On Sun, 30 Mar 2008, Jonathan Marowitz wrote: >Terry's opinion about what Pacifica's mission "allows" or authorizes is his >opinion, subjective, and nothing more. The Pacifica Mission identifies the purposes of the Foundation, not its manner of management or governance. I did not offer an opinion on what the Mission allows or authorizes. >The mission, contrary to Terry Goodman's insistence (and the Pacifica >elites who he serves unwaveringly), is a framework that must be >interpreted in context with the political atmosphere or environment that >Pacifica exists in. The mission has never been as static of an 'instrument' >as Terry arrogantly insists, nor should it be. The Pacifica Mission identifies the purposes of the Foundation in fairly clear static language. How best to fulfill that Mission in the context of the contemporary political atmosphere or environment is a matter of dynamic and local interpretation. >As it clearly has done in the past (which we are reminded of during >Pacifica Archives fund drives), Pacifica should now and in the future, >respond to those political events and moral issues that supersede the >scope of Pacifica's limited mission statement, especially in times of >social and political crisis. In identifying the purposes of the Foundation, the Pacifica Mission is sufficiently broad that it need not be an impediment to adequately responding to the political and moral issues of the day. Social and political crises, however, do not justify superceding the Foundation's Mission Statement by diverting the Foundation to service of an altenative agenda. If the stated Mission is found to be inadequate by the membership, the bylaws of the organization provide appropriate mechanisms for its amendment. >That time is now (or long past), yet Terry and those who depend on >him to be their loyal 'yeoman of arms' to keep the unwashed rabble >at bay, are in actuality about containing Pacifica's potential in our >political reality. This fact alludes to a particular political framework of >objectives of the Pacifica elites that renders Pacifica's influence and >even political and social introspection moot, at best. The elites and rabble of Pacifica all frequently seek to manipulate the organization and especially its broadcasting content towards particular political objectives rather than to maintain strict adherance to the Foundation's educational purpose. It is this rampant politicalization that has severely damaged Pacifica's general credibility and marginalized its fundamental message. >The question subscribers to these lists ought to seriously consider is, >what are those political objectives and how does the mission serve >to protect and veil those objectives? The questions Pacifica subscribers ought to seriously consider are what does the Pacifica Mission Statement really say, how can Pacifica best be returned to fulfilling that Mission, what organizations should each member additionally join to further those personal political objectives they subscribe to which are inconsistent with or which go beyond the actual stated Mission of the Pacifica Foundation, and what are the appropriate limits to the use of Foundation resources for promoting their individual political objectives and opinions. >Regarding what power the LSB's have, other than those LSB >members who concurrently sit on the Pacifica National Board >(I prefer not to refer to them as "delegates"), there is virtually none, >unless one is referring to political power. As I wrote, the LSBs could be delegated local governing authority by the PNB, if and when it appears that they are competent to exercise such authority. >Nevertheless, there is nothing in the bylaws that would prevent any >LSB if it so chose, to investigate the manner and process, as well >as any political or personal motives that might be behind a forced >removal of a programmer, producer or host, regardless of the line of >authority of such an action. Yes, there's nothing in the bylaws that would prevent an LSB from investigating the forced removal of a programmer, except to the extent that this further diverts the LSB from fulfilling the specific responsibilities that it has been delegated by the bylaws and the proposed focus on motives rather than policy and process would further distance the LSB from qualification for delegated authority to accomplish any permanent remedy for the problems that might be revealed in the investigation. There's nothing in the bylaws that prevents an LSB from investigating the causes of the U.S. intervention in Iraq, either. My point is that if the KPFA Local Station Board was trained in the principles of policy governance and fully understood the LSB's potential role as the delegated local governing authority of the station, then it would handle such an investigation with the objective of improving policies and establishing oversight mechanisms to prevent future occurances of complaint, thereby minimizing the need for future governance intervention in station operations. If, instead, the LSB investigation is primarily designed to identify possible culprits and obtain appropriate justice in a single incident, the actual structural and/or policy problems that allowed either injustice or the perception of injustice to occur is likely to persist, inviting the LSB into being manipulated to intervene and investigate every future staff member complaint, thus diverting its attention from fulfilling its bylaws-delegated responsibilities. An objective of good governance should be to reduce the work and attention required from the board, not to increase it. If the LSB allows itself to be constantly drawn into the investigation of specific operational matters, it will not have time for strategic planning and will fail to adequately provide general guidance to station management. If its activities are incident-based or complaint-based rather than policy-based, it risks failing ever to establish appropriate ongoing oversight mechanisms designed to appropriately handle and reduce the frequency of complaint incidents. I'm not saying that the banning of Franciso Herrera should not be investigated by the KPFA Local Station Board. In fact, I specifically identified the claim of "ambiguous rules selectively enforced" as justifying LSB intervention in this instance. In simple terms, I am attempting to point out how such an investigation could be productive and appropriate rather than destructive and inappropriate and suggesting that the proposed enabling resolution be modified from this general perspective. Permanently resolving fundamental policy problems should be the primary objective, with justice for accusers or accused in the individual incident of complaint simply a potential side benefit. If the absence of policy or procedures prevents adequate resolution of the Herrera complaint, this should not impede any investigative committee recommendation for a management policy or procedure that would prevent a re-occurance. --Terry Goodman