From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: East Bay | Media Activism & Independent Media
Reply to Conn Hallinan's Complaint Regarding GPAC and KPFA Election
by Akio Tanaka
Sunday Oct 29th, 2006 6:06 AM
Conn Hallinan, a candidate on the Concerned Listener slate for the KPFA LSB, posted a complaint regarding the Green Party of Alameda County endorsement for the KPFA LSB election. I am the author of the endorsement, so following is my reply. [I encourage all KPFA members to send in their ballots for the KPFA LSB election. The ballots have to be received by KPFA on November 15.]

Dear Conn Hallinan,

Hi Conn, I am Akio Tanaka. We met at the KPFA ‘Candidate’s Night’.

I am the author of the Green Party of Alameda County (GPAC) endorsement that was approved by the GPAC County Council (GPAC CC) and sent to our members on October 16.

I have subsequently learned that it has caused much dismay and controversy amongst the Concerned Listeners, KPFA staff, and GPAC, so I think that I owe an explanation for why I asked the GPAC CC to approve the endorsement.

On the eve of KPFA LSB elections during the weekend of the October 15, I was made aware that the ‘Concerned Listeners’ slate -- which had been endorsed by the WDRC (Wellstone Democrats) and had the support of many of the paid-staff at KPFA -- was going to send out a mailer supporting the ‘Concerned Listener’ slate to coincide with the mailing of the ballots.

This was troubling due to the lack of any serious amount of airtime publicizing the election and giving the candidates opportunities to state their positions. [As a listener supported radio, the station should have aired each listener candidate carts as much as possible before the ballots were sent out; instead, the candidates’ carts only started to air on 10-27 well over a week after the ballots and the mailers supporting the ‘Concerned Listeners’ slate had been mailed out.]

Under these circumstances, I felt that mailers supporting the ‘Concerned Listener‘ slate sent to half of the KPFA membership (coinciding with the ballots) were not going to result in a fair election (especially for the independent candidates).

There are very capable candidates on both slates and among the independent candidates, and I felt I needed to inform Green Party members about these candidates to help address the imbalance, so our endorsement list included 5 from the ‘ Alliance ’, 3 independent candidates, and 1 from ‘Concerned Listeners’.

There has been much criticism of the wording of the endorsement. In addition to your criticism, Lisa Ballard and Brian Edwards-Tiekert of KPFA, and John Morton and Michael-David Sisson of the GPAC also expressed criticisms.

I was the sole author of the endorsement, so I take full responsibility for its content. I apologize that some errors and some injudicious comments have been made, so I will go through the text of the endorsement, [......], and correct them below.

If you have any further issues or concerns please let me know. In all honesty, I am anxious to diffuse the acrimony which seems to surround the KPFA election. I am not trying to further the conflict.

Sincerely yours,

Akio Tanaka


[There is an important election coming up for the KPFA Local Station Board ("LSB").

We urge every Green Party Member who is a member of KPFA to cast their vote to help both KPFA and the Green Party.

The basic issue of this election is whether the democratic reforms that were put in place after The Great Lock-Out will go forward--so that the listeners have real input in the running of the station--or whether the status quo will remain in effect.]

Anyone who follows the LSB meetings knows that there are two factions on the board, nominally ‘pro-management’ and ‘pro-listener’; they are both ‘entrenched’ in the sense that they are caught in a gridlock and neither side is willing to yield.

The tragedy is that both sides want the same thing - a strong KPFA.

There has been great difficulty in implementing the democratic process that came out of the settlement agreement; however, we need to elect candidates who will support the democratic process and work to end the gridlock.


[The lack of third party coverage by KPFA is a major issue for the Greens that are running for the LSB. In an age when corporations own the media and control both the Democratic and Republican parties, it is critical that progressive media like KPFA give voice to progressive third parties like the Green Party.]

----- -----
We live with the intolerable situation where the corporations own the media and control both the Democratic and Republican parties with campaign contributions.

Yet every four years we repeat the cycle where the Democrats are forever voting for the lesser of two evils and trying to suppress third party candidates as spoilers.

