Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Why the Concerned Listeners Want Dan Siegel on the KPFA LSB and YOU DON'T!
HAVING DAN SIEGEL AS THEIR PRIME NEW CANDIDIATE DEMONSTRATES EXACTLY WHERE CONCERNED LISTENERS ARE COMING FROM! Most of what Siegel did as Foundation Counsel and Interim ED was for the benefit of his CL/JUC/WPFW PNB Collusion Faction and not for the Foundation. That made sense to Siegel in his dogmatic way of thinking since what was good for his folks had to be good for Pacifica. Even if it meant violating the Bylaws, Corporations Code, Rules of Professional Conduct>conflicts of interest and best practices in handling Pacifica affairs. There are more examples and the two below make his motives perfectly clear!
HAVING DAN SIEGEL AS THEIR PRIME NEW CANDIDIATE DEMONSTRATES EXACTLY WHERE CONCERNED LISTENERS ARE COMING FROM!
CL praises Dan Siegel on their web site for having served “… briefly as interim executive director in 2007 and 2008.” Let’s look at some of the things Siegel did while in this position to see if he is being praised by CL for the kind of work you want in democratic governance, or for factional bias in favor of CL.
It is a long-standing principle in Pacifica that Foundation and station management and staff may not use Foundation resources to campaign for or against candidates for listener delegate. This makes sense if you want fair elections and it is codified at Article Four, Section 6 of Pacifica’s Bylaws. It is also made clear in the Bylaws that the elections are to run by a National Election Supervisor who is independent of Foundation and station management, Article Four, Section 4 A.
In the 2007 election Peoplesradio wrote a political criticism of the Concerned Listener Management Group with their seven candidate statements in a serial fashion in an attempt to educate the voters as to what was going on behind the microphone at the station. Trying to stop this exposure of CL’s folks’ dirty laundry, Siegel, as Interim Executive Director, and close friend and ally of CL and now a candidate on their slate, took the PeoplesRadio statements off the web site and posted a letter condemning their criticism without quoting any specific statement that was defamatory or a personal attack. Siegel’s statement is attached along with his original Candidate Statement for 2009.
The CL major campaign statement on their web site this year is partly a reply to much of what PeoplesRadio criticized CL for with their 2007 candidate statements. Previously CL had taken NO position in writing on the Program Council issue, which we pointed out. Now they are for an advisory one. We criticized the closing down of the of the Unpaid Staff Organization by CL friend's in station management. They responded to our "calls for action" analysis and many other issues we raised in 2007. Their response then was to have their ally, Dan Siegel, take down our statements from the web site and write the fact less attack letter below.
Gregory Wonderwheel, an attorney with a long history of Pacifica involvement and knowledge of the Bylaws, wrote a condemnation of Siegel’s action. Some of it is quoted here:
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 (IED) 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.
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…
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 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.
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.
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.
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. (Emphasis added.)
In February 2008 Carolyn Birden, a Pacifica Director, made arrangements with WBAI staff to do a Director’s Inspection on a regular business day during regular hours. She was exercising her fiduciary responsibility as a Director to try to understand and remedy the huge financial losses at WBAI. Her Inspection went along fine for the first 45 minutes until a Justice and Unity ally called Dan Siegel to tell him about the inspection. Siegel, as IED, called the station and ordered the staff to stop the inspection and escort Director Birden out of the station and not to allow her to keep copies of any documents. Siegel’s interfering with a Director’s Inspection was in direct violation of Pacifica’s Bylaws: Article 12, Section 3:
“Every Director, or his or her assigned agent, shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect and copy all of the Foundation’s books, records and documents of every kind and to inspect the physical properties of the Foundation.” (Emphasis added.)
This is also stated in the California Corporation Code, Section 6334. Siegel knew the law and the Bylaws. Siegel did just as he did with the 2007 election issues above, he intentional used and abused the power he had to protect and support his faction despite having a duty to protect and serve the Pacifica Foundation and to follow and enforce the Bylaws and the laws of California.
Do you want a person who has demonstrated that he will abuse his power and authority and put his faction above Pacifica and fair elections, to be making policy on the KPFA Local Station Board? Concerned Listeners claim to be for transparency and yet they didn’t condemn Siegel’s unlawful interference with a fundamental part of Foundation transparency, Director’s Inspections. Concerned Listeners claim to be for fair and inclusive elections and yet they actually defended Siegel’s 2007 attack on free political debate.
