Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
What is at stake at KPFA
What is at stake in the all the conflicts occurring at KPFA is the financial viability of the Pacifica Foundation and all of the Pacifica stations.
Subject: What is at stake at KPFA
What is at stake in the conflict at KPFA? It is not the continued
existence of the Morning Show. It will be back with new hosts. It is
not the competence of the hosts. By all accounts, they did a fine job.
It is not whether there will be local programming at KPFA. Local
programming has been a mainstay of the Pacifica Network and will
continue to be.
What is at stake is the financial viability of the Pacifica
Foundation, and its ability to manage the stations in the network.
That viability depends on the ability of each of the stations to raise
sufficient money to meet payroll and expenses. That hasn’t been
happening at KPFA for at least two years.
The board in 2009 mandated reductions in staff that the management at
the time didn’t make and the ED didn’t enforce. The cash reserves of
KPFA, about $800,000 dollars in 2009, are now gone, The board has
again this year observed that reductions had to be made, and our
Executive Director is seeing to it that it happens.
She has the unanimous support of the board for the principles that she
laid out for the reductions, respect for seniority, the best interests
of KPFA and the network, maintaining the programming grid where
possible, and keeping the strongest possible skill set at the station.
The Pacifica Foundation owns the licenses for all five stations.
Should one station failing to meet its expenses drain the resources of
the network past what can be sustained by the remaining stations, the
entire network will be bankrupt and the fate of all five stations will
be in the hands of a bankruptcy court judge. The board has the
responsibility of seeing to it that that doesn’t happen.
Some have attempted to make the salary of the national staff,
consisting of an ED, a CFO, two accountants, an administrative
assistant, two part time technical workers and an affiliates station
coordinator, an issue. Or the in person meetings of the board now
costing half of what they cost for the previous 6 years. This level of
staffing the salaries and the expenses are minimal in managing a $12
million dollars/year enterprise. To the extent that this accusation
stems from a desire to have no national collective supervision, and
ultimately no network but a collection of five independent stations,
this is misguided both in purpose and strategy. The times require a
national network, and the outcome of bankruptcy hearings will not be
five progressive stations running their own affairs, but more likely
two commercial stations and three new Christian radio channels.
KPFA has been a bulwark of the network in the past. The farsightedness
of the leadership created and then supported the growth of the other
stations. The network has been a strength for all of us, recently when
money had to be transferred from KPFT to pay salaries at KPFA, and
in the past when contributions from the other stations kept KPFT on
the air.
I ask that you support the Pacifica National Board and its Executive
director Arlene Englehardt in maintaining the financial viability of
the Pacifica Foundation and its ability to manage and develop the
network.
George Reiter
Chair, Pacifica National Board
What is at stake in the conflict at KPFA? It is not the continued
existence of the Morning Show. It will be back with new hosts. It is
not the competence of the hosts. By all accounts, they did a fine job.
It is not whether there will be local programming at KPFA. Local
programming has been a mainstay of the Pacifica Network and will
continue to be.
What is at stake is the financial viability of the Pacifica
Foundation, and its ability to manage the stations in the network.
That viability depends on the ability of each of the stations to raise
sufficient money to meet payroll and expenses. That hasn’t been
happening at KPFA for at least two years.
The board in 2009 mandated reductions in staff that the management at
the time didn’t make and the ED didn’t enforce. The cash reserves of
KPFA, about $800,000 dollars in 2009, are now gone, The board has
again this year observed that reductions had to be made, and our
Executive Director is seeing to it that it happens.
She has the unanimous support of the board for the principles that she
laid out for the reductions, respect for seniority, the best interests
of KPFA and the network, maintaining the programming grid where
possible, and keeping the strongest possible skill set at the station.
The Pacifica Foundation owns the licenses for all five stations.
Should one station failing to meet its expenses drain the resources of
the network past what can be sustained by the remaining stations, the
entire network will be bankrupt and the fate of all five stations will
be in the hands of a bankruptcy court judge. The board has the
responsibility of seeing to it that that doesn’t happen.
Some have attempted to make the salary of the national staff,
consisting of an ED, a CFO, two accountants, an administrative
assistant, two part time technical workers and an affiliates station
coordinator, an issue. Or the in person meetings of the board now
costing half of what they cost for the previous 6 years. This level of
staffing the salaries and the expenses are minimal in managing a $12
million dollars/year enterprise. To the extent that this accusation
stems from a desire to have no national collective supervision, and
ultimately no network but a collection of five independent stations,
this is misguided both in purpose and strategy. The times require a
national network, and the outcome of bankruptcy hearings will not be
five progressive stations running their own affairs, but more likely
two commercial stations and three new Christian radio channels.
KPFA has been a bulwark of the network in the past. The farsightedness
of the leadership created and then supported the growth of the other
stations. The network has been a strength for all of us, recently when
money had to be transferred from KPFT to pay salaries at KPFA, and
in the past when contributions from the other stations kept KPFT on
the air.
I ask that you support the Pacifica National Board and its Executive
director Arlene Englehardt in maintaining the financial viability of
the Pacifica Foundation and its ability to manage and develop the
network.
