PACIFICA FOUNDATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Garden Room, DuPont Plaza Hotel 1500 New Hampshire Avenue Washington, D.C.
September 27-28, 1997
Saturday, September 27, 1997BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:Mary Frances Berry Jane Makela Frank Millspaugh Alexis Gonzales Dorothy Nasatir Michael Palmer David Acosta Jack O'Dell Adrian Zubrin Cheryl Fabio Bradford Roberta Brooks Ralph McNight Rob RobinsonSTAFF MEMBERS PRESENTDick Bunce Lynn Chadwick Gail Christian Garland Ganter Burt Glass Mark Schubb Pat Scott Mary Tilson Valerie Van Isler Bessie WashP R O C E E D I N G S
MR. O'DELL: On the record.
We are here today to try to lay out an agenda and make everybody comfortable. But it's especially a pleasure for me today to welcome our new Chair, Mary Frances Berry. All of you participated in our search and you know that Mary comes to us with great credentials as author and historian and former chancellor of a great university, University of Colorado, and as chair of the Civil Rights Commission.
I've seen Mary in the trenches this past week, having known her over a number of years and she brings more than just credentials. She brings an abundance of wisdom and a lot of heart. And so I'm reminded of Duke Ellington's words, we love you madly.
[Laughter.]
MR. O'DELL: So, Mary--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Thank you, Jack.
[Applause.]
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Thank you very much, Jack. I've been trying to learn something about this organization more than what I knew from just listening to some radio over the last few weeks and I'm not sure I've learned a great deal, and I'm still learning.
It is with trepidation that I have decided to become chair of this Board. This is a very complicated organization. It is more complicated than the University of Colorado, I supervised. It is more complicated than $12 billion worth of federal education programs, it's more complicated than the Commission which I thought was about as complicated as anything can get.
There is so much history that everybody has with each other. In many ways it reminds me of a dysfunctional family that's lived together too long and everybody has ancient grievances and memories about things that somebody did years ago. And it also is an example of what my brother said to me the other day, that in any organization including one he's associated with, the seven words that are the most deadly are, "but we've always done it that way." And one says that over and over again in this organization. It has major structural problems which I hadn't even thought about until the last few weeks. And I don't know how to solve them, and I don't know how they were created.
There are people of goodwill who want the organization to succeed. It has a great strategic plan, I don't know how much I can contribute to it, I am less sure today that I can contribute anything than I was when I agreed to become the chair of the Board.
I did not take this responsibility on to enhance my reputation.
[Laughter.]
MS. SCOTT: You would be sorely disappointed.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Right. I would like to believe that over the years that I've been in public life my reputation to those at least who know about it is well established. And that I do have a reputation for integrity, for standing on principle, but for being practical and for trying to get along with people and trying to work with what I have that's available to me.
I also do not, though, intend for this organization to destroy my reputation. If it ever appears to me that being associated with this organization is about to destroy my reputation for credibility, for candor, for honesty, for responsibility and integrity, then I will resign. I'm telling you that right now.
If it ever appears to me that most of the people who serve on this board are more interested in posturing, or more interested in issues of what they call power, more interested in being tied to some past that they remember and ten other people than it is to try to serve the interests of disseminating good public affairs programming to people and meeting community needs, and even thinking about how to expand that, then I will resign.
If it ever appears to me that there are not a sufficient number of people on this Board who are willing to try to move this organization forward, I started to say into the 21st Century, but the president is always saying that, so I won't say it--the bridge to the 21st Century--I will resign.
I'm telling you that just so you'll know that if I come one day and say, look, hey, it's not going to work. I've read the materials on the Internet. I've read all the things that people send me on e-mail. I've read all the people fighting over procedural issues and I think that most of the process issues are about people who disagree substantively with the way it has been proposed that the organization try to move forward. And they have a right to their principles just as other people have a right to theirs. But I will stay so long as I think I can do something. And when I don't think I can, and when I think it's going to be counterproductive or destroy, my reputation, then I won't. But for the time being, I will give to it all that I have.
I suppose we then just go through the agenda. I have asked that the meeting be transcribed. And that's why you have these microphones. I am accustomed to running meetings that are transcribed. Half of what I saw on the Internet about what happened at the Board meetings was about who said what, and did somebody say something, and somebody else said something else. So it occurred to me that if we had a transcription of what happened at the Board meeting which was available to us, which we could then put up on our web site and anybody who wants to see what happened at the meeting can see what happened at the meeting. At least those arguments will no longer be necessary, and it won't be necessary for people to come to tape the meetings because they think that somehow they're not going to know. They can save that money. And maybe they can contribute it to the organization. And we'll just move on.
But that's--it's not intended to keep and inhibit the discussion. It's just intended to be a record of what has gone on here.
Now, what am I supposed to do next, Jack, just go on to the next item?
It says, "Seating of Chair, Seating of"--oh, I have to seat members. That's what I have to do. Thank you Brother Jack.
I think I need a motion to seat by a majority vote the following people at this meeting as at-large representatives for this meeting. And they are Alexis Gonzales, Adrien Zubrin, Dorothy Nasatir, Ralph McKnight, and Michael Palmer.
Could someone move that this be done?
MS. ZURBIN: I move that the chair seat those mentioned.
MS. SCOTT: No, you can't move, you haven't been seated.
MS. ZURBIN: I'm so sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Somebody who is seated.
MR. O'DELL: I move that the chair seat the previously mentioned members.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Need a second?
MS. BROOKS: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All in favor--any discussion?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All in favor indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Opposed?
[No response.]
I also by the provision in the bylaws on page 71 it states that in order to be elected a member must receive the nomination and vote of a majority of the station boards which he/she represents.
Ms. Fabrio--Fabio Bradford, having been duly elected by a majority vote of the station boards which he/she represents, it is my understanding is to be welcomed as a member of this Board.
If my understanding is incorrect someone could please object. But my understanding is that she is elected when she is elected by a majority vote of the station boards which she represents.
Yes?
MR. O'DELL: The Station Board's vote has the effect of nominating a candidate to the governing board and we must now vote to elect her to the Board at the meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, one of the things I am going to be a stickler about so long as I am chair is following the procedure. There is nothing in this procedure that I am looking at--now, if someone can cite to me another procedure, I would be willing to do it. But this bylaw says that a member must receive the nomination and vote of the majority of the station boards which she represents unless such member is classified as an at-large member in which event she must be elected by a two-third vote of the board of directors for the foundation voting by secret ballot. And so I don't know whether the intention was to say the person had to be voted on again, or not, but it doesn't say that.
MR. O'DELL: In order to be elected they must be nominated by a majority vote.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: No it does not say that. Read on page 71. "She must receive the nomination and vote of a majority of the station boards which she represents."
Yes?
MS. BROOKS: The bylaw change that has been under so much discussion in the previous meeting was the reason why it was tabled at the last meeting was because the Pacifica attorney suggested that we separate out the nomination from the election.
Now, you know, there was a move in the last committee that didn't--you know, without this final change, but that particular part of it we probably ought to consider adopting because he felt that it was just as you have found out, misleading and unclear. So he wanted us to separate our nominations from elections.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, for purposes of moving the meeting along, since I would assume that there is no objection to her being here, if you want to vote on it, you can. I'm assuming everybody would vote that it's fine.
But it is my understanding that she does not have to be voted on unless somebody--and somebody needs to look at this language. And I don't know who the somebody is. When I say "somebody", who is the somebody I'm talking about that will look at this language and clarify it.
MS. BROOKS: The attorney has looked at it and felt that it needed clarification, and that was appropriate in this bylaw change. And if we don't adopt this bylaw change, we do need to incorporate that.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: The attorney has already looked at it and made that recommendation to us as simply saying that it was unclear.
MS. MAKELA: Regardless of whether we need to or not, I would like to recommend that we elect our newest representative since everyone else in my five-year experience has been elected to the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, would you be willing to change your motion to say, without regard to whether or not it is a required procedure, for the time being you would like to move the following?
MS. MAKELA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay. All in favor indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: And this has to be clarified, because there may be an occasion, not this occasion, in which someone will be sent here by a station board and this Board may decide they don't want them. And if this Board is not supposed to vote on them and the Board then does, then you've got a problem. So this is not a matter that is to be taken lightly.
Okay. The other is to acknowledge--what page is the page that the alternates are on?
MS. SCOTT: Page 70.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Page 75 or 70 what, 73. The governing board shall be taken by the elected directors or their seated alternate.
For this meeting Rob Robinson has been selected by the WPFW station board to be an alternate for Ken Ford who is not present. Is there any approach you've taken in the past to doing something more about that that I'm unaware of?
