Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
KPFA Election Will Decide Progressive Network’s Future
KPFA Election Will Decide Progressive Network’s Future
The future of KPFA radio is now in the hands of its members, who have until September 30 to cast ballots in Local Station Board elections. KPFA and Pacifica Radio have faced many “moments of truth” since progressives defeated a corporate takeover of the network in 1999, but the financial challenges and internal infighting have never been worse. On one side is the Concerned Listeners – Save KPFA slate of candidates, who believe the station should be the voice of the entire progressive community, and must expand listenership to help broaden the progressive base. This slate is opposed by the Independents for Community Radio (the “Independents”), who believe the station should primarily speak to its core base – prioritizing “wildly unpopular perspectives that could never get on the air anywhere else.” A victory by the Independents will likely usher in massive downsizing at KPFA, eliminating popular programming and replacing the current paid, unionized on-air staff with all volunteers.
Since my story last March about the growing crisis at KPFA and Pacifica, the situation has worsened. KPFA’s unionized radio staff is facing continued attacks from those favoring an all-volunteer station – leading a large contingent of prominent progressive and labor activists including Norman Solomon, NUHW leader Sal Rosselli, Dr. Carlos Munoz, and Pratap Chatterjee to publicly endorse the Concerned Listeners slate (I am among the slate’s many endorsers).
The reason so many activists have decided to go public supporting a KPFA Local Station Board candidates slate is that the radio’s network ability to broaden the progressive movement is at stake. The two leading slates offer a choice between a vision of a professional operation that seeks to expand public exposure to progressive campaigns and ideas – and one that prefers to “speak to the choir,” believing that KPFA’s and Pacifica’s mission is to give voice to stories and ideas regardless of their broader interest.
Independents Misread KPFA’s Legacy
Tracy Rosenberg, a candidate of the Independents who has written extensively on the dispute, recently wrote a piece for the Berkeley Daily Planet that reflects her (and perhaps others) profound misunderstanding of KPFA’s historic legacy.
According to Rosenberg, the Independents are the true heirs of Pacifica founder Lew Hill’s vision for KPFA. Noting that Hill was a “World War II pacifist who went to jail rather than fight in ‘The Good War,’” she argues that “he founded this place particularly and specifically to broadcast wildly unpopular perspectives that could never get on the air anywhere else.”
Rosenberg is partially right; Hill did promote perspectives out of the mainstream of the time. But what Rosenberg overlooks is that Hill sought to include a wide spectrum of views – rather than allow the sectarian left to monopolize coverage, which Rosenberg and her allies prefer.
Reviewing some old KPFA program guides (known as the Folio) from the 1960’s, I was surprised how much of the programming was devoted to classical music. There was a regular show on Israel hosted by a staffer from the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, and many speeches and addresses from academic conferences. KPFA also regularly broadcast melodramas, such as Sophocles and Homer.
Far from being a radio station run by and for the sectarian left, Lew Hill’s KPFA even had Republican Caspar Weinberger (who went on to serve in the cabinets of Nixon and Reagan) on the air. Hill wanted KPFA run as a staff collective, and would never have supported Rosenberg’s goal of putting listeners – rather than radio professionals – in charge of programming.
Rosenberg is the Director of Media Alliance, and has used that position to advance her agenda at KPFA, often without disclosing her personal interests. For example, she recently wrote a Huffington Post article that attacked the Save KPFA slate without disclosing her own candidacy on a rival slate; that seems odd for someone who runs an organization focusing on media ethics.
Rosenberg is openly critical of many staff, and even worked behind the scenes to recall Board member Bonnie Simmons, host of the popular Bonnie Simmons Show on Thursday nights. Simmons is a leader in promoting Bay Area musicians, and from her days as program director of KSAN in its 1970’s heyday to her present role at the Bill Graham Foundation and with Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, she is one of the music industry’s most respected members.
Sadly, Rosenberg’s attacks on Simmons are symptomatic of her misguided perspective on the station.
Members Must Vote
If it’s so obvious that the progressive community is better served by the Concerned Listeners slate, than why did the Independents narrowly win the last election and could also prevail now?
The answer is twofold.
First, interpretations of election rules have distorted voting for the staff positions on the Board. For example, each individual member of a large collective that works together on a show that may run for just a half hour a month gets equal voting rights with a full-time staff person. This occurred with the show Pushing Limits, whose half hour shows runs twice a month, and is on air for only around an hour a month, and yet was awarded 10-12 voting collective members.
Second, and more importantly, a large number of KPFA members do not vote.
People financially support KPFA, because they like what they hear on the radio. Most want nothing to do with governance, and do not return the local station ballots.
The result is that only 14 % of members, a little under 3000, voted in the last election. And as the right-wing proved in the 1994 mid-term elections and hope to prove again this November, when only a small, unrepresentative minority votes, the majority will can be frustrated.
Voting continues until September 30. You can find out more information on the Concerned Listeners at concernedlisteners.org and the Independents for Community Radio at http://bit.ly/awwRm0.
Randy Shaw is the Editor of Beyond Chron and has publicly endorsed the Concerned Listeners slate.
Since my story last March about the growing crisis at KPFA and Pacifica, the situation has worsened. KPFA’s unionized radio staff is facing continued attacks from those favoring an all-volunteer station – leading a large contingent of prominent progressive and labor activists including Norman Solomon, NUHW leader Sal Rosselli, Dr. Carlos Munoz, and Pratap Chatterjee to publicly endorse the Concerned Listeners slate (I am among the slate’s many endorsers).
The reason so many activists have decided to go public supporting a KPFA Local Station Board candidates slate is that the radio’s network ability to broaden the progressive movement is at stake. The two leading slates offer a choice between a vision of a professional operation that seeks to expand public exposure to progressive campaigns and ideas – and one that prefers to “speak to the choir,” believing that KPFA’s and Pacifica’s mission is to give voice to stories and ideas regardless of their broader interest.
Independents Misread KPFA’s Legacy
Tracy Rosenberg, a candidate of the Independents who has written extensively on the dispute, recently wrote a piece for the Berkeley Daily Planet that reflects her (and perhaps others) profound misunderstanding of KPFA’s historic legacy.
According to Rosenberg, the Independents are the true heirs of Pacifica founder Lew Hill’s vision for KPFA. Noting that Hill was a “World War II pacifist who went to jail rather than fight in ‘The Good War,’” she argues that “he founded this place particularly and specifically to broadcast wildly unpopular perspectives that could never get on the air anywhere else.”
Rosenberg is partially right; Hill did promote perspectives out of the mainstream of the time. But what Rosenberg overlooks is that Hill sought to include a wide spectrum of views – rather than allow the sectarian left to monopolize coverage, which Rosenberg and her allies prefer.
Reviewing some old KPFA program guides (known as the Folio) from the 1960’s, I was surprised how much of the programming was devoted to classical music. There was a regular show on Israel hosted by a staffer from the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, and many speeches and addresses from academic conferences. KPFA also regularly broadcast melodramas, such as Sophocles and Homer.
Far from being a radio station run by and for the sectarian left, Lew Hill’s KPFA even had Republican Caspar Weinberger (who went on to serve in the cabinets of Nixon and Reagan) on the air. Hill wanted KPFA run as a staff collective, and would never have supported Rosenberg’s goal of putting listeners – rather than radio professionals – in charge of programming.
Rosenberg is the Director of Media Alliance, and has used that position to advance her agenda at KPFA, often without disclosing her personal interests. For example, she recently wrote a Huffington Post article that attacked the Save KPFA slate without disclosing her own candidacy on a rival slate; that seems odd for someone who runs an organization focusing on media ethics.
Rosenberg is openly critical of many staff, and even worked behind the scenes to recall Board member Bonnie Simmons, host of the popular Bonnie Simmons Show on Thursday nights. Simmons is a leader in promoting Bay Area musicians, and from her days as program director of KSAN in its 1970’s heyday to her present role at the Bill Graham Foundation and with Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, she is one of the music industry’s most respected members.
