Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Purges, Cheating in KPFA Election?
Henry Norr hasn't paid the minimum $25 subscription but is allowed to remain a candidate for LSB, and Chaundra says "we all have the same goal" to start dismantling KPFA management. Transparency inaction.
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
>
> 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
>
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
It is obvious from this private Email exchange that Henry Norr paid the $25. He is also a Board member. Here is the payment:
"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. "
And beyond this little squabble, why are private Emails published here?
"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. "
And beyond this little squabble, why are private Emails published here?
Actually, it appears Henry did NOT pay the $25 by the eligibility deadline. He paid it 1-2 weeks later, according to this e-mail.
Did everyone who also had EFT payments that hadn't reached $25 by the eligibility deadline receive ballots? Or is Henry a special case? This smells.
Also, KPFA folks should be used to private e-mails being posted here. I've seen the famous "dismantler" e-mail republished here so many times I think we all know it by heart. I appreciate this being posted as a subscriber and voter. I only wish it had appeared before the election deadline so I could have known about this before I voted.
Did everyone who also had EFT payments that hadn't reached $25 by the eligibility deadline receive ballots? Or is Henry a special case? This smells.
Also, KPFA folks should be used to private e-mails being posted here. I've seen the famous "dismantler" e-mail republished here so many times I think we all know it by heart. I appreciate this being posted as a subscriber and voter. I only wish it had appeared before the election deadline so I could have known about this before I voted.
Actually, it appears Henry did NOT pay the $25 by the eligibility deadline. He paid it 1-2 weeks later, according to this e-mail.
_____________________________________________________________________________-
RP: Wrong. He made the pledge in JUne and the station staff didn't get around to billing his card until July.
_________________________________________________________________________
Did everyone who also had EFT payments that hadn't reached $25 by the eligibility deadline receive ballots? Or is Henry a special case? This smells.
____________________________________________________________________
RP: Do people that leave out crucial facts deserve any respect??? You forgot that Henry called the subscriptions department to see if he was OK to run with that payment and was told yes. had he been told no he was going to make another payment. Estoppel. Look it up or go back and read my part of the e-mail where I explain it. What smells is some folks disregard for the truth.
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________-
RP: Wrong. He made the pledge in JUne and the station staff didn't get around to billing his card until July.
_________________________________________________________________________
Did everyone who also had EFT payments that hadn't reached $25 by the eligibility deadline receive ballots? Or is Henry a special case? This smells.
____________________________________________________________________
RP: Do people that leave out crucial facts deserve any respect??? You forgot that Henry called the subscriptions department to see if he was OK to run with that payment and was told yes. had he been told no he was going to make another payment. Estoppel. Look it up or go back and read my part of the e-mail where I explain it. What smells is some folks disregard for the truth.
______________________________________________________________________
The CL’ers (Concerned Listeners) even lie to their friends.
See
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/09/20/18622611.php
NOT B.E-T. By a long shot.
Your attempt to smear by association is pathetic.
Does Henry get a pass for NOT being paid in full, NOT JUST PLEDGED, by July 15? Does EVERY OTHER SUBSCRIBER who pledged but was not fully paid by July 15 get a pass also?
You know Henry was granted a privilege other VOTERS were not, and even Perrine is decent enough to understand that.
She asks a good question: How long had his membership been lapsed while he sat on the board and signed other candidates' petitions?
You'd be howling about the venal corruption of you non-allies if the shoe were on the other foot and everyone knows it.
This election is the most corrupt yet. Pacificia *should* have contracted with a neutral third-party firm to conduct this piece of crap. And spare me your "legal opinion" Richard, since you are a candidate yourself and are personally invested in the outcome while you run interference for the protection of your own pals. Well, like you really have any.
Your attempt to smear by association is pathetic.
Does Henry get a pass for NOT being paid in full, NOT JUST PLEDGED, by July 15? Does EVERY OTHER SUBSCRIBER who pledged but was not fully paid by July 15 get a pass also?
You know Henry was granted a privilege other VOTERS were not, and even Perrine is decent enough to understand that.