I'm simply reading the language on page 73 and it has no procedure connected to it. So I would simply acknowledge his presence unless there's--
Yes?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: I would be glad to move that if that is what is being--
NOT KNOWN: And I would second that.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: But if you are going to do so, I wish you would put the same language in that was put in by June on the previous motion because there's nothing in the procedure that says the person has to be elected. And we've got to have this clarified because in the event, Frank, that someone else comes again and we decide we don't want to seat them as an alternate, then what do we do then? Okay.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Well, let's put it this way, whether--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Whether or not--
MR. MILLSPAUGH: --whether or not it is required--
[Laughter.]
MR. MILLSPAUGH: --I am happy to move the acceptance of this gentleman as an alternate for the purposes of this meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay.
NOT KNOWN: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay. Any discussion?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All in favor indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Opposed?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: So ordered.
And someone, the someone whoever that someone is, the lawyer or whoever it is--
Yes?
MS. MAKELA: May I make a recommendation?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes.
MS. MAKELA: The secretary of the Board be charged with contacting our lawyer to get--and working through language that can then be presented to the executive committee before the next meeting, you know, clarifying the bylaws of this whole election question and then we can vote on it.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All right. Is it the sense of the Board that you intended for this to be a separate nomination and election process?
MS. MAKELA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: But that was your intent? It just didn't get written right.
MS. MAKELA: It was an intention and practice.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay.
MS. MAKELA: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: And what is your intent about the question of alternates? The same intent?
MS. MAKELA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: So that the lawyer knows what he's writing?: May I ask, is it also the intent that the alternates will act or that--let me tell you why this has come up. Because there's been so much going on and many changes especially in this area, a lot of times, you know, a board member that is not able to attend, there's been progress, there have been committee meetings and then the person who has been active all along isn't there and all of a sudden another person comes and then goes to the--you know, takes actions and they really don't have any background. So that's why there was a discussion about alternates. But it was not resolved.
Some of us thought we had feelings about it, but there wasn't a resolution by the Board. So that may be something--
MR. O'DELL: The intent has always been that the Board had the right to keep or reject anyone that was sent here.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All right. So that means that the lawyer will be guided by that and the secretary.
MS. BROOKS
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, the way the bylaws currently stand, there is an alternate and there is provision for one.
MS. BROOKS: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: And the understanding is that the alternate does whatever the person does who they are alternating with.
But there's no provision there for the election of the person by the Board once the person has been elected by the station board--I mean the LAB which is what we're talking about here. That question is--the one that you raised, Roberta, is a larger question. That is, what can alternates do?
MS. BROOKS: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: I'm assuming they can do whatever the people do who they are alternating for unless there is some wisdom to the contrary. That's what everybody is shaking and nodding their heads.
MS. BROOKS: That's always been done.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: But we've always done that.
[Laughter.]
MS. MAKELA: I think this is something that should go to the board development committee, you know, and then come out as a recommendation.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Executive director.
MS. SCOTT: If you look on page 72 of your Board book, the proposed language for the bylaw amendment, all directors will be seated with a two-thirds vote of the governing board of the foundation which is the first part of that bylaw change. This was what was recommended by--
MS. BROOKS: That's the old language.
MS. SCOTT: Okay. Then it says, all directors, then it's the current language.
MS. BROOKS: No, it's not the current language.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Now, what, this language has no date by it. Now, I'm getting hopelessly confused.
MS. SCOTT: I am too.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Can we simply--
MS. TILSON: May I clarify?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes.
MS. TILSON: The language in your book is the language that was proposed by the Board and turned down at the last meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay.
MS. TILSON: The language at the beginning is what's proposed for this meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: So we will refer the question of clarifying this--these matters consistent with the Board's view which is that there will be in a separate nomination election and the alternate for the time being, unless it's changed, does whatever the other person does.
Yes?
MS. BRADFORD: Could the LAB representative be accepted or rejected prior to the Board meeting? You know--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Accepted or rejected.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MS. BRADFORD: Say it again?
MR. O'DELL: No one has ever been rejected.
MS. BRADFORD: Yeah, but I think that in getting on an airplane and coming here I should know whether or not- -
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: You've been rejected, huh? That's a good question. They should think about that, too, whether there are some timing problems here.
MS. MAKELA: Well, we've had discussions in the past that nominations--we actually have codified something, but I don't have it in front of me, so I can't refer to a page. But because of exactly that the LABs were requested to get nomination in earlier. There was actually a number of days in advance, and then the secretary was to receive them. There was a whole procedure to make sure that the Board would be in compliance with, you know, the balance, et cetera, et cetera.
MS. BRADFORD: I think in our experience we only assume because I got a Federal Express package that maybe--
[Laughter.]
MS. BRADFORD: --I should get on a plane.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes, you should get on the plane, but it's just that they're saying that they could have rejected you once you got here. And I'm saying that that's very fuzzy and problematic under the pages.
MS. BRADFORD: Prior to me getting here you could reject. Anyway--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, they should--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Could the secretary and the lawyer--could the secretary and the lawyer take this matter up and that's the Board Development Committee, I guess.
The agenda. Could we have--could I get a motion to approve the agenda for this meeting?
MR. McKNIGHT: So move.
MS. MAKELA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: The only discussion that I have, somebody else may have something. I do have a query about the use of stationery by the community advisory boards or LABs which I assume I can discuss under one of the other committee discussions without having it be a separate item on the agenda. But I'm just simply telling you that I do intend to raise that probably under Board development or something like that.
Does anyone else have anything else they would like to either add to the agenda or something that they feel they want to change? If not, all in favor of the agenda indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Opposed.
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: So ordered.
A motion to approve the minutes 6/97, could I get a motion?
MR. McKNIGHT: So moved.
MS. MAKELA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Any discussion, changes?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Opposed.
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay. Now, we go to the executive director's report.
MS. SCOTT: As Jack O'Dell has eloquently already introduced Dr. Berry, but I would like to welcome her on behalf of the staff at Pacifica who can stand back there and welcome her.
[Applause.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Thank you, staff. Thank you, thank you very much. Appreciate it.
MS. SCOTT: As part of the strategic plan one of the things that we've been doing over the past year and will continue in the future is to improve our infrastructure. We have had radio stations that did not have mics that worked, did not have studios that were functioning. In one case you could hear the toilet flushing from the on-air studio. So we have made some serious improvements in the infrastructure, the technical infrastructure of Pacifica and will continue to do so.
Currently almost all tape machines and material for tape machines is available in the new format which is digital. Currently almost all equipment at Pacifica stations is analog. So part of our strategic plan in dealing with our technical infrastructure is to change that situation.
At WBAI we are moving and building new studios. KPFA moved several years ago and has a new building which right now also needs some serious improvements. KPFK under the able leadership of Mark Shubb has really moved from being a dump where nothing worked to being a serious community radio station now, not that it doesn't have its problems, but currently things work there. The bigger problem there is that the transmitter is in serious disrepair and could go off the air at any time. It requires a $150,000 investment in order to change that dynamic.
We are taking the chance at this point that it will not go off the air while we do some fundraising, while we move with this 50th anniversary campaign so that we can support what needs to happen at that signal area.
WPFW moved several years ago. We did a bare bones construction project for studios and for office facilities mainly because we only had the money to do what we did. We have a lease at that station and hopefully we'll be able by the time that lease is over with some organization and a capital fund drive in the Washington area to be able to move those studios into a larger facility that can take--that can really take care of the needs of the national staff and national production unit as well as the radio station WPFW.
We are also looking at KPFT which is the rattyist of all our stations in the Houston area which barely has the facilities to broadcast on a daily basis. Garland has worked to be sure that it's functional in terms of being able to broadcast, but that will be our next serious project in terms of trying to rebuild that space or sell it and secure a new space and rebuild the office and broadcast facilities. We are also involved in all our radio stations with labor negotiations except for our two stations that do not have unions which is WPFW and KPFT.
We have very gladly signed a contract with Communication Workers of America. It was a very good process. It was a process that was a very short process. And the contract has been ratified by the staff at KPFA. It includes over a three-year period of time a 10 percent increase--10.3 percent increase and also takes care of benefits that have been traditional at that station. So there was no killing of any of that.
We are currently involved in union negotiations, however, at WBAI which is on hold because we have a National Labor Relations Board appeal pending on whether volunteers should be in the bargaining unit.
