[Originally posted 8July, as an addendum to a discussion of the FY2020 auditor’s report in relation to California law. Upon request, it’s re-posted separately. Agreed – even a case of light & bushel?]
~
The breakers decisively win the listener-member referendum (6 000 — 5 800?, maybe 6 050 — 5 750?) – but lose the war … with maybe 220 blocking 6 000
An important indicator of the likely referenda results was disclosed by a frazzled Renée Asteria Peñaloza, the National Elections Supervisor, at the Th8July PNB. She said the electorate was ~44 000 listener-members & 1 035 staff-members (40:32 after roll-call; UPDATE: that time seems to be in error, it being 42:55 according to the now published audiofiles; the agenda item starts at 0:27 on the ‘b’-file, & the electorates are given at 1:12 –https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb210708/pnb210708b.mp3). Prior to this, the latest figures disclosed by Pacifica were 42 491 & 993, respectively, at 2Jan2020, the record date for the first by-laws referenda. (The anti-breakers won both referenda: 6 340 — 3 273, & 331 — 177.)
• total electorate up, +~3.4%; mostly a net extra ~1 500 listener-members. Have the anti-breakers been on a recruitment campaign? We know who’s been organised, been organising, & been mobilising peeps for a few years now
• this is surprising, to say the least: according to official figures (buyer beware), Aug/Sep2015 ⭢ 2Jan2020, total listener membership in this 4⅓yr period fell at the rate of ~2 340 a year. So, going against the grain current, we may have here 1500 + 2340 = 3840. Where did these people come from? Who’s been recruiting/retaining over 3k peeps, all in little more than a year? This contrasts with the lack of a ‘bump’ before the first referenda. This time is different. (The ~2 340: (52582 − 42491) ÷ 4⅓) – 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; UPDATE: at 0:45 on the audiofile). In a typical lack of precision, from a purported elections supervisor, she didn’t speak of either the certification of the results or the announcement of the results. But the stuffing has been knocked out of her.
(This P.S. will be incorporated into a post made tomorrow [UPDATE, Th15July: please see the end of this note] on the worrying habit of the NES, the ED, & other Pacifica decision-makers to continually speak, & in the NES’ case, write, of ‘the referendum’ rather than the referenda. By by-law Article17, Section 1(B)(3), both (v) & the final sentence, & (4), both classes of members have to approve any change having a differential material adverse effect on voting rights: “the Members shall vote in classes and the majority vote of the Members of each class shall be required to approve the amendment” (emphases added). This has been explained in previous posts. Also please note the confused question put by Lawrence Reyes to the NES, & her reply (58:54 after roll-call; UPDATE: at 17:11 on the audiofile). https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art17sec1.html.)
[UPDATE, Th15July: two posts will appear in the next few days: (1) on the referendum/referenda idea, focusing on the most obvioussufficient reason, per California law, that requires two referenda, namely, Corporations Code, Section 7813(f), the (f) – https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CORP§ionNum=7813; & (2) a quantitative & qualitative account of the referenda results announced M12July, including the political effects –https://elections.pacifica.org/wordpress/bylaws-proposal-petition/. Note, the NES’ statement twice says “[r]esults”, not ‘certification of results’; just sloppy? Her announcement also says “[t]he final report will be published by July 26th, 2021”.]
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.)
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.
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?
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.)
• 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.
(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)
For those lucky enough not to be acquainted with this living Thanatos, please appreciate their distinctive qualities, personality structure, & techniques from this astute analysis:
[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§ionNum=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):
“[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 . . .
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.)
[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 ctteehas 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§ionNum=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.
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§ionNum=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.
. . . Jim tells Jim it’s all over – WBAI Community Advisory Board, Su27June2021 . . .
At this afternoon’s WBAI Community Advisory Board, Director James Sagurton (WBAI listener-delegate) was oblivious to the world, talking on the phone as if he was in a private conversation with Jim Dingeman (WBAI stalwart). Thing is, Jim still had the Zoom room open.
