KPFA, Pacifica Elections Marred By Hate Speech

Dan Siegel knows what real ''hate speech '' is . Anti-Black racism, real (not just anti-zionist ) anti- Jewish rants, misogynist statements about women and so on . What PeoplesRadio did was to try to educate the KPFA voting public about what actually is going on at the station . Writing about the '' Concerned Listeners'' voting records, back room plotting , what dangers the station and the network face etc. isn't ''slander''. The exposed parties may '' Hate '' to see it in print but that's a very legitimate political tactic.
What Siegel is trying to do is to sabotage the election so that his cronies of the KPFA Mgmt./Wellstone Democratic Club created slate can win .

The People's Radio candidates violated Pacifica election rules by slamming other candidates by name. The election rules forbid that. People's Radio are exactly like their Bush Administration cohorts. They don't have a record of accomplishing anything of any benefit to the station so out comes their little pail of mud. Just like Karl Rove they can't run on their record so all they can do is attack. People's Radio hasn't raised a cent in fund-raising dollars. They haven't held any promotional our outreach events to new listeners, they haven't reached out and shaken a single hand and said "there's this great radio station I'd like to tell you about." They completely lack talent or creativity, so there incapable of coming up with exciting promotional activities. None of them seem to bring any skill to the board other than the ability to divide and smear and spread hate and ugliness. They are quite simply social outcasts who know their bile and idiocy will be tolerated at KPFA so that is where they congregate.

The ballot statement is an an embarrassment to any thinking adult who cares about KPFA. I do not want my station run by a bunch of dictatorial fascists who happen to come from the left. I wonder how long it would be before they started turning on each in their years long quest for power and ego affirmation. Between Phelps and Zeltzer, I'm surprised there hasn't been blood drawn yet.

I'm voting for Concerned Listeners because they actually tell me what they will do and what they bring to the table as proven activists and solid progressives. Not destroyers. Then I dearly wish these pseudo radicals would go find some other hobby.

In a election one talks about your opposition 's record , votes , political scandals, gross contradictions , all of that is not only ok it SHOULD be brought out. . When C.L. Candidates try to hide the real, easily verifiable record of their ''party'' (behind a bunch of progressive platitutes , the left equivalent of '' Mom and Apple pie '' ) it's good that it's exposed .
I read the pamplet . Nothing in it is false . Actually very little is even that recent . It's all stuff that many people that many people have known about for the last few years . What the uproar is about is that the circle is being widen to include all the listener/members .
I usually don't quote capitalist pols like Harry Truman but his line that '' My enemies say i give them hell . I don't . I just tell the truth about them and to them , that's hell ! "" is applicable here .
Get real C.L ! Stop attempting to taint the election and get candidates thrown off the ballot ! DEBATE THE REAL ISSUES AND DEFEND C.L.'s REAL PROGRAM AND PRACTICE (IF YOU DARE ) !

he who smelt it, dealt it.

obviously you recognized yourself in siegel's letter and outed yourself. and now you think you're a regular harry s truman? how perfectly delusional of you.

I'm not a attorney . But my husband is . He's very well versed in election law . He's represented both incumbents and challengers in Union elections .He took one look at this '' Open Letter'' and said '' Why is Dan doing this ? This is openly a attempt to influence the election . If this Peoples Radio looses and sues to overturn the election they will win , thanks to this letter ''
I do not support any slate .I'm probably closer to the Concerned Candidates than the others .
i read the pamplet . I saw nothing about people's martial problems, children or if they own pit bulls that terrorize the neighborhood . I did see political allegations . Are they true ? I don't know . But please challenge the Peoples Radio people on that basis . Do not try to kick them off the ballot or sabatoge this election .

Did that Get Real guy actually say "capitalist" politicians? What year is this? What dusty old Leninist tract has he been reading lately? So you don't quote "capitalist" Pols, who do you quote? Wonderful politicians like Lenin, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot? Just exactly which totalitarian scumbag do you take your motivation from?

Fact is Pacifica's own election laws forbid smear campaigning. You are not allowed to go into the motivations of your opponent or call people out by name. That is because Pacifica is trying to be above the kind of mud-slinging negative politics we see on TV ads during election time. People's Radio has taken it's election page right out of Karl Rove's slimy text.

Let us take a serious look at this letter and forget about sides if you can. The WBAI part is for another time except for the fact that the IED tries to develop guilt by association. Association that he created. Also of note this letter is not on the WBAI web site and the WBAI candidate statements are still on the Pacificafoundation.org web site last I looked. The opposite is true for KPFA's web site and candidate statements. Why the differences?

No staff or management is supposed to get involved in or support or take positions in a listener election on station or foundation property or air. If this needed to be done it was the job of the National Election Supervisor. This letter was a gross violation of this principle.

Then you have the IED badgering some candidates about their decision to give history and political criticism to the voters instead of unverified personal info. To condemn someone's writing without any examples, in a cavalier fashion, is simply not fair. This stands totally inapposite to what Pacifica has stood for over 50 years, the First Amendment and free speech.

Now let's take a look at the internal contradictions in the letter. Let's compare the 1st and 3rd paragraphs side by side.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Pacifica ’s local station board elections have taken a particularly nasty turn. A group of candidates running for the KPFA local board have issued statements that contain "little more than personal attacks" on their opponents and station staff. A candidate at WBAI engages in blatant race-baiting."

"Many people are now calling for administrative and legal responses to abusive candidate speech. We are reviewing our options, but libel laws,

"difficulties in distinguishing between reasonable criticism and “personal attacks” (as well as deciding who should be empowered to make such judgments), "

and Pacifica’s tradition of support for free speech make such measures problematic."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In the first paragraph the IED concludes that certain statements were "personal attacks" without supplying any examples or evidence. Just a conclusion with no explanation as to how he came to it. Not a very Pacifica or progressive method. Due process? And then in the third paragraph he states:

"difficulties in distinguishing between reasonable criticism and “personal attacks” (as well as deciding who should be empowered to make such judgments)"

It seems that with out any input or process involving anyone in governance, Siegel has decided that HE is the DECIDER despite the "difficulties in distinguishing between reasonable criticism and “personal attacks”.

So his methodology is individualistic, and in governance that could be called dictatorial. I don't know about you, I don't want anyone who practices these methodologies being in leadership of Pacifica, much less its IED. What type of example is this setting for others and what does it say to others about Pacifica???

And the bias of our IED? He was counsel for one member of CL some years ago, that same person got him a $10K consultant position with the KPFA LSB just two years ago, and if the votes were made public I would bet my house that the CL members and their allies votes on the PNB for him as corporate counsel and IED got him the positions. Quid pro quo anyone?

So on an intellectual/methodological, bylaws, ethics and fairness scale this letter fails badly on all counts. How did this person get into this position?? Who is minding Pacifica? These are the questions that should be being asked in response to this letter by IED Siegel.

Richard Phelps, KPFA LSB Listener Representative

Eli, don't you know that the founding organization of your slate , the Wellstone Democratic Club is mostly ex and a few current CPUSA .
I don't know about his brother Matthew but Conn still calls himself a Marxist .
It's true that many Socialists do not consider the CPUSA to be ''red '', at most a pale pink .
But that's a historical debate for another thread .
So Eli, a word of advice . Don't redbait. Your C.L./ Wellstone Club comrades might get pissed off at you . For nostalgic reasons if nothing else .

What is it with you lot? Any criticism of the utter human catastrophe that was communism with its millions of victims is called red-baiting? What's next calling criticism of Mussolini or Hitler blackshirt baiting? Some things deserved to be baited cause they friggin suck. Bolshevism is one of those things. I don't care who likes it or not.

I think Pacifica needs leaders who can have civil discourse and who do not snoop into staff private correspondence and draw preposterous conclusions and use trickery in language to connect dots that do not connect and to level guilt by association against people who disagree with you or who merely receive emails from people who disagree with you. The allegations they make against CL regarding the last election and managements role in promoting or not promoting the election is not explained or backed up at all, it is simply leveled in the most bone headed way.

I will vote for candidates who speak peacefully and thoughtfully about the station and the network, who are thoughtful in their criticism rather than dogged, not people who do nothing and say nothing but throw stones at other people for what I read as the flimsiest of reasons. If a staff person had a thought they jotted to a few friends once that they wished the LSB would go away, then the problem is not that the person dared to utter the statement, last I check free speech is protected and should be encouraged at Pacifica, the problem lies in why such a disconnect? What happened to make that person so distraut about the state of the LSB? Someone had a legitimate complaint and uttered a statement of exasperation and they are hounded for it by board members who would gladly snoop through people's email and hold them up for ridicule for flippant out of context remarks made between friends. Shame on anyone who does this, it is scary that a board member would stoop to this level.

If the feds or cops or whoever wanted to destabilize Pacifica, I think that is how they would act, they would do nothing but fight and disrupt until all civil thinking people are too disgusted to stay involved. Anyone who disagrees with them would be on their list for future smear campaigns and unwarrented criticism and blatant lies like we have seen here. They would keep everyone spending all their hours not working for social change and positive change at Pacifica but in defending their reputations against warrentless attacks. We need better for Pacifica.

"how do we make our enemies own the problems that are to come?"

This one statement from Brian Edwards-Tiekert e-mail says it all ala Karl Rove. So stop the projection and accept reality. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem!

you keep talking about that silly little email, and from a flippant comment made by a young person in the midst of internal meltdown at kpfa springs conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory.. therefore a secret cadre must certainly be running things.. 'the spectre of 1999 is upon us again' give me a break! You guys are pathetic.

The IED's gross "personal attack" on one group of candidates with out stating any examples or evidence to support his statement is wrong? His meddling in the election process is absolutely forbidden by our bylaws. Here, he is defaming one group because they dared to speak truth to power, aka exercised their right under our First Amendment and Pacifica's nick name "Free Speech Radio" to politically hold others accountable for what they (Siegel's allies) have done in the past.

What next "Fahrenheit 451? "

"The novel presents a future in which all books (candidate statements on the web) are restricted, individual people are anti-social ( don't believe in due process or honesty) and hedonistic ( me first, the Pacifica Mission some where down the line) , and critical thought is suppressed."

Do we see critical thought being suppressed at Pacifica?? What else could you call it!! This kind of behavior to win power is a very slippery slope. What have you won if it wasn't gained by truth and fair play?? CL on political steroids? Win at all costs. Unfortunately the costs will be great anytime you violate basic progressive principles, truth, transparency, accountability and democratic process.

How would people have responded if Siegel had posted a letter saying everything in Peoplesradio's statements was true and you should vote accordingly?