We also have protracted labor negotiations going on at radio station in Los Angeles, KPFK. I have started these negotiations, have moved into dealing with these negotiations with a labor attorney. Mark Schubb who has been negotiating this contract for the past 18 months has found that his time in trying to run the station has been seriously eroded because of the amount of time he spends negotiating these contracts. So I will be negotiating this contract from now on so that Mark can really pay attention to building the station in Los Angeles.
We are currently in negotiations with AFTRA which represents our national production unit. Those negotiations are going well, and we hope to have a contract by the end of this week--by the end of next week.
The WBAI move which most of you are aware of is really something that's necessary. They're in a building that they've been in for 25 years as a temporary quarters. The building committee and Valerie the manager--Valerie Van Isler, the manager of WBAI and I have been looking at how we can move this. And we were really very lucky to find space in a building that has been reserved for a nonprofit organizations. Even though it has the--it is unfortunate enough to be located at 120 Wall Street. It is in the same building with the National Urban League, with the Ms. Foundation, there are 12,000 square feet. And because the landlord and the city, when Wall Street was having serious problems finding tenants, made an agreement to essentially take care of the taxes and to have reduced rates for non- profits.
So currently we are spending $23 a square foot for space at the current location of WBAI. The new rate will be $16.74 and we will essentially get for that space probably-- I don't, if you look at the real square footage, you'll probably get double the operational space that we had before and we will essentially be spending only $20,000 more than we are currently spending, and probably a lot less had we renegotiated space in the current location.
We are also fortunate enough to be able to get a loan from the current landlord. And as well to get almost a half a million dollars in build out costs from that landlord. So that essentially this building project will be bare bones, as usual, hopefully the WBAI community can raise enough money to take care of the better than basics. And we will focus our attention on building really quality radio broadcast studios. And if we have to put hollow-core doors on the top of file cabinets for the office space, that's what we will do in order to keep in budget.
The foundation has no money to have overruns in costs on this project and WBAI has agreed to help raise capital funds to complete this project in a way that would make this a comfortable space for the staff at WBAI.
Frank?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Yes, I just wanted you to know that at the last local board meeting the members present and voting voted unanimously in support of this move with a great deal of enthusiasm and relief, and I will put their resolution into the record.
MS. SCOTT: Thank you, Frank.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Without objection, so ordered.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Without objection.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: I have to say that.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: That's okay.
[Laughter.]
MS. SCOTT: On the personnel front there continues to be a search for a permanent general manager at KPFA. As most of you know the manager at KPFA, Marci Lockwood resigned and Lynn Chadwick has been the acting manager. Lynn, would you stand up, please?
And Lynn has been doing a credible--incredible job.
[Laughter.]
MS. SCOTT: An incredible job especially as acting manager at KPFA. She is well regarded by the staff and she works well with the national staff. And she has gone through what is really difficult for permanent manager to do, she's made some serious decisions about the budgeting process. We have had to lay off staff because of lack of income. And it was done in a way that leaves all parties feeling not injured.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Next show the people that got laid off.
MS. SCOTT: So I really want to commend Lynn for the job she's done in addition to keeping her regular job as the president of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters.
[Applause.]
MS. BROOKS: Here, here.
MS. SCOTT: On the national front, as you well know Pacifica radio has been targeted for defunding by the conservative members of Congress during the annual budget appropriations process. This year, however, opponents of public radio in the House or Representatives opted to attack CPB of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting overall funding without specifically targeting Pacifica.
MS. BROOKS: Here, here.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: That's right.
MS. SCOTT: Not that we are completely safe from this, but it is a positive signal that Pacifica has not been named as yet. Pacifica at CPB has had warm support for what we are trying to do as an organization from the staff at CPB.
The problem, however, comes in the fact that CPB's board of directors turns over on a regular basis. They have no history with Pacifica and the role that Pacifica has played. And sometimes fall into the hands of the critics of Pacifica without actually knowing what's going on here.
And that's the end of my report.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Does anyone have any--thank you, executive director. Does any board member have any questions for the executive director? Or comments, or--
MR. PALMER: So what are we doing to ensure that we're familiar with the people that _____(unintelligible) their membership?
MS. SCOTT: We actually don't have any role in that. When Pacifica was charged with having closed meetings by the Inspector General, the current board was--it was Alan Sagner who was the chair and several other political appointees that made up the CPB Board.
Jack O'Dell and I went to speak with them to counter those accusations. And CPB did not confirm that Inspection General's report. But we have had very little impact on who the members of CPB will be.
MR. PALMER: I think it will be more customer relations as they change. Of course, they're familiar with the--
MS. SCOTT: Well, I maintain a regular relationship with different people on the Board and I maintain a constant relationship with the staff at CPB because finally those are the ones that do make a big difference on how Pacifica is treated.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: That was Mr. Michael Palmer speaking, for the reporter's benefit.
Anyone else have a comment or a question on the executive director's report?
MR. O'DELL: May I say something?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes, Mr. O'Dell?
MR. O'DELL: Pat, would you mind just commenting on the overall financial situation?
MS. SCOTT: The overall financial situation for Pacifica is that we have had increases this year, percentage increase of almost 9 percent in listener support. The other side of that, however, is that our expenses have gone up more than that.
We are essentially trying to, as I said earlier in my report, to build a technical infrastructure as well as-- and this is primary--develop programming. I know that a lot of the criticism has come relative to the national versus local programming, and I want to say for the record that Pacifica is still primarily interested in local program at the local station level. Part of our strategic plan was how we could pool our resources and produce national programming that all of the stations could use so that we were not repeating over, and over, and over again what was happening on a local level in terms of production and so that we could do it all at one time. Let me give you an example.
We would do a program--Noam Chomsky is speaking and we would have ten different people at Pacifica stations call him. And while sometimes that still happens, at least we have national production so that we can deal with this issue so that we know that we are interviewing Noam Chomsky that is going to be broadcast on the news or on Democracy Now, or on the Larry Bensky Show or someplace. And so we are coordinating those efforts more than ever. Though we're still getting some criticism about having duplications during the day.
So that is critical in terms of what our financial situation looks like. This year, going into this budgeting process which we will deal with later in this Board meeting, we are looking at still not having enough income to support our larger vision which is why the discussion has taken place in committee on how to move the organization forward with the 50th anniversary campaign and bring more resources to the organization so that we can move on, so that we can produce quality programming at a national and at a local level.
And we have all talked about the nature of that programming that it is cultural programming and that it is public affairs and news that brings issues that don't get discussed on other media to the floor. Interviews and talks to people that you normally don't talk to or you don't hear on the major media sources and that we analyze and have discussions with people in our communities about how this impacts and affects them. So that is the focus of the work that we're trying to do in Pacifica and it requires a lot more resources than we currently have.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay. Any other? Yes?
MS. BRADFORD: I have one question. Between this document and something I was handed yesterday I got one suggested that the listener--there was an increase in listeners. The other one suggested that there was a slight fall back I think generally around the stations. And so I just wondered if you had anything to say about that?
MS. SCOTT: There's a general increase in listenership across the network. But it does rise and fall during different periods of time. But we have seen over the past few years a steady rise in listenership. And for all-- and all indications are that people are really pleased with the national programming, pleased with a lot of the local programming and also that we still have a long way to go.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: But isn't it the case that some stations have had a decline? Or have they all had an increase at the same rate?
MS. SCOTT: No, generally across Pacifica there is an increase. But some stations have had a decline.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Maybe that's what--
MS. SCOTT: Yeah. But generally it goes up and down, so you can't say, for instance KPFT has had a decline, but KPFT does rise and fall and that is one of the issues that we're looking at KPFT particularly in the areas since KPFT is our poorest station. It has fewer resources and a smaller staff. And so we're looking at, and Garland will talk about how--what his plans are for dealing with trying to get some local news coverage, because it's impossible to do without resources.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Anyone else? Ms. Brooks, you had your hand up, did you decide you weren't interested in saying anything? Like the students in my class.
[Laughter.]
MS. BROOKS: I think not at this--it is a little strong--
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Any other comments, questions on the executive director's report?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay. Could I have a motion to accept--it says here, "accept or approve". Now, which one are we doing? Accepting or approving?
MR. PALMER: Accepting.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Accepting the executive director's report.
MR. PALMER: So moved.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Could I get a second?
VOICE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All in favor? Any discussion?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All in favor indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Opposed.
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: So ordered.
The next item on the agenda is the 50th anniversary report. Who is carrying that discussion forward?
MS. BROOKS: Am I?
MS. SCOTT: You are.
MS. BROOKS: Oh, my goodness.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Ms. Brooks is carrying that discussion forward.
