Purges, Cheating in KPFA Election?

Looks like this year's version of a "dismatler" e-mail.

> From: Chandra Hauptman
> Date: October 16, 2009 4:58:05 PM PDT

> Subject: in unity there is strength
>
> and when "we" are divided then "they" can conquer.
> all of us who are discussing this issue are basically on the same side in our KPFA and other politics. If we pick about "allleged" campaign violations of our "allies" we make the CL stronger because then they will pit us against each other unless you, Steve, and you, Perrine and somehow trying to help the CL but I do not believe this based on your years of experience in progressive politics.
>
> We all have the same goal which is to unseat the current KPFA mgmt and to get 3 out of 4 of the PNB seats.
> In talking about fairness remember that Les disqualified Evelyn Sanchez for being on Flashpoints but not Conn Hallinan for appearing on the Morning Show. Why not focus on that and leave Henry alone who has done so much for KPFA and progressive politics in general!
>
> Chandra
>
> PS- some people have been added to this discussion who should have a chance to weigh in on it.
>
> Steve Zeltzer wrote:
>> Richard,
>> Apparently you have problems reading what I said. I did not say that Radke had asked you to send out a response to Kelley's request for information on this issue. I said you responded and did damage control for Radke's failure to answer a formal request on eligibility. We still have not heard from Radke who should have something in writing to say on this issue or maybe he is letting you deal with the issue? Either way he is not answering the issue in a professional way as NES.
>> Steve Zeltzer
>>
>> On Oct 16, 2009, at 10:49 AM, PhelpsMediation [at] aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> Steve, let me set the record straight. Something I often have to do after you respond and report your assumptions as fact. Les didn't ask me to send out the post you are responding to. I thought that the truth would clear up an issue where I happened to know the facts so a very, very busy NES could spend his time on pressing issues at other stations.
>>> And I did read Perrine's post carefully and I responded to what appeared to me to be the real issue, Henry's eligibility.
>>> Richard Phelps
>>> Attorney/Mediator PhelpsMediation.com
>>> 405 14th St. Suite 508
>>> Oakland, CA 94612
>>> 510 268-9919, Fax 268-0368 PhelpsMediation [at] aol.com
>>>
>>> In a message dated 10/16/2009 9:33:20 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, lvpsf [at] igc.org writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard,
>>> Obviously Richard, you did not read the letter carefully. Kelley
>>> as a member of the KPFA election committee had previously sent an
>>> email to Les Radke and the LES to clarify this issue. There was
>>> no written or oral response to this official request. This in
>>> fact could have been simply dealt with by a response from Radke.
>>> Radke has a similar record in LA where complaints were filed
>>> about programmers Ian Master's use of his airtime to attack
>>> groups running in the election. Radke in this case as well also
>>> refused to respond to these election complaints. This is what
>>> Radke is paid to do, but apparently he doesn't have time to do
>>> his job and in this case he has to rely on free legal advise from
>>> his advocate who also happens to be a candidate in the election.
>>> I accept your argument but this again is something that Radke
>>> should have answered.
>>>
>>> Steve Zeltzer
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 16, 2009, at 10:19 AM,
>>> PhelpsMediation [at] aol.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear People,
>>>> Knowing that Les Radke is swamped with problems through out the
>>>> five stations I am going to explain the Henry Norr situation as
>>>> I know it so that we can move on to real issues that may need
>>>> attention. When I first heard that there may be a problem with
>>>> Henry's eligibility I sought the facts of the situation. What I
>>>> learned is stated below. I may be off a little on some minor
>>>> insignificant details and my memory is solid about the basics
>>>> and the legal basis for his candidacy being allowed. Henry made a pledge in June or early July prior to the cutoff to
>>>> renew his membership. It was a monthly payment. After he did it
>>>> he wondered if it was sufficient to make him eligible for the
>>>> election since it would not have paid $25 dollars before the
>>>> July 15 deadline but more than that over the year. *Before July
>>>> 15* Henry called the subscriptions department and asked if his
>>>> payment made him a member for the election and he was told *yes*
>>>> . Had he been told no he was going to immediately pay more to
>>>> make him eligible prior to July 15.
>>>> When eligibility was being checked by the election supervisors
>>>> they noticed that Henry's pledge hadn't caused a payment of $25
>>>> before July 15. (Monthly payment pledges are only good if they
>>>> actually pay $25 before the deadline since a member can stop
>>>> them at any time.) Les Radke told Henry of the problem and Henry told Les that he
>>>> had called the subscriptions department and was told he was OK.
>>>> Les called the subscriptions department and confirmed that Henry
>>>> had called. Henry then made the payment on July 28 that he would
>>>> have made prior to July 15th had he been properly advised and