If he had done that I would be one of the first to condemn it as I am now. More than anything else we need a level playing field upon which to make decisions. Siegel has tilted it way off center and should be fired immediately if we had a PNB with any ethics and/or principles. This doesn't apply to those that do, you know who you are, you didn't vote to hire him I hope, or make him IED and let his partner be corporate counsel (no conflicts here???)???

We shall see who does on the PNB by who stands up and speaks out for fair elections and due process. Siegel is not cop, judge and jury? or is he? He is sure acting like he thinks he is above the bylaws and any sense of fairness. La Varn Williams has already sent our a strong letter. Who else on the PNB has the courage to do what is right???

Richard Phelps for free speech and fair elections.

The Dan Siegel letter, which was addressed to the “Pacifica Community” and national board, widely distributed and posted on the LSB website, caps a long, growing list of campaign practice violations and election suppression tactics/actions by KPFA managers, representing interests of a senior staff/department head clique controlling the station with operative and political support from their Concerned Listener (CL) client allies. (The story and issues of systematic attempts to suppress and derail a democratic LSB election at KPFA are the subject of a concurrent article “Oct 25 Oakland Press Conf & picket At Pacifica Interim Executive Director Daniel M. Siegel” and discussion on Indybay/media and the press conference yester day outside Siegel’s downtown Oakland office, attended by candidates and current LSB representatives.)

The letter itself is a major campaign violation prejudicing the vote, the epitome of an already rigged election. As the only election information statement now on the 2007 LSB election page (candidate statements were submitted 9/25 but are still withheld) and coming from the interim ED official head of Pacifica, it essentially echoes and endorses the Concerned Listener party line and candidates while condemning without naming the PeoplesRadio (PR) candidates and their collective candidate statements as "personal attacks" and "hate speech and hateful speech."

First, our PR candidate statements are not, as Siegel states, "personal attacks on their opponents and station staff," not campaign practice violations as claimed by anonymous CL posters and bloggers but are written to hold current station management and Board members (including prior and current CL slate candidates and their allies on the LSB) accountable for their voting record and actions, openly analyze issues relevant and critical to this election, and to inform the listener members, who need to know what’s really happening and the developing crisis at the station in order to make intelligent, informed candidate selections. I’ll write more on this in a separate post, as well as reiterate why PR candidates chose to present collective statements (as clearly explained in all the statements).

Everything presented as fact, perspective and analysis in these statements is true, documented with examples and open to further discussion and as campaign issues. But rather than refutations or debate of the facts and issues raised, this week we’ve seen a storm of sorry, rabid reactions in various alternative media and internet formats to these true statements, blatantly endorsed by Siegel/Pacifica’s official seal of approval and reiteration. The Siegel letter reinforces this unprincipled misinformation attack on the PR candidates and our collective statements, not only as a distraction from, but another component of, the pervasive subversions and suppression undermining a democratic election at KPFA (similar but far more damaging than the blogs, release of confidential info and other attacks on Alliance for a democratic KPFA candidates last year). From this attack and besides spreading smear and slander, linking us to everything from the WBAI based so called Justice and Unity Coalition to Nixon WaterGate dirty tricksters (e. g. actual terms used by "flerb" on the Daily Kos blog: "ratfuck"ers ala Donald Segretti), CL candidates and supporters are filing election complaints and trying to build pressure on the Pacifica national officers and election supervisors to censor the statements and remove the PR candidates from the election, partly succeeding toward that goal with the Siegel letter and delayed website posting of candidate materials. All this, including Siegel’s piece, shows their hypocrisy, partial ignorance and utter contempt for accountability, transparency, free speech, open exchange and debate, factual statements of truth to power, as well as the Pacifica Mission and recent history, the FreePacifica and listener democracy movements. Will it partly backfire in this election and further expose their hypocritical undercover act at KPFA?

Some pro-democracy folks are now trying to distinguish between Siegel’s references to “personal attacks” (referring to PR statements) and to "blatant race-baiting" and "hate speech" (referring to a WBAI candidate statement, which is posted on that station website election page). But Siegel doesn't really make a clear distinction to anyone/all reading the letter as a whole, from top to bottom: instead at the top he links and throws both types of statements into the same scum bucket (the "nasty turn" of the election) and condemns both as "hate/hateful speech" at the bottom.

That's exactly how the letter is being presented and spun here on Indybay/media, under the title "KPFA, PACIFICA ELECTIONS MARRED BY HATE SPEECH" and introduced anonymously (as usual) by a CL supporter as follows:
"Civil rights attorney and Pacifica Foundation interim Executive Dan Siegel publishes open letter rebuking hate speech by Peoples Radio in KPFA ballot statement, and race-baiting statements at WBAI."

Further at the bottom, Siegel proceeds to a) call for and characterize Pacifica leadership needs in the same generalized terms used by the CL slate candidates: “We need leaders who will work to improve our programming, broaden our listener base, and attract needed financial support;” and b) suggest how the members should evaluate candidate statements and vote for such leadership, obviously rather than vote for "hate speech" candidates:
“In the end, Pacifica ’s members will decide whether hate speech and hateful speech will be tolerated in our community. … I urge all of you to carefully review the candidate statements and to cast your ballots for candidates who reflect both your views on how this organization should be run and your values on how democratic debate should occur in a progressive organization that reflects the diversity of our society.”

But as Pacifica’s ED (not the National Election Supervisor) who the hell is Siegel to determine and judge what are personal attacks and hate speech in candidate statements and intervene with the authority and credibility of office to so instruct and direct voters, not only how to evaluate the statements but also toward one slate over another. In fact as LSB rep and candidate Richard Phelps explains in a previous post, the letter is self contradictory in this regard, referring to “libel laws, difficulties in distinguishing between reasonable criticism and “personal attacks” (as well as deciding who should be empowered to make such judgments), and Pacifica’s tradition of support for free speech…”

Well read it and weep, agree or disagree, but no one can ignore or condone the prejudicial impact on the integrity of the LSB election and on the officially selected, smeared candidates.

Bob English
PeoplesRadio
Active from 1999 in CdP, FreePacifica/listener democracy movements.

Open Letter to Dan Siegel
Interim Executive Director, Pacifica Foundation
Re: KPFA Local Station board Election
October 26, 2007

Dear Mr.Siegel,

This is a reply to your "Open Letter to the Pacifica Community" dated
October 24, 2007. (Attached below.)

Frankly by criticizing campaign statements and removing them form the
website, I'm truly amazed that you would take a position so
diametrically opposed to the First Amendment. As the Interim Executive
Director of Pacifica Foundation with the grandest tradition of free
speech in the United States, your anti-free speech attitude is
shameful and demeaning to the Pacifica community and a stain on the
Pacifica tradition.

You ask, "Is this type of rhetoric acceptable?" but you don't give
even a single example of the rhetoric you are condemning. Thus you are
not engaging in debate. You are attempting to stifle debate by
presenting your opinion alone.

But more importantly is your attack on "rhetoric" itself! Your
question -- "Is this type of rhetoric acceptable?" -- is the same
question used to attack Pacifica for its broadcast of George Carlin's
now famous and precedent setting rhetoric. When I read your attack on
free speech I laughed wondering what would George Carlin say? I think
he would say that you are acting just like the owners of America who
believe they can define what rhetoric is or is not acceptable.

You confabulate the KPFA candidate statements with a WBAI candidate
statement. For what purpose? There is no connection, and your
including the two together in that way can only cause confusion in the
Pacifica community.

You allege that the KPFA candidate statements "contain little more
than personal attacks on their opponents." By offering your personal
conclusion and by not offering a single example, you are unduly
attempting to influence the election. The Pacifica Foundation's Fair
Campaign Provisions provide:

"SECTION 6. FAIR CAMPAIGN PROVISIONS

No Foundation or radio station management or staff (paid or unpaid)
may use or permit the use of radio station air time to endorse,
campaign or recommend in favor of or against any candidate(s) for
election as a Listener-Sponsor Delegate, nor may air time be made
available to some Listener-Sponsor Delegate candidate(s) but not to
others. All candidates for election as a Listener-Sponsor Delegate
shall be given equal opportunity for equal air time, which air time
shall include time for a statement by the candidate and a question and
answer period with call-in listeners. No Foundation or radio station
management or staff (paid or unpaid) may give any on-air endorsements
to any candidate(s) for Listener-Sponsor Delegate. The Board of
Directors may not, nor may any LSB nor any committee of the Board or
of an LSB, as a body, endorse any candidate(s) for election as a
Delegate. However, an individual Director or Delegate who is a Member
in good standing may endorse or nominate candidate(s) in his/her
individual capacity. In the event of any violation of these provisions
for fair campaigning, the local elections supervisor and the national
elections supervisor shall determine, in good faith and at their sole
discretion, an appropriate remedy, up to and including
disqualification of the candidate(s) and/or suspension from the air of
the offending staff person(s) (paid or unpaid) for the remainder of
the elections period. All candidates and staff members (paid and
unpaid) shall sign a statement certifying that they have read and
understood these fair campaign provisions." (Article 4, Section 6)


While, this provision specifically applies to "air time", the clear
intent is that Foundation management is not to make use of radio
station facilities to endorse in favor or against candidates. Your
actions on the KPFA website and your letter do constitute endorsement
against candidates in violation of the bylaws.

California law requires that a corporation provide fair and reasonable
election procedures. It is not fair and reasonable to promise to allow
website distribution of candidate statements and then revoke that
promise at one station for arbitrary and capricious reasons while
allowing the members at other stations to continue to have access to
website candidate statements.

Now, you allege that campaigning against opponents by pointing out the
opponents words and deeds is a "personal attack." This Orwellian
definition of personal attack is simply a Republican tactic at
preventing debate. Nothing in the campaign statements that you object
to contained personal attack.

Providing information to listeners that they would not be able to get
otherwise is not a personal attack. Providing the electors with the
text of an email that advocates "dismantling the LSB" is not a
personal attack. If anything is a personal attack it is your false
characterization of political debate which falsely attacks the
character of the candidates.

Criticizing the Interim General Manager, Lemlem Rijio, for not
attending LSB meetings is not a personal attack.

Criticizing Sasha Lilly, the Interim Program Director, for telling
programmers they couldn't encourage people to attend peace marches is
not a personal attack.

Criticizing Sherry Gendleman, an LSB member and candidate for
reelection, for being against elected boards and against program
council empowerment is not a personal attack.

These are all fair political issues.

As a community and progressive organization that supports free speech
we must ask ourselves whether your type of unilateral dictatorial
censorship is acceptable. Pacifica has important challengers and it
can only meet this challenge if robust political debate is allowed
within the organization. You demonstrate the heights of cynicism to
claim that stifling debate is good for the organization. You are
attacking the civil rights of candidates to their political speech in
the name of protecting civil rights in society. What hypocrisy!.