An emblematic example is Ralph Nader in the 2004 presidential election. Any progressive worth his/her salt will actively promote Nader’s message to remove corporate money from the electoral process. However, because of the accepted “reality” of electoral politics even KPFA will not air his message with any degree of consistency or repetition.

Were it not for Democracy Now and Flashpoints, I doubt very much Ralph Nader's voice would have been heard over KPFA air at all in the fall of 2004.

Greens feel that a progressive station like KPFA should squarely and frequently address the issues of electoral reform, such as IRV and publicly financed elections, so that in the end the electoral process is freed from corporate money.

The Green Party, like KPFA, has chosen to operate outside the confines (and benefits) of corporate money and so the two are natural partners in the effort to build a better world that truly supports human need rather than corporate greed.


[There are two competing slates and a group of independent candidates running for positions on the LSB.

‘Alliance for a Democratic KPFA’ slate is backed by the 'progressive staff' like Dennis Bernstein and Bonnie Faulkner. The candidates include mostly peace and media activists like Henry Norr, the SF Chronicle journalist who was fired for participating in anti war march and supporting the Palestinian cause.]

-- --------
I use the word progressive in the sense of challenging the accepted norm that understandably creates opposition.
Dennis Bernstein gets harassed both inside and outside the station for his coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Bonnie Faulkner gets derided both inside and outside the station for coverage of 9-11.


[The following individuals, including many Green candidates, also endorse the Alliance slate: Aimee Allison, candidate Oakland City Council, Dist. 2; Terry Baum, playwright http:/ /; Riva Enteen, KPFA LSB member; Bonnie Faulkner, producer, Guns and Butter; Lawrence Ferlinghetti, poet; Dennis Bernstein, executive producer, FlashPoints; Krissy Keefer, Green Party candidate for Congress; Renee Saucedo, attorney, Civil Rights activist; Michael Parenti, author; Attila Nagy, KPFA LSB member; James Vann, affordable housing activist; Peter Phillips, Project Censored
There is also a group of independents running, which includes some very capable and progressive candidates.

‘Concerned Listener’ slate is backed by the 'entrenched staff' like Larry Bensky, Mark Mi[e]re[i]cle, Phil Maldav[r]i, and Sasha Lill[e]y who are opposing the implementation of democratic governance that resulted from the settlement. They have enlisted people from the Wellstone Democrats like Conn Hallinan to run on their slate. They also include two incumbents, Mark Hernandez and Sarv Randhawa, who blocked the KPFA LSB support for the Berkeley Honda strikers.]

-- --------
You have informed me that you are not a member of the WDRC--my sincere apologies for this mistake.

I misconstrued John Katz’s flyer which announced that you, Conn Hallinan, were hosting a fundraiser where the WDRC members were invited to meet ‘the Concerned Listener’ candidates who were endorsed for the KPFA Local Station Board by the Wellstone Club and .. "shmooze with some of the on air staff that is supporting their candidacies, including Larry Bensky, Bonnie Simmons, Phil Maldari, Sasha Lilley, and Mark Mericle”.

I took the account of the WDRC endorsement of the ‘Concerned Listeners’ slate from:

As far as the ‘entrenched staff’ opposing the implementation of democratic governance, this is a charge made by some of the candidates opposed to the ‘Concerned Listener’ slate. It is a value judgment, so it was not appropriate to include in our endorsement, and I apologize for including this in our endorsement.

As far as blocking the resolution in support of the Berkeley Honda strike, I based this on the account by LSB member, Chandra Hauptman, who introduced the resolution in support of the strikers.

Chandra wrote:
“” The reason it took nine months for this resolution to be approved is because two board members, SARV RANDHAWA and MARK HERNANDEZ, prevented this item from being heard by the board. Each month, either Sarv or Mark voiced an objection to this item going forward on the LSB’s consent calendar. After a few attempts to get this resolution approved, I started writing emails to all members of the LSB prior to each board meeting. I asked if anyone had objections to this resolution to please make these objections known to me and to the LSB. I also offered to discuss these objections so they could be resolved prior to each board meeting. Month after month my email appeals were met with complete silence. No one said why he/she was objecting. No one came forward to state publicly why he/she continued to prevent this resolution from going forward.

