SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

East Bay | Indymedia

CL Supporter Bensky Banned From KPFA Airwaves For Violating Election Rules
by Casey Peters (respost)
Wednesday Nov 21st, 2007 3:39 PM
The Pacifica national election supervisor Casey Peters has banned Larry Bensky from the airwaves until his term ends in 2008. Bensky's violation of using KFPA equipment/lists to support the Concerned Listeners Group is only one of many examples by the management and entrenched staff who support management and used the stations resources to support the candidates of Concerned Listeners CL. The question now is whether CL supporter and interim manager Lemlme Rijio will follow the order or ignore it and threaten the decertificaion of the entire KPFA election.


*From:* Casey Peters *Date:* 11/21/2007 9:15:40 AM
*To:* igm [at] kpfa.org; ipd [at] kpfa.org
*Cc:* fulcrumsofchange [at] pacificana.org,henry [at] norr.com


Lemlem,
My apologies of issuing this late in writing.
On Friday, November 16, I issued a verbal ruling
that Larry Bensky will not be allowed on Pacifica airwaves or websites
until after my term of office as National Elections Supervisor ends in
2008,
for his Fair Campaign Provisions violation and his refusal to cooperate
with the remedy.
That INCLUDES rebroadcasts of Mr. Bensky's programs.
The three slates that were harmed by his endorsement of the fourth slate
are still each entitled to send a message to Bensky's KPFA email list.
If these remedies are not enforced, the election results will be
decertified.
-- Casey Peters
National Elections Supervisor

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by wha?
Wednesday Nov 21st, 2007 4:48 PM
Why would Casey Peters order election messages sent on the list after the election is ended?

And what the heck is a "verbal ruling" anyway? For any such edict to be in force one might think it would need to be a written ruling.

Just wondering. This is screwy.
by ^
Wednesday Nov 21st, 2007 6:51 PM
Banning Larry Bensky is so long overdue, one can only wonder why it took so long.
by Jack
Saturday Nov 24th, 2007 8:05 AM
Larry Bensky is scheduled to host the on air coverage of the KPFA Crafts Fair Dec 8-9 . So the test on whether this ban will be implemented will be soon. My guess is that KPFA Mgmt. will ignore it . They have deep contempt for the bylaws and the democratic process .
by observer
Wednesday Nov 28th, 2007 8:09 AM
Who the hell is Peters to ban anyone? Want to talk about selective enforcement; what about the clear violation of election bylaws that the Peoples Radio slate committed by using personal attacks in their election statements? Peters conveniently ignored that. Peters is incompetent and clearly biased. He should never have been hired in the first place.
by Stan Woods
Wednesday Nov 28th, 2007 8:58 AM
There were absolutely no campaign violations by our Peoples Radio slate. In our collective statement we talked about our opponents and their allies 's voting records , KPFA mgmt.s various anti-democratic actions etc. and made political accessments based on those facts . That's not ''personal attacks '' or ''hateful '' speech but electoral politics 101 !
One can disagree with the tactic of a serial statement that we chose to ulitize but the facts we cited are indisputable .
In contrast I.E.D. Dan Siegel's '' Open Letter '' was a clear gross campaign violation designed to poison the electorate against us and to encourage voters to for his preferred slate, the so called '' Concerned Listeners'' .The bylaws are clear. No one in Pacifica mgmt. can interfere or intervene in the electoral process, , comment or criticize in any way any candidate or group of candidate
Larry Bensky used KPFA resources to send out a email blast in favor of the ''Concerned Listeners'' . A equally clear campaign violation . He and Kpfa mgmt. compounded that by refusing to cooperate with the local election supervisor who tried to implement Casey Peter's remedy .
This election was tainted and our democratic process was grossly violated. The only question is what will be done about it ?
by Stan Woods
Wednesday Nov 28th, 2007 9:01 AM
In my previous post i meant to write ''intended to encourage listeners to vote for his preferred slate ''
by truth hurts
Wednesday Nov 28th, 2007 9:43 AM
Casey Peters was picked by the LA allies of Concerned Listeners, Sherry Gendelman's buddies in LA and others on the BOD like Sarv Randawa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Observer: Who the hell is Peters to ban anyone? Want to talk about selective enforcement; what about the clear violation of election bylaws that the Peoples Radio slate committed by using personal attacks in their election statements? Peters conveniently ignored that. Peters is incompetent and clearly biased. He should never have been hired in the first place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They wanted someone who didn't know exactly what they were doing so the elections, that they will get rid of if they can't control them, wouldn't be done well. This is part of the insider plan to discredit the elections so that they can eventually be gotten ride of completely. And in the mean time consciously break the rules to their advantage. So what if Bensky is off the air for a few weeks, they get to keep the votes that they obtained by violating the rules.