Free speech is established in our nation exactly to prevent petty
tyrants from applying their personal definitions. What you label
"toxic" debate is actually the first real debate in the new democratic
structure of Pacifica. You may call the light of debate "toxic", but
in this case it is only toxic to the infection that hides in the dark.

Raising the question of the "morale" of "hard-working and underpaid
staff" is an indicator of your misguided views. The morale of the
staff is not uniform. There are staff people who oppose the status
quo. Their morale is destroyed by current control by the
status-quo-conservatives within the organization. Those staff members
who are so petulant as to need protecting from open debate among the
listeners should either get a thicker skin or leave the organization.
Staff have their input into the governing process by their election of
their representatives. If the staff oppose the majority of listeners
then it is the staff who will have to adapt. The Pacifica staff and
programmers have traditionally ignored and demeaned any listeners who
disagreed with them. This attitude is what is destructive and does not
need to be enshrined by you.

Additionally, your actions are a blatant example of prejudice and
favoritism since you are attempting to support and defend particular
candidates against political criticism. Your duty was and is to remain
neutral and to keep the appearance of impartiality in the election.
You have violated this duty.

You claim that "Many people are now calling for administrative and
legal responses to abusive candidate speech." Excuse me, there is no
such option. First the speech has not been determined to be abusive by
any means of due process. Second, there is no administrative or legal
response to candidate's speech by the organization. Nothing in the
Fair Campaign Provisions discusses any "abusive" speech other than the
abuse of endorsements which is what you have abused.

In the process of adopting the Fair Campaign Provisions the question
of abusive political debate.was raised and rejected as being against
free speech and impossible to define. Your present arbitrary decision
proves the wisdom of that choice. You admit that "distinguishing
between reasonable criticism and 'personal attacks'" is "problematic"
for the courts, yet you unilaterally and arbitrarily assert your own
higher ability to do just that.

In fact, to keep nonprofits from even attempting to do what you have
done, that is, to arbitrarily decide the organization might be liable
for a candidate's statement and use that as justification for
censorship, California specifically law protects nonprofits from any
liability for candidates statements.

California Corporations Code states:

5525. (a) This section shall apply to corporations publishing or
mailing materials on behalf of any nominee in connection with
procedures for the nomination and election of directors.
(b) Neither the corporation, nor its agents, officers, directors, or
employees, may be held criminally liable, liable for any negligence
(active or passive) or otherwise liable for damages to any person on
account of any material which is supplied by a nominee for director
and which it mails or publishes in procedures intended to comply with
Section 5520 or pursuant to Section 5523 or 5524, but the nominee on
whose behalf such material was published or mailed shall be liable and
shall indemnify and hold the corporation, its agents, officers,
directors and employees and each of them harmless from all demands,
costs, including reasonable legal fees and expenses, claims, damages
and causes of action arising out of such material or any such mailing
or publication.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prevent a corporation or any of its
agents, officers, directors, or employees from seeking a court order
providing that the corporation need not mail or publish material
tendered by or on behalf of a nominee under this article on the ground
the material will expose the moving party to liability.

This section plainly protects Pacifica from any liability for any
material supplied by a nominee for director. As such it would also
apply to nominees for delegates where the publication is in
furtherance of complying with Section 5520's fair election procedures
requirement. Thus your claim that your action is defending Pacifica
from complaints by other candidates is patently false. The law
specifically immunizes Pacifica from these types of claims between
competing candidates.

If Pacifica has a problem with any campaign materials or thinks that
any liability may arise, then Section 5525 provides the remedy: seek a
court order. The law says Pacifica and its agents and employees are
not liable, but if there is doubt then Pacifica or its agents and
employees who believe there may be liability may see a court review.
You have subverted the statutory scheme by inserting your own view of
potential liability for that of the due process provided by law for a
court to determine if liability extends to anyone. This kind of
usurpation of law is the definition of tyranny.

If one candidate has a complaint against another candidate for alleged
defamation, that is a private action and has nothing to do with
Pacifica. You know that political speech is the most protected speech
under the First Amendment that there is. Therefore any assertion that
Pacifica has a duty or obligation to infringe political speech has no
basis in law.

Your actions of broadcasting your management favoritism and preference
and your blatant interference in and attempt to influence the
election, have now put the legitimacy of the KPFA election into doubt.
You have directly exposed the organization to a viable election
challenge.

I can only hope the Pacifica Community repudiates your crass attempt
to influence the outcome of the election and that the Pacifica Board
of Directors directly repudiates your actions so that there will be
not doubt that your petty tyranny is not taken at expressing the proud
tradition of free speech at Pacifica..

Gregory Wonderwheel
Santa Rosa, CA

The snippet you quoted Phelps was, as I understand it, not part of someone's campaign statement. It was part of a personal correspondence, gleaned from sleazy snooping around at KPFA into people's personal on-line business. Your personal slanders were used as part of your campaign platform right there for all to see. That is as Rove as it gets. You've taken your campaign strategy straight from the Rove 2000 election "John McCain has an illegitimate black child" playbook. You're no better than the Bushies despite your phony rhetoric and just as slimy.

And you lot talk about Siegel violating campaign laws. Did you see the laws forbidding personal attacks in campaigning section, or do you have selective vision. People's Radio's hypocrisy is rank and smells to high heaven and so does the two faced hypocrisy of its supporters.

I challenge Phelps, English or any of these other People's Radio propagandists to verify or document any of the so-called statements of truth put out in their campaign statements. Give us verifiable proof, not just your opinions. I'd like to see documentation that the people in question did anything not above board. You lot are desperate. You feel the looming shadow of defeat at your backs so you've resorted to dirty Rovian politics. As someone said earlier, "run on your record", oh that's right you haven't accomplished anything to run on. People like you don't accomplish anything, you sit back and snipe at people who try to accomplish things. Your sleeze bag politics will fail, you'll be forced to move on and in the end it will be good for you as you can transfer your obsessions into getting jobs.

Hey Indybay, in regards to the Pacifica elections, you can read my blog posting I wrote today about the Pacifica, KPFA and WBAI radio drama "Ballad For A Radio Drama" at http://nopolicestate.blogspot.com
Power To The People. Peace on earth and goodwill to all mankind.

Carla

PeoplesRadio (PR) doesn’t rely on financial resources to conduct a campaign in the fashion of the corporate two party system; we don’t have the money raised by Concerned Listeners (CL) through private events attended by KPFA staff stars, to send a mass mailer to all or segments of the 26K KPFA voters precisely timed to the arrival of ballots during the three week election black out at the station (no candidate recordings or statements or election information allowed on air or the website during the always numero uno fund drive, that is the only time it’s referred to as “our station,” when they ask for our $). What we do have and used to reach the same listeners is the free speech, democratic election opportunity of our candidate statements. Instead of the traditional individual “vote for me, here’s why” statements, we decided to do something unique and more informative with integrity, a collective continuous narrative statement, within the limits of the voter booklet format and random alphabetical order, to give truly concerned listeners a point of view, information and analysis which most can’t get anywhere else without being more actively involved or dedicated LSB watchers.

We understand that whether or not we (as individuals and members of a pro-democracy caucus at KPFA) are elected or not, or whoever is elected, nothing will change at KPFA and Pacifica until listeners have access to and understanding of the developing crisis and continuing anti-democracy coupe which is presented, demonstrated with examples and analyzed in our statements, i.e. the elite management/staff/listener clique control of all key station and Board positions and their domination, dismantling or disabling of every democratic or semi-democratic institution, including the Program Council, Unpaid Staff Organization, Advisory Board and LSB.

There are few means available and rare opportunities to let listeners see through management’s (and entrenched staff complicit) effective gag rule veil that covers up station affairs, governance activity and issues, informal power blocks and cronyism, the continuity and preservation of the status quo from the old hijacker regime that has replaced our once great progressive community radio with the hijacker’s Healthy Station ideology and programming. For in an depth history and background of the hijacking, Take Back KPFA, followed by the SavePacifica movement, see Maria Gilardin’s “Why Did the Staff Not Prevent the 10 Year Corporate Raid, ” the “Chronology” and other pieces posted on http://www.peoplesradio.net.

A view point shared by many long term Pacifica activists and observers: some not all current Pacifica officers, managers and leaders seem like The Return of The Living Dead, i.e. the corporate/state/Democrat hijackers, although in reality we know the problem is not the return of the hijackers but the never ending presence and power of those who collaborated with them and never left Pacifica (while hundreds of progressive/radical programmers and volunteers were banned and fired in the 1990s and never returned), but stayed on to finish the job, co-opt insider opportunists or previously not involved listener allies, to block and deadlock the emergence and institution of listener democracy and shared policy and decision making power at the stations/network through elected boards.

To those not yet familiar with the history or who can’t share or accept my analogy or summary assessment of current realities above, please look at another timely example and Pacifica media issue now being exposed and discussed: ask the ANSWER and UPJ organizers of this Saturday’s peace march, and ask station management and their staff front persons like Brain Edwards-Tiekert, why KPFA refuses to let them tape and play a recorded “cart” on air promoting the peace march and mobilizing listeners to attend: Another All Time Low in Pacifica hijacking and post hijacker history. (See concurrent post and discussion on Indybay/media “KPFA Management Supported By "Concerned Listeners" Blocks Publicity On Oct 27 Anti-War Rally.”) As LSB candidate and PR member Mara Rivera notes, this is such a disgrace to Pacifica and KPFA. This was, but clearly no longer is, the community radio station and network dedicated to peace and social justice.

Bob English
PeoplesRadio

You know I try to keep my cool -- but sometimes I just have to let loose. We fought a long hard fight to win democratic elections for KPFA's station board. One of the most important reasons for that was so that listeners could be informed by the candidates of the issues and problems and their proposed solutions. Imagine, if back in 1999 we had had the ability to communicate with all the members and to elect -- and recall -- the board of directors (through our elected delegates on the LSB).

In 1999 Pacifica silenced its critics, fired them, took them off the air, arrested them, put in armed guards at KPFA, boarded up the station and piped in music from Houston.

Today, supposedly, the candidate's have the right to lay it out as they see it, and the voters have the ability to contact the candidates (those who give contact information) and ask questions and make up their minds who to vote for. This isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot more than we had back in 1999 when we had to ask the California Attorney General for permission to sue to remove the Pacifica board of directors.

