Who is Vickie Fouts and why is she trying to destroy KFCF?

This sounds like a litany of slanders to me . Vicky has been a hard working KFCF activist . As a programmer and Board member . I admit that i especially like the fact that she is in Peace and Freedom party . i really do not understand why anyone can say there for a alternative society and not support the Greens or Peace and Freedom party .
I think the way the Democractic party sold out the Abortion rights movement says it all why they're not an alternative . Our airwaves should be far more open to real alternatives at the polls .
I really don't understand the last part . What's wrong with being associated with like minded people at KPFA ? Apparently the voters there don't consider them pariahs . Didn't they just win a majority of the KPFA board ?

Here is the actual message that was changed to attack Vicky Fouts! As you can see it was sent by Stan to Annie Garrison and was changed to make it look like Stan sent it to Vicky. And there is nothing wrong with the message regardless of who Stan was sending it to.

What is wrong here is that some scumbag who talks about transparency and yet slanders Vicky anonymously, forges a message to attack her.

I don't get to vote in the Fresno election and if I did I wouldn't even think about voting for people whose supporters do such evil and unprincipled dirty tricks. Much like her opponents allies at KPFA who have never seen an election that that didn't try to win dishonestly.
Or like Mark Hernandez who, when LSB Secretary, got caught changing the LSB minutes to benefit his faction. This kind of stuff is right out of Mark's play book, when he isn't red baiting people. I will post the details on his minute changing when I get to my other computer.

If you want honest people on the KFCF Board vote for Vicky Fouts, not for folks whose allies forge e-mails or perhaps do it themselves.


-----Original Message-----
From: SWoods510 [at] aol.com
To: anniegarrison [at] gmail.com; fulcrumsofchange [at] pacificana.org;
jcurt [at] sonic.net; Lvpsf [at] igc.org
Sent: Mon, Nov 9, 2009 4:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Fulcrumsofchange] Thanks to all those who ran for the
KPFA LSB

Thanks Ann. My e mail address is Swoods510 [at] aol.com.

Stay tuned for the results of the KFCF (Fresno ) election . (End of
Nov.-Early Dec)

Hopefully the '' Concerned Listener'' allied candidates will be
defeated and someone other than the KFCF GM will be selected by their
new board to represent their station on the KPFA LSB .

Stan W.

Transcript by Richard Phelps, LSB Chair, for July, 06 part of meeting regarding correcting the minutes on Eric listed as an excused absence. Mark’s comments are substantially complete. Some irrelevant comments are left out since I am not a swift transcriber.

Marnie: There’s an error in the uh minutes regarding the absences from last, that meeting, Eric’s name was not even mentioned that day and he was not excused.

Mark: Mr. Chair.

Max: This is my recollection as well. I had him down as a zero. Not an excused person in my chart.

(Interruption by unidentified person.)

Chair: She doesn’t have the floor, Mark you are next.

Mark: The motion made was to excuse all absences.

(Several people then said no, that’s not true.)

Chair: I know, I made careful note of it. I’m going to call on myself for my recollection. I just want to say that I remember explicitly that nobody asked for him to be excused and I wondered why? Several other people were brought up and approved but Eric was never put up to be excused.

Max: To explain my chart, if you attend you get a 1, if you are absent and you are excused by a vote you get an E and if you are not excused you get a zero. That ‘s the way my chart is and that is very explicit.

Mark: Mr. Chair, I ask the indulgence of the board. I am going to play it back in a few moments, that we table this for about 10 minutes.

Chair: And then?

Mark: I can play the motion for the board.

Chair: You are going to have to play the whole discussion, because it has to be in context…if we are going to listen to that we have to listen to the whole discussion about excused absences.

Mark: Mr. Chair, the final motion is the motion that is made and that is what is voted on.

Chair: Well, No, we have to hear the context because Eric’s name was not mentioned.

Mark: Mr. Chair, the motion that is passed is the motion of record. It does not matter, we do not take notational transcripts. We do not have the Federalist Papers which we can go back to and take word for word examination of the details of the arguments.

Chair: That’s not my point Mark. My point is it might say they are all approved but the point is you have to go back and see who was mentioned as approved because Eric was not mentioned. That’s the distinction I want to make clear. Nobody, none of the people over here ever said that I want Eric excused. It was never raised. I have a memory that is very, very good and I was surprised that nobody did, so the fact that it might say that all those mentioned are excused is fine but then you gotta go back and listen to who was asked to be excused. That’s the context I am talking about.

(After some discussion we were about to vote on the amendment to the minutes regarding Eric’s absence)

Brian: Point of Information.

Chair: Yes

Brian: Did Mark Hernandez ask to table or was that informal?

Chair: All right, we’ll table. If he can get that up so we can hear it that is fine. But like I said, I want to hear the whole thing not just the last 30 seconds.

Brian: Mr. Chair, maybe we can take on the consent calendar.

Chair: Yes, why don’t we take on the consent calendar, any objection, while Mark is trying to find that let’s go to the consent calendar. (and we did)

(Mark never got back to us to play the prior meeting discussion.)