The only reason the board was able to approve this resolution is because I threatened to go public, at the April 2006 LSB meeting, by exposing the names of the two people who prevented this resolution from being approved by the LSB for the prior 8 months."

Anyone who wants to learn more about both sides of this issue should read the posting by the two principals: Chandra Hauptman who introduced the resolution and Mark Hernandez who gives his account of why it took nine month to pass the resolution.

Chandra’s account:
Mark’s account:

We in the GPAC voted to support the strike, and many of us walked on the picket line. The strikers needed all the help they could get.


[The Green Party of Alameda County recommends the selection of the following nine candidates for the Local Station Board from the Alliance for a Democratic KPFA slate, the Concerned Listeners slate, the Independents.

(Alliance for a Democratic KPFA slate)
1. Akio Tanaka - Green Party, Oak to Ninth Referendum Committee
2. Henry Norr - Green Party, journalist and peace activist
3. Dave Heller - Green Party, Californians for Electoral Reform
4. Bob English - labor activist
5. Regina Carey- civil right and grass-root activist

(Concerned Listeners slate)
6. Phoebe Sorgen - Chair Social Justice Committee, BFUU

7. Dave Welsh - labor activist
8. Vida Samiian - Dean, Fresno State University
9. Jane Jackson - Incumbent, and civil rights activist

More information about each candidate is available at:

There are 22 candidates running for the 9 positions. Ranked voting will be used so each
KPFA member can cast no more than 9 votes in the order of their preference.]

The GPAC endorsement list was put together partly to counter the pending mailers in support of the ‘Concerned Listeners‘ slate, so our endorsement listed only one ‘Concerned Listener’ slate member.

I recognize that there are outstanding candidates on the ‘Concerned Listener’ slate also like Conn Hallinan and Ernesto Chacin.


by Another Green
Sunday Oct 29th, 2006 2:27 PM
As a Green activist in another county, I received a copy of this endorsement statement approved by GPAC council. I was surprised enough to learn that it was approved after a candidates forum that apparently was rigged to include only certain members from the slate that Akio Tanaka is a member of, and that not all the candidates were invited to speak. Now I learn that Akio, a candidate, actually wrote the endorsement letter!

This is the sort of insider, exclusionary practice I might expect from the Republican Party, but not from my fellow Greens! When my own party's candidates for public office are excluded from debate and coverage by the corporate media, I can not fathom that a Green county council would participate, let alone make endorsements on the basis of, an event that excluded other candidates in an election to the board of an alternative media outlet. I think it is in direct contradiction of our key values.

I certainly hope that the Alameda Greens will take up this issue.
by Akio Tanaka
Sunday Oct 29th, 2006 9:27 PM
The Green Sunday event was posted on Indybay prior to the event.
Brian Edwards-Tiekert attended. Concerned Listener candidate Ernesto Chacin spoke.
Even Jim Weber, an independent spoke.
by Mark Hernandez
Monday Oct 30th, 2006 1:43 AM
I've gone through the LSB minutes regarding the Berkeley Honda Workers
resolution and compiled the records, and it appears that Akio is seriously
uninformed about the facts of the matter.

I believe that Akio now owes both myself and Sarv Randhawa an apology and
a formal public withdrawal of his misinformation. I believe that he also
owes the Alameda County Green Party a public apology for what appears to
be an abuse of his position within the Greens to promote this false
information as "fact".

On 8/20/2005, Chandra Hauptman offered the resolution at the meeting (not
a prior submission), and it was removed from the Consent Calendar. The
record does not indicate who did this, but it was then placed into the
Unfinished Business agenda area as the other two Consent Calendar items were.

The likeliest reason for an objection is that it was presented at the
meeting with no ability to review the documentation or materials provided,
and no one wanted to vote on it without knowing all of what it involved.
I may well have requested discussion and debate on the item at the time, as
I still do to this day on any item that is brought forward without proper
notice or any information ahead of the meeting. However, nothing is
evident to state who precisely asked for discussion and debate at this time.