She asks a good question: How long had his membership been lapsed while he sat on the board and signed other candidates' petitions?
You'd be howling about the venal corruption of you non-allies if the shoe were on the other foot and everyone knows it.
This election is the most corrupt yet. Pacificia *should* have contracted with a neutral third-party firm to conduct this piece of crap. And spare me your "legal opinion" Richard, since you are a candidate yourself and are personally invested in the outcome while you run interference for the protection of your own pals. Well, like you really have any.
§Phelps, answer the question
by WTF
Tuesday Oct 20th, 2009 9:58 AM
NOT B.E-T. By a long shot.
Your attempt to smear by association is pathetic.
_____________________________________________
RP: This from an anonymous smearer!
________________________________________________
Does Henry get a pass for NOT being paid in full, NOT JUST PLEDGED, by July 15? Does EVERY OTHER SUBSCRIBER who pledged but was not fully paid by July 15 get a pass also?
__________________________________________________
RP: Short version Recap of what is above in earlier post to this thread. Henry made his pledge in June. And then asked if it was sufficient to make him a member and was told YES. Once he learned that it wasn't he immediately went and paid more.
_____________________________________________________
You know Henry was granted a privilege other VOTERS were not, and even Perrine is decent enough to understand that.
________________________________________________
RP: NO privilege was granted just the law being followed. Perrine has an axe to grind for Sasha Futran and couldn't add 2 and 2 and get 4 much less accept a rational legal reality once she has identified an enemy.
______________________________________________________
She asks a good question: How long had his membership been lapsed while he sat on the board and signed other candidates' petitions?
________________________________________________
RP: For once we agree. That is a reasonable question. Had it been raised when he was out of compliance, if he was, it could have been dealt with then. Perrine wasn't looking at Henry then since he hadn't violated Futran's 5th place ranking at that time. How did she get that ranking on ICR? Henry and Aki were not involved in that process. So who made the decision? And why ranked that way?
______________________________________________________
You'd be howling about the venal corruption of you non-allies if the shoe were on the other foot and everyone knows it.
_____________________________________________
RP: Wrong again. I follow the facts and law. Anyone else with an estoppel issue should get the same treatment. I disagreed with my usual side over the issue of an LSB member switching from listener to staff and got a lot of heat and I stood my ground on a principled interpretation of our Bylaws.
____________________________________________________
This election is the most corrupt yet. Pacificia *should* have contracted with a neutral third-party firm to conduct this piece of crap. And spare me your "legal opinion" Richard, since you are a candidate yourself and are personally invested in the outcome
_______________________________________________
RP: A legal opinion stands on its merits, not its author. Show me some law that says I am wrong about the estoppel issue. My investment doesn't change reality or the law. Try some rational thought verses personal attacks. Oh, and I will be glad to publicly debate you if you ever are proud enough of what you say to come out from behind your mask and be accountible for the BS you spout.
by WTF
Tuesday Oct 20th, 2009 9:58 AM
NOT B.E-T. By a long shot.
Your attempt to smear by association is pathetic.
_____________________________________________
RP: This from an anonymous smearer!
________________________________________________
Does Henry get a pass for NOT being paid in full, NOT JUST PLEDGED, by July 15? Does EVERY OTHER SUBSCRIBER who pledged but was not fully paid by July 15 get a pass also?
__________________________________________________
RP: Short version Recap of what is above in earlier post to this thread. Henry made his pledge in June. And then asked if it was sufficient to make him a member and was told YES. Once he learned that it wasn't he immediately went and paid more.
_____________________________________________________
You know Henry was granted a privilege other VOTERS were not, and even Perrine is decent enough to understand that.
________________________________________________
RP: NO privilege was granted just the law being followed. Perrine has an axe to grind for Sasha Futran and couldn't add 2 and 2 and get 4 much less accept a rational legal reality once she has identified an enemy.
______________________________________________________
She asks a good question: How long had his membership been lapsed while he sat on the board and signed other candidates' petitions?