George Reiter
Chair, Pacifica National Board
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Dear George,
Thank you for posting this. I agree that this is about the future of not just the Morning Show, but of Pacifica itself. That's why, as a KPFA staff person, I and many of my colleagues are completely baffled by the firing of the hosts of our top fundraising show. The Morning Show hosts raised 25% of a pledge drive's revenue during their own time and helped other shows raise money on top of that. The Morning Show raised more money that it cost to produce. Without that support, it's questionable as to how we will achieve the fundraising goals set in the new budget and as such the firings have likely made our financial situation worse not better.
This is not just about a single show. Rather laying off the staff of our top fundraising show is a symbol of a National management that seems unable to understand how KPFA raises money and an unwillingness to truly discuss solutions with local management or staff.
Statements by National management and now repeated by you, that the Morning Shows will be back with new hosts, may be intended to be comforting and smooth over conflict, but to me they underline a disturbing concept that hosts and content producers are like interchangeable cogs in a machine. That you can replace people and still get the exact same result. This is dangerously wrong. The people make up the show. This is true, not just at KPFA but thoroughout the broadcast industry. Flashpoints with Dennis Bernstein, Democracy Now with Amy Goodman and on the right, The Rush Limbaugh show. If you change the people, you go through an unstable period of re-establishing that show and there's no reason to think that it will earn what it did last year. Since the Morning Show supported several other shows, it is a bad idea to go through that period when Pacifica is already in financial hard times.
Local management with the support of the union and the local board gave National management and your board several solutions outside of staff cuts and they were all rejected. To myself and many of the people I work with everyday, this seemed like an unmistakable rejection of years of on the ground experience. National management lauds people who take voluntary cuts of 20-50% of their salary and yet refuses to take any cuts to their own to save the jobs of people who produce the content being sent out.
If National office truly can not afford to share in the cuts, then let them their budget to the table and show that to local management and the union and discuss what can be done. Let's not engage in 'treatments' that will make our financial situation worse. Let's open discussion and rather than cutting off our nose despite our face.
I address this message to you and also to the local and national board which will be starting in December and January. This is a crucial time and your well considered actions will very well determine if there even is a Pacifica by the end of the next two years. I ask you to respect the local management and staff who have and always have had the biggest personal stake in seeing that Pacifica radio survives and flourishes.
Thank you for posting this. I agree that this is about the future of not just the Morning Show, but of Pacifica itself. That's why, as a KPFA staff person, I and many of my colleagues are completely baffled by the firing of the hosts of our top fundraising show. The Morning Show hosts raised 25% of a pledge drive's revenue during their own time and helped other shows raise money on top of that. The Morning Show raised more money that it cost to produce. Without that support, it's questionable as to how we will achieve the fundraising goals set in the new budget and as such the firings have likely made our financial situation worse not better.
This is not just about a single show. Rather laying off the staff of our top fundraising show is a symbol of a National management that seems unable to understand how KPFA raises money and an unwillingness to truly discuss solutions with local management or staff.
Statements by National management and now repeated by you, that the Morning Shows will be back with new hosts, may be intended to be comforting and smooth over conflict, but to me they underline a disturbing concept that hosts and content producers are like interchangeable cogs in a machine. That you can replace people and still get the exact same result. This is dangerously wrong. The people make up the show. This is true, not just at KPFA but thoroughout the broadcast industry. Flashpoints with Dennis Bernstein, Democracy Now with Amy Goodman and on the right, The Rush Limbaugh show. If you change the people, you go through an unstable period of re-establishing that show and there's no reason to think that it will earn what it did last year. Since the Morning Show supported several other shows, it is a bad idea to go through that period when Pacifica is already in financial hard times.
Local management with the support of the union and the local board gave National management and your board several solutions outside of staff cuts and they were all rejected. To myself and many of the people I work with everyday, this seemed like an unmistakable rejection of years of on the ground experience. National management lauds people who take voluntary cuts of 20-50% of their salary and yet refuses to take any cuts to their own to save the jobs of people who produce the content being sent out.
If National office truly can not afford to share in the cuts, then let them their budget to the table and show that to local management and the union and discuss what can be done. Let's not engage in 'treatments' that will make our financial situation worse. Let's open discussion and rather than cutting off our nose despite our face.
I address this message to you and also to the local and national board which will be starting in December and January. This is a crucial time and your well considered actions will very well determine if there even is a Pacifica by the end of the next two years. I ask you to respect the local management and staff who have and always have had the biggest personal stake in seeing that Pacifica radio survives and flourishes.
I wonder why Chris and his colleagues are baffled by the layoffs of the 2 Morning Show hosts, when it has been explained repeatedly that layoffs have to be done by the seniority list. There was no choice.
In fact, to me, George's letter addresses very well all or most of Chris's concerns.
Is anybody listening?
It's been pointed out that morning drive time has the most listeners, so it could be expected that that's the best time for raising funds. And that all that fundraising still resulted in a deficit because it would not meet expenses. That's why payroll needed to be cut. The station is already bankrupt, and had to borrow to meet the last payroll.
There will be another program in that spot which will also raise funds, especially if the paid staff does not try to turn listeners against the station, for the continued wrangling and stalemating this paid staff-management clique has/is creating, and bad mouthing of Pacifica, which is trying to solve the budget problems which the current KPFA governance has refused to realistically confront. Spinning the situation to rile up the listeners is only going to cause more bleeding. The other 4 Pacifica stations were able to follow the financial directives of Pacifica in successfully cutting paid staff hours down to affordable levels. KPFK, for example, now has about 24 FTEs (full time equivalents) and they have a much larger listenership.