MS. BROOKS: What I didn't do was go over it before. So hold on a moment.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes, Mr. O'Dell is asking to be recognized.
MR. O'DELL: Maybe it would be good for us to take a five-minute break.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Do you need some preparation time, ma'am? We're a little ahead on the agenda, so we could do that.
We will recess for five minutes while Ms. Brooks--
[Recess]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: On the record.
Okay. Ms. Brooks, why don't you proceed with the 50th anniversary report.
MS. BROOKS: First of all, thank you for your indulgence. I had expected a break--
We had our first 50th Anniversary Committee meeting last night. And we--Dick made a presentation to us as a whole and then we had discussion and ideas. We had essentially broken the first presentations into tasks and the resources. The tasks that have to be done in the near future are development objectives which will be formulated by the results of each of the six units of the strategic plan.
So those of you that are involved in strategic planning in your own units, the reason why we're doing this is to ascertain how much money we really do need to raise to bring all the stations and all the units into the 21st Century, if we can say that, and, you know, to fulfill what Pat articulated as a need.
The second is to develop feasibility studies in the five cities and at the national level, to establish a gift chart that will be determined by the amount of money that it is decided we need and then we develop a pyramid. The largest gift is normally about 10 percent of the goal.
Then prospects which again is related to this gift chart, who are--who and what are the entities that we will go to for gifts.
Cultivation and marketing plan which would again be based on the feasibility studies, the gift chart for prospects and communicated--and this would be communicated to the general prospects. There are various other things, the sequential solicitation plan, time table, acknowledgment, collection, how long, over what period of time we will be collecting the money. These are things that will be decided later on.
What we see as the resources are, we're hoping that it will be approved later in this meeting, either today or tomorrow, I don't know when, a proposal for $150,000 from the SCA for launching this project which will cover some of the tasks that are outlined a little bit further on.
We also considered resources of the staff. Dick Bunce will be involved with this, but he will be working with a person that we will hire. We consider the Board a resource which is one of the reasons why we feel a need to expand and further develop this forum.
And promotional aspects and infrastructure we will have--and I will talk about that a little further on.
What was a little sobering for Dick was a meeting that he had in Tucson with all the development staff and the general manager's where there was enthusiastic response on the part of everybody who had been part of the strategic plan to have a 50th anniversary campaign but--and willingness to be a part of it, but they really felt that they had no serious resources to do the work at the local levels of any of the units.
We originally had hoped maybe each staff would have it's own person handling the 50th anniversary campaign. It became quite clear from that meeting that there was not going the be the resource at each station to do that. So that's why we have kind of, you know, shifted the scope just a little bit into probably being more of a nationally- directed project.
But there's tremendous enthusiasm for this naturally enough since most of the money is going to--all of money is going to go to the units. There is enthusiasm and everybody wants it to be done, but what we had hoped was going to happen, where a lot of this would actually originate from the station, is not going to happen.
So, we decided that we will--we have asked for approval for $150,000. That will include hiring a national person who will work with each of the units to help define this--you know, finalize the strategic plans and put those all together into the formulation of goals and objectives for the campaign. Launch and lead feasibility studies in the six unit areas, I'll say five station areas and then a whole overview. And all of the steps that we have talked about, actually early objectives, feasibility studies, gift charts, cultivating prospects, et cetera, the first year's activities will be funded in that way.
There will be a 50 anniversary committee which will provisionally work with Dick to select the director. We want to solicit from this entire board names and prospects for people who might fit this category--you know, fit this job description which will be further developed by Dick.
The Board will be involved in the early side of the project--leadership, and presentations to individuals and foundations or whoever we go to and help with our gifts. There will be this on-board component and then there will also be eventually development of an off-board 50th anniversary committee and, again, we want you all to start brainstorming, coming up with names of people that, you know, live in your own area that you know that would be both, honorary people on our 50th anniversary committee and hands-on people.
There will also be promotional assets--part of our assets are in national programs, you know, in archives, we'll be developing themes and programmatic historical spots, probably a logo of some kind, perhaps a set of CDs and tapes from the archives, a traveling archive that might be videotaped, but probably a perspective of some of the experiences that we have had with Pacifica in the last 50 years.
So that's it. The 150,000 will launch the first year activities of the 50th anniversary. We really encourage people to start thinking about a person or persons to do this, a person to be hired, and then additional names.
We're assuming we'll get the $150,000 from the Board. We have set the date of Thanksgiving for the strategic plan to be completed from all the units, so those of you on the Board, please, you know, or if you have any-- or if you're working with your general managers, make sure that this gets accomplished from all units because that's the information we're going to need to develop the goals.
The national search will start as soon as possible. Again, I repeat, please send names of any major fund-raisers that you know, or fundraising--with fundraising experience. And this committee will work with Dick on the selection of this person and we hope to have that person hired by the executive director by the end of this year.
And finally the 50th anniversary Committee. When we ask you to think of names of people to be on this committee, we want you to be expansive and think of the areas that Pacifica has actually worked in.
There's a whole free-speech area. Pacifica has led the battle in the courts on many occasions for free speech. They led the battle for the National Endowment of the Arts' struggles with Congress. There are obviously other radio networks, the whole social justice, the whole civil rights movement, in any of those areas that you can think of are people that we should be getting to be a part of this, what should be an extraordinary celebration of this work of Pacifica.
So, any questions?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Does any member have any questions?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, until a member has a question, my understanding is that for a person who will be hired to do this work. There will be a search and there will be consultation with the committee that you're on?
MS. BROOKS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: You didn't say that.
MS. BROOKS: I didn't?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: No. Unless--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: No, no, no, that there would be consultation--
MS. BROOKS: The 50th Anniversary committee will work with staff to make the selection and have the executive director make the hire at the end of the year.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay. So the committee will consult about that. Okay.
MS. BROOKS: The 50th anniversary Committee is on this Board.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Right. And the other point I wanted to make, it's my understanding from other boards I've been on that when you have a major fundraising campaign that for the first large amounts of money, that's raised before it goes public, is that the Board itself is expected to make a contribution. And in the case of this organization, I guess, the local advisory board members would too, along with some significant gifts from some other major donor before the campaign actually goes public.
MS. BROOKS: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Would that understanding pertain with this board?
MS. BROOKS: Yes. I think so. First of all we probably won't go public until April of '99. Actually public.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: '98 or '99?
MS. BROOKS: '99. The year will go from April of '99 to April of 2000. But, yes, I'm glad you brought that up because this isn't something we discussed last night, but we did this on another occasion when we had launched the national program endowment which was not met with enormous success, but we did at that time get from every member of this board a contribution of whatever size. Because it was very helpful for Dick who was going to the foundations to be able to see our Board has financially supported this. And I think you're absolutely right. We would expect that for this board and the committee would be following up with board members to that extent.
And, also, I think you're right that since there is a component for local advisory boards that it would be important to be able to say to people that we're going to, that, yes, we do have financial support from everyone at our local advisory boards.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: And is it too early for board members to suggest things that they think ought to be added as major items for consideration as to targets for gift- giving? That is the goals of the--for example, if somebody thinks that the network should be trying to obtain enough money to expand, say, to Atlanta, I just picked that out instead of Nashville where I'm from--Atlanta. Or that it should expand to Boston, I'm just making, you know, anyplace like that, or would something like that be--instead of simply just strengthening the existing stations, which ought to be done, but to have other kinds of targets. Or, for example, to say that consistent with the articles of incorporation resources ought to be raised to try to make sure that educational programs could be carried out at the station for community people. I'm just making these suggestions.
MS. BROOKS: Yes, I think that those kinds of ideas are really excellent. Because, as I said, there's the signal area strategic plan and then there is a national overview and that would be where I would think expansion to another single area would be extremely appropriate.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Uh-huh.
MS. BROOKS: We've always kind of dreamed, you know, of having some station in the south--having a station other than--
MR. PALMER: This is the third time that Houston is getting ribbed in this meeting.
[Laughter.]
MR. PALMER: --the poorest, and all that other stuff, I mean--
[Laughter.]
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MS. BROOKS: And also Chicago was one that we've often thought about. We really don't have--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Is Houston in the south or southwest?
MR. PALMER: Deep in the south.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: In the south--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MR. PALMER: Straddling the southwest, too.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MR. PALMER: There are no tumbleweeds in Houston.
[Laughter.]
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: In the southeast.
MR. PALMER: Southeast, yeah.
MS. BROOKS: Southeast and then one in the center of the country. So I think that that's very appropriate to be included. And I also think your other point about targeting a particular programmatic area will be very appropriate.