In the first hour of the CAB there was just Jim & the WBAI Local Elections Supervisor, Renata Sago (les-wbai2021@pacifica.org). Nattering away, about dis n dat, as Mansoor would say.
Then Director James (also Chair of the PNB Finance Cttee) came onto the call. Niceties exchanged, then down to business. James had a lot to say. NETA, Pacifica’s bookkeeper & accountant, had given stuff to the auditors, only to have it rubbished – and returned. Like a drug deal gone wrong. No way will it get done by 30June.
Making things worse, opined James, is Chief Financial Officer Anita Sims protecting KPFK’s business manager, Barry Brooks.
Plus the palaver about KPFK’s new station manager, Moe Thomas, not getting the codes he needed. And the hullabaloo at KPFT, about the wide-ranging programming changes being seen as whitewash.
Then James dropped a bombshell: National Elections Supervisor Renée Asteria Peñaloza had told him that quora had been made in both the listeners & staff by-laws referendum. He didn’t note that this was a lil inaccurate: as the NES can neither open the ballot envelopes nor check individual online votes, she can’t know the number of valid ballots received, only the number of apparent ballots.
But anyway, oh.
~
With quora coming in less than 20 days, with more than 10 to go, the die is cast. Why? Only one side has been putting in the work.
The breakers have been focused on the referenda; the anti-breakers on the LSB elections.
The breakers have been mobilising their constituency for months and months and months; the anti-breakers have been preoccupied with manoeuvring on the PNB & the LSB’s.
The breakers have been beavering away getting the vote out; the anti-breakers from April started talking about talking about what to do & how.
The breakers, motivated; the anti-breakers, just going thru the motions.
Men against boyz.
~
Unless the anti-breakers can scare peeps to vote by W7July, & with turnout down, one can expect the breakers to win the listeners referendum. And maybe even win the staff referendum at three of the stations, but lose the staff referendum itself coz of the turnout at WPFW & WBAI. That would mean the breakers fail – this time.
But it would mark a sea change. Then all the breakers have to do is come back again, but with a proposed constitution that doesn’t require a staff referendum: all they have to do is word it so that a class of members isn’t materially adversely affected compared with the other class.
It’s a wonder they didn’t do that this time round. But then this is PacificaWorld.
~
[NES Peñaloza has publicly given no progress reports, either before voting or since it has started. She hasn’t disclosed the size of the 10 elector rolls, either as initially given to her by station managers or as they have been amended. Nor revealed how turnout has proceeded – but not being a humble member, a Pacifica director is able to . . . – Animal Farm lives on. https://elections.pacifica.org/]
So why has the Pacifica National Board, & NETA, the bookkeeper & accountants, been going on about a 30June deadline? A deadline set by whom? Requiring what? Rewarded with what?
No local station board delegate or PNB director has given any details, even a teeny-weeny one, in a publicly recorded meeting. Nor has anyone asked. Repeat: no-one has even asked.
How can this be? Is this some kind of secret society? Funded ~$11m by the members, listeners, & others, year, after year, after year?
As noted months ago on this blog, in early Jan2021, when discussing the expected completion dates of the FY2019 & FY2020 audits, a remark was made about the 26Oct2020 PNB Audit Cttee:
[n]o-one mentioned a crucial deadline: what may be mid Aug2021, applying for the big bucks disbursed from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s Radio Community Service Grant Program, CSG. The annual date keeps changing: 13Aug2020, 24June2019, 11May2018, 12May2017, 16May2016. There’s never much time to apply: the last two application forms were dated the month before, July2020 & May2019. It’s also first-come, first-served: ‘[e]ligible applicants are accepted into the Radio CSG Program in the order their applications were received’.
