Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Matthew Lasar takes on Tracy Rosenberg about KPFA Board Costs
Since the network began its process of democratization in 2002, by my arithmetic, Pacifica has spent $2,424,662 on its boards. And if the organization blows about the same sum that it did in 2007 on these wasteful and internally destructive elections, the figure will edge toward $3 million.
Since I wrote my last post on the calamitous state of Pacifica radio, various correspondents have complained that my figures on the network’s subscriber/staff elected board expenses were inaccurate. I roughly estimated them at “close to a million” since the organization has transitioned to an elected board regime.
“When we speak about these matters publicly, we should try to be accurate about the figures,” one Pacifica station KPFA local station board member lectured me. “Pacifica does have financial stresses, but they are caused by many factors including structural operating deficits at several of the stations. We don’t help when we oversimplify or say things that are simply not true.”
This critic continued her quest for complex truth by blaming me for the chaos at a national board meeting that I didn’t even attend. Whatever. In any event, her post was useful, since it pointed to the network’s updated financial audits page (and Terry Goodman has some helpful annotations to my comments).
Sure enough, my guesstimate was way off the mark. The situation is much worse than I thought. Since the network began its process of democratization in 2002, by my arithmetic, Pacifica has spent $2,424,662 on its boards. And if the organization blows about the same sum that it did in 2007 on these wasteful and internally destructive elections, the figure will edge toward $3 million.
Here are the numbers with their accompanying line item descriptions:
2009 “board expense” 265,687
2008 “board expense” 377,977
2007 “National board expenses” (230,695)
and “board election expenses” (153,256)
383,951
2006 “National board expenses” (275,124)
and “board election expenses” (47,578)
322,702
2005 “National board expenses” (224,677)
and “board election expenses” (183,941)
408,618
2004 “National board expenses” (119,133)
and “board election expenses” (206,571)
325,704
2003 “National board expenses” 161,918
2002 “National board expenses” 178,105
Total $2,424,662
Take a look at some of these numbers. Unbelievable. Nearly 400K in 2007. What on earth did Pacifica spend this on? A free chocolate truffle for every subscriber who voted? Single transferable voting fact finding trips to Australia? That probably would have been money better spent than the actual expenditures, which are not detailed in these audits.
In previous posts I’ve complained that board members spend most of their time on internecine politics and precious little on building up the organization. The 2008 audit says it all. Of that 377,977, the line item says 377,902 was spent on “management and general.”
How much was spent on “Fundraising and development”?
75 bucks.
Out of control
And please, don’t tell me that these numbers only represent a small portion of Pacifica expenses. We’re talking about $2.4 million to an organization that lost over $4 million in revenue last year. We’re talking about a network that suffers from something far more severe than “financial stresses” and “structural operating deficits.”
I refer you to the comments of Pacifica’s financial auditor, offering his perspective to the Pacifica National Board’s audit committee via teleconference on March 22 of this year. Forward to the middle of the clip and note the tone of alarm in his voice:
“Quite frankly, we believe that your internal controls are atrocious. And I’m not mincing my words. You’ve got stations that act completely on their own,” he warned the PNB. “This organization is out of control.”
Stations don’t properly collect pledges, he noted. They don’t even keep adequate records of their subscribers. They don’t know how to use the organization’s computerized accounting programs. They don’t know how to keep track of station inventory, such as computers and pledge reward items. “You don’t count the inventory. You don’t control it. You don’t count it.”
Your subscriber pledge cards at WBAI, he lamented, “they’re kept in boxes. They’re kept around the place. They’re not maintained by program or by the time the pledges were made. . . . ” Personnel are allowed too much access to pledge cards. “Once a pledge card is made out . . . it should be locked up. This is an asset. It represents somebody’s name, telephone, address, credit card number. Those need to be controlled. That’s just like cash.” The fulfilled pledges aren’t even inputted into the network’s financial database system.
Feel free to listen to the rest of the horror show at your leisure. By the way, in 1999, prior to the democratization of Pacifica, the audit didn’t even have a “national board” category. It listed “conferences and meetings” at a little over $77,000, and the dissidents who constantly complained about Pacifica’s “corporatized” bureaucracy and finances called that a bloated figure.
Sorry
‘Whose fault is this?’ the auditor was eventually asked. “The finger has to be pointed at the Board of Directors,” he replied. “The Board of Directors need to make its employees accountable.”
