Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
The Lies & Falsification Of Pacifica's "New Day" Exposed By Lawsuit Judgement
The so called "New Day" faction which was supported by many media "stars" at KPFA and KPFK has been exposed as a con job and a complete fraud. It tried a take-over of Pacifica and was supported by the so called "Protectors" group at KPFA.They publicly claimed that they had won the election despite the fact that they lost it. The KPFA staff members who supported them and went along with this complete and total lie need to be held accountable. Do they really belong at a station that says that it tells the truth to listeners and supporters?
The members and supporters of the corporate take-over of Pacifica by the "New Day" faction faced a major blow when the Pacifica Foundation sued them and won a court judgment on all counts. It vindicated the opponents of the corporate bylaw change and exposed the unethical methods of "New Day".
The grouping was run by Beth Kean, a former union bureaucrat at the CNA representing Kaiser who while running the Kaiser division in Southern California pushed a two tier pay system for nurses at Southern California Kaiser. Her operation at Pacifica had no democratic structure and instead was run by a very small cabal of people. She personally used red baiting charging that Pacifica had been taken over by the Greens and Workers World Party.
She was joined by Chair, Sharon Kyle ("New Day"); Sharon Kyle ("Kyle"); Jan Goodman as Vice Chair of New Day Pacifica ("Vice Chair"); Jan Goodman ("Goodman"); Lyndon Foley, as Treasurer of New Day Pacifica ("Treasurer"); Lyndon Foley ("Foley"); Akio Tanaka, as Secretary of New Day Pacifica ("Secretary"); and Akio Tanaka ("Tanaka", and collectively, "Defendants").
After the election they and their supporters including "Save KPFA", "The Protectors" claimed that they had won the bylaw election even though the staff voted against the bylaw changes. They also used the Pacifica mailing system to raise money for their poltiical operation which violated the law. The judge ruled them against them and the illegal money they collected must be returned to Pacifiica Foundation. Also they are liable for the legal costs because of their false charges.
Their flagrant lies and falsification raise issues not only about their character but their supporters who were mostly paid staff at KPFA. Would they knowingly push this corrupt and dishonest political propaganda campaign that was a complete fraud? Would these staffers go along as well with the falsifications and lies to allow this power grab no matter what the costs? Only they can say but it also raises questions about their integrity and honesty for pushing this agenda at KPFA and Pacifica.
Pacifica Foundation Law Suit Against "New Day"
Case Number: 21BBCV00642 Hearing Date: October 15, 2021 Dept: A
Motion for Change of Venue
Calendar:
Add-On 5
Case No.:
21BBCV00642
Hearing Date:
October 15, 2021
Action Filed:
July 22, 2021
Trial Date:
Not Set
MP:
Defendant New Day Pacifica
RP:
Plaintiff Pacifica Foundation Inc.
ALLEGATIONS:
Plaintiff Pacifica Foundation Inc., a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Defendants New Day Pacifica, an Unincorporated Association, by its Chair, Sharon Kyle ("New Day"); Sharon Kyle ("Kyle"); Jan Goodman as Vice Chair of New Day Pacifica ("Vice Chair"); Jan Goodman ("Goodman"); Lyndon Foley, as Treasurer of New Day Pacifica ("Treasurer"); Lyndon Foley ("Foley"); Akio Tanaka, as Secretary of New Day Pacifica ("Secretary"); and Akio Tanaka ("Tanaka", and collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges that it held a referendum for a bylaw amendment proposal circulated by New Day, an unincorporated association of mostly Plaintiff's members, which failed. Despite this, Defendants publicly declared that the amendment proposal was adopted, and that they were now installed as Plaintiff's officers with control over Plaintiff's assets.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on July 22, 2021, and a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on August 30, 2021, alleging five (5) causes of action sounding in: (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Injunctive Relief; (3) Violation of California Corporations Code §§ 6338(a)(1) & (2); (4) Accounting; and (5) Unjust Enrichment.
PRESENTATION:
The Court received the Motion to Change Venue filed by New Day on October 06, 2021; and the opposition filed by Plaintiff on October 14, 2021.
