345

FJC don’t let borrowers default: they sell “potentially impaired” loans, without discount, to MDSF. The advertising broker, F. Y. Eye, Inc., has a $37 000 advertising contract with Pacifica, as part of the $3.7m loan. All this is explained in this link, which also has all the loan documents:

https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/what-fjc-has-made-pacifica-do/

FJC, in their latest auditor’s report, year-ending 31Mar2019, had net assets of ~$262m, investment income of $10m ($2.6m via the Agency Loan Fund from Pacifica, other borrowers, & sundry investments; possibly income from other loans; income from stocks & bonds), donors’ contributions of $33m, & disbursed $38m. (ALF generated $3m income but some, ≥ $0.4m, went to outside investors – p. 22 cf. p. 4; pp. 24 & 6 of the PDF.)

https://mega.nz/#!dJlzQYTD!4NAmjin7kXXnz3LR5LpypS9YKDMMmUAVI-2KKdxN3vs

MDSF, in their latest 990-PF public filing, year-ending 31July2018, had net assets of ~$447m (fair market value ~$588m), investment income of $15m, interest ‘earnt’ from loans (such as those bought from FJC) of $2.4m, & disbursed $11m (including $10 000 to Forward, $42 366 to Mother Jones, & $76 800 to New Israel Fund).

https://mega.nz/#!Ec83XYhT!Lw1smsxBxo6sZe1Jn6LYAMs0f1TD9nGTxFsPxCtXfgA

~~~

To F. Y. Eye’s great credit, they have a very informative practical help page for New Yorkers during the COVID-19 pandemic – it even has a Chrome extension to watch Netflix with others:

COVID-19: Stay Informed

~~~

Pacifica now has 365 days to pay FJC its $3.265m – unless FJC (or the current owner of the loan) decides otherwise

. . . Recital B: the directors have committed Pacifica to “a swap or sale of one or more radio station licenses or a sale of other Pacifica owned assets of sufficient value to repay this Loan (as defined below), or such other sources that will become available” https://mega.nz/#!5NMhHAxI!QzMtaBd0iRTZJ_YNmh2KZ1xKu7Qh_hQ6IcPMVkGWX94 . . .

As the other Bill wrote, about the land where Chris Albertson spent some of his childhood, “TikTok or Tick-Tock, that is the question” . . . Given Pacifica’s age structure, we know the answer. The foundation now has exactly a year to pay $3.265m to another foundation, the Foundation for the Jewish Community, that operates as FJC.

For two whole years, the directors have sat on their paws. See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil. FJC loan? Excuse me? How many millions? Due when? Why worry? Thoughts & prayers. Thoughts & prayers. It’ll just go away. One day we’ll wake up & it’ll be gone. Like a miracle. It’ll just disappear. Yes. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear. Thoughts & prayers. Thoughts & prayers. The loan, under control. Things. This FJC thing, it’ll just run its course. Let it rip. It’ll all work out well. Victory. The next PNB election. Incredible. Leadership. Be appreciative. A lot. A lot. This is what winning looks like. Stronger. Better. Victory. PacificaWorld, RealWorld. Country with a stockpile? Or all pile & no stock – a pile of BS, & a pile of gravestones. (But always a stockpile of nuclear weapons: priorities.) Vicious. Carnage. Keeping Amerika great. USA! USA! USA! Ode not to joy but to the United Scarves of Amerika.

Meanwhile, back in PacificaWorld, it’s from the ballot to the bullet – and the bullet has to be bitten. And now. How to pay the principal of $3.265m has to be decided now. And, rationally, that requires knowledge of the options Pacifica has.

The directors, since 2Apr2018, have lacked not foresight on this but due diligence. It didn’t even require vision; just plain diligence. Everyone knew what has to be re-paid, & when. The question was, how. The 2018 directors, by agreeing to the contract, identified two particular ways of getting the money to FJC: signal swap or sale of assets. The third way was generic, “other sources that will become available” – such as cash provided by another lender. So what’s it going to be: signal swap? buildings sales? extend the loan? find new lender? maybe the Jesse James approach, improving on the Symbionese Liberation Army?

There’s no evidence that research was done on any of this by the then executive director, Tom Livingston. Nor by ED Maxie Jackson III, or ED Grace Aaron, or ED Lawrence Reyes, or the current ED, Lydia Brazon.

So, obviously, the PNB needs to immediately direct ED Brazon to conduct or commission an authoritative report on Pacifica’s options. The PNB meets on Thursday, 2Apr. Will a director make the necessary motion?

Thoughts & prayers. Thoughts & prayers.

