P.S. On the certificate, the word ‘abstain’ doesn’t have the ordinary meaning (77% of listener-members abstained in this referendum, & 48% of staff) but means invalid ballots (highly ambiguous paper-ballot, ballot full of vitriol, maybe the opportunity for a manifesto, plain blank, or any of the myriad of inventive ways a Pacif-I-can (nod to C Cuomo) can spoil a ballot).
~~~
[When this post was made, I added the below three points. Rather than add to this post, the remarks will appear as separate posts.
(1) A few remarks will soon appear below; note that paper-voting, mainly East Coast, was way down.
(2) The remarks will also cover the need for the PNB to address two strategic matters:
(a) the $3.265m principal of the FJC loan, payable 1Apr2021; &
(b) the coming collapse in revenue, as the economic depression underway slashes listeners’ discretionary spend; the only obvious, yet highly regrettable, mitigation is that bequests will increase thru to, at least, Dec2021.
(3) A separate post will be made when the NES publishes her report, with station data, later this week (inshallah).]
Referenda voting ended Thursday, 19Mar, on the proposed new Pacifica constitution. A ‘no’ vote was rejecting the anti-democratic, authoritarian move by the breakers, longstanding campaigners to break up the Pacifica network.
Three topics:
expected listener-member turnout
predicted listener-member voting
the staff-member referendum
Expected listener-member turnout
The above table is an expectation of listener-member voting in the referendum, generated by the application of two assumptions upon published & reliable leaked data.
Highlights:
if the culture of high paper-voting on the East Coast persists, the NES’ data imply an unusually high total turnout from those stations, delivering big ‘no’ votes, 43% at WPFW & 51% at WBAI;
this compares with KPFA achieving 37%;
expected total turnout, 31%;
actual turnout by online-voters alone is twice that of each of last year’s two rounds of total LSB voting (so including their paper-voting); &
total turnout is expected to be x3 that of those 2019 LSB rounds.
the proportion of each station’s paper-voting (‘e:p’ in the table, the ratio) is the same as given in the last publicly available LSB data, per the nominal 2018 final report (the Jan-Mar2019 voting for all stations bar WPFW; that station in the 2016 LSB election; please see pp. 17 & 19); in all likelihood it’s less, with increased internet usage, but applying a factor of 10% or 20% (a deflator) would be unnecessarily speculative; &
final online-voting (‘e-voting’ in the table) is split between the stations in the same ratio as at F6Mar; so this assumes the KPFA online surge at 6Mar not only didn’t exhaust itself but was maintained, so keeping its 40% share of online-voting.
Predicted listener-member voting
Station . . . . No . . . . .Yes . . Yes %
KPFA . . . . . 2000 . . .2571 . . . 56
KPFK . . . . . 1400 . . . .748 . . . 35
KPFT . . . . . . .582 . . . .400 . . .41
WPFW . . . .2400 . . . . 162 . . . .6
WBAI . . . . .2800 . . . . 111 . . . .4
Total . . . . . 9182 . . . 3992
Two assumptions are made above, & in the 11Mar post a guess was made of the breakers’ core support, 1 200 – 1 500 KPFA & KPFT listener-members. Given this, the above rough prediction is made: a ‘no’ vote of 70% wins, rejecting the breakers.
Remember, the breakers need to win both referenda to effect their proposed change.
The electorate was 955. Paper-voting is likely to be immaterial; for example, it was only 4 out of 466 in the Jan-Mar2019 LSB voting. In the referendum, the NES says 51.4% voted, so 491. (Turnouts in last year’s LSB voting: 47.6% in Jan-Mar, 36.7% in Aug-Oct.) If all 491 are valid ballots, that means 246 wins – this is 32 more than the KPFA electorate. The station turnouts at F6Mar: KPFA 36%, KPFK 17%, KPFT 27%, WPFW 35%, WBAI 44%. Being so high, it makes no sense trying to estimate expected station final turnouts.
Could the breakers have garnered 246 staff? Unlikely.
~~~
POSTSCRIPT on the virus (SARS-CoV-2) causing the disease (COVID-19)
Article by Mike Davis, from last Saturday, 14Mar; hopefully he’s interviewed by KPFK, if not KPFA.
Public health officials, worldwide, knew a global health emergency was coming. The World Health Organization (WHO) even explicitly warned of highly infectious disease yet to come into existence, which it designated as Disease X: “[t]he needs for research preparedness for a new disease were also deemed to fit into the ‘urgent’ category” (report on 8-9Dec2015 workshop, page 2). WHO also made a very short vid on this, Mar2018. And it was even discussed 10 months before the COVID-19 outbreak, at the winter playground of the Masters of the Universe, Davos – discussed when the media were focusing on Greta.
Healthcare professionals also did their part preparing the public. In 2018, for example,Peter Piot, head of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, gave a Royal Institution lecture, ‘Are we ready for the next pandemic?‘.
The public was also made aware through simulations such as this, also from 2018, one that took place in Australia, ‘This is not a drill: a hypothetical pandemic‘.
Finally, handwashing vids from WHO & the US’ CDC; the WHO one is done by Dr Tedros, the world’s fave Ethiopian, who when he’s not modelling, pursues his day job, Director-General of the WHO:
. . . not Michael Wolgemut, Tanz der Gerippe [Skeletons], woodcut, c. 1493 . . .
Latest election news: unless Pacificans act swiftly, Pacifica may die.
Why? KPFA listener-members are massively out in force, seemingly close to half of all those who have voted. Th5Mar marked halfway thru the referenda voting, &, compared with that stage in the LSB voting this time last year, KPFA is overachieving by a full 70%. This contrasts with WBAI underachieving by 29%. (All workings given below.)
Also, after less than a mere 17 days of voting, KPFA-listener online voters alone, so not including paper voters, had already surpassed by 4% the total KPFA-listener vote in the 62 days of the last LSB voting, Aug-Oct2019; KPFT’s figure is even better, +16%. And WBAI? Way down, by over an eighth, a full −13%; with WPFW −1%, & KPFK −27%.
The activists of the breaker faction are spreading their tentacles amongst the winners here, the Bay Area & Houston. Their operation is in overdrive.
Without a dramatic increase in voting by 10.59pm CDT a week Thursday, 19Mar, in just eight days’ time, the well-oiled, well-funded, well-motivated breakers will seize Pacifica. Well, maybe.
~~~
Black milk.
~~~
That KPFA listeners are voting in highly disproportionate numbers was given in info provided by the National Elections Supervisor (NES) to the PNB, Th5Mar. And as the peculiar home of a station chauvinism, a politics of separatism rather than Pacifica solidarity, they’re not doing this to help Pacifica. It’s reasonable – and prudent – to infer that this dangerous anomaly is the result of the breakers successfully mining the huge numbers of KPFA listener-members who usually don’t vote. Just in the last year, they constituted 86.7% in the nominal 2018 LSB pseudo-election, voting 18Jan-5Mar2019, & 85.6% in the 2019 one, voting 15Aug-15Oct2019. That’s 13 513 & 12 275, respectively, so >12 000 KPFA listeners. And as one can reasonably expect ~8 000 to vote in the listener referendum, it taking 4 000 to win, this is an obvious road to victory. (There are separate referenda for listeners & staff – please see note #1.)
Spin a yarn about Make KPFA Great Again, KPFA for KPFA’ians, stop the subsidising of other stations, get rid of the Pacifica dysfunctionality, the perpetual factionalising, the bad publicity, all this by bringing in professionalism, objectivity, getting the grants back, investing in the future . . . just like the good olde days, when KPFA was great. Motherhood & apple pie. Wave that magic wand, & the bad stuff will all go away. Unicorns. Rainbows. Pink ponies. If free snake oil is offered to the tired & weary, will they gulp it down? Giving credit where credit’s due, even deceiving is a skilled accomplishment.
~~~
Black milk.