>>>> Les ruled that Henry was eligible based on his reliance on the
>>>> subscriptions department advice.
>>>> In my opinion Les made the right call given the long standing
>>>> common law principle of estoppel. It is an equitable remedy used
>>>> when one relies on advice from someone in a position to know (
>>>> subscriptions department) and prohibits the entity giving the
>>>> advice, that was relied on by the person asking (Henry), from
>>>> later enforcing a contrary position which causes harm to the
>>>> person (Henry) that relied on the incorrect advice that he had
>>>> previously been given.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Estoppel* is a legal
>>>>
>>>> doctrine
>>>> at
>>>> common law
>>>> , where a party is
>>>> barred from claiming or denying an argument on an equitable
>>>> ground. In general, estoppel protects an aggrieved party, if the
>>>> counter-party induced an expectation from the aggrieved party,
>>>> and the aggrieved party reasonably relied on the expectation and
>>>> would suffer detriment if the expectation is not met.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am surprised that Perrine didn't discover, or chose not to
>>>> report, the earlier monthly payment pledge by Henry in her
>>>> presentation. When you raise such a serious issue a full
>>>> investigation of the facts is essential prior to bringing it up,
>>>> and when you bring it up, all essential facts must be reported.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard Phelps
>>>> Attorney/Mediator
>>>> PhelpsMediation.com
>>>> 405 14th St. Suite 508
>>>> Oakland, CA 94612
>>>> 510 268-9919, Fax 268-0368
>>>> PhelpsMediation [at] aol.com
>>>> In a message dated 10/15/2009 3:12:31 P.M. Pacific Standard
>>>> Time, pkelly [at] perrinekelly.com writes:
>>>>
>>>> Hello, All,
>>>>
>>>> I will preface this comment by noting that on 10/9/09, I had
>>>> previously
>>>> emailed the NES and the LES regarding my concerns and, to
>>>> date, have not
>>>> heard from either regarding this issue.
>>>>
>>>> This email is going to the NES, the LES, again, Henry Norr,
>>>> the KPFA Local
>>>> Station Board and candidates listed for the 2009 LSB
>>>> election. That is the
>>>> intent. I hope I have listed all involved, but if I have
>>>> not, please forward
>>>> this to them.
>>>>
>>>> I am feeling very uncomfortable about the situation with
>>>> Henry Norr and his
>>>> LSB candidacy eligibility. I actually accepted his
>>>> application papers, etc.
>>>> at the KPFA station on the evening of July 15 this year.
>>>>
>>>> I think Henry would, once again, be valuable on the Board.
>>>> In the past, when
>>>> Henry considered resigning from the Board so that Joe
>>>> Wanzala could be
>>>> seated, I emailed him, along with many others, encouraging
>>>> him not to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, Henry, I have a concern about whether or not
>>>> you were actually
>>>> a member of KPFA by the deadline for your candidate
>>>> application submittal.
>>>> In checking membership status, I was told that your payment
>>>> was received
>>>> July 28, 2009, almost 2 weeks after memberships were
>>>> mandated for
>>>> candidates: July 15, 2009. If this is true, listeners should
>>>> know how long
>>>> you were not an actual member of KPFA, as a sitting Board
>>>> member.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, to Les Radke, the NES, could you tell us the
>>>> reasoning you
>>>> used to go ahead and allow Henry to run in this election?
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, the question of Henry's membership could also
>>>> affect the
>>>> candidacy of Annie Hallat. Is it true that her petition
>>>> paper contained 15
>>>> signatures, and one of those was Henry's? If this is true,
>>>> Annie is probably
>>>> not eligible to run either.
>>>>
>>>> Some of us are aware that a few in the KPFA family are
>>>> raising issues about
>>>> the fairness of the election. As painful as it is, we need
>>>> to be able to
>>>> address concerns about the election without engaging in
>>>> suspicions and
>>>> taking offense. A recent criticism of the LES, Renee
>>>> Asteria, was addressed
>>>> quite well by her, in my opinion, and I hope her response
>>>> was an adequate
>>>> one for those concerned. Regardless, I don't think we can
>>>> afford to let
>>>> this, or any other issue go unaddressed.
>>>>
>>>> This election may be the most important one I have
>>>> experienced, not because
>>>> of who is running, who may lose, but because, for the first
>>>> time, this
>>>> election has been more noticed than any before, with the
>>>> participation of
>>>> the staff of the station, the management, etc. and a
>>>> vigorous input of Renee
>>>> and Les, who have both come up with quite creative ideas for
>>>> promoting the
>>>> idea of listener participation.
>>>>
>>>> There have been more broadcast carts than ever before. We
>>>> have held more
>>>> onsite forums in many places throughout the Bay Area than
>>>> ever before. We
>>>> have recorded forums at Berkeley Community Media that can be
>>>> distributed
>>>> beyond the KPFA community. This can be the model for
>>>> elections to come. We
>>>> cannot afford to lose this momentum by not ensuring that the
>>>> election
>>>> process is as clean as possible. I am sure there is no one
>>>> that disagrees
>>>> with me here.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Perrine Kelly
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =
>>
>
> --
> Chandra Hauptman
>