MR. PALMER: I have a question, it's coming more from my professional background. And I don't know if it's appropriate or not, but aren't there people that go out and tap philanthropic organizations for people to contribute the seed money that we could say, you do the job, you get this pay, whatever that number is. And we could tap from now, you know, that we wouldn't be maybe having to allocate precious resources--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MS. BROOKS: We have to talk about that. One of the things that we were thinking about that we haven't tapped that we thought might be available, and Frank might want to speak to this a little bit, is NEA and then also say Councils on the Arts. Every state has a Council on the Arts and they do have a pot of money to do this kind of infrastructure building.
So those were some ideas we discussed last night.
MR. PALMER: I'm thinking about in my fair city of Houston, Texas there are individuals that just have the right cause, they just do it. And their percentage, I'm sure they contribute back in the program, but they know the right people to talk to. And I'm just thinking from a business point of view about this thing of saying, this is what we're thinking of doing. There's two or three people that could probably say, these individuals or this--this foundation would be glad to get behind us and to be seen.
And I'm thinking just for the expediency of finding out the validity of doing something.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: There are two questions being asked--two separate questions. And I think the first question, Ms. Brooks was asking Mr. Millspaugh--Frank Millspaugh to answer which related to the discussion and the committee about the Arts and Humanities Council. I think that's what you were being asked to comment on, but the second question was about whether there's some different way to fund-raise in terms of early, in terms of identifying people who are philanthropists and the like.
Let me recognize you first because your hand was up first. And then we'll see--
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Well, I'll speak to that--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Speak to whatever you like.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: I did raise the possibility that we have never tried to go to the National Endowment for the Arts which does have a long lead time. What that means is the time you start with is right now, and that shorter lead times that are often more accessible are the state councils of the arts. And radio is considered, in their view as an art. And so therefore radio, per se, is considered an art form. So I think those would be good prospects to immediately start researching and making contacts with. I think that each of the managers and certainly in New York, the manager, I believe, already is familiar with some of the state council people, but I'd be glad to, if not, to introduce her to the ones that affect our area. And I'm sure that's true in each state.
To speak to the other issue, if I may briefly, about fund-raisers working on a commission from what they raised. According to the National Society of Fundraising Executives and Council this is considered unethical and you want to be very careful of anyone who purports to do that for many reasons which are obvious; inflated expenses, inflated revenues against the expenses which result in the highest possible percentage to the person. It's considered ethical to take a specific percent fee for your work and so that all of the revenue generated above that goes to the charitable enterprise.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Michael, did that relate to what you were saying or not?
MR. PALMER: Well, I think I heard what he said which was that there just has to be a fee identified as opposed to a commission.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: That's correct.
MR. PALMER: A commission, a fee, to me it's the same thing because that's what you call it in my business, a commission. Or a fee depending on the size of the--
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Well, I didn't know for sure whether you meant commission in terms of a fee or in terms of a percent. If you meant in terms of percents, then that's considered unethical and you would want to really be- -you want to really scope anybody that offered to do that.
If you mean by a prenegotiated fee, then absolutely that's a completely legal and customary thing to do. But I would defer, I think, to Dick's judgment as to whether that was the best route to go or to hire the in- house person and have them perform that function.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, I don't know what business you're in, do you want to proceed, Micheal, to respond to that?
MR. PALMER: Well, I understand about the fee part. But that still didn't get to my question which is, are there people that do this?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Oh, yes. I use--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MR. PALMER: I mean, if we don't have to front money, then--I mean, that's the question, do we have--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: You have to front money.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: No, no, no. To raise money without--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: There are people who raise money who we could get to raise money without us having to have outlays from the funds of the foundation to begin with; is that what you're saying?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Not to my knowledge. I always order a fee up front and then something periodically, monthly or quarterly thereafter.
MS. BROOKS: Do you have any comment on this, Dick? Could we ask Mr. Bunce to comment on this?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: I guess. Yes, you're recognized.
MR. BUNCE: Just briefly. You know, there are no guarantees in fundraisers. There's no way of saying, you know, we pay you $50,000 you guarantee that you'll raise 500,000. It's all hiring people to perform tasks. And that's what we're proposing is hiring a very professional top-flight person to provide leadership for this campaign. And, you know, I think we can find someone. But there are no simple, black-box arrangements that are possible with this kind of fund-raiser.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: But I'm still left a little bemused as I think you are because I'm aware without getting into percentages and all that, I am aware that there are people who have business enterprises, some of which are in the city and are major business enterprises, and they haven't gone to jail to or anything, or there's no, you know, people raising any--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: --who in fact--who in fact raise money and in fact who may not get a percentage of it, but whose contract to raise it is dependent on--their payment is dependent on how successful they are over time in raising money.
In other words, if you gave them a fee and they never raised any money, then when they got ready for the next payment you don't have to pay them. Now, I don't know what you call that, but I know they do--
MR. MILLSPAUGH: It's--
[Simultaneous conversation.].
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes, June.
MS. MAKELA: In my limited but some experience with this, and particularly advising a lot of people on fundraising for left and progressive causes my experience is that these professionals--and there are dozens of them-- function best for fundraising for traditional charitable causes. And, in fact, they get hired by the American Red Cross and the March of Dimes, colleges, et cetera, to either coordinate endowments, to put on gala special events, you know, do capital campaigns, et cetera. And they work best when you have a know--you know, identified population of prospects, they come into organizations that are already successful in fundraising and they will do specific things.
In my experience in groups like ours fellow progressive organizations that have not been able to invest and really build their own major donor base, you end up having to spend so much time explaining your politics, your philosophy, your culture, your style, and who your prospective donors might be and you spend a lot of money doing it. And you can have limited success. I mean, you don't necessarily fail, but you spend a lot of money and time.
And then our prospects, you know, I'm not sure our prospects would be--would warmly receive a professional outside fundraising, slick fundraising outfit. So I tend to be convinced that a very good in-house fund-raiser and not a lot of our effort.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Does that answer your question, Mr. Palmer?
MR. PALMER: I think I hear the answer.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay. All right.
MS. BROOKS: And I could just amplify that a little bit. The most successful experience we've had within Pacifica has been the Capital Campaign where we hired an outsider, Dick Bunce, who you may know, and he was an outsider at the time, and he--we had a goal of how much, Pat?
MS. SCOTT: The feasibility said we could raise $660,000, but we eventually ended up raising $2.5 million over a period of two years.
MS. BROOKS: And the strategy that Dick has presented here is essentially a similar strategy and it took a year of development before we went public. At the time we went public we announced a $400,000 gift and we had all these things in place. And Dick and I worked very closely with the local board. I was actually brought on the local board at that time because having worked for the local congressman for years and I knew a whole lot of people and a lot of other people knew a whole lot of people and a lot of other people knew a whole lot of people and we had hundreds of meetings with these people to expand the list. It was a, you know, a kind of ever-growing process. And that's probably the way this is going to have to work because it is a very different community that we go to than just the American Cancer Society.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes. Executive director?
MS. SCOTT: We essentially had to make the same decision, Michael. Dick wasn't quite an outsider. He was on a local advisory board with me at that time.
MS. BROOKS: That's true.
MS. SCOTT: And moved over to deal with the Capital Campaign, but he was a person that was familiar with Pacifica. He was familiar with KPFA. He had been involved in the media business himself, in a the progressive media business himself, so he really knew this dynamic.
We also, at that same time, interviewed firms to run this capital campaign and made the decision at that time that we were better served by hiring someone like Dick. And we proved right in making that assessment.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Does anyone have any other questions or comments on the 50th anniversary report? Okay. Yes.
MS. BROOKS: And please get names of any suggestions for such a person to Dick and also be thinking regularly for the next year and a half of individuals and especially in the near run--of individuals who you think would be appropriate people on the 50th anniversary Committee and ask your board--local advisory board also to be working on it and developing some of these names.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes?
MS. GONZALES: Just to clarify. Earlier in your report you had said that none of our units felt that there were serious resources. So other than what you're asking of us, what is the local commitment? If you could just recap that?
MS. BROOKS: There isn't.
MS. GONZALES: There isn't?
MS. BROOKS: Financial commitment. At this point the launching of this will--the proposal that's going to come before us is the launching of SCA money.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Should there be? Since you raised the question.
MS. GONZALES: Let me put it this way, I was surprised that that was the unit, so I wouldn't second-guess it, but--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MS. GONZALES: --report that did. I believe if I could just counter your question with a question is, could there be? I mean--
MS. BROOKS: Well, what Dick said he was told in no uncertain terms in Tucson was that every member of every staff in all of the local stations and all the units were stretched to the max and that the budgets in each of the units was stretched to the max. And, in fact, those of us who were on the finance committee yesterday saw that not only are they stretched to the max, but these are conservative figures.
