Thanks to Rip Robbins for an intellegent analysis of some of the problems facing Pacifica, particularly the insight into why our national executive director nominee lasted only long enough for her to get a whiff of the stink before she bailed out. No sane person would agree to take this job without financial control, without the CFO reporting to him/her and subject to replacement by the ED, without real authority. Otherwise it is a setup for failure, and sheds light on why the previous ED was shown the door after one year. I can see no solution without a complete turnover at the top, the replacement of every single individual. This begins at the level of local LSB elections from whom the national PNB is composed. However it appears that in each station there is a faction which has undertaken to corrupt the local elections in order to maintain in control those who now possess the real estate. I guess the term is entrenched programmers and staff. It also appears that those who are supervising the elections and the management they report to and who sign their paychecks are in some way allied to the "entrenched," the status quo. Listener sponsors were promised a fair democratic role in the new structure of the station, both as voters and candidates. This appears to be a fraudulent and hollow promise. Furthermore there seems to be no process for the implementation of fair and proper elections procedures (its not hard, unless you try not to), or of resolving elections grievances short of litigation. This in itself is an aggregious disregard of the Pacifica mission statement about conflict resolution. The stink is at the top, thanks again, RIP. Bayard (post no. 73, thanks to Nalini for keeping track) --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Melinda Iley-Dohn <Iley_dohn@...> wrote: > > KPFT has an active CAB. We will be electing our Program Council at our next > meeting of the LSB. Ours is not appointed. We have volunteers who belong to > ours. > > 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 > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. >