In weaving a web of merely structural, hierarchical and legal distractions, Terry Goodman continues to assist Pacifica's elite in maintenance of an effective veil of the actual underlying political objectives and/or motives of those involved, not only at the station level but at Pacifica "national", behind the the removal from the air a particular programmer, program host or guest. In this role Terry Goodman is unrivaled. Terry's suggestion that it would be inappropriate for the LSB to investigate these matters is false. It is entirely appropriate and necessary if Pacifica is to be accountable to its listeners. Terry is incorrect in any interpretation of Pacifica's mission that seeks to limit such accountablility, ESPECIALLY after the Pacifica crisis and ensuing calls for democratization of Pacifica's LSB's and national board. JM -----Original Message----- >From: Terry Goodman <tgoodman@xxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Mar 29, 2008 6:08 PM >To: fulcrumsofchange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: [Fulcrumsofchange] Fwd: Banning Franciso Herrera from the air > >On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Brian Shiratsuki quoted Dennis Bernstein: > >> AN OPEN LETTER TO THE KPFA COMMUNITY FROM THE FLASHPONTS TEAM >> In what we believe was an extraordinary act of censorship, KPFA >> interim GM, Lemlem Rodjio, pulled Flashpoints regular Friday co- >> host, Francisco Herrera, off the air, and banned him pending a >> special investigation by management. On Friday March 28, 2008, at >> approximately 4pm, one hour before Flashpoint goes on air live, the >> IGM interrupted a crucial meeting, in which we writing leads and >> finishing the final runsheets for the show, and banned Francisco >> from the air, apparently for something he said one week prior, on a >> completely different show. > >It seems odd that the iGM would intervene herself in dealing with >producers rather than have the Program Director communicate this >personnel action. > >> In a subsequent phone call, the manager, in an angry tone, on the >> speakerphone, with four colleagues listening, asked me if we were >> going to ?cooperate.? We on the Flashpoints team read this as a >> direct threat: Cooperate or get fired. > >This suggests that the iGM considered it possible that Flashpoints >might consider violating management's order. Such insubordination >would of course be cause for dismissal, but her apparent need for an >immediate answer in fact suggests that she would hesitate to follow >through. An iGM who simply assumed that her clear directives would be >complied with would likely be a greater actual threat to Flashpoints. >The iGM's angry tone may disguise fear or weakness, or simply be the >residue of a hectic week spent in the KPFA trenches. > >> The AGM demanded Francisco?s >> phone number, which Miguel Gavalan Molina provided her. > >This detail reveals a problem with management record-keeping and >further suggests that Lemlem was not involving Sasha Lily in >coordinating management's response to the complaint. > >> When Francisco arrived at KPFA on Friday March 28, at 4:35 he went >> and sought out the IGM, and she confirmed he was banned pending her >> investigation. If the IGM was planning to ban a co-host of FP?s for >> action that took place a week ago, on march 21th, on another show, >> why did she wait until and hour before the FP?s show to do it. What >> was the IGM thinking? That it would be better to wait a week and >> disrupt a live show, pulling the rug out from under us an hour >> before airtime? In this case, hobbling an important special on the >> life and times of Ceasar Chavez, on the eve of a weekend of >> celebrations dedicated to his great work with the United >> Farmworkers. What an insult to the community and to Francisco, an >> internationally renown troubadour and activist, and a treasure in >> the mission community. > >That management's response to the original incident was delayed does >not convincingly suggest any malicious intent in its timing. Lemlem >did not necessarily hear the broadcast of a week ago (assuming the >incident refers to something broadcast) and might have been responding >immediately to some official complaint received days after the fact. >That Francisco was important in the production of a Chavez special was >a good argument for delaying management's action, but Dennis does not >make it clear that such an argument was presented to the iGM. That's >an important detail in judging whether or not management's action can >fairly be characterized as "an insult to the community." > >> It is more than interesting that Francisco has been trying >> repeatedly to get in touch with the IGM to talk about the >> managements continuing aggression against members of the Flashpoints >> team and La Onda