So, it looked unlikely that we were going to get the kind of commitment--realistic commitment that we're going to need to move this thing forward from the units.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Did you have a comment to make?
MS. SCOTT: Yes. Just in terms of a strategy for financial development or anything else, when we look at money that comes into Pacifica, whether it's allocated to a local or national level, it belongs to everybody. And so we try to allocate resources in the best way possible. This way we're dealing with what money, you know, that would go out to the units in other ways, and we've decided to allocate it to this project so that everybody can share.
It's analogous to the earlier discussion about programming. What can we do on a national level that we can share at the local units? This is the same issue. You know, what can we do on a national level that we can share with the local units so that we can all benefit from it.
MS. BROOKS: To follow that, but I suppose you could say that $150,000--units they might have come to ask for and it would have--
MS. SCOTT: Well, they did come and ask for it.
MS. BROOKS: They did.
[Laughter.]
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: So it's being used for this purpose rather than some other purpose.
So the units are participating by not getting something.
MS. BROOKS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes, June.
[Laughter.]
MS. SCOTT: By not getting something else?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes.
MS. MAKELA: Also, I don't think we should--it's not as simple as--let's see, this does not eliminate the potential for other resources and I think we shouldn't quickly dismiss that there aren't local resources available.
There's no money in the local budgets. That's one source.
MS. BROOKS: Right.
MS. MAKELA: And paid staff, particularly development staff, is stretched very thin. But everybody is going to have to work on this campaign.
MS. BROOKS: Oh, absolutely.
MS. MAKELA: And so the resources the stations have are all of the people paid and unpaid and playing different roles at the local stations that can find a place in this campaign. So, lots of people have to be involved in asking lots of people for money.
MS. BROOKS: Definitely.
MS. MAKELA: And so that can be programmers and LAB people and finding people in the community who might like to sign on to Pacifica to be part of the 50th anniversary campaign and no other role is something. It would be a resource from the locals. So I think we shouldn't simply say there are no local resources being contributed.
MS. BROOKS: Oh, yeah, absolutely.
MS. MAKELA: Or expected.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Or expected. Yes, Mr. Robinson?
MR. ROBINSON: I only speak for the WPFW LAB. But I would think that if the committee approaches LABs such as ours and is flexible in discussing how to go about doing it, what the goals and objectives are for expansion, whether it's going to be station expansion or geographical expansion in the country and openly discusses different ways of raising the money, LABs such as ours, I would think, would be very interested in exploring that process with the committee to raise money.
I think what I hear is that there are a lot of things that people are concerned they can't do as a station or ways that people may want or not want to raise money. But I think if you want to get the LABs such as ours involved and have a flexible discussion about what goals and objectives are and how to go about doing it, you may find more support from the LABs than I hear reflected in this discussion.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Point of clarification, and it's appropriate to ask under this section since we do have a little time. What kinds of funds can the foundation accept or not? And last week I've heard at least 10 different answers. Some people say that the stations can't accept--let's see, what is it you can accept? Can accept any money from a corporation--can accept some money from a corporation so long as its not for programming. Cannot--can so long as it's not mentioned that they're sponsoring a program. Can accept money from a foundation--cannot accept money from a foundation.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Can accept it so long as on the air one does not have to mention that the foundation--
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: --is giving it. So I would like--and I haven't been able to find anything in any of the documents, and I'm still looking for documents, could someone--who would know the answer to this question in this organization and could answer it definitively?
MS. MAKELA: Pat and Dick.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: You just set it apart very clearly.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: I did? Wow. Could we have an answer to this question? And also could we have, if you have it available to you, citations to where this material is that, or by inference that what we are inferring this from or whether it's a policy decision, or it's written down somewhere or it's just something that goes back to the time when the memory of man runneth not to the contrary--
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: --or just what it is. Madam Executive Director?
MS. SCOTT: I'd actually like for Dick to start answering the question and I'll complete it. Dick?
MR. BUNCE: Well, I think what you're asking for is actually a document that we can prepare and circulate to the boards.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: It does not exist?
MR. BUNCE: Well, there is a--there's a general document. I don't have it in my hands, but there is a general document that is in every station's file that reviews what the policies are on funds. And in a nutshell, Pacifica's current position is that it does not accept corporate underwriting. And that is a specific term that refers to support or fund a program that is on the air from a commercial entity. That's the critical principle that differentiates our funding from virtually all the rest of the public radio stations, the public radio program producers, and all of the commercial broadcasters.
Now, for a campaign of the sort that we are talking about waging for the 50th anniversary, it doesn't mean that we can't accept a gift from a commercial entity as long as we're talking about a general gift for operating purposes that would simply go into the pool.
So, that's kind of a gross distinction point.
MS. BROOKS: There is this document in that binder that says, "Pacifica Foundation Funding Policy" and it was prepared by Dick. And I don't know if there's a date on here, but it's five pages long and it's quite clear.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Which binder?
MS. BROOKS: The binder I gave you yesterday.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: And is this passed by the Board of Directors? Or is it part of official lore, or is there some date on which it was approved?
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MS. MAKELA: --years ago in the minutes.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Years ago in the minutes.
MS. MAKELA: It was revisited during the retreat and reconfirmed during the retreat.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Do the LABs all have copies of this? They're all shaking their heads.
MS. MAKELA: Probably not.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: I would like for someone, I don't know who the someone is, but someone should give copies of this document to the chair of the local advisory board because it is local advisory board people who have said to me, in the last week, that, yes, we can do this, and no, we can't do that. And I don't know if we can do that.
And also, I will say for the record, since I am watching what happens with this organization in the public media, whenever I ask a question it is not to be presumed that I am expressing an opinion. I ask many questions about all sorts of things. And so if I ask a question about whether adding Atlanta to a list or Boston is a good idea to consider or it's time to consider such ideas, that does not mean that I, Mary Frances Berry, am proposing that Pacifica expand to Atlanta or Boston.
If I ask what kinds of gifts can and cannot be given and ask about corporations, this does not mean that I, Mary Frances Berry, am proposing that Pacifica now--
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: --receive gifts from corporations. I say all this because I have seen over the last few weeks how distorted people's opinions become when they are put up on the Internet and all sort of places and in articles which is the other reason why we're have a transcription. So that I, Mary Frances Berry have expressed no opinion--
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: --about which gifts should be taken, not taken, where the organization should expand or not; should it hire someone for a fee on a contingency to raise money or any other matters about which I have asked questions or stated informational material on this day. And any implication to the contrary is distorted and without merit and effect.
If I am stating my view on something, I will, before I state it, say, my view is and let that be-- understood. Yes. I recognize you.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MS. ZUBRIN: --say, Mary Frances Berry, then you're not suggesting that we take lots of money from the drug companies and McDonnell Douglas?
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: No, I am not suggesting such a thing.
MS. ZUBRIN: She is not saying that for the record.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes, I will recognize you in a moment, madam.
Mr. Palmer, are you waving your hand, or would you like to be recognized?
MR. PALMER: I still have a question because this is a question I never really got clear, and this is Bunce's comment. He says that you couldn't take it from a corporation for underwriting, but we could take it for the capital campaign. When they ask for recognition if they gave $5 or $5,000 or $50,000 and they wanted a tag line somewhere, you know, at two in the morning, are we--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Let us not all speak at the same time, please.
MR. BUNCE: I think the principle is not that we would take it and say we won't disclose it, I think that we can disclose all gifts, but we're not, however, interested in relationships with commercial entities which ties us to particular kinds of program production or acknowledgment.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay.
MR. PALMER: Well, if Compaq Computer wanted to give us all the computers for the networking work we needed and they just wanted simply to be acknowledged on air, but they didn't want to have any influence or if they didn't say anything about programming would we be able to accept the gift?
MR. BUNCE: Well, that's probably--there's a gift acceptance committee which has a standing membership and it just convened. Whenever there are questions that seems to raise policy issues for the organization and I submit that that's where that decision would go.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, wouldn't we need to have an answer to that question? For example, in fundraising or in collecting without waiting until Compaq offers it or something, wouldn't we need to know those people who are on LABs, those people who are on this board, those people who are on the 50th anniversary committee who are out trying to raise money and get gifts, wouldn't they need to know what the answer to that question is so that if one of them imaginatively sits there one day and say, oh, my gosh, you know, Compaq is giving everybody computers. Maybe they'll give us some for all of the stations. I wonder if we can take that, and if so, can we thank them on the air, or are we supposed to just write them a letter and thank them so that we know what we can say.
