Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Foul Play in the KPFA Elections
It is we, the Concerned Listeners slate that wants to bring democracy to the board and to the station. It is the People’s Radio folks and their allies who are fighting tooth and nail to keep a broad, representative local Station Board from being elected. Look at who is running on our slate and who our endorsers are! The People’s Radio folks are not interested in bringing new people on to the Board—people who haven’t participated before in KPFA and that represent progressive currents that may have different outlooks on many issues than they do.
When I was considering running for the KPFA Local Station Board, a number of old-time activist friends told me I was crazy. There is a sectarian fringe, they said, that has placed all their hopes for getting access to an audience by gaining control over KPFA. At the same time, they explained, there was a staff that had grown comfortable with the way things are, and that would resist any effort to change things. Anybody who would put him or herself in the middle of that minefield was just plain nuts.
What to do? KPFA and the other Pacifica stations are a few of the last mass media outlets that belong to progressives. It’s just not possible for those of us who witnessed the mass hysteria whipped up by the media during the drive to war with Iraq to simply stand back and let KPFA slide into oblivion because we don’t want to deal with the nasty characters who are trying to take it over. All of us on the left have had to deal with nasty characters—and most had a lot more power than these folks!
When I agreed to run on the Concerned Listeners slate, I made a pact with the other members of that slate not to run a negative campaign. Somebody had to break the cycle of mudslinging that turns off listeners and that keeps good people from getting involved with the station. We were going to be different. We were going to talk about our positive vision for bringing peace to KPFA and for mobilizing support for strengthening its signal, improving its programming, and reaching out to a broader progressive audience.
Seemed like a good idea. We all signed the KPFA Fair Campaign Provisions, the fifth plank of which states that no candidate may use Pacifica or KPFA resources to publicly attack another candidate, station staff, management, or the Foundation. Seemed like a good way to ensure that people would talk about their visions for the station, rather than simply what they don’t like about their opponents.
However, at the candidate’s forum broadcast by KPFA, one of the People’s Radio candidates made a series of unsubstantiated charges against some of the management, staff and board. The point of his attacks was to insinuate that the members of the Concerned Listeners slate were somehow linked to the events and people he criticized. We ignored it.
Then, when the election pamphlets were sent out to all the voters, we were amazed to see that the seven members of the People’s Radio slate had combined their statements into a lengthy, paranoid tract. They attempted to “expose” an effort by management, backed by a “minority” of staff, and supported by our slate to “dismantle” the Local Station Board in order to seize power at the station. Management’s goal, they said, was to take us back to the “bad old days” before the listener’s revolution of 1999. The members of our slate howled foul. We were playing by the rules and got blind-sided. And when we complained of the unfairness of this, that their slate broke the rules we had all signed on to, and defamed us in the one mailing the station would make—Carol Spooner and Marc Sapir come forth to protest that our complaints are just another example of management suppressing free speech.
I know it’s a waste of time and energy to get down in the mud with a bunch of attack dogs, but it just goes against my Irish temperament to give these folks a pass on this.
The issues are exactly the opposite of what the People’s Radio folks claim. There is no danger of management turning the clock back to 1999. The power of the Local Station Board is now written into the by-laws of the Foundation. This charge is their equivalent of Bush’s WMDs.
It is we, the Concerned Listeners slate that wants to bring democracy to the board and to the station. It is the People’s Radio folks and their allies who are fighting tooth and nail to keep a broad, representative local Station Board from being elected. Look at who is running on our slate and who our endorsers are! The People’s Radio folks are not interested in bringing new people on to the Board—people who haven’t participated before in KPFA and that represent progressive currents that may have different outlooks on many issues than they do.
These folks don’t want to broaden the base of democratic participation in KPFA—they want to control the station. They think they are the “true” representative’s of the Left, and they think they should be in a position to define KPFA’s mission. But do they ever talk about this? Do they ever say what their vision is? No they don’t. They talk in vague generalities about ‘mission’ and program, and substitute paranoid and baseless attacks on others to avoid spelling out what they really want for the station.
They are not battling an effort by management to take over KPFA. Management at the station hardly exists: the paralysis created by these people has kept a permanent station and program manager from being hired! They have demonized the management and the paid staff, and have tried to present Concerned Listener’s efforts to get the entire KPFA community working together as a subterfuge for a management take-over. These folks are true believer bullies who do not want to see KPFA become an authentically democratic station that can serve as home to this incredible, broad and diverse progressive community we have in Northern California.
That’s what’s at stake in the LSB elections at KPFA.
Matthew Hallinan is a Concerned Listeners candidate for KPFA’s Local Station Board.