Now I know what’s coming next. You’re all going to post comments blaming different factions for the mess. It’s all Justice and Unity’s fault. It’s all ListProg’s fault. It’s all Independents for Community Radio’s fault. It’s all People’s Radio’s fault. It’s all Concerned Listeners fault (sorry if I left your slate out; I can’t keep track of them any more).
You know what—just say it’s all Matthew Lasar’s fault, ok? I take full responsibility for everything bad that has happened so far. And I apologize. I’m truly sorry. In fact, I’m doing the Airplane Position as you read this post. Happy now?
But here’s the bottom line. How can a board system that has spent over a million bucks on itself just since 2007 (in an organization that collected a little over $12 million in revenue last year) possibly make anybody accountable for anything? Of course it can’t. There’s no chance that these elections are going to bring in a critical mass of people who can save this network from slipping down the drain.
That’s why, as a listener subscriber to KPFA in Berkeley, I’m not going to endorse any slate or even vote this year. There’s an old saying from the 1960s: “Don’t vote. It only encourages them.” In this case, I’m afraid that’s true. Pacifica urgently needs a board with the skills to can handle this mess. And it’s not going to get it through this process.
Voices of reason, resources, and influence beyond the organization, where are you? Speak now, before all is lost.
“When we speak about these matters publicly, we should try to be accurate about the figures,” one Pacifica station KPFA local station board member lectured me. “Pacifica does have financial stresses, but they are caused by many factors including structural operating deficits at several of the stations. We don’t help when we oversimplify or say things that are simply not true.”
This critic continued her quest for complex truth by blaming me for the chaos at a national board meeting that I didn’t even attend. Whatever. In any event, her post was useful, since it pointed to the network’s updated financial audits page (and Terry Goodman has some helpful annotations to my comments).
Sure enough, my guesstimate was way off the mark. The situation is much worse than I thought. Since the network began its process of democratization in 2002, by my arithmetic, Pacifica has spent $2,424,662 on its boards. And if the organization blows about the same sum that it did in 2007 on these wasteful and internally destructive elections, the figure will edge toward $3 million.
Here are the numbers with their accompanying line item descriptions:
2009 “board expense” 265,687
2008 “board expense” 377,977
2007 “National board expenses” (230,695)
and “board election expenses” (153,256)
383,951
2006 “National board expenses” (275,124)
and “board election expenses” (47,578)
322,702
2005 “National board expenses” (224,677)
and “board election expenses” (183,941)
408,618
2004 “National board expenses” (119,133)
and “board election expenses” (206,571)
325,704
2003 “National board expenses” 161,918
2002 “National board expenses” 178,105
Total $2,424,662
Take a look at some of these numbers. Unbelievable. Nearly 400K in 2007. What on earth did Pacifica spend this on? A free chocolate truffle for every subscriber who voted? Single transferable voting fact finding trips to Australia? That probably would have been money better spent than the actual expenditures, which are not detailed in these audits.
In previous posts I’ve complained that board members spend most of their time on internecine politics and precious little on building up the organization. The 2008 audit says it all. Of that 377,977, the line item says 377,902 was spent on “management and general.”
How much was spent on “Fundraising and development”?
75 bucks.
Out of control
And please, don’t tell me that these numbers only represent a small portion of Pacifica expenses. We’re talking about $2.4 million to an organization that lost over $4 million in revenue last year. We’re talking about a network that suffers from something far more severe than “financial stresses” and “structural operating deficits.”
I refer you to the comments of Pacifica’s financial auditor, offering his perspective to the Pacifica National Board’s audit committee via teleconference on March 22 of this year. Forward to the middle of the clip and note the tone of alarm in his voice:
“Quite frankly, we believe that your internal controls are atrocious. And I’m not mincing my words. You’ve got stations that act completely on their own,” he warned the PNB. “This organization is out of control.”
Stations don’t properly collect pledges, he noted. They don’t even keep adequate records of their subscribers. They don’t know how to use the organization’s computerized accounting programs. They don’t know how to keep track of station inventory, such as computers and pledge reward items. “You don’t count the inventory. You don’t control it. You don’t count it.”
Your subscriber pledge cards at WBAI, he lamented, “they’re kept in boxes. They’re kept around the place. They’re not maintained by program or by the time the pledges were made. . . . ” Personnel are allowed too much access to pledge cards. “Once a pledge card is made out . . . it should be locked up. This is an asset. It represents somebody’s name, telephone, address, credit card number. Those need to be controlled. That’s just like cash.” The fulfilled pledges aren’t even inputted into the network’s financial database system.