On October 07, 2021, the Court granted New Day's Ex Parte Application to shorten the time for hearing the Motion to Change Venue and set the hearing date for the motion on October 15, 2021, with opposition to be filed by noon on October 14, 2021 and served electrically, and reply to be filed by 7:00 a.m. on the date of hearing and served electrically. Notice was waived.
RELIEF REQUESTED:
New Day moves for an order transferring the instant action to the Alameda County Superior Court. New Day also requests attorneys' fees and costs incurred by New Day in making the instant motion.
DISCUSSION:
Standard of Review – Change Venue – Under CCP § 397, the court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases: (a) When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court; (b) When there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein; (c) When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change; (d) When from any cause there is no judge of the court qualified to act; (e) When a proceeding for dissolution of marriage has been filed in the county in which the petitioner has been a resident for three months next preceding the commencement of the proceeding, and the respondent at the time of the commencement of the proceeding is a resident of another county in this state, to the county of the respondent's residence when the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. (Code Civ. Proc., § 397.)
Merits – New Day argues that the correct venue for the instant action is in the Alameda Superior Court pursuant to CCP §§ 395.2, 396, and 397. New Day contends that Plaintiff intentionally failed to disclose that New Day was registered in Oakland, California, within Alameda County, when filing venue disclosures with the Los Angeles Superior Court clerk, and intentionally avoided naming the single officer of New Day, Elizabeth Kean, a resident of Alameda County, and also intentionally and falsely named various Los Angeles residents as defendants and officers of New Day. New Day argues that transfer of the instant action is mandatory pursuant to CCP § 395.2, which provides:
If an unincorporated association has filed a statement with the Secretary of State pursuant to statute, designating its principal office in this state, the proper county for the trial of an action against the unincorporated association is the same as it would be if the unincorporated association were a corporation and, for the purpose of determining the proper county, the principal place of business of the unincorporated association shall be deemed to be the principal office in this state listed in the statement.
New Day contends that it is a registered unincorporated association with its principal office in Alameda County, and so CCP § 395.2 applies here. New Day further cites to CCP § 396b(a) and argues that transfer of venue is mandatory:
Except as otherwise provided in Section 396a, if an action or proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof, other than the court designated as the proper court for the trial thereof, under this title, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried in the court where commenced, unless the defendant, at the time he or she answers, demurs, or moves to strike, or, at his or her option, without answering, demurring, or moving to strike and within the time otherwise allowed to respond to the complaint, files with the clerk, a notice of motion for an order transferring the action or proceeding to the proper court, together with proof of service, upon the adverse party, of a copy of those papers. Upon the hearing of the motion the court shall, if it appears that the action or proceeding was not commenced in the proper court, order the action or proceeding transferred to the proper court.
In opposition, Plaintiff first cites to Easton v. Superior Court (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 243, 247, Clapp v. Kramer (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 237, 239, and Jhirmack Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 715, 722 and argues that its choice of venue is presumptively correct. Plaintiff also argues that the allegations in the FAC must be taken as true for the purposes of the instant motion, and that in any case, the individual defendants sued are residents of Los Angeles County, which makes this venue appropriate pursuant to CCP § 395. Plaintiff then cites to Donohoe v. Wooster (1912) 163 Cal. 114, 116 for the contention that a defendant is not entitled to have an action removed unless it appears that none of the other defendants are residents of the county in which the action is brought. Plaintiff's counsel asserts that Kyle and Goodman, at least, are Los Angeles County residents and have been personally served in the county. (Decl. Learned, ¶ 5.) Second, Plaintiff argues that Kyle and Goodman hold themselves out to be New Days' "Chair of the Transition Board" and "Vice-Chair of the Transition Board". (Decl. Learned, ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) Third, Plaintiff argues that the parties have previously entered into an agreement that provided that any dispute as to the referendum would be brought in Los Angeles County. (FAC, ¶ 22, Ex. D.) Third, Plaintiff argues that New Day injured Plaintiff in numerous ways within Los Angeles County. Plaintiff argues that New Day should not be awarded any fees, and instead, Plaintiff should be awarded its attorney fees in the amount of $8,480.