What to do? KPFA and the other Pacifica stations are a few of the last mass media outlets that belong to progressives. It’s just not possible for those of us who witnessed the mass hysteria whipped up by the media during the drive to war with Iraq to simply stand back and let KPFA slide into oblivion because we don’t want to deal with the nasty characters who are trying to take it over. All of us on the left have had to deal with nasty characters—and most had a lot more power than these folks!
When I agreed to run on the Concerned Listeners slate, I made a pact with the other members of that slate not to run a negative campaign. Somebody had to break the cycle of mudslinging that turns off listeners and that keeps good people from getting involved with the station. We were going to be different. We were going to talk about our positive vision for bringing peace to KPFA and for mobilizing support for strengthening its signal, improving its programming, and reaching out to a broader progressive audience.
Seemed like a good idea. We all signed the KPFA Fair Campaign Provisions, the fifth plank of which states that no candidate may use Pacifica or KPFA resources to publicly attack another candidate, station staff, management, or the Foundation. Seemed like a good way to ensure that people would talk about their visions for the station, rather than simply what they don’t like about their opponents.
However, at the candidate’s forum broadcast by KPFA, one of the People’s Radio candidates made a series of unsubstantiated charges against some of the management, staff and board. The point of his attacks was to insinuate that the members of the Concerned Listeners slate were somehow linked to the events and people he criticized. We ignored it.
Then, when the election pamphlets were sent out to all the voters, we were amazed to see that the seven members of the People’s Radio slate had combined their statements into a lengthy, paranoid tract. They attempted to “expose” an effort by management, backed by a “minority” of staff, and supported by our slate to “dismantle” the Local Station Board in order to seize power at the station. Management’s goal, they said, was to take us back to the “bad old days” before the listener’s revolution of 1999. The members of our slate howled foul. We were playing by the rules and got blind-sided. And when we complained of the unfairness of this, that their slate broke the rules we had all signed on to, and defamed us in the one mailing the station would make—Carol Spooner and Marc Sapir come forth to protest that our complaints are just another example of management suppressing free speech.
I know it’s a waste of time and energy to get down in the mud with a bunch of attack dogs, but it just goes against my Irish temperament to give these folks a pass on this.
The issues are exactly the opposite of what the People’s Radio folks claim. There is no danger of management turning the clock back to 1999. The power of the Local Station Board is now written into the by-laws of the Foundation. This charge is their equivalent of Bush’s WMDs.
It is we, the Concerned Listeners slate that wants to bring democracy to the board and to the station. It is the People’s Radio folks and their allies who are fighting tooth and nail to keep a broad, representative local Station Board from being elected. Look at who is running on our slate and who our endorsers are! The People’s Radio folks are not interested in bringing new people on to the Board—people who haven’t participated before in KPFA and that represent progressive currents that may have different outlooks on many issues than they do.
These folks don’t want to broaden the base of democratic participation in KPFA—they want to control the station. They think they are the “true” representative’s of the Left, and they think they should be in a position to define KPFA’s mission. But do they ever talk about this? Do they ever say what their vision is? No they don’t. They talk in vague generalities about ‘mission’ and program, and substitute paranoid and baseless attacks on others to avoid spelling out what they really want for the station.
They are not battling an effort by management to take over KPFA. Management at the station hardly exists: the paralysis created by these people has kept a permanent station and program manager from being hired! They have demonized the management and the paid staff, and have tried to present Concerned Listener’s efforts to get the entire KPFA community working together as a subterfuge for a management take-over. These folks are true believer bullies who do not want to see KPFA become an authentically democratic station that can serve as home to this incredible, broad and diverse progressive community we have in Northern California.
That’s what’s at stake in the LSB elections at KPFA.
Matthew Hallinan is a Concerned Listeners candidate for KPFA’s Local Station Board.
For more information:
http://concernedlisteners.org/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
What garbage ! At the risk of sounding Macho will The C.F.O. of the Hallinan family fortune ''man up '' and be prepared to debate the real issues that divide the candidates on Nov. 4 th or will he hide behind false accusations and progressive platitutes ? The ball is in Matthew '' Dynamite'' Hallinan's court .
Peoples Radio wants to eliminate anyone who does not agree with their goals...which are the elimination of anyone who disagrees with them. The only real proposal appears to be Phelps' plan to raise money for KPFA by suing listeners that disagree with him.
Hallinan says it well; the new by-laws are in place, and there is no 'turning back the clock'.
The problem exists because in order for the by-laws to work, the boards, local and national, cannot handle 'day-to-day' operations, but only set and monitor general operations policy. Management takes that policy, and figures out the nuts-and-bolts of how to do it with interference from the boards.
Peoples Radio wants to run the station directly from the board, micromanaging operations totally in case someone decides to dissent from their own glorious agenda...and in complete violation of the by-laws, state law and federal regulation for CPB/PBS money distribution.
Peoples Radio claims are true and correct, but only if you ignore these rules, regulations and laws, and ignore fundamental reality altogether.
