Good points about the willful ignorance of some directors: I could
not be on the call tonight, but have heard and seen enough of what
transpired to know that the meeting was called to engage directors in
a witch hunt disguised as motions to restrict open inquiry. What a
waste of time and energy! Yes, vindictiveness was probably the
motivating force, vindictiveness greased on the skids of ignorance.
Notice that nothing was said, much less done, about settling the
lawsuit at WBAI so that Pacifica could escape legal fees and other
costs. Instead, the motions passed pave the way to yet more
litigation. Every motion passed has enough illegal content in it to
generate yet another lawsuit by a director and/or a member of the
Foundation who doesn't like to see the basic freedoms of the Bylaws
and the California Code eroded drop by drop. Yet despite a warning
about the possible illegality, they passed - evidently, as Nicole
says, along party lines.
Nothing about programming, networking, or - are you ready? - radio.
Here is what I had sent to the board, which chose to deal with red
herrings rather than examine the illegal conduct of foundation
counsel and directors alike.
For those seriously worried about the possibility of more litigation
expenses, please read the attached opinion (Auerbach v ICANN) - note
that the attorney for Auerbach was from the EFF.
The recent attempts to impede directors' inspections by interfering
with them (Dan Siegel), threatening directors with banning from the
station (Siegel), deliberately mis[re]presenting what went on during
the inspection (Lisa Davis), and interfering with another director's
inspection in progress (Nia Bediako) should be the focus of the
Board's attention, as any of these actions could lead to legal action
costing the Foundation money, or, even worse, embarrassment in the
wider world, that community of free and independent media expecting
Pacifica to uphold its pledges of transparency and accountability.
The actions of these persons should be grounds for motions to
censure.
There are two motions on the agenda for tomorrow's PNB meeting that
are illegal in their wording and indeed in their intent: I suggest
they be removed without consideration, as they are, or should be,
embarrassing to the makers and the Board.
I am interested in Nicole's statement about the meeting being poorly
prepared: I think this is right on, and of course my not being there
meant that I could not defend the attacks, discuss the issues, or
bring the motions that need to be brought. But in general the
agendas are allowed to be driven by the faction least interested in
doing the work of bringing us together, and the rudderless drift
towards partisan politics and away from good governance is no
accident.
Carolyn
--- In
<mailto:NewPacifica%40yahoogroups.com>NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Wendy Schroell <wendy@...> wrote:
What's amazing is that many of them ARE and vote against the law AND
against the Pacifica Foundation.
wendy
I listened to the entire meeting and am struck by how vindictiveness
and the politics of factions carried the evening. The members really
were unprepared. Especially Nicole....she absolutely didn't get a good
briefing on what the issues were and the history.
It's so very interesting for me to listen to all this. Many of these
people treated the former board unethnically, maliciously, with
suspecian, with disrespect, and now they turn around and present
themselves as holier-than-though. There is so much posturing going
on. The votes were along party lines, time and again. Bad sign.
The meeting was poorly prepared. Carolyn had submitted something by
email that never got presented and it was hateful of those who didn't
elect to give time to go over it. What ever happened to "treat others
as you would be treated"? It was sheer hate.
Bottom line....nothing was said tonight - not one word - that will
strengthen Pacifica Foundation or improve any one of it's stations.
I don't know how you put up with it.
Nalini