And how big is the Radio CSG fund? In FY2021 it’s ~$92.1m (unrestricted $69.3m + restricted, for national programming, $22.8m); in FY2022 it’ll be ~$96.2m ($72.4m + $23.8m). Yes, CPB funding is rising, at last – to $465m from a stagnant ~$445m, FY2012-FY2021 (which suffered a 19% drop in real terms). And with a 3:1 TV-to-radio grants split, in FY2021, ~$99m went to radio; with 70% going to unrestricted CSG, & 23% to restricted CSG.
And how much did Pacifica used to get from the CPB? FY1993-FY2012, it varied from $1.946m in FY2006 to $1.098m in FY1994 (in June2021 money, that corresponds to $2.576m (32% inflation) & $1.962m (79% inflation)). As a proportion of Pacifica’s revenue, it was 10.8% in FY2006 ($18.016m), & 14.1% in FY1994 ($7.797m); by comparison, in FY2011, the CPB’s $1.154m was 8.2% of revenue ($14.135m).
(Notes: (a) FY2012 was the last full year of CPB monies coz the 2nd instalment, due in Mar2013, didn’t arrive as Pacifica fell out of compliance – https://current.org/2013/06/pacifica-misses-cpb-deadlines-holding-up-funding-for-stations/; (b) oddly, & without explanation, no disclosure was made in FY2008, 2009, 2012, & 2013; & (c) the fed fiscal year-end is the same as Pacifica’s, 30Sep.)
~
Today, the PNB Technology Task Force met: “[p]urpose: [d]iscuss 2021 CPB requirements, for June 30th deadline application” – https://kpftx.org/.
A PacificaWatch minion attended. They stressed that the application deadline for the CPB’s Radio Community Service Grant Program had passed on 19May, giving the link cited above. Twice they asked what this 30June deadline is, its purpose, what has to be provided. Twice the Chair, Jim Dingeman (associated with WBAI, but not a LSB delegate), responded, but, unfortunately, proved unable, or unwilling, to answer these obvious questions.
• when Pacifica submits an application to the CPB it has to already be compliant with both CPB rules & federal law (22May2020 CPB letter to ED Lydia Brazon & PNB Chair Alex Steinberg);
• an obvious, elementary one, is that whenever a deliberative meeting is closed to the public, a written explanation is not just published but done so within 10 days; currently, for calendar year 2021, only one is posted on the Foundation’s website, https://pacifica.org/notices_home.php – and that’s from Feb, of a LSB meeting!
• evidence of streamingeach open meeting, or of having had a conference phone call accessible to the public, so including evidence that online joining details were published beforehand (obviously, a posted notice of an upcoming meeting is something quite different; as is a published audiofile of proceedings: the open meeting requirement is about attending, witnessing, so whilst it’s happening);
• evidence of community advisory boards meeting publicly “at regular intervals”, per Communications Act of 1934, § 396(k)(8)(A) . . . by early Jan2021, the Pacifica meetings archive provided no evidence, none at all, that any of the five CAB’s had met in 2020 – https://kpftx.org/archive_2020.php; &
• a biggy: having enough listeners . . . Note, a mid May2022 application needs Nielsen listening data from spring 2020 & spring 2021. These are for Apr-May-June, but those for the 1st quarter are known, for each station. So, obvious questions: how far off is each station? what strategy is each station manager pursuing to rectify their situation? crucially, what are the intermediary, measurable goals in each strategy? what is the URL of each published station listenership strategy, so that Pacifica is transparent in this key matter, making it easier to hold the station manager & the station programme director to account for both their action & inaction? when did ED Brazon instruct station managers to address this matter strategically, rather than piecemeal & ad hoc at best? What are the answers to these obvious questions? Importantly, will any Pacifica decision-maker, a LSB delegate or Pacifica director, ever ask them?!? . . . another Godot moment in PacificaWorld?
Also, CPB is doing unannounced website audits, praps Feb thru Sep2021:
I also want to inform you that we will be undertaking a new initiative this fiscal year to further address station accountability. Specifically, we will be conducting limited scope evaluations of station requirements to post information to its website of various Communication Act and transparency requirements per our Annual Plan. The evaluations will be unannounced engagements conducted by our office of the information posted to your website and are not full scope audits of your CSG agreements. These limited scope evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency[‘s] Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation. [new paragraph:] These engagements will begin any time after January as staff is available and will continue throughout the fiscal year.