All of the things that the Peoples Radio and clone/drone slates propose require funding; there is not yet one single proposal on how that funding will be raised while killing or reducing funding from all the other proposals that they make.
KPFA requires 60,000 watts to broadcast every minute of radio, just for the transmitter alone and not even including the studios and office; just how many "volunteer hours" pay that bill when no money is coming in? Are we going to stuff vegan cuisine in the generator in hopes that black bean casserole with tofu chow mein puts out enough gas to run it for an hour?
And running the generator outside of an emergency is going to be a noise pollution issue that will be self-correcting in just a few hours of action.
How much support does the tightly focused and highly exclusive political agenda of Peoples Radio and their clone/drone slates draw in when it harrasses, attacks and forces out anyone who does not agree with them?
The last fund drive fell short when Peoples Radio began attacking the station; now we have people not bothering to vote and not fulfilling the pledge drive when Peoples Radio decided to attack the station again. One day left, and we are at only 80% of goal.
It makes one wonder just who Peoples Radio is really working for.
Mary Frances Berry tried to turn Pacifica into a puppet of the Democratic Party by silencing critics she didn't agree with, forcing out people who didn't support her goals, and then tried to make opposition to her efforts appear to be "Evil Conservatives and Anti-Democratic Forces".
I'm just noting the parallels between the original hijacker tactics and those of Peoples Radio.
At the least, Concerned Listeners are actively working to be inclusive and make coalitions, to get commonality and plurality in agreement, rather than the "my way or the highway" tactics of Peoples Radio and the clone/drone slates, and despite being accused of being a "Democratic Party front".
It will be two more years before the next election; the slate that offers the most productive and workable agenda is Concerned Listeners.
All Peoples Radio and the clone/drone slates offer is division, exclusion and domination...and no real solutions.
Hallinan says it well; the new by-laws are in place, and there is no 'turning back the clock'.
The problem exists because in order for the by-laws to work, the boards, local and national, cannot handle 'day-to-day' operations, but only set and monitor general operations policy. Management takes that policy, and figures out the nuts-and-bolts of how to do it with interference from the boards.
Peoples Radio wants to run the station directly from the board, micromanaging operations totally in case someone decides to dissent from their own glorious agenda...and in complete violation of the by-laws, state law and federal regulation for CPB/PBS money distribution.
Peoples Radio claims are true and correct, but only if you ignore these rules, regulations and laws, and ignore fundamental reality altogether.
All of the things that the Peoples Radio and clone/drone slates propose require funding; there is not yet one single proposal on how that funding will be raised while killing or reducing funding from all the other proposals that they make.
KPFA requires 60,000 watts to broadcast every minute of radio, just for the transmitter alone and not even including the studios and office; just how many "volunteer hours" pay that bill when no money is coming in? Are we going to stuff vegan cuisine in the generator in hopes that black bean casserole with tofu chow mein puts out enough gas to run it for an hour?
And running the generator outside of an emergency is going to be a noise pollution issue that will be self-correcting in just a few hours of action.
How much support does the tightly focused and highly exclusive political agenda of Peoples Radio and their clone/drone slates draw in when it harrasses, attacks and forces out anyone who does not agree with them?
The last fund drive fell short when Peoples Radio began attacking the station; now we have people not bothering to vote and not fulfilling the pledge drive when Peoples Radio decided to attack the station again. One day left, and we are at only 80% of goal.
It makes one wonder just who Peoples Radio is really working for.
Mary Frances Berry tried to turn Pacifica into a puppet of the Democratic Party by silencing critics she didn't agree with, forcing out people who didn't support her goals, and then tried to make opposition to her efforts appear to be "Evil Conservatives and Anti-Democratic Forces".
I'm just noting the parallels between the original hijacker tactics and those of Peoples Radio.
At the least, Concerned Listeners are actively working to be inclusive and make coalitions, to get commonality and plurality in agreement, rather than the "my way or the highway" tactics of Peoples Radio and the clone/drone slates, and despite being accused of being a "Democratic Party front".
It will be two more years before the next election; the slate that offers the most productive and workable agenda is Concerned Listeners.
All Peoples Radio and the clone/drone slates offer is division, exclusion and domination...and no real solutions.
you realy thought this election would be fair?
sonny you realy have a lot of growin up to do........
sonny you realy have a lot of growin up to do........
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 we destroying the listener base? Etc, etc, etc.
Richard Phelps
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 we destroying the listener base? Etc, etc, etc.
Richard Phelps
what is the issue anyway? that a kid wrote a snarky email about the board? don't you guys have anything better to talk about?
I think it is People's Radio that avoids talking about issues, and instead relies on innuendo, leaps to conclusions, character assassination, petty finger pointing, assuming guilt by association, guessing people's motives and then stating them as though they are fact, and outright lies.