________________________________________________
RP: For once we agree. That is a reasonable question. Had it been raised when he was out of compliance, if he was, it could have been dealt with then. Perrine wasn't looking at Henry then since he hadn't violated Futran's 5th place ranking at that time. How did she get that ranking on ICR? Henry and Aki were not involved in that process. So who made the decision? And why ranked that way?
______________________________________________________
You'd be howling about the venal corruption of you non-allies if the shoe were on the other foot and everyone knows it.
_____________________________________________
RP: Wrong again. I follow the facts and law. Anyone else with an estoppel issue should get the same treatment. I disagreed with my usual side over the issue of an LSB member switching from listener to staff and got a lot of heat and I stood my ground on a principled interpretation of our Bylaws.
____________________________________________________
This election is the most corrupt yet. Pacificia *should* have contracted with a neutral third-party firm to conduct this piece of crap. And spare me your "legal opinion" Richard, since you are a candidate yourself and are personally invested in the outcome
_______________________________________________
RP: A legal opinion stands on its merits, not its author. Show me some law that says I am wrong about the estoppel issue. My investment doesn't change reality or the law. Try some rational thought verses personal attacks. Oh, and I will be glad to publicly debate you if you ever are proud enough of what you say to come out from behind your mask and be accountible for the BS you spout.
RE: "This election is the most corrupt yet. Pacificia *should* have contracted with a neutral third-party firm to conduct this piece of crap."
If this were REALLY a corrupt election, possibly naive but jaw-droppingly hardworking Renee (local election supervisor) would have realized the Establishment "Left" candidates were busy with their inner circles of NGOs that didn't have any concern to hear several points of view presented before endorsing their friends, even though most of them knew nothing about KPFA except that the current managment would put them on the air. In other words, many CL candidates made biased presentations to huge relatively well-funded groups such as the Alameda County Labor Council, which should have sought other candidate views before endorsing their friends for something they knew nothing about EXCEPT from their friends who would benefit from their endorsements.
Had Renee been really corrupt, she wouldn't have worked so hard for forums that were almost never announced over the air, and which very few CL candidates (and a few others) attended, busy as they were with their own private events (as I've mentioned here). I suppose I could say Renee did these things because she was corrupt and helping CL, and a few others, but working on the Election Committee, as I did before I quit to try to get publicity that she and the committee couldn't get, I know Renee didn't treat any candidates in a biased manner.
Whoever said the above remark reminds me of the nasty unpleasant and incredibly ungrateful people who sat on their fannies and complained the last few days when the vote-counting was happening, while Renee was physically literally slaving back and forth for 14 hour (and more) days for a week. They sat there reminding me of some demonic looking bunch in a painting from the middle ages, chewing, dribbling, swilling, laughing maniacally while she worked.
Some corruption.
If this were REALLY a corrupt election, possibly naive but jaw-droppingly hardworking Renee (local election supervisor) would have realized the Establishment "Left" candidates were busy with their inner circles of NGOs that didn't have any concern to hear several points of view presented before endorsing their friends, even though most of them knew nothing about KPFA except that the current managment would put them on the air. In other words, many CL candidates made biased presentations to huge relatively well-funded groups such as the Alameda County Labor Council, which should have sought other candidate views before endorsing their friends for something they knew nothing about EXCEPT from their friends who would benefit from their endorsements.
Had Renee been really corrupt, she wouldn't have worked so hard for forums that were almost never announced over the air, and which very few CL candidates (and a few others) attended, busy as they were with their own private events (as I've mentioned here). I suppose I could say Renee did these things because she was corrupt and helping CL, and a few others, but working on the Election Committee, as I did before I quit to try to get publicity that she and the committee couldn't get, I know Renee didn't treat any candidates in a biased manner.
Whoever said the above remark reminds me of the nasty unpleasant and incredibly ungrateful people who sat on their fannies and complained the last few days when the vote-counting was happening, while Renee was physically literally slaving back and forth for 14 hour (and more) days for a week. They sat there reminding me of some demonic looking bunch in a painting from the middle ages, chewing, dribbling, swilling, laughing maniacally while she worked.
Some corruption.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 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