A Perspective on the Pacifica Bylaws Referendum

Between 2007- 2017, I was aligned with the side that voted NO on the Bylaws referendum.
After 2017, I was aligned with the side that voted YES.

My perspective changed in 2017, when I became the Secretary of the PNB and the Audit Committee.

I saw that the Board spent all of the time fighting factional battles, instead of looking after the business of the Foundation.

When the current Bylaws were drafted in 2002, with a democratically elected Board, it looked good on paper, but in practice it has not worked.

Directors are elected based on their factional affiliation instead of their qualifications, so elections result in factional Board, and there is no mechanism to recruit and elect people with the experience and expertise to oversee corporation with a $10 million dollar annual budget.

Since Directors are elected to represent factions, people come on the Board to fight factional battles, instead of working together to look after the business of the Foundation.
The actual business required of the Board are few and non-contentious: adopting an annual budget, overseeing an annual audit, and hiring ED and CFO when there is a vacancy.

In 2018, I joined a group that started working on the new Bylaws, led by Carol Spooner who also headed the group that drafted the current Bylaws.

The new Bylaws tried to address the need for democratic representation with the need for experience and expertise on the Board.

However, like with any established organization, the stakeholders will oppose change even if the situation is dire. The opponents warned of loss of democracy and danger of corporate takeover.

Democracy is a system of collective self-government among equals. For democracy to work, there has to be an ethos that Board members must embody. This enables members to sustain their respect for each other’s equality amidst ongoing disputes. When the member’s factional affiliation takes precedence over the foundation's welfare, democracy devolves into a factional war where factions seek simply to rule.

The six initial at-large directors and the three alternates were hardly the candidates looking for a corporate takeover. They are all experienced progressives who were willing to give their time because they believed that Pacifica is an invaluable institution that was worth saving.

The opponents succeeding in defeating the Bylaws referendum.

The proponents made an honest attempt to make Pacifica better, more functional, and out of the hands of the current stakeholders including the proponents themselves.

Pacifica still need a functional Board that can ensure the financial health of the Foundation.