Feel free to listen to the rest of the horror show at your leisure. By the way, in 1999, prior to the democratization of Pacifica, the audit didn’t even have a “national board” category. It listed “conferences and meetings” at a little over $77,000, and the dissidents who constantly complained about Pacifica’s “corporatized” bureaucracy and finances called that a bloated figure.
Sorry
‘Whose fault is this?’ the auditor was eventually asked. “The finger has to be pointed at the Board of Directors,” he replied. “The Board of Directors need to make its employees accountable.”
Now I know what’s coming next. You’re all going to post comments blaming different factions for the mess. It’s all Justice and Unity’s fault. It’s all ListProg’s fault. It’s all Independents for Community Radio’s fault. It’s all People’s Radio’s fault. It’s all Concerned Listeners fault (sorry if I left your slate out; I can’t keep track of them any more).
You know what—just say it’s all Matthew Lasar’s fault, ok? I take full responsibility for everything bad that has happened so far. And I apologize. I’m truly sorry. In fact, I’m doing the Airplane Position as you read this post. Happy now?
But here’s the bottom line. How can a board system that has spent over a million bucks on itself just since 2007 (in an organization that collected a little over $12 million in revenue last year) possibly make anybody accountable for anything? Of course it can’t. There’s no chance that these elections are going to bring in a critical mass of people who can save this network from slipping down the drain.
That’s why, as a listener subscriber to KPFA in Berkeley, I’m not going to endorse any slate or even vote this year. There’s an old saying from the 1960s: “Don’t vote. It only encourages them.” In this case, I’m afraid that’s true. Pacifica urgently needs a board with the skills to can handle this mess. And it’s not going to get it through this process.
Voices of reason, resources, and influence beyond the organization, where are you? Speak now, before all is lost.
For more information:
http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2010/06/28/de...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Responding to Matthew's call for some input about the financial crisis within Pacifica, I can provide a few insights drawn from my time as ED in 2006 and 2007. I don't have information about the costs of governance since that time, but I do recall the basics and some of dynamics at work for about two years.
The election process itself consists of contractor costs -- National and Local Election Supervisors paid for about 9 months of part-time work during election years -- plus the printing and mailing costs associated with running elections at the five stations. Even without outside assistance, this normally amounts to at least $200,000 annually. The reason for fluctuations in some years has to do with the way expenses at posted across fiscal years. If an election is contested or extended the costs obviously increase.
The governance expenses, beyond the election process, are mainly due to the in-person meetings. Expenses vary depending on where they are held, how many people are approved to attend, and the overnight accomodations. Holding a meeting in New York is, of course, far more expensive than meeting in Houston. During my tenure, the cost of a single in-person meeting ranged from $35,000 to $60,000 depending on the venue.
Overall, the cost of governance -- without ancellary expenses -- was slightly under $500,000 a year during 2006 and 2007. I believe there have been some economies since then, but the basic expenses remain considerable. Beyond those base costs, however, there are the added, untracked costs of staff time at stations in support of the the election process -- for example, the time involved in producing on-air PSAs for candidates, and also developing and certifying lists of qualified members -- as well as potential legal costs when an election is disputed. In other words, the overall price is certainly more than the figures generated by either Matthew Lasar or mentioned above.
The obvious question is whether the expense is worthwhile, and the answer depends on whether one thinks that the current form of listener democracy is essential and/or functioning well. The debate between Tracy and Brian illustrates how differently people can view this. In general, staff have problems with the level of board oversight and, in some cases, to the role of the national office. The local boards, at each sister station, have developed "factions" that both vie for control and either support of oppose the staff view. These dynamics -- and others -- tend to take up considerable time and divert energy from dealing with pressing issues.
The boundary between governance and management is a matter of ongoing dispute, and the result is that it is easier to leave things essentially unchanged -- especially the basic programming grid. Any substantive change, or even attempt, will lead to reaction from either unpaid staff or the LSB.
A common response to critique of the governance model is that "democracy is messy." I heard this often and it is certainly true. However, it could be slightly less messy and more -- pardon the expression -- efficient if the line between management and governance was made more clear through bylaws amendments, and if the election process was reviewed and revised. This is a complex topic, and one I can't fully explore in a brief response. But to mention just a couple of aspects: the definition of who qualifies as a volunteer member is open to debate and isn't the same across the country, and those who choose to contibute money to the Pacifica network (through a national fundraising appeal) are not considered members, no matter how much money they contribute. During my time, about 20,000 people fell into the latter category, contributing at least a half million a year.