I think people should vote for the several candidates who do not engage in negative campaigning.
I think it is People's Radio that avoids talking about issues, and instead relies on innuendo, leaps to conclusions, character assassination, petty finger pointing, assuming guilt by association, guessing people's motives and then stating them as though they are fact, and outright lies.
I think people should vote for the several candidates who do not engage in negative campaigning.
Confused: When you fling poo on your opponents, it's "political" and therefore acceptable. When they defend themselves, its "personal attack" in the Phelpsian vocabulary, which seems to have been adapted from that of the Rovians.
See? You, too, can be A Great Leader of the masses! Just say "it's political!" and say whatever you want. Lie about your opponents? "It's political!" Snoop through the trash for e-mails? "It's political!" Sue a listener? "It's political!" It's foolproof.
See? You, too, can be A Great Leader of the masses! Just say "it's political!" and say whatever you want. Lie about your opponents? "It's political!" Snoop through the trash for e-mails? "It's political!" Sue a listener? "It's political!" It's foolproof.
We fought a long hard fight to win democratic elections for KPFA’s Local Station Board (LSB). 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 armed guards in KPFA, boarded up the station and piped in music from Houston.
Today, supposedly, the candidates 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, Dan Siegel, 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 but with non-alpha characters inserted in the names of persons mentioned in the statements. 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 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 smeared the KPFA candidates with the same stinky fish-wrap.
First, Pacifica management is prohibited by law and the Pacifica bylaws from making 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 concerning station policies and the LSB. Vigorous debate about these issues is the proper purpose of the elections forum, so that the membership can make informed decisions when they 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 e-mail 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.
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 repudiate the executive director for his outrageous acts, and “Concerned Listeners” slate for demanding this censorship of other candidates’ statements. 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 prefer that candidates be elected who support free speech and open debate, rather than those who are seeking to silence and censor it.
Here is my recommended order of ranking:
No. 1-No. 4 — the “I-Team” listed in alphabetical order—you choose your order of preference: Steve Conley, Chandra Hauptman, Tracy Rosenberg and Joe Wanzala.
No. 5-No. 11 — the “Peoples Radio” slate 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 percent quorum. The ballots must be received (not postmarked) by Nov. 15.
For more info on the candidates and their slates see their web pages:
• The I-Team: http://radiopoetics.org.
• Peoples’ Radio: http://peoplesradio.net/election2007.htm.
• KPFA Voices For Justice: http://voicesforjusticeradio.googlepages.com.
• Concerned Listeners For KPFA: http://concernedlisteners.org.
Santa Rosa resident Carol Spooner was a KPFA Local Board Member from 2000 to 2005 and a Pacifica National Board member from 2002 to 2005.
In 1999 Pacifica silenced its critics, fired them, took them off the air, arrested them, put armed guards in KPFA, boarded up the station and piped in music from Houston.
Today, supposedly, the candidates 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, Dan Siegel, 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 but with non-alpha characters inserted in the names of persons mentioned in the statements. 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 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 smeared the KPFA candidates with the same stinky fish-wrap.
First, Pacifica management is prohibited by law and the Pacifica bylaws from making 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 concerning station policies and the LSB. Vigorous debate about these issues is the proper purpose of the elections forum, so that the membership can make informed decisions when they 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 e-mail 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.
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 repudiate the executive director for his outrageous acts, and “Concerned Listeners” slate for demanding this censorship of other candidates’ statements. 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 prefer that candidates be elected who support free speech and open debate, rather than those who are seeking to silence and censor it.
Here is my recommended order of ranking:
No. 1-No. 4 — the “I-Team” listed in alphabetical order—you choose your order of preference: Steve Conley, Chandra Hauptman, Tracy Rosenberg and Joe Wanzala.
No. 5-No. 11 — the “Peoples Radio” slate 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 percent quorum. The ballots must be received (not postmarked) by Nov. 15.
For more info on the candidates and their slates see their web pages:
• The I-Team: http://radiopoetics.org.
• Peoples’ Radio: http://peoplesradio.net/election2007.htm.
• KPFA Voices For Justice: http://voicesforjusticeradio.googlepages.com.
• Concerned Listeners For KPFA: http://concernedlisteners.org.
Santa Rosa resident Carol Spooner was a KPFA Local Board Member from 2000 to 2005 and a Pacifica National Board member from 2002 to 2005.
People's Radio made personal attacks in their campaign statements. Calling someone a "dismantler" is a personal attack in anyone's definition. They also made a bunch of unfounded accusations. They've been challenged numerous times to come up with documentation to back up their accusations and have so far produced Nada, Zip, Nothing.
