Kathryn,
I think you hit the nail right on the head. The head office has not been very
forthright with the PNB; mostly keeping them in the dark about a lot that goes
on.
And the few that have questioned Dan Coughlin, Lonnie Hicks, or Dan Siegel get
told by the naive "do-gooders" on the PNB that "they need to think
positively"or some other new age drivel.
I remember a screamingly naive email sent to the lists by Dave Adelson: if ever
there was an ostrich with its head in the sand, it was him. For him the plants
are always in flower and the blue birds are always singing. It sounds a lot
like schizophrenia. He was the master of the cover up; hiding everything under
a coat of Nice. "At least we are communicating better," he wrote. "We have
learned to respect."
Respect isn't something we can take to the bank.
The bottom line is we apparently have a national office run by some people who
have confused their personal interests with interests of the foundation. Ursala
needs to go. Verna needs to go. Lonnie needs to more on. Dan Siegel needs to be
released. Arts directors needs to be shown the door. Bad managers need to be
told bye bye.
Fat needs to be culled, particularly at the stations that can't make bank.
Pacifica needs to stop protecting their friends' jobs and think of their
responsibilities to the network.
As to the disenfranchised new members from this election, you have my
attention. Maybe we do need a skinny version of the national meetings. At an
econolodge no less. Maybe then you new folks can help. But reading this written
below doesn't sound like the older members what you to play in their sandbox.
They are blocking your efforts at every turn. You must be in danger of finding
who really runs the network.
And what do the listeners get when they ask questions?
"You need to think positive. You need to stop being an arm chair quarterback.
You "tone" sound negative."
My answer to that is the PNB has already had its chance. The PNB has not asked
the hard questions; and the few individuals that have get told to shut up with
sugar on top.
Our only hope for survival is to restructure. Chapter 11 is better than
receivership. Receivership is better than going out of business. You can't run
a radio station of bad radio.
It's a tough time. And we need tough decisions. You job is to make Pacifica
leaner. Smarter. Better. Do it before it's too late.
Kevin White
----- Original Message ----
From: Kathryn Davis <kdaviswbai@xxxxxxxxx>
To: pnb@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 5:49:11 AM
Subject: Re: [PacificaRadiowaves] Re: Please update us on the financial state
of Pacifica
Dear Doc, Mike and All,
I'm confused. It seems to me that the phrase "hell bent on destruction" better
represents the actions of the PNB prior to the most recent elections and
seating of the PNB. I recall that at the last in person meeting, the local
planning committee complained that their their efforts to cut costs were
rebuffed for a more expensive meeting place. The PNB has a long history of
organizing lavish meetings. There has been little to no oversight over these
expenses. For years the growing financial crisis in the network has been
papered over, covered up and spun while the very real problems have been
ignored. I don't think for a minute that you had a sense of just how bad
things really were, but many of us on the local level did indeed know.
I knew we were in trouble about five years ago when I sent a grievance to the
then Executive Director Dan Coughlin and PNB.... ignored. I knew when I
traveled to the PNB meetings 3 times in 3 years at my own expense... ignored. I
knew when in utter frustration I ran for and won a position as a Delegate on
the PNB... again ignored. Now here I am, a Director on the PNB... once again
ignored.
>From the time I first begged for help from the Governance of this organization
>till the moment I was elected to the WBAI LSB I had to endure the stress of on
>the job harassment and hostilities, as did several of my colleagues who
>endeavored to reach out to this board for help. To this day negative
>propaganda continues to be circulated in the WBAI community about me and and
>others who dare to speak the truth about problems within this network. I've
>survived that, not everyone has.
So now that I am on the PNB what happens? The legitimately elected directors
are refused a seat at the table, denied access to private sessions. OK I'm
patient. I wait for the teleconference. Then to my surprise, I'm told that the
new directors are not ellegible to be elected to PNB committees. We
compromised. OK, I'm still patient. Now what, Oh Yes, the rules change again.
Now it's decided that "All of a sudden" local LSB's in contradiction to prior
practice are not elligable to participate in a process of a committee, which by
the way means that I am not eligible to participate.
That's not all. At the telleconference, we are told sorry, there's no money for
a board meeting. Well,
we can do it if you can manage to do it for $20,000. Of course that's never
been done. Patience prevails and in good faith a task force is formed to
explore the options. And then WOW, the task force makes it possible. But, Oh
yes, the PNB will not meet to hear the options. We loose time and options.