~~~
So what’s the evidence of this rallying in the Bay Area? NES Renee Penaloza, resident of the Bay Area & many times the Local Elections Supervisor for KPFA since 2009 (note #2), gave an appallingly bad ‘report’ Thursday night, even by her standard, & I’m not even referring to her keeping the directors waiting nine minutes once she was on the call (31:59), the lame excuse she gave (40:52), also later not being able to find relevant tabs to open, the chaotic concatenation & continual cascade of Biden moments, &, last but not least, her laughter throughout, as if performing une danse macabre, ein Totentanz – obviously all of which passes for professionalism, & courtesy, in her neck of the woods. And all achieved in less than 4½ minutes (42:52 – 47:13). https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb200305/pnb200305a.mp3
Nevertheless, she did say turnout (when?) is 11.7% for listeners & 30.1% for staff (46:46). (Monday, with a 2pm (EDT?) 9Mar timestamp, she updated this on her website to 12.7% listeners, 32.3% staff.) And, responding to a query from James Sagurton (WBAI listener-delegate), she eventually said the station-split for listeners who had voted online was KPFA 40%, KPFK 20%, KPFT 10%, WPFW 13%, & WBAI 17% (49:29 – 54:52). She gave no staff info, other than the turnout percentage. She gave no info on the online/paper voting split, on which more anon. She didn’t give the size of the electorates, those for the listeners & the staff. She didn’t coherently give station split for listeners, just a garbled spiel as if encountering her words for the first time, so bad she made Biden look good (note #3). And she didn’t give the record date for the referenda (used in establishing who’s a voter). In others words, she said very, very little. Which is how the NES, ever shy of the PNB, likes to operate – and it’s indicative of how lax the directors are that she’s allowed to persist. But as Cde Mujica no doubt thought, alone at the bottom of the well that was his prison, we are where we are.
https://mega.nz/#F!dN1VXLiQ!ywTPcyUP8SWg4BviRNx1xw (folder of NES’ updates of turnouts, starting M2Mar; regrettably, the NES has decided that members & listeners only need to see the latest such update)
~~~
So what can we do with the NES’ figures? A fair bit, surprisingly. We can derive other approximate numbers, compare the listener referendum with the last two sets of LSB pseudo-elections, & estimate what the breakers have to do to win. This will allow us to put in perspective what’s at stake in the next eight days, with voting closing, as stated, at 8.59pmPDT, Th19Mar.
But first, two important caveats:
the subject matter of voting is radically different, one, run-of-the-mill LSB elections, the other, existential for the network; &
radically different time scales; not just the voting period (31 days compared with 47 & 62 for the last two rounds of LSB pseudo-elections, so half of the last one), but the preparation for the event being so asymmetric, it coming out of the blue, sprung on the whole membership, it being the initiative of the breakers, of their planning (that is, scheming, conspiring, plotting), implemented as a sequence of creating – and sustaining – an atmosphere of impending doom, moving against WBAI within committees, then switching tack by launching the by-laws petition, before within weeks engineering the WBAI coup, back to the West Coast to litigate in California against Pacifica, & now systematically bombarding voters with their fairytales. Wolfowitz & Rumsfeld would be proud of this attempt at full-spectrum domination.
Concerning the listener quantitative data, two obvious comparisons can be made:
➀ how extraordinary is KPFA-listener referendum voting, relative to other stations, compared with typical LSB election voting, again expressed relatively? (This, being not just relative voting but relative voting over time (the relative voting at t2 compared with that at t1), is what’s important in trying to understand the significance of the voting happening now. This is the comparative we need for relative current voting, not the one offered up by the NES at the PNB, namely, station share of listener current membership. No. What’s at stake today is voting, not membership; action, not passivity. The comparison pushed by the NES is besides the point, a secondary phenomenon, a dangerous irrelevance: >85% of listener-members don’t vote!); &
➁ how unusually high is the number of listener referendum votes cast compared with the typical LSB election?
~~~
➀ We have to use the pretty graph found in the NES’ final report for the nominal 2018 LSB pseudo-elections (note #4). That’s because, even after four months, she’s failed to produce the 2019 one. (This fact obviously surprises Ms Penaloza herself, given what she said on her own website, 1Nov2019, ‘certifying’ the 2019 results: “[p]lease note the round by round results, raw votes and final [?] voter turnout #s will be posted together with the final report by November 15th, 2019” (added emphases). Rather than squirrelling it away as a footnote, it’s important to say that scare-quotes are needed in denoting her 1Nov2019 statement because she admits she’s unable to distinguish valid ballots from invalid ones: hence both her inability to give “final voter turnout #s”, & her need to entitle that column “Oct 16 Preliminary Numbers (Not Final)” (added emphases). By her choice of phrases she acknowledges that her statement isn’t a certification but a pseudo-certification. Oh. So have all the new LSB delegates legitimately taken their seats? Are some of them there illegitimately?https://elections.pacifica.org/wordpress/2019-election-results/)
Note that because the graph doesn’t give a split between paper & online voting, & that on Thursday the NES gave no info on the paper ballots cast (except to say she doesn’t even know how many there are), one has to use referendum online voting as a proxy for total votes. This is particularly unfortunate because listener-member paper voting is much higher in PacificaWorld than in RealWorld, of the order of 20%, with WBAI over twice that – note #5.
The graph shows cumulative voting, as a percentage of that pseudo-election’s electorate, for each of the nine pseudo-elections (there wasn’t a WPFW-Listener one because there were only five verified candidates for the nine seats); voting started 18Jan2019 but the NES only depicted that from 30Jan; the staff elections are on top, the dotted lines:
So, which LSB voting date from a year ago should be used in comparing the referendum info given on Thursday? Assuming this info referred to the day of the PNB meeting, it was less than 24 hours after the halfway point of the voting period (W4Mar is day 16 of the 31, 18Feb-19Mar). So choose this. And the day halfway thru the voting a year ago is 10Feb2019 (day 24 of the 47, 18Jan-5Mar).
And at 10Feb2019, what was the station split for listeners? Inspecting the graph, station cumulative listener voting was KPFT 6.0%, WBAI 6.0%, KPFA 5.8%, KPFK 3.7%; that totals as 21.5 percentage points (pcp); & expressed as percentages, KPFT 27.9% (6 / 21.5), WBAI 27.9%, KPFA 27.0%, KPFK 17.2%.
Thursday’s figures (but ignoring WPFW because there’s no comparative) are, in pcp, KPFA 40, KPFK 20, KPFT 10, WBAI 17; that totals as 87; & as percentages, KPFA 46% (40 / 87), KPFK 23%, KPFT 11%, WBAI 20%.
Was this striking distribution expected? If referendum voting had behaved as the LSB voting 12 months before, one would have expected the numbers given two paragraphs above, namely, KPFA 27%, KPFK 17%, KPFT 28%, WBAI 28%. But that’s not what happened: KPFA overachieved by 70% (46 / 27 = 1.704), KPFK overachieved by 35% (23 / 17 = 1.353), KPFT underachieved by 61% (11 / 28 = 0.393), & WBAI underachieved by 29% (20 / 28 = 0.714). (And I don’t even like baseball.)
This distribution alone required this blogpost.
~~~
➁ The first comparative exercise concerned station share. Now we compare the absolute numbers achieved by the stations: how unusually high is the referendum turnout compared with the typical LSB one?
As noted, the latest publicly available listener-member data are at an unspecified date, given in the 1Nov2019 LSB results pseudo-certification, a total of 45 690. Assuming it’s now 45 700, with the NES telling Thursday’s PNB that online listener-member turnout was 11.7%, & the voting station split being KPFA 40%, KPFK 20%, KPFT 10%, WPFW 13%, WBAI 17%, the listener ballots cast come in as a total of ~5 347, the split being KPFA 2 139, KPFK 1 069, KPFT 535, WPFW 695, WBAI 909.
The 1Nov2019 corresponding figures: a total of 5 729, with KPFA 2 059, KPFK 1 457, KPFT 461, WPFW 703, WBAI 1 049.
So, comparing now with then: KPFA +3.9%, KPFK −26.6%, KPFT +16.1%, WPFW −1.1%, WBAI −13.3%, & the total is −6.7%. Bit different from the non-threatening comparison made by Renee, yes?