Paragraph 14 of the agreement referenced by Plaintiff, attached as Exhibit D to the FAC, states:
Disputes about the process, including issues addressed first by the Committee described in Paragraph 11, will be resolved by a neutral selected by the parties, paid for by Pacifica. The parties, via counsel, will select a neutral upon submission of the Petitions. The parties agree to utilize arbitration, rather than court litigation, to resolve disputes, in the interests of speed and economy. Arbitration hearings shall take place as soon as possible, not later than 7 days of request, and a decision will be issued on the day of the hearing. If compliance does not take place within 5 days, enforcement may be sought by either party by a court of competent jurisdiction in Los Angeles County.
This agreement includes the signature of the counsel of both parties at the bottom. On review of the agreement, the Court finds that facts underlying the instant action are within the bounds of the "process" referenced in the agreement. In interpreting what "process" means, the Court looks to the agreement as a whole and notes that the agreement explains its purpose in its first paragraph: "in order to address issues which may arise should members of New Day Pacifica submit a petition to the Pacifica Foundation with proposals to amend the Pacifica Foundation Bylaws during 2021". As the instant action requests declaratory and injunctive relief relating to alleged actions that New Day has, and is, taking, after the parties disagreed with the result of the amendment proposal, the choice of venue provision in paragraph 14 appears to govern the action. The Court will thus deny the instant motion on this basis.
Further, even if the Court were not to consider the choice of venue clause, the Court may still grant the motion. After taking into account the evidence provided by both parties, the Court finds for the purposes of the motion only that New Day has sufficiently shown that Elizabeth Kean is the sole officer of New Day. (Decl. Kean, ¶¶ 5-6.) Although Plaintiff argues that various defendants represent themselves to be officers on their webpage, Plaintiff does not cite to authority for the contention that a public self-representation has the legal effect of making a person an officer of an organization. For the purposes of the instant motion, the Court will consider Kean the sole officer of New Day. Even so, the FAC alleges, at the least, separate and distinct causes of action against Kyle and Goodman, including causes of action for violation of Corporations Code §§ 6338(a)(1) & (2), accounting, and unjust enrichment. As Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that Kyle and Goodman are residents of Los Angeles County, and as Plaintiff alleges causes of action against the two Defendants that are not reliant on their alleged officer roles, Plaintiff sufficiently rebuts New Day's contention that the FAC improperly sued various defendants in a bid to hold the case in Los Angeles County. To the extent New Day argues that these allegations have no merit, the instant motion is not an appropriate venue for that determination. Thus, pursuant to CCP § 395, which provides that "the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action", the Court will also deny the motion on this basis.
---
RULING:
In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.
ORDER
Defendant New Day Pacifica's Motion for Change of Venue came on regularly for hearing on October 15, 2021, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:
THE MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE IS DENIED.
The grouping was run by Beth Kean, a former union bureaucrat at the CNA representing Kaiser who while running the Kaiser division in Southern California pushed a two tier pay system for nurses at Southern California Kaiser. Her operation at Pacifica had no democratic structure and instead was run by a very small cabal of people. She personally used red baiting charging that Pacifica had been taken over by the Greens and Workers World Party.
She was joined by Chair, Sharon Kyle ("New Day"); Sharon Kyle ("Kyle"); Jan Goodman as Vice Chair of New Day Pacifica ("Vice Chair"); Jan Goodman ("Goodman"); Lyndon Foley, as Treasurer of New Day Pacifica ("Treasurer"); Lyndon Foley ("Foley"); Akio Tanaka, as Secretary of New Day Pacifica ("Secretary"); and Akio Tanaka ("Tanaka", and collectively, "Defendants").
After the election they and their supporters including "Save KPFA", "The Protectors" claimed that they had won the bylaw election even though the staff voted against the bylaw changes. They also used the Pacifica mailing system to raise money for their poltiical operation which violated the law. The judge ruled them against them and the illegal money they collected must be returned to Pacifiica Foundation. Also they are liable for the legal costs because of their false charges.
