Although I'm not much interested in the CAB issue per se, I thank you for giving me Robbins' informative post to read (overlooking use of the nutty term "Side-Carrier"). It further cements a feeling I've had a few times in the past -- this guy would make an excellent Pacifica ED. I've had that same feeling regarding other affiliate ambassadors. Too bad we can never catch any of these bright, competent outsiders to take the helm of this drifting, listing ship. --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Joseph Wanzala" <wanzala@...> wrote: > > Appropo of Rip Robbins observations (see below) I'm trying to get a sense of > which of our stations have functioning Community Advisory Boards pursuant to > CPB requirement and/or any other formal mechanism to conduct community needs > assessments per our bylaws. I believe KPFT had one at one point and I have > seen minutes from previous KPFK LSB meeting where a motion for a CAB was > pending but I am not sure what came of it. At KPFA we have had CAB's > appointed by the interim manager in a couple of instances and by the LSB > chair in another instances, but none of the appointed CABs has ever > submitted a report to the LSB and I am not aware that any report was > submitted to the CPB. This past year the interim manager appointed a CAB but > after their appointed nothing was heard from them again. > > Seems to me that the network should have a uniform approach to this matter > and it should be a priority not only because each station should be gauging > how well it is serving its community and especially under- represented > communities, but also given the problems with CPB funding during this past > fiscal year. > > I planning to bring a resolution to the KPFA board this year (again) so that > we can empanel a CAB that is accountable and produces results. I would > appreciate your input. Thanks in advance. > > Joe W. > > > From: "Rip Robbins" <Rip.Robbins@...> > Date: February 8, 2008 11:33:52 AM PST > To: <grc@...> > Cc: <PacificaRadiowaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [grc] Reduction of CSG at Pacifica > > > I was a Pacifica Board member (affiliate rep) for the past 2 years. The CSG > has dropped from about 5% of overall budget to about 3%. At least 2 of the > stations are the cause of the reduction. > > The CFO at Pacifica is well aware of the reduction of CPB funds, and works > to meet the grant requirements in a shallow manner that certainly does not > provide for any meaningful role for the CAB. I, and others, suspect that the > monthly and quarterly financial reports issued have actually used CPB money > to cover other deficits, which would be illegal under CPB rules, but > Directors at Pacifica were unable to get any specific accounting of the CSG > for any of the stations during hearings last September. And now the CFO is > basically in solo control of all finances, with no supervision, and without > any open records policy. I am happy to send a typical Pacifica CFO report to > anyone upon request, to demonstrate how little can be understood in it. The > directors in charge usually congratulate the CFO on his fine work, and move > on to more interesting business, such as who insulted who at the last LSB > meeting, and what the PNB will do to punish someone about it. The latest > Executive director to swing through the revolving door of leadership, had > just enough time at the job to decry the crazy accounting, wondering why it > was so cryptic, saying that financial reporting software was simple and > commonplace, and asked why the Board was accepting these confusing and > jumbled reports, that seem to violate normal practices (legal expenses for > pending lawsuits did not have set-asides in the operating budgets for > potential settlements, restricted building fund gifts appeared to be used to > cover monthly payroll, etc). > > I did not pursue the matter at the Board level, but did get a response from > the CPB that the financial reports required each year are public documents. > However, as expected, they were hesitant to provide them, and I did not try > to force that issue (I have my own station to run-if Pacifica people don't > care about it, why should I?). > > The Board at Pacifica doesn't have a clue about the rules, regulations, nor > opportunities offered by the CPB in regard to the CSG. Most station staff > and listener reps think the CSG is a simple hand-out, and loudly complain > when the CFO announces reductions in the grant amount as has happened in the > past 2 years. Some have claimed that the CPB is cutting Pacifica due to > political reasons. > > However, no station reps want to address the decline in listeners that has > been the singular reason given by CPB for the reduction in support. But the > actual reason as indicated by CPB criteria for reducing a grant, is the > decline in listeners, and/or the lack of a station to reach a minimum level > of listeners in a metropolitan area. Another measure is the ratio of > membership to potential