A surprise here is KPFT. How is it that it has underperformed 61% relative to other stations re the comparison with the Jan-Mar2019 LSB voting, yet is one of only two stations increasing its number of voters, by a very healthy 16%, compared with its own Aug-Oct2019 LSB voting? A different comparative, yes, but KPFT is overperforming in getting out the referendum vote (the KPFT breakers mining their own 87% of habitual abstainers, all 3 105 of them) whilst at the same time it’s dragged down in its comparison with the other stations because the extraordinary surge at KPFA, & the lesser one at KPFK, are snatching pcp from the other stations. That’s why.
~~~
Lastly, what do the breakers have to do to win? Where would their votes come from?
As mentioned, Monday the NES updated last Thursday’s listener turnout, up 1.0 pcp to 12.7% (another ~457 votes, >100 a day, so making ~5 804). And inspecting the graph, even when recognising the lower participation rate depicted, there may be in the last 10 days of voting a maximum of 4.5 – 5.5 pcp of listener voters still to come (2 200, say). That would make the turnout 17.2% – 18.2%. Applied to an electorate of 45 700, that’s 7 860 – 8 317 voters; making the winning vote 3 931 – 4 159, so ~4 000.
Can the breakers achieve this? Just considering their base, the last two rounds of LSB voting were KPFA ~2 000 & KPFT ~500. If the breakers can count on 1 200 – 1 500 faithful, is it beyond the bounds of plausibility that the breakers can mine 2 500 – 2 800 abstainers, which is 16% – 18% (1-in-6, say) of the ~15 500 abstainers at those two stations? 1-in-6 is a tall order, don’t you think, more than a bridge too far? But the 10-year-old Barron thought the same.
Crucially, to seize Pacifica, the breakers also have to win the staff referendum. And how many may that be?
The latest publicly available figure (per the 1Nov2019 pseudo-certification) gave 970 staff: KPFA 237, KPFK 285, KPFT 139, WPFW 110, WBAI 199. Staff turnout in the Jan-Mar2019 LSB votings was 47.6% (466 / 978 – note #6), the station range 43% (WPFW) – 53% (KPFA); & in Aug-Oct2019 voting, a turnout of 36.7% (356 / 970), station range of 30% (KPFT) – 44% (KPFA). The latest referendum turnout info is 32.3% (NES, Monday); so, looking at the pretty graph again, if it reached 50%, & there are 970 staff, then 243 staff votes win – a mere six votes more than those available at KPFA during the last LSB voting.
Given this, with Pacifica jobs always on the line, wasn’t it super-convenient that last nite’s PNB Finance Cttee was full of doom? It was the correlate of the Dem party bosses orchestrating the spectre of ‘Firebrand’ Bernie frightening Amerika, crouching down, about to spark the prairie fire. Besides Chief Financial Officer Anita Sims being there, Chair Chris Cory (KPFA, of course, a listener-delegate) usurped the work of the PNB Audit Cttee by wheeling in the auditor, Jorge Diaz.
Jorge Diaz. It had been thought the auditors had fled PacificaWorld, it now being seven long months, at the M19Aug2019 Audit Cttee, since they were last mentioned in public. This was indeed the last time the Cttee met, inexplicably so because Jorge had told them that the FY2018 audit’s, effectively, almost wrapped up: “he [George Walter, NETA senior controller] informed me he should be getting the vast majority of what is still outstanding to us by the end of this week [… and] by at least the end of this month we’ll certainly probably be in a really good position in terms of – and really know where we stand in terms of how getting the deliverables to y’all & getting done” (7:32; full transcription at note #7). So it seems, surprise, surprise, ED Venal Vernile, then ED Lawrence Reyes, then ED Lydia Brazon, didn’t prioritise paying them, even if it took a special pan-Pacifica 24hr fundraiser. Last nite, Jorge says now they’re only owed ~$6 550, so that’s not a prob – which is why he was happy to attend an evening meeting after a hard day in the office (8:25).
Finally, it’s worth remembering that the difficult task of the breakers winning the staff referendum would have been made easier if the WBAI coup had succeeded: it would have not just wiped out one of the five staff constituencies but the one most opposed to breaking up the Pacifica network.
And, yes, voting closes 11.59pm EDT a week Thursday, 19Mar.
This is just the beginning of the current phase. If the breakers don’t win this time, they’ll be back. And they’ll continue pursuing their war of attrition on all sorts of other fronts, as they have already shown. Like a hydra, slice off a head, another grows. They’re not going away any time soon. Welcome to the new normal.
Notes – some longish, but worth a read unless you really have to watch another Weekend at Biden’s vid
#1 Why are there separate member referenda for listeners & staff, rather than a single one? This hasn’t been explained publicly by Pacifica, & no elected representative has raised the absence of this basic courtesy. Nevertheless, the reason why there are two was explained by this blog six months ago, 17Sep2019. A by-law steps in because the proposed new constitution adversely affects, in different respects, both classes of Pacifica members: “such adoption, amendment or repeal also requires approval by the members of a class if such action would materially and adversely affect the rights of that class as to voting or transfer in a manner different than such action affects another class” (Article 17, Section 1(B)(iii), added emphases). The different respects: “[o]ne contest is for listener-members, as what’s proposed adversely affects them more than staff-members, facing the loss of the right to elect three directors per station rather than the staff’s one. The other separate contest is for staff, as they’re adversely affected by the loss of the right itself to become a director (proposed by-laws, Article V, Section 1; page 5).”
#2 Remember, NES Penaloza aligns with the breakers: witness her recommendations in the last final report she issued (undated, but published 18Mar2019 on the NES website), the one for the LSB pseudo-elections this time last year. She advocates (a) dissolution of the Local Station Boards, (b) less frequent elections, (c) a correlate, extending the director term by either x3 or x4, & (d) abolition of paper balloting. Sample quote: “Transform the Governance structure – Have 5 simultaneous elections every 3 or 4 years, electing representatives directly to the Pacifica National Board – Replace Local Station Boards with active Community Advisory Boards” (p. 20, emphases removed from title; p. 21 of the PDF).
#3 NES Penaloza’s unfortunate incoherence, splitting her mind whilst trying to produce speech on some split or another, suggested a disturbing Pacifica fact. She had given one split, without saying what it was, one adding up to 98 percentage points (pcp), with KPFK higher than KPFA (32 cf. 29), before promptly scrubbing it. Then she tried another, this time with KPFK at 30 & KPFA at 29, a split adding up to 97. If there’s some truth here, perhaps about relative station listener membership, it’s that compared with the last publicly available membership data (her 1Nov2019 LSB results pseudo-certification), WBAI’s share has dropped 4 pcp, being picked up by KPFA +1, KPFK +1, & KPFT +2, this whilst Pacifica is suffering a continuing downward trend in total listener membership. The other slither of truth may be that KPFA is actually 32%, plausible because it was 31.4% in the 1Nov2019 data – the NES simply repeating KPFA’s 29 from the scrubbed split. Anyway, applying the prudence principle beloved by the accountancy profession, one should recognise that Renee is disorientated, perhaps having caught bidenavirus, BIDVID-20, from ideologically enthusiastic Pacificans.)
Renee’s problems persist, because at the Th5Mar PNB she promised the directors, the members, & the listeners, that she’d post on her website the referendum voting report. Of course, now six days later, it isn’t there. Just like the promised final report for the 2019 LSB pseudo-elections & the certification of the final voting numbers. Waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting . . . https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2019/07/19/the-godot-page-waiting-for-good-news/
#4 The two sets of LSB electoral activity in 2019 have to be designated as pseudo-elections, given the complete absence of publicly available evidence that the elector rolls are materially accurate. In Oct2018 the then NES, the outsider Graeme Drew, judged Pacifica’s record-keeping to be so poor he couldn’t validate even one candidate. He found the membership rolls used to generate the elector rolls to be so corrupted they were unusable. He decided “to terminate the 2018 election process” & told the PNB he would make a public announcement the next day. So, of course, he got fired that evening, at an emergency PNB meeting. Since then, only Pacifica insiders have been the NES, & they have failed to publish any contrary evidence, only bare assertions. This creates a reasonable & strong doubt about the legitimacy of the process.So the only rational conclusion, based on the balance of probabilities, is that the two 2019 electoral processes were pseudo-elections.