Sadly, Rosenberg’s attacks on Simmons are symptomatic of her misguided perspective on the station.
Members Must Vote
If it’s so obvious that the progressive community is better served by the Concerned Listeners slate, than why did the Independents narrowly win the last election and could also prevail now?
The answer is twofold.
First, interpretations of election rules have distorted voting for the staff positions on the Board. For example, each individual member of a large collective that works together on a show that may run for just a half hour a month gets equal voting rights with a full-time staff person. This occurred with the show Pushing Limits, whose half hour shows runs twice a month, and is on air for only around an hour a month, and yet was awarded 10-12 voting collective members.
Second, and more importantly, a large number of KPFA members do not vote.
People financially support KPFA, because they like what they hear on the radio. Most want nothing to do with governance, and do not return the local station ballots.
The result is that only 14 % of members, a little under 3000, voted in the last election. And as the right-wing proved in the 1994 mid-term elections and hope to prove again this November, when only a small, unrepresentative minority votes, the majority will can be frustrated.
Voting continues until September 30. You can find out more information on the Concerned Listeners at concernedlisteners.org and the Independents for Community Radio at http://bit.ly/awwRm0.
Randy Shaw is the Editor of Beyond Chron and has publicly endorsed the Concerned Listeners slate.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
If the CL/Save KPFA win this election, Dan Siegel and Conn Hallinan will probably be the chair and vice-chair
Here's how these two notables functioned at the March 7, 2010 LSB:
Conn Hallinan
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/09/10/18658389.php
Dan Siegel
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/08/17/18656285.php
Which may be why the "Concerned Listeners" changed their name--to escape negative name recognition for that and other deeds. Now they call themselves "Save KPRA"--a name they appropriated from an earlier group.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/09/06/18658085.php
Randy Shaw is consdered to be a highly ethnical Journalist who doesn't hestiate to expose the corporate media's many distortions and outright lies .
But yet he makes these accusations towards the democractic opposition at Pacifica without doing the most elementary fact checking . According to every KPFA Board member that i have spoke to he has NEVER been seen at a board meeting . Likewise according to every board member or activist who opposes the falsely named '' Save KPFA '' slate He has never called or emailed them to get their side of the story . Isn't that supposed to be Journalism 101 ?
More later.
But yet he makes these accusations towards the democractic opposition at Pacifica without doing the most elementary fact checking . According to every KPFA Board member that i have spoke to he has NEVER been seen at a board meeting . Likewise according to every board member or activist who opposes the falsely named '' Save KPFA '' slate He has never called or emailed them to get their side of the story . Isn't that supposed to be Journalism 101 ?
More later.
Randy Shaw who just put out another PR piece for the CL "Save KPFA" crew was surprise surprise on the KPFA morning show today with "Save KPFA" operative Brian Edward-Tiekert. BET forgot to put on labor programming during Labor Day and now wants to make it up with Randy Shaw. The same supposed pro-union Randy Shaw has illegally fired SEIU 1021 steward Nathaniel Holmes and is attacking the SEIU 1021 members who work under him at the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. He wants to decrease benefits for their dependents healthcare. As CEO of the THC, Shaw is a close collaborator with anti-labor mayor Gavin Newsom.
Photo-Nathaniel Holmes at picket of Randy Shaw
Randy Shaw's Dirty Little Union Secret - Bluoz
http://www.bluoz.com/blog/index.php?/archives/816-Randy-Shaws-Dirty-Little-Union-Secret.html
Web http://www.bluoz.com
Monday, October 19. 2009
RANDY SHAW'S DIRTY LITTLE UNION SECRET
More on the history and time line of San Francisco's largest publicly funded contractor and it's dirty little war on the union employees
main page for this story
The Tenderloin Housing Clinic v. Nate Holmes – A History of Harassment, Union Busting, & Racism
May, 1999 – Nate Holmes starts working for Tenderloin Housing Clinic (THC)
October, 2006 – THC signs first union contract with SEIU Local 1021; Nate elected shop steward in December, 2006
September, 2007 – Krista Gaeta appointed Housing Services Director without open posting of position. She immediately starts changing work rules, etc. without union-required meet and confer; Holmes files grievance on THC unfair hiring practice.
Fall/Winter, 2007 – Gaeta continues violations of union contract, including harassment of Holmes as shop steward.
December, 2007 – Holmes placed on administrative leave, pending “investigation”. He never receives results of “investigation.”
January, 2008 – Holmes transferred to SRO Collaborative pending completion of “investigation”; he continues to serve as steward for former co-workers.
February, 2008 – Internal investigation completed, no results given to Holmes. Human Resources Director Cathy Clagett informs Nate that she gave results to Evette Albert-Jordan, supervisor for worksite organizer Daz Lamparas .
April 9, 2008 – in a meeting with worksite organizer Daz Lamparas, Lamparas informs Holmes that the investigation was “bogus” and that Shaw will lose in mediation; that he (Holmes) should not worry about it.
April 10, 2008 – Mediation hearing at THC conference room. Daz Lamparas fails to present the findings from the internal investigation by the THC. He tells Holmes that he (Holmes) lacks credibility and that he (Lamparas) will not take his case to arbitration. Lacking proper arbitration, Holmes was forced to settle without full relief. He later filed DFR charges at the NLRB.
July, 2008 – Harassment from Krista Gaeta continues; Gaeta asks shop steward Ken Duignan to come to Housing Services staff meeting to inform staff that Nathaniel Holmes was no longer shop steward in the Housing Department. This was after Gaeta had been informed about two weeks previously that Holmes would continue as shop steward until January, 2009, when an election would be held in the Housing Department. A grievance was filed by Vaniesha Rodgers of the Housing Department, but she was later transferred – end of grievance.
September, 2008 – Holmes files DFRr against SEIU 1021 worksite organizer Daz Lamparas for not properly representing him in April mediation.
October, 2008 – Randy Shaw, Executive Director of THC, to present his “labor-friendly” book “Beyond the Fields” at a meeting at SEIU Local 87. A letter protesting Shaw’s actions signed by 60 of Nate Holmes’s co-workers was sent to Local 87.
October 27, 2008 – Human Resources Director Janie Lara orders Holmes not to have any contact with any THC employee. THC employees also ordered not to talk with or have any contact with Nate Holmes with the threat of disciplinary action if this order is violated. This is a contract violation.
November 6, 2008 – Holmes fired from THC before “investigation is completed.
November 11, 2008 – SEIU/THC Chapter Shop Steward Council meets and passes motion stating that, contrary to the claims of Randy Shaw, they supported the letter of support to Nate Holmes signed by over 60 members.
November 14, 2008 – Holmes and SEIU 1021 shop steward Alexandra Goldman in participate in hearing with Randy Shaw and HR Director Janie Lara. Shaw refuses to give his grounds for having fired Holmes, stating that Daz Lamparas had the information. Lamparas only received this information the following week. This is a contract violation.
March 2009 – Evette Albert Jordan meets with THC shop stewards council to get input if Holmes’s termination case merits arbitration. The Council informs Evette that the termination should be arbitrated.
May, 2009 – worksite organizer Sara “Fred” Sherburn-Zimmer informs Shop Stewards Council that Holmes’s firing would be going to arbitration, but no paper work or date presented at that time.
July – Protests about unfair labor practices at THC begin at Modern Times Bookstore.
July – September, 2009 -- More unfair labor practices protests at THC Hyde Street Office and 472 Turk Street office.
September 14, 2009 – SEIU 1021 Sends Nate Holmes a letter affirming that they are taking his case to arbitration. However, as of this date Nate Holmes has still not seen copies of any papers filed for arbitration.
October 6, 2009 – No arbitration date set yet.