Their flagrant lies and falsification raise issues not only about their character but their supporters who were mostly paid staff at KPFA. Would they knowingly push this corrupt and dishonest political propaganda campaign that was a complete fraud? Would these staffers go along as well with the falsifications and lies to allow this power grab no matter what the costs? Only they can say but it also raises questions about their integrity and honesty for pushing this agenda at KPFA and Pacifica.
Pacifica Foundation Law Suit Against "New Day"
Case Number: 21BBCV00642 Hearing Date: October 15, 2021 Dept: A
Motion for Change of Venue
Calendar:
Add-On 5
Case No.:
21BBCV00642
Hearing Date:
October 15, 2021
Action Filed:
July 22, 2021
Trial Date:
Not Set
MP:
Defendant New Day Pacifica
RP:
Plaintiff Pacifica Foundation Inc.
ALLEGATIONS:
Plaintiff Pacifica Foundation Inc., a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Defendants New Day Pacifica, an Unincorporated Association, by its Chair, Sharon Kyle ("New Day"); Sharon Kyle ("Kyle"); Jan Goodman as Vice Chair of New Day Pacifica ("Vice Chair"); Jan Goodman ("Goodman"); Lyndon Foley, as Treasurer of New Day Pacifica ("Treasurer"); Lyndon Foley ("Foley"); Akio Tanaka, as Secretary of New Day Pacifica ("Secretary"); and Akio Tanaka ("Tanaka", and collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges that it held a referendum for a bylaw amendment proposal circulated by New Day, an unincorporated association of mostly Plaintiff's members, which failed. Despite this, Defendants publicly declared that the amendment proposal was adopted, and that they were now installed as Plaintiff's officers with control over Plaintiff's assets.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on July 22, 2021, and a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on August 30, 2021, alleging five (5) causes of action sounding in: (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Injunctive Relief; (3) Violation of California Corporations Code §§ 6338(a)(1) & (2); (4) Accounting; and (5) Unjust Enrichment.
PRESENTATION:
The Court received the Motion to Change Venue filed by New Day on October 06, 2021; and the opposition filed by Plaintiff on October 14, 2021.
On October 07, 2021, the Court granted New Day's Ex Parte Application to shorten the time for hearing the Motion to Change Venue and set the hearing date for the motion on October 15, 2021, with opposition to be filed by noon on October 14, 2021 and served electrically, and reply to be filed by 7:00 a.m. on the date of hearing and served electrically. Notice was waived.
RELIEF REQUESTED:
New Day moves for an order transferring the instant action to the Alameda County Superior Court. New Day also requests attorneys' fees and costs incurred by New Day in making the instant motion.
DISCUSSION:
Standard of Review – Change Venue – Under CCP § 397, the court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases: (a) When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court; (b) When there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein; (c) When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change; (d) When from any cause there is no judge of the court qualified to act; (e) When a proceeding for dissolution of marriage has been filed in the county in which the petitioner has been a resident for three months next preceding the commencement of the proceeding, and the respondent at the time of the commencement of the proceeding is a resident of another county in this state, to the county of the respondent's residence when the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. (Code Civ. Proc., § 397.)
Merits – New Day argues that the correct venue for the instant action is in the Alameda Superior Court pursuant to CCP §§ 395.2, 396, and 397. New Day contends that Plaintiff intentionally failed to disclose that New Day was registered in Oakland, California, within Alameda County, when filing venue disclosures with the Los Angeles Superior Court clerk, and intentionally avoided naming the single officer of New Day, Elizabeth Kean, a resident of Alameda County, and also intentionally and falsely named various Los Angeles residents as defendants and officers of New Day. New Day argues that transfer of the instant action is mandatory pursuant to CCP § 395.2, which provides:
If an unincorporated association has filed a statement with the Secretary of State pursuant to statute, designating its principal office in this state, the proper county for the trial of an action against the unincorporated association is the same as it would be if the unincorporated association were a corporation and, for the purpose of determining the proper county, the principal place of business of the unincorporated association shall be deemed to be the principal office in this state listed in the statement.