In the case of KPFA, while they agreed to make the required cuts, they did not, and so now Pacifica, which holds the broadcast license, and is responsible for the well being of the network, has had to step in and make the cuts - and do it in accordance with the union contract's seniority requirement.
About the so called Sustainable Budget cuts - the 4 items presented did not approach the amount of the expenditures which needed to be cut, and were therefore rejected by the Pacifica Finance Committee, mostly nearly unanimously.
The figures did not compute, and in some cases were very speculative. The totals were inadequate in meeting the requirements for expenditure cutbacks.
The Chief Financial Officer, by the way, has a masters degree and 20 years of experience in financial management - isn't this is the professionalism your faction professes to want?
Pacifica National has already cut its staff down to about 7 people, with the result that some of them are working almost double time for their same salaries.
The local management and paid staff clique which has been in control have not shown that they are serious about the well being of their station and network. Why did the CL faction refuse to control the mismanagement at WBAI which drained network resources? And then complain that we were forced to support BAI? Why did they/are they complaining about Pacifica draining KPFA's resources, when it is there to oversee such malfeasance, provides national services such as Democracy Now (which the News Department has kept out of the prime morning drive time, raises much money for the network and KPFA, and could gain us a new constituency through use of that time slot), Free Speech Radio News, insurance bookkeeping, an auditor for the CPB requirements - services which would cost much much more were the station have to provide them for itself.
Maybe the dissident paid staff and management do have a big stake in the well-being of KPFA and Pacifica, but there is a huge disinformation campaign being put out whose goal appears to be the bankrupting of the station, alienation of the listeners, and destruction of Pacifica, which has not received payments from KPFA for some time now, a network which is a unique voice of truth nationwide.
Why am I repeating all this? Am I getting a feeling that reasonable explanations have not been heard?
People have a choice of whether to become misinformed by the disinformation, or to pay attention to the messages from Pacifica and from those of us who have been following this situation, years in the making.
In fact, to me, George's letter addresses very well all or most of Chris's concerns.
Is anybody listening?
It's been pointed out that morning drive time has the most listeners, so it could be expected that that's the best time for raising funds. And that all that fundraising still resulted in a deficit because it would not meet expenses. That's why payroll needed to be cut. The station is already bankrupt, and had to borrow to meet the last payroll.
There will be another program in that spot which will also raise funds, especially if the paid staff does not try to turn listeners against the station, for the continued wrangling and stalemating this paid staff-management clique has/is creating, and bad mouthing of Pacifica, which is trying to solve the budget problems which the current KPFA governance has refused to realistically confront. Spinning the situation to rile up the listeners is only going to cause more bleeding. The other 4 Pacifica stations were able to follow the financial directives of Pacifica in successfully cutting paid staff hours down to affordable levels. KPFK, for example, now has about 24 FTEs (full time equivalents) and they have a much larger listenership.
In the case of KPFA, while they agreed to make the required cuts, they did not, and so now Pacifica, which holds the broadcast license, and is responsible for the well being of the network, has had to step in and make the cuts - and do it in accordance with the union contract's seniority requirement.
About the so called Sustainable Budget cuts - the 4 items presented did not approach the amount of the expenditures which needed to be cut, and were therefore rejected by the Pacifica Finance Committee, mostly nearly unanimously.
The figures did not compute, and in some cases were very speculative. The totals were inadequate in meeting the requirements for expenditure cutbacks.
The Chief Financial Officer, by the way, has a masters degree and 20 years of experience in financial management - isn't this is the professionalism your faction professes to want?
Pacifica National has already cut its staff down to about 7 people, with the result that some of them are working almost double time for their same salaries.
The local management and paid staff clique which has been in control have not shown that they are serious about the well being of their station and network. Why did the CL faction refuse to control the mismanagement at WBAI which drained network resources? And then complain that we were forced to support BAI? Why did they/are they complaining about Pacifica draining KPFA's resources, when it is there to oversee such malfeasance, provides national services such as Democracy Now (which the News Department has kept out of the prime morning drive time, raises much money for the network and KPFA, and could gain us a new constituency through use of that time slot), Free Speech Radio News, insurance bookkeeping, an auditor for the CPB requirements - services which would cost much much more were the station have to provide them for itself.
Maybe the dissident paid staff and management do have a big stake in the well-being of KPFA and Pacifica, but there is a huge disinformation campaign being put out whose goal appears to be the bankrupting of the station, alienation of the listeners, and destruction of Pacifica, which has not received payments from KPFA for some time now, a network which is a unique voice of truth nationwide.
Why am I repeating all this? Am I getting a feeling that reasonable explanations have not been heard?
People have a choice of whether to become misinformed by the disinformation, or to pay attention to the messages from Pacifica and from those of us who have been following this situation, years in the making.
The recent action of the former Morning Show staff is an exercise in 1984'esque disinformation. Sasha Lilley in her previous incarnation as Interim Program Director forbade, by formal written edict, actions she now gives full throat-ed support: the off and on air call to strike and picket the station by factions of the CL/Saves and Insider Entrenched Clique/Morning Show Staff.