Photo-Nathaniel Holmes at picket of Randy Shaw
Randy Shaw's Dirty Little Union Secret - Bluoz
http://www.bluoz.com/blog/index.php?/archives/816-Randy-Shaws-Dirty-Little-Union-Secret.html
Web http://www.bluoz.com
Monday, October 19. 2009
RANDY SHAW'S DIRTY LITTLE UNION SECRET
More on the history and time line of San Francisco's largest publicly funded contractor and it's dirty little war on the union employees
main page for this story
The Tenderloin Housing Clinic v. Nate Holmes – A History of Harassment, Union Busting, & Racism
May, 1999 – Nate Holmes starts working for Tenderloin Housing Clinic (THC)
October, 2006 – THC signs first union contract with SEIU Local 1021; Nate elected shop steward in December, 2006
September, 2007 – Krista Gaeta appointed Housing Services Director without open posting of position. She immediately starts changing work rules, etc. without union-required meet and confer; Holmes files grievance on THC unfair hiring practice.
Fall/Winter, 2007 – Gaeta continues violations of union contract, including harassment of Holmes as shop steward.
December, 2007 – Holmes placed on administrative leave, pending “investigation”. He never receives results of “investigation.”
January, 2008 – Holmes transferred to SRO Collaborative pending completion of “investigation”; he continues to serve as steward for former co-workers.
February, 2008 – Internal investigation completed, no results given to Holmes. Human Resources Director Cathy Clagett informs Nate that she gave results to Evette Albert-Jordan, supervisor for worksite organizer Daz Lamparas .
April 9, 2008 – in a meeting with worksite organizer Daz Lamparas, Lamparas informs Holmes that the investigation was “bogus” and that Shaw will lose in mediation; that he (Holmes) should not worry about it.
April 10, 2008 – Mediation hearing at THC conference room. Daz Lamparas fails to present the findings from the internal investigation by the THC. He tells Holmes that he (Holmes) lacks credibility and that he (Lamparas) will not take his case to arbitration. Lacking proper arbitration, Holmes was forced to settle without full relief. He later filed DFR charges at the NLRB.
July, 2008 – Harassment from Krista Gaeta continues; Gaeta asks shop steward Ken Duignan to come to Housing Services staff meeting to inform staff that Nathaniel Holmes was no longer shop steward in the Housing Department. This was after Gaeta had been informed about two weeks previously that Holmes would continue as shop steward until January, 2009, when an election would be held in the Housing Department. A grievance was filed by Vaniesha Rodgers of the Housing Department, but she was later transferred – end of grievance.
September, 2008 – Holmes files DFRr against SEIU 1021 worksite organizer Daz Lamparas for not properly representing him in April mediation.
October, 2008 – Randy Shaw, Executive Director of THC, to present his “labor-friendly” book “Beyond the Fields” at a meeting at SEIU Local 87. A letter protesting Shaw’s actions signed by 60 of Nate Holmes’s co-workers was sent to Local 87.
October 27, 2008 – Human Resources Director Janie Lara orders Holmes not to have any contact with any THC employee. THC employees also ordered not to talk with or have any contact with Nate Holmes with the threat of disciplinary action if this order is violated. This is a contract violation.
November 6, 2008 – Holmes fired from THC before “investigation is completed.
November 11, 2008 – SEIU/THC Chapter Shop Steward Council meets and passes motion stating that, contrary to the claims of Randy Shaw, they supported the letter of support to Nate Holmes signed by over 60 members.
November 14, 2008 – Holmes and SEIU 1021 shop steward Alexandra Goldman in participate in hearing with Randy Shaw and HR Director Janie Lara. Shaw refuses to give his grounds for having fired Holmes, stating that Daz Lamparas had the information. Lamparas only received this information the following week. This is a contract violation.
March 2009 – Evette Albert Jordan meets with THC shop stewards council to get input if Holmes’s termination case merits arbitration. The Council informs Evette that the termination should be arbitrated.
May, 2009 – worksite organizer Sara “Fred” Sherburn-Zimmer informs Shop Stewards Council that Holmes’s firing would be going to arbitration, but no paper work or date presented at that time.
July – Protests about unfair labor practices at THC begin at Modern Times Bookstore.
July – September, 2009 -- More unfair labor practices protests at THC Hyde Street Office and 472 Turk Street office.
September 14, 2009 – SEIU 1021 Sends Nate Holmes a letter affirming that they are taking his case to arbitration. However, as of this date Nate Holmes has still not seen copies of any papers filed for arbitration.
October 6, 2009 – No arbitration date set yet.
KPFA Anti-Labor host Brian Edward-Tiekert Interviews Union Buster Randy Shaw: Shaw Pushing CL "Save KPFA" Entrenched Group At KPFA In Elections 33 minutes into program/Blames Meltdown for lack of labor programming on Labor Day
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/63935
Home › KPFA Archives › The Morning Show - September 13, 2010 at 7:00am
The Morning Show - September 13, 2010 at 7:00am
Email this page Share:
The Morning Show, for September 13, 2010 - 7:00am
Click to Play:
Download this clip (mp3, 20.55 megabytes)
Play this clip in your Computer's media player
Link:
Embed:
More from this show: About the Show | Archives of this Show | Playlists from this Show
Login
Follow the discussion
Comment (1)
Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity
0
LEAH· 9 minutes ago
ONE state is the only solution at this time.
Too much land has been stolen to really see Palestine function.
Communities have been separated by Jewish military check points. The best fertile land has been confiscated, water rights and access has been denied to Palestinians and so on.......
One state is the best solution for reversing Palestinian ethnic cleansing.
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/63935
Home › KPFA Archives › The Morning Show - September 13, 2010 at 7:00am
The Morning Show - September 13, 2010 at 7:00am
Email this page Share:
The Morning Show, for September 13, 2010 - 7:00am
Click to Play:
Download this clip (mp3, 20.55 megabytes)
Play this clip in your Computer's media player
Link:
Embed:
More from this show: About the Show | Archives of this Show | Playlists from this Show
Login
Follow the discussion
Comment (1)
Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity
0
LEAH· 9 minutes ago
ONE state is the only solution at this time.
Too much land has been stolen to really see Palestine function.
Communities have been separated by Jewish military check points. The best fertile land has been confiscated, water rights and access has been denied to Palestinians and so on.......
One state is the best solution for reversing Palestinian ethnic cleansing.
For more information:
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/63935
These CLers, knock off Save KPFAers, want everyone to ignore what they did to push the Foundation to the edge of bankruptcy! And then they mess with the $375,000 check and cause Pacifica/KPFA to lose direct control of that money! And they want to continue? They have NEVER accepted responsibility for what they have done!
THE PACIFICA FINANCIAL CRISIS!
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
Former WBAI management did not pay their rent for four months and received a Three Day Notice to pay or be subject to eviction in March of 2009. This was not promptly communicated to the financial or executive management of Pacifica. WBAI has been losing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for several years and currently owes Pacifica over $1,100,000.00 in back central services contributions. Each station contributes 20% of its listener-generated revenue to run the Foundation. When one station isn’t making its contribution the results are that the Foundation is short on money or the other stations have to pay more. This several year problem at WBAI and the current economic downturn has caused serious financial problems for Pacifica. The current Pacifica National Board (PNB), elected in January, gives hope for the survival of Pacifica.
Why didn’t Pacifica correct this problem early on? There was collusion among some PNB members from various stations to allow WBAI to do what they wanted to do with no oversight or accountability to the Bylaws or the listener/subscribers. The major players in this collusion were from KPFA, WBAI and WPFW, with a vote or two from KPFK and KPFT and the affiliate Reps on the PNB of past years.
The Local Station Board (LSB) majorities at KPFA and WBAI generally elected three PNB members that supported this collusion and WPFW, until recently, often sent four. There are 22 members of the PNB, four from each station and two Affiliate Representatives. An LSB majority can elect three of the four PNB members for their station. With ten votes from KPFA, WBAI and WPFW it only takes three votes from the ten from the other two stations and affiliate reps to have a majority to control the PNB and continue this collusion. Until this last January the Colluders had the majority for several years.