I say supposedly because Pacifica's current interim Executive Director is now trying to silence a group of candidates for the KPFA LSB and to prejudice the election against them for their revelation of certain issues of real interest to the KPFA membership. Based on complaints from KPFA's interim management and members of the "Concerned Listeners" slate of candidates for the KPFA LSB, all of the KPFA listener candidates' statements have been removed from the "official" Pacifica elections web page at http://www.pacificaelections.org. [I have just learned that they will soon be reposted with the names of persons mentioned in the statements deleted. That will certainly make them far less helpful to voters in deciding how to vote.] In addition, the interim Executive Director has posted an "Open Letter to the Pacifica Community" on the KPFA Elections web page at http://lsb.kpfa.org/lsb-elections/2007-lsb-elections/lsb-elections-2007 in which he characterizes as "abusive" and "hateful speech" the statements of "a group of candidates running for the KPFA local board" whose statements, Siegel says, "contain little more than personal attacks on their opponents and station staff." He has also conflated the KPFA "Peoples Radio" candidates statements with a racially inflammatory statement made by a WBAI candidate, and has wrapped them all up in the same stinky fish-wrap.

[In addition, and on a related note, the interim Executive Director has delayed a mailer from going out in support of a group of candidates at WBAI in New York so that the mailing will not reach the voters until a week after the ballots have arrived -- contrary to the requirements of California non-profit law that the Foundation must make the mailing list available in a timely manner for such communications with the membership.]

First, Pacifica management and staff are not permitted to make prejudicial statements about the candidates. They are not permitted to use Pacifica resources (including web pages) to the advantage or disadvantage of any candidate or group of candidates.

Secondly, the "Peoples" Radio" slate candidates' statements cannot by any standard be characterized as "hate speech" or "abusive" or "personal attacks." They are not attacks on anyone's character. They are factual assertions and strong arguments concerning the positions and actions of other candidates and the station manager and program director with regard to the station and the LSB. Vigorous debate about these things is a proper purpose of the elections forum, so that the membership can make informed decisions when you vote.

It is true that in September 2005 Brian Edwards-Tiekert (a staff LSB member currently running for reelection) sent an email to a group of people to schedule a meeting to discuss, among other things, "dismantling the LSB." Among those people was Sherry Gendleman (a listener LSB member currently running for re-election on the "Concerned Listeners" slate), Lemlem Rijio (who was then KPFA's Development Director and is now KPFA's interim Station Manager), Sasha Lilley (who was then a producer for "Against The Grain" and is now KPFA's interim Program Director), and Bonnie Simmons (who is a staff LSB member, the current LSB Chair, and an endorser of the "Concerned Listeners" slate of candidates).

This is a matter that should be of concern to the voters. Dismantling the LSB is not the way to get good governance for KPFA and Pacifica. I am glad that the "Peoples Radio" slate chose to publish it in their joint candidates' statements. That email was widely circulated among those close to the station when it first came out, and the fact that it is now a campaign issue should be a surprise to nobody.

It is an outrage that the interim Executive Director is issuing prejudicial statements and taking candidates' statements off the web page. (Apparently he didn't know what was in the candidates' statements before the voter-pamphlets were mailed or he would presumably have tried to censor them and embroiled Pacifica in a costly legal battle that it would have lost).

So, while I believe more strongly than ever that it is essential that the "I-Team" candidates be elected to serve as a core of civility and sanity on the LSB and a "buffer zone" between the opposing factions, I also believe it is important to rebuke the Executive Director for his outrageous acts. That can be done by ranking Peoples' Radio slate members after the "I-Team" candidates. This will also preserve some balance on the LSB, as the "Concerned Listeners" hold a majority of the seats that were filled last year and are not up for re-election this year. I would certainly rather elect people to the KPFA Board who support free speech than those who seek to suppress it in these elections.

Here is my recommended order of ranking:

#1- #4 - listed in alphabetical order - you choose your order of preference
Steve Conley, Chandra Hauptman, Tracy Rosenberg, and Joe Wanzala

and #5 - #11 - listed in alphabetical order - you choose your order of preference
Bob English, Dave Heller, Atilla Nagy, Richard Phelps,
Mara Rivera, Gerald Sanders, and Stan Woods

No matter how you vote, please do be sure to vote so the election makes its 10% quorum. The ballots must be received (not postmarked) by November 15th.

Thanks, and best regards,

Carol Spooner
KPFA Local Board Member (March 2000-March 2005
Pacifica National Board Member (January 2002-January 2005)
Lead Plaintiff - Listeners Lawsuit to remove the old Pacifica Board (1999-December 2001)

Dan Siegel did intervene in the Pacifica election in a totally improper way. . A Hasting Law School Professor once told me that Siegel was considered one of the best lawyers on the West Coast. Siegel knew exactly what he was doing .He calculated that he could hurt not only Peoples Radio but indirectly Steve Zeltzer's and Tracy Rosenberg's more moderate slates, and get away with it .
He shouldn't be able to do so. The Pacifica National Board should fire him as I.E.D. and not allow his law partner to continue as Corporate Counsel . It will not hurt him finanically . He's a wealthy man. It would send a strong message that crimes, yes crimes, like grossly trying to subvert our election won't be tolerated.
Peoples Radio, Voices for Justice, and the I team haven't committed any crimes . Mistakes , yes . The Indybay fight among themselves last election really hurt them .They have on occasion loudly clashed at KPFA meetings .
Another mistake . Jim Weber is a crazy, nasty old sectarian . It says a lot about the Concerned Listeners that they give him back handed support . Several of them have even openly endorsed him . Incredible . He once called Richard Phelps '' Hitler'' . Talk about ''hate ' speech .
Phelps however really screwed up when he sued him . He risked turning a foul old fart into a victim . Many people feel that disputes among progressives shouldn't be settled in court . Except in the most extreme circumstances like those Carol Spooner and all of us were faced with in 1999.
Not just when someone like Weber sounds off. Was what he said slanderous ? Probably . So what . He should have been just allowed to rant on and treated with dismissive contempt .
I disagree with things all three slates have done . But my votes will all go to them , especially Peoples Radio. I have sometimes disagreed with those folks . I oppose the Concerned Listeners. May they all go down in defeat .

Marco: Phelps however really screwed up when he sued him . He risked turning a foul old fart into a victim . Many people feel that disputes among progressives shouldn't be settled in court .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: I tried to handle it out of court for almost a year. Every month he would publish lies, not just political criticisms, about me, and hand them out at LSB meetings. I kept asking him to stop the lies about me personally. I even told him he could attack my positions as he pleased. He wouldn't stop and he was being encouraged by the now CL dominated group. I never intended to make him pay anything, I just wanted him to stop the lies. And in fact the small claims suit did just that. At the hearing the Judge told us it was too complicated for small claims and suggested that we transfer it to Superior Court. I asked the Judge to give us a few minutes to talk and told Weber that if he would stop the personal attacks I would drop the suit. Weber refused to agree at that time. So we left with the case dismissed without prejudice so I could re-file in Superior Court. I waited until the next LSB meeting and his political attacks didn't come after me personally so I didn't re-file. So the suit got him to get real after 10 months of asking got nowhere. If I had wanted to hurt him financially I would have sued him in Superior Court to begin with. I just wanted to get his attention since 10 months of asking him to stop did no good.

Richard Phelps

I issued a clear challenge to Phelps, English and their ilk to provide one shred of evidence to back up their paranoid assertions. I looked at the statements again and I looked at the suggested websites and found nothing to substantiate their claims. Everything harks back to one personal email that was one person stating an opinion meant only for those it was addressed to. That is not proof of anything. Where's your evidence? We're all waiting.

All the so-called anti-democratic moves appear to be normal directives issued to protect the station from any potential liability. Every personnel matter within the station is the business of management and the employee involved and is no one else's concern. That is a fundamental right of all working people. This so-called pro-labor People's Radio slate would understand that one would think. This bunch keeps saying Siegel violated election laws while conveniently not addressing their own clear violation of the election laws by implying negative motives of people and calling them out by name. The rule against that is printed clearly in the election bylaws and can be understood by any semi-intelligent 5th grader.

English gave the game away when he admitted People's Radio is desperate because their too lame to get their act together enough to raise money and hold fundraisers and get their act together enough to mount a serious campaign. So just like the Karl Rove's of the world they sling mud.

I hereby re-issue my challenge to provide proof of their assertions with real documentation -- memos, records, statements on station letter-head, anything at all except idle speculation will do.

I also issue a second challenge. Provide us any proof that People's Radio candidates have accomplished anything of any tangible benefit to the station in the past few years. Can you name one new listener you've brought to the fold? Can you name a fundraising benefit or meet and greet with staff and listeners? Can you name any sort of capital improvement campaign to help station infrastructure? Have you tabled an event at a KPFA benefit? Can you prove you've even handed out one damn station bumper sticker? We eagerly await your response to this challenge.

I played a major role with La Varn Williams, another Peoplesradio member and a Pacifica Director, in getting Pacifica straightened out on an issue of transparency, Directors Inspections. Sarv Randhawa and others of his old group KPFA Forward, now Concerned Listeners, supported the prior Executive Director who denied Directors their inspection rights despite the law being clearly against his obstruction. We came very close on two occasions to filing suit to get the Court to order Pacifica to allow Directors their legal rights. After the inspections started $65,000 worth of radio equipment was discovered missing at WBAI. It was the majority at WBAI, Justice and Unity, that joined with Sarv and William Walker and a few others to support the ED in his illegal obstruction. This legal brief on the issue and history was just one of the many things I have done to get KPFA/Pacifica governance to abide by our bylaws and State laws.

Imagine Sarv and his allies being to the right of the state law on transparency? How progressive is that?? Last year when Sarv was running for re-election I told his new CL candidates about this anti-transparency history and none of them cared.

I did numerous hours of legal work and political work in support of La Varn fighting for transparency, for free, which included flying to NY for a board meeting. I will get back to you with more of what I have done when I have some more time. I have written and passed many motions on the LSB and the Pacific Elections Committee. How many motions has Sherry Gendelman written and passed? I hear that she never shows up to the Technology Committee that she is on. Last year when I was on the Governance Committee CL Candidate Mark Hernandez went to only one meeting all year, we met once a month on phone conference calls.

I have only missed one LSB meeting in four years. My daughter's graduation. That includes the first year of the LSB when I wasn't a member and worked on three committees as a volunteer. Personnel, Outreach and Programming. My family has donated thousands of dollar to KPFA over the 33 years that I have lived in this area. Sherry Gendelman leaves many meetings early and Rosalinda Palacios, CL ally, who ran on the KPFAForward slate in 2004 with Sherry missed 6 meetings in a row this year. Perhaps some accounting for whoever you support should be presented. I have a solid knowledge of our bylaws and Roberts Rules. I was Chair of the LSB for 14 months and was always fair in running the meetings. I neve gave preference to my allies as the current Chair does and I ruled my allies out of order whenever they were. I have always believed in a level playing field for honest open discussion and debate for resolving issues and disputes. I think if you ask anyone on the LSB that knows how much work I have done in governance they will tell you I carry more than my share of the load.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

July 20, 2005


La Varn Williams
Director, Pacifica Foundation
KPFA Berkeley, CA


Re: Analysis of Directors’ Inspection Rights Under California Law And Pacifica Bylaws, and a Brief History of the Dispute.