#5The latest publicly available data on the popularity for paper voting come from the LSB pseudo-elections this time last year (NES final report, p. 17; p. 18 of the PDF). For staff, it was smaller than negligible, 4 ballots across the five stations (466 voted). For listeners, 20% exactly (1 044 / 5 219; remember, no WPFW election). The stations: KPFA 17% (358 / 2 072), KPFK 13% (201 / 1 585), KPFT 11% (70 / 661), & WBAI 46% (415 / 901). Yes, 46% of WBAI listener voters used paper ballots, almost x3 the rate at KPFA.
And for WBAI listener-members it has even risen. Compared with the 2016 LSB election, almost 2½ years before, paper voting went up from ~381 (derived figure) to 415, increasing the paper voting share by a (rounded) 1 pcp – same report, pp. 17 & 19. So if this much truncated referendum process makes it harder to vote with paper rather than online, it’s perhaps unintended but still voter suppression . . . Exacerbating this is that tomorrow, Th12Mar, is the last day to request a paper ballot from the NES – and the convenient cut-off time is mid-afternoon on the East Coast, 3pm. Nice. After that, online voting only. So, for the last week of voting, Pacifica’s rush, quite a few listener-members will be faced with having to break the habit of a lifetime & vote online – or not vote at all.
Please note that the NES’ final report gives station online & paper voting as a percentage of the particular electorate, be it listener-members or staff, so not as a percentage of those who voted – sound familiar? This missed the opportunity of giving publicity to the fact that within PacificaWorld, effectively half of station voting can be by paper – see pp. 17 & 19.
Lastly, the NES did her best last Thursday to explain to the directors, & the listeners of the proceedings, why she has no info on the paper ballots cast (51:50). Why the custodians of these ballots can’t give the running total (each day) to the NES is unfathomable – and, yes, no director thought to ask her. https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb200305/pnb200305a.mp3
#7 Jorge Diaz (auditor, Rogers & Co, M19Aug2019): “We’re making good headway with the [FY2018] audit. Um, there are still a few things that we’re waiting on […] I spoke with [George Walter, NETA senior controller] today – we have a status call every Monday – and, urgh, he informed me he should be getting the vast majority of what is still outstanding to us by the end of this week [F23Aug2019]. At that time it will probably take us, you know, um, three to five business days [so by F30Aug] to urgh, urgh, analyse & look at what’s going on, &, um, provide any follow-up questions or items of that nature, so, you know […] I think, um, you know, argh, by at least the end of this month we’ll certainly, probably, be in a really good position in terms of – and really know where we stand in terms of how getting the deliverables to y’all & getting done” (7:59 – 8:58, https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/audit/190819/audit190819a.mp3). So, Jorge presenting the draft auditor’s report to the PNB Audit Cttee & the PNB, within a month, yes, mid Sep? That’s Sep2019, not Sep2020.
RealWorld has Super Tuesday. PacificaWorld has Super Wednesday. (BidenWorld, apparently, has Super Thursday.) That’s halfway thru the voting period on the proposed new Pacifica constitution devised by the breakers.
And quora seem to have already been met. The National Elections Supervisor, the PNB-shy Renee Penaloza, posted an undated webpage on the official election site giving data for yesterday, M2Mar at 2.23pm (presumably ET):
Tomorrow, Sunday, the Pacifica National Board meets at 6.30pm EDT with a single purpose, “Set Bylaws Amendments Notice Date”. (It hasn’t been given the necessary seven days’ notice – Article 6, Section 4; page 20 – but what’s new?) However, in the absence of a statement from the head of Pacifica’s administration, Interim Executive Director John Vernile, this PNB meeting puts the cart before the horse. The purpose of the meeting begs a number of questions, which only he is in a position to answer; &, as the principal administrator, to do so is his responsibility on behalf of Pacifica, not least the members. Moreover, to help give legitimacy to the process that’s started, they’re questions IED Vernile needs to answer unequivocally, & citing all the necessary evidence.
The questions concern two matters arising at the very start of this by-laws process: the Foundation Secretary, & petition validation. Does Pacifica have a properly installed Secretary to receive this petition? And has the petition been validated, not least establishing that c. 465 signatories are members in good standing?
This open letter is an attempt to cajole the IED, hitherto reticent, a man of few public words, into doing everyone a favour by making this process as transparent as possible. He may also be able to reassure everyone that the Foundation, in being rushed, isn’t being exposed to litigation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject: Evidence that the Foundation has a properly installed Secretary; evidence of verification of the by-laws petition, not least the signatories
Dear Mr Vernile,
The cart is being put ahead of the horse. What are you going to do about it? The available evidence about the by-laws petition is unambiguous. Yes, you’re the servant of the Pacifica National Board, serving at its pleasure. But you also have the responsibility to protect the Foundation from litigation. Moreover, you have a responsibility not to carry out an ‘illegal’ order, one egregiously violating the by-laws of the organisation. As Pacifica’s principal administrator, the Interim Executive Director, you bear this double responsibility. So what are you going to do?
1) A highly disturbing petition has been published. To the unwary reader it’s promoted as an attempt to improve Pacifica’s governance. But this is disingenuous, given its authors & its content. Instead, the by-laws proposal is their chosen means to set in train decisions that irreversibly break up Pacifica, transform particular stations (WBAI is a prime target), & gut decision-making hitherto exercised by members, staff, & affiliates.
The nine authors of the petition, by their own statements & public associations, are the latest expression of those who work to break up Pacifica, destroying the network. Indeed, two of them have published plans detailing their intent: Peter Franck in September 2018, & Carol Spooner in 2012.
The movers of this petition, just like their words, cannot be trusted.
The proposal’s own title is misleading in saying it’s ‘amending & restating’ by-laws. No, it’s a complete set of new by-laws. What’s proposed isn’t narrow & shallow, but broad & deep: the scope of change is comprehensive. As such, it’s a new constitution, refounding the Foundation, making it a completely different organisation.
The proposal also requires ushering in an abhorrent, anti-Pacifican form of governance: a ‘100-day’ dictatorship, of between 92 & 114 calendar days, exercised solely by six outsiders to Pacifica, all handpicked by the breaker faction: “the At-Large Directors shall constitute the full Board of Directors and shall be authorized to take any and all actions they deem necessary” (proposed Article XV, Section 1; page 16, my emphases).
The movers of this petition can only have nasty surprises, anti-Pacifican surprises, up their sleeve.
This Board – the only one left after abolishing the five local boards – would be detached from the membership, from the staff, from the listeners. It would be able to invoke the much-misused blanket confidentiality provision. As such, it would be immune to scrutiny; be able to avoid meeting even once in public; be accountable to no-one. Ensconced from view, their deliberations would lack Pacifican participation, transparency, accountability.
The rallying cry of the breaker faction is clear: AntiDemocracyNow!
Breaking up Pacifica is dissolving Pacifica: it’s the Acid Bath Strategy.
2) There is a clear division of responsibilities, & so activities, between the Pacifica administration & the PNB. You are the principal administrator of Pacifica Foundation Inc. As such you have responsibilities concerning two matters arising immediately from this petition:
you must know that the Secretary of the Foundation, properly installed, is the only officeholder who can receive a petition; &
you’re responsible for verifying that a petition is bona fide, valid: this is not the responsibility of the PNB, nor of the Secretary of the PNB.
a) Concerning the first matter, the relevant by-law is clear: for the petition to be “considered ‘proposed’ [it] must be delivered to the Foundation’s Secretary” (Art. 17, Sec. 1(A); p. 42).
So, some elementary questions, given the complete absence of publicly available evidence:
who is the Secretary of Pacifica Foundation Inc.?
when did the PNB last elect the incumbent for their one year in office?
when did they assume office?
where is the relevant minute from a PNB meeting?
surprisingly, none of this info is on Pacifica’s website, so where is the official Foundation notice of all this?