Who are the Colluders and why did they do this? Local tyrannical majorities wanted to run their stations without regard to the Bylaws and with no oversight from the Foundation. At KPFA the “KPFAForward” (2004) and “Concerned Listener” (CL) (2006 & 2007) slates represented the same management/staff faction and generally endorsed majorities that sent three PNB members who consistently voted to protect and continue the collusion. This group included William Walker, Sarv Randhawa, Rosalinda Palacios, Mary Berg, Sherry Gendelman, Bonnie Simmons and Andrea Turner. They consistently vote/voted with the Justice & Unity majority from WBAI and the WPFW majority. They generally sit together at the PNB meetings and are regularly seen privately caucusing together at lunch and before and after meetings, sometimes with GM Lemlem Rijio when in Berkeley.
Prior to this year’s PNB, Bob Lederer was the Justice & Unity leader on the PNB. I have attended many PNB meetings and listened to most of the others on line. During those meetings if KPFA Colluder PNB members were not sure how to vote they often passed if Bob Lederer hadn’t voted or passed. When he voted they would follow. If you don’t believe me go to the archives of the meetings and listen.
Whenever there was a move to correct the problems at WBAI the KPFA Colluders always voted with the others to protect the LSB majority at WBAI. Patty Heffley, the minority PNB Rep from WBAI, made a motion to have the PNB order the WBAI LSB to do a performance review of the general manager (GM) and the program director. The Bylaws require these to be done annually. At WBAI they had never been done, despite complaints from the LSB minority. The PNB Colluder majority refused to order the WBAI LSB to follow the Bylaws. Many others complained about WBAI being out of control and losing money and the Colluder PNB majority did NOTHING as the red ink continued to flow.
At KPFA the CL slate and the Rijio/Lilley management work together to make sure they maintain a majority on the LSB to elect three PNB members from their group. One of their methods was to have no election information on the air when the ballots went out and at the same time the CL sent a slate mailer. After the first time this happened I wrote a motion on the PNB Election Committee requiring election information to be on the air during the election. It passed out of the election committee by a 10-2 vote. The Colluder majority on the PNB voted it down. When KPFA finally ran some candidate information they ran 22 candidate statements in a row, always with Sherry Gendelman first! At the April 2009 PNB meeting in Berkeley the new non-Colluder PNB majority passed a motion requiring broad election coverage on the air. Bonnie Simmons, CL endorser, made a motion to rescind the required election coverage. It didn’t pass. And we will have a more inclusive election this year, no thanks to CL and its allies.
The Colluder majority was consistently against transparency. The Bylaws and California law allow Directors the “absolute right” to inspect all documents and facilities at any reasonable time. For years the Colluders fought to stop or hinder Directors’ Inspections. When inspections were finally allowed due to potential lawsuits it was discovered that $65,000 worth of equipment had been sent to a WBAI former GM’s father’s house and was not accounted for. As recently as 2008 a Director was ordered out of WBAI in the middle of a lawful inspection without any justification. Who gave the order? Dan Siegel, interim Executive Director, hired by the Colluder majority and a recent CL candidate.
So when you hear Brian Edwards-Tiekert, Sherry Gendelman, Bonnie Simmons, Conn or Matthew Hallinan, Warren Mar or any of the CL allies complain about KPFA money going to shore up WBAI, they and their allies are responsible for this crisis for trading fiscal responsibility for their power to ignore the Bylaws, transparency and accountability.
KPFA/Pacifica is a Commons that belongs to all of us, and it must be protected and preserved above the CL/Rijio group’s desire for unrestrained and unaccountable power.
Richard Phelps, former Chair, KPFA LSB Original article May 2009
Hi Randy,
It's pleasantly ironic that when I went looking for this article on the Beyond Chron site, the cover story was about Emmitt Powell and the "Fight to Save Powell's Place".
As you know, Emmitt is the long-time KPFA host of the Gospel Experience. He is endorsing the Independents for Community Radio slate in the KPFA election and his co-host Gabrielle Wilson is an ICR-aligned staff candidate.
Small world.
I hate to tell people this, but downsizing at KPFA has nothing, at all, to do with which slate they vote for. Downsizing at KPFA has to do with red ink. Caused by the Save KPFA slate which failed to implement their OWN budgets, which called for modest downsizing in both 2008 and 2009. Result: a million dollars in reserve cash spent, an empty bank account and a 2010 budget with an $800,000 hole. Voting doesn't make money appear in the bank when it isn't there.
Speaking of Lew Hill: the man went to jail rather than fight in WWII. And then founded a radio station to put on air what could never get on the air anywhere else. His words, not mine.
Hill was extremely interested in what the listeners had to say about programming and operations at KPFA. Here he is - again in his own words - from a 1952 Report to the Listeners.
“There was such a letter in the mail this morning, from a San Francisco physician. To indicate the importance of this for the substance of our weekly Report, I might add that next week at this time I plan to comment on the questions the letter raises. …The gentleman writing states that he feels KPFA's whole program is a fine well-rounded one culturally speaking, and he wishes he could believe a large audience would stop and listen to it. But he doesn't. And for this reason he advances specific suggestions for changes in our medium, from FM to AM, in our hours of broadcasting, in the types of our programs, in our signal power, and in our publicity procedures. He concludes by saying that he believes we at KPFA are very stubborn and set in our conviction that we are doing the job in the best way, and that he does not expect we will adopt his suggestions, but wishes us well anyway and hopes to cooperate to any extent possible in what the project is doing. Needless to say this communication is very challenging and sweeping, and also a very warming one. Next week perhaps you will join me again for a discussion of it”.
Rather than being angered and threatened by listener input into the radio station - Hill is "warmed" and eager to discuss it. Quite right for a community-based organization, if you ask me.
Ethics can be an interesting thing. The article was about a week of encounters with what the Colbert Report calls "truthiness". One of those was a benefit for the slate called Save KPFA also known as Concerned Listeners. The benefit was described as "KPFA's benefit to help it survive till the end of the year". But KPFA was not the beneficiary of any of the funds raised at the benefit. It all went to pay for a glossy election mailer for the Save KPFA/Concerned Listeners slate.
Like I said, truthiness. Otherwise known as lack of ethics.
There is also lack of taste. Pushing Limits, a show that was awarded a Best of the Bay prize by the East Bay Express, is a show by and for disabled Bay Areans. I know it can be hard to believe, but it is harder and it takes longer to produce radio shows when you are suffering from one or more disabilities. It takes many people to put together the show, but they do it as volunteers because it matters so much to them.
I guess you could award the Pushing Limits producers 3/5 of a vote, but I thought that kind of thing went out of style in the 19th century.
More importantly: Vote ICR. http://www.voteindyradio.org. Putting the community back in community radio.
Tracy Rosenberg
Executive Director, Media Alliance
Member, Pacifica National Board
Board Member, Media and Democracy Coalition
Board Member, Alliance for Community Media, Western Region
It's pleasantly ironic that when I went looking for this article on the Beyond Chron site, the cover story was about Emmitt Powell and the "Fight to Save Powell's Place".
As you know, Emmitt is the long-time KPFA host of the Gospel Experience. He is endorsing the Independents for Community Radio slate in the KPFA election and his co-host Gabrielle Wilson is an ICR-aligned staff candidate.
Small world.
I hate to tell people this, but downsizing at KPFA has nothing, at all, to do with which slate they vote for. Downsizing at KPFA has to do with red ink. Caused by the Save KPFA slate which failed to implement their OWN budgets, which called for modest downsizing in both 2008 and 2009. Result: a million dollars in reserve cash spent, an empty bank account and a 2010 budget with an $800,000 hole. Voting doesn't make money appear in the bank when it isn't there.
Speaking of Lew Hill: the man went to jail rather than fight in WWII. And then founded a radio station to put on air what could never get on the air anywhere else. His words, not mine.
Hill was extremely interested in what the listeners had to say about programming and operations at KPFA. Here he is - again in his own words - from a 1952 Report to the Listeners.