The CWA, the more conservative union brought in by the CL/Save/Entrenched/ Favorites' Clique, expressly forbids work stoppage, similar actions or strikes etc., in addition-lay offs by seniority are in accordance with union law, none of which would have effected BET had he not self promoted himself into a new job classification -as most recent host of the MS. It was his own greed and self serving ambition that did teflon BET in-that and trading unions to disband UPSO, the unpaid volunteers' union, this in an effort to gain and retain more power for the insider Clique Management Solidarity/CL/Save it Self for Itself faction.
BET dug a pit, promptly ego-tripped and fell into it. Not uncommon among green air talent-the applause goes to their heads and they believe they deserve special treatment. Meanwhile, Chris S., always a wanna be circus fan, is shoveling shit like the man walking behind behind the elephant- Let's name thee elephant in the room: Greed/ Gluttony and Selfish Pride.
- So did Lilley mean it then or does she mean it now? Clearly, it depends on who says it and who does it. IF this is not evil incarnate I do not know what it is.
Here then in answer to and in accordance with Chris S.' faux concern and straight from the book of Ms.Information/Mismanagement/ Bullslhit & CO., as written and rewritten to suit the lawsuits and personal power agenda of Sasha and Doug Lilley/LemlemRijio/Amelia/BET/Aileen/Mericle/Manilla/Prives and The Entrenched Management Cloique by re post:.
Sasha Lilley & 3 attorneys at KPFA
by a kpfa listener
Thursday May 10th, 2007 12:14 AM
On March 16th, KPFA's Interim Program Director issued a controversial directive. Many have commented on it, some pro and some con. Three experienced attorneys did not support it. They are Richard Phelps, John Crigler and Dan Siegel. Their statements are below, along with the directive and a letter of rebuke to a programmer who violated it the day before it was issued.
SASHA LILLEY'S MEMO
Text of Interim Program Director Sasha Lilley's directive to KPFA staff
From: Sasha Lilley ipd [at] kpfa.org
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: kpfa-staff [at] mailinglists.kpfa.org
Subject: KPFA Staff: Calls to action
With a number of demonstrations planned to mark the fourth anniversary of the US occupation of Iraq, we wanted to remind programmers that they cannot actively urge listeners to attend events over KPFA's airwaves because of issues of liability. This is the case whether during a regular program or a special remote broadcast.
If damage suits stem from injuries suffered at an event, KPFA could be held liable for actively urging participation. If a guest encourages participation, our liability may be less, but KPFA would still be held liable. Such "calls to action" include telling listeners to "come down to the rally" or saying "you should join us here", etc. However, it is fine to announce demonstrations and their locations or to direct people to kpfa.org/demonstrations for more information on rallies in their area.
Thanks for your cooperation!
Sasha Lilley
Interim Program Director
***********
***********
***********
SASHA LILLEY SCOLDS A VIOLATOR
The first programmer to violate Sasha Lilley's directive was Miguel Molina. In fact, he violated it on March 15, the day before it was issued. Below is Sasha Lilley's letter rebuking Miguel Molina:
March 16, 2007
To: Miguel Molina
Re: Call to Action on Flashpoints
While Hosting Flash Points on Thursday 3/15, you urged people to attend the rally scheduled for Sunday 3/18 at Civic Center Plaza by telling listeners to “be there”.
Due to issues of liability, KPFA programmers are not permitted to urge listeners to attend an event. If damage suits stem from injuries suffered at an event, KPFA could be held liable for actively urging participation.
Last Year, on March 22nd, following a remote broadcast from a rally in San Francisco, Chief engineer Michael Yoshida sent a memo to you and the other producers of the rally asking you to be aware of and prevent such language in future broadcasts.
This is a second notification.
KPFA program hosts may not actively urge listeners to attend events. This is the case whether during a regular program or a special remote broadcast.
Thank you for your cooperation
Sasha Lilley
Interim Program Director
***********
***********
***********
ATTORNEY RICHARD PHELPS
Richard Phelps specializes in tort liability. He is also a member of KPFA's Local Station Board.
From: PhelpsMediation [at] aol.com
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:07:13 EDT
Free Speech threatened and selective prosecution?
Dear People,
Miguel Gavalan Molina asked me to inform you of some recent events at KPFA. Miguel Gavalan Molina is a staff producer at KPFA. He has worked at the station for 20 + years. He is deeply involved in the Chicano community, the Native American community and the struggle for immigrants rights state wide. He is a tremendous asset to our station, network, listeners and our Mission. He brings valuable knowledge of and connections to the communities and movements mentioned above.
Recently he was given a written warning for saying "be there" on the air regarding the recent Peace March and Rally held in SF for the 4th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Copy below. Also below you will find a copy of the Memo to Staff by the new IPD [Interim Program Director] telling all that they "cannot urge people to attend events on the air" and Mr. Molina's written response presented to the IGM [Interim General Manager] on Saturday.
When I first heard of this new edict restricting Free Speech based on a concern about liability I asked the IPD and IGM what was their legal basis/justification for this restriction on Free Speech. I pointed out that there is no liability for encouraging people to go to a legal First Amendment event, unless you know that it is dangerous for some reason, and that it seems to me to be the kind of thing we should be doing given our Mission and Principles, if a person on the air is so inclined. I received NO response.