They are sensing their impending doom in the upcoming elections and have resorted to Rovian mudslinging. It's really quite a spectacle of how desperate their campaign is with no record of any accomplishments to hand their hats on. If some political science student out there wants to write a research paper on dirty politics, I suggest you interview the People's Radio folks; they're masters at it.
They are sensing their impending doom in the upcoming elections and have resorted to Rovian mudslinging. It's really quite a spectacle of how desperate their campaign is with no record of any accomplishments to hand their hats on. If some political science student out there wants to write a research paper on dirty politics, I suggest you interview the People's Radio folks; they're masters at it.
What kind of democracy is it to be so fortressed-in at the station that actually wanting to bring voices from other communities is seen as so threatening?
It certainly does not seem true that People's Radio wants only those with whom they agree. I've been going to board meetings for several years now. Among those who have consistently invited dialog are the People's Radio board members. Not the CL'ers. In fact, when I merely ASKED why Sarv Randawa had voted the way he did against seeing the financial records or against supporting the Berkeley Honda workers' strike...I forget which issue it was
He SCREAMED at me that I was a liar and brought me to tears. Sarv will probably deny this. My take is that he likes to think of himself almost as Ghandi, a peacemaker who would NEVER do such a thing. So of course there was never an apology. He, in my opinion, is in denial about a whole aspect of his own personality. Is this an unfair personal attack? Maybe. It's what I've seen. I'm not the only one he has attacked in this way. OK! Let me say I do feel a bit grimy about even saying this for this reason: I think we all "lose it" to some degree under pressure. The difference is, some of us own up to it and some don't. No, I don't think it's fair to characterize Sarv or anyone else as nasty people. But I would like us all to admit we have made mistakes -- including Sarv and his "bunch." That is something I don't see.
Richard Phelps and I "spar" verbally often -- but it's a DIALOG -- with a lot of room for real feelings, experience, etc. I DON'T always agree with him; and not all in "People's Radio" (which I am not) agree, as I've been invited, as are most open-minded who want to be, to many discussions with them. And it's not like some sectarian or true-believer groups which I've attended over my long life where someone feeds you the Marxist or whatever line and quits listening to you if you never buy-in. I can understand how easy it is for CL to characterize People's Radio as a "sectarian" group because I think they do work to present a united front in the face of the unity of the staff-recruited group. I also happen to think that Brian E T and Bonnie Simmons portray an easier "sense of humor" than Richard sometimes does, though this is canceled by the subset of cheap sarcasm within that. Brian is a MASTER of finding these vulnerabilities and maximizing on them. The sometimes earnest presentation (over serious issues) by People's Radio members, coupled with the eventual unity of presentation on the board, (and it's NEVER mandated, as evidenced by many differences in votes among them) is not "sectarianism."
Last I looked, CL'ers had no way to contact any of them even. (I admit I've been busy -- perhaps they finally changed that.)
I'm not sure whether Matthew Hallinan really believes what he says above or has been told that by those who recruited him. It is now the case that 8 candidates, most of whom know very little about KPFA at all, have been recruited and given packets and talking points that may include Hallinan's NewSpeak above. It is the OPPOSITE of the reality in most respects.
People's Radio chose to "zoom in" on one telling aspect of Brian Edwards Tiekert's slate. People's Radio invited Brian to speak at a People's Radio gathering shortly after his memo about "dismantling" came out. They wanted to find out what the hell Brian WAS trying to do. Unfortunately, the meeting somewhat disrupted by an unruly audience member NOT in People's Radio, whom the "paranoid" Brian may have conflated with those who are actually the ones working for a more community-oriented, lively engaging station (despite someone from People's Radio feeling obliged to approach the mic to say that person was not in People's Radio).
Brian's defense of the memo then was similar to that which he gives this week in the Berkeley Daily Planet:
he says,
"To be clear: In 2005, when I thought KPFA’s board was charting a course that jeopardized the future of the station, I wrote an email to a group of people who care about KPFA that suggested topics we might discuss at a meeting—a meeting that, in fact, never happened. One of those topics was “recalling LSB members / dismantling the LSB”—asking KPFA’s members, via recall petition, to clean house on KPFA’s board. (I had just read a paper on nonprofit governance entitled “Boards Behaving Badly"—which suggested the only remedy for some boards made dysfunctional through infighting was "dismantling” them by stripping them down to the legal minimum number of members, then building them back up with fresh faces)."
.................
And as I said in a letter to the Planet in the same issue:
I’ve been watching the board operate at KPFA for over two years. I’ve gone to almost every board meeting. I started this to try to figure out how much screaming to attend to. That’s not a style I appreciate, but sometimes I understand people express themselves in less-than-optimal ways under pressure.