ED Lydia Brazon will be aware of this. Also Otis Maclay, Pacifica’s Compliance Officer – amongst other jobs.
Yes, Pacifica receives no CPB monies, but it has to be fully compliant before any application is even looked at.
~
On top of all this, there’s also the Pacifica decision-makers, local & national, always going on about ‘getting the audits done’. They offer no awareness, whatsoever, that they fail to make a crucial distinction between form & content: between an auditor’s report & audited financial statements. The two pertinent facts: the latest auditor’s report is for FY2019, dated 29Apr2021; the latest audited financial statements are for FY2016, dated 31May2018. FY2016 ended on 30Sep2016 – almost five years ago.
Audited financial statements are deemed by the auditor to be, in the jargon, fair, that is, materially accurate. Hence the auditor saying of the FY2016 financial statements provided by Pacifica, “the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of The Pacifica Foundation as of […]” (p. 1b; p. 4 of the PDF – https://pacifica.org/finance/audit_2016.pdf). (This opinion included a scope limitation, making it a qualified opinion, but we’ll let that complication pass.)
This contrasts with FY2017, FY2018, & FY2019 when the new auditors, Rogers & Company, given what they found, had to say, ‘fair? not fair? materially accurate? materially inaccurate? . . . can’t say, can’t say one way or the other, so we’ll have “to issue a disclaimer of opinion” – but thanks for the $100k or so . . . better luck next time’.
Why is this difference so important? What grantors want, nay, what they demand, is audited financial statements – not auditor’s reports. They want financial statements vouched for by auditors, so deemed materially accurate by a competent, trusted third party – not bald statements offered by a wannabe grantee. An applicant needs credibility, nay, proven credibility. Grantors demand substance, verified substance.
Here, in managing risk, the CPB has even less latitude: they disburse taxpayers’ money. They’re accountable to Congress, to those nice Republicans in the House & Senate – https://cpboig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2021-05/IG%20Semiannual%20Report%20-%20March%2031%2C%202021_0.pdf. To cover their proverbials, the CPB will require audited financial statements from Pacifica, & not those from FY2016, half a decade ago – in all likelihood they’ll insist on a minimum of two sets, moreover, consecutive ones. And when might they come?
Well, the FY2020 audit is likely to be completed in August, perhaps July. 30June is unlikely, not least because the trial balance that generates the financial statements wasn’t produced until this week (CFO Anita Sims, Th3June2021 PNB – no audiofile posted as of today . . . UPDATE: CFO Sims: “on, urgh, June the first, George [Walter, NETA Senior Controller] was able to deliver to the auditors the trial balance – the re-sent – and also the, argh, [derived] financial statements” (24:30), “so we are on schedule. Urgh, we’re hoping that their process will take about two weeks [sic]” (25:04) . . . about two weeks??? . . . so finishing Tu15June??? – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb210603/pnb210603a.mp3).
Let’s be frank. Let’s call a spade a spade. The only way to conjoin ’30June’ & ‘auditor’s report’ is with a nod & a wink: rush the sampling; stamp the statements with a disclaimer of opinion; praps a 5% discount on the agreed price; &, keeping things in-house, come back in November for one more year, even if the auditors can hardly stomach it. Business. Scratching. Win-win. Capitalist ‘professionalism’, capitalist ethics, in action.
