I am concerned about the lack of oversight that
the PNB appears to have over Lonnie's decisions.
I could be wrong but I understand that he works
pretty much on his own with
little oversight from others.
I don't care how honest an officer of a
foundation is. This is as much for the
protection of
the office holder as it is for the foundation.
We need for him to be answerable. If I have
misunderstood the transparency and accountablity
involved, I apologize but this is how
it appears to me from my work within the system.
Melinda
KPFL LSB Member
Pamela Somers <wbaifree@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark my words, this is the wrong time to be taking out a loan of any
kind. As a financial person, Lonnie should be aware of this!
p.
--- In
<mailto:NewPacifica%40yahoogroups.com>NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"Frank LeFever" <fflefever@...>
wrote:
No, Lonnie says we can't wait. He's been asking us to move for
several years and he ain't going to wait any longer. It's an
emergency. His friends won't get a better deal than they can get
this
year.
Of course, I don't know whether his friends are the property owners
or
the brokers. If I tried to guess which it would be mere
speculation.
So what if he has managed to get the small "building fund" released
for use to meet current (or overdue) operating costs? He'll just ask
his pals at CitiBank to add another 200K to the loan.
--Frank LeFever
======================================================
--- In
<mailto:NewPacifica%40yahoogroups.com>NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"Pamela Somers" <wbaifree@>
wrote:
>
> > I think Lonnie has been trying to close a big real estate deal
in
> > Brooklyn for several years.
>
> Can he do that with no oversight? I sure hope not. New York real
> estate is still in a bubble which has yet to follow the meltdown
> occurring almost everywhere else in the country. It would be
> foolhardy for WBAI to attempt to become an owner in this market,
> where prices are still sky-high. It would be much better to
remain a
> renter and wait it out (if they can) for the inevitable downturn,
> where they actually might be able to pick up something for 1/10th
the
> price.
>
> --Pam
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:NewPacifica%40yahoogroups.com>NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"Frank LeFever" <fflefever@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think Lonnie has been trying to close a big real estate deal
in
> > Brooklyn for several years.
> >
> > His "analysis" of WBAI fiscal problems is distorted by that main
> > > objective.
> >
> > His "recovery" plan includes giving an iGM check-writing powers
(to
> > evade fiscal scrutiny), and seeking big loans from CitiBank.
> >
> > Everybody knows that the real source of WBAI financial problems
is
> > Bernard White and his Mutual Protection Society (aka "Justice &
> Unity
> > Coalition").
> >
> > They have worked very hard to keep hidden costs hidden. They
have
> > worked very hard to drive out producers whose programs had a
large
> > following, listeners who donated generously and faithfully to
keep
> > WBAI afloat. They have worked very hard to protect
a "management"
> > that did not even have the wit to ADVERTISE the station. They
have
> > worked very hard to protect a manager who MIS-APPROPRIATED
funds
> from
> > a major fund-raising event.
> >
> > Believe me, if we got rid of that gang and spent just 1/10th of
what
> > Lonnie proposes to spend to move the station, we could reverse
the
> > annual loss of members (losing about 1000 per year under the
> > supervision of Bernard and the Just-Us gang), and abolish the
need
> for
> > any "emergency" moves.
> >
> > It is quite obvious that just the effort to move will send WBAI
down
> > the tubes, so Lonnie must have something else in mind that
motivates
> > his year after year pushing for a sale and/or move. (Oh, yes,
> Bernard
> > is on record as saying that selling the station might not be
such a
> > bad idea).
> >
> > --Frank LeFever
> >
> > ======================================================
> > --- In
<mailto:NewPacifica%40yahoogroups.com>NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
siddharta2@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Some who hate WBAI and the Pacifica network have been saying
that
> > the problem is
> > > rogramming. The
> > > ruth is in this email. It is time for people who support this
> > network and to
> > > tand up to its
> > > nemies and stop believing their lies. Here is what Pacifica
CFO
> says.
> > > AN
> > > PACIFICA FOUNDATION
> > > WBAI RECOVERY PLAN:
> > > ANALYSIS AND ACTION ITEMS
> > > AND OTHER FINANCE ITEMS
> > >
> > > OCTOBER 2007
> > >
> > > By Lonnie Hicks
> > > Chief Financial Officer
> > > Pacifica Foundation
> > >
> > > repared for the Pacifica National Board of Directors
> > > > This is a report the Pacifica National Board on the
finances
> of
> > WBAI, my
> > > inancial analysis of
> > > that station, its recovery plans to date and my
recommendations
> at
> > this point
> > > s to the options
> > > available to the station and the Network as well.
> > > The strictly financial problem is straight forward: WBAI
has an
> > operating
> > > eficit of
> > > 250-300k. Additionally, there back debt of approximately the
same
> > amount. What
> > > o do?
> > >
> > > The Operating Deficit The first question is what the
cause
> of
> > the
> > > tation�s operating
> > > deficit situation where this fiscal year the station will
likely
> > show a 44k
> > > eficit. The next
> > > question is what are the drivers in the deficit scenario the
> > station faces?
> > > Below I take the reader through several possibilities.
> > > First, when we look at salaries, comparing WBAI salaries
to the
> > salaries of
> > > ur other units we
> > > see that salaries as a proportion of expenses are not out of
line
> > as compared
> > > o total expenses.
> > > Below WBAI spends only 35% of total expenses on salaries,
the
> > second lowest
> > > ercentage in the
> > > Network (compared to the low figure at the National Office- a
> > percentage of
> > > 6.9 percent.)
> > > Therefore, salaries are not the driver in the stationâ
��s
> > finances.
> > >
> > > Below I chart premium costs as a factor driving the WBAI
> deficit.
> > As seen
> > > elow WBAI has the
> > > second lowest total of all of the units tracked totaling
only
> 168k
> > in premium
> > > osts as compared
> > > to the highest premium costs-- those of KPFK at 256k.
> > > > Therefore, premium costs do not appear to be the decisive
> factor
> > in the
> > > eficit scenario.
> > >
> > > Is it perhaps that the station spends too much for each
dollar
> it
> > raises? It
> > > osts WBAI 77
> > > cents for each dollar it raises which gives it the third most
> > favorable score
> > > f the stations.
> > > >
> > > Looking at the revenue side we see below trends for the
Network
> > as a whole
> > > nd also for WBAI
> > > on the revenue side. From FY04 to FY07 WBAI lost 1.58% in
total
> > revenue along
> > > ith PRA at
> > > --9.98% KPFA had a small 2/10 of one percent increase. The
> National
> > Office
> > > otal revenue
> > > percentage increase was the largest at 47% the result of its
mail
> > drops
> > > rimarily.
> > > Looking at Listener Support the Network show 88% and 86%
> > increases for PRA
> > > nd the National
> > > Office respectively with KPFA and WBAI showing decreases of
6
> and 11%
> > > espectively in Listener
> > > Support/Donations.
> > >
> > > While listener support is definitely a factor in the WBAI
> > deficit, as seen
> > > rom above it is
> > > not a significant a factor as the one examined below.
> > >
> > > The driving factor is clear from the chart below. WBAI has
the
> > highest
> > > ental, utility and
> > > tower costs of any unit in the Networkââ?¬â*?more than 7
times
> > the costs of any
> > > ther unit at 736k.
> > >
> > > It is clear that the station must move to less expense
> quarters.
> > ==============================================================
> >
>
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all
with Yahoo! Mobile.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ >Try
it now.