I then learned about Mr. Molina's write up and was shocked. People on the air at KPFA encourage people to go to all kinds of events, often giving away tickets to commercial events. I have never heard of any of them getting written up! Some management supporters suggested that "calls to action" were in violation of FCC regulations. Despite this not being the justification given I researched and discovered that "Calls to action" are prohibited by non-commercial stations for commercial events. ( Back door commercials, in essence.) So it appears that those giving away tickets to commercial events and those urging people to go to commercial events are risking our license while there is NO prohibition on urging people to go to legal First Amendment events that are not known to be dangerous. All of the documentation of this research was passed on to the IPD and IGM and still NO response. For the record, I have been practicing law specializing in the field of tort liability for 25 years. Despite having no doubt that my analysis was correct, I called several learned colleagues and it was unanimous in support of NO liability for urging people to go to a legal First Amendment event. I am always cautious about giving legal opinions and generally double check anything that I am not positive about. In this case I was positive and double checked anyway given my concern for KPFA/Pacifica.
Saturday at the LSB meeting Dan Siegel, Corporate Counsel, spoke to us about legal issues related to our being LSB members. During the question period another LSB member raised the issue about the "call to action" edict. Mr. Siegel's positions on the liability issue was essentially the same as mine. He also said he knew of NO FCC or 501 (c) (3) prohibition. And he said as a non-profit corporation dedicated to peace and social justice, making such call to action was consistent with our purpose for existing. An LSB member raised a question about the station being sued in the past without any details that would allow an analysis and Mr. Siegel suggested that such rumors be disregarded as "urban legend."
Both of these issues are extremely important
I have sent you all this information on Mr. Molina's request since it involves not any "run of the mill" management directive, but one that strikes at the heart of our existence, Free Speech and First Amendment rights. It also demonstrates a selective policy of punishment that can only get us in legal trouble if we allow it to continue. Not to mention that selective/vindictive prosecution is contrary to our Mission and basic progressive principles and will not be supported by our listener/subscribers.
Please deal with this on whatever policy level you deem necessary to see that such edicts and selective prosecutions don't happen again. I suggest that someone find out how such an edict was developed and why it wasn't run by counsel before it was given out to staff and used as a basis for an employee write up. There is an obvious weakness in KPFA's procedures for such practices. As always, if I can be of any assistance in this process let me know. Thank you for considering these two important issues.
Richard Phelps
Attorney/Mediator
KPFA LSB Listener Representative
***********
***********
***********
ATTORNEY JOHN CRIGLER
Pacifica attorney and FCC specialist John Crigler wrote the following letter to Pacifica Executive Director Greg Guma:
Greg:
Calls to actions are of legal significance in four circumstances I can think of.
1. If anyone has paid or promised something of value to the station or on-air personnel, the call to action may trigger the FCC's underwriting and/or payola rules.
2. If the call to action urges listeners to support or oppose a candidate for political office, it will violate FCC and IRS rules that prohibit noncommercial broadcasters from participating in political campaigns.
3. If the call to action relates to a legislative matter, it may trigger may IRS rules concerning the amount of grass-roots lobbying in which a tax-exempt organization may engage.
4. If the call to action foreseeably will result in personal injury, the call to action may result in tort liability under state law. It's this last form of a call to action that is of concern in the e-mails below.
In some circumstances, we owe a "duty of care" to others, and courts will find us negligent if we don't carry out that duty in a reasonable way. In order to avoid a conflict with First Amendment principles, however, courts are reluctant to impose a broad duty of care on broadcast stations. With few exceptions, courts have refused to hold stations responsible for injuries that were in some way related to broadcasts.
One example will illustrate the exception. A station sponsored a contest involving a DJ who drove around town offering clues as to his next appearance and a prize to the person who reached the location first. Egged on by the DJ, two teenagers raced each other to the DJ's next location. One of them struck and killed a pedestrian, whose estate sued the station. The station was found liable because it could reasonably have foreseen that encouraging reckless behavior was likely to result in injury.
Similarly, in a case involving a print publication, the court found that the publisher of "Hit Man," a manual which contained detailed, step-by-step instructions on how to carry out a murder for hire, was not shield by the First Amendment defense when someone followed the book's instructions in murdering a woman and child.
As these cases illustrate, courts will set aside customary First Amendment protections when a speaker or publisher "incites" reckless, violent, or illegal behavior. I don't think that means that Pacifica can't express strong views on important issues, inform people about peaceful demonstrations, or urge them to oppose the war. It does mean, however, that Pacifica has to act responsibly. If it deliberately incites listeners to violate the law by physically injuring someone or destroying property, it may find that the First amendment isn't of much help in defending itself.
John
***********
***********
***********
ATTORNEY DAN SIEGEL
Below is a brief response to the PNB’s request for a legal opinion on "CALLS TO ACTION," written by Pacifica counsel Dan Siegel. Attorney Siegel also spoke on this during KPFA's board meeting of March 24th.
Generally speaking, "calls to action" may run afoul of laws and regulations that cover a wide field of legal responsibilities and policies. As these relate to Pacifica, we have to be mindful of the laws that regulate nonprofit radio broadcasters; laws that apply to nonprofit corporations generally; and laws that relate to civil liability generally (tort law).
