Terry wrote: "Dave included a hopeful note after accurately describing a fundamental flaw in the operation of Pacifica's governance. Dave's central message was *NOT* that everything was peachy keen but that PNB and LSB practice allowed governance paralization by any significant minority. In other words, he very nicely reported as outgoing PNB Chair that Pacifica's governance essentially wasn't working. In your rush to find fault you missed his insightful critique, reacting to his pleasant tone rather than to the fundamental indictment in his content. " Terry certainly has learned well the art of skid greasing (I can think of more accurate mataphors in his case). Dave Adelson throughout the 'democratization' (not really) of Pacifica's bylaws was candid and politically transparent in his preference for the same ole' top down hierarchal power model for Pacifica as he never believed a democratic one would be safe from political tyrants. The problem with this rationale is Adelson fundamentally, however covertly, actually sought and still does, the empowerment and ultimate control of Pacifica's on-air content to the tyrants who sought all along to deradicalize Pacifica's heritage and future in the mold of Bensky, Robinson, Nation Magazine whores, Richard Albert, Lawyers Guild frauds, Unitarian Universalist for a not very just society, ACLU of Southern Cal traitors, Democratic Party Uber Alles, Ian Masters (read: mouthpiece for the national security state's terrorist fraud and crack disinformational operation). Terry would like all who still have no clue to the real political battle lines underlying Pacifica to assume that his pseudo academic rationalism is the final word. Far from it. Terry's gibberish is designed to decieve, molify and confabulate those that are trying to glean the actual truth. For the rest, Terry's hyperbole of BS functions as the perfect 'security' gate of perception for Adelson to successfully proliferate his nonpartisan charade while his political allies finish up the going on 13 year task of the transformation of Pacifica radio into the NPR 'left' lite model it's nearly become...and just in time for the 'surperior' technology of the digital age of individually tailored programming. So much for an effective political movement and just in time for the outright police state. In case readers still don't get it. This email is really about Adelson et al, not Terry Goodman. Sorry Dave, but eventually people have to find out who & what you really are and what you've really accomplished in your covert glory. Your retirement is awaiting. Mission accomplished. Terry, spare me the over articulated retorts from the Batcave. JM -----Original Message----- >From: Terry Goodman <tgoodman4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Jun 27, 2008 11:59 PM >To: pacifica_now@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Cc: PacificaRadiowaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fulcrumsofchange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: [Fulcrumsofchange] Please update us on the financial state > >On 27 Jun 2008, Kevin White wrote [to Kathryn Davis]: > >>Kathryn, >> >>I think you hit the nail right on the head. > >Kathy's comments were spot on. > >>The head office has not been very forthright with the PNB; mostly >>keeping them in the dark about a lot that goes on. > >You're just guessing. We don't know this without knowing the content >of the confidential information provided to Directors by email and the >content of any management reports delivered to Directors in closed >session meetings, but Pacifica's finances are not secret and its core >financial reports have been reasonably accurate throughout the CFO's >tenure. In any case, it is obvious from open meetings that the >primary problem with the PNB is different than mere lack of >information from the National Office. Certain Directors have >consistently maneuvered to block any attempts by the Executive >Director to adequately address well-known fiscal problems while the >CFO has only gradually abandoned a tendency to spin the numbers into >saying something different than they say. The CFO's options in >dealing with the fiscal crisis have been limited by board resolutions, >and board members have not been carefully listening to or >appropriately responding to the steadily increasing warnings and >caveats from the CFO, the PNB Finance Committee, and various >independent sources since at least 2004. > >>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. > >The advice given by solution-oriented members of governance to >recklessly outspoken listener-activists is not typically delivered by >them to Foundation Directors. I think that you're projecting rather >than reporting anything you've actually heard. > >>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. > >You remember Dave's email just as inaccurately as you interpreted it >at the time. There was no mention of flowers or birds. > >>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." > >Dave included a hopeful note after accurately describing a fundamental >flaw in the operation of Pacifica's governance. Dave's central >message was *NOT* that everything was peachy keen but that PNB and LSB >practice allowed governance paralization by any significant