New Day contends that it is a registered unincorporated association with its principal office in Alameda County, and so CCP § 395.2 applies here. New Day further cites to CCP § 396b(a) and argues that transfer of venue is mandatory:
Except as otherwise provided in Section 396a, if an action or proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof, other than the court designated as the proper court for the trial thereof, under this title, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried in the court where commenced, unless the defendant, at the time he or she answers, demurs, or moves to strike, or, at his or her option, without answering, demurring, or moving to strike and within the time otherwise allowed to respond to the complaint, files with the clerk, a notice of motion for an order transferring the action or proceeding to the proper court, together with proof of service, upon the adverse party, of a copy of those papers. Upon the hearing of the motion the court shall, if it appears that the action or proceeding was not commenced in the proper court, order the action or proceeding transferred to the proper court.
In opposition, Plaintiff first cites to Easton v. Superior Court (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 243, 247, Clapp v. Kramer (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 237, 239, and Jhirmack Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 715, 722 and argues that its choice of venue is presumptively correct. Plaintiff also argues that the allegations in the FAC must be taken as true for the purposes of the instant motion, and that in any case, the individual defendants sued are residents of Los Angeles County, which makes this venue appropriate pursuant to CCP § 395. Plaintiff then cites to Donohoe v. Wooster (1912) 163 Cal. 114, 116 for the contention that a defendant is not entitled to have an action removed unless it appears that none of the other defendants are residents of the county in which the action is brought. Plaintiff's counsel asserts that Kyle and Goodman, at least, are Los Angeles County residents and have been personally served in the county. (Decl. Learned, ¶ 5.) Second, Plaintiff argues that Kyle and Goodman hold themselves out to be New Days' "Chair of the Transition Board" and "Vice-Chair of the Transition Board". (Decl. Learned, ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) Third, Plaintiff argues that the parties have previously entered into an agreement that provided that any dispute as to the referendum would be brought in Los Angeles County. (FAC, ¶ 22, Ex. D.) Third, Plaintiff argues that New Day injured Plaintiff in numerous ways within Los Angeles County. Plaintiff argues that New Day should not be awarded any fees, and instead, Plaintiff should be awarded its attorney fees in the amount of $8,480.
Paragraph 14 of the agreement referenced by Plaintiff, attached as Exhibit D to the FAC, states:
Disputes about the process, including issues addressed first by the Committee described in Paragraph 11, will be resolved by a neutral selected by the parties, paid for by Pacifica. The parties, via counsel, will select a neutral upon submission of the Petitions. The parties agree to utilize arbitration, rather than court litigation, to resolve disputes, in the interests of speed and economy. Arbitration hearings shall take place as soon as possible, not later than 7 days of request, and a decision will be issued on the day of the hearing. If compliance does not take place within 5 days, enforcement may be sought by either party by a court of competent jurisdiction in Los Angeles County.
This agreement includes the signature of the counsel of both parties at the bottom. On review of the agreement, the Court finds that facts underlying the instant action are within the bounds of the "process" referenced in the agreement. In interpreting what "process" means, the Court looks to the agreement as a whole and notes that the agreement explains its purpose in its first paragraph: "in order to address issues which may arise should members of New Day Pacifica submit a petition to the Pacifica Foundation with proposals to amend the Pacifica Foundation Bylaws during 2021". As the instant action requests declaratory and injunctive relief relating to alleged actions that New Day has, and is, taking, after the parties disagreed with the result of the amendment proposal, the choice of venue provision in paragraph 14 appears to govern the action. The Court will thus deny the instant motion on this basis.