The FY2020 statements will almost certainly get a 4th disclaimer of opinion from the auditors because there hasn’t even been an inkling that the many outstanding pension audits (perhaps six) have been done since 29Apr2021, when the general auditors last gave their opinion: “[a]s of the date of the Independent Auditors’ Report, April 29, 2021, audits of the plans for years 2019 and 2018 had not been completed” (p. 1; p. 3 of the PDF). And this deficiency was the sole reason for giving the disclaimer: “[w]e were thus unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the correct pension accruals, penalties, and fines for the years ended September 30, 2019 and 2018” (‘Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion’, p. 1; p. 3 of the PDF). https://pacifica.org/finance/audit_2019.pdf
The point is, there’s so much uncertainty with the material accuracy of the pension accounts (so based on the personnel & payroll records, sigh), that the auditors found themselves unable to accept an estimate of the liability from NETA, which would have allowed the auditors to give a scope limitation to the offered financial statements, assigning them a qualified opinion: instead they felt they had to give a disclaimer of opinion. No-one on either the PNB Audit Cttee or the PNB has ever asked why, of either CFO Sims or the auditors. It’s as if they’re unaware of what’s happening, unaware of the decision-making involved. Incroyable. Unglaublich. Unbelievable.
The pee-pee, the pension problem, isn’t new. There were warning signs. The FY2016 auditors gave a scope limitation to those financial statements because, at 31May2018, when their report was issuable, “(a) audits of the [pension] plans for 2016 had not been completed, (b) an audit of one of the plans for 2015 had not been completed, and (c) an audit of one of the plans for 2015 was not required” (pp. 1a-1b; pp. 3-4 of the PDF – https://pacifica.org/finance/audit_2016.pdf). Oh. So by 31May2018, the last ones finished were FY2014. Oh. This was the scale of the deficiency made public three years ago. (Since then, thankfully, there has been progress: completed are those for FY2015, FY2016, & FY2017, as inferred from the cited 29Apr2021 statement by the general auditors.)
The directors since the end of FY2015, 30Sep2015, have been seriously remiss in their exercise of oversight re (a) the preparation for the annual pension audits, & (b) the conduct of those audits. They have never given an adequate explanation of (1) why the problem of pension administration arose during FY2015 (even the dates of completed pension auditor’s reports aren’t publicly available), & (2) whythe dual persisting problem of pension administration & pension audit wasn’t, & hasn’t been, remedied.
So, given that the FY2020 audit is likely to get yet another disclaimer, the earliest Pacifica can earn two sets of audited financial statements will be re FY2021 & FY2022, with the latter’s auditor’s report being issuable, at the very earliest, mid Jan2023. That would allow Pacifica to apply, c. May2023, for the fiscal 2024 CSG Program, with a first payment, the 70%, in Oct2023 (30% coming in Mar2024).
So, treading water for at least another two years, 2⅓ years. Inshallah.
But Pacifica may be able to persuade other grantors with just one set of audited financial statements. Inshallah.
. . . the inner circle of directors, capable of organising a new beginning? . . . or a wasted 1½yrs on top of 3yrs? . . .
. . . a coming gloaming? . . . the darkness sweeping in upon the face of the deep? . . .
Report out from the Pacifica National Board (PNB) Executive Session held on March 31, 2021: The PNB met in closed session to approve extension of the FJC loan for 18 months on the positive recommendation of the auditor.
. . . presumably badly written, in the haste: not “met […] to approve”, intent, the intent of some directors, but ‘met […] and approved’ . . .
[UPDATE . . . guess not in haste: this is what PNB Chair Alex Steinberg read out 8mins into the Th1Apr PNB meeting. Oh.]
. . . &, crucially, the statement doesn’t offer an explanation, with grounds, of why the directors think the business falls within the remit of the closed session provision of the Communications Act of 1934, § 396(k)(4), & its interpretation by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting . . . so hopefully an explanation to the members, & the world (not least the CPB), will be issued within the requisite 10 days . . .
[an update will be given]
~
On the loan, will the PNB be transparent, describing in full the terms of the extension, the commitments they have placed upon the members & the members’ organisation – even better, will the directors publish the agreement, the agreement they are so proud of?
~
. . . 18mths interest charge = $3.265m x 6¼% x 1½yrs = $306 093.75 . . .
. . . the last time Pacifica made an annual net income was FY2006 . . .