Please send me a copy of all this evidence if, indeed, the Foundation has a current Secretary. In so doing you will be demonstrating that there can be no doubt that a properly constituted Foundation Secretary is in post (Art. 9, Sec. 2; p. 29).
Also, please note the following elementary point: the PNB annually electing its own Secretary is quite different from it annually electing the Foundation Secretary. Words matter, as we know all too well from court proceedings. The PNB Secretary may act as if they’re the Foundation Secretary (such as signing bank forms), but that doesn’t make them the Foundation Secretary (impersonator, comes to mind): only a specific annual election by the PNB can make someone the Foundation Secretary.
I think you’ll agree, this is so obvious it hardly needs stating.
b) After the petition is properly delivered to the Foundation, your second responsibility is supervising Pacifica’s administration as it tries to establish whether the petition is bona fide, genuine. It needs validating in all respects. Not least is gathering the evidence that c. 465 signatories are Pacifica members in good standing, evidence that can be inspected by any Pacifica director, evidence that safeguards the Foundation in any litigation. (465 is 1% of the 46 505 membership, per National Elections Supervisor Penaloza’s latest report that gives absolute numbers, 5Sep2019.) In this, as a first step, you obviously need to be satisfied that the 10 station membership rolls are materially accurate – and you’ll be aware that they weren’t at 29Oct2018, as declared by the then NES, Graeme Drew, orally on 29Oct to ED Maxie Jackson & in writing on 30Oct to the PNB.
c) Please note that proper receipt of the by-laws petition by the Foundation Secretary sets the record date for validating signatories. (This record date isn’t to be confused with the notice date of a proposed by-law amendment, which is established by decision of the PNB.)
Lastly, if this petition process progresses, I trust you will be receiving daily evidence from each station that they’ve made their three announcements, creating a time-stamped & station-stamped audiofile of the 675 announcements (3 x 5 x 45), the number required by by-law Art. 17, Sec. 1(B)(1); pp. 42-3.
3) As head administrator, as a minimum, you need to be in a position to tell any inquirer, not least a director:
the name of the Foundation Secretary, & when they were elected by the PNB into office for one year;
when the by-laws petition was received by the Foundation Secretary (setting the record date for the validation process);
the content of your plan for validating the petition;
who validated the petition;
when this started;
when it finished;
how many signatories were rejected, & why; &
which validating materials were used (e.g. station membership rolls), etc.
4) If the PNB do indeed set a notice date for the proposed by-law amendments, & instruct you to act upon it, then, given your responsibilities, you will have first validated the petition before money is spent & before on-air announcements are made. You need to have an evidenced belief that the by-laws proposal is proper, that it’s valid. And that requires, in part, Pacifica’s administration validating a minimum c. 465 signatories as Pacifica members in good standing.
As stated, you need no reminding that part of your job is protecting the Foundation from legal action. Before the PNB meets to determine a notice date for proposed by-laws amendments, you need:
to ensure that any petition has been received by a properly installed Foundation Secretary, thereby turning the petition into a potential by-laws amendment proposal; &
if that’s been established, to ensure that such a petition is bona fide, that it’s valid, thereby turning it into an actual by-laws amendment proposal.
Would you please convey your informed judgment on these two matters concerning the mentioned by-laws petition.
5) Given all that has been said, directors should decide on Sunday that the motion to set a notice date for proposed by-law amendments is void, as it puts the cart before the horse.
Directors should then vote (a) to ask the IED to confirm who’s the Foundation Secretary, voted into office by the PNB within the last 12 months; (b) to remind the IED that it’s his responsibility to produce all necessary evidence allowing him to decide the genuineness of the petition; & (c) to require the IED to give a full report, covering all the questions asked above.
6) As all the details asked of you are elementary, & simple, would you please send them before the PNB meets at 6.30pm EDT this Sunday, 29 September. This is a courtesy deserved by all in ‘the Pacifica family’, the members, the staff, the listeners.
Please note that all eight links bar one are embedded in the text. I’m not wholly convinced that the pale blue stands out enough, so don’t be surprised if I revert to how things were.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Things are moving fast in PacificaWorld.
Robin Collier isn’t from Laos, but Taos. New Mexico. He’s President of Cultural Energy which owns KCEI, a Pacifica affiliate. The PNB elected him one of the two Pacifica directors coming from the affiliates, & they took their seats 31Jan (19:28).
These days, Robin’s been going a lil freelance. Tuesday just gone, 24Sep, he submitted to the New Mexico Secretary of State the articles of incorporation of Association of Affiliates. The next day he got the rubber-stamp. Here’s what Maggie sent him, the certificate of incorporation (download, or read online via the Clouseau symbol).
Please note that “Pacifica National Foundation” (Article II; page 3 of the PDF) is not Pacifica Foundation, Inc., which holds the FCC licences for KPFA, KPFK, KPFT, WPFW, & WBAI. So, PNF? Cursory internet inspection drew a blank.
Hopefully Robin’ll soon explain what he has in mind.
Wonder if Ursula Ruedenberg, longstanding director of the Pacifica affiliate programme, is in the loop on this?
IED Vernile, too – or is this an IED for him & for those trying to stop Pacifica being broken up?
And things get even more interesting. The official history of the Pacifica affiliate programme says this in passing about the committee that made the successful proposal to the PNB back in 2003: “community radio station managers also served on the committee, including Norm Stockwell from WORT, Madison”. Yup. The same Norm Stockwell who’s one of the at-large directors carefully selected by the breaker faction.
Oh.
In this context it’s of note that Mr Collier, the last evening the PNB met, Th19Sep, supported the breaker faction candidate in the crucial, tied, vote for the temporary Chair (38:57).
(That was the meeting that spawned two fundraiser premiums for Pacifica, the ‘A’ Audiofile & the ‘B’ Audiofile. The gift-wrapped super-premium, in the sleeve notes, came with this unforgettable remark from the highlights of the lowlights: “Adrienne shows she’s having problems getting into the swing of things: fails to appreciate why electing a pro tem Chair to take over from the Vice-Chair is needed immediately before electing the new Chair – give her time”. https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2019/09/20/pacifica-release-their-latest-fundraiser-premium-after-the-bloodletting-the-rancour/)
So, Robin, what’s going on here? We all believe in transparency, don’t we, Robin? Spill the re-fried beans, dude.
The website of Cultural Energy has a “FFC” (sic) link, & this FCC page gives Cultural Energy’s as the station website. But, unlike Pacifica’s website, it carries no financial info, none whatsoever. KCEI’s FCC licence was granted 2016, expiring 31Jan next year.
(Just a minor detail on the topic of such licences expiring: that for WPFW is in half a week’s time, Tuesday next week, 1Oct. Obviously IED Vernile is on the case – Johnny’s such a tease, a real drama queen.) [UPDATE: an extension was applied for, & granted 1July, thru to 29Dec this year: https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=91488. So it’s odd that the station’s FCC public file says the licence expires 1Oct, hence my note: https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/fm-profile/wpfw, the link that appears in the FCC section of one of this blog’s pages, ‘Sources on Pacifica’. So the FCC gives apparently contradictory info, apparent because, for example, the extension may have been revoked or shortened. Thanx to Tracy Rosenberg for giving, M30Sep, the link to the extension:https://www.facebook.com/groups/PacificaRadiowaves/permalink/1335091679979446/.]
[OnTu24Sep (apologies for the delay) will be posted an analysis of this latest attempt to break-up Pacifica, & it will examine, in context, these seven docs. The post will synthesise & develop the comments already made.]
Significantly, you’ll search in vain for any reference here to Pacifica. It’s striking that none of their bios mentions Pacifica, none gives any connection with Pacifica – not a Pacifica member, not a Pacifica donor, not even appearing in a Pacifica broadcast. Scratching amongst the scratchings, all we have is an alternate who works at a radio station “that carries a number of Pacifica programs”. Well, knock me down with a feather.
In a nutshell, these non-profit/academic worthies have nothing to do with Pacifica.
Nevertheless, I can acknowledge that Ms Boghosian & Ms Ransby (please read her book on Ella Baker) are Calvinistic, striving to do good works on our mortal coil. Whether that may extend to PacificaWorld is an open question.