Further, even if the Court were not to consider the choice of venue clause, the Court may still grant the motion. After taking into account the evidence provided by both parties, the Court finds for the purposes of the motion only that New Day has sufficiently shown that Elizabeth Kean is the sole officer of New Day. (Decl. Kean, ¶¶ 5-6.) Although Plaintiff argues that various defendants represent themselves to be officers on their webpage, Plaintiff does not cite to authority for the contention that a public self-representation has the legal effect of making a person an officer of an organization. For the purposes of the instant motion, the Court will consider Kean the sole officer of New Day. Even so, the FAC alleges, at the least, separate and distinct causes of action against Kyle and Goodman, including causes of action for violation of Corporations Code §§ 6338(a)(1) & (2), accounting, and unjust enrichment. As Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that Kyle and Goodman are residents of Los Angeles County, and as Plaintiff alleges causes of action against the two Defendants that are not reliant on their alleged officer roles, Plaintiff sufficiently rebuts New Day's contention that the FAC improperly sued various defendants in a bid to hold the case in Los Angeles County. To the extent New Day argues that these allegations have no merit, the instant motion is not an appropriate venue for that determination. Thus, pursuant to CCP § 395, which provides that "the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action", the Court will also deny the motion on this basis.
---
RULING:
In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.
ORDER
Defendant New Day Pacifica's Motion for Change of Venue came on regularly for hearing on October 15, 2021, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:
THE MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE IS DENIED.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 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
New Day Pacifica reports that: "Pacifica management and board majority, however, declared that the New Day bylaws referendum lost, contending that a staff veto trumps the will of the Pacifica Majority. New Day is contesting that decision and will use all available political and legal means to get the Vote Yes-NDP bylaws changes recognized and implemented.”
Hello KPFA Members,
Please VOTE for all 8 KPFA Protectors Candidates in KPFA’s Local Station Board Election. KPFA's building, staff and programming are at stake! Help safeguard independent, community responsive radio amidst global climate emergency and massive societal injustice. Please vote when you get your email ballot from the Pacifica Foundation on August 16 or later.
Look for your email ballot sent on August 16 or later from "vote simply voting".
For help getting an email or paper ballot write to kpfaprotectors [at] gmail.com.
For info about the candidates and election go to: https://www.kpfaprotectors.org.
Or request a ballot from Pacifica by clicking here.
"DISCLAIMER: “This is not an official communication from KPFA, their respective local station board, or, the Pacifica Foundation. Please note that you have received this because you are a member of KPFA. The communication was paid for and authored by KPFA Protectors (a member or member group) and should not be presumed to represent the official stance of the Pacifica Foundation or KPFA radio station."
KPFA Protectors Candidates support KPFA’s in depth coverage of climate emergency fires, draught, air pollution and devastating loss. We want to connect with schools and organizations to bring new voices to the air through KPFA’s four training programs. We appreciate that KPFA programming decisions are based on listener preference and are responsive to urgent news events.
KPFA is the most financially successful station in the network and KPFA’s building is being used as collateral for a $3.2 Million loan to pay off debt incurred at Pacifica station WBAI. We want all stations to improve their programming to become self-sustaining and for KPFA’s building to be safe for the future.
KPFA Protectors Support Democratic Majority Voting
The majority of KPFA’s staff and listener members voted for the New Day Pacifica bylaws for democratic representation and national board expertise as did the majority of listener members nationwide. However there was a questionably high staff NO vote from WBAI. New Day Pacifica reports that: "Pacifica management and board majority, however, declared that the New Day bylaws referendum lost, contending that a staff veto trumps the will of the Pacifica Majority. New Day is contesting that decision and will use all available political and legal means to get the Vote Yes-NDP bylaws changes recognized and implemented.”
