----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Rip Robbins <Rip.Robbins@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: PacificaRadiowaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 7:06:42 PM
Subject: [PacificaRadiowaves] Public VS Executive Session PNB
I can verify that the exact same circumstances prevail in the executive
sessions as do in the public sessions.
Nalini is astutely accurate in this portrayal:
But I'm pretty sure that the closed sessions go something
>like this....some thing is put on the table. Dan speaks. Votes are
>taken along the normal party lines, with Dan's advice being the prime
>factor. And in the background, dishes are washed, emails are flying
>around, "abstentions" are cast until they know the winning side,
>Directors drop in and out of the meetings when they are needed for a
>vote.
Of course, for most of my tenure, it was Dave leading the discussion, and Greg
was not one to attempt manipulation by speaking first, as Dan did in his tenure
during the final months of my tenure.
Terry writes: several important decisions have occurred in closed PNB
sessions, including the selection of permanent and temporary Executive
Directors and (apparently) some limitations on Executive Director
authorities.
Of course, it took the PNB nearly 6 months to fire an existing E.D., and
several weeks of chaos for a select lobby group to put forward what came to be
the only name put forward for iED. The restrictions on the outgoing E.D. with
regard to certain matters were kept in place for the iED, but in the second
round of the iED (when Nicole abruptly turned in her keys and notes a week
before Thanksgiving) no consideration was given to any restrictions. Some of
us loudly demanded that the same arrangement as before Nicole’s hiring be
continued, but the matter did not gain traction with the majority in charge of
the Board at that time. So the iED was able to engage in various activities
that had been off the table during the previous short term. So it is as
feared: The PNB in charge today is no more efficient or transparent than any
previous Board.
Nicole Sawaya's abrupt exit and eventual return suggest that there was
some negotiation and clarification of the Executive Director role and
authorities that occurred in closed PNB sessions in the interim. In
order to fairly judge her future performance as ED and in order to
fairly judge Greg Guma's claim of previous impediment and in order to
fairly hold its Directors accountable, the membership needs to know
what ED limitations were imposed and which, if any, were lifted and
how various Directors voted on such central questions. There is
substantial evidence and rumor that this all has primarily concerned
the Executive Director's authority over the CFO and finances, but
finances are central to Foundation operations so it could go far
beyond that. Moreover, if the membership has assumed that the CFO is
accountable to the Executive Director but the PNB has blocked those
lines of authority, this has left the CFO essentially unsupervised - a
situation that the membership and especially the PNB Audit Committee
should certainly be informed about.
This is the crux of the dispute that paralyzed the PNB throughout 2007. It is
upheld by Bob Lederer, so the idea that Sawaya would hold him in any light
except as the Machiavellian leader of political faction using any means to
isolate and control WBAI is ludicrous. It is the Lederer motion, and a
one-vote majority (I was absent that night or it would have a vote of 4-4, that
stripped a section from the E.D. contract that the Personnel Cmte had worked on
for the previous 6 months, since Guma had announced that he might not be the
person for the job (see ED report June 2006 NYC PNB), given the job description
he was hired under. However, the Board, with about 2/3 majority, voiced a vote
of confidence for Greg to continue, and started a long-time defunct committee
(the Personnel Committee) to begin a dialogue with the E.D. and the Human
Resources Director, to come to some basis of understanding how to alter the
governance system to allow the ED to
function as the job intended.
I think these job descriptions and “contracts” should be made public. Why
would Pacifica , with its disciples of transparency, allow for the top
executive to work under a contract that is secret? Calling it a contract
instead of a job description allows it to remain a secret, because it becomes a
“personnel” matter.
Lederer, Mr. Transparency himself, is the one who led the fight to keep the CFO
from having any responsibility for reporting anything to the ED. And those who
read Greg’s excellent reports (since when did any E.D., including those working
during Nalini’s beloved era, offer such candid and transparent assessments of
Pacifica ?) will see that he states the relationship of the CFO and ED was one
of negotiation. It’s the backroom style of accommodation and compromise, “you
do this for me, and I’ll do this for you” style of arranging the budget.
Terry has come to realize that the job descriptions approved under Coughlin’s
term, and under which Guma was hired, were mysteriously changed somewhere.
However, I received an HR manual in early 2006, shortly after my appointment to
the Board, and it contained the “old” job description, which clearly states
that the CFO reports to the ED, but can only be fired by the PNB. That
sentence was deleted in all future versions of the document, and soon after the
arguments over this discrepancy began to surface later that fall when the
Personnel Cmte (I was on the cmte) began to put forward recommendations
regarding the reporting structure and received immense opposition from Lane,
Byrd and Lederer, the HR director suddenly resigned.
Let me explain the make-up of the Personnel Cmte (public session at the end of
the PNB meeting June, 2006):
One representative from each station and one affiliate representative. Don
White, Doc Bethune, Rosalinda Palacios, Acie Byrd, Patty Heffley, Rip Rob bins.
However, the secretary mis-tallied the votes, and upon a recount, determined
that the wrong winner was announced for the NY and DC stations, so a PNB vote
allowed NY and DC to have 2 representatives on the committee. So, after a
couple months of meeting with Greg, suddenly 2 more members were seated, Bob
Lederer and Ambrose Lane . After that the committee became locked in one vote
margin deliberations (depending on who was absent during a particular
teleconference) . Ambrose , Patty, Rosalinda, and myself, were absent at
different meetings, and the votes would swing back and forth over what to do
with Greg’s recommendations for reconciling the impasse at the National Office
and the fact that some station managers and LSBs were openly rebelling against
his directives. (this is all in his public reports—I am stating anything that
hasn’t been already put out).
My brain hurts. I’ve got to stop trying to argue for sanity. I really don’t
think anything positive will occur. This is one of my last posts, as I am
seeing this writing become quite redundant, its been said before, ad nauseum.
These lists are like talk shows, they are cathartic for the writer to some
degree, but they accomplish absolutely nothing.
Rip Rob bins
.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Special deal for Yahoo! users & friends - No Cost. Get a month of Blockbuster
Total Access now
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text3.com