Wouldn't we need to know the answer to questions like that so we would know when we're fundraising what we can do and what we can't do?
So maybe we can get an answer to questions like that. Do you have the answer?
MS. SCOTT: Well, I just want to bring this up because it is--the policy has been very unclear quite frankly.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Oh.
MS. SCOTT: I mean, when you talk about a marathon that all of our stations have, we get gifts of food and other things during the marathon, we regularly mention it on the air. We say we have a policy that we don't mention it on the air, but we actually do.
Wait a minute. And the other issue is that this policy about no corporate underwriting of programming is revisited by this Board at least once very seriously every five years. Because there is always difference of opinion about the policy which is why it was written down and codified.
And then the other issue is that programs that have been underwritten in special instances are run on our air because of special circumstances or significance. We, for example, ran the Miles Davis Radio Project which had been underwritten by Jim Beam. So we have done it and the policy is sometimes unclear and the questions are absolutely appropriate.
MS. BROOKS: But don't we run a disclaimer with that and say that we didn't get that money?
MS. SCOTT: Well, we still run the program and it's still been underwritten. We do say that. That's correct, Roberta.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: I would like to suggest that what we will do at the next Board meeting is have an item on the agenda to discuss the fundraising guidelines which are already written and ask the staff to prepare some examples of things we think we can't do, or can't do, so that everybody can be clear about what it is we can and cannot do so that there won't be any confusion. Because I would really like to know if I'm going to be out trying to raise funds or have somebody give something to us. Whoever, whether it's a person or a foundation, or whatever it is, just what I should be asking them for, and what I'm not supposed to ask them for and I think it would be helpful to other people.
So we'll do that, have an item on the agenda the next time to discuss that.
Instruction here anything else we need to do before we--I guess we accept your report or we approve your report. It says here, "acceptance or approval", I'm not sure what that means. Does it mean it's up to me, or does it mean it's accepted. So we'll just say "accept" from now on.
All right. Could I get a motion to accept the 50th anniversary report?
MS. GONZALES: So moved.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: A second?
MS. BROOKS: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Any more discussion?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All in favor of accepting this report indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Opposed.
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Are there any other items? No items appear on the agenda. And, therefore, if there is no objection then the meeting is recessed until tomorrow morning.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Tomorrow morning, it says on the agenda, there's a executive session at 9:00 a.m., and then the general session begins at 9:15 a.m.
So the meeting is--without objection the meeting is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the meeting was recessed to reconvene on Sunday, September 28, 1997 at 9:00 a.m.]
Saturday, September 28, 1997
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mary Frances Berry
Jane Makela
Frank Millspaugh
Alexis Gonzales
Dorothy Nasatir
Michael Palmer
David Acosta
Jack O'Dell
Adrian Zubrin
Cheryl Fabio Bradford
Roberta Brooks
Ralph McNight
Rob Robinson
STAFF PRESENT
Dick Bunce
Lynn Chadwick
Gail Christian
Garland Ganter
Burt Glass
Mark Schubb
Pat Scott
Mary Tilson
Valerie Van Isler
Bessie Wash
P R O C E E D I N G S [10:05 a.m.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: On the record.
The first thing is the committee report, June, please.
MS. MAKELA: Yes, thank you.
Board members should all have a document given to them this morning by the Controller. It's entitled--it starts with KPFA. Does everybody have this?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: This.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: You can have mine. Do you have one?
MS. MAKELA: All right. It's coming.
Sandra neglected--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Rob doesn't have one.
MS. MAKELA: --to print the word "Confidential for Board Use Only" across the top. I'd appreciate if everyone would do that now.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: If you do that, then that means it will immediately be disseminated all over the country.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Anything that has the word "confidential" on it.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Even better if you put "top secret".
[Laughter.]
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MS. MAKELA: When I started in the organization no one was interested in discussing finances. Then once the budgets are approved by the Board and changes made that everybody agreed to by the finance committee, then the budget of each station is in fact public and available at those stations to anyone who want to get a copy of the budget. But at this point the documents that we are using are confidential.
Okay. I will try to keep my general comments brief and then I will go over the budget.
I think probably at various other committee meetings and yesterday in Pat's report to the full Board you got a general picture--a general sense of our financial situation. But just to quickly repeat some of the things that Pat said.
Our revenue is slightly up in general across the board which means that in most of the stations our listener support is up which is good. As someone described it, unfortunately we are over-achievers on the expense side. So that while our revenue is up so are our expenses. And we closed the year in a better position than we've been in the past, but not the best position. We still have a couple of stations that will end the year in deficit; and we need to be even more careful in controlling our expenses so that we can have balanced budgets.
I think as people are aware, if they are not, our reserves that were modest to begin with, have now been pretty much depleted because of past deficits and crises that have led to unexpected expenses.
Our budgets were tight last year, and our budgets will be very tight next year. It is clear that we are beginning to control our finances better. I think the budgeting process has improved. I am impressed with the general management of finances at all of the stations and appreciate the efforts by the general managers to control their budgets; and to identify potential problems before they become major problems and to deal with them during the year as opposed to waiting until the end of the fiscal year and then having a more major problem.
All of the new budgets that we'll go over reflect, as far as possible, implementation of strategic plans that have been made or are in the process of being made at the local stations. There is an emphasis on programming and an emphasis on audience building.
There is an attempt at every station, even those with very tight budgets, to allocate more money and resources to development. And, again, you know, this is a change, this is an improvement that we've worked toward over the years. And I want to applaud the managers for this commitment.
What is not in the budgets because we don't have the money is sufficient allocation for capital improvement. And clear in some of the stations that this is an immediate need and we are not able to support the kind of capital improvements that we should be supporting. And keeping one's fingers crossed that transmitters not go down, it's not actually the best way to run a radio station.
[Laughter.]
MS. MAKELA: That's what we're going to be doing in the--
And this is something that the finance committee pledged and really wants to make a priority both of the 50th anniversary campaign, but in some cases even more immediate in future budgets.
A few other highlights, without getting into a lot of detail and explanation, over the years as everyone knows or should know, we have what's called central services. This is an allocation from local budgets to cover national expenses for the stations. There have been a variety of ways that national costs have been covered, both with difference of a percentage for transfer of central services and partial transfer of NNPAG funds and then another allocation for the national program fund.
The managers have worked over the summer to refine how--oh, and there have been national fundraising days on the air for national programs.
The managers have not been happy with the way that this had worked before and took it upon themselves to redesign it to everyone's satisfaction. So it impacted very slightly on the amount of money transferred, but it means that when you look at the budget line items have changed, but in fact the sum of money being transferred is almost exactly the same. With the only difference being that the two smallest stations were negatively impacted by the new ratio and you will see when we get the SCA report and note them as small SCA subsidies to cover the negative impact of those fees on the two small stations. And that will become clear as we walk through the budget.
Other positive changes, we had a report on the archives and I'm pleased both with the income that the archives has been able to generate in the last year and what it projects for the next year, but even more importantly, for the first time we are not separating income streams and expense streams so that money raised--money transferred from the stations to the archives will only be used to preserve our archives. And it's not commingled with sales of archival materials. So we will now be able to very clearly see income from sales and that money will be allocated to the maintenance of that aspect of the archives and in the hopes that we will be able to build the archives as an income generating operation and use that central services money to preserve this very valuable resource.
Okay. We can probably move on. Just the on-going frustration of the committee that our SCA funds, which are really the only funds of flexibility for building Pacifica, that we continue to have very little of our SCA money available for new projects and growth. And we didn't have any real solutions anymore this year than we've had in the past. But as this was just noted, the good news is that we are no longer subsidizing the two smaller stations.
And for those of you who have been on the Board for many years you will, I hope, recognize that this is a major accomplishment that both KPFT and WPFW are operating and in the next year plan to operate without subsidies from Pacifica. So, in that sense, there is some money available, for example, to go toward the seed money for the 50th anniversary campaign.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Now, how are you planning to do this?
MS. MAKELA: And what I'm planning to do is have you walk through the budget.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: The entire--
MS. MAKELA: Very quickly. We are not going to discuss individual items unless you have--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Questions.
MS. MAKELA: --specific questions.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: So could we then proceed by asking if people have questions--
MS. MAKELA: Well, I was just going to say--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: --about that.
MS. MAKELA: --that that's my general report and now what I am going to do--I also want to explain things we've done in the past.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Why we have "this"? You mean, this, this?
MS. MAKELA: What this is--what this is--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: This?