Misinformation and spin further complicate matters. But in my view, the underlying problem of governance is that the gridlock created by factional struggle within the LSBs -- which trickles up to the PNB -- makes is difficult for the national operation (board and staff) to make decisions -- or implement those that are made. Here lies the source of the difficulty in making technological and programming changes.
In addition, there is a deep and enduring dispute over the very nature of what is called the "network," Pacifica's sense that it is a national organization. This also has a financial cost, what you might call the cost of lost opportunity. And it accounts for some of the problems identified by auditors. The ability of various stations to manage finances varies, as does the technological expertise. Suspicion leads station management or boards to defend local autonomy even if that makes it more difficult to maximize financial efficiency, pool resources, or share skills.
The cost of governance could be reduced somewhat without significant bylaws amendment. Fewer lawsuits, more effective use of technology, and a more rational approach would help. But the basic carrying cost (I would put it at around $400,000, plus local staff time) is unavoidable with the type of democratic structure Pacifica has chosen. Now, if that cost was stable and Pacifica was bringing in $16 million or more annually the price would be around 2.5% of total revenue. Is that a reasonable price for democratic governance? If the figures presented recently are true and Pacifica is only bringing in $12 million, then the price has risen to 3.5%. This is, by the way, similar to the amount usually provided for the Pacifica Archives, a vitally important resource. Stations also sometimes object to this allocation, or to the need to surrender a day or two of airtime a year to raise the remainder of PRAs budget.
But the real problem, in the end, is the loss of what looks like 25% of past revenue and, with it, audience. The fact is that fewer and fewer contributors, Pacifica's aging audience, are being asked to pick up the slack. The only other significant revenue stream is CPB money, which can vary annually and certainly isn't secure long term. The stations and the national organization have been unable to effectively diversify revenue sources or attract new audiences that are willing to contribute. The low fulfillment rates and lack of inventory control are certainly contributing factors to the current financial crunch. But even if fulfillment was higher and premiums were used more effectively, the overall picture would remain the same.
In short, Pacifica needs new sources of revenue, technological retooling and associated programming changes, as well as a series of bylaws amendments that will increase efficiency and reduce conflict, hopefully without abandoning the basic comitment to democratic participation, transparancy, and inclusion.
Can this happen? It won't be easy. Unfortunately, the current bylaws make almost any change more easy to block than to implement. The current strategies of restaffing and cutbacks are, at best, short-term bandaids. This is essentially retrenchment. And what Pacifica needs is transformation. Otherwise, though the organization may survive its impact and reach will continue to decline.
As ED I presented a comprehensive set of proposals for management change, and also identified some of the areas for bylaws revision. For some this was considered an overreach; others repeatedly urged "house cleaning" instead, meaning the abrupt removal of staff they considered at fault for programming or financial shortcomings. But I believe that, given the unique perspective of my role, the proposals provided in 2007 continue to offer at least the beginning of a path forward. If Pacifica wishes to be a functioning national entity in the future -- a matter on which members may also disagree and which really ought to be resolved -- it will need a different management structure, a revised budget process, significant digital development, and a re-affirmed, updated mission for the 21st Century.
The election process itself consists of contractor costs -- National and Local Election Supervisors paid for about 9 months of part-time work during election years -- plus the printing and mailing costs associated with running elections at the five stations. Even without outside assistance, this normally amounts to at least $200,000 annually. The reason for fluctuations in some years has to do with the way expenses at posted across fiscal years. If an election is contested or extended the costs obviously increase.
The governance expenses, beyond the election process, are mainly due to the in-person meetings. Expenses vary depending on where they are held, how many people are approved to attend, and the overnight accomodations. Holding a meeting in New York is, of course, far more expensive than meeting in Houston. During my tenure, the cost of a single in-person meeting ranged from $35,000 to $60,000 depending on the venue.
Overall, the cost of governance -- without ancellary expenses -- was slightly under $500,000 a year during 2006 and 2007. I believe there have been some economies since then, but the basic expenses remain considerable. Beyond those base costs, however, there are the added, untracked costs of staff time at stations in support of the the election process -- for example, the time involved in producing on-air PSAs for candidates, and also developing and certifying lists of qualified members -- as well as potential legal costs when an election is disputed. In other words, the overall price is certainly more than the figures generated by either Matthew Lasar or mentioned above.
The obvious question is whether the expense is worthwhile, and the answer depends on whether one thinks that the current form of listener democracy is essential and/or functioning well. The debate between Tracy and Brian illustrates how differently people can view this. In general, staff have problems with the level of board oversight and, in some cases, to the role of the national office. The local boards, at each sister station, have developed "factions" that both vie for control and either support of oppose the staff view. These dynamics -- and others -- tend to take up considerable time and divert energy from dealing with pressing issues.