While I am uncomfortable with some of the tone of globalizing and attributing of motives in the “People’s Radio” combined statement, I have come very reluctantly to feel that our beloved KPFA staff members are not operating as openly as I would like. In fact, I have come to find it very frustrating to unravel some seeming inexplicable moves on the board and realized the only way I could come to understand them is to realize some board members seem to be working extremely carefully to keep the board from functioning efficiently. My opinion: There may be some truth in the idea that some People’s Radio board members presentations at times end up seeming critical. However, stepping back and looking at things in a larger context, the frustration level of trying to get resolutions discussed and acted upon by board members and chairs whose tones are snide and whose studied “passing” and obfuscating stalls things probably takes its toll.
As the deadline for getting this in arrives:
There IS a link between the people named in the “People’s Radio” statement and the “concerned listener” block. To sign onto the “Concerned Listener” slate meant agreeing to precepts put forth by the recruiters of that slate.
I do not want to demonize any staff members—beloved staff members. But a conversation does need to take place. Richard Phelps, LaVarn Williams, and their allies got access to Pacifica financial records for the first time since the hijacking just last year. They did this despite the efforts of Sherry Gendelman’s slate.
The significance of getting access to financial records, as Phelps and Williams finally did, is that the new bylaws ironed out after winning back the station were supposed to give access to board members, such as Phelps, Williams and all board members, so that listener/sponsors had at least some say in where their money was going.
There is, and always will be, at least a slight (or great!) tension or can be diverging of interests between board members and staff.
I am very sympathetic to wanting to retain talented staff members. As a working person, I wouldn't want to be "micromanaged." Think of this: many of us do NOT have rewarding jobs working for something we love, which we know the world needs. Staff members at KPFA have, or should have this! And, with lifetime benefits! How many can we listeners support? That's a GOOD important crucial question. The more the better! But not at the price of courting grant money to make inexpensive shows from a can that promote questionable health "screening" or "treatment" that may in fact cause more harm than good in some cases. But perhaps the grant is from the company that makes the screening device. Is promoting such a thing worth the money? Even if it means more money to retain more paid staff? Who decides this? The paid staff only? These are IMPORTANT questions, and they need to have some weighing in by board members NOT recruited by that staff. The bylaws call for a balance of staff, listeners, and unpaid staff members. Perhaps, as Brian has said, the board is too big. Well, let's DISCUSS this.
Townhall meetings could be one venue. Some of those have been worse "disasters" at KPFA, the few we've had, than the bylaws themselves (as Sasha Lilley, current Interim General Manager has written of the bylaws). They shouldn't be. They should NOT be run by staff and staff-supported and chosen people only; and yet there should be a balance of people attending including staff. These should be considered as important as fund drives! We don't have them.
As I work to survive, I have no time to edit this to a more digestible form. But I hope some reading this will at least question Hallinan's and his group's completeyl baseless assertions!
It certainly does not seem true that People's Radio wants only those with whom they agree. I've been going to board meetings for several years now. Among those who have consistently invited dialog are the People's Radio board members. Not the CL'ers. In fact, when I merely ASKED why Sarv Randawa had voted the way he did against seeing the financial records or against supporting the Berkeley Honda workers' strike...I forget which issue it was
He SCREAMED at me that I was a liar and brought me to tears. Sarv will probably deny this. My take is that he likes to think of himself almost as Ghandi, a peacemaker who would NEVER do such a thing. So of course there was never an apology. He, in my opinion, is in denial about a whole aspect of his own personality. Is this an unfair personal attack? Maybe. It's what I've seen. I'm not the only one he has attacked in this way. OK! Let me say I do feel a bit grimy about even saying this for this reason: I think we all "lose it" to some degree under pressure. The difference is, some of us own up to it and some don't. No, I don't think it's fair to characterize Sarv or anyone else as nasty people. But I would like us all to admit we have made mistakes -- including Sarv and his "bunch." That is something I don't see.
Richard Phelps and I "spar" verbally often -- but it's a DIALOG -- with a lot of room for real feelings, experience, etc. I DON'T always agree with him; and not all in "People's Radio" (which I am not) agree, as I've been invited, as are most open-minded who want to be, to many discussions with them. And it's not like some sectarian or true-believer groups which I've attended over my long life where someone feeds you the Marxist or whatever line and quits listening to you if you never buy-in. I can understand how easy it is for CL to characterize People's Radio as a "sectarian" group because I think they do work to present a united front in the face of the unity of the staff-recruited group. I also happen to think that Brian E T and Bonnie Simmons portray an easier "sense of humor" than Richard sometimes does, though this is canceled by the subset of cheap sarcasm within that. Brian is a MASTER of finding these vulnerabilities and maximizing on them. The sometimes earnest presentation (over serious issues) by People's Radio members, coupled with the eventual unity of presentation on the board, (and it's NEVER mandated, as evidenced by many differences in votes among them) is not "sectarianism."
Last I looked, CL'ers had no way to contact any of them even. (I admit I've been busy -- perhaps they finally changed that.)