The meeting had been noticed W24Mar, at a surprisingly late hour, 10.20pm EDT. Obviously, as the webpage says, an “[e]mergency meeting”. Then cancelled. With 5hrs14mins to go. Oh.
Why?
No new PNB meeting has been noticed, private or public.
The next one is the regular one, on Thursday, by happenstance falling on Pacifica Day, at the usual 8.30pm EDT time. This had been noticed 4Jan2021, in a batch, for the first Thursday of Feb thru June2021.
No private PNB meeting is currently noticed. Oh . . .
~
. . . although, by the presence of absence in the Communications Act of 1934, there is no requirement to notice a private deliberative meeting, only to issue a public written statement of why it occurred:
[i]f any such meeting is closed pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph, the organization involved shall thereafter (within a reasonable period of time) make available to the public a written statement containing an explanation of the reasons for closing the meeting
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CPB, has offered an interpretation of the “within a reasonable period of time”: “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” (emphases added; CSG is Community Service Grant, the big bucks programme).
Pacifica consistently fails to do this – even though directors continually happy-talk the ease with which CPB money will come to Pacifica’s rescue, a rescue avoiding the need for the directors to recognise the organisation’s absolute decline, to carry out their responsibilities, to have vision, to make difficult decisions, and to devise & implement a plan resulting in fundamental change. (That’s why the breakers remain unchallenged in marking out a future for Pacifica. Anti politics only takes you so far; & it increasingly loses its efficacy each & every time it’s used to mobilise, such as trying to motivate peeps to vote defensively, negatively, in a referendum they didn’t initiate.)
Re providing written explanations, just to take this calendar year, with not even one quarter completed, Pacifica has had tens of private meetings covered – & not covered – by the Act & the CPB requirement. And how many written statements has Pacifica published? One. And that even came from a local station board, when KPFK’s slapped ‘Bellicose’ Bella on the whatever for a moment of hyperbole.
And in making this elementary assessment we won’t go into directors & delegates consistently hiding under their security blanket, their default secrecy mode by, (a), in an ad hoc way, applying a very broad interpretation of “proprietary information”, obstructing transparency &, as an effect, blocking the opportunity to hold individuals to account, &, (b), failing to obey federal law – notably, the perennial cry of ‘can’t discuss personnel matters’ whereas the Act (& the CPB) says closed meetings are “to consider matters relating to individual employees” (the sub-section of the Act already cited, emphases added). (Even so, the relevant Pacifica by-law contradicts the Act: it says “personnel” – https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art6sec7.html.)
Note that the cited fed requirement is for those getting fed money: “[f]unds may not be distributed pursuant to this subsection to […] the licensee or permittee of any public broadcast station, unless the governing body of any such organization, any committee of such governing body, or any advisory body of any such organization, holds open meetings preceded by reasonable notice to the public” (§ 396(k)(4), p. 216, emphases added); with funds being “the Public Broadcasting Fund” (§ 396(k)(1)(A), p. 212), administered by the CPB.
These days Pacifica receives none, so by the law it doesn’t have to hold public meetings – but they’re required by a by-law: “[a]ll meetings of the Board of Directors and its committees shall be open to the Members and to the public, with the exception of [blah, blah]” (the linked Article 6, Section 7).
And in any case, Pacifica wants that money, but the CPB has laid down its law: “[t]o be considered for re-entry to the CSG program, the Radio CSG program must be open to new applicants, Licensee and Stations must demonstrate full compliance with the General Provisions at the time of application, and Licensee and Stations must fulfill all requirements outlined in the March 28, 2013 letter” (Kathy Merritt (CPB Senior Vice President, Journalism & Radio) to ED Lydia Brazon & PNB Chair Alex Steinberg, 22May2020, p. 1, emphases added). So Otis ‘Groundskeeper Willie’ Maclay, who the ED says is the CPB compliance officer (has she told him?), better up his game.