By the way, I read the People Radio stuff and I didn't see any personal attacks. Please reprint anything that you think was a personal attack so that I can understand what you mean about their stuff.
by Lift my blinders
Wednesday Nov 28th, 2007 10:59 AM
What People's Radio violation are you talking about. I read their collective statement and cannot find anything. Can you give me a concrete example or am I missing something here?
by Observer
Wednesday Nov 28th, 2007 2:14 PM
Oh I don't know, maybe using the word "dismantler" in relation to several people's names is a good example of People's Radio's dirty politics. Making statements in regards to someone's motive is a clear breach of election bylaws and just plain sleazy.

Bensky has a right to say any damn thing he wants to. Last I checked the First Amendment is still in existence. How the hell is Peters or anyone else going to tell someone they can't endorse candidates? If I was Bensky I'd consider a lawsuit on plain constitutional grounds. He didn't send a letter on station letter head and he didn't use station equipment. His opinion is his opinion and no damn bureaucrat with a miniscule title can take that away from any citizen.

I don't care who hired Peters. He is an obvious hack and should be removed ASAP.
by truth hurts
Wednesday Nov 28th, 2007 2:51 PM
From what I have heard Bensky sent his e-mail recommendations out on a KPFA server. I am told it has always been against the rules for any staff to us station resources to take sides in the listener election, seems fair, otherwise the staff would dominate more than they do now.

I don't think there is anything in the bylaws or anywhere that prohibits suggesting motives to political candidates. Bensky is allowed free speech and no on else? From what I have seen on indybay they are called dismantlers since they were discussing dismantling the democratic institutions.

And for firing Peters, maybe those on the board that pushed for his hiring should resign.
by observer
Wednesday Nov 28th, 2007 6:10 PM
The People's Radio folks can say whatever they want in emails or in person or on the phone to their friends, however the bylaws preclude personal attacks in their campaign statements. Those attacks include assigning motives to political opponents and using smears like dismantlers.

Bensky's private email is his private email. People's Radio's private email are their private emails. But campaign statements aren't allowed to get personal. I wouldn't want to support a station that muzzles it's workers during station elections. If that's democracy, then the dictionary definition must be wrong.

Meanwhile, People's Radio should take a lesson and use their election defeat to rethink their positions and stop constantly sniping and attacking and running the station down, maybe then they'd do better in elections and the station can move forward. I know there tactic turned me off and most people I talked to.
by Rafael
Wednesday Nov 28th, 2007 7:01 PM
As Woods posted earlier Bensky used station resources for his email blast . If Bonnie Faulkner or Miguel Molina would have done the same on behalf of the I Team or Peoples Radio they probably would have been fired . As they say on the street that's the way they roll at KPFA!
by truth hurts
Wednesday Nov 28th, 2007 8:24 PM
th: Just like Bush attacks those that criticize his invasion and occupation as attacking the troops we get the same from the blind Observer.

Observer: Meanwhile, People's Radio should take a lesson and use their election defeat to rethink their positions and stop constantly sniping and attacking and running the station down

th: criticism of what some people are doing at KPFA in governance or on the air or doing elections violations is not "running the station down". I guess those that want to organize in the Demo Party use the DNC lingo.
by observer
Thursday Nov 29th, 2007 9:28 AM
Well you go right on ahead being hyper critical and attacking and you'll continue to get your ass handed to you in elections. Most listeners don't like everything they hear, but also want the station to grow and be stronger. People's Radio wants KPFA to only broadcast what they and their friends want to hear and to hell with everyone else. That's why they crashed and burned in the election.

I've wasted enough time on this silly argument. So I'll save you some time YOU WIN. The on-line debate crown is yours. But hey look around, it doesn't matter, you lost the election and we're all going to move on without you. So have fun with your on-line debates. Toodles.
by inquiring mind
Thursday Nov 29th, 2007 10:32 PM
So how did Peters determine that Bensky willfully violated policy when Peters apparently never responded to Benksy's request for an opinion if his email blast would be a violation?
by truth hurts
Friday Nov 30th, 2007 7:38 AM
From what I have heard Bensky didn't tell the election supervisors that he was going to send his endorsement out on a stattion server, withholding important info. From the e-mail you can tell that it was sent from a station server.