I'm not sure whether Matthew Hallinan really believes what he says above or has been told that by those who recruited him. It is now the case that 8 candidates, most of whom know very little about KPFA at all, have been recruited and given packets and talking points that may include Hallinan's NewSpeak above. It is the OPPOSITE of the reality in most respects.
People's Radio chose to "zoom in" on one telling aspect of Brian Edwards Tiekert's slate. People's Radio invited Brian to speak at a People's Radio gathering shortly after his memo about "dismantling" came out. They wanted to find out what the hell Brian WAS trying to do. Unfortunately, the meeting somewhat disrupted by an unruly audience member NOT in People's Radio, whom the "paranoid" Brian may have conflated with those who are actually the ones working for a more community-oriented, lively engaging station (despite someone from People's Radio feeling obliged to approach the mic to say that person was not in People's Radio).
Brian's defense of the memo then was similar to that which he gives this week in the Berkeley Daily Planet:
he says,
"To be clear: In 2005, when I thought KPFA’s board was charting a course that jeopardized the future of the station, I wrote an email to a group of people who care about KPFA that suggested topics we might discuss at a meeting—a meeting that, in fact, never happened. One of those topics was “recalling LSB members / dismantling the LSB”—asking KPFA’s members, via recall petition, to clean house on KPFA’s board. (I had just read a paper on nonprofit governance entitled “Boards Behaving Badly"—which suggested the only remedy for some boards made dysfunctional through infighting was "dismantling” them by stripping them down to the legal minimum number of members, then building them back up with fresh faces)."
.................
And as I said in a letter to the Planet in the same issue:
I’ve been watching the board operate at KPFA for over two years. I’ve gone to almost every board meeting. I started this to try to figure out how much screaming to attend to. That’s not a style I appreciate, but sometimes I understand people express themselves in less-than-optimal ways under pressure.
While I am uncomfortable with some of the tone of globalizing and attributing of motives in the “People’s Radio” combined statement, I have come very reluctantly to feel that our beloved KPFA staff members are not operating as openly as I would like. In fact, I have come to find it very frustrating to unravel some seeming inexplicable moves on the board and realized the only way I could come to understand them is to realize some board members seem to be working extremely carefully to keep the board from functioning efficiently. My opinion: There may be some truth in the idea that some People’s Radio board members presentations at times end up seeming critical. However, stepping back and looking at things in a larger context, the frustration level of trying to get resolutions discussed and acted upon by board members and chairs whose tones are snide and whose studied “passing” and obfuscating stalls things probably takes its toll.
As the deadline for getting this in arrives:
There IS a link between the people named in the “People’s Radio” statement and the “concerned listener” block. To sign onto the “Concerned Listener” slate meant agreeing to precepts put forth by the recruiters of that slate.
I do not want to demonize any staff members—beloved staff members. But a conversation does need to take place. Richard Phelps, LaVarn Williams, and their allies got access to Pacifica financial records for the first time since the hijacking just last year. They did this despite the efforts of Sherry Gendelman’s slate.
The significance of getting access to financial records, as Phelps and Williams finally did, is that the new bylaws ironed out after winning back the station were supposed to give access to board members, such as Phelps, Williams and all board members, so that listener/sponsors had at least some say in where their money was going.
There is, and always will be, at least a slight (or great!) tension or can be diverging of interests between board members and staff.
I am very sympathetic to wanting to retain talented staff members. As a working person, I wouldn't want to be "micromanaged." Think of this: many of us do NOT have rewarding jobs working for something we love, which we know the world needs. Staff members at KPFA have, or should have this! And, with lifetime benefits! How many can we listeners support? That's a GOOD important crucial question. The more the better! But not at the price of courting grant money to make inexpensive shows from a can that promote questionable health "screening" or "treatment" that may in fact cause more harm than good in some cases. But perhaps the grant is from the company that makes the screening device. Is promoting such a thing worth the money? Even if it means more money to retain more paid staff? Who decides this? The paid staff only? These are IMPORTANT questions, and they need to have some weighing in by board members NOT recruited by that staff. The bylaws call for a balance of staff, listeners, and unpaid staff members. Perhaps, as Brian has said, the board is too big. Well, let's DISCUSS this.
Townhall meetings could be one venue. Some of those have been worse "disasters" at KPFA, the few we've had, than the bylaws themselves (as Sasha Lilley, current Interim General Manager has written of the bylaws). They shouldn't be. They should NOT be run by staff and staff-supported and chosen people only; and yet there should be a balance of people attending including staff. These should be considered as important as fund drives! We don't have them.
As I work to survive, I have no time to edit this to a more digestible form. But I hope some reading this will at least question Hallinan's and his group's completeyl baseless assertions!
Is this the same Virginia Browing who organized the election forum?