With much patience, we all wait another week to hear about the wonder of a
reduced price board meeting. But then... yikes, the money has dissapeared.
Well, where did it go?
What then. Oh, the money was not actually ever there. Not only do we not have a
mere $20,000, but there is nothing left! ...well, how did this happen? I
think... we need to act immediately. I'm not alone in this assesssment, so the
board adopts a motion to put the cheap meeting in place. But no, a motion to
rescind, another meeting. More time lost, maybe more options lost, possible
increase in fares. Amidst hysterical accusations the motion to rescind fails.
Followed by more hysterical accusations.
So someone asks, is there a zero balance in the accounts? Yes! Someone asks how
this will affect the Convention coverage. Only to discover there was a mailing
with dedicated funds for national programming. So the contention that the
board meeting was competing for the same funds does not seem to be the case.
So why were we fretting over this issue?
Perhaps the finance committee has some clarity. But this information hasn't
been shared with the full PNB, Yet this very information that has not been
fully shared is used to brandish members who seek to take responsibility for
the future of the network.
Yes, we need austerity measures, but we need more than that. And how far will
these austerity measures go. What is the nature of these grave consequences.
Should these consequences be taken in the absence of the full PNB? In the
absence of the listeners members who have endeavored to support our stations?
Could it be that this is the problem. Some of us don't want to know, or want
anyone to know what the hell happened, or know what is about to happen?
We need to build a strategy for increased revenues, we need to assess the
waste... premium spending, contractors and who knows what, not sit on our
hands.
OK, you want to blame it all on WBAI. But WBAI could not be in this much
trouble without the complicity of the WBAI LSB and PNB... Shhhh, were not
allowed to talk about that.
>From my personal perspectve WBAI is slated to loose 25% of it's work force.
>$20,000 isn't going to save a whole lot of jobs. But I have a feeling that
>sitting on our hands will lose a lot more. And when we run out of jobs to cut,
>what's next? Perhaps this question will reflect the grave decisions being made
>in the absence of full oversight of the PNB.
Why would that be? I don't know. But I do know that I have been knocking at
this door for five years. And I find it hard to accept such strident commentary
from members who were sitting at the wheel, perhaps with their hands off the
wheel the whole time that this tragic scenario came to be the state of
Pacifica.
It may be that we cannot afford a meeting in July, September or ever again. But
it is time to stop actions of retribution, defussion and projecting blame.
There is certainly enough of that to go around.
Regards,
Kathy Davis
----- Original Message ----
From: "wanzala@xxxxxxxxx"
To: Doc Bethune; Kevin White ; PacificaRadiowaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: pnb@xxxxxxxxxxxx; sawaya
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 3:03:36 AM
Subject: Re: [PacificaRadiowaves] Re: Please update us on the financial state
of Pacifica
Doc wrote: "I agree that the meeting should be canceled. I voted against it...I
am not inexperienced in non-profit board work, just inexperienced in working
with people who are hell bent on self-destruction."
Dear Evelyn, just to clarify, is wanting to hold a bylaws mandated board
meeting, in the absence of clear information about the foundations finances at
a greatly reduced cost compared to previous board meetings being 'hell bent on
self-destruction'. Perhaps you were refering to something else, in which case
please ignore my comments. However, I prefer to take the view that reasonable
PNB members can disagree about whether to hold a meeting or not at this
juncture. What I don't understand is that governance is the only sector that
has proactively cut costs and yet we are still being viewed as a 'waste of
precious resources'. The board is ultimately responsible for what has happened
and what will happen to pacifica, so we have to assert ourselves rather than
allow ourselves to be marginalized during a crisis, precisely at the time when
the board needs to be most engaged.
During the call last night, grace aaron, james ross and myself tried to start
a discussion about compromising on where or when to hold the board meeting,
but there were no takers from the 'no board meeting' camp. We are not
inflexible about when or where, but we are not prepared to step aside either
and abdicate our responsibilities.
I think an important subtext here is - what should the role of the board be?
Keep in mind that the board is being stymied precisely at the time when it has
undergone its most significant compositional change in the last four/five. In
other words, the first time there is a possibility that the board majority
might depart from the type of practices that have brought us to this point, it
is being scapegoated as an extraneous cost and potentially marginalized.
Joe w.