When did Pacifica stop receiving CPB money? The last auditor’s report to disclose such income was Ross Wisdom’s final report, FY2011 (it gives $1 153 528 – Note 15, pp. 19-20; pp. 22-3 of the PDF). Perhaps without noticing, the PNB Audit Cttee & the PNB accepted the reports from auditors Armanino that only disclosed total grant income. One can infer that Pacifica last received CPB monies in FY2013 – the usual 70% of the annual grant (in Oct2012), with the remainder withheld because Pacifica became ineligible (it would have arrived Mar2013); inference made by inspection & using as a proxy the stations’ average annual unrestricted grant income FY2009-FY2012.
[UPDATE: the Pacifica-FJC negotiation has moved on, so at 4.56pm EDT, Tu30Mar a private PNB meeting was noticed for 9.30pm EDT, W31Mar: “Emergency Session: Action on loan required prior to maturity [you don’t say . . .] Purpose: Action required on loan” – https://kpftx.org/pacalendar/cal_show1.php?eventdate=20210331. Question is, will the directors deign to provide the great unwashed with even a summary of this crucial discussion, let alone identifying who asserted/argued what, invoking what evidence/ignorance, & importantly identifying how each director voted – giving the members a transparency of proceedings allowing them to hold accountable elected decision-makers for their views & actions/inactions? Each director should be proud of their thoughtful behaviour. Not happy to hide.]
~
Again, denying the FJC reality in clear sight – M29Mar PNB Audit Cttee
This meeting mentioned quite a few times that the FY2019 auditor’s report has to be ‘ready’ by F30Apr, has to “meet the deadline of April 30th” (23:41), set by “the vendor” (27:41), “a large vendor” (28:42), “our creditor” (26:53). Unnamed, of course. FJC, of course.
The ‘a’ & ‘b’ audiofiles, as per the URL’s:
. . . M29Mar2021 PNB Audit Cttee, part 1 of 2 (all timestamps, bar for “our creditor”) . . .
. . . M29Mar2021 PNB Audit Cttee, part 2 of 2 (the “our creditor” citation) . . .
How the powers that be are able to make themselves look ridiculous is beyond absurd. It reminds me of an episode, learnt in the family, a prisoner swap in 1976. The head Stalinist of the Chilean Communist Party, Luis Corvalán Lepe, & a prominent Soviet dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky. East German media only reported the release of Corvalán. So that’s what East German TV showed. Even though everyone knew that in Berlin everyone also watched West Berlin TV. The Pacifica info gatekeepers stand proudly, in illustrious company (a pun to come, to be completed, if you know the great work of Francesco Rosi).
Meanwhile, concerning reality, readers of this blog already know that the loan agreement with the Foundation for the Jewish Community requires this of Pacifica by 28Jan each year:
120 days after 30Sep is 28Jan. Each & every year. That’s RealWorld, the world of contracts, of promises, of carrying out one’s responsibilities. To put things in perspective, the reality of PacificaWorld, in the last 25 fiscal years of auditor’s reports, since FY1994, only twice has Pacifica managed this: FY2006, 19Jan2007; & FY2007, 14Jan2008.
By the FJC standard, that’s a 92% failure rate. But importantly, re Pacifica’s contractual promise to FJC, it’s a 100% fail. Even worse, Pacifica has yet to present, as per contract, “audited financial statements” to FJC. The FY2019 & FY2020 audits haven’t been done. And the FY2018 audit was something else: to say, less importantly, the auditor’s report was available for issue not on 28Jan2019 but 16July2020, so 17½mths late; &, more importantly, no audited statements were produced: Rogers & Co declared, “we do not express an opinion on these financial statements” (p. 2; p. 4 of the PDF). This was because “we have not been able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion” (same passage). So, a shedload of money for an auditor’s report without audited financial statements. So it goes.
FJC negotiation: fear of a third disclaimer of opinion? the ‘pensions hole’?