As a candidate this year, Siegel defamed the current Pacifica management in his initial Candidate Statement by accusing them of “ethnic cleansing” when in fact all the people of color that were replaced for failing to stop the red ink at WBAI and around the Foundation, were replaced by people of color. Why do Siegel and CL forget to mention this most important fact? Siegel was ordered to delete his defamatory, raced card comment by the National Election Supervisor.
Since it is proper to conclude that CL endorses Siegel’s unprincipled and unlawful conduct described above, by putting Siegel on their slate, in the upper left position on their mailer, thus ranking him first, I ask you not to vote for any CL candidates regardless of what they promise and who endorses them. Did they tell their endorses what Siegel did? It is most important to judge people by what they have done not what they say they will do. Talk is cheap and past actions are the true test of what people actually believe and are likely to do in the future.
PeoplesRadio has always fought for transparency, fair elections and real democratic process for KPFA/Pacifica governance. Check out our website, http://www.peopleradio.net , to see what we stand for and have worked for and why you should vote for me, Stan Woods, Gerald Sanders and Jim Curtis.
Richard Phelps, former Chair KPFA LSB. 9-12-09
_____________________________________________
Here is Siegel's 2007 letter referred to above with NO specific examples of any wrong doing by candidates that opposed Concerned Listeners. I am sorry that I don't have an electronic copy of his first candidate statement which was changed by order of the National Election Supervisor, deleting "ethnic cleansing".
An Open Letter to the Pacifica Community From Dan Siegel, Interim Executive Director October 24, 2007
Dear Friends, 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.
As a community and a progressive organization we must ask ourselves whether this type of rhetoric is acceptable. Pacifica has important challenges. We live in a nation whose leaders wage unjust and unpopular wars around the globe, attack our civil rights and liberties, oppose efforts to achieve racial justice and equality for all people, and pursue policies that widen the gap between rich and poor.
The often toxic debate within Pacifica restricts our ability to respond to these issues, saps the morale of our hard-working and underpaid staff, and discourages people of good will from participating in our organization.
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 end, Pacifica’s members will decide whether hate speech and hateful speech will be tolerated in our community. We need leaders who will work to improve our programming, broaden our listener base, and attract needed financial support.
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.
Dan Siegel
Interim Executive Director Pacifica Foundation
CL praises Dan Siegel on their web site for having served “… briefly as interim executive director in 2007 and 2008.” Let’s look at some of the things Siegel did while in this position to see if he is being praised by CL for the kind of work you want in democratic governance, or for factional bias in favor of CL.
It is a long-standing principle in Pacifica that Foundation and station management and staff may not use Foundation resources to campaign for or against candidates for listener delegate. This makes sense if you want fair elections and it is codified at Article Four, Section 6 of Pacifica’s Bylaws. It is also made clear in the Bylaws that the elections are to run by a National Election Supervisor who is independent of Foundation and station management, Article Four, Section 4 A.
In the 2007 election Peoplesradio wrote a political criticism of the Concerned Listener Management Group with their seven candidate statements in a serial fashion in an attempt to educate the voters as to what was going on behind the microphone at the station. Trying to stop this exposure of CL’s folks’ dirty laundry, Siegel, as Interim Executive Director, and close friend and ally of CL and now a candidate on their slate, took the PeoplesRadio statements off the web site and posted a letter condemning their criticism without quoting any specific statement that was defamatory or a personal attack. Siegel’s statement is attached along with his original Candidate Statement for 2009.
The CL major campaign statement on their web site this year is partly a reply to much of what PeoplesRadio criticized CL for with their 2007 candidate statements. Previously CL had taken NO position in writing on the Program Council issue, which we pointed out. Now they are for an advisory one. We criticized the closing down of the of the Unpaid Staff Organization by CL friend's in station management. They responded to our "calls for action" analysis and many other issues we raised in 2007. Their response then was to have their ally, Dan Siegel, take down our statements from the web site and write the fact less attack letter below.
Gregory Wonderwheel, an attorney with a long history of Pacifica involvement and knowledge of the Bylaws, wrote a condemnation of Siegel’s action. Some of it is quoted here:
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 (IED) 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.
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…
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 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.
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.
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.
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. (Emphasis added.)