After all, the breaker faction have presented no evidence of the views of these worthies on Pacifica. Now, why is that?
It isn’t rational to vote for a set of by-laws, with individuals locked in, without knowing what they think about Pacifica, & what directions they see it going in. Trust has to be earnt. Trust doesn’t spring from a sculptured bio.
Note that although Ms B is a co-host of the invaluable Law & Disorder, a WBAI programme, that wasn’t judged as persuasive, as worthy of inclusion in her bio, a fact that could be used to help her become a Pacifica director – odd or what? Yesterday: https://lawanddisorder.org/wp-content/uploads/lawanddisorder20190916.mp3.
(The extra-size heads seem strangely appropriate, yes?)
Proposed Transition At-Large Directors for Pacifica
Click on names below for more information about each person
Heidi Boghosian is an attorney and executive director of the A.J. Muste Memorial Institute in New York, a charitable organization providing grants and support to activist organizations. As national executive director of the National Lawyers Guild from 1999-2014, she oversaw the growth of the Guild’s Legal Observer program after the attacks of September 11, 2001 and through the Occupy movement. Her nonprofit background includes serving as associate director of an alternatives-to- incarceration program for youth, serving as director of development at the Big Sister Association of Boston, and providing organizational management assistance to grassroots AIDS organizations through the Community Service Society of New York. She planned donor cultivation events for basic biomedical research at The Rockefeller University. She also worked in commercial operations at the ABC affiliate WCVB-TV in Boston.
Heidi wrote the book Spying on Democracy: Government Surveillance, Corporate Power, and Public Resistance (City Lights, 2013); it was published a month after Edward Snowden’s revelations. Her writings have focused on the policing of protest and the intersection of government and corporate surveillance.
Judy Graboyes has worked in the financial arena for over 30 years, doing accounting, asset management for affordable housing, and community development lending. She previously served as treasurer and on the audit committee for two Bay Area boards of directors; Conard House in San Francisco and Pie Ranch in Pescadero.
She has a Bachelor of Arts in Management from St. Mary’s College in Moraga, CA and a Master of Real Estate Development from the University of Southern California. She has dedicated her career to affordable housing, and is also a musician, activist, and event producer.
Bob King, retired President of the United Auto Workers, like all UAW officials started out as a worker on the shop floor and worked up through the ranks. Bob was a skilled tradesman from Local 600, the notorious Ford River Rouge Plant. All through his career King was actively supporting and building organizations of international worker solidarity and direct united action of workers in solidarity with each other.
Known for his activism and passionate belief in social and economic justice, since retiring King has remained very active in social justice causes in his community and globally.
He has been a visiting researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, he co-taught a seminar for both undergraduate and graduate students on “Labor and the Global Economy”, and currently is a Lecturer at the University of Michigan teaching the importance of collective action and collective bargaining in winning greater economic equality in the US and the world.
In 1990 King led delegations to El Salvador to support trade unionists and church members who were victims of a long campaign of deadly bombings, death-squad murders and disappearances carried out by Salvadoran military officers trained by the U.S. military’s School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, Ga. King has long been involved in efforts to close the school because its graduates use the training received there to terrorize religious activists, community activists, trade unionists, and political activists in Latin America.
During King’s term as UAW President he assigned UAW organizers to work in Mexico with workers, students and independent unions to organize automotive facilities in Mexico.
In his earlier life, he joined UAW Local 600 in 1970 when he was hired at Ford’s Detroit Parts Depot and began his electrical apprenticeship in 1972. King, a member of the UAW International Skilled Trades Advisory Committee, was elected vice president of Local 600 in 1981 and president in 1984. He was re-elected in 1987 and was twice elected chair of the UAW-Ford Negotiating Committee. While at Local 600 King was active in the fight to end apartheid, the successful campaign and legal action to open Dearborn parks, support for UAW Colt strikers, and many other social justice fights.
Barbara Ransby is a Professor or History; Gender and Women’s Studies; and African American Studies, at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is an historian, writer, and longtime political activist. Ransby has published dozens of articles and essays in popular and scholarly venues. She is most notably the author of an award-winning biography of civil rights activist Ella Baker, entitled Ella Baker and the Black Freedom Movement: A Radical Democratic Vision (University of North Carolina, 2003), which won no less than six major awards.
Dr. Ransby’s most recent book is Making All Black Lives Matter: Reimagining Freedom in the 21st Century (University of California Press, 2018). Ransby has also published in numerous scholarly and popular publications. She also wrote Eslanda: The Large and Unconventional Life of Mrs. Paul Robeson (Yale University Press, January 2013). She serves on the editorial boards of The Black Commentator (an online journal); the London-based journal, Race and Class; the Justice, Power and Politics Series at University of North Carolina Press; and the Scholar’s Advisory Committee of Ms. magazine. In the summer of 2012 she became the second Editor-in-Chief of SOULS, a critical journal of Black Politics, Culture and Society published quarterly.
In terms of her activism, Ransby was an initiator of the African American Women in Defense of Ourselves campaign in 1991, a co-convener of The Black Radical Congress in 1998, and a founder of Ella’s Daughters, a network of women working in Ella Baker’s tradition. She has published and lectured widely at conferences, community forums and on over 50 college campuses. Professor Ransby received a BA in History from Columbia University and an MA and PhD in History from the University of Michigan.
Walter Riley is a lawyer practicing criminal defense, civil rights, and police misconduct. Growing up in the Jim Crow South lead to activism very young. He served extensively with Durham’s and North Carolina’s NAACP and as President of the Young Adult Chapter received national recognition for organizing voter registration campaigns, lunch counter sit-ins, job campaigns, and desegregation protests in public accommodations, schools and businesses. He chaired Durham’s chapter of CORE’s Freedom Highways Project to desegregate public facilities on Highway 1 from Maine to Florida and was a CORE South East Regional Organizer in the early 60s. He has been honored in Durham, N.C. for leadership and activism in the civil rights movement. He became a student activist at San Francisco State University, joined Students for a Democratic Society, then Progressive Labor Party; opposed the Viet Nam war, Organized a Black Anti Draft Union in the community, worked with the Black Panther Party, became a founding member of Peace and Freedom Party, Co-Chaired with Eldridge Cleaver the Black Caucus of Peace and Freedom. His activism has included workers rights, labor, education/schools, anti apartheid, police misconduct, voter registration and cultural activism.
Riley is currently a member of the California Bar Association, National Lawyers Guild, Charles Houston Bar Association, the ACLU, #BlackLivesMatter, and Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI). He has served on the Boards of Global Exchange, Berkeley Jazz School, Oakland Music Conservatory and The East Bay Center For Performing Arts. Walter Riley is the Chair of the Haiti Emergency Relief Fund. He was the lead attorney for the Black Friday 14, and other #BlackLivesMatter protesters. He has received numerous awards.
Norman Stockwell is publisher of The Progressive magazine, a one-hundred-nine year-old Madison-based progressive bi-monthly. Prior to that, he served over two decades as WORT’s Operations Coordinator. He worked at the station in music and news programming since 1983. In addition to working as a journalist in the U.S., Cuba, Nicaragua & Mexico, Norm has been involved in the collective management of two Madison institutions – Lakeside Press and Mifflin Street Co-op. He is also former Director of the Old Town School of Folk Music-Madison, and served in the 1970’s as Facilities Manager for the Northwestern University Archeological Program.
He is active in the National Federation of Community Broadcasters, the GrassRoots Radio Coalition, IndyMedia, and AMARC: the World Association of Community Broadcasters. His reports and interviews have appeared on Free Speech Radio News, Democracy Now!, and AirAmerica, and in print in Z Magazine, the Capital Times, AlterNet, Toward Freedom, the Tico Times, the Feminist Connection, and elsewhere. He is co-editor of the book REBEL REPORTING: John Ross Speaks to Independent Journalists.