The same Virginia who calls in to forums and baited Sherry Gendelman?
The same Virginia who endorses PR candidates and post personal attacks against one slate of people
she's probably never even met?
And the same Virginia who can't figure out why her targets did not jump to attend her dog and pony show?
No same person would walk into a viper pit like that.
The same Virginia who calls in to forums and baited Sherry Gendelman?
The same Virginia who endorses PR candidates and post personal attacks against one slate of people
she's probably never even met?
And the same Virginia who can't figure out why her targets did not jump to attend her dog and pony show?
No same person would walk into a viper pit like that.
Targets? Baited?
I asked each candidate because I didn't know them all.
Asking Sherry Gendelman a completely legitimate question, to which I actually would like to hear an answer by the way, is not baiting.
I know Sherry Gendelman has said publically she wants at least a partly appointed local board. Others have sworn she has said she wants a completely non-elected board. I asked her why. I think this issue should come back to the forefront, as it did with the Airplane analogy when they proudly defended this viewpoint.
I want this to be a discussion that happens, not a mudslinging match on either side. Comments on "that" side such as that those who make time to try to figure out how the station's run "have too much time on their hands" don't further dialog. I am actually interested in having that dialog. Everyone I knew who cares about KPFA had some viewpoint, some leaning at least when the election started. I do think it's important to meet those from other "sides." I was prepared to have my mind changed if anyone from "Concerned Listeners" showed up and spoke to the issues with independance and awareness. Of course I can't tell whether either of the candidates who did show up, Medrano and Warren Mar, might not be able to shift in their ability to be open to the community concerns I care about should they end up on the board. As for the 6 who couldn't even bother to answer yes or no to the many invitations simply because I have expressed some leanings towards some candidates, that makes no sense to me. In setting up the forum, I kept asking for everyone's ideas about how they would like it set up. In the end, it was set up the way the Concerned Listeners rather than the People's Radio responders seemed to prefer. But -- go ahead with the insults. That's your job.
I asked each candidate because I didn't know them all.
Asking Sherry Gendelman a completely legitimate question, to which I actually would like to hear an answer by the way, is not baiting.
I know Sherry Gendelman has said publically she wants at least a partly appointed local board. Others have sworn she has said she wants a completely non-elected board. I asked her why. I think this issue should come back to the forefront, as it did with the Airplane analogy when they proudly defended this viewpoint.
I want this to be a discussion that happens, not a mudslinging match on either side. Comments on "that" side such as that those who make time to try to figure out how the station's run "have too much time on their hands" don't further dialog. I am actually interested in having that dialog. Everyone I knew who cares about KPFA had some viewpoint, some leaning at least when the election started. I do think it's important to meet those from other "sides." I was prepared to have my mind changed if anyone from "Concerned Listeners" showed up and spoke to the issues with independance and awareness. Of course I can't tell whether either of the candidates who did show up, Medrano and Warren Mar, might not be able to shift in their ability to be open to the community concerns I care about should they end up on the board. As for the 6 who couldn't even bother to answer yes or no to the many invitations simply because I have expressed some leanings towards some candidates, that makes no sense to me. In setting up the forum, I kept asking for everyone's ideas about how they would like it set up. In the end, it was set up the way the Concerned Listeners rather than the People's Radio responders seemed to prefer. But -- go ahead with the insults. That's your job.
RE: the Candidate Forum/Reception Sunday Nov 4:
Looks as if this isn't a well-read post, but just in case -- I realized that by my saying Antonio Medrano and Warren Mar only showed up from "Concerned Listeners" and that 6 didn't even bother to respond to 5 or 6 invitations from the KPFA elections supervisor or me (to attend the ONLY Live forum organized this year to meet all candidates), there could be misunderstanding --
Though Antonio Medrano knew about the forum and attended, he didn't reply to any of the invitations, unless JaNay sent any on her own and forgot to inform me. Paul Robbins did respond, but couldn't attend on the late date finally more or less mandated after laborious work to get earlier dates more could attend. That later date was finally picked because I was told staff at KPFA would forget to announce any before the end of the fund drive.
Virginia
Looks as if this isn't a well-read post, but just in case -- I realized that by my saying Antonio Medrano and Warren Mar only showed up from "Concerned Listeners" and that 6 didn't even bother to respond to 5 or 6 invitations from the KPFA elections supervisor or me (to attend the ONLY Live forum organized this year to meet all candidates), there could be misunderstanding --
Though Antonio Medrano knew about the forum and attended, he didn't reply to any of the invitations, unless JaNay sent any on her own and forgot to inform me. Paul Robbins did respond, but couldn't attend on the late date finally more or less mandated after laborious work to get earlier dates more could attend. That later date was finally picked because I was told staff at KPFA would forget to announce any before the end of the fund drive.
Virginia
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$160.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network