I think that it is clear that Pacifica should not, through its radio broadcasts or internet transmissions, issue calls to action that:
(1) Urge people to buy something or to patronize a commercial event, such as a concert (plugola);
(2) Support particular candidates for public office; or
(3) Support particular legislation pending before Congress or a state legislature. (This last point is not quite absolute in that some limited amount of lobbying for legislation is allowed, particularly when it directly impacts Pacifica.) The prohibition against supporting legislation applies to specific legislation, i.e., a bill. It does not prohibit us from issuing a general call, for example, for the government to put more resources into early childhood education.
The issue which is currently subject to discussion within Pacifica deals with calls to action that urge people to attend a peace march or similar event. Such calls are not prohibited under FCC law or regulations or the law of nonprofit corporations. Rather, the concern that has been expressed deals with the possibility that Pacifica could incur tort liability if someone who attends such an activity is hurt and then sues Pacifica for its alleged "lack of due care" in urging someone to attend a dangerous activity.
In my opinion the chance of Pacifica being sued under such circumstances is so slight as to be inconsequential. Pacifica is generally not responsible if someone goes to a peace march and is attacked by the police or trips over a curb. The only exceptions I can imagine under these circumstances would be if (1) the person attending the demonstration trips over a cable or other obstruction placed there by Pacifica, and liability under these circumstances would have nothing to do with the call to action; or (2) if Pacifica knows and fails to disclose that something dangerous will occur at the demonstration, such as if Pacifica has advance notice that the KKK was mobilizing to attack the demonstrators and fails to advise its listeners of this fact. Under this last example, there would be very little difference between Pacifica urging people to attend the demonstration and simply announcing that it was taking place.
The bottom line for me is that I see little legal justification for forbidding the type of call to action discussed above. Instead, I believe that the issue presents a policy question to be resolved by Pacifica managers and board members.
(from Attorney Dan Siegel)
***********
***********
***********
The FCC rules can be found at
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/includes/33-nature.htm
***********
MEANWHILE, STILL IN EFFECT
The last we heard was that Sasha Lilley's directive remains in effect.
Add Your Comments
Tell her what you think
by Toby
Saturday May 31st, 2008 3:35 PM
KPFA should be about the People!
http://againstthegrain.org/Sasha%20Lilley.htm
Add a Comment
§Sasha Lilley & 3 attorneys at KPFA
by Bob
Tuesday Mar 10th, 2009 3:27 PM
It angers me that this could be happeneing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasha_Lilley
Add a Comment
© 2000–2010 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF Bay Area IMC. Disclaimer | Privacy | Contact
The CWA, the more conservative union brought in by the CL/Save/Entrenched/ Favorites' Clique, expressly forbids work stoppage, similar actions or strikes etc., in addition-lay offs by seniority are in accordance with union law, none of which would have effected BET had he not self promoted himself into a new job classification -as most recent host of the MS. It was his own greed and self serving ambition that did teflon BET in-that and trading unions to disband UPSO, the unpaid volunteers' union, this in an effort to gain and retain more power for the insider Clique Management Solidarity/CL/Save it Self for Itself faction.
BET dug a pit, promptly ego-tripped and fell into it. Not uncommon among green air talent-the applause goes to their heads and they believe they deserve special treatment. Meanwhile, Chris S., always a wanna be circus fan, is shoveling shit like the man walking behind behind the elephant- Let's name thee elephant in the room: Greed/ Gluttony and Selfish Pride.
- So did Lilley mean it then or does she mean it now? Clearly, it depends on who says it and who does it. IF this is not evil incarnate I do not know what it is.
Here then in answer to and in accordance with Chris S.' faux concern and straight from the book of Ms.Information/Mismanagement/ Bullslhit & CO., as written and rewritten to suit the lawsuits and personal power agenda of Sasha and Doug Lilley/LemlemRijio/Amelia/BET/Aileen/Mericle/Manilla/Prives and The Entrenched Management Cloique by re post:.
Sasha Lilley & 3 attorneys at KPFA
by a kpfa listener
Thursday May 10th, 2007 12:14 AM
On March 16th, KPFA's Interim Program Director issued a controversial directive. Many have commented on it, some pro and some con. Three experienced attorneys did not support it. They are Richard Phelps, John Crigler and Dan Siegel. Their statements are below, along with the directive and a letter of rebuke to a programmer who violated it the day before it was issued.
SASHA LILLEY'S MEMO
Text of Interim Program Director Sasha Lilley's directive to KPFA staff
From: Sasha Lilley ipd [at] kpfa.org
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: kpfa-staff [at] mailinglists.kpfa.org
Subject: KPFA Staff: Calls to action
With a number of demonstrations planned to mark the fourth anniversary of the US occupation of Iraq, we wanted to remind programmers that they cannot actively urge listeners to attend events over KPFA's airwaves because of issues of liability. This is the case whether during a regular program or a special remote broadcast.
If damage suits stem from injuries suffered at an event, KPFA could be held liable for actively urging participation. If a guest encourages participation, our liability may be less, but KPFA would still be held liable. Such "calls to action" include telling listeners to "come down to the rally" or saying "you should join us here", etc. However, it is fine to announce demonstrations and their locations or to direct people to kpfa.org/demonstrations for more information on rallies in their area.
Thanks for your cooperation!