listeners. > > The formula is based on population per square mile within the primary signal > contour. WBAI can claim about 225,000 listeners according to the CFO, but > that is such a small amount for a Manhattan based signal that reaches so > many millions of people, that CPB has reduced the grant to WBAI because it > is saying that the station is not being successful at using the money to > increase audience. Of the 225,000 listeners, barely 10% are members > [actually is worse; less than 8% are members. -bks]. Each election cycle, > stations such as WPFW and WBAI go through mysterious manipulations to reach > the ByLaws mandated 10% quorum for the listener elections. In 2006, WPFW > mysteriously received 5 empty ballot envelopes on the last day of the > extended election period, in order to meet quorum. With such small > membership, these Pacifica stations are not meeting the low standards set by > CPB for a 'successful' station. These numbers are all from my immediate, > frequently faulty, recollection, so if others have the facts, please present > them. > > The LSB at WBAI claims that their audience is actually much larger, but does > not get reported, a "ghost" audience. They claim that Arbitron is a racist > organization that does not adequately survey minorities. Odd that Hip Hop/ > Rap stations seem to have plenty of survey results, that the Haitian channel > which was on a Side-Carrier channel (requires a special receiver) has MORE > listeners than WBAI does on an FM broadcast channel. More Brazilians dance > in the street during their annual mid-town street fair (estimated 600,000). > > The LSB claims that membership is low because their audience is too poor to > contribute. Hmmmm. My station has illegal migrant farm-workers for > listeners, and they come to our fund-raising dances and pay $25 for a ticket > to dance to local djs, because they believe in KSVR. We make nearly 4 times > the revenue from the Spanish-speakers as we do from our English audience. If > a station is truly providing a public service, the public will support it, > that's my philosophy. > > I'm no defender of the CPB, and I actively fought the HSP at the college > station I was at in 1989-90 (we lost the struggle and all got dismissed), > but take it at face value. The purpose for the CSG is to improve programming > and services in order to increase audience. KSVR received its first CSG last > year, and we are having no problem with interference from CPB, no > arm-twisting to conform to any HSP, but we will need to demonstrate some > positive results next year from the infusion of money. With 5 new > programming series in production, and a bunch of new equipment for our > staff, I predict KSVR will definitely increase audience BECAUSE OF BETTER > PROGRAMMING THAT IS RELEVANT TO OUR GROWING AUDIENCE. We are not simply > targeting leftists (preaching to the choir), we have been airing Democracy > Now and such for years. Our newer approach is to bring more of the "silent" > majority into our tent. We now have a show featuring folks from the > fraternal orders and Chambers of Commerce, that airs right in between > progressive political discussions. Now we have mainstream listeners(who tune > in to hear their friends or about their organization activity) exposed to > those progressive radio programs which come on right before and afterward. > > I just don't understand the lack of success in building audience that > Pacifica stations encounter, except that the problem must be endemic to the > procedures and processes regarding new program development and > implementation, or the lack of inclusion of new voices by those who are in > control. > > However, we at KSVR, management and volunteers, are also willing to fit > these new programs into our schedule for the betterment of our community. > That seems to be the obstacle at Pacifica stations. The Pacifica structure > kills the potential for much change since the committees are filled with > special interest folks elected in partisan bickering among the supposed > "democratic" masses. Everyone thinks that their own show, or their best > friends show, MUST be on the air or else the Foundation has failed in its > Lew Hill driven mission, which never called for decision by committee > anyway. > > A mistaken perception is that with democratic process, everyone gets their > way. Duh, that's really wrong. There is a difference in getting your VOICE > heard in a debate, and the implication that what you said will be included > in the final determination. > > In most democratic voting actions I have witnessed in my life, a significant > portion of the group does NOT get their way. However the unwillingness of > the "losers" in a particular vote inside Pacifica to concede, and the > unwillingness of the faction in power to accommodate different perspectives, > is the underlying explanation for the complete stasis of the Pacifica > governance experiment, at local and national > level. > > Rip Robbins > Manager, KSVR 91.7 FM >