Dear La Varn:

Here is the legal analysis you requested. I hope this will reduce the confusion, real or simulated, over this rather commonplace corporate activity. You may retain this as an attorney-client privileged communication or you may share it as you choose. The privilege is yours to do with as you please. Once you share it with someone outside of a professional that you are working on this issue with or a potential co-petitioner you have waived the privilege. I see nothing in this paper that shouldn’t be shared if you so desire.

To have a full understanding of our subject we must understand the context within which it will occur. Pacifica Foundation is a California Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation. Its Bylaws and California law, generally found in the California Corporations Code, govern it. All code sections cited will be to this code unless otherwise stated.

The Board of Directors is described in Article Five of the Bylaws. Section D makes it clear that the Board of Directors governs the Foundation and they are required to uphold the Bylaws

D. GENERAL POWER AND AUTHORITY

Subject to the provisions of the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation law, and any limitations in the Articles of Incorporation and these Bylaws relating to action required or permitted to be taken or approved by the Members or Delegates of the Foundation, the activities and affairs of the Foundation shall be conducted and all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the Board.

The Board’s specific responsibilities are stated in Section E.

E. SPECIFIC POWERS AND DUTIES

Without prejudice to the general power of the Board set forth above in Section 1D of this Article of these Bylaws, and subject to any limitations set forth in these Bylaws, the ongoing duties and powers of the Board shall include, but not be limited to:

(1)Ensuring and facilitating fulfillment of the purposes of the Foundation as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation;
(2)Ensuring compliance with applicable state and federal laws;
(3)Ensuring the financial health of the Foundation by adopting and monitoring an annual budget and overseeing an independent annual audit of the Foundation's books and accounts;
(4)Ensuring regular communication with the Members;

(5)Appointing, supervising and discharging the Foundation's Executive Director, Chief Financial Officer and all Foundation officers, prescribing powers and duties for them as are consistent with the law and these Bylaws, and setting salaries and wages;

(6)Overseeing the conduct, management and control of the Foundation's affairs and activities, including the monitoring of the activities and actions of its radio stations and national staff consistent with applicable law and regulations, the Articles of Incorporation and these Bylaws;

(7)Meeting at such regular times and places as required by these Bylaws and meeting at such other times as may be necessary in order to carry out the duties of the Board;

(8)Registering their addresses, telephone numbers, facsimile telephone numbers and email addresses with the Foundation's Secretary. Notices of meetings mailed, transmitted by telecopier or facsimile, or emailed to them at such addresses shall be deemed valid notices thereof.

A Director’s responsibilities are also defined under California Statutory Law, section 5231:

(a) A director shall perform the duties of a director, including duties as a member of any committee of the board upon which the director may serve, in good faith, in a manner such director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. (Emphasis added).

California case law also speaks to a director’s fiduciary duty:

Directors may not abdicate their authority by delegating their powers of management of the corporation to other persons (Dyer Bros. etc. Iron Works v. Central Iron Works, 182 Cal. 588 [189 P. 445]), and cannot divorce the responsibilities of their office from the duties prescribed by statute (Minton v. Cavaney, 56 Cal.2d 576, 580 [15 Cal.Rptr. 641, 364 P.2d 473]). … Section 820 of the Corporations Code provides that directors and officers must exercise their powers in good faith and with a view to the interests of the corporation. They occupy a fiduciary relationship to the corporation and are bound to exercise that degree of care that men of common prudence take of their own concerns (Sheppard v. Wilcox, 210 Cal.App.2d 53 [26 Cal.Rptr. 412]). Thus, directors cannot close their eyes to what is going on about them in the conduct of the business of the corporation.

National Auto. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Payne 261 Cal.App.2d 403, *412 -413 (Cal.App.1.Dist.,1968)

Given that Directors have complete responsibility for the “activities and affairs” of their corporation and a duty to make reasonable inquiry, the California Legislature enacted section 6334 to facilitate a Director’s ability to fulfill her/his fiduciary duty. By now everyone should be familiar with section 6334, which states:
Every director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect and copy all books, records and documents of every kind and to inspect the physical properties of the corporation of which such person is a director. (Similar language is found in the Bylaws at Article 12, Section 3).
California case law also supports a broad application of this statute. Section 1602 is the general corporation equivalent of 6334.

The directors of a corporation owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its shareholders. (Hartman v. Hollingsworth (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 579, 581-582 [63 Cal.Rptr. 563].) Section 1602 represents a legislative judgment that directors are better able to discharge those duties if they have free access to information concerning the corporation. Thus, California has a public policy favoring broad inspection rights for the directors. … We may not ignore that declaration of public policy. Havlicek v. Coast-to-Coast Analytical Services, Inc. 39 Cal.App.4th 1844, *1852 (Cal.App.2.Dist.,1995)
The issue in controversy is how do we interpret this code section. The language seems clear and given a Director’s fiduciary duty, quite appropriate. There have been various opinions and some posturing on this issue which includes citing cases incorrectly and/or incompletely. There has also been abject denial of director’s inspection rights in some quarters. Hopefully we can resolve the issues, eliminate the posturing, and facilitate a director’s ability to fulfill his/her fiduciary duty without having to seek court intervention. Unfortunately, way too much Foundation money has been spent on legal issues in the last few years. Most of it was a complete waste due to the hijackers. Some of it is the responsibility of recent former management that was out of step with the reality of who runs the Foundation and some board members that allowed this to happen. It appears that the inspection rights dispute has been the observable focal point of a struggle by a former Executive Director to control the Foundation as opposed to implementing the will of the board. Hopefully with his departure the Foundation will be able to get governance in proper perspective.
Article Nine, Section 7 of the Bylaws defines the Executive Director’s role in the running of the Foundation. It makes it clear that the Executive Director works for the Board.

A. The President of the Foundation shall be referred to as the "Executive Director." The Executive Director shall be the general manager, chief executive officer and chief administrator of the Foundation. S/he shall be selected, supervised and discharged by the Board. In addition, his/her performance will also be subject to annual evaluation by each LSB, which may make recommendations to the Board.

B. Subject to the control of the Board, the Executive Director shall have general supervision, direction and control of the business and the officers of the Foundation and the primary responsibility for implementing the directives, decisions and policies of the Foundation and the Board pertaining to administration, personnel, programming, financing and public relations. The Executive Director shall generally promote, coordinate and supervise the mission of the Foundation and shall have such powers and perform such duties as may be delegated or assigned to him/her by the Board. (Emphasis added)

In April of 2004, in response to some struggle over Director’s inspection rights, Attorney Kevin Finck produced an opinion paper at the Executive Director’s request It was discussed at the April 28, 2004 public Board Meeting. Finck’s report made it clear that the Foundation could set up procedures for inspection but that if a Director ignored them and showed up to inspect that the staff could not refuse the inspection based on the failure to follow the procedures. Directors are not required to state the purpose for their inspection. (Other sections of the code, 6333 and 9513 include “ reasonably related to such person’s interest” which the legislature left out of 6334 and 1602.) They do not have to give advance notice or a written demand before inspection. The report also pointed out that while there were potential exceptions to the “absolute” right to inspect there are very few. A director that announces that they are going to do something tortious with the information is the major exception. The report also emphasized the need to be careful with certain categories of information that must be kept confidential since a director and the Foundation may be sued for disclosure of confidential information. These include personnel information of current or former employees, information regarding pending or threatened litigation, donor information and proprietary information such as ratings etc.

Disregarding this detailed and expensive legal opinion, the Executive Director refused to allow an inspection at WBAI on March 31, 2005 stating that he needed a legal and policy review with the Board. Despite the fact that directors are not required to give notice and state what they want to inspect, you and Director Patty Heffley courteously gave a weeks notice stating some of the document categories you wanted to inspect. The refusal was particularly burdensome to you since you were in New York for a short time for the Board meeting. You and Director Heffley notified the Board and the Executive Director, the weekend after the first refusal, that you would be inspecting WBAI on Monday April 4, 2005 before you left to return to California. Again the Executive Director denied you your right to inspect.

During the April board meeting the issue was discussed and an executive session was planned to deal with the inspection requests that had been denied. The Executive Director raised the question of should you and Director Heffley be allowed in the executive session since you appeared to have an adverse position with the Foundation, given that you were considering seeking a court order to be allowed to inspect. I pointed out to several directors that the Executive Director had an adverse position with the Bylaws and California Law from his refusal to allow you to inspect. You and Director Heffley were only seeking your inspection rights that he was denying and if you went to court it would only be for the court to order the Executive Director to let you inspect. Director Heffley and you were allowed in the executive session. The Board did not order the Executive Director to let you inspect on April 4th and when you went you were denied again. At the April Board Meeting the Executive Director announced that he was resigning no later than June 1, 2005.

Your inspection request was sent to the Coordinating Committee for review. On or about April 11th I delivered a letter to the Executive Director advising him of my representation of you and Director Heffley and that we would be going to court for relief if you were not allowed to inspect soon. No meeting was held until April 17th. At that meeting the Executive Director stated that he had just that day found a new attorney and wouldn’t have an opinion from him for a few days. The next Board meeting was on April 25, 2005. At that meeting there was discussion of director’s inspection and the Board voted 12 –3 with 2 abstentions to essentially tell the Executive Director to let directors inspect. Inspection of WBAI was finally allowed in May. The directors and attorney Gail Blasie were refused access to some files on order from the Executive Director and were followed around by adverse directors. One of the “observers” was a director that voted NO on April 25th, and another was a director that abstained on April 25th. There have been some negotiations on the denial of access to these files, which included personnel files.

On June 8, 2005 you and I, as agent for Patty Heffley, attempted to inspect the national office in Berkeley. We gave them two days notice. The Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer were present along with other staff and we were not allowed to do an inspection. The Executive Director said they were busy and we told him that we didn’t need any help, all we needed was a table to work on and to be shown where the files are located. We were still denied. I then called the President of a Trial Lawyers organization where I sit on the board and asked him if I could inspect the books and records. His response was “ When do you want to do it?” There was no hesitation or concern in his voice. What a contrast.