Since 2Apr2018, Pacifica’s being & future had been structured most forcefully by the FJC loan. No more. Since mid March, that’s been replaced by the spread of disease, of COVID-19. It’ll collapse Pacifica’s revenue. And well before the principal is due. Pacifica’s executive & national governance aren’t noted ballerinas, nimble. And confirmed cases are cascading. NYC’s first was Su1Mar. 1Mar. The Bay Area shelter-in-place started 0001, Tu17Mar. The US’ first 100k confirmed cases took 68 days, M20Jan to F27Mar. The second took 5 days [UPDATE, W1Apr]. It was as if federal officials were watching Fox & CNN rather than the world news. (Guess Al Jazeera America was ahead of ‘the market’, one suffused with national chauvinism.)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-case-of-coronavirus-confirmed-in-new-york-state-11583111692; https://www.sfdph.org/dph/alerts/files/HealthOrderC19-07-%20Shelter-in-Place.pdf (City & Co. of San Francisco); & https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html (first case diagnosed M20Jan, publicly reported by CDC the next day)

Will Pacifica’s ‘leadership’ rise to the task?

Thoughts & prayers. Thoughts & prayers.

~~~

The set of loan documents are linked from the below webpage (it consists in the 19July2019 PacificaWatch summary of the loan, including details of the attendant advertising contract Pacifica’s directors agreed to, worth $37 000):

https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/what-fjc-has-made-pacifica-do/

Why FJC may no longer own the loan (posted 20July2019):

https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2019/07/20/has-fjc-sold-the-3-265m-loan-is-the-owner-the-marty-and-dorothy-silverman-foundation/

~~~

Please note, as of tomorrow, W1Apr, the $3.265m owed to FJC is no longer a long-term liability: it becomes a current liability. In so doing it significantly worsens Pacifica’s illiquidity quotient, the measure of Pacifica’s incapacity, in terms of current assets, to pay current liabilities, that is, those falling due within 12 months. Even before this $3.265m became a current liability (albeit mitigated by the $2.361m written off by Democracy Now!, announced to Pacificans by ED Maxie at the 12Mar2019 PNB Finance Cttee), Pacifica was last liquid, according to audited balance sheets, at 30Sep2009. Yes, 2009. Pacifica’s latest audited balance sheet is at 30Sep2016 (the FY2017 one, proffered by NETA, wasn’t audited thru lack of supporting documentary evidence). That’s exactly 3½ years ago. And the illiquidity ratio was 11.54: that means every Pacifica $ of current assets was being chased by $11.54 from the short-term creditors (7 356 997 / 637 716 per auditor’s report, p. 2). Micawber would be cheered, yet saddened, seeing someone worse off than himself – splendidly cheered, m’boy.

https://pacifica.org/finance/audit_2016.pdf; also at https://mega.nz/#!YEcTRYID!IIQGPCye8yYMqj3_eOf0voVp8aVTcurd93L_D1Lpr30

Underwriting section of FJC loan contract drives Pacifica’s urgency for an advertising policy

A puzzle of Pacifica proceedings in recent months is why this focus on underwriting, the needless euphemism for advertising? Longstanding Pacifica discursive culture is officially vehemently anti-advertising, whilst the practical culture accepts it, even promotes it as an invaluable income stream. Hypocrisy in action. Again, what’s new?

The late departed ED Maxie Jackson, & various directors, spoke at PNB meetings explaining the need for Pacifica to have, supposedly for the first time, a written advertising policy. Individual stations, & their producers, could take up the opportunities circumscribed by the policy, or not. The policy would simply be used to regulate what is already happening within the network.

This was always presented as a necessary first step in preventing, or ending, violations of rules held dear by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) & the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). But that’s not new – unlike something more pressing: the loan contract with the Foundation for the Jewish Community (FJC).

Instead of Pacifica giving FJC money just for the privilege of paying FJC interest, for having a loan in the first place, what’s known in the trade as an origination fee, an expression of the powerlessness of the borrower, FJC has required Pacifica to enter into an advertising contract (pages 6-7 of the FJC loan contract). Pacifica has accepted contractually that the advertising contract is not for mutual benefit but for FJC’s benefit, what in Legalese is termed its consideration: “the Underwriting Agreement [is] for the benefit of Lender, as amended from time-to-time” (the introductory list of the contract’s definitions, Section 1.1(30); p. 4). The other pages in the loan contract explicitly on the topic of advertising are 6-7 & 25-7, & these will now be considered. https://mega.nz/#F!PloCiSqJ!9rLejSkttE7gCVCCq3q86g?b0IBlaiR (no need to download the PDF: click the three horizontal dots, then ‘preview’)

It is not known publicly why on earth FJC has done this. [Please see the postscript, where a reason is given.] It’s particularly odd because FJC is the manager of the charitable funds of donors, towards whom FJC is obviously in a relationship of trust, exercising a fiduciary responsibility. So rather than maximising the investment income of the donors’ accounts, by dividing the origination fee amongst them, FJC has pursued its own organisational goal.

