Concerned Listeners Snub KPFA Voters

Since we didn't have time for candidate to candidate or slate to slate questions, here is the one I would have asked Concerned Listeners.

In the four years since the installation of our new democratic Bylaws there have been three issues that have repeatedly been in discussion and debate at KPFA.

1. The Democracy Now! move to prime time, voted by the Program Council in 2003 and the LSB in 2004 and yet never moved,

2. The Unpaid staff organization status,

3. The role of the Program Council, reaffirmed as a decision maker by the LSB in 2004 and now being called advisory by some Concerned Listener candidates and allies, despite the LSB Resolution of May 2004.

Please explain why in 2006 and 2007 Concerned Listeners have not included a position on any of these crucial issues in any of their written or web site publications? Don't have a position? Don't want the voters to know what it is? In either case no vote in the election is earned given this anti-transparency.

Richard Phelps

Visit http://pacificana.org/audio-2007-kpfa-candidate-reception to hear what those candidates who did appear, had to say.

Brian, thanks for recording the event and making it available to us.

The ignorance is so apparent to me. I know I'm posting my fingers off here, but I''m continually saddened by the deeper sense that People's Radio stuff is "true." I have prefered to think it's more like Jim Webber (who ireally IS bass-akwards though he can seem to the unitiated to make sense -- too much to go into here) -- in this regard only: he is now emphasizing the fear of staff members, which is something I have thought People's Radio members would have done well to acknowledge compassionately more (yes, even more), even while disputing their methods. Legitimate fears from the perspective of people fighting for their jobs. Who wouldn't? But check out how the staff has recruited these people who know NOTHING about KPFA so they don't have to engage in real dialog. Have People's Radio REALLY voted to eliminate any person from their position? Many of them have backgrounds in LABOR for god's sake. As pointed out elsewhere, Brian Edwards-Tiekert HIMSELF reported in his treasurer's report to the board that layoffs are going to have to be looked at now -- and if he didn't actually use the word "crisis," (I think he may have) he came so close it blew my mind. Yet when 2 treasurers on the board before him merely brought this up to look at as a possibility, to prevent the problems faced now, he fought like a wild tied animal. There needs to be balance on the board between staff AND LISTENER/SPONSORS, and we are lucky there are some listeners who actually know something about the station. Those are not, for the most part, the Concerned Listeners. (I say "for the most part" because I know Sherry Gendelman knows the station intimately -- and her goals do NOT appear to be for a kind of community radio I can recognize.)

No, Warren Mar: we should definitely NOT be using those forbidden words on the air! That's elementary. And there is supposed to be a delay built in to bleep that out. That is NOT a valid reason to keep community voices off a potential community radio station permanently. (If this is really MUCH harder than I think, I'm certain in this diverse, talented area there are M A N Y creative people who could come up with a better solution than that.)

And what TYPE of progressive will this progressive station manager with the Big power be? You yourself reminded us in our small group at the forum that "the left" ranges from the "democratic" CENTRALISM of the Communist Party, the Democratic Party, and other groups, to groups (unnamed by you) that strive for more input "from below." So -- which type of One All-Knowing "progressive" is our all-powerful station manager to be?

Brian -- you rule!!!!!!! Thank you so much for recording this. I had no idea you were doing it.