The former Executive Director finally left on June 15, 2005. Over the weekend of June 17-19th, 2005 the Board met in Berkeley and picked Chair Ambrose Lane as Acting Executive Director. You and Director Heffley communicated with the Acting Executive Director that you were going to inspect the national office on June 21, 2005. You were advised that we would be allowed to inspect. When you and Director Heffley and I arrived on the morning of June 21st we were met by William Walker with a video camera. Walker is a staff elected director of Pacifica. He was one of the NO votes on April 25th. Several other people were there to “observe”. We were treated like strangers. Lonnie Hicks, Chief Financial Officer, was there to “orchestrate the inspection” and had asked Walker to videotape. Without going into great detail we were not allowed to look at any files, despite continued requests.

Copies of numerous documents were given to us. We had not requested copies of these documents. We wanted to inspect the originals. We were advised that based on legal advice, from a new attorney more to their liking than Finck, we were not going to be allowed to inspect any personnel files or legal files. I protested and we were still told that we would not be allowed to see any files in those two categories. Apparently their new lawyer wanted all such files sent to him for review before any director would be allowed to inspect. More unnecessary legal expenses for Pacifica?

Two days later you and Director Heffley with Max Blanchet, as agent for Director Wendy Schroell from KPFT, attempted another inspection at the national office. Again you were treated like strangers with several “observers” and in a very limited fashion you were allowed to see some accounts payable files under tight scrutinization. Only after the CFO removed some files before you arrived. At one point Mr. Hicks removed a document from Director Heffley’s hands, stating he missed that one and deemed it confidential. It was a consultant bill. You were not allowed to see any legal files except legal bills, one with some areas redacted. The CFO reported as an “inspection expense” all the time of the “staff observers” and the copying of the items that were not requested. He seems to be trying to build a case for the burdensome nature of the inspections. Most of that expense was generated by his activities to impede easy access to the files, not the directors desire to review some files.

Now we have the beginnings of staff cooperation with an activity that is allowed by the Bylaws and California law. This commonplace corporate procedure, for most other corporations, has taken hundreds of hours of directors and staff time and tens of thousands of dollars in legal advice that appears to have been directed toward thwarting inspections. Why? The most common question asked by Pacifica members when they hear of this waste of time and resources to stop inspections is “ What are they hiding?”

There appears to be two points that need to be resolved to avoid the lawsuits that many members are demanding, given the failure to allow complete inspections. 1. Treatment of directors during inspections, 2. Access to all Foundation files and documents including legal and personnel files. Allowing the minimal access granted as of this date as described above does not comply with the Bylaws or state law.

1. The directors are an integral part of the Foundation. They are hardly strangers. As pointed out above they are responsible for the Foundation. They hire and supervise the Executive Director and set the policies for the foundation that the Executive Director is to implement. So why has the national staff management treated the directors inspections as an invasion by interlopers? The directors are only fulfilling their fiduciary duty by reasonable inquiry as allowed and required by law. In a concurring opinion Justice Crosby spoke to this situation:
…in light of a director's potential exposure, the denial of unconditional access to corporate books and records constitutes poor policy: well qualified individuals might decline to serve with something less than absolute inspection rights. (Cf. Gould v. American Hawaiian Steamship Company (D.Del. 1972) 351 F.Supp. 853, 859.)

Chantiles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowners Assn. 37 Cal.App.4th 914, *929 (Cal.App.4.Dist.,1995)
While there are some differences among directors and staff on how the Foundation should be run, with occasional accusations of improper behavior toward various directors, this cannot be a basis for refusing access to corporate documents.

Only the issues related to the prevention of a tort resulting from Saline's inspection of the documents-not the entirety of his conduct as a director-are relevant to the question of whether limiting Saline's access to corporate documents was appropriate.

Saline v. Superior Court 100 Cal.App.4th 909, *914 (Cal.App.4.Dist.,2002)
It is time for Pacifica to start acting like a mature organization and for the national staff to acknowledge and facilitate the rights of the directors to inspect as part of their fiduciary duty as specifically allowed under the Bylaws. It will save everyone time and keep the Foundation’s legal fees to a minimum. Especially if they want to attract well qualified individuals to serve on the Board.

2. Personnel files are generally considered confidential. The question is confidential to whom? Obviously confidential personnel information should not be disclosed to anyone outside of those that need to have access in the normal course of running the Foundation. There is no California case that says directors are not entitled to inspect personnel files. The Finck opinion said they must be handled with care and that directors would be individually liable for disclosure. How can one be liable for disclosure without access?

Those that argue that personnel files are off limits point to the case of Hill v. NCAA (1994) 7 Ca. 4th 1, for a privacy right that protects against invasions by private citizens as well as the state. They only look to the point that the California Supreme Court acknowledged that privacy right, but they ignore the conditions and qualifications that the Court included. When these are examined we see that this case does not support the refusal to allow directors to inspect personnel files. A look at the specific holdings in Hill v. NCAA will make this clear.

(1)A legally protected privacy interest
The first essential element of a state constitutional cause of action for invasion of privacy is the identification of a specific, legally protected privacy interest.
Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. 7 Cal.4th 1, *35 (Cal. 1994)

All reasonable people would concede that a personnel file represents a legally protected privacy interest. No argument here.

(2)Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
The second essential element of a state constitutional cause of action for invasion of privacy is a reasonable expectation of privacy on plaintiff's part.
"The extent of [a privacy] interest is not independent of the circumstances." (Plante v. Gonzalez, supra, 575 F.2d at p. 1135.) Even when a legally cognizable privacy interest is present, other factors may affect a person's reasonable expectation of privacy…. In addition, customs, practices, and physical settings surrounding particular activities may create or inhibit reasonable expectations of privacy. (See, e.g., Whalen, supra, 429 U.S. at p. 602 [51 L.Ed.2d at p. 75] [reporting of drug prescriptions to government was supported by established law and "not meaningfully distinguishable from a host of other unpleasant invasions of privacy that are associated with many facets of health care…A "reasonable" expectation of privacy is an objective entitlement founded on broadly based and widely accepted community norms. (See, e.g., Rest.2d Torts, supra, § 652D, com. c ["The protection afforded to the plaintiff's interest in his privacy must be relative to the customs of the time and place, to the occupation of the plaintiff and to the habits of his neighbors and fellow citizens."]

Finally, the presence or absence of opportunities to consent voluntarily to activities impacting privacy interests obviously affects the expectations of the participant. (See pt. 2(a)(1), ante.)
Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. 7 Cal.4th 1, *36 -37 (Cal. 1994)

For documents already in an employee’s personnel file there can only be a limited expectation of privacy. Documents will have already been seen by the person that filed them and the office manager that has reviewed them for what ever purpose they are in the file; such as a discipline write up, time cards, a medical excuse for missing work, or a letter of recommendation from a former employer, etc. Also future staff and or management may have to review them. The reasonable expectation of privacy that an employee may have is that the documents in his/her file will not be disclosed to anyone other than those in the company for a good reason.

(3)Serious invasion of privacy interest

No community could function if every intrusion into the realm of private action, no matter how slight or trivial, gave rise to a cause of action for invasion of privacy. "Complete privacy does not exist in this world except in a desert, and anyone who is not a hermit must expect and endure the ordinary incidents of the community life of which he is a part." (Rest.2d Torts, supra, § 652D, com. c.) Actionable invasions of privacy must be sufficiently serious in their nature, scope, and actual or potential impact to constitute an egregious breach of the social norms underlying the privacy right. Thus, the extent and gravity of the invasion is an indispensable consideration in assessing an alleged invasion of privacy.

I am confident that a court would allow inspection of a personnel file by a director, holding it did not constitute a serious invasion of privacy, if an invasion at all.

c. Defenses to a State Constitutional Privacy Cause of Action

Privacy concerns are not absolute; they must be balanced against other important interests. (Doyle v. State Bar, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 20; Wilkinson, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at p. 1046.) "[N]ot every act which has some impact on personal privacy invokes the protections of [our Constitution] .... [A] court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely every assertion of individual privacy." (215 Cal.App.3d at p. 1046.)

The diverse and somewhat amorphous character of the privacy right necessarily requires that privacy interests be specifically identified and carefully compared with competing or countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a "balancing test." The comparison and balancing of diverse interests is central to the privacy jurisprudence of both common and constitutional law. *38 Invasion of a privacy interest is not a violation of the state constitutional right to privacy if the invasion is justified by a competing interest. Legitimate interests derive from the legally authorized and socially beneficial activities of government and private entities. Their relative importance is determined by their proximity to the central functions of a particular public or private enterprise. Conduct alleged to be an invasion of privacy is to be evaluated based on the extent to which it furthers legitimate and important competing interests. … (Emphasis added.) Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. 7 Cal.4th 1, *37 -38 (Cal. 1994)

It is likely that a court would hold that an employee doesn’t have an expectation of privacy that would prohibit a director from fulfilling her/his fiduciary duty by inspecting a personnel file. As we have already discussed, a director is an integral part of the Foundation with fiduciary responsibilities mandated by the Bylaws and state law. Of course with this holding would be the understanding that the director must not disclose the information to anyone outside those that would have legal access to said information. Civil liability would be possible for any improper disclosure.

Assuming, arguendo, that a court might hold that there was an expectation of privacy with regard to a director, I am positive that it would also hold that there was a sufficient competing interest to allow the directors inspection. Previously discussed Sections 5231 and 6334, “absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect,” and its replication in the Bylaws, would provide the legitimate and important competing interest. How is a director going to be able to determine if management is handling personnel matters properly without the ability to review personnel files? The same caveat for improper disclosure would apply.

Unless someone thinks they can convince a Judge that a director is a stranger to the Foundation, that a confidential inspection by a director would constitute a serious violation of privacy, and directors have no important and competing interest under Sections 5231 and 6334 and the Bylaws, there is no good faith basis to deny inspection of a personnel file by a director.