“There was such a letter in the mail this morning, from a San Francisco physician. To indicate the importance of this for the substance of our weekly Report, I might add that next week at this time I plan to comment on the questions the letter raises. …The gentleman writing states that he feels KPFA's whole program is a fine well-rounded one culturally speaking, and he wishes he could believe a large audience would stop and listen to it. But he doesn't. And for this reason he advances specific suggestions for changes in our medium, from FM to AM, in our hours of broadcasting, in the types of our programs, in our signal power, and in our publicity procedures. He concludes by saying that he believes we at KPFA are very stubborn and set in our conviction that we are doing the job in the best way, and that he does not expect we will adopt his suggestions, but wishes us well anyway and hopes to cooperate to any extent possible in what the project is doing. Needless to say this communication is very challenging and sweeping, and also a very warming one. Next week perhaps you will join me again for a discussion of it”.
Rather than being angered and threatened by listener input into the radio station - Hill is "warmed" and eager to discuss it. Quite right for a community-based organization, if you ask me.
Ethics can be an interesting thing. The article was about a week of encounters with what the Colbert Report calls "truthiness". One of those was a benefit for the slate called Save KPFA also known as Concerned Listeners. The benefit was described as "KPFA's benefit to help it survive till the end of the year". But KPFA was not the beneficiary of any of the funds raised at the benefit. It all went to pay for a glossy election mailer for the Save KPFA/Concerned Listeners slate.
Like I said, truthiness. Otherwise known as lack of ethics.
There is also lack of taste. Pushing Limits, a show that was awarded a Best of the Bay prize by the East Bay Express, is a show by and for disabled Bay Areans. I know it can be hard to believe, but it is harder and it takes longer to produce radio shows when you are suffering from one or more disabilities. It takes many people to put together the show, but they do it as volunteers because it matters so much to them.
I guess you could award the Pushing Limits producers 3/5 of a vote, but I thought that kind of thing went out of style in the 19th century.
More importantly: Vote ICR. http://www.voteindyradio.org. Putting the community back in community radio.
Tracy Rosenberg
Executive Director, Media Alliance
Member, Pacifica National Board
Board Member, Media and Democracy Coalition
Board Member, Alliance for Community Media, Western Region
Tracy refers to the benefit for SaveKPFA (http://www.savekpfa.org) which was put on by concerned activists at the Humanist Hall. The activist who issued the call freely admits she made an error and then quickly corrected it. You can read the story here:
http://humanisthall.net/wp/2010/08/20/vote-to-save-kpfa/
On the voting of unpaid staff, I believe Randy's point is a structural one: large "collectives" that include many members who may or may not do actual work at KPFA have been given votes for all their members. Whether they actually do the work or not hasn't been verified. Some are friends of friends, etc., what Mayor Daley used to call "packing the voter rolls."
No one in any faction would argue that a worker should have less than a vote; what some do feel is that clear verification of whether those workers actually work at KPFA -- and should be listed on the voter rolls -- is crucial.
http://humanisthall.net/wp/2010/08/20/vote-to-save-kpfa/
On the voting of unpaid staff, I believe Randy's point is a structural one: large "collectives" that include many members who may or may not do actual work at KPFA have been given votes for all their members. Whether they actually do the work or not hasn't been verified. Some are friends of friends, etc., what Mayor Daley used to call "packing the voter rolls."
No one in any faction would argue that a worker should have less than a vote; what some do feel is that clear verification of whether those workers actually work at KPFA -- and should be listed on the voter rolls -- is crucial.
Hi Ann,
It is appalling to state on a public website that funds from a benefit are going to a different beneficiary than the one the funds are actually going to. It is a serious ethical violation and as much as "Save KPFA" wants to backtrack about a "mistake", it is an ugly and incompetent action. In my view, "mistakes" like that are pretty strong evidence of the inability to govern and run a nonprofit foundation.
Save KPFA/Concerned Listener's track record includes many actions that support that conclusion, including the financial catastrophe and the inability to hold management accountable for following budgets, police assaults on the premises, fair treatment of workers, reported funds in the bank accounts they are reported to be in, and other basic requirements of governance.
I think that is clearly demonstrated by the obsession with the voting rights of a disability collective.
All unpaid workers are vetted by both the Unpaid Staff Organization and the programs supervisor as well as KPFA's election staff. Trying to eliminate workers who Save KPFA/Concerned Listeners and some KPFA staffers don't think will vote for their handpicked choices for the board is discrimination and a profound violation of workers rights.
I hope that isn't what you are advocating for. It is a very anti-labor position.
Best,
Tracy
It is appalling to state on a public website that funds from a benefit are going to a different beneficiary than the one the funds are actually going to. It is a serious ethical violation and as much as "Save KPFA" wants to backtrack about a "mistake", it is an ugly and incompetent action. In my view, "mistakes" like that are pretty strong evidence of the inability to govern and run a nonprofit foundation.
Save KPFA/Concerned Listener's track record includes many actions that support that conclusion, including the financial catastrophe and the inability to hold management accountable for following budgets, police assaults on the premises, fair treatment of workers, reported funds in the bank accounts they are reported to be in, and other basic requirements of governance.
I think that is clearly demonstrated by the obsession with the voting rights of a disability collective.
All unpaid workers are vetted by both the Unpaid Staff Organization and the programs supervisor as well as KPFA's election staff. Trying to eliminate workers who Save KPFA/Concerned Listeners and some KPFA staffers don't think will vote for their handpicked choices for the board is discrimination and a profound violation of workers rights.
I hope that isn't what you are advocating for. It is a very anti-labor position.
Best,
Tracy
Wow, personal attack instead of facts seems to be what you are best at Tracy.
No one is being anti-worker or anti-disabled by questioning how the voting rolls at KPFA have been played with, and you know it. Like your friend Steve Zeltzer, you are quick to slap the "anti-labor" (or "anti-disabled" or "against young people") label for anyone who questions your or your slate's (Independents for Community Radio) positions.
And it isn't just "Pushing Limits" that is at issue here, it is all of the "collectives" which however much one might support them and the work they do, must be assessed fairly to make sure the folks in them are actually working on KPFA programs.
Fairness at KPFA, what a thought, eh?
The problem is widely known among staff at the station (unpaid and paid). Seems Randy was trying to educate a broader audience about what are in fact very real debates inside KPFA and the Pacifica network.
As for the "financial catastrophe" you blame on your opponents (more off the charts rhetoric), the network's problems have to do with a decline in listener donations due to the economic climate and also disgust with the kind of rhetoric your side puts forward.
KPFA is more and more seen as a bunch of squabbling sectarians because of the kind of completely untrue accusations you and your colleagues lob like grenades, twisting anyone's statement to fit your version of reality.
You are the most destructive bunch of "activists" some of us have ever seen. Once KPFA is gone, what will you "organize" next?
By the way, that's why most sane people are ignoring these posts. It is pretty obvious many of those who post here on KPFA are off the deep end.
No one is being anti-worker or anti-disabled by questioning how the voting rolls at KPFA have been played with, and you know it. Like your friend Steve Zeltzer, you are quick to slap the "anti-labor" (or "anti-disabled" or "against young people") label for anyone who questions your or your slate's (Independents for Community Radio) positions.
And it isn't just "Pushing Limits" that is at issue here, it is all of the "collectives" which however much one might support them and the work they do, must be assessed fairly to make sure the folks in them are actually working on KPFA programs.
Fairness at KPFA, what a thought, eh?
The problem is widely known among staff at the station (unpaid and paid). Seems Randy was trying to educate a broader audience about what are in fact very real debates inside KPFA and the Pacifica network.
As for the "financial catastrophe" you blame on your opponents (more off the charts rhetoric), the network's problems have to do with a decline in listener donations due to the economic climate and also disgust with the kind of rhetoric your side puts forward.
KPFA is more and more seen as a bunch of squabbling sectarians because of the kind of completely untrue accusations you and your colleagues lob like grenades, twisting anyone's statement to fit your version of reality.
You are the most destructive bunch of "activists" some of us have ever seen. Once KPFA is gone, what will you "organize" next?
By the way, that's why most sane people are ignoring these posts. It is pretty obvious many of those who post here on KPFA are off the deep end.
If the staff is so opposed to the ICR. Voices for Justice, Peoples Radio, et al Why are four out of the six staff reps on the Board allied with the opposition groups ? How could they be elected ?