It’s obvious that FJC are forcing some conditions upon Pacifica. Not that Pacifica has much to give. And choosing to approach FJC at the last minute, late Feb, four weeks before a compulsory fire sale of Pacifica’s land & buildings, shows the incompetence of the inner circle of directors – & the passive, dreamlike existence, of the others. Given the group-think/lack-of-thought, it was noticeable that PNB Finance Cttee Chair James Sagurton (WBAI listener-delegate) managed to speak up last month, warning that it won’t be all plain sailing. But as this blog has consistently explained, the FJC Agency Loan Fund has been struggling to get borrowers since at least 2018, so the donor-advised accountholders are happy to ‘earn’ the extra interest from p+3, prime plus 3 percentage points, rather than from private stock & public bonds. At the current 6¼%, if there’s a one-year extension, Pacifica members have to cough up $204 062.50.
And remember what the FY2019 (& FY2020) audit turns on: will there be a third-in-a-row ‘disclaimer of opinion’? – &, crucially, with FJC insisting on the FY2019 auditor’s report by 30Apr, that probability increases because there’s less time for NETA to cobble together what’s needed to satisfy the auditor. Is everything going to end in tears, with Rogers & Co deciding it can’t declare the financial statements offered by NETA to be “fair”, that is, materially accurate?
That’s the Hamlet.
In other words, will Rogers & Co be “able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion”, not least in accepting NETA’s estimate of the pensions liability, an estimate having to be made given the lack of recent annual audits for the two pension funds? (The last public talk was one FY2016 audit, not both, being underway (sic).) There has never been a satisfactory public explanation to staff, ex-staff, members, & listeners, of why the ‘pensions hole’ has proven intractable. Why the payroll & pensions records have proven so difficult to reconstruct. When will even one member of the PNB Audit Cttee, & indeed the PNB, insist on transparency & accountability?
As emphasised in the draft history being made of Pacifica’s auditing, linked below, in the current ruling ideology of accounting & auditing a principal norm is that an audit cttee is fiercely independent – independent of management. And that means NETA. Not relying on it like a crutch. For example,
a healthy organisation has an audit cttee that works throughout the year, acting as the principal means for the directors to discharge their duty of monitoring the management of the accounting & finance function, to ensure that it’s performing adequately. A primary task for the audit cttee is ensuring that the auditor’s annual management letter, in part detailing the deficiencies of the A&F function (including its management), is immediately, & comprehensively, acted upon. In a healthy organisation it’s never left up to A&F senior management alone to decide the programme of remedial action, & to monitor implementation. And that requires an audit cttee with the necessary competence (knowledge, experience, & skills), time, & access. The audit cttee needs these qualities in order to be independent of management, & therefore have the capacity to assist the directors in discharging their duties, some being specified in law. New PNB Audit Cttee members need training before they stand for election to the Cttee; & the Cttee needs a public depository of resources, so all members, staff, & listeners can have the opportunity to learn about this crucial activity of the Foundation
This has been the spirit, expectation, & practice urged upon Pacifica by only one auditor since FY1994: Tony Pohl, co-owner of PMB Helin Donovan, who also happened to be a Pacifica donor. He tried, conscientiously, between Dec2008 & July2010. Before being escorted from the building by CFO LaVarn Williams & ED Arlene Engelhardt in Oct2010. Yes, another Pacifica coup. Yes, another disappearance. (Yes, Chile & Pacifica are twined.) Sense the attempt at culture change by listening to the audiofiles re the FY2008 & FY2009 audits, plus those re the series of four post-FY2009 audit meetings he spoke at (yes: those were the days!). His ousting robbed Pacifica of a golden opportunity. So it goes.
. . . not my aesthetic, but in PacificaWorld one takes what one can . . .
And 40:44 into the Audit meeting, Chair Eileen ‘it’s Ros-in’ Rosin exclaimed to the world that she had no idea that KPFK’s station manager, Anyel Fields, had resigned – resigned about 10 days before. Jesu. Bless us & save us. Can always rely on Eileen having her finger on the corpse.
PacificaWatch 