Sasha Lilley
Interim Program Director
***********
***********
***********
SASHA LILLEY SCOLDS A VIOLATOR
The first programmer to violate Sasha Lilley's directive was Miguel Molina. In fact, he violated it on March 15, the day before it was issued. Below is Sasha Lilley's letter rebuking Miguel Molina:
March 16, 2007
To: Miguel Molina
Re: Call to Action on Flashpoints
While Hosting Flash Points on Thursday 3/15, you urged people to attend the rally scheduled for Sunday 3/18 at Civic Center Plaza by telling listeners to “be there”.
Due to issues of liability, KPFA programmers are not permitted to urge listeners to attend an event. If damage suits stem from injuries suffered at an event, KPFA could be held liable for actively urging participation.
Last Year, on March 22nd, following a remote broadcast from a rally in San Francisco, Chief engineer Michael Yoshida sent a memo to you and the other producers of the rally asking you to be aware of and prevent such language in future broadcasts.
This is a second notification.
KPFA program hosts may not actively urge listeners to attend events. This is the case whether during a regular program or a special remote broadcast.
Thank you for your cooperation
Sasha Lilley
Interim Program Director
***********
***********
***********
ATTORNEY RICHARD PHELPS
Richard Phelps specializes in tort liability. He is also a member of KPFA's Local Station Board.
From: PhelpsMediation [at] aol.com
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:07:13 EDT
Free Speech threatened and selective prosecution?
Dear People,
Miguel Gavalan Molina asked me to inform you of some recent events at KPFA. Miguel Gavalan Molina is a staff producer at KPFA. He has worked at the station for 20 + years. He is deeply involved in the Chicano community, the Native American community and the struggle for immigrants rights state wide. He is a tremendous asset to our station, network, listeners and our Mission. He brings valuable knowledge of and connections to the communities and movements mentioned above.
Recently he was given a written warning for saying "be there" on the air regarding the recent Peace March and Rally held in SF for the 4th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Copy below. Also below you will find a copy of the Memo to Staff by the new IPD [Interim Program Director] telling all that they "cannot urge people to attend events on the air" and Mr. Molina's written response presented to the IGM [Interim General Manager] on Saturday.
When I first heard of this new edict restricting Free Speech based on a concern about liability I asked the IPD and IGM what was their legal basis/justification for this restriction on Free Speech. I pointed out that there is no liability for encouraging people to go to a legal First Amendment event, unless you know that it is dangerous for some reason, and that it seems to me to be the kind of thing we should be doing given our Mission and Principles, if a person on the air is so inclined. I received NO response.
I then learned about Mr. Molina's write up and was shocked. People on the air at KPFA encourage people to go to all kinds of events, often giving away tickets to commercial events. I have never heard of any of them getting written up! Some management supporters suggested that "calls to action" were in violation of FCC regulations. Despite this not being the justification given I researched and discovered that "Calls to action" are prohibited by non-commercial stations for commercial events. ( Back door commercials, in essence.) So it appears that those giving away tickets to commercial events and those urging people to go to commercial events are risking our license while there is NO prohibition on urging people to go to legal First Amendment events that are not known to be dangerous. All of the documentation of this research was passed on to the IPD and IGM and still NO response. For the record, I have been practicing law specializing in the field of tort liability for 25 years. Despite having no doubt that my analysis was correct, I called several learned colleagues and it was unanimous in support of NO liability for urging people to go to a legal First Amendment event. I am always cautious about giving legal opinions and generally double check anything that I am not positive about. In this case I was positive and double checked anyway given my concern for KPFA/Pacifica.
Saturday at the LSB meeting Dan Siegel, Corporate Counsel, spoke to us about legal issues related to our being LSB members. During the question period another LSB member raised the issue about the "call to action" edict. Mr. Siegel's positions on the liability issue was essentially the same as mine. He also said he knew of NO FCC or 501 (c) (3) prohibition. And he said as a non-profit corporation dedicated to peace and social justice, making such call to action was consistent with our purpose for existing. An LSB member raised a question about the station being sued in the past without any details that would allow an analysis and Mr. Siegel suggested that such rumors be disregarded as "urban legend."
Both of these issues are extremely important
I have sent you all this information on Mr. Molina's request since it involves not any "run of the mill" management directive, but one that strikes at the heart of our existence, Free Speech and First Amendment rights. It also demonstrates a selective policy of punishment that can only get us in legal trouble if we allow it to continue. Not to mention that selective/vindictive prosecution is contrary to our Mission and basic progressive principles and will not be supported by our listener/subscribers.
Please deal with this on whatever policy level you deem necessary to see that such edicts and selective prosecutions don't happen again. I suggest that someone find out how such an edict was developed and why it wasn't run by counsel before it was given out to staff and used as a basis for an employee write up. There is an obvious weakness in KPFA's procedures for such practices. As always, if I can be of any assistance in this process let me know. Thank you for considering these two important issues.
Richard Phelps
Attorney/Mediator
KPFA LSB Listener Representative
***********
***********
***********
ATTORNEY JOHN CRIGLER
Pacifica attorney and FCC specialist John Crigler wrote the following letter to Pacifica Executive Director Greg Guma:
Greg:
Calls to actions are of legal significance in four circumstances I can think of.
1. If anyone has paid or promised something of value to the station or on-air personnel, the call to action may trigger the FCC's underwriting and/or payola rules.
2. If the call to action urges listeners to support or oppose a candidate for political office, it will violate FCC and IRS rules that prohibit noncommercial broadcasters from participating in political campaigns.
