Thanks Terry for this posting. I was wrong to call Evan a liar...... However - his postings to me have always been of this nature....
It is time for me to step back and chill. As a victim of violence I have started to become a victimnizer, I need to stop for I do not want to become like those folks on New Pacifica.....
Eileen J. Goodman
Terry Goodman <tiji@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed May 17, 2006, Eileen Goodman wrote:
>Evan,
> Thought I'd respond since your bruised ego gets upset if I don't.
Funny.
>Below your posting my responses:
>
>evan davis <evan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I told you; I'm fishing these e-mails out of the "trash". My filters
>direct them there rather than to my
"in-box".
>
> Eileen: Your trash is your trash - I still call you a liar
A difference in interpretation is not a lie. An allegation without
support is neither argument nor dialogue. Evan has a reputation for
careful accuracy which he will scrupulously defend. This in itself is
no evidence of bruised ego or significant upset. One can express
frustration at continuing inaccuracy or defend besmirched honor
without excessive personal investment.
>Evan: As for your laziness here, again is the relevant section from my post
>from earlier this week that you seem so reticent to answer.
>
> Eileen: All folks have to do is see how just about everyone on this
>list will clip a post and only respond to what they like. Terry Goodman, who
>responds to me often does this. He often does not respond to particulars in
>my posts, as is his
right - this being a private list.....
The standard usenet protocol is to redact portions of a post for which
there is no objection, and to avoid wasting readers' time with
unnecessary repetition and "me too" posts. Inaccuracies should be
quoted with sufficient context to avoid mischaracterization when
corrections are offered. I more often respond to what I don't like in
a post than to what I like.
>Evan: "As far as I know minutes of all LSB meetings are available in printed
>form for the asking as well as numerous audio recordings of the actual
>meetings plus all LSB and PNB meetings are either open for any member to
>attend or are netcast live.
I still owe minutes of several 2004 KPFK LSB meetings. I got stalled
when the maker of a complex motion at the July 13th meeting failed to
provide a copy to the Secretary, requiring careful analysis of the
meeting audio to finally
determine what was actually passed. I have
now completed and posted those minutes and am slowly catching up. I
have not prepared a laptop computer to allow netcast of KPFK LSB
meetings because the LSB has not chosen a regular meeting venue with
internet access.
Ref:
http://www.kpfk.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=17&id=211&Itemid=80
A good review of PNB activity appears in Dave Adelson's Director
Report to the KPFK LSB, online as Appendix G of the February, 2006
minutes at
http://www.kpfk.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1603&Itemid=80
Many KPFK LSB minutes also include a GM's report with
valuable
information.
>Therefore Eileen's assertion that Pacifica's
>governance is not "transparent" is simply untrue.
>
>Eileen: This is news to me - for the asking did you say? Where does one
>ask and how does the average listener-sponsor who votes blindly find this
>information.
The General Manager of each Pacifica station should maintain a
hard-copy file of approved LSB minutes. My interpretation of the
California Corporations Code is that general members of the Foundation
have a right to inspect this file, which includes a right to copy its
contents (excluding the sealed minutes of closed sessions). The
station can charge reasonable fees for copying if the member does not
bring a photocopy machine. Exercise of this membership right is
typically mooted by the public posting of LSB minutes on the station's
website, but a member might want a copy that includes
the LSB
Secretary's signature for legal reasons.
Most LSB votes are still by show of hands rather than by roll call, so
it remains nearly impossible for members to determine how their
representatives have voted on most resolutions.
>Take a poll Evan - go after listeners who want to support Pacifica and find
>out just how little they know. A Governance section within a Folio sent out
>at specific intervals will indeed give folks an opportunity to learn - what's
>going on....
Eileen's main point here is valid, though most listeners aren't
especially interested in station governance.
>Folks should not have to ask - if what you say is true....As I see it folks will
>be directed to the Internet, the only place to learn anything.......
Evan's point is that listeners interested in station and network
governance have a wealth of information available to them over the
internet, and that point is
also valid.
>Evan: To prove her other claim, that Pacifica is "unaccountable to its
>voting constituency" Eileen will need to offer more substance. For
>instance; is ALL of Pacifica "unaccountable"? Are the programmers, PD's,
>GM's, LSB's, PNB
>and all of the various committees unreachable? Are they un-responsive?
Accountability and responsiveness exist on a scale. The minimum
requirements for governance as outlined in the Foundation bylaws have
generally been met, but improvements beyond that minimum have been
slow to come and difficult to implement. Several individuals involved
in Pacifica have been essentially unreachable and many are
unresponsive, as Evan himself has at times mentioned. KPFK's
Programming Oversight Committee has brought forward proposals to
improve responsiveness at KPFK. Sometimes LSBs are a bit too
responsive, in fact -- making politically
popular decisions adverse to
the true interests of the station and the Foundation, such as by
approving expenses without identifying funding for them.