In February 2008 Carolyn Birden, a Pacifica Director, made arrangements with WBAI staff to do a Director’s Inspection on a regular business day during regular hours. She was exercising her fiduciary responsibility as a Director to try to understand and remedy the huge financial losses at WBAI. Her Inspection went along fine for the first 45 minutes until a Justice and Unity ally called Dan Siegel to tell him about the inspection. Siegel, as IED, called the station and ordered the staff to stop the inspection and escort Director Birden out of the station and not to allow her to keep copies of any documents. Siegel’s interfering with a Director’s Inspection was in direct violation of Pacifica’s Bylaws: Article 12, Section 3:
“Every Director, or his or her assigned agent, shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect and copy all of the Foundation’s books, records and documents of every kind and to inspect the physical properties of the Foundation.” (Emphasis added.)
This is also stated in the California Corporation Code, Section 6334. Siegel knew the law and the Bylaws. Siegel did just as he did with the 2007 election issues above, he intentional used and abused the power he had to protect and support his faction despite having a duty to protect and serve the Pacifica Foundation and to follow and enforce the Bylaws and the laws of California.
Do you want a person who has demonstrated that he will abuse his power and authority and put his faction above Pacifica and fair elections, to be making policy on the KPFA Local Station Board? Concerned Listeners claim to be for transparency and yet they didn’t condemn Siegel’s unlawful interference with a fundamental part of Foundation transparency, Director’s Inspections. Concerned Listeners claim to be for fair and inclusive elections and yet they actually defended Siegel’s 2007 attack on free political debate.
As a candidate this year, Siegel defamed the current Pacifica management in his initial Candidate Statement by accusing them of “ethnic cleansing” when in fact all the people of color that were replaced for failing to stop the red ink at WBAI and around the Foundation, were replaced by people of color. Why do Siegel and CL forget to mention this most important fact? Siegel was ordered to delete his defamatory, raced card comment by the National Election Supervisor.
Since it is proper to conclude that CL endorses Siegel’s unprincipled and unlawful conduct described above, by putting Siegel on their slate, in the upper left position on their mailer, thus ranking him first, I ask you not to vote for any CL candidates regardless of what they promise and who endorses them. Did they tell their endorses what Siegel did? It is most important to judge people by what they have done not what they say they will do. Talk is cheap and past actions are the true test of what people actually believe and are likely to do in the future.
PeoplesRadio has always fought for transparency, fair elections and real democratic process for KPFA/Pacifica governance. Check out our website, http://www.peopleradio.net , to see what we stand for and have worked for and why you should vote for me, Stan Woods, Gerald Sanders and Jim Curtis.
Richard Phelps, former Chair KPFA LSB. 9-12-09
_____________________________________________
Here is Siegel's 2007 letter referred to above with NO specific examples of any wrong doing by candidates that opposed Concerned Listeners. I am sorry that I don't have an electronic copy of his first candidate statement which was changed by order of the National Election Supervisor, deleting "ethnic cleansing".
An Open Letter to the Pacifica Community From Dan Siegel, Interim Executive Director October 24, 2007
Dear Friends, 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.
As a community and a progressive organization we must ask ourselves whether this type of rhetoric is acceptable. Pacifica has important challenges. We live in a nation whose leaders wage unjust and unpopular wars around the globe, attack our civil rights and liberties, oppose efforts to achieve racial justice and equality for all people, and pursue policies that widen the gap between rich and poor.
The often toxic debate within Pacifica restricts our ability to respond to these issues, saps the morale of our hard-working and underpaid staff, and discourages people of good will from participating in our organization.
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 end, Pacifica’s members will decide whether hate speech and hateful speech will be tolerated in our community. We need leaders who will work to improve our programming, broaden our listener base, and attract needed financial support.
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.
Dan Siegel
Interim Executive Director Pacifica Foundation
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$135.00 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
Contrary to Phelps' allegations, I DID NOT remove their statement from the website. Actually, the only statement removed was mine. Casey Peters, the election supervisor who concluded that he had the authority to overrule the Executive Director, ordered KPFA to remove my statement from the website.
As for the incident at WBAI, I was informed by staff (not a JUC member) that Carolyn Birden and another person who claimed to have a proxy from a board member, showed up at the station and demanded that staff provide them access to WBAI's books - right then and there. My response was to indicate that inspections needed to be scheduled. Some may disagree with that decision, but my belief is that our small staff is busy doing Pacifica's business and should not be expected to drop what they are doing to accommodate board members who show up and demand their time and attention. I believe that Board members have the absolute right to review Pacifica's books and the books of any station, but I also believe that minimal courtesy to our staff is required. I do not subscribe to the view that our staff is dishonest and must be surprised by board members acting like federal agents raiding Al Capone's liquor businesses in "The Untouchables!"