You refer to Steve Zeltzer as Tracy's ''friend'' . If that's the case why has Zeltzer blasted ICR and Tracy in candidates forums almost as much as he has attacked the CL '' Save KPFA'' clique ?
You refer to Steve Zeltzer as Tracy's ''friend'' . If that's the case why has Zeltzer blasted ICR and Tracy in candidates forums almost as much as he has attacked the CL '' Save KPFA'' clique ?
Hi Ann,
Sorry but it does strike me as patently absurd to spend a lot of time - as Save KPFA/Concerned Listeners - does expressing profound alarm that unpaid workers at KPFA get to vote for their staff representatives. That seems like pretty basic workplace rights to me.
Even if it means that many of them don't choose to vote for the Save KPFA/Concerned Listeners slate.
I think programming collectives are desirable. Most of the community radio universe does. It brings a broad range of voices and perspectives to the table and accurately portrays the diversity present in communities. It is a meaningfully radical alternative to the gatekeeper mentality of the mainstream media. That is what we're all fighting against. Or should be.
I'm not interested in replacing centrist gatekeepers with liberal/progressive gatekeepers. That is not going to change the world.
The Pacifica National Board recently developed and will be implementing a staff registry database for all unpaid staff that will track staff hours worked. This could have been solved many years ago by KPFA management implementing the advanced system called "time cards", but despite many requests, they failed to do so.
I guess it was easier to simply cast aspersions at the unpaid staff. But it's not very respectful to the workers who generate 2/3 of the programming. Neither were the trespassing charges and violent arrest meted out to unpaid staffer Nadra Foster. It still pains me greatly that KPFA's board never acted to investigate the incident or hold anyone accountable. But Independents for Community Radio had not yet been formed at that time and Concerned Listeners held the majority on the board ... and opted to do nothing.
It's not rhetoric to pass budgets in response to economic crisis and then refuse to follow them and keep spending faster than the money comes in. It is just poor management and an irresponsible board failing to protect the assets.
KPFA's future is dependent on a reasonable financial assessment of what resources are available and how they can best be deployed to provide a unique broadcasting service.
That's not been Concerned Listeners/Save KPFA's strong point.
Vote Independents for Community Radio. http://www.voteindyradio.org.
Best,
Tracy
Sorry but it does strike me as patently absurd to spend a lot of time - as Save KPFA/Concerned Listeners - does expressing profound alarm that unpaid workers at KPFA get to vote for their staff representatives. That seems like pretty basic workplace rights to me.
Even if it means that many of them don't choose to vote for the Save KPFA/Concerned Listeners slate.
I think programming collectives are desirable. Most of the community radio universe does. It brings a broad range of voices and perspectives to the table and accurately portrays the diversity present in communities. It is a meaningfully radical alternative to the gatekeeper mentality of the mainstream media. That is what we're all fighting against. Or should be.
I'm not interested in replacing centrist gatekeepers with liberal/progressive gatekeepers. That is not going to change the world.
The Pacifica National Board recently developed and will be implementing a staff registry database for all unpaid staff that will track staff hours worked. This could have been solved many years ago by KPFA management implementing the advanced system called "time cards", but despite many requests, they failed to do so.
I guess it was easier to simply cast aspersions at the unpaid staff. But it's not very respectful to the workers who generate 2/3 of the programming. Neither were the trespassing charges and violent arrest meted out to unpaid staffer Nadra Foster. It still pains me greatly that KPFA's board never acted to investigate the incident or hold anyone accountable. But Independents for Community Radio had not yet been formed at that time and Concerned Listeners held the majority on the board ... and opted to do nothing.
It's not rhetoric to pass budgets in response to economic crisis and then refuse to follow them and keep spending faster than the money comes in. It is just poor management and an irresponsible board failing to protect the assets.
KPFA's future is dependent on a reasonable financial assessment of what resources are available and how they can best be deployed to provide a unique broadcasting service.
That's not been Concerned Listeners/Save KPFA's strong point.
Vote Independents for Community Radio. http://www.voteindyradio.org.
Best,
Tracy
There are two main issues in this election as in the past elections, finance and programming autonomy.
What to do in time of declining revenue where station is facing layoffs? That is the reason why the Save KPFA (Concerned Listeners) says that the main function of the Local Station Board is fund raising. Of course raising money is important and fund raising is one of the functions of the governing board, but we need to be vigilant that KPFA do not to make the Faustian Bargain that the Democratic Party made in 1985 with the creation of the Democratic Leadership Council.
With the introduction of democratic governance in 2003, the Pacifica Bylaws mandate that the board should work with station management to ensure that station policies and procedures for making programming decisions and for program evaluation are working in a fair, collaborative and respectful manner to provide quality programming. The KPFA Local Station Board created the Program Council to do this. Understandably people who make programming decisions at the station would resent the loss of autonomy, which is why there is an ongoing battle over the Program Council.
Last year when I was running with the Independents for Community Radio, Brian Edwards-Tiekert in support of Concerned Listen slate said: “There’s a group on KPFA’s board—they run under a different banner every year—that is hostile to the station’s professional staff, enamored of conspiracy theories, doctrinaire in their approach to public affairs, and sectarian in their approach to internal politics – they’d rather attack KPFA than improve it.”
I replied that I am running against the CL majority and I am none of the things Brian says. I appreciate all the staff, both paid and unpaid and their commitment in the low paying field of community radio. And I also totally understand the paid staff concerns for their jobs; I also appreciate their understandable misgivings about the possibly intrusive/disruptive involvement of the “Listener Board” as expressed in their open letter to the LSB in 2004. No one denies that democracy is a messy endeavor and that disagreement can be tiring, but we know too well what lies in at the end of the impulse to silence others.
This year SaveKPFA (last year's Concerned Listeners) seems to be making the same straw man arguments against the Independents for Community Radio.
What to do in time of declining revenue where station is facing layoffs? That is the reason why the Save KPFA (Concerned Listeners) says that the main function of the Local Station Board is fund raising. Of course raising money is important and fund raising is one of the functions of the governing board, but we need to be vigilant that KPFA do not to make the Faustian Bargain that the Democratic Party made in 1985 with the creation of the Democratic Leadership Council.
With the introduction of democratic governance in 2003, the Pacifica Bylaws mandate that the board should work with station management to ensure that station policies and procedures for making programming decisions and for program evaluation are working in a fair, collaborative and respectful manner to provide quality programming. The KPFA Local Station Board created the Program Council to do this. Understandably people who make programming decisions at the station would resent the loss of autonomy, which is why there is an ongoing battle over the Program Council.
Last year when I was running with the Independents for Community Radio, Brian Edwards-Tiekert in support of Concerned Listen slate said: “There’s a group on KPFA’s board—they run under a different banner every year—that is hostile to the station’s professional staff, enamored of conspiracy theories, doctrinaire in their approach to public affairs, and sectarian in their approach to internal politics – they’d rather attack KPFA than improve it.”
I replied that I am running against the CL majority and I am none of the things Brian says. I appreciate all the staff, both paid and unpaid and their commitment in the low paying field of community radio. And I also totally understand the paid staff concerns for their jobs; I also appreciate their understandable misgivings about the possibly intrusive/disruptive involvement of the “Listener Board” as expressed in their open letter to the LSB in 2004. No one denies that democracy is a messy endeavor and that disagreement can be tiring, but we know too well what lies in at the end of the impulse to silence others.
This year SaveKPFA (last year's Concerned Listeners) seems to be making the same straw man arguments against the Independents for Community Radio.
Dear BeyondChron Editors Shaw and Hogarth,
I'm truly disgusted with both of you, almost beyond words. The visual you chose has no connection to the slate you are endorsing, which is confusing voters by running under another group's name. ("KPFA Election Will Decide Progressive Networks Future," 9/13/2010) Your use of a 1999 photo of a different group is beyond disingenuous.
Not only were people on the slate you continue to promote not members of Save KPFA in 1999, they stand for the exact opposite of what we wanted for the station. (I was a member of the steering committee of the original Save KPFA.) A slate's sudden change to use of another group's name in the current KPFA board election is misleading to voters. You, and they, aren't stupid so I would guess you all know that.