minority. >In other words, he very nicely reported as outgoing PNB Chair that >Pacifica's governance essentially wasn't working. In your rush to >find fault you missed his insightful critique, reacting to his >pleasant tone rather than to the fundamental indictment in his >content. > >>Respect isn't something we can take to the bank. > >True enough, but that doesn't make it valueless. Mutual respect was >part of Dave's suggestion for making Pacifica's governance work, and >he's absolutely correct about that. What he failed to mention or >perhaps recognize or admit was that ruthless exercise of the right of >the majority to squelch dilatory motions from minorities so as to >accomplish business and complete agendas is also necessary for >governance to work. Additionally, he failed to identify or mention >bylaws-based flaws in the PNB committee structure that cripple the >ability of the Board to productively delegate much of its work. > >>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. > >This is a misdiagnosis of the visible symptoms, consistent with your >tendency to assume that everyone's actions are based on self-interest. >Bad management can occur even if managers believe that they are >placing the Foundation's interests before their own and even good >decisions can occur for poor reasons. It is more important that >management perform their duties competently than that they perform >them with appropriate motives, and it is the competency of performance >that should be the primary basis for any performance evaluation. > >>Ursala needs to go. Verna needs to go. Lonnie needs to more on. > >It is quite apparent to me from observing her work that Ursula is a >great asset to the Foundation and that it would be very difficult to >adequately replace her. The manner in which she engineered a pay >increase and a change in job responsibilities can certainly be >criticized, but she was simply exploiting vulnerabilities in >Pacifica's governance to accomplish the changes that she identified as >necessary for the continued growth of the Pacifica Affiliates Program, >which is essential to the network's future viability. The PNB is >fully responsible for its decisions in this case and for the >continuation of its vulnerability to this sort of strategic >manipulation by staff or others, which is typical of its knee-jerk and >impromptu decision-making. > >Verna may need to go, but publicly misrepresenting the amount and >quality of her work is counter-productive to rational decision-making >regarding her future role in Pacifica. She's a fine, hard-working >anchorperson totally under-utlized by Pacifica due mostly to local >station programmer politics. Verna is overpaid on the Pacifica scale >for what she does, but she does far more work for Pacifica than you >have given her credit for in other posts. > >I think that Lonnie is paid more than he is worth as a CFO and has >been a serious liability to the Foundation in his handling of a number >of very important issues. I have been impressed by his talent as a >presenter and negotiator but not impressed by his work as a financial >analyst. I suspect that much of the credit due his department has >been earned by the staff working under him independent of any >leadership or supervision. > >>Dan Siegel needs to be released. > >Dan Siegel is a good advocate who has fairly consistently provided >poor advice. His role in Pacifica needs to be limited to areas where >the immediate benefits outweigh the eventual costs, which excludes >certain areas where his services have been donated pro bono. >Specifically, a better Corporate Counsel should be found to advise >Pacifica on matters of corporation law. > >>Arts directors needs to be shown the door. > >Pacifica stations need to maximize their use of volunteer labor and >more efficiently utilize the labor of paid staff. Department heads >should be paid primarily for coordinating and facilitating the work of >volunteers rather than for individually producing programs. > >>Bad managers need to be told bye bye. > >Bad managers need to be rapidly crafted into good managers or good >managers need to be hired in their place. > >>Fat needs to be culled, particularly at the stations that can't make bank. > >The need for culling fat is obvious. Unfortunately, at this point, we >probably even need to trim some muscle, which will slow even the best >recovery plans. > >>Pacifica needs to stop protecting their friends' jobs and think of their >>responsibilities to the network. > >Again I think that you have misdiagnosed the cause due to a tendency >to assume bad motive, but your general prescription is probably valid. >Jobs have protection under law and contract, however, so staff >cutbacks are far more easily proposed than accomplished even when the >necessity is finally acknowledged. > >>As to the disenfranchised new members from this election, you have my >>attention. > >Joe and Kathy are likely correct in pointing out the political >motivation behind some Directors' actions, but other Directors >honestly want to cut back on PNB meetings simply to save the >Foundation money. The proposal to reduce the number of annual >in-person meetings originated long before the change in the board >majority. Foundation management may have allowed