MS. MAKELA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay.
MS. MAKELA: This is for members of the finance committee, this is--these are revised budgets after there were budgets submitted to the finance committee and amendments made, changes made, corrections made by the controller and these are the summary pages reflecting those changes. So these are, in fact, the budget that I will walk through and then ask you to approve.
And they are the summary pages for each of the units, the local stations and then the national unit.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Right.
MS. MAKELA: And I can give you, you know, two seconds on each one--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Please.
MS. MAKELA: --as we go, and then people can ask questions.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Please do.
MS. MAKELA: All right. So we'll start with KPFA. Lynn Chadwick who is the interim acting director of KPFA gave us the report in which she explained that cuts were made this summer at KPFA to head off a pending deficit. Which, you know, I had made reference before to the fact that with better management we are catching problems before they become crises. So, we are hoping that KPFA will end the year with a small deficit rather than a large one which will be covered by surpluses from past years. And their new budget reflects modest--you know, projections, very careful projections of income.
There is a hope on Lynn's part that they will exceed those projections.
Oh, I forgot to mention, every budget is now based on proven revenue again.
We, for many, many years based the budget on proven revenue figures which is a very conservative way of budgeting and this came out of past tiny little crises. Then last year we released a station from proven revenue and they could make proposals to go up to projected income that they could not prove. And because of potential for deficits and not being able to stay on budget and concerns we had about the tight budget we--in June the finance committee directed each of the stations to come in with proven revenue figures. And so each of these budgets are based on proven revenue.
Okay. And basically this budget, again, is based on their priorities of improving programming and building audience. And they expect, as you see, that they will end with a balanced budget.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Right. And so--and then the next page--let's see if we can move--
MS. MAKELA: I'll keep going--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: --a little faster.
MS. MAKELA: KPFK the good news here, if people haven't heard, KPFK this week made their CPB goal that was nip and tuck. And they're the--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Congratulations.
[Applause.]
MS. MAKELA: So income is strong at KPFK. The budget reflects a continuing emphasis on stability and building programming. This is the station we are very concerned about as far as capital improvements. The general manager had hoped to be able to budget money for capital improvements. As you see, there are none, and this will be a priority for them in the future.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: WBAI.
MS. MAKELA: WBAI, again, should be recognized. If you look in the first column, WBAI crossed the $2 million mark in listener support which is a first for Pacifica, a first for WBAI, and a first, as I understand, for Pacifica.
[Applause.]
MS. MAKELA: And also they are building their donor--their major donor program and have been exceeding income projections for the past couple of years, so we continue to be optimistic.
The thing I need to point out here is BAI is getting ready to make a major move, the finance committee has been monitoring those plans, monitoring the budget for the plan, has instructed the general manager that the budget must be kept to. That the operating budget is tight, the operating budget must be kept in line and so--the move project that we cannot tolerate or handle any cost overruns on either side because of, you know, this ambitious move. And we all appreciate what it will mean for BAI, but are very concerned about the costs.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay.
MS. MAKELA: It's just--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MS. MAKELA: --by the general manager of WBAI.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Then WPFW.
MS. MAKELA: WPFW, again, for those of you who have been on the Board for years, you will appreciate that WPFW is pretty much coming in on budget this year.
[Applause.]
MS. MAKELA: That if there is a deficit it will be insignificant. Full credit is due to the general manager and to her management staff. I mean, I really, really want to give them credit for stabilizing W. I am very optimistic about W's future. They are building audience. Their audience figures are very impressive compared to where this station was years ago. And with an audience ... listener support. So I am looking forward to even better financial reports in the future.
This budget is very tight and I think the finance committee very much appreciated that when a little bit of money was freed up as we made some changes in the budget that that's what the general manager is allocating what little extra money there was to development so that more money can be raised.
KPFT's listener support is up, but unfortunately because of unforeseen expenses due to a delay in the transmitter move their budget went over last year. The deficit they've incurred is going to be budgeted over subsequent years starting with a $10,000 commitment for the coming budget. And you'll see that under "debt retirement".
But again, even with T's very tight budget, Garland was able to increase his, very slightly, but to increase his commitment to development. And so we were again optimistic given the income figures last year the station will continue to grow.
Okay. National office--we were presented with a budget that had--that was not balanced. That had excess expenses of 154,000. We discussed what that meant. Basically the budget reflects decisions made in our strategic plan and in priorities from the Board as far as staffing and services for the stations that we expected the national office to pick up.
In grappling with that number our solution was to allocate a subsidy from the SCA of 111,000 which you will see when you get to that budget, and instructed Pat Scott to cut the national office budget. And Sandra the Controller has made some of those cuts in the interim since the finance committee meeting. We have now reduced the excess expenses to 17,000. And Pat and Sandra will continue to work to balance this budget.
And I need to remind people if you were participating in discussions yesterday about Board expenses and expanding costs of the Board there is no money to do that. So if you all decide to do that, you'll have to figure out where to come up with the money.
National programming basically this is the news and the administration of national programming. And here-- let's see--the big change in this budget is that we now have a development director for national programming which will positively impact on income for all of the national programs. Otherwise it didn't change much from last year.
The national program fund is the money raised by the stations for national programs and you'll see, you know, I had mentioned before that this money is--I don't know how to explain it, the transfer from the stations is listed at the top under "NPF share" of 200,000.
This budget doesn't balance, but basically this budget is restricted by how much is transferred from the stations. Any additional money needed for these national programs will have to be raised from outside of the foundation, so that 75 is an indicator of what will need to be raised by the individual shows.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay.
MS. MAKELA: And not a number that Pacifica is picking up.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay.
MS. ROSS: So the excess income under national programs, $14,000, which is on page B-1, which is what they raised, they have increased that amount to 75,000?
MS. MAKELA: I don't see the--
MR. MILLSPAUGH: They're all marked page B-1, so--
MS. MAKELA: I'm sorry.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Are you talking about national programs or national program funds?
MS. ROSS: On national fund programming I am looking at income versus expenses--
MS. MAKELA:
MS. ROSS: --created a positive--
MS. MAKELA: It's a zero balance.
MS. ROSS: I see it as a deficit.
MS. SCOTT: Yeah, it is.
MS. MAKELA: Right. The national programming budget is balanced. The next page, the national program fund is the one that on paper has a deficit of 75.
MS. ROSS: Right.
MS. MAKELA: What I'm saying is that is not a Pacifica deficit in the sense that we're picking that up.
MS. ROSS: Right.
MS. MAKELA: That that indicates the money to be raised for those individual shows.
MS. ROSS: Okay. Well, if we could revenue for national programs.
MS. MAKELA: National programming?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: National programming.
MS. ROSS: Uh-huh.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Could the staff see to it that there are page numbers on these pages.
[Laughter.]
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Oh, there are, it's just they're all the same page number.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yeah, so we can identify a page.
Go right ahead.
MS. MAKELA: Okay. The next one is--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Oh, I'm sorry, Rob had a question.
MR. ROBINSON: On the minutes for the Board report on page 18 it indicates that revenue from affiliates for national programming is $140,000 next year. In the national programming page under income, where would that review appear?
MS. MAKELA: I would think under sales income, but Gail, do you want to answer that?
So sales income was budgeted at 107 as of 7/97 it was 103.
MR. ROBINSON: So since then it's gone to 140?
MS. MAKELA: So since then it's gone to 140. Do you see the line, the fifth--
MS. BROOKS: Through 7/97.
MR. ROBINSON: I see the line that says "sales income".
MS. MAKELA: Income. So it is currently at 140 and it is budgeted for next year at 130.
MR. ROBINSON: Your budget format doesn't show the specific revenue sources for the different profit centers or--
MS. MAKELA: The sales income is the affiliates.
MR. ROBINSON: Okay. And the reason it differs from the book is apparently this was an earlier date, the pro rata policy?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: But what you read in the--what you were reading--read again what you read.
MR. ROBINSON: It says that--well, it indicates that there are 38 affiliate stations. And it says, "Revenue from affiliates this year is expected to be about 140,000." And then it indicates that the cost of distribution for that will be 114.
MS. MAKELA: Right.
MR. ROBINSON: And this is not--I don't want to debate this, but the way you do your budgeting, you don't show for the different revenue sources that each profit center have?
MS. MAKELA: No. Right. The expenses--
MR. ROBINSON: The expenditure--
MS. MAKELA: --and then the net, right.
MR. ROBINSON: --the expenditures for those particular revenue sources against the revenues that are generated whether it's from a news program, so when you show, for example, listener support, you pool listener su