Here is a transcript, also by Richard Phelps, from the June 06 meeting, the section on excusing absences. First is the only part Mark wanted us to hear, followed by the discussion that preceded the motion:


Chair: Anybody want to a make a motion regarding the peoples named?

Sarv: comments off mike

Chair: Sarv moved to excuse those people whose names have been mentioned, any second? ( it was seconded) any objections? No Objections. Ok.

(After the above motion Sepideh sought clarification.)


Sepideh: Who are the people named?

Chair: Sherry, Jane, Willie Ratcliff, and Debbie and Rosalinda are on their way.

Sepideh: La Varn is on her way, she is 5 minutes away.

Here is the discussion from the beginning up to the motion:

Chair: And just another reminder for everybody out there, if you came in late the sign up sheet for public comment is right here, if anybody wants to sign up. Ok. Uh I have been advised by Willie Ratcliff that he will not be here because of a Juneteenth celebration….anybody know of anybody who is absent, Willie asked to be excused…

Max: Jane Jackson

Chair: Yes, she’s out of town I believe.

Bonnie: A, Sherry Gendelman is out of town this weekend. I believe Debbie is on her way here and Rosalinda had a meeting for her work this morning and should be here soon.

Chair: Anybody want to a make a motion regarding the peoples named?

And we are back to where we started. It is easy to see that if you just played back the motion:

“Chair: Sarv moved to excuse those people whose names have been mentioned, any second? ( it was seconded) any objections? No Objections. Ok.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You would not know who was excused without hearing the prior discussion to get the context of the motion, who was mentioned to be excused. One could try to construe this motion to mean that all absent would be excused, but only if you ignore the specific language:

“those people whose names have been mentioned”

and didn’t listen to the rest of the short discussion.

So why was Mark Hernandez so adamant that we only listen to the motion? Despite having the recording of the meeting Mark wrote in the minutes that Eric’s absence was excused. You can decide for yourself what you think this means about our Secretary’s trustworthiness to be the keeper of our records.

Other facts to consider: Mark Hernandez never asked to play the pertinent recorded part of the meeting for the LSB after he listened to it during our last meeting, after Mark asked to table the discussion so he could play it back for us. Mark had the June meeting recording available to him for review when he did the June minutes. Mark has always voted to excuse Eric and almost always votes with those that have fought to keep Eric on the LSB despite the fact that Eric’s attendance is around 40 % and he has not attended a meeting since January 7,2006. Eric has not been an active member on any committee of the LSB or PNB. Eric hasn’t worked at the station since early April 2006 and for several months prior to that he worked sporadically in a manner that would not qualify him as a staff member. He is not listed on the recently released Unpaid Staff list. Eric has not communicated with the LSB on the LSB list for some months and has not communicated to the LSB his intention to remain active on the board despite the controversy over his attendance and the facts supporting his being ineligible to be on the LSB.

The Bylaws state:
Article 3 MEMBERSHIP, SECTION 2. TERM.
A Listener-Sponsor membership term shall expire twelve (12) months from that date on which said Member: (A) contributed a minimum of $25 to any Foundation radio station, or such minimum amount as the Board of Directors may from time to time decide; or (B) volunteered a minimum of 3 hours of service to any Foundation radio station. A Staff membership term shall expire: (A) on that date on which s/he is no longer a member of a radio station Unpaid Staff Organization or Bargaining Unit, or if the radio station has no such organization, then on that date on which s/he failed to volunteer a minimum of 30 hours in the preceding 3-month period; or (B) upon termination of employment as a non-management employee of a Foundation radio station, as applicable.

The evidence is clear that Eric is not a staff member of KPFA/Pacifica and thus is not eligible to represent the staff on the LSB. The evidence is clear that he has not been eligible since April 2006 and probably prior to that.
Mark Hernandez recently tried to get out of his getting caught misreporting the vote in the minutes by saying that since Sarv Randhawa’s statement was inaudible on the recording that we don’t know what his motion was. That is wrong both factually and legally. I heard it clearly and repeated it over the mic and Sarv did not say “hey that is not what I said”. And Mark was sitting right next to him and did ask for a correction and Mark lives for the times he can correct me, as anyone who has been to a meeting of two knows. Also, when Sepideh asks for who was excused I didn’t mention Eric and neither Mark Hernandez or Sarv Randhawa said anything, not “what about Eric” or “my motion includes all absences.” So it is clear that this is a months old attempt to cover up Mark Hernandez being caught changing the minutes to benefit his faction.



Richard Phelps
Chair, KPFA LSB

This crude hatchet job only reflects badly on Vickie's opposition.
Nasty and negative?
Vendetta, or she has issues with them?
It seems there is a division here but what *are* the issues?
Vickie does not support the status quo at KFCF? Not a convincing disqualifier for those who use IndyMedia as a news source.
Hopefully, KFCF members are getting real information somewhere about what their candidates' platforms are and will have some real basis for choosing whom to vote for.