3. The Acting Executive Director has refused to allow directors to inspect legal files arguing that Hoiles v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App. 3rd 1192 gives a corporation an attorney-client privilege. I don’t disagree that a corporation has the privilege. However, here again we have the use of the general holding and an ignoring of the holding particular to our issue. Hoiles is a case where the director in a closely held corporation is suing for breach of fiduciary duty and dissolution of the corporation. It may make sense that he could be limited in his access to the corporations legal files with regard to the pending litigation where he is in an adverse position with the corporation. Given no case on point in California, the court looked to Delaware and Henshaw v. American Cement Corporation (1969) 252 A.2d 125, 128 for guidance. In Henshaw the suit against the corporation was brought by an individual as a shareholder and director. The Henshaw court held as follows:

In answer to a similar contention of an individual whose attorneys were involved in other litigation adverse to the corporation and who brought suit as a shareholder and director, the Delaware Court of Chancery permitted access to otherwise privileged corporate information to the director in that capacity, but not to the attorneys. Reminding the director of his fiduciary obligation to the corporation the chancellor observed, 'A director ... has the right to inspect corporate books and records; that right is correlative with his duty to protect and preserve the corporation. He is a fiduciary and in order to meet his obligation as such he must have access to books and records; indeed he often has a duty to consult them. [Citations.]' ( Henshaw v. American Cement Corporation (1969) 252 A.2d 125, 128.)
Hoiles v. Superior Court 157 Cal.App.3d 1192, *1201 (Cal.App.4.Dist.,1984)

Hoiles did not bring suit as a director, which he was, but only as a shareholder. In discussing that issue the court stated:

We believe Henshaw provides a reasonable solution to the problem presented there and that Hoiles is arguably entitled to review corporate legal *1202 documents and to question Stahr in his role as a director here. But the issue is not presently before us. Hoiles has not sued in that capacity and has not requested the information on a fiduciary basis and independent of his counsel in this proceeding.
Hoiles v. Superior Court 157 Cal.App.3d 1192, *1201 -1202 (Cal.App.4.Dist.,1984)


There is no reasonable basis to refuse to allow a director to inspect legal or litigation files past or present that don’t involve the director. How is a director to review past or present legal work and/or settlement negotiations by counsel and/or staff if not allowed to inspect the files? The director will have to protect the attorney-client privilege, that is clear. Allowing a director to inspect legal files does not violate the Foundations attorney-client privilege. The director is an integral part of the Foundation. Again the refusal to allow inspection raises the question “ what are they trying to hide?”

There are no California Appeals Court cases with facts similar to ours. The 2002 case out of Los Angeles County Superior Court, Auerbach v. Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, Case # BS 074771 has very similar facts. The judgment in this case was given to the Board at the Berkeley meeting in June. While the Acting Executive Director correctly pointed out that its holding has no authority as precedent, the ruling of that Superior Court Judge after reviewing the same few cases is persuasive as to how an Alameda County Superior Court Judge will likely rule on similar facts.

There is no question that the former Executive Director violated the Bylaws and California Law in refusing to allow inspections on multiple occasions. We may never know his real motive. It is clear that he knew from the Finck opinion that what he was doing was wrong. Some directors supported him in his wrongful conduct. Why? Some didn’t want inspections and maybe some didn’t understand the law. Those that impeded inspections with votes or actions violated the Bylaws that they are required to uphold.

We are at a point now that if the staff continues to interfere with inspection rights we should promptly go to court unless the Board immediately corrects the problem once and for all time. If they continue to spend money on useless legal attempts to thwart inspections, and get support from other directors, subscribers may have to consider suits against the renegade directors for waste of corporate assets and breach of fiduciary duty.

Something has to stop all this foolish waste of Foundation money and unpaid Director’s time. The listener/subscribers want good radio for their money, not anti-transparency legal bills. Should you have any questions please call.


Richard Phelps
Attorney at Law
405 14th Street Suite 508
Oakland, CA 94612
510 268-9919

So Phelps basically wants credit for showing up at meetings. He also wants credit for being impartial while acting as chair. Excuse me but there's nothing at all impressive about someone doing something they're supposed to do anyway. That's a little like a student going for an academic award and all he can list for his accomplishments is that he turned up for class most days and actually did his homework. It's also kind of like someone going for father of the year and listing as his accomplishment that he provides for his kids. Not particularly impressive at all.

As for the legal right to inspect station finances, I've done some inquiring and it turns out Pacifica only resisted you're trying to inspect employees' personnel files, which have serious security implications for the organization's employees. Forgive me, but I wouldn't want anyone who isn't my supervisor rifling through my personnel file and getting all kinds of personal information about me, which might end up in the wrong hands. Every worker has a right to privacy. State law already requires that non-profit executives' salaries are public record and are listed in the organization's 990 non-profit tax documents. I think most listeners are actually turned off by board members attempting to pry into employees' personal information. You pretty much just look like a snoop looking for dirt to try and use against the organization and its workers.

Again Phelps fails to list one accomplishment that any reasonable person would expect a member of a non-profit board to have accomplished. Not a word about fund-raising goals met; nothing about outreach efforts to new listeners; and nothing at all about station promotion or anything that the board of every non-profit in existence lists as its primary duties.

You'll also note that when challenged Phelps reverts to slinging mud at his rivals. Nobody's asking him anything about his so-called opponents. However, I would like to know what he and People's Radio have done since they're are the ones out there slinging mud. I hope listeners will take that into account when they're filling out their ballots.

It is clear that no matter what I have done you will dogmaticaly attack from a onesided point of view. Notice how you don't want to compare with my opponents. Why? Because their Chairs have always been biased and they didn't do much to advance democratic governance, actually setting it back by running biased meetings. Why aren't you attacking them. Have been on the outreach committee for years and have done work outside of that. Sarv Randhawa, CL, was chair of out reach and he didn't call a meeting all year. Concerned Listeners didn't want a Town Hall meeting before the election because too many listeners come and ask questions they can't answer without exposing their anti-democratic practices.

I will gladly debate you in public or on this list if you take off your hood. You don't sound like a neutral observer since you parrott the "dismantlers" line on everything. When you have a real name we will talk more. You like the Concerned Listeners don't believe in transparency and accountability. So we will never agree on basic things.

Richard Phelps

Truth Out has raised valid issues and challenges and Richard Phelps will not address them. There is nothing wrong with anonymity Mr. Phelps and I think you should address the content of what Truth Out is saying rather than countering with meaningless criticism of the medium for saying it.

exerpt from: http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.

The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.

These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."

Still no answer from Phelps on some pretty simple questions. He puts out a few vague statements about outreach, of course not going into any specifics about exactly what it is he did. Also, like a broken record, he goes after his opponents without listing any of his own accomplishments. Did anyone catch the "dismantler" crack. I mean the guy can't help himself. Sad really.

I don't claim to be a neutral observer Phelps. I'm openly against negative Rovian politics. It was your side that started all this sleazy mess, that's why I'm challenging your side. Most listeners like myself support board's making democratic decisions on things that they're actually mandated to do, i.e. -- approve budgets, put together fundraisers and campaigns, periodically oversee management to make sure the organization is fulfilling its duties, and helping get the organizations name out into the public.

Most listeners like myself couldn't give a flying crap about the day-to-day inner workings of the organizations. That's why organizations have managers and employees to carry out the running of the operation. A person sitting on a non-profit board should ideally be someone who actually likes the organization and wants to serve as an auxiliary supporter of the organization. You People's Radio folks don't seem to get that. From what I've seen the other slates at least seem to grasp the basics of what the board is supposed to be and are apparently spending most of their time dealing with the People's Radio types who are trying their level best to run the organization down.

As for my anonymity, that's the way it's going to stay because I don't want to end up on all kinds of half-baked websites as a so-called enemy of the people.

Bob English wrote the most coherent and convincing message so far on this issue . Thanks Bob English !
I was given a flyer at the Antiwar march announcing a Kpfa Candidates forum on November fourth . I hope to go and meet Bob and all the other contenders for the board . Please let it be a real ''clash of ideas' and not a beauty contest .

Exposing people for their true values and politics by showing what they have done versus their rhetoric is fair play in politics. Have you noticed that with all the hyperbole from Hallinan, Gendelman and their anonymous allies, they have NOT debunked any of the things we put in the campaing booklet. The reason that they are so HOt is that they have been exposed for their duplicity. I have offered to debate any and all of them and they have declined bcause they are afraid of what the listeners will find out if their games are exposed. They like to stay with the controlled attack, e-mails behind our and the voters backs, and personal attacks with NO FACTS.

Why don't they have a position on the Program Council or the Democracy Now! time change or the Unpaid Staff issues in their campaing spin sheets? Because if they published their actual anti-democratic , top down positions they would be exposed. What would you think of a candidate for President who didn't have a position on health care or the occupation? Trying to hide something, right. All they have said are general platitudes and on their slate mailer, conspicuous in its absence are the words "democratic process", "transparency" or "accountability".

They only way to hold a slate accountable is to know where they have stood in the past. Something CL conveniently leaves out and when Peopleradio brings it up they want to KILL THE MESSENGER instead of dealing with the issues. I am embarrassed that some "progressives" could fall for this BS and Siegel's unlawful and unprincipled attempt to sway the election. Did he get inspired by Ohio in 2004 or Florida in 2000??

Matthew, let's debate the issues in public for all to see and hear. Or are you afraid of the history of CL and KPFAForward, your predecessor? You don't want people to know about Sarv's votes with Justice and Unity on the PNB against transparency and to allow them to control WBAI despite the fact that they were destroying the listener base? Etc, etc, etc.

Richard Phelps

While I haven't won any beauty contests lately, I can speak to the issues openly, in my own name, with some knowledge and clarity from the perspective of being active with the Pacifica/KPFA listener movement from 1999.

Where were the nameless “Truth Out” and his/her so called "Concerned Listener" friends when the network was raided, when we were locked out of the station by Mary Francis Berry, Lynn Chadwick, Garland Gantner and their armed agents, when we picketed the old PNB hijackers and their SF law firm (paid by millions $$ of our donations), when we took political and legal action to establish new By Laws, listener and staff membership and representation on elected boards, accountable management and a return to the Pacifica Mission with diverse, progressive community radio programming?

The By Laws establish a collaborative, democratic process between listeners, staff and management with specified and shared powers and responsibilities, but not everyone gets the concept or wants it to happen. In fact CL and their management/staff power clique allies are committed to the business as usual and status quo imposed by the old regime’s NPR/Healthy Station model and program grid, and are organized and funded to block and dismantle the transition to a democratic KPFA, to control what they can’t disable or destroy, including the USPO, Program Council, LSB and our elections. Reading the TO/CL version of a very limited advisory, fund raising role for the LSB (as Stan Woods puts it, like "Friends of the Ballet”), we can see that they, like the interim managers they support, aren’t rooted in, don’t understand or care about the history and principles of the listener movement and the mandated function and powers of a *unique, historical democratic governing Station Board.* As one CL elected rep put it: “The history doesn’t matter…Even though the Bylaws don’t say so, Boards members basically should be Good Will Ambassadors for the station.” Or as TO states: “A person sitting on a non-profit board should ideally be someone who … wants to serve as an auxiliary supporter of the organization.”

And despite anon’s eloquent defense of anonymous internet free speech, in the KPFA/Pacifica environment and developing crisis, there are some things wrong with abusive anonymity: the attackers and dismantlers of democratic process, including obvious staff fronts using station equipment and resources funded by listeners, cover their identity and intentions and avoid the truth, responsibility and accountability for their statements. So for instance, it’s not only ironic but also intentional that some anonymous posters spreading lies, distortions or misinformation against political opponents, much like Karl Rove, stand reality on its head by accusing Richard Phelps and PeoplesRadio of “negative Rovian politics” and tactics.

