NDP Spending Precious Listener Dollars

One of the issues I have not noticed being discussed in the endless threads about Pacifica is the use the voluntarily donated listener dollars are put to. We should generally be cognizant that Pacifica is supported exclusively by donations from listeners: donations given exclusively voluntarily. We do not yet have the radio police who can enforce listeners to pay for what they hear. And, it should be mentioned that our statistics, such as they are, show that about 1 in 16 listeners actually feel the need to support the station they're listening to.

Generally speaking, they are supporting one or more radio programs probably because they perceive some kind of connection with the content of what they're hearing.
It's a fairly simple structure - give people something interesting to them and some will voluntarily choose to support it.
In short, people pay for the radio they like. And, I would venture, they expect their voluntarily donated funds will be used to support that radio and continue to improve it.

This structure does make a couple of assumptions, the most obvious being that the listeners are supporting radio shows. That suggests an implicit contract between Pacifica and its supporters: that Pacifica will use that money for the purpose the listener intended. I don't think there's anything mysterious or revolutionary about that. I think almost all non-profits operate that way. We support the ACLU so it can do what it needs to do to protect the Bill of Rights. People support my wife's Forgotten Felines of Texas to make sure feral (predominantly) cats are trapped, neutered and released.

Interestingly, it has been shown recently that one well-known non-profit has used the membership's contributions for purposes other than the donors intended. Of course, I'm referring to the NRA. I'm not sure how the members feel because I don't know many of them. My last interaction with the NRA was in 1951 when I got my marksman medal at summer camp. I have since lost it.

While I digress, I believe I can show that there is some relevance to the erudite discussions among Pacificans in due time.

To restate the obvious, I am guessing that listeners who are the sole support of Pacifica assume their voluntary donations will be used to keep the stations on the air and accessible to them. I'm guessing that they know we have to pay the light bill, the phone bill, the various staff who do the work required to keep a radio station going. I'm guessing they know we have to pay rent at some stations, even lawyers from time to time.

I'm not convinced they were expecting to pay for the costs imposed by a group of people who have decided that they are the solution to Pacifica's problems. We all fall into that category from time to time, but we don't generally charge tens of thousands of dollars to enforce it.

It's an interesting situation. A group of people, twice now, (with different names for their group) have taken advantage of Article 17, Section 1 of the bylaws they propose to replace to force the expenditure of substantial listener dollars for the sole purpose of putting themselves in charge of Pacifica and its substantial assets. Not to mention their lawsuits of questionable purpose. Or the funds wasted in shutting down one of our stations.

The funds, necessarily, will come from the same source which keeps us on the air - funds expected by the donors to be used for that purpose.

So this brings me to the issue I would like to place in the discussion.

Given the financial situation of Pacifica; given the somewhat precarious status of some of our stations; and even given some of the improved attention those in our evolving governance structure have directed toward these problems, does it seem that NDP is primarily composed of people who do not understand the basics of how Pacifica works? Is it possible that they believe listeners actually donate, not to hear their favorite programs, but to allow a group of people to do hostile takeovers of non-profits? Could it be that those behind NDP believe that listeners want their donations to build them a bylaws sandbox for their exclusive use to create castles for the rest of us to admire?

Or is it just that they are completely oblivious to the work our members have to do to come up with the money NDP is willing to use for their non-radio purposes. They are certainly willing to spend it on stuff that has nothing to do with the words which appear repeatedly in Pacifica's mission statement: 'in radio broadcasting...'.

They have already done this once to a resounding defeat. Now they're doing it again and using more large sums of money which is now not being used to support 'In radio broadcasting...'.

My bottom line: I don't see how I can possibly trust a group of people this obstinately oblivious of the purpose of the organization they are proposing to control. In our current situation, wouldn't responsible people be attempting to use our limited funds for some useful purposes which relate to what we do instead of their fantasies of power and control? If they spend money for this, what's next? What can they possibly offer of value except the value to their perceived needs?

My bottom line: (again), I don't think they give a damn about Pacifica or the mission, and certainly not about the listeners whose commitment to Pacifica they are abusing shamefully. I absolutely do not want the insensitivity they display in their exorbitant quest for power reflected in the governance of an organization devoted to democracy, messy though it be.

My bottom line: (finally), I think they're not the NDP, they're the NRA. The 'No Radio At-all' crowd. If they win, I predict their first act will be to order a two week retreat in the Caymans. Or possibly Mar-A-Lago. Paid for, of course, with... well, I'm pretty sure you get the idea. It definitely would be a new day.

Please if you care about Pacifica, if you care about the values Pacificans subscribe to, if you're willing to give us all a chance to win at this complex attempt to get democracy to give us what we all want, if you value humanity over efficiency, vote a thumping, absolute, unqualified, expressive and very loud NO.