The resolution then sat in the Unfinished Business area from 9/17/2005
until 2/18/2006, with no effort from Hauptman nor her allies to bring it
forward or to place it back on the Consent Calendar.

Prior to this, I find no evidence of an e-mail message from Hauptman asking
for objections or any information regarding the resolution. This may have
happened, and I may be overlooking the message due to a poorly stated subject
line, but I cannot immediately locate the message that she claims to have
sent to myself and others.

On 2/14/2006, Hauptman requested that the item be placed on the Consent


From : Chandra Hauptman
Sent : Tuesday, February 14, 2006 4:14 PM
To : LSB Agenda
CC : KPFA LSB mailing list
Subject : berkeley honda resolution


in case you don't have the actual wording for the berkeley honda resolution
here it is below- chandra


Resolution re Berkeley Honda workers (Chandra 8/20):
The KPFA Local Station Board endorses and supports the strike of the
Berkeley Honda workers. It also urges people to call Berkeley Honda and
tell them to rehire and respect their long-time employees and to recognize
the employee’s union.


On 2/18/2006, it was placed back on the Consent Calendar, and I requested
the item be presented for discussion and debate; six months had passed with
this item languishing in neglect by Hauptman, it seemed appropriate to make
sure it was still timely and to give an open discussion on the issue.

It went instead to New Business, per Roberts Rules of Order, and was not
pushed nor moved by Hauptman for any sort of special attention.

On 3/11/2006, Hauptman again presented it for the Consent Calendar, and it
was requested for discussion and debate by Sarv Randhawa, and placed again
in New Business, per Roberts Rules of Order.

On 4/22/2006, the resolution was accepted by Unanimous Consent.

So the reality is, the Berkeley Honda Workers resolution was originally
proposed in 8/2005, sat in the agenda for six months, was then placed
on the Consent Calendar in 2/2006, again on 3/2006, and then approved
in 4/2006.

Here is the digest of Consent Calendars since August 2005 until the Berkeley
Honda Workers resolution passed unanimously (the agendas and minutes can
be seen at or

8/20/2005: Resolutions placed on Consent Calendar

1. Relations Between the COI and the LSB and Its Committees and Processes

2. Motion to hold a town hall meeting within 90 days

3. Next regular meeting

Item 3 passed by Unanimous Consent.

All others moved to agenda points accordingly.

Berkeley Honda Resolution submitted during meeting as Item #4 and moved.

9/17/2005: Resolutions placed on Consent Calendar

1. Next regular meeting

2. Staff reductions policy

Town Hall motion added to Consent Calendar.

Berkeley Honda resolution is placed under Unfinished Business from prior meeting.

10/22/2005: Resolutions placed on Consent Calendar

I. Next regular meeting

Item approved by Unanimous Consent.

Berkeley Honda Workers resolution is placed under

Unfinished Business from prior meetings.

11/19/2006: Resolutions placed on Consent Calendar

I. Next Regular Meeting

II. Schedule for January 2006 meeting to elect PNB Directors

All items moved to agenda points accordingly.

Berkeley Honda Workers resolution is placed under

Unfinished Business from prior meetings.

12/17/2005: No agenda was posted. However, the minutes indicate that
the entire Consent Calendar was moved to discussion and
debate by both Riva Enteen and Willie Ratcliff.

1/7/2006: Resolutions placed on Consent Calendar

1. Next regular meeting

2. Regular LSB meetings schedule for 2006

3. Meetings at Freight and Salvage unless noticed otherwise

4. Approve Distribution of Executive Session materials via Email

5. Motion to Postpone Indefinitely The Older Agenda Items

6. LSB permission form a LSB Disability Access Committee

Item I passes by Unanimous Consent.

All other items go to agenda points accordingly.

Berkeley Honda Workers resolution remains under Unfinished Business.

2/18/2006: Resolutions placed on Consent Calendar









All items placed accordingly into the regular agenda.