Vote for all 8 KPFA Protector Candidates to keep KPFA strong:
Donald Goldmacher, Documentary Filmmaker, KPFA Board Member
Jake Varghese, Board Member, Our Revolution East Bay, Software Engineer
Catherine Tactaquin, Migrant Rights Advocate
Fred Dodsworth, Journalist, Editor, Housing Activist
Zack Kaldveer, Media Specialist, Environmental Advocate
Brian Crowell, Teacher Union Organizer
Leslie Howard, Yoga Educator, Fundraiser, Activist
Carlos Kohan, Physicist, Engineer, Latin America Analyst
Please endorse the candidates at: bit.ly/EndorseKPFAProtectors
KPFA Protectors Candidate Endorsers:
Mitch Jeserich, KPFA Producer and Host of Letters and Politics
Cat Brooks, KPFA Co-Host of Upfront
Brian Edwards-Tiekert, KPFA Co-Host of Upfront
Aileen Alfandary, KPFA News Producer and Host
Philip Maldari, KPFA Host of The Sunday Show
Sasha Lilley, Host of Against the Grain
Richard Wolinsky, KPFA Host of Bookwaves/Artwaves
Diana Martinez, KPFA Producer, Letters and Politics
Bob Baldock, KPFA Author Events Producer
Tim Lynch, KPFA Producer Host, Dead to the World
C. S. Soong, KPFA Host of Against the Grain
Ramsey Kanaan, Publisher, PM Press
Bill Anelli, Philosophy Professor, Modesto Junior College; chapter leader, Citizens' Climate Lobby Modesto Area
Steve Early, Journalist, author, and labor activist, member of CWA/NewsGuild
Suzanne Gordon, Author and Journalist
Colin Rajah, Immigrant Rights and Racial Justice Advocate
Nunu Kidane, Executive Director, Priority Africa Network
Edwin Batongbacal, Retired Social Worker; Activist for democracy in the Philippines; and member of Democratic Socialists of America in the U.S.
Jaime Geaga, Chair, Carlos Bulosan Book Club
Arnoldo Garcia, Restorative Justice Poetics
Estella Habal, Professor Emerita, San Jose State University
Frances M. Beal, Black Social Justice
Cynthia Bonta, Movement Elder
Susanne Jonas, Educator, University of California, Santa Cruz (Retired)
Christina Huggins, KPFA Local Station Board Chair
Darlene Pagano, KPFA Local Station Board Vice Chair
Carol Wolfley, KPFA Local Station Board Secretary
Sharon Adams, KPFA Local Station Board Treasurer
Terry Paris, KPFA Receptionist and Outreach work
Susan da Silva, KPFA Local Station Board Member
Aki Tanaka, KPFA Local Station Board Member
Rev. Kurt A. Kuhwald, Interfaith Community Organizer
Carol Coyote, Via Linder,Deborah Saliby, Suzy Fox,
Marti Zuckrowv, Michele LeVoy, Mayee Crispin,
Teri Lee. Jennifer Ferrigno, William Curry
(All titles are for identification purposes only)
However, posting something on October 17th regarding voting for people is cracked.
The election closed at 8:59pm on October 15th, two days after Repost posted.
So if you can't come up with any other reason not to vote for the "Protectors" ever again (even under whatever new name they adopt next year), vote for candidates that know what day it is.
Everything about running a radio station depends on knowing what day it is.
“The second question is WHO SPECIFICALLY IS RESPONSIBLE for not filing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting paperwork resulting in THE LOSS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS for Pacifica, is this person still on the any of the board or where how and why?”
“This first goes to the opponents. You have one minute.”
—
Steve Zeltzer answered,
“Yes, uh, Aki, AKIO TANAKA who is going to be the top officers of this new corporation, this new change corporation WAS RESPONSIBLE for this situation with CPB LOSING THIS FUNDING.”
—
I asked Renee, “can you ask the member who submitted this question when this happened?”
Renee replied, “It was submitted anonymously to the survey I sent to members. I randomly selected the question. “
——-
I asked Steve: “Can you give me the details? I am trying to find out when this took place.”
Steve has not replied.
——
I mentioned the incident to Henry Norr: “Do you think it was a coincidence that Steve was so ready with an answer to the question from the anonymous member.”
Henry replied: “Well, I've heard lots of people blame you, so I don't think the fact that Zeltzer did indicates he'd been tipped to the question, if that's what you are suggesting. If he had had advance knowledge of it, I imagine he would have had a more detailed answer prepared.”
I replied: “Do you think that the fact that lots of people blame me makes it true, or do you think lots of people got the same falsehood from the same source?”
——-
The people fighting for Pacifica should be fighting for the truth.
——