The boundary between governance and management is a matter of ongoing dispute, and the result is that it is easier to leave things essentially unchanged -- especially the basic programming grid. Any substantive change, or even attempt, will lead to reaction from either unpaid staff or the LSB.
A common response to critique of the governance model is that "democracy is messy." I heard this often and it is certainly true. However, it could be slightly less messy and more -- pardon the expression -- efficient if the line between management and governance was made more clear through bylaws amendments, and if the election process was reviewed and revised. This is a complex topic, and one I can't fully explore in a brief response. But to mention just a couple of aspects: the definition of who qualifies as a volunteer member is open to debate and isn't the same across the country, and those who choose to contibute money to the Pacifica network (through a national fundraising appeal) are not considered members, no matter how much money they contribute. During my time, about 20,000 people fell into the latter category, contributing at least a half million a year.
Misinformation and spin further complicate matters. But in my view, the underlying problem of governance is that the gridlock created by factional struggle within the LSBs -- which trickles up to the PNB -- makes is difficult for the national operation (board and staff) to make decisions -- or implement those that are made. Here lies the source of the difficulty in making technological and programming changes.
In addition, there is a deep and enduring dispute over the very nature of what is called the "network," Pacifica's sense that it is a national organization. This also has a financial cost, what you might call the cost of lost opportunity. And it accounts for some of the problems identified by auditors. The ability of various stations to manage finances varies, as does the technological expertise. Suspicion leads station management or boards to defend local autonomy even if that makes it more difficult to maximize financial efficiency, pool resources, or share skills.
The cost of governance could be reduced somewhat without significant bylaws amendment. Fewer lawsuits, more effective use of technology, and a more rational approach would help. But the basic carrying cost (I would put it at around $400,000, plus local staff time) is unavoidable with the type of democratic structure Pacifica has chosen. Now, if that cost was stable and Pacifica was bringing in $16 million or more annually the price would be around 2.5% of total revenue. Is that a reasonable price for democratic governance? If the figures presented recently are true and Pacifica is only bringing in $12 million, then the price has risen to 3.5%. This is, by the way, similar to the amount usually provided for the Pacifica Archives, a vitally important resource. Stations also sometimes object to this allocation, or to the need to surrender a day or two of airtime a year to raise the remainder of PRAs budget.
But the real problem, in the end, is the loss of what looks like 25% of past revenue and, with it, audience. The fact is that fewer and fewer contributors, Pacifica's aging audience, are being asked to pick up the slack. The only other significant revenue stream is CPB money, which can vary annually and certainly isn't secure long term. The stations and the national organization have been unable to effectively diversify revenue sources or attract new audiences that are willing to contribute. The low fulfillment rates and lack of inventory control are certainly contributing factors to the current financial crunch. But even if fulfillment was higher and premiums were used more effectively, the overall picture would remain the same.
In short, Pacifica needs new sources of revenue, technological retooling and associated programming changes, as well as a series of bylaws amendments that will increase efficiency and reduce conflict, hopefully without abandoning the basic comitment to democratic participation, transparancy, and inclusion.
Can this happen? It won't be easy. Unfortunately, the current bylaws make almost any change more easy to block than to implement. The current strategies of restaffing and cutbacks are, at best, short-term bandaids. This is essentially retrenchment. And what Pacifica needs is transformation. Otherwise, though the organization may survive its impact and reach will continue to decline.
As ED I presented a comprehensive set of proposals for management change, and also identified some of the areas for bylaws revision. For some this was considered an overreach; others repeatedly urged "house cleaning" instead, meaning the abrupt removal of staff they considered at fault for programming or financial shortcomings. But I believe that, given the unique perspective of my role, the proposals provided in 2007 continue to offer at least the beginning of a path forward. If Pacifica wishes to be a functioning national entity in the future -- a matter on which members may also disagree and which really ought to be resolved -- it will need a different management structure, a revised budget process, significant digital development, and a re-affirmed, updated mission for the 21st Century.