Establishment of a GM Hire Committee took up most of the agenda.

MH moved Berkeley Honda Workers resolution for discussion and debate.

3/11/2006: Resolutions placed on the Consent Calendar









Items I, II, V and VI accepted by Unanimous Consent.

Other items moved to New Business.

None acted on, as meeting adjourned early by motion of Willie Ratcliff.

SR moved Berkeley Honda Workers resolution to discussion and debate.

4/22/2006: Resolutions placed on Consent Calendar




All items agreed to by Unanimous Consent.

When the facts are made available, the stories and accusations against
myself and Sarv Randhawa are clearly false and complete fabrications.

Since the facts were available and open to the public, and Akio failed to
exercise any reasonable effort to verify the information before presenting
it, I have no choice but to demand both a public apology and a formal
retraction and disclaimer from him, as well as a formal disclaimer from the
Alameda County Green Party for being a party to these false accusations and

I would also ask the Alameda County Green Party examine its membership for
improper use of internal resources to prevent this sort of abuse from
happening again.

Mark Hernandez
Member/Secretary/Candidate, KPFA Local Station Board
by Akio Tanaka
Monday Oct 30th, 2006 6:48 AM
All these discussion about parliamentary procedures and minutes is looking at the trees. I do not think the reason it took ninth month to pass this fairly non-controversial resolution was political or procedural.
by Mark Hernandez
Monday Oct 30th, 2006 7:21 AM
The reality, Akio, is that you were misled or lied to, and you failed to do even the most basic
research of the facts.

The facts are that no one "vetoed" the resolution, and the person who made the motion did
nothing to move it for six of the nine months it was on the agenda.

The record is clear: Instead of "vetoing it month after month", I requested it for discussion and debate _once_, and Sarv did the same _once_.

You are being given the opportunity to do the right thing to correct the egregious errors and ethical breach that you have published, and the Alameda County Green Party to do the same by publicly disavowing your errors published in their name.

Mark Hernandez
Member/Secretary/Candidate, KPFA Local Station Board

by Another Green
Monday Oct 30th, 2006 10:06 AM
Akio, that was not a correction. You simply pointed out that there was a calendar item posted, and some people came apparently uninvited yet were "graciously," I guess, allowed to speak. Brian Edwards is not even a candidate. So Jim Weber showed up, he wasn't on the panel, was he? Was Concerned Listeners for KPFA invited? Why was a person who is listed on the Alliance slate, who I guess is a write in, "moderating" the forum I saw on video on Indybay? Is this the same event? I do not see Jim Weber included in that, and it was slanted with a biased moderator who is part of the group anyway. And I've seen the "fulcrums" postings now where your slate members and supporters scream and attack others at the drop of a hat about bias...unless, apparently it suits your own.

So, did the ACGP invite all candidates equally, or not? And did you, as a candidate, draft the endorsement letter for your Green Council to sign after an event you only invited your own slate members to speak at? And did you arrange for a slate supporter to moderate?

Where were you on the forum yesterday? I would have called and asked you to answer these questions on the air.

by Akio Tanaka
Monday Oct 30th, 2006 10:30 AM
We had a big fundraiser for the Oak to Ninth Referendum Committee yesterday from noon to 5.
I agree that everyone candidates should be heard as much as possible.
I think the members of the Wellstone Democrats could have benefitted from listening to candidates from the Alliance and the independents.
by Another Green
Monday Oct 30th, 2006 2:40 PM
I am a Green, not a Democrat, and this party-shifting is not an answer. Even so, as I understand it, the Wellstone Democrats are not a political party but a caucus within one. Had the Wellstones endorsed the Concerned Listeners slate on behalf of the entire Democratic Party, you would have a point. You would also have a point if any of the Wellstones were actually running for the station board, which I now understand is not true, and if one of those non-existent candidates wrote their own endorsement on behalf of the Democratic Party county council or committee.