Not only was the photo you chose a misrepresentation, your article was also filled with misinformation.
Several of us currently on the board and still involved with KPFA were organizing activists in 1999 as well and part of the original group. That includes one of candidates running with the Independents for Community Radio, another slate and one with which I am affiliated. Tracy Rosenberg kept the tent city that slept outside the station organized in the 1999 era of demonstrations. Those demonstrations led to a democratic change at the station and ended management's lockout of KPFA's staff. Do not state or insinuate that either Ms. Rosenberg or the rest of us are against the paid staff. Do not malign us with your misrepresentations that are beyond all but right-wing media tactics. Do not attempt to further baffle voters.
Let's look at your first paragraph and description of your favorite slate: "On one side is the Save KPFA slate of candidates, who believe the station should be the voice of the entire progressive community, and must expand listenership to help broaden the progressive base."
Are you sure they can do that with a slate of primarily white males over the age of sixty on a slate put together by a group of Democratic Party club activists? Many of their group – both presently on the board and currently running for the board – are also related or work together. I'd be interested in hearing how you think they are representative of the diverse Bay Area and can speak for people not of their generation, ethnicity, political affinity, immediate family or office staff.
On the other hand, Independents for Community Radio is primarily non-caucasian, female, cross-generational and mostly under the age of sixty, and not organized by any political party. We are truly diverse including in our much-needed skill sets.
Let's move on to what you insinuate we, Independents for Community Radio, want to do – without checking with us; another mistake that an honest journalist wouldn't make – "A victory by the Independents will likely usher in massive downsizing at KPFA, eliminating popular programming and replacing the current paid, unionized on-air staff with all volunteers."
First, let's remember that I already pointed out that we were the ones involved with ending the lockout of staff in 1999.
Now on to the present: The group you are so fond of held the board majority for three of the not quite four years I have been on the board. As such, they passed station budgets that had known spending deficits each year in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. They ran through KPFA's entire cash reserve of a million dollars as a result. They were told by Pacifica to cut spending and instead added paid positions and moved staff around that benefited people on our board and members of their group. or supporting them within the station. They ended up with new or better jobs at KPFA. KPFA ended up with more, not less, expenditures.
Today we are dealing with that legacy. This week the station borrowed money from another Pacifica station to meet the payroll. Will there need to be a different budget or can we continue spending at the same rate? The answer should not be beyond your comprehension. Before I forget, I guess that little detail about borrowing money also does away with another of your favorite slate's claims – that KPFA is supporting other Pacifica stations.
Will the now unavoidable budget cuts have an effect on paid staff? Of course, since salaries and benefits are the single largest budget item by far. Will that happen if your favorite slate is in the majority? Of course, since salaries and benefits are the single largest budget item by far. Who brought us to this point? Of course, your favorite slate.
Think fox and hen house. You need to move beyond thinking those who have almost killed the station will keep it alive in the future.
Every effort will be made to keep as much paid staff as possible by Independents for Community Radio. . . and to remove the foxes.
You really need to move beyond the concept that a political party should be running KPFA. Your willful disregard for how KPFA got to its present precarious state does not belong in journalism even if it is only on a blog site and pseudo-journalism. It is beyond the pale.
Sasha Futran
Member, KPFA Local Station Board and
Independents for Community Radio
http://www.voteindyradio.org/
I'm truly disgusted with both of you, almost beyond words. The visual you chose has no connection to the slate you are endorsing, which is confusing voters by running under another group's name. ("KPFA Election Will Decide Progressive Networks Future," 9/13/2010) Your use of a 1999 photo of a different group is beyond disingenuous.
Not only were people on the slate you continue to promote not members of Save KPFA in 1999, they stand for the exact opposite of what we wanted for the station. (I was a member of the steering committee of the original Save KPFA.) A slate's sudden change to use of another group's name in the current KPFA board election is misleading to voters. You, and they, aren't stupid so I would guess you all know that.
Not only was the photo you chose a misrepresentation, your article was also filled with misinformation.
Several of us currently on the board and still involved with KPFA were organizing activists in 1999 as well and part of the original group. That includes one of candidates running with the Independents for Community Radio, another slate and one with which I am affiliated. Tracy Rosenberg kept the tent city that slept outside the station organized in the 1999 era of demonstrations. Those demonstrations led to a democratic change at the station and ended management's lockout of KPFA's staff. Do not state or insinuate that either Ms. Rosenberg or the rest of us are against the paid staff. Do not malign us with your misrepresentations that are beyond all but right-wing media tactics. Do not attempt to further baffle voters.
Let's look at your first paragraph and description of your favorite slate: "On one side is the Save KPFA slate of candidates, who believe the station should be the voice of the entire progressive community, and must expand listenership to help broaden the progressive base."
Are you sure they can do that with a slate of primarily white males over the age of sixty on a slate put together by a group of Democratic Party club activists? Many of their group – both presently on the board and currently running for the board – are also related or work together. I'd be interested in hearing how you think they are representative of the diverse Bay Area and can speak for people not of their generation, ethnicity, political affinity, immediate family or office staff.
On the other hand, Independents for Community Radio is primarily non-caucasian, female, cross-generational and mostly under the age of sixty, and not organized by any political party. We are truly diverse including in our much-needed skill sets.
Let's move on to what you insinuate we, Independents for Community Radio, want to do – without checking with us; another mistake that an honest journalist wouldn't make – "A victory by the Independents will likely usher in massive downsizing at KPFA, eliminating popular programming and replacing the current paid, unionized on-air staff with all volunteers."
First, let's remember that I already pointed out that we were the ones involved with ending the lockout of staff in 1999.
Now on to the present: The group you are so fond of held the board majority for three of the not quite four years I have been on the board. As such, they passed station budgets that had known spending deficits each year in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. They ran through KPFA's entire cash reserve of a million dollars as a result. They were told by Pacifica to cut spending and instead added paid positions and moved staff around that benefited people on our board and members of their group. or supporting them within the station. They ended up with new or better jobs at KPFA. KPFA ended up with more, not less, expenditures.
Today we are dealing with that legacy. This week the station borrowed money from another Pacifica station to meet the payroll. Will there need to be a different budget or can we continue spending at the same rate? The answer should not be beyond your comprehension. Before I forget, I guess that little detail about borrowing money also does away with another of your favorite slate's claims – that KPFA is supporting other Pacifica stations.
Will the now unavoidable budget cuts have an effect on paid staff? Of course, since salaries and benefits are the single largest budget item by far. Will that happen if your favorite slate is in the majority? Of course, since salaries and benefits are the single largest budget item by far. Who brought us to this point? Of course, your favorite slate.
Think fox and hen house. You need to move beyond thinking those who have almost killed the station will keep it alive in the future.
Every effort will be made to keep as much paid staff as possible by Independents for Community Radio. . . and to remove the foxes.
You really need to move beyond the concept that a political party should be running KPFA. Your willful disregard for how KPFA got to its present precarious state does not belong in journalism even if it is only on a blog site and pseudo-journalism. It is beyond the pale.
Sasha Futran
Member, KPFA Local Station Board and
Independents for Community Radio
http://www.voteindyradio.org/
To the Editor:
I find your article about the upcoming KPFA LSB elections hopelessly biased and ethically problematic in its selective coverage of relevant issues and KPFA history. Where does the "Save" KPFA slate and its mostly white backers stand on, for example, the management decision to invoke violent police action at the station to forcibly remove a long-time volunteer and single parent woman of color?
Just ask your slate's paid staffers such as Sasha Lilley, who was instrumental in inviting police violence into the station ("We called the police"), and Mitch Jeserich and Aileen Alfandary, both of whom considered the unprecedented violence at the pacifist station "not newsworthy." It's the same kind of position you'd expect from folks who would eviscerate the Program Council and silence community input in general if they had their way, this at the first community-sponsored radio station in the country, no less.
