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

California | Indymedia

Wednesday Jun 27th, 2012 12:31 PM

One for each side
to SAVEKPFA who started the recall. As I understand it Ms. Rosenberg will term out at the end of this year and will be ineligible to run for reelection this year. If this is the case why waste all the money and energy when Pacifica has so little of both to spare?

To the Rosenberg supporters Why didn't someone else from your side get the one PNB seat available in January instead of Rosenberg? That way the recall would have lost lots of steam with her not on the PNB anymore.

Also it would have saved a vote on the PNB in case Rosenberg gets recalled. So why didn't someone else get chosen from your side to avoid all this waste of money and to avoid losing the vote on the PNB if she loses?

It doesn't seem like either side is playing this very smart. Egos before Pacifica survival?
by Tracy Rosenberg
( tracy [at] media-alliance.org ) Wednesday Jun 27th, 2012 10:58 PM
My KPFA LSB term ends in December 2013, not December 2012. I was elected to my 2nd three year term on KPFA's local board in 2010. Terms on the national board are annual and that part ends in December 2012. The recall is from the LSB seat, not the PNB seat, so once the recall petitions were submitted, the recall would have gone forward eventually regardless of whether I was re-elected to the PNB.

I can't speak for Save KPFA as to whether they would have recalled their petition had I not run for the minority-PNB seat in January 2012, but they never indicated that to me, so there was no reason to assume any money would have been saved. They submitted the petitions in November of 2011 and sent out a pro-recall postcard in December of 2011, even though the 2011 PNB term was ending in less than 3 weeks.

As for going back to the national board in 2012, it was absolutely a difficult decision. The PNB is a very challenging thing, on many levels, perhaps most profoundly time demands. I generally have 10 or more hours of national board and committee meetings every single week and this has been the case for the last 130 weeks and counting. Sometimes more. Not easy.

It's also not easy as a minority rep with the sole responsibility of trying to present and advocate for the constituents you represent (42% of the board and the 42% of the listeners who elected them) on a 22-person national board. I've been a majority rep and a minority rep and its a lot simpler when there are three of you to divide the workload. But as we know, elections swing back and forth like pendulums so one year you're in the majority and one year you're not.

So at the risk of speaking for the folks who voted for me, I think the things taken into account were these:

1) Experience is helpful and there was no one else available with any national board experience at the time.

2) Many of my colleagues on the national board were saying they wished me to come back for the 2012 year

3) The person on the LSB who had the strongest support besides myself had real concerns about the time demands

4) The breakdown on the national board is not a one-vote margin

I don't know if it was the right decision and I'm not necessarily saying it was, but that was the basis for it as I understood it at the time.

The national board isn't much of an ego-building experience. It's mostly exhausting and draining, with the occasional interval of briefly feeling like you are being of service to the network. I think anyone who's been on it over the years would agree with that.