But you continue to avoid the question, Akio, and I find this very frustrating: Did you arrange for and invite only your slate of candidates to the "Green Sunday" event and did you personally write the endorsement letter you had your council sign after purposefully excluding the others? Yes or no will do, rather than responding to an unasked question.
by Akio Tanaka
Monday Oct 30th, 2006 4:59 PM
I did not organize the Green Sunday. I was told that they were inviting three current LSB members to talk about the LSB and then three Green candidates who were running were to speak.
I was actually surprised to see the annoucement on Indybay.
As it turned out some Alliance people who had not been invited and not on our endorsement took over center stage.
As far as writing of the endorsement and asking for CC approval, that is the whole subject matter of this thread.
by Mark Hernandez
Monday Oct 30th, 2006 5:06 PM
Actually, the subject of the thread is in response to Conn Hallinan's message to you, in which you made
claims that are patently false and highly misleading.

You have been provided with the evidence and truth of the matter; it was available on-line and could have
been found by you with simple research effort.

Instead, you used hearsay, innuendo and several bald-faced lies as the "factual basis" for your endorsement text.

In the face of that evidence, do you still stand by your words, or are you intending to retract them and apologize?

In the face of that evidence, does the Alameda County Green Party Central Committee feel that you performed due diligence and ethical behavior enough to stand behind your written material?

Mark Hernandez
Member/Secretary/Candidate, KPFA Local Station Board

by AKio Tanaka
Monday Oct 30th, 2006 5:08 PM
I wish the GPAC was the Green Party since we have the wisest people.
by Be Honest Hernandez!
Tuesday Oct 31st, 2006 9:59 PM
It seems that Mark Hernandez wanted the KFPA board to have a full discussion on whether or
not it should support the Berkeley Honda workers boycott. As Mark clearly knows in
light of his continuous effort to roadblock any action by the LSB, a vote to have a discussion
on this would require a fight to make it time sensitive and another time consuming battle on
board. This sounds like the tactics of a union buster that wants to stall support for striking
workers and pretends he doesn't know what it is all about.
It was clear from KPFA LSB member Chandra Hauptman what it was about. Solidarity with the Berkeley Honda workers. First
Hernandez said he did not know about this issue because he lives in far away Fresno. Now
he says he needs to have a discussion to clarify all the issues in this strike.
Is this the kind of candidates that Conn Hallinan and the the staff support. He needs to have a
debate/discussion about whether to support the controversial issue of supporting striking
workers in Berkeley by backing a boycott which is also supported by the Berkeley City Council.
Come clean Mark and tell us why you didn't support the workers in this fight until it was nearly
by Anonymous
Wednesday Nov 1st, 2006 1:22 AM
The only point to be gotten from this Berkeley Honda nonsense is that it apparently takes 9 months to move an agenda item from the agenda to a discussion. This "is" the problem. KPFA needs a board that can have a discussion when needed, not one that disentegrates into a sea of fighting and mutual insults every time it tries to talk about something - even something that has nothing to do WITH KPFA. Since the reault of voting in a majority of People's Radio/Allaince candidates in 2004 has been a non-functional board that is incapable (IN THEIR OWN WORDS) of HAVING a discussion, the voters should express their dis-satisfaction with this state of affairs and seriously consider the other slate of candidates. It is an unacceptable situation that a board of directors can't have a discussion and people are accused of "dirty tricks" because they put an agenda item on an agenda. If after two years, this is all PR can accomplish ... they deserve to be a thing of the past.
Wednesday Nov 1st, 2006 1:26 AM
I guess this applies for people who are running for positions as well as already holding them:

You people have got to deal with this in person. Get some mediation now and schedule conflict resolution training (and consensus and meeting facilitation, too) for right after the election.

We will not be able to build a better world (for us revolutionaries) or even change the current one (for you progressives and liberals) if we can't learn to work together. And maybe some people just can't get along. Then, someone on at least one side has to be a grownup and MOVE ON.
by Mark Hernandez
Wednesday Nov 1st, 2006 2:08 AM
After reading the minutes over, the timeline is this:

August 2005: Chandra Hauptman introduces the resolution at the meeting, with no prior notice
or warning. "Someone" (the minutes aren't clear on who, and I wasn't Secretary then) wanted
to have discussion on this last-minute item and moved it to the appropriate place on the agenda.