3. If the call to action relates to a legislative matter, it may trigger may IRS rules concerning the amount of grass-roots lobbying in which a tax-exempt organization may engage.
4. If the call to action foreseeably will result in personal injury, the call to action may result in tort liability under state law. It's this last form of a call to action that is of concern in the e-mails below.
In some circumstances, we owe a "duty of care" to others, and courts will find us negligent if we don't carry out that duty in a reasonable way. In order to avoid a conflict with First Amendment principles, however, courts are reluctant to impose a broad duty of care on broadcast stations. With few exceptions, courts have refused to hold stations responsible for injuries that were in some way related to broadcasts.
One example will illustrate the exception. A station sponsored a contest involving a DJ who drove around town offering clues as to his next appearance and a prize to the person who reached the location first. Egged on by the DJ, two teenagers raced each other to the DJ's next location. One of them struck and killed a pedestrian, whose estate sued the station. The station was found liable because it could reasonably have foreseen that encouraging reckless behavior was likely to result in injury.
Similarly, in a case involving a print publication, the court found that the publisher of "Hit Man," a manual which contained detailed, step-by-step instructions on how to carry out a murder for hire, was not shield by the First Amendment defense when someone followed the book's instructions in murdering a woman and child.
As these cases illustrate, courts will set aside customary First Amendment protections when a speaker or publisher "incites" reckless, violent, or illegal behavior. I don't think that means that Pacifica can't express strong views on important issues, inform people about peaceful demonstrations, or urge them to oppose the war. It does mean, however, that Pacifica has to act responsibly. If it deliberately incites listeners to violate the law by physically injuring someone or destroying property, it may find that the First amendment isn't of much help in defending itself.
John
***********
***********
***********
ATTORNEY DAN SIEGEL
Below is a brief response to the PNB’s request for a legal opinion on "CALLS TO ACTION," written by Pacifica counsel Dan Siegel. Attorney Siegel also spoke on this during KPFA's board meeting of March 24th.
Generally speaking, "calls to action" may run afoul of laws and regulations that cover a wide field of legal responsibilities and policies. As these relate to Pacifica, we have to be mindful of the laws that regulate nonprofit radio broadcasters; laws that apply to nonprofit corporations generally; and laws that relate to civil liability generally (tort law).
I think that it is clear that Pacifica should not, through its radio broadcasts or internet transmissions, issue calls to action that:
(1) Urge people to buy something or to patronize a commercial event, such as a concert (plugola);
(2) Support particular candidates for public office; or
(3) Support particular legislation pending before Congress or a state legislature. (This last point is not quite absolute in that some limited amount of lobbying for legislation is allowed, particularly when it directly impacts Pacifica.) The prohibition against supporting legislation applies to specific legislation, i.e., a bill. It does not prohibit us from issuing a general call, for example, for the government to put more resources into early childhood education.
The issue which is currently subject to discussion within Pacifica deals with calls to action that urge people to attend a peace march or similar event. Such calls are not prohibited under FCC law or regulations or the law of nonprofit corporations. Rather, the concern that has been expressed deals with the possibility that Pacifica could incur tort liability if someone who attends such an activity is hurt and then sues Pacifica for its alleged "lack of due care" in urging someone to attend a dangerous activity.
In my opinion the chance of Pacifica being sued under such circumstances is so slight as to be inconsequential. Pacifica is generally not responsible if someone goes to a peace march and is attacked by the police or trips over a curb. The only exceptions I can imagine under these circumstances would be if (1) the person attending the demonstration trips over a cable or other obstruction placed there by Pacifica, and liability under these circumstances would have nothing to do with the call to action; or (2) if Pacifica knows and fails to disclose that something dangerous will occur at the demonstration, such as if Pacifica has advance notice that the KKK was mobilizing to attack the demonstrators and fails to advise its listeners of this fact. Under this last example, there would be very little difference between Pacifica urging people to attend the demonstration and simply announcing that it was taking place.
The bottom line for me is that I see little legal justification for forbidding the type of call to action discussed above. Instead, I believe that the issue presents a policy question to be resolved by Pacifica managers and board members.
(from Attorney Dan Siegel)
***********
***********
***********
The FCC rules can be found at
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/includes/33-nature.htm
***********
MEANWHILE, STILL IN EFFECT
The last we heard was that Sasha Lilley's directive remains in effect.
Add Your Comments
Tell her what you think
by Toby
Saturday May 31st, 2008 3:35 PM
KPFA should be about the People!
http://againstthegrain.org/Sasha%20Lilley.htm
Add a Comment
§Sasha Lilley & 3 attorneys at KPFA
by Bob
Tuesday Mar 10th, 2009 3:27 PM
It angers me that this could be happeneing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasha_Lilley
Add a Comment
© 2000–2010 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF Bay Area IMC. Disclaimer | Privacy | Contact
AND THEN THEY CHANGED TO A MORE CONSERVATIVE UNION...CWA SAYS SYMPATHETIC STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES ARE ILLEGAL UNDER THE NEW MORE CONSERVATIVE CONTRACT- BAM! ONCE AGAIN, THEY DUG A PIT AND FELL, SWOLLEN EGOS, INTO IT. MORE CONTROL IS NOT MOOOOOORE BETTER AFTER ALL...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 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