at KPFA, and she never returned his calls. Now her >> message to Francisco: No Not thank for all your important community >> work for the station, Francisco, but rather, your banned pending >> investigation!! > >Management's failure to return calls is an important indicator of a >breakdown in staff-management relations, especually in the context of >multiple episodes of friction between station management and the >Flashpoint's team, but it is a separable issue. Like the absence of >the PD in management's communication of the banning, I find >Francisco's attempt to contact the iGM directly on these issues >similarly curious. At most stations, the Program Director has the >primary role in interfacing between producers and the GM, so that the >GM can attend to other business. The PD would normally have a better >understanding of the specific value of each staff person and be better >skilled at working with creative talent. > >> The FP?s team sees this latest disruption by the IGM for what it is: >> another action in a continuing series of attacks on the FP?s show, >> its producers and its radical message. This perpetrated by an >> interim management that has claimed its right, in recent days, to >> control the Flashpoints message, and even tried to hire a FP?s >> producer without telling the Flashpoints team. > >The attempt to impose a producer, I seem to recall, was an action >initiated by the interim Program Director. Has the flack from that >fiasco resulted in Sasha being sidelined in future management dealings >with Fashpoints? Has the animosity between Flashpoints and the iPD >placed the iGM in a position that she shouldn't be in and doesn't >really have time for? > >> The Flashpoints team wants these attacks by the interim management >> to cease. We are fed up with working in a hostile environment. We >> can list a series of actions that were taken by current management, >> that represent, we believe, a selective enforcement of ambiguous >> rules. The fact that it was Francisco Herrera, a hero in his own >> community, and a close friend of the founders of the UFW, who was >> banned from a show devoted to Caesar Chavez, is troubling and can >> not stand. > >Ambiguous rules selectively enforced is a believable claim and one >that will likely resonate with all staff. It is also the type of >claim that justifies LSB involvement, since policy review and the >monitoring of policy compliance is a primary governance >responsibility. > >> I have asked the local LAB through, Joe Wanzala. and Sharam, for a >> full investigation as to why management would wait a week to >> respond, keep our team in the dark, then disrupt a live show an hour >> before airtime?a show that had nothing to do with what happened a >> week prior on a different show, and which we knew zero about. Has >> there been selective enforcement of ambiguous rules. Has the Interim >> management been engaging in a pattern of attacking those media >> workers at the station who it perceives as its enemies, cutting them >> back, writing them up, having their high paid Human Resource >> consultant conduct lengthy, invasive and expensive investigations, >> like the one they have now launched into Francisco Herrera? > >The question of why management acted when it did may have a simple and >reasonable answer. The LSB should not launch a full investigation >around every incident that provokes a staff complaint, but all >evidence of selective enforcement of ambiguous rules is evidence of a >need for effective mechanisms of local management oversight. I would >recommend that the LSB not focus on this single incident except as it >may provide insight into a general pattern that urgently requires >correction. I would propose that the objective of an investigation by >governance should be: > >a) to identify what the rules (policies) are so that they can be >regularly reviewed by governance and recommendations made to remove >ambiguities and improve fairness; and > >b) to recommend a mechanism for monitoring management's compliance >with these policies, tied to the LSB's role in conducting periodic >management evaluations. > >I understand that the KPFA Local Station Board has a Personnel >Committee to whom such an investigation for purposes of recommending >governance policy resolutions could be referred. The LSB and its >Committee should be more concerned with establishing permanent ongoing >mechanisms to prevent selective enforcement of ambiguous policies by >station management than with obtaining justice for an individual >person around an individual incident. > >--Terry Goodman > >_______________________________________________ >Fulcrumsofchange mailing list >Fulcrumsofchange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >http://lists.pacificana.org/listinfo.cgi/fulcrumsofchange-pacificana.org