For more information:
http://muckraker-gg.blogspot.com/
Lasar: This time I’m not participating—that means I’m not endorsing any slate and I’m not voting in the election at my local station: KPFA-FM in Berkeley.
http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2010/06/21/pacifica-radio-board-elections-count-me-out/
http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2010/06/21/pacifica-radio-board-elections-count-me-out/
Is this the same Matt Lazar who at a KPFA town hall meeting downplayed by the violence at KPFA by saying at least no one had been killed. His previous endorsements of the Concerned Listeners took place when they were in charge when these incidents were taking place. These incidents and lawsuits against the station were a direct result of the incompetent management and entrenched staff that Lazar has supported. Lazar is also now in cahoots with the group including Sasha Lillie who are now attacking the elections by having guests who have attacked the election process right in the middle of the election cycle.
To make clear what "Peace and Justice" alluded to here:
Lasar is openly discouraging listeners who know nothing about the obfuscation of CL or any other politics from voting, while behind the scenes he is endorsing the slate who've already sent several expensive mailers to listeners, at least one to ALL member/listeners. This expense is something most candidates can't afford. Money should not be buying this election. (And because they have co-opted a name almost diametrically-opposed to those KPFA listeners who first used it, they are confusing many voters as well with that.)
Neither should "influence" be buying this election. Those on-air guests who have been interviewed by the paid staff members who are unquestionably competent but who want to maintain the airwaves as they choose, with only new voices of their choosing, those guests would be hard-pressed to dis those interviewers. Furthermore, most of the interviewers are so good, why WOULD the guests question them?
The charge of "anti-professionalism" in fact is thrown around by Lasar's allies to imply that any minute change from the crony-chosen format now on the air will, by default, be terrible-sounding. There are a couple of popular shows now on that I would like to improve the sound of if I had my way, but the idea that simply ripping stuff off the air rather than mentoring and improving is not the way to build this station as a hub of community-organizing that is needed.
Lasar's solution is to call for an unelected board "like we had in 97." (or did he say 98?)
Doubtless the bylaws need improving, but without an elected board, what is to stop a few from taking this network as its own for a few? It is much harder with an elected board to do that. And who will work on those bylaws changes -- those who lie and deceive to retain power at any cost?
As to all the staff endorsers of the name-co-opting "SaveKPFA-Mart" slate: several staff have approached people on OTHER slates and privately said they would like to endorse them, but they are worried their hours will be cut if they do. Can you see the conflict of interest here when people like Lasar want even MORE paid staff/manager control?
And as for "badly behaving boards," one new tangent I've recently discovered is that one of the top problems for many CORPORATE boards (with UN-elected members) is that APPOINTED board members tend to shake-down to such buddy buddy ties with the managers they are supposed to provide oversight for that there is no oversight. That is one of THE main problems with unelected boards.
There's more to say to Guma's comment. But too much for today.
Lasar is openly discouraging listeners who know nothing about the obfuscation of CL or any other politics from voting, while behind the scenes he is endorsing the slate who've already sent several expensive mailers to listeners, at least one to ALL member/listeners. This expense is something most candidates can't afford. Money should not be buying this election. (And because they have co-opted a name almost diametrically-opposed to those KPFA listeners who first used it, they are confusing many voters as well with that.)
Neither should "influence" be buying this election. Those on-air guests who have been interviewed by the paid staff members who are unquestionably competent but who want to maintain the airwaves as they choose, with only new voices of their choosing, those guests would be hard-pressed to dis those interviewers. Furthermore, most of the interviewers are so good, why WOULD the guests question them?
The charge of "anti-professionalism" in fact is thrown around by Lasar's allies to imply that any minute change from the crony-chosen format now on the air will, by default, be terrible-sounding. There are a couple of popular shows now on that I would like to improve the sound of if I had my way, but the idea that simply ripping stuff off the air rather than mentoring and improving is not the way to build this station as a hub of community-organizing that is needed.
Lasar's solution is to call for an unelected board "like we had in 97." (or did he say 98?)
Doubtless the bylaws need improving, but without an elected board, what is to stop a few from taking this network as its own for a few? It is much harder with an elected board to do that. And who will work on those bylaws changes -- those who lie and deceive to retain power at any cost?
As to all the staff endorsers of the name-co-opting "SaveKPFA-Mart" slate: several staff have approached people on OTHER slates and privately said they would like to endorse them, but they are worried their hours will be cut if they do. Can you see the conflict of interest here when people like Lasar want even MORE paid staff/manager control?
And as for "badly behaving boards," one new tangent I've recently discovered is that one of the top problems for many CORPORATE boards (with UN-elected members) is that APPOINTED board members tend to shake-down to such buddy buddy ties with the managers they are supposed to provide oversight for that there is no oversight. That is one of THE main problems with unelected boards.
There's more to say to Guma's comment. But too much for today.
Vote For Rosenberg!
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