Dan Siegel
by Dan Siegel
( DanMSiegel [at] gmail.com ) Saturday Oct 3rd, 2009 5:29 PM
Many people assume that (some) lawyers lie, and Richard Phelps does not disappoint.
________________________________________
RP: The record will show who is telling the truth and who is trying to deceive the voters.
___________________________________________________
His post accurately states that while I was serving as Pacifica's Interim Executive Director two years ago I wrote a statement urging candidates to refrain from personal attacks and try to focus on the issues.
___________________________________________________________
RP: Siegel still does not quote any "personal attacks" in what we wrote, despite the fact that he was challenged by me and Wonderwheel and many others to do so. Why? Because he can't. There were NONE! But Siegel follows the BIG LIE method, keep repeating the lie and some will believe it. As a lawyer Siegel knows that charges without evidence mean nothing! And yet he continues to make allegations without any examples.
_____________________________________________________________
My statement is attached to Richard's article, and I do not regret urging candidates to tone down their vitriol and try to debate the issues dividing Pacifica's supporters in a civil and principled way that befits people who call themselves progressives.
____________________________________________________
RP: Siegel has presented NO vitriol in our statements of 2007. All we wrote were factual political criticism. Unlike his initial statement this year where he accused people, good people, who are saving Pacifica, of "ethnic cleansing" with no evidence. Siegel conveniently forgets to reply to that part of my article.
__________________________________________________________
My statement does not mention anyone by name or affiliation, but Phelps and his allies complained that I was attacking them. "If the shoe fits...."
______________________________________________________
RP: Now here is where the real "honest" Siegel rears his head. PeoplesRadio candidates were the only ones that wrote major criticisms of Concerned Listeners and their allies in management. Everyone knew exactly who he was attacking.
_______________________________________________________
Contrary to Phelps' allegations, I DID NOT remove their statement from the website.
________________________________________________________
RP: Maybe the Easter Bunny did it. They were taken down at the same time your statement was put up on the web site and only put back up when we complained. Also when they were put back up they were altered and made to look weird.
________________________________________________
Actually, the only statement removed was mine. Casey Peters, the election supervisor who concluded that he had the authority to overrule the Executive Director, ordered KPFA to remove my statement from the website.
_______________________________________________________
RP: According to the letter and spirit of the Bylaws and any interpretation of fair elections, his taking down your statement was proper. As a Foundation official you were not supposed to interfer with the election in a manner that favors one side> your side, as is proven by your running on the Concerned Listener slate.
__________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
As for the incident at WBAI, I was informed by staff (not a JUC member) that Carolyn Birden and another person who claimed to have a proxy from a board member, showed up at the station and demanded that staff provide them access to WBAI's books - right then and there.
____________________________________________________________
RP: According to Director Carolyn Birden things were going along quite nicely with the inspection until you improperly butted in. She had made prior arangements with the Business Manager to do the inspection even though the law doesn't require one to do so.
_____________________________________________________________
My response was to indicate that inspections needed to be scheduled. Some may disagree with that decision, but my belief is that our small staff is busy doing Pacifica's business and should not be expected to drop what they are doing to accommodate board members who show up and demand their time and attention. I believe that Board members have the absolute right to review Pacifica's books and the books of any station, but I also believe that minimal courtesy to our staff is required. I do not subscribe to the view that our staff is dishonest and must be surprised by board members acting like federal agents raiding Al Capone's liquor businesses in "The Untouchables!"
_________________________________________________
RP: Nice bureaucratic response. Interesting how all of his interference goes against the opponents of the Concerned Listeners and their allies.
So much for "minimal courtesy" when Siegel throws around accusations of "ethnic cleansing". Siegel is a master, of double speak.
With regard to his hyperbolic analogy at the end, I will remind all that after an earlier battle for Directors Inspections, wherein his allies were on the side against inspections, an inspection found that $65,000 of equipment was diverted away from WBAI. And let's not forget the massive RED ink that had been accumulating at WBAI when Director Birden started her inspection. She was fulfilling her fiduciary duty and Siegel and his allies didn't want her to find out any details of the massive RED ink at WBAI.
So you decide who is being honest. The one who continues to accuse people of personal attacks and vitriol without any examples, just charges, or the one that keeps asking him to present an example from documents that are readily available.
Richard Phelps, former Chair KPFA LSB
_________________________________________________________
Dan Siegel