Nalini, it seems to me, is missing or omitting a big part of the picture. The description mentions political parties but not say anything about what each party is trying to achieve. If its just a matter of individuals washing their dishes or abstaining randomly, that is one thing, but in fact those dynamics are parts of concerted efforts by one party of another. To the extent there is a continuing lack of transparency, it is irksome to hear that blamed on 'the board' without acknowledging that several board members have over the years tried and continue to try to make pacifica transparent. Why should the people trying to do good work take the blame for the efforts of the bad actors? Joe w. On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Kevin White <cuitlacoche1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > ----- 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 > > . > > > > > ------------------------------ > Like movies? Here's a limited-time offer: Blockbuster Total > Access<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47522/*http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text4.com>for > one month at no cost. > >