Because of this, it sat on the agenda under "Old Business" until February 2006...for SIX months.

During this time, Hauptman and others moved items from Old Business to the top of the agenda, and by doing so, pushed the BHW resolution further and further down the agenda.

In February 2006, Hauptman presented the item to me for my first agenda as Secretary, providing the language of the resolution, but not one bit of documentation to support or explain it.
In fact, Hauptman never asked for the item to be placed on the Consent Calendar; she submitted it as a normal agenda item, and I placed it on the Consent Calendar in the mistaken belief that she would submit the documentation to the LSB via e-mail.

Hauptman never did.

To me, that's little more than "you don't need to know what this is about, just vote on it and pass it", which I will never agree to do. As a result, I moved it to discussion on the agenda.

Once again, the item could have been moved forward on the agenda as a priority item, but Hauptman did not consider it important enough to do so.

In March, Hauptman again presented it to the agenda without any form of documentation; again, it was "you don't need to know about it, just vote for it". This time, Sarv Randhawa moved it to discussion on the agenda, and again, Hauptman left it there without action to move it forward, and without sending any reasoning or facts or other information to consider before voting.

In April, the resolution was passed; by then, it appears that the LSB members were informed of the facts well enough to vote without dissent.

The reality of the situation is that Hauptman let the resolution sit on the agenda for SIX MONTHS without taking one action to move it forward or to have the LSB act on it; meanwhile, the LSB moved no less than two dozen items ahead of the BHW resolution, pushing it further and further down the agenda each time during that six months of neglect by Hauptman.

The facts on record in the LSB minutes, prior to me becoming Secretary, clearly show that Hauptman is at best mistaken, or at worst deliberately making false statements, and that the interminable delay that she complains about is of her own making and the fault of no one but herself.

These records are available to anyone willing to read the agendas and minutes, and can be seen at or .

Mark Hernandez
Member/Secretary/Candidate, KPFA Local Station Board

by Jack O'Connor
Wednesday Nov 1st, 2006 8:01 AM
I have met many Greens . They have views ranging across the progressive political spectrum . Many are absolutely opposed to supporting any Democractic or (naturally ) Republican candidates. (One said that ''inside outside '' that is working both inside and outside the D.P. is like being a ''little bit pregnant ''. ) That wing is basically led by Peter Camejo . The wing that does support some Democrats and opposed Nader's run centers around David Cobb . I suspect Concerned Listener candidate Phoebe Sorgen is with that wing since she is strongly backed By David Cobb. I am puzzled by why Tanaka endorsed her) But from whatever faction any Green i've met has belonged to , they have always been very upfront about their views, aims, and NAMES! I doubt if these anonymous ''Greens ''are actually party activists or even registered Greens . Why else would they keep their identities secret? Not so ? Prove me wrong . Identify yourselves !
by PhoeBe ANNE
Sunday Nov 5th, 2006 6:16 PM
Thanks for your comment, Jack.

David Cobb may not know I'm a Green. He endorsed me based on our work together opposing constitutional "rights" for corporations and corporate personhood. David Cobb is also a hero of the first order for standing up to the stolen presidential election of '04. Aki Tanaka and I also endorsed each other based on mutual respect due to prior activist work together.

I also think highly of Peter Camejo, have read and studied his book, and was in on getting him to speak at the BFUU Hall and Redwood Sequoia Congress before Cynthia McKinney's keynote address. I did not feel that he knows me well enough for me to request his endorsement.

Years later, some neighbors still blame us for GW's election because we had a Nader sign in our yard, even tho I traded votes with someone I trust who lives in a red state. Interesting about Green factions. I'm not with any faction of the Green Party. I sometimes re-register as a Dem when it matters, for example to vote for Debra Bowen for CA Sec of State in the primary (because she is more likely than Forrest Hill to be elected and prevent more stolen elections,) and when that was required to be a member of the Wellstone Voting Rights Task Force.

PhoeBe ANNE sorgen
kpfa lsb candidate