governance costs to >skyrocket as part of a general strategy to discredit and marginalize >governance and so continue to avoid effective oversight. For its >part, Pacifica's governance has not yet demonstrated an ability to >fulfill its role. > >>Maybe we do need a skinny version of the national meetings. >>At an econolodge no less. > >If PNB meetings were scheduled during academic breaks, good campus >facilities in each station area might be available at excellent rates. >Good planning would also significantly reduce transportation costs, >food preparation and cleanup might be volunteered, and neither waiters >nor room service are necessary. > >>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. > >The PNB division is not older members vs. newer members. The >factional distribution among new Directors is different than the >factional distribution among departing and continuing Directors, >allowing the creation of a new Board majority. > >>You must be in danger of finding who really runs the network. > >The actual "running of the network" will likely be as transparent or >as mysterious as ever, but the potential for productive governance >involvement has somewhat improved. The threat isn't that the PNB will >discover who really runs the network. The threat is that effective >governance will begin holding management accountable for its actions, >inactions, and decisions. To whatever extent Pacifica's governance is >corrupt, incompetent, politicized, infiltrated, or stupid, management >is correct in perceiving this potential increase in accountability as >a threat to the Foundation rather than just a threat to their jobs, >authority, and flexibility; but I'd like to see Pacifica's management >attempt to lead and improve Pacifica's governance rather than continue >to sabotage and/or bamboozle it. > >>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." > >That's not a response to listener questions, it's a response to >listener misinformation, exaggerations, and threatening demands. > >>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. > >The PNB doesn't ask questions, it adopts policy resolutions. >Individual Directors ask questions as part of the processes of policy >development, oversight, and management evaluation. Certain Directors >seeking information have been denied access to the information that >they seek. Certain Directors (and certain LSB Treasurers) have asked >tough questions and have sometimes received confusing, misleading, or >evasive answers (or no answer). None have really been told to shut up >with sugar on top. I think that you're projecting again rather than >reporting on anything you have actually heard. Readers need >protection from writers who make strong assertions of fact that they >can't substantiate because they haven't done the work and don't know >what they're writing about. > >>Our only hope for survival is to restructure. > >Foundation management and board members have better information with >which to evaluate alternatives such as restructuring than do others >across the network, but everyone in a current position of influence >has an interest in maintaining the status quo. We depend upon the >good sense of members in selecting Delegates and the good sense of >Delegates in selecting Directors to result in a Board that can make >good decisions with the information that management provides, even if >it upsets the status quo. Our members, Delegates, and Directors have >not yet demonstrated quite as much good sense as we need from them for >the current structure or a restructure with the same untrained >individuals involved to work. Unless court-ordered, a fundamental >restructuring of governance would require membership approval. > >>Chapter 11 is better than receivership. Receivership is better than >>going out of business. > >Chapter 11 protection may include a court-appointed receiver, but >Pacifica's assets are far greater than its debts. Pacifica needs to >immediaterly stop spending more than it receives as income and adopt >sound strategies for income improvement and expense reduction. In the >short term Pacifica may need to leverage some assets in order to >obtain working capital, but it should not mortgage its future in order >to further delay responsibly addressing the budget imbalances that >will remain after correcting its income projections. > >> You can't run a radio station of bad radio. > >We have and do. It is not a sustainable practice. > >>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. > >You have described part of management's job. Governance, in contrast >to that, should set goals, review and revise policies, and provide >oversight -- monitoring and evaluating managerment's performance in >the context of these approved goals and policies. Pacifica's repair >can only be accomplished by its staff and volunteers working >cooperatively under the direction of management. Governance can only >assist or impede that work. Its members need governance training if >they are expected to assist rather than impede. > >--Terry Goodman >_______________________________________________ >Fulcrumsofchange mailing list >Fulcrumsofchange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >http://lists.pacificana.org/listinfo.cgi/fulcrumsofchange-pacificana.org