He has covered the WTO meetings in Seattle & Cancun, the FTAA meetings in Miami, the Democratic Conventions in 1996, 2000 & 2008, 2012, and the Republican Conventions in 2004, 2008, 2012 & 2016, and the Spring 2004 & 2009 presidential elections in El Salvador, Mexican presidential elections of 1988 and 2006, and the November 2013 presidential election in Honduras. He has coordinated community radio coverage at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre in 2002, 2003 & 2005, and the Polycentric Forum in Caracas, Venezuela in 2006, the WSF in Nairobi 2007, Belem in 2009, Dakar in 2011, & Tunis in 2013 and 2015, Montreal in 2016, and the US Social Forums in Atlanta & Detroit. He also coordinated the IraqJournal website in 2002-2003. In 2011, he regularly reported on protests in Madison, Wisconsin for Iran’s PressTV and other outlets.
Stockwell also is an experienced graphic designer and artist, and has prepared numerous successful grant applications.
Terri Burke has been Executive Director of the ACLU of Texas since 2008. In those years, the Texas affiliate has grown from a staff of seven to a staff of 70. Headquartered in Houston with offices in Austin, Dallas, El Paso and Brownsville on the border, the ACLU of Texas has been a leader in supporting immigrant rights, criminal justice reform, voting rights and in holding the line in the Culture Wars battles at the Texas Legislature. Instead of law school, her “postgraduate work” after the University of Texas was in reporting on how the sausage is made in two very different state legislatures; as a business reporter covering a boom and a bust; and as a senior editor and an editor-in-chief, leading two different staffs to Pulitzer Prizes. A native Houstonian, her newspaper career took her through Dallas, Austin, Albuquerque, Abilene (Tx) and Hartford, Ct. She served on the boards of Planned Parenthood of West Texas, Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas and the Day Nursery of Abilene (a non-profit preschool and day care). Burke served for 10 years on the board of the Texas Association of Managing Editors, including a two-year term as President, and five years on the board of the Nonprofit Management Center of West Texas, which served nonprofits in 24 West Texas counties, including a three-year stint as board president for an organization that provides resources, training and support for nonprofits ranging from direct service providers to arts associations and museums and civic engagement organizations. She is married with two daughters, one son-in-law and a practically perfect in every way granddaughter.
Mustafaa Carroll is the past Executive Director of CAIR (Council on Amercan-Islamic Relations) in Dallas and Houston, and a management consultant
Louis Vandenberg is Director and General Manager of KUCR, the University of California-Riverside radio station that carries a number of Pacifica programs
[OnTu24Sep (apologies for the delay) will be posted an analysis of this latest attempt to break-up Pacifica, & it will examine, in context, these seven docs. The post will synthesise & develop the comments already made.]
The breaker faction’s petition is disingenuous in claiming it concerns “proposed Amended and Restated Bylaws”. No: it’s not as innocuous as that. No: it’s a complete set of new by-laws. Not ‘amended’ & ‘restated’, bland, ‘nothing to see here, move along’. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnX5wci404
No: it’s a new constitution.
In its scope & urgent timetable, it’s an attempt at revolutionary change. By its content, it is reactionary & authoritarian, it is anti-democratic. By its scope, it creates a new Pacifica, refounding the Foundation.
1) The LSB’s are vaporised:
“Upon adoption of these Bylaws the Local Station Boards authorized under the previous Bylaws shall be terminated” (Article X; page 14, my emphases); presumably this is when ‘the people’ have spoken, that is, when the National Elections Supervisor certifies the election result, not when the Pacifica National Board votes to accept the NES’ final report.
2) The serving directors have their terms ended during the last 14 days of Jan2020 – leaving the Board solely occupied by six non-Pacificans. From this point, the whole Pacifica membership will no longer elect the majority of directors:
“By approval of these Restated and Amended Bylaws by the Members, the following individuals are appointed to serve as Transition At-Large Directors: Heidi Boghosian, Judy Graboyes, Robert “Bob” King, Barbara Ransby, Walter Riley, and Norman Stockwell. Their terms shall commence at the first meeting of the Transition Board which shall occur during the during the [sic] last two weeks of January 2020. The terms of the previous Board of Directors shall expire on that date.” (Art. XV [their typo], Sec. 1; p. 16)
The facts are plain: they are a committee, a junta, a dictatorship of six, a hexumvirate. The Roman conception of a dictatorship was an individual selected to rule, for a definite period, in a state of emergency, through special measures, & here we have the collective version: the Gang of Six do what they want for between 92 & 114 calendar days, until a date during the first 10 days of May next year (1+29+31+30+1 = 92 calendar days, & 14+29+31+30+10 = 114):
“the At-Large Directors shall constitute the full Board of Directors and shall be authorized to take any and all actions they deem necessary for the Board of Directors to take that are not in conflict with law or these bylaws.” (same passage, my emphases)
4) Conclusion … It’s obvious from the bios of the Gang of Six published by the breaker faction that they’re patsies, none having worked in radio management, selected by the faction to rubber-stamp what must be an already prepared detailed plan.
And the content of this secret plan? With ‘Breaker’ Spooner & ‘Breaker’ Franck listed on their petition as two of the nine creating this faction, there’s only one rational answer: breaking up Pacifica.
Panic over WBAI is simply being used as a political pretext, as a persuasive means, as a rhetorical device.
No trust can be placed in the movers of this complete set of new by-laws, a new constitution, refounding the Foundation.
Pacifica has serious problems, but this is not the way to go.
This by-laws proposal must be emphatically rejected.
[OnTu24Sep (apologies for the delay) will be posted an analysis of this latest attempt to break-up Pacifica, & it will examine, in context, these seven docs. The post will synthesise & develop the comments already made.]
The change envisioned by the breaker faction isn’t piecemeal, as implied by the form of this document, which takes part of an existing by-law & compares it with an amendment. No, that’s a gross misrepresentation of their by-laws proposal. The breaker faction’s petition is disingenuous in claiming it concerns “proposed Amended and Restated Bylaws”. No, it’s not as innocuous as that.
No: it’s a complete set of new by-laws. That’s why they don’t reproduce from the current manual, by-law after by-law after by-law, page after page after page, all that’s in the current by-laws having no correlate within their proposal. For if they did that, it would be plain to see how fundamentally different it is. Just compare their 19-page proposal with the 45-page, smaller font, Pacifica By-laws manual, 1Jan2016 version, which alone has a four-page Contents: https://mega.nz/#!qyBgCK6J!99O3H916evVwa5U0FSef2ONlL8pkQU4OZKLZIfXzq6Y.
So what does the new Pacifica constitution do?
guts the organisation of membership participation in governance;
makes outsiders a permanent majority of the PNB;
only one director from each station means giving monopoly representation to each station majority: it eliminates the diversity of views at each station, homogenises what is heterogeneous by effectively denying that the others exist, & leaves only one director voice to address the station’s Community Advisory Board;
abolishes what remains of local decision-making by members;
cuts in two the number of local discussion forums;
concentrates the focus of the organisation onto a PNB that now has a non-profit/academic outlook, one tilting to the outside, away from the Pacifica members;
. . . one could go on . . .
. . . just to say, given all this, why would anyone stay a Pacifica member?
All this means that the breaker faction are moving against the members. The breaker faction wresting from the members their rights. The naive would say this is surprising within Pacifica – but there are many reactionaries in PacificaWorld, of all sorts of stripes, not just secrecy/pseudo-confidentiality fetishists.
As illustration, a principal member’s right is participating in Pacifica’s governance – and participation is a primary democratic quality & value. So the breaker faction is an anti-democratic force. Eat yer 💗 out, Amy G.
In its scope & urgent timetable, the by-laws proposal of the breaker faction is an attempt at revolutionary change. By its content, it is reactionary & authoritarian, it is anti-democratic. By its scope, it creates a new Pacifica, refounding the Foundation.
Under the proposed new Bylaws [italics added throughout for readability]:
The Listener-Sponsor annual Membership contribution will be $50, or fifteen (15) hours of volunteer service.
Staff-Membership requirements are unchanged.
Under the current Bylaws:
Listener-Sponsor annual Membership contribution is $25, or three (3) hours of volunteer service.
Changes in Board of Directors: Composition and Manner of Election.