Legally the accounts are not owned by the donors but by FJC. What a donor has is influence, the right to recommend to FJC the recipients of FJC money. That’s the law, the theory. In practice, for FJC to maintain, even increase its market share, it needs a good reputation, & that would be harmed if donors told others that their recommendations had not been carried out. So, as so often, capitalist law is one thing, capitalist life is another.

FJC has made Pacifica take advertising, $37 000-worth, 1% of the borrowed money, the $3.7m: “PACIFICA is obliged to provide underwriting credits on its Stations in the amount of 1% of the Loan Amount (the ‘Underwriting Credits’) to facilitate the placement of underwriting on the Stations.” (the FJC-Pacifica loan contract, Exhibit B: Underwriting Agreement, original capitalisation & bold; p. 25)

This is how it works. FJC receives no money; Pacifica receives no money, but bears the cost of the exercise. The exercise is Pacifica carrying adverts. An advertising broker, F. Y. Eye, Inc. (“a not-for-profit organization”, apparently – p. 25), acts as FJC’s agent, & is reimbursed for its expenses (“at Borrower’s cost and expense” – Sec. 3.1; p. 6), & the rest goes as credits to advertisers, “non-profit organizations mutually agreed upon by Borrower and Lender” (p. 7). But this doesn’t start as soon as the loan begins: “credits will be provided as Borrower develops the capacity over the term of the Loan. At such time, Borrower and Lender shall enter into an Underwriting Agreement substantially in the form of Exhibit B attached hereto [pp. 25-7].” (p. 7). This time is when “PACIFICA establishes an underwriting program at its radio stations.” (p. 25, original capitalisation).

To repeat: Pacifica contracted with FJC on 2Apr2018, for the sole benefit of FJC, to bring advertising to the radio stations. The PNB agreed to this without public discussion or debate on advertising. The PNB went behind the backs of the listeners, the members, the staff. The PNB deceived them all. It committed a crime.

Furthermore, but not surprisingly, this was not disclosed in the spurious loan summary distributed Sa16June2018 by then Chair Nancy Sorden, on the authority of the Pacifica National Board. This is what it said on the topic, in full:

“[a]n initial draft of the Underwriting Agreement would have required Pacifica, in lieu of an origination fee to LENDER, to pay 1% of the loan proceeds to a non-profit organization called F.Y. Eye, Inc. (FYEYE). That organization would, in turn, have made grants to non-profits who would then purchase underwriting credits to be aired on Pacifica stations. A revised version of the Underwriting Agreement does not require an initial set aside by Pacifica, but reserves LENDER’s right to propose underwriting credits for non-profits ‘as Pacifica develops the capacity over the term of the Loan.'” [original capitalisation, p. 3; https://mega.nz/#!vyBjgaSC!UQVkLUfLfLXuZHjQguWWaQSuJ2HAuEPJ0fK74_IGlvg (no need to download the PDF: click the magnifying glass symbol)]

No, this isn’t what the contract says. It doesn’t speak of “the LENDER’s right to propose underwriting credits for non-profits ‘as Pacifica develops the capacity over the term of the Loan'” (the spurious summary, my italics & bold), a slippery word because its implied meaning is simply to do with possibility, rather than the right to have advertising content as satisfaction of consideration, for having foregone an origination fee. The following is what’s in the contract signed by Pacifica ED Tom Livingston & FJC President Lorin Silverman: “the Underwriting Agreement [is] for the benefit of Lender” (p. 4), & “there is no origination fee due to Lender. However, in lieu thereof, the Borrower agrees that Lender will receive underwriting credits” (pp. 6-7, my italics & bold). Will, not propose. The matter is one of consideration & its satisfaction. It’s not plausible to believe that two experienced businesspeople would each sign a contract that doesn’t exist. Within the PNB, the deceivers are also cowards.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Postscript . . . F.Y. Eye, Inc. – a corporation founded by its president, Lorin Silverman . . . yes, the President & Treasurer of FJC, and President & Treasurer of the Marty & Dorothy Silverman Foundation, which buys FJC loans that are “potentially impaired”, not even in default (FJC policy, disclosed in any of their auditor’s reports & IRS form 990’s – the latest: pp. 10-11, pp. 12-13 of the PDF, http://fjc.org/uploads/user-uploads/image/FJC%203-31-18%20FINAL.pdf; & Schedule O, p. 90 of the PDF, http://fjc.org/uploads/user-uploads/image/file/990%20FY17%20-%20For%20Distribution.pdf). And, yes, it was Lorin’s signature that lent the money to Pacifica. https://www.fyeye.org/about-us/our-team/