Finally, note that TO or anyone “still waiting” for evidence and documentation in this discussion apparently skipped the reposts of Gregory Wonderwheel’s letter to Siegel and Carol Spooner’s statement, as well as Richard’s detailed history of the fight for Director inspection rights, and haven’t carefully read our candidate statements which include the Brain E-T memo (revealing political motives, intentions and tactics of the KPFA power clique) and several examples and analysis – still not answered or refuted in substance by Concerned Listeners or their apologists - of abuses, actions, positions and votes of CLs and allies holding positions of power on the Board and as top managers and department heads.

Why is it so critical for Pacifica listeners and voters to have this kind of information? When Truth Out says “Most listeners like myself couldn't give a flying crap about the day-to-day inner workings of the organizations. That's why organizations have managers and employees to carry out the running of the operation,” he/she isn’t speaking for truly concerned, informed progressive Pacifica listeners but from a lack of democratic community “concern” and scrutiny and the CL line promoting listener ignorance and management’s arbitrary prerogatives and cronyism behind a new gag rule (“everything is fine, smart professional people like us are taking care of everything, especially your money”). I care, PeoplesRadio and most progressive listeners do care what goes on at the station and how it’s governed and managed, and we pay attention and get involved precisely because of the lessons we learned from the long hard struggle to save and take back our loved but vulnerable community radio network, from what we know of the disastrous consequences of not caring or closely watching Pacifica. Establishing and building democracy, transparency and accountability in Pacifica (like freedom) are a constant struggle.

See you Lucia and all at the Candidates forum, where some of the issues, ideas and truth can be told; maybe even Truth Out will come out.

Still waiting Phelps. You have completely glossed over my challenges and again like a broken record went on about what you perceive your opponents doing. Where's the information Phelps. This has to be the third time I've asked for specific contributions you've made. You haven't give us anything.

Phelps also makes some crack about nobody debunking his campaign statement. What's to debunk? There's nothing there that isn't strictly your opinions. You keep going to some email in which a board member expresses his opinion, obviously out of frustration with the do-nothing People's Radio clique, and using it as a documentation of some sinister plot. As far as I know this guy is just a board member whose entitled to his opinions. This doesn't represent any kind of management directive or statement of purpose. If you can provide that, show it. If not give it a damn rest already. You sound like a paranoid nutter. By the way, how the hell did you get someone's personal email correspondence anyway? Who in the hell was snooping through someone's private email? That's pretty sleazy. That also speaks volumes as to why you people do not have any right whatsoever digging around in employees personnel files. An employees' privacy is sacrosanct in any workplace. What the hell do you want with employee records anyway? Non profit Executive pay is already provided under state law. What kind of people get their jollies digging around in regular employees personal business? Pretty creepy. How would you like us all rummaging through your personell files and private emails. Something about that sounds pretty East German if you ask me. If I worked there you and the organization would be looking at a fat lawsuit for endangering my private information.

Now this English guy goes on about democracy this and democracy that. Why have managers if you're not going to let them manage without nosy board members constantly looking over their shoulders. What operation, for profit or non-profit, successfully runs that way? Every non profit board has a right to periodically review management, they do not have the right to manage. Have any of you ever worked anywhere or tried to run any kind of organization? Some of what you say sounds like its coming from a child, whose never actually worked in the real world. The idiocy of some of your statements makes me think that if you actually did run KPFA that place would be closed within 3 months, 4 tops.

A democratic board is all well and good, but when it doesn't build anything positive and only tears at the organization it's supposed to support, that makes me feel that it isn't so good. When selfish political considerations are put ahead of the well-being of the organization that sounds outright treacherous. Like I said before, if the management running the station isn't doing it's job to your satisfaction, bring it up during the annual, or bi-annual review. But for gods sake give them a chance to run the damn place without interference. Let them build up a record on which to judge their performance without constant sniping. DO YOUR DAMN JOB. HELP WITH PROMOTION. BRING IN ONE DAMN NEW LISTENER FOR CHRIST SAKE. RAISE ONE DAMN DOLLAR FOR THE ORGANIZATION. BUILD UP YOUR OWN RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS INSTEAD OF CONSTANTLY ATTACKING OTHERS. GROW THE HELL UP.

Truth Out , I point out how I donated about $5,000 in free legal work to get Pacifica to be on the right side of the law without taking them to court at high costs to Pacifica and you treat as nothing. So why should I respond to an anonymous big mouth whose main attribute is hyperole and personal attacks. You obviously don't value transparency and thus must not be a progressive person.

I have an extensive history with KPFA/Pacifica and I will gladly share it with you if you come out of hiding so everyone can see who you are. Otherwise I don't need to waste my time. It appears no matter what I have done you will distort it and attack so why should I bother if you aren't person enough to stand up and be responsible for all the BS that you write.

Richard Phelps

what's the matter Phelps, can dish it out but can't take it? The only thing I'm doing is calling you on your baseless accusations. You haven't come up with anything to prove your accusations yet. I've also challenged you to show us what it is you've done on the Board. You talk about $5,000 worth of "free legal services." Legal services I might add that no one asked for. All you've done is spend time trying to satisfy your own desire to dig into worker's privacy and called it a service to the station. How lame is that?

This is the fourth time I've asked for concrete examples of your board work based on very specific criteria, which every non-profit in the free world expects of its board members. You've come up with a grand total of zilch.

And no I'm not using my real name so you can slam me unfairly on some wing nut websites like you've done the people in your candidate statement screed. So one more time Phelpsie, show us the goods or give it a damn rest.

There is a post being widely circulated calling for a vote for a ''independents '' called the 'I team ''.
Please reject it . This I team is 100 % in line with the PeoplesRadio sectarians . The post concludes with a very nice, very reasonable pledge to work for cooperation and consensus on our board . Read the first section. That is typical PeoplesRadio ultra left crap .
Please vote only for the Concermed Listeners . if we get a strong majority we can push any lingering ultra lefts to the side and get back to buisness. Thanks

I agree with the essence of the previous post. This I team may use different methods than their PeoplesRadio friends but their agenda is the same . Chandra Hoffman is a moderate ? She can be as much of a loud mouthed obstacle to getting work done as Phelps .
I slightly differ with K's last sentence . It will be the voters that will push the Ultra Lefts to the side not the board

In Peoplesradio candidate statements we pointed out that Sasha Lilley, with the support of her Concerned Listener (CL) allies, is trying to make the Program Council (PC) an advisory wall flower by taking away its decision making power. Some CL candidates are going around saying the PC was always only advisory. They are either misinformed ( I wonder by whom) or lying. How they respond to this post will tell us all which it was. Below you will find a motion passed by the LSB in May 2004 after much debate. It clearly re-affirms the PC's decision making power and sets up a very reasonable protocol.

It is this attack on our democratic process and lack of honesty and transparency that led Peoplesradio to tell the voters some of what has been happening that CL doesn't want them to know. .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Motion passed at the KPFA Local Station Board Meeting on May 8, 2004:

Resolved that:

In the specific case of the Program Council decision made last October to move Democracy Now! from 9-10 am to 7-8 am, and to move the Morning Show from 7-9 am to 8-10 am, which decision the Program Council reaffirmed on December 16th when it decided the change was to have been implemented on or about March 9th, the LSB finds that the time change: (1) does not raise legal issues that pose a threat to the broadcast license, (2) does not raise personnel issues that conflict with a disciplinary action taken by the GM, (3) does not violate the KPFA union contract, and (4) will not cause serious financial harm to the station.

Therefore, the LSB directs the General Manager to implement the time change within a reasonable time frame not to exceed four months from this date.

The above resolution is being considered now based upon the LSB having previously passed the following resolution:

Resolved that:

Whereas, it is the duty of the KPFA LSB: To work with station management to ensure that station programming fulfills the purposes of the Foundation and is responsive to the diverse needs of the listeners (demographic) and communities (geographic) served by the station, and that station policies and procedures for making programming decisions and for program evaluation are working in a fair, collaborative and respectful manner to provide quality programming.@ Bylaws, Article Seven, Section 3.G.


Therefore, the KPFA LSB adopts and approves the programming decision- making policy and procedure agreed upon by the KPFA management and Program Council at their retreat on November 18, 2003, specifically:

We affirm the power of the Program Council to make programming decisions by majority vote, and to affirm the composition of the program council to include as voting members, management (programming and development), department heads (music, drama and literature, training, news, and future public affairs), unpaid staff (4 plus 2 alternates), and Local Advisory Board, which elects 3, and appoints 3 community representatives, and in timely consultation with KFCF and other Associate Station management, which shall have access to the Program Council, access to all relevant information and input on any programming proposals that impact KFCF or other Associate Stations and their listeners.

Further, the LSB adopts the following policy: The General Manager may override a programming decision made by the Program Council in the following cases: (1) legal issues that pose a threat to the broadcast license, (2) personnel issues where the programming decision conflicts with a disciplinary action taken by the GM, (3) violations of the KPFA union contract, and (4) where the GM believes the decision would cause serious financial harm to the station.

If the General Manager overrides a programming decision made by the Program Council, the Program Council may appeal to the LSB to override the General Manager.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Since when has standing up for the truth and a true account of history been ultra left?

Richard Phelps

No one cares about this stuff. Program Directors make programming decisions at radio stations. Anyone who knows anything about radio or television stations knows that. An experienced PD programs the grid, with consultation from the General Manager. That of course means that the PD must be mindful of audience attitudes and tastes and provide a mechanism for audience feedback, usually through the usual means, i.e. listener comment lines, phone fax and email messages et. al. The PD is a generally a full-time professional with extensive training in the medium.

Whatever this Program Council is, I know it probably isn't made up of full-time radio professionals with extensive backgrounds dealing with FCC requirements and other necessary skills and knowledge. If it's just a bunch of amateurs volunteering to sit on a council and serve as a conduit between listeners and the station, that's fine I guess, If that's the mechanism the PD chooses to use to get feedback. But the bottom line is the PD is responsible for the air quality of the station and has a lot of different factors to consider when programming a radio station. FCC Law requires that a station demonstrate it has control of its air.

It would be frankly insane to run a radio station by committee. Especially a committee of non-broadcast professionals, or persons with extensive radio experience.

If you're suggesting that every little thing that goes on at that station is run through some kind of peanut gallery before it's implemented than you're more demented than you sound. How on god's green earth could anything ever get done. I hope to god that's not what you're suggesting because that means you want to throw the station's FCC license to the wind for some pie in the sky mumbo jumbo. Time to join the real world Phelps and quit dreamland.