Under the proposed new Bylaws:
The Board of Directors will consist of 11 Directors: Six (6) At-Large Directors and five (5) Station-Representative Directors. There will be no designated “Affiliate” Directors’ seats on the new board.
The six At-Large Directors will be elected by the Board of Directors as a whole (except for the Transition Board, see below.)
The five Station-Representative Directors will be elected directly by the membership at each station (KPFA, KPFK, KPFT, WBAI and WPFW), one from each station, with both listener-members and staff-members voting together.
There will be no Staff seats on the new Board of Directors.
Under the current Bylaws:
The Board of Directors consists of 22 members: 20 Directors elected by the Delegates (members of the Local Station Boards) – 4 from each of the five Pacifica stations — plus 2 “Affiliate” Directors are elected by the Board of Directors from nominees from stations which air some Pacifica programming but are not owned by the Pacifica Foundation.
Currently, the Delegates at each station each year elect 3 listener members and 1 staff member from among themselves to serve on the national Board of Directors.
Directors’ Terms and Term Limits
Under the proposed new Bylaws:
Directors’ terms will be three (3) years with a two-term limit, requiring a 1-year hiatus before being eligible to run again. Terms will be staggered so no more than 1/3rd of the terms will expire in any given year.
Under the current Bylaws:
Directors’ terms are one (1) year. Directors may serve no more than 5 consecutive years.
Local Station Boards and Delegates
Under the proposed new Bylaws:
There will be no Delegates, no Delegate elections, and no Local Station Boards. The members of the current Local Station Boards may join their station’s Community Advisory Board (CAB) but will have no role in governance. A CAB is required at each station by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and will operate under the CPB requirements. https://www.cpb.org/stations/certification/cert3
Under the current Bylaws:
The members at each station elect 24 Delegates – 18 elected by the Listener-Sponsor Members and 6 elected by the Staff Members. Half of them are elected in each of two consecutive years, and the third year there is no election.
The Delegates elect from among themselves 4 Directors each year – 3 Listener-Sponsor Members and 1 staff Member.
In addition to electing Directors, the Delegates serve on Local Station Boards (LSBs) for their stations, with the station General Manager as a non-voting member.
Eligibility for Service on the Board of Directors
Under the proposed new Bylaws:
Staff-Members and persons hosting or helping to produce a regular program airing on any Pacifica radio station will not be eligible for service on the Board of Directors, nor are any station or Pacifica Foundation employees.
No person who holds an elected office, or is running for election for office, at any level of government (federal, state or local) will be eligible for service on the Board.
No two members of the Board of Directors related by blood or marriage/domestic partnership within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity may serve on the Board at the same time.
Station-Representative Directors must be Listener-Sponsor Members in good standing of their station at the time of nomination.
At-Large Directors will be recruited by the Board of Directors based upon needed skills on the board and/or background and accomplishments in fields related to the Foundation’s core “peace and justice” mission.
Under the current Bylaws:
Three of the 4 Station Representative Directors from each station each year are Listener-Delegates, and 1 is a Staff-Delegate.
No person who holds any elected or appointed public office at any level of government — federal, state, or local — or is a candidate for such office, is eligible to serve on the Board.
There is no consanguinity rule under the current Bylaws.
Reduction in Number of Elections
Under the proposed new Bylaws:
After the transition, there will be 1 election every 3 years at each station where Listener-Members and Staff-Members, voting all together, directly elect one Station-Representative Director for their station. There will be no additional elections of Directors or Delegates by the Members.
Under the current Bylaws:
There are 2 elections in every 3 years. The members elect half of their 24 Delegates (18 Listener Delegates and 6 Staff Delegates) in each of the two elections in consecutive years. The third year there is no election.
Members’ Rights
Under the proposed new Bylaws:
Members’ rights will remain unchanged as to inspection of Minutes and records.
Voting rights will remain unchanged on the sale, exchange, transfer or disposition of all or substantially all of the Foundation’s assets; on the sale, exchange, transfer or disposition of any of the Foundation’s broadcast licenses; on any merger, its principal terms and any amendment of its principal terms.; on any election to dissolve the Foundation.
Members will have the right to recall their elected Station-Representative Directors.
Staff Members will no longer be eligible to serve on the Board of Directors.
Under the current Bylaws:
Listener-Sponsor Members and Staff-Members vote separately in the Delegate elections. The Delegates then elect from among themselves 3 Listener-Sponsor Member Directors and 1 Staff-Member Director from each station each year.
Amending the Bylaws
Under the proposed new Bylaws:
The Board will be able to amend the bylaws by a 2/3rd majority vote of all the Directors, provided written notice is posted on the Foundation and station websites and a means is provided for members to submit comments to the Board prior to the vote.
The Members will be able to propose Bylaws amendments, by a petition of 1% of the Membership and a majority vote of the Members.
No Amendments changing the number or manner of nomination of Directors of either class may be adopted without a vote of approval of the Members.
No Amendments that would adversely affect the rights of the Members, or any class of Members, may be adopted without a vote of approval of the Members, or class of Members, as the case may be.
Under the current Bylaws:
Currently, amending the bylaws requires the majority vote of all the Directors plus a majority vote of all the Delegates of at least three (3) stations. Members may also propose amendments by petition signed by 1% of the Membership and, if their proposed amendments are not approved by the Directors and Delegates, then the Members may adopt the Amendments by a majority vote of the Members.
No amendments that materially adversely affect the rights of the Members, or any class of Members may be adopted without the vote of approval of the Members, or class of Members, as the case may be.
Voting on any amendments must be completed by December 31st of the same calendar year as the amendments are proposed. Amendments proposed by petition of the Members are considered “proposed” when they are submitted to the Secretary of the Foundation.
Transition Board Provisions
Under the Proposed New Bylaws[:]
Six Transition At-Large Directors will be seated at a Board meeting during the last two weeks of January 2020. They are: Heidi Boghosian, Judy Graboyes, Bob King, Barbara Ransby, Walter Riley, and Norman Stockwell. Their biographies are posted here.
If any of those six becomes unable to serve before the first meeting of the new Transition Board in January, then those remaining will select alternates in the order they choose from the following alternates: Terri Burke, Mustafaa Carrol, and Louis Vandenberg. Their biographies are posted here.
The 5 Transition Station Representative Directors will be elected by the members early next year and will be seated at a Board meeting during the first 2 weeks in May 2020.
The 2019 Board’s terms will expire upon the commencement of the January Transition Board meeting.
[OnTu24Sep (apologies for the delay) will be posted an analysis of this latest attempt to break-up Pacifica, & it will examine, in context, these seven docs. The post will synthesise & develop the comments already made.]
FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions about the Proposed new Pacifica Bylaws
Q: What happens to people on the Local Station Boards?
A: They are merged with the Community Advisory Board for their station, and of course may volunteer at their station.
Q: Should I vote in the current Delegate/LSB elections?
A: YES! That’s still important, too.
Q: Should I wait to donate to my Pacifca station?
A: Absolutely not. Your station needs your financial support, as well as volunteer hours, to keep going. Go to your station’s web site to donate today, or do it in the next fund drive.
Q: Why are there At-Large Directors on the new national Board, as well as station representative Directors?
A: The At-Large Directors will bring additional skills and experience, professional contacts, non-profit experience, and national perspective that the station representative Directors may not have.
Q. Why the need for change to the current Bylaws?
A: See the Introduction – it explains why it’s so important to replace the Bylaws with something that will create more functional governance and a stronger network.
Q: Isn’t this effort really designed to target individuals seen as impediments to some agenda?
A: The people who drafted these Bylaws are not in agreement about what programming is best, the appropriate authority and influence of paid versus unpaid staff, or many other issues. What brought us together are the current, unambiguous realities. Our current governance structure is not leading the organization toward greater strength and stability, rather it has failed to meet the changing nature of the media environment, and it has failed to deal effectively with financial realities. This is not about individuals, programs, or management choices. The Pacifica Restructuring Project represent a diversity of views, many conflicting. This is about being honest with ourselves about Pacifica Radio’s long-term viability unless it is restructured.
PacificaWatch 