It's clear what is meant by your slate's euphemisms of "professional," "quality programming," and "broadest possible audience" (i.e., anti-democratic corporatism), and the truth is, for those of us KPFA listener members who DO vote, we don't need the station we support to be turned into yet another corporatized, centrist, NPR affiliate clone whose programming is dominated by the concerns of privileged white people (white status both honorary and otherwise) who see themselves as progressive and yet insist on a traditional, top-down institutionalization of hierarchy founded on exclusionist values of whiteness and class privilege, the very antithesis of the democratic values the station was indeed founded on.
While you may try to paint a picture of your opposition as narrowly sectarian, in fact their platform is about ensuring access to the station by a rich diversity of communities through a truly democratic process. In reality, the "Save" KPFA slate is about eliminating that diverse access, centralizing power and catering to centrist interests such as those of the Democratic Party through homogenized, corporatist, NPR-like programming (e.g. contrast your slate's KPFA Evening News or Letters to Washington with the truth-telling courage and integrity of shows like Flashpoints, Hard Knock Radio, and Democracy Now).
Biased coverage such as yours only undermines your slate's credibility, not to mention that of your own blog. Why is it that what you report is so at odds with what has been reported elsewhere? Instead of only using quotes out of context that demonize your own slate's opposition, why not actually try to at least give the appearance of fairness and accuracy in your reporting? Why not include reasonable quotes from KPFA personnel like Anthony Fest or Robbie Osman, both of whom have written intelligent, informed pieces about the issues at stake?
Why not mention paid staff and "Save" KPFA slater Brian Edward-Twieckert's refusal to share his regime's problematic budget with the Station's own Board, or his own actions to undermine, if not dismantle, the Board itself? Or Sasha Lilley's and Lemlem Rijio's targeted gutting of Flashpoints? Or how your slate's allies succeeded at de-recognizing the Unpaid Staff organization? Why not consider the question that perhaps the current "crisis" could in fact be due to the cumulative mismanagement under the "Save"-allied leadership of Rijio/Twieckert/Lilley et al? Given the damage that they have already done, how could you honestly report that more of the same (i.e. the status quo that your slate represents) would be beneficial to the station or its listeners?
There's a reason your slate lost (and a reason why it had to change its name from Concerned Listeners, no doubt) and it has everything to do with a corporatist status quo-oriented denial of what really makes KPFA vibrant and essential to its community of truly concerned listener-members and voters.
Scott Tsuchitani
San Francisco
I find your article about the upcoming KPFA LSB elections hopelessly biased and ethically problematic in its selective coverage of relevant issues and KPFA history. Where does the "Save" KPFA slate and its mostly white backers stand on, for example, the management decision to invoke violent police action at the station to forcibly remove a long-time volunteer and single parent woman of color?
Just ask your slate's paid staffers such as Sasha Lilley, who was instrumental in inviting police violence into the station ("We called the police"), and Mitch Jeserich and Aileen Alfandary, both of whom considered the unprecedented violence at the pacifist station "not newsworthy." It's the same kind of position you'd expect from folks who would eviscerate the Program Council and silence community input in general if they had their way, this at the first community-sponsored radio station in the country, no less.
It's clear what is meant by your slate's euphemisms of "professional," "quality programming," and "broadest possible audience" (i.e., anti-democratic corporatism), and the truth is, for those of us KPFA listener members who DO vote, we don't need the station we support to be turned into yet another corporatized, centrist, NPR affiliate clone whose programming is dominated by the concerns of privileged white people (white status both honorary and otherwise) who see themselves as progressive and yet insist on a traditional, top-down institutionalization of hierarchy founded on exclusionist values of whiteness and class privilege, the very antithesis of the democratic values the station was indeed founded on.
While you may try to paint a picture of your opposition as narrowly sectarian, in fact their platform is about ensuring access to the station by a rich diversity of communities through a truly democratic process. In reality, the "Save" KPFA slate is about eliminating that diverse access, centralizing power and catering to centrist interests such as those of the Democratic Party through homogenized, corporatist, NPR-like programming (e.g. contrast your slate's KPFA Evening News or Letters to Washington with the truth-telling courage and integrity of shows like Flashpoints, Hard Knock Radio, and Democracy Now).
Biased coverage such as yours only undermines your slate's credibility, not to mention that of your own blog. Why is it that what you report is so at odds with what has been reported elsewhere? Instead of only using quotes out of context that demonize your own slate's opposition, why not actually try to at least give the appearance of fairness and accuracy in your reporting? Why not include reasonable quotes from KPFA personnel like Anthony Fest or Robbie Osman, both of whom have written intelligent, informed pieces about the issues at stake?
Why not mention paid staff and "Save" KPFA slater Brian Edward-Twieckert's refusal to share his regime's problematic budget with the Station's own Board, or his own actions to undermine, if not dismantle, the Board itself? Or Sasha Lilley's and Lemlem Rijio's targeted gutting of Flashpoints? Or how your slate's allies succeeded at de-recognizing the Unpaid Staff organization? Why not consider the question that perhaps the current "crisis" could in fact be due to the cumulative mismanagement under the "Save"-allied leadership of Rijio/Twieckert/Lilley et al? Given the damage that they have already done, how could you honestly report that more of the same (i.e. the status quo that your slate represents) would be beneficial to the station or its listeners?
There's a reason your slate lost (and a reason why it had to change its name from Concerned Listeners, no doubt) and it has everything to do with a corporatist status quo-oriented denial of what really makes KPFA vibrant and essential to its community of truly concerned listener-members and voters.
Scott Tsuchitani
San Francisco
The website for the Independents for Community Radio is at http://www.voteindyradio.org
The Concerned Listeners aka SLAVE KPFA mob have shown that they want to turn Pacifica into a Mainstream Liberal mouthpiece( another NPR) where true radicals need not apply. However, if they care so much about equality, why is there 80% unpaid staff, leaving 20 percent of the SLAVE KPFA TO DETERMINE THE OUT COME FOR THOSE 80% UNPAID STAFF MEANING VOLUNTEERS. ON THE LSB THERE IS ONE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNPAID STAFF HOW DOES THIS MAKE SENSE, AND THE SLAVE KPFA MAKES IT SO UNPAID STAFF ONLY HAS ONE VOTE THAT COULD OR COULD NOT INFLUENCE THE REST OF THE LSB. AT THE SAME TIME THEY VOTE WITH LSB MEMBERS, AND MOST OF THE TIME THEY ARE OUTNUMBERED. ALSO WHEN THE LAST MANAGER COLLEAGUE OF SLAVE KPFAS, IGNORED THE PROCESS OF UPSO. THEREFORE, MAKING UNPAID STAFF(VOLUNTEERS) EASIER TO TARGET FOR REMOVAL, AND FOR MOVING PEOPLE AROUND WITHOUT A LONG TERM PROCESS THAT HAD BEEN IN PLACE EVEN WITHOUT A MANAGER. NOW WE SEE THIS MINORITY SLAVE KPFA AS A THREAT TO THE WHOLE STATION WITH THE CORPORATE VIEW OF SLAVING KPFA, AND KICKING THE COMMUNITY OUT IN COMMUNITY RADIO. ASK THESE SLAVE KPFA HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT USING POLICE BRUTALITY, AND SACRIFICING VOLUNTEERS, COMMUNITY FOR THEIR PAYCHECKS. SLAVE KPFA WILL MAKE LISTENERS TRY TO PUT OUT MORE MONEY DURING FUND DRIVE, WHILE TRYING TO GET UNDERWRITING. FOLLOW THE MONEY OF THE SLAVE KPFA CAMPAIGN, AND HOW IS IT THAT THEY HAVE SO MUCH RESOURCES, TIME TO WRITE SELF PROMOTION ARTICLES, AND TRY TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES BY SELLING THE STATION OUT. SOME PEOPLE CALL IT MIDDLE CLASS, OTHERS CALL IT RICH AND YOU GOT TIME, AND MOST OF THE SLAVE KPFA CAMPAIGNERS ARE PAID STAFF?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$95.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network