>Eileen: What crap is this you want me to weigh in here....... Yes, folks
>are secretive and unresponsive to the listener-sponsors - that's my answer
>for your question needs someone on the inside to answer.
I have not observed any inappropriate secretiveness in KPFK's
governance, beyond:
a) the consideration in closed session of a programmer's complaint
that should instead have been handled as a public recommendation from
a committee (this was justified on the basis of potential litigation),
and
b) the failure of the KPFK LSB to present public versions of its
management evaluations in open session.
>Evan: Are the by-laws not being adhered to? Is the PNB unable to achieve a
>quorum or a majority in order to
set policy and is the ED refusing to
>execute policies set by the PNB? Is the ED issuing instructions to the
>GM's that the GM's are refusing to follow?
There is substantial compliance with the bylaws and a genuine effort
by many to improve this compliance. The PNB is achieving quorum, but
has some problems achieving agreement on clear and fair policies. The
new ED is encouraging the PNB to establish policies rather than
resisting governance (as occurred with prior management), though there
is still inadequate communication to governance of the full set of
internal policies and procedures that exist. I know of no GM refusals
to follow ED instructions.
>Eileen: Good questions from the little postings I've read - these Bylaws
>are a dead duck in water - Why is that Evan?
There are problems and ambiguities in the bylaws that need correction
and clarification, but the bylaws
are working. They would work better
if Delegates and Directors better understood how to govern,
established an effective committee structure incorporating expertise
from the listener community, recognized the authority that they have,
and were more responsible and less timid in exercising that authority.
>Evan: Are requests for critical financial data not being answered by
>the CFO or by the GM's?
Extreme Director persistance has been required to obtain critical
financial information from the CFO in a coherent form, and a problem
with Pacifica's accounting software has impeded recent reporting, but
enough information with sufficient accuracy is provided to allow
general oversight. Pacifica still has not fully come to terms with
the absolute right of individual Directors to inspect all Foundation
records and facilities.
>Eileen offers no specifics yet states as though
>it were a
universally acknowledged fact that "Pacifica is unaccountable
>and non-transparent". She offers no proposals for addressing the vague
>and generalized problem(s) she alleges."
>
>Eileen: As a listener complaining of not receiving proper information this
>is another stupid question. I'd like to see a financial section, as well, in a Folio....
The "Financial Information" section of the pacifica.org website and
the monthly statements at
http://www.pacifica.org/finance/financestatements.html show Pacifica's
commitment to the required level of financial transparency, but the
delay in website postings and the lack of similar localized
information on station websites demonstrates how far we have to go.
>Evan: I'll add here that Eileen appears to be one of those people who insists
>on the right to cry "fire" in a theater but who
can't take the heat of
>an ordinary kitchen (figuratively speaking, of course).
>Evan
From personal knowledge I can attest that Eileen is quite capable in
an ordinary kitchen.
>P.S.
>I did not carry this correspondence to the other lists you've forwarded
>this exchange to. I'm doing so now - and just this once as a courtesy to
>the other folks you've exposed and to say to THEM; if any of you feel
>this exchange warrants your attention ad you want clarification
>regarding my point of view I'll be happy to answer you off-list.
I'll do the same.
>Eileen: typical exchange in which Evan belittles and tries to hurt me
>with words....
The "cry fire" comment was extreme, but Evan's call for more
specificity to Eileen's complaints was legitimate.
>My suggestion: Reconfigure what posts you want to respond to and leave
>the trash for trash - you're a
liar Evan and it appears you have nothing better
>to do than hassle me.......
Calling Evan a liar does not advance the discussion when the charge is
not detailed or clearly explained in a manner that allows refutation.
I have observed no dishonesty in Evan's posts and I've offered
clarification here where I think that he has somewhat overstated his
defense of Pacifica's status quo (which was really only a challenge to
Eileen's attack on it).
>In conclusion: After a long period of just reading this board - I responded to
>Melinda's post with a comment that had nothing to do with her thought. My
>concerns were of how dead this board was on discussing Pacifica issues.
>If I kick you folks in the butt from time to time - it is worth it, to me, if as a
>result I can inspire folks to post some good thoughts like what's happen in
>discussion of a folio.....
Okay, but let's all strive for
accuracy in reporting.
>Let me repeat - it would be a great idea to find consensus on those ideas
>folks are agreeing on and I welcome all the suggestions and ideas - that's
>all they are here Evan, simply put - you've got a bug up your behind because
>I got the better of you one time.....
I don't think Evan sees it that way, but he probably doesn't expect
Eileen to see it any differently. We're left to presume that Eileen's
"liar" comment is simply an _expression_ of her disagreement with Evan's
written interpretation of the outcome of some prior exchange of little
current interest to other readers. The term implies that its target
habitually misrespresents truth. Most readers will conclude from
their own experience of the posters' contributions that the label has
been misapplied in this case.
--Terry Goodman, KPFK Delegate
New Pacifica Working Group
http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica
'Save Our Stations!'
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
New Pacifica Working Group
http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica
'Save Our Stations!'
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS