PACIFICA NATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
TRANSCRIPTS
Los Angeles, California
Sunday, March 1, 1998
REPORTED BY: LINDA FRAZEUR CSR. NO. 6697
Meeting of the Pacifica National Board of Directors held at the Le Montrose Hotel conference room, 900 Hammond, West Hollywood, California, on Sunday, March 1, 1998, commencing before Linda Frazeur, CSR No. 6697.
APPEARANCES:
Dr. Mary Frances Berry, Chairperson David Acosta, KPFT Representative Roberta Brooks, Secretary Dorothy Nasatir, KPFK Representative Frank Millspaugh, WBAI Representative Charles McClung, KPFK Local Advisory Board Chair Loretta Ross, At Large Micheal Palmer, KPFT Representative Pete Bramson, KPFA Representative Cheryl Fabio-Bradford, KPFA Representative Robert Robinson, WPFW Representative Ken Ford, WPFW Representative June Makela, TreasurerLOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - SUNDAY, MARCH 1, 1998MS. BERRY: This is the Pacifica National Board of Directors meeting, and the first item on the agenda is the seating of members. There are some nominees from the LABs to be seated at this meeting. I open the floor for nominations.
Yes, Frank.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: It would be my pleasure to nominate as a representative from WBAI Andrea Cisco who has extensive background in consulting on a range of issues, especially around human resources managing the workforce. She has been active with WBAI -- Well, more recently as an LAB member, but before that, helped us to do an audience profile based upon a -- upon an instrument that had been terribly designed. And she managed to pull it together in a coherent manner.
I think she's the kind of person who would be able to provide substance and guidance, not only to this organization as a whole, but to our efforts to provide a -- a clear directive concerning community ascertainment to the ocal advisory board, and would be an asset in every way. And I nominate Andrea Cisco.
MS. BERRY: Do I hear a second?
MS. NASATIR: I second.
MS. BERRY: Any discussion? All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: So ordered.
MR. ACOSTA: I'm happy to nominate Micheal Palmer, LAB representative -- as LAB representative from KPFT. He has extensive knowledge in real estate, has been in the real estate business for many, many years. He's been on several nonprofit boards in Houston. Most of you already know him because he's been to these meetings for the last two years or so as an alternate. And I'm proud to put his name in nomination. I think he's an asset to the organization now and will be in the future.
MS. BERRY: Do I hear a second?
MS.BRADFORD: Second.
MS. BERRY: Any discussion? All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: So ordered. Any additional nominations?
MR. FORD: I would like to nominate Mr. Robert Robinson. Rob is a political person. He has been campaign manager for a lot of local politicians in the Washington, D.C., area; also served as an executive assistant to the city council, and Rob himself has been a candidate for the city council. He will offer invaluable assistance as far as the Pacifica board in dealing with community groups, and I, therefore, submit his name in nomination.
MS. BERRY: Do I hear a second?
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Second.
MS. BERRY: Any discussion? All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: So ordered. Additional nominations?
MS.BRADFORD: I'd like to nominate Pete Bramson, local LAB member from KPFA to this board -- LAB member for the last ten years. He's got a technical background, has experience with human resources.
MS. BERRY: Do I hear a second?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Second.
MS. BERRY: Any discussion? All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: Objection? So ordered. Any additional nominations?
MS. CISCO: Frank Millspaugh for WBAI. I think his record stands for him.
MS. BERRY: Do I hear a second?
MS. NASATIR: Second.
MS. BERRY: Any discussion? All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: Opposed? So ordered.
Any additional nominations? I guess not. I haven't missed anybody?
MS. BROOKS: I asked if we needed to formally seat Dorothy Nasatir and Ralph McKnight as alternates again.
MR. MCCLUNG: That's true. Are they alternates in perpetuity?
MS. BERRY: Why don't we do it again? Somebody nominate --
I need a motion to do that.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: So moved.
MS. BERRY: Second?
MR. ACOSTA: Second.
MS. BERRY: Discussion? All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: Opposed? So ordered.
The next item is the Executive Committee report. And I will briefly give the Executive Committee report. Our executive director is ill and is not here today.
I want to tell you that the process of evaluation of the executive director, which is done annually, is under way. There have been surveys done. The Executive Committee has the process under consideration. The other thing that I want to tell you is that I sent out on behalf of the Executive Committee a number of letters to the chairs of LABs asking for information about the rosters of the LAB, information about the terms of members, and telling them that certain people’s terms had expired, and they needed to be replaced; and in many cases I've received no response. But I'm telling those of you who are LAB representatives here on the board that you should check with your LAB -- I have had responses from a couple, but I won't take up time here. This is just bookkeeping, housekeeping information, but we very much need it.
So could you check with your individual LAB chair and find out whether they have responded and, if they've not, encourage them to give us the basic information concerning the names and so on.
Since we're in Los Angeles, I want to thank the people in Los Angeles for being very gracious to us while we're here.
Let me just say that at the direction of the Executive Committee, we've been in the process of trying to get the LAB up and going with an expanded membership in this area. And the Executive Committee asked Dorothy Nasatir in March -- to work with the chair of the nominating committee who is David Aedelson -- to try to add members consistent with the criteria we have for people we would like to have on the LAB as it relates to the national. That is, the report of the Executive Committee.
For the executive director, you have a report in your packet, and it was discussed at the Executive Committee. If any board members have questions about any of it, you may ask those questions, but I will not go into a discussion of it in the interest of time. Many of these items have been discussed at the various committee meetings that we've already had.
So if there is no objection, I will go on to the next report which is that of the Finance Committee. And I would turn it over to the chair of the Finance Committee and the treasurer, June Makela.
June, please.
MS. MAKELA: Mary, I am going to hand out some materials that are part of the report. And people who are on the Finance Committee already have these, so I have copies for board members who are not on the Finance Committee.
MS. TILSON: May I have a show of hands?
MS. MAKELA: People could raise their hands who are not on the Finance Committee.
Just to begin, because we had a tight schedule yesterday, I didn't have a chance to make a few positive remarks, which I'd like to do to balance, you know, the sometimes sobering discussion that happens in the Finance Committee.
I really want to commend the general managers who had, as far as I can understand from the reports and figures, pretty much across-the-board excellent winter fund drives. So while we have tight budgets, we seem to be meeting income projections fairly well, and a couple of stations going well beyond them.
I want to again recognize the work of WPFW and Bessie Walsh. On behalf of the committee, I really want to commend that. It is really exciting to the Finance Committee to look at the income that is being generated and be able to project continued growth and stability. So, congratulations. I also want to recognize, although we've had some rocky financial times at KPFT, in the midst of that, KPFT just finished its best ever fund drive in the history of the station. I think that's worth congratulations, and congratulations to the general manager.
So, basically, we did a number of things in the Finance Committee. We had, as I say, a very sobering discussion about income projections. While we are doing well and meeting our budgets, there are real concerns about our ability to generate the kind of income that we need to see our strategic plans realized. And after a long discussion of, among other things, the questionable future for SCA earnings, the always questionable question of CPB funding, the committee asked for a study to be prepared before the next board meeting of -- of the full range of potential alternative income generation -- generating plans. We created a committee that consists of myself, Frank Millspaugh, Micheal Palmer, with staff Pat Scott and Lynn Chadwick, to prepare this study and bring it to the Finance Committee discussion. Among other things, we will look at a fuller analysis of the potential of income from affiliates using the Ku down link, look at the archives, look at income-generating projects at other public radio stations, and anything else that the committee can come up with between now and June. And we will have a fuller discussion then and a full report for the board.
We then looked at a number of budget modifications and were presented with two that you have before you. The first was a proposal from the controller and the new general manager at KPFA. We had been concerned since the close of the last fiscal year about deficits at KPFA, and with the change in management felt in the early months of this year, that the budget was not realistic and needed to be looked at carefully.
Sandra spent some time at the station and a new budget was presented to us which you have before you. And basically, in the fourth column is the adjustment being made to the budget to bring it in line both with reality and to balance it. So we have allowed a -- some changes in income based on projections where income is going with the station.
They're a little off proven revenue, but all parties are confident that the station will be able to make these goals on income, and then there were some cuts on the expense side as well as increase in development expenses to generate some more funds.
And I think that's it on that. I'll do the full report, and then on the budgets, particularly if people have questions, other board members have questions, there will be an opportunity to do that before you vote on it. So that's one modification. The second is the national program fund, and as people may remember, the first budget submitted had an approximately 71,000 hole in it, a deficit that was to be raised hopefully by grant money. Because of both the ability to cut some costs on national programs and income coming in already from affiliates beyond what we had projected and beyond what is needed to cover costs, Gail Christian has been able to reduce that hole to 34,821. So that is the new budget submitted, basically. It's an improvement of the bottom line, that 34,000 will need to be raised from grants or further cuts will happen. So that budget will in the end zero out.
The third budget modification that we approved in a conference call but got final figures on yesterday -- was a budget change for KPFT. Basically we have added 32,000 to listener support. They are projecting, although the amount is off proven revenue -- As I have just stated, fund drives are going very well. And Pat, Sandra, and Garland felt that this adjustment was justified and very much needed. As people will remember, the budget that we passed was very tight, and there has been some staffing -- some restructuring of staffing, et cetera. And this money was needed to cover expenses. So the new budget being submitted is page -- I don't know what number or page it is, but it says "KPFT" at the top.
And you'll see the budget, second column is the budget you approved. And the third column is the -- And the fourth column is the new FY '98 budget. The budgets for WPFW and KPFT will be sent to the Finance Committee within the next month reflecting the inclusion of last year's deficits that were not available at the time the budgets were passed. So we're basically approving those budgets with those items added.
We also approved a change in the national office budget to cover the staffing changes when we split the job previously held by Dick Bunce into two positions, and made the budget adjustments, again approved at a Finance Committee meeting. And that budget is in your board packet under the national office budget.
We had a brief report from WBAI -- on the WBAI move, from Pat and Valerie. I'm pleased to report that the move is on schedule and on budget. Both Valerie and Pat are optimistic that it will stay on budget and on schedule and very excited about its development.
I gave a very brief report on investment.
Basically, we determined that the Finance Committee has not been on top of our investments as we should, and discussed whether or not to create an investment committee. Given the other committee responsibilities of the board right now, and other priorities, we are -- we've created a small subcommittee of the Finance Committee to oversee our investments. At this point, it's Ken Ford and myself, and we will prepare a report for the Finance Committee before the next finance meeting in June.
We had a brief conversation about our continuing concern about the transmitter situation at KPFK. However, there is good news that they have been approved to go into Santa Barbara with their signal, and this is both reaching new audiences which is very exciting and has the potential for new income for the station.
And, lastly, the auditor's report is in draft form. We will get the final report shortly and we will have a meeting with our auditors at the next meeting.
MS. BERRY: Questions for the chair of the Finance Committee and board members concerning any of these matters?
MS. ROSS: Just one. On the national program fund -- and you mentioned that the deficit would be made up with grant income. It appears that they have already raised better than 28-, $27,000 of new income? Is that true, too? If so, that should be noted and they should be congratulated.
MS. MAKELA: Yes.
MS. ROSS: So they have $34,000 more to go to meet this budget, but --
MS. MAKELA: That's right. And part of what had been raised was through these affiliates. At the last board meeting, Gail presented the idea of using the Ku down link thing to attract affiliates and to increase the affiliates subscribing to Pacifica, and this strategy had been untested. We've now tested it, and it's successful and it's looking like it will be a real potential income generating program, as well as a spreading of Pacifica programs in the country. And we're already generating money for the national program fund beyond what her projections were. And that was partly what offset this deficit.
MS. ROSS: Need to watch that. Good news.
MS. MAKELA: We now have a development director and grants have been applied for, so that we are optimistic this 34,000 will be made up.
MR. ROBINSON: Just a couple of quick points relating to finance, both deal with the budget, as well as the revenue side and the expenditure side. We talked at the last meeting and I -- my thrust is, I'd like the whole board to be able to have some discussions on both the expenditure, as well as the revenue side of the budget.
One of the problems with the budget format that you have right now is that there is no capital budgeting that appears in the budget or it appears under peculiar names. And there is no budgeting by activity. So we really can't discuss the potential for revenues that Pacifica faces. There was a very, very good report by Ms. Christian that talked about some of the issues pertaining to the archives and the production of tapes. And I think it would be helpful for us as a board to understand the potential for some of the fund-raising activities. Related to that, at the last meeting, I had asked, and I was told that we would have an updated policy document done on what our fund-raising policies are. I believe that in order for Pacifica to not simply stay even with expenses but to grow, which I think should be a part of the strategy, we have to find ways to make more money. And I think we have to look at what our fund-raising policies are.
The press packet which Mr. Glass prepared for us had an interesting article by Matthew Lazar, who is a supporter or a member from the Bay Area, who talked about the extent to which Lou Hill and the early managers of Pacifica did have some very strong ties to corporate foundations. And my suggestion is that one of the things that we should look at, without destroying the founding ideology of Pacifica, is whether or not there aren't some alternative revenues for us to pursue in that direction. So I really feel a discussion would be helpful.
Additionally, and one of the reasons I think that capital budgeting is important, is that we see that after having been two years in the new facility on Champlain Street, WPFW will not be able to grow after their lease expires in a couple of years. And one of the things that happened was, we were committed not only to leasing the space and moving into the space, but paying a very high rate for the build-out for space that we really can't move out of after our five years.
So I think one of the things that this board needs to be doing in the future related to finance on a major basis, not just within the Finance Committee, is look at some of these policies that really have global effect for the budget and the direction of some of the stations.
MS. BERRY: Before I let June say whatever she'd like, the foundation does have a funding policy which is a document that we passed 1993. I wasn't here. But there is a Pacifica Foundation funding policy that I was given in a book when I was appointed chair. So that does exist.
Secondly, the last item that you mentioned about the building at WPFW, that came up in the -- 50th anniversary as one of the items that might be put on the list.
And then I'll let June answer your first item about looking at revenue streams.
Anything else you want to say?
MS. MAKELA: Well, I mean, the whole issue -- I guess one issue is whether -- how to have whole board discussions. I think perhaps we need to alert the rest of the board about the agenda for the Finance Committee meeting and maybe invite everyone from the board to come to certain Finance Committee meetings, and/or when we have the study, for example, that we're working on which is going to talk about exactly that income streams as widely studied as we can, then we could make this a full board discussion and figure out how to do that without simply duplicating the discussion.
The issue for actual budgets for activities has been raised, and we are expecting by October when the new financial computer management program is up and running, that we are going to be able to solicit exactly that, and it's been raised by other people that we'll be able to get activity budgets, particularly for budgets for actual national programs and discrete activities within the stations and be able to analyze better where we're raising money and not. And I agree with you and this has been a concern of the Finance Committee. So hopefully we will have more flexibility with financial reporting and be able to really do analysis. So I appreciate your comments.
MR. ROBINSON: Would it make sense to have a larger board discussion about financial policy?
MS. BERRY: May I answer that?
When the report is given to us by the committee -- and I am asking specifically that the task force that you set up consider the questions raised specifically by Rob, when we get that report, the board will have a discussion. Okay?
MR. ROBINSON: That's a good answer. Thank you.
MS. BERRY: An information discussion.
MS. BROOKS: I just want to check. Did all the new members get a book of bylaws and everything? I mean, I gave them out at the last in Washington. Did the new members get a -- No. So we'll make sure that they get that.
MS. BERRY: Yes, Mike?
MR. PALMER: I wanted to say that in the two and a half years that I've been sitting in on the Finance Committee meetings as an alternate, none of the budgets were in as good a condition as they are today. This is probably one of the first meetings where we didn't have to entertain some type of emergency situation or some situation where money was being requested for an unexpected reason. And I think congratulations and just some acknowledgment of this fact is in order with the managers, the staffs, and volunteers, paid, from the top to bottom, something is happening that things are in a somewhat better condition today. And I think that needs to be said. I also think that the audience growth and the listener sponsors are a sign of the times, you know? The world in America is doing a little bit better overall and we're benefiting as well. But I also think that as the Finance Committee for the Pacifica Foundation, that we ought to undertake a stab, at least, at a three-year budget, if not even a five-year budget, in a way that would incorporate some of the things we know, like the anticipated and projected SCA revenues under revenue streams that we know about. And then also begin to look at what we do know for the next several years so that maybe this can become a more orderly process and we can control things -- not control things from the Finance Committee, but anticipate a little bit better. And I don't know how to initiate that process through Sandra's office, but I think we really ought to give that a shot, and I would be more than happy to undertake that as well.
And the other thing I wanted to say is, on this group of people that's going to be looking at other areas where we might generate revenue, latent revenue streams, we'll say, I'd be more than happy to initiate that with a memo and circulate it and be the one to originate the conference calls to the people that are on the committee, and we'll do that promptly.
MS. MAKELA: Thank you.
MS. BERRY: The only other point -- Does anyone else have a point to raise?
The only other point I would raise is that I agree with what you said, Micheal, about trying to set as a goal having longer term budgets than one year so that people will have some sense of what's going to happen in the out year even if it changes.
I also think there ought to be an effort to give more flexibility to managers. But maybe this system, Solomon, which I am not familiar with, I am told will generate information concerning expenses and transactions and the like. And I have asked the Finance Committee chair, the treasurer, of course, to engage me in some way in understanding this and what can be generated, because once we have a fix on what's been happening and feel assured about it, we may be able to go with longer budgets and may be able to give more flexibility to the managers which I think is desirable.
Any other comments? Okay.
Could I get a motion to accept the report of the Finance Committee?
MS. NASATIR: I so move.
MS. BERRY: Can I get a second?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Second.
MS. BERRY: Further discussion? All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: Opposed?
So ordered. Thank you very much.
The next item on the agenda is the report of the council of chairs, given by Charlie McClung because we're here in Los Angeles and he's the chair of the LAB in Los Angeles, and that is the normal procedure. We want to welcome you and we'd like to hear your report.
MR. MCCLUNG: Well, I wasn't aware that I was going to be giving a report today.
MS. BERRY: Well, you may say anything you'd like to say. That's what the report is.
MR. MCCLUNG: Well, let me say this, that I think the council of chairs is a good idea. We've met once by telephone conference call since, I think, the last Pacifica national meeting. That took place about a month ago, I think. And we discussed the -- the board -- local board policies that have been under discussion now for about 18 months by this board. And I think the -- the discussion is spirited and I compliment the chair for her direction in that. And I think we provided our guidance directly to you, so I don't think it's necessary for me to reiterate that because you're on that committee, and there's probably another agenda item that focuses on that particular point later.
But I do want to say to everyone, I think that something like maybe three years ago, the idea was hatched to have the council of chairs and to integrate the local advisory boards into this process. And I think it's a very good idea. And I think it's working. And I think that the local chairs have a very good perspective and can add a lot to this board, and that input is happening now. And I congratulate the group, you know, for doing so.
One thing that I would add is, I don't know whether it's policy or if we've decided quite yet what the role of the local chair should be at these meetings. I know the report is on the agenda, and I'm giving it, I guess. But I think it would be useful in the future to have the board packet delivered in advance to the chair of the signal area where the meeting is going to take place so that the person who's in my position would have a more useful contribution. I mean, I'm happy to sit here and listen, but obviously if I haven't reviewed what you all have reviewed before this meeting, I'm basically just a listener, although I can provide input or comment wherever anybody wants it.
I would suggest that, perhaps as only a suggestion, the local chair be given the board packet and perhaps be invited to a specific committee meeting, if there is one, that seems like maybe the board is understaffed -- you know, we don't have enough folks in one committee? You all will know what that committee is. Invite the local -- Like if we go to Houston next time, invite the local chair to come and sit at the -- whatever the open committee would be where we need some bodies to help. And that will evolve but further integrate what we're already trying to do here, which is a good idea, and I think we should continue to do it.
MS. BERRY: Does anyone have any comments? I think those are good suggestions apart from some reason why we shouldn't do it, and I will take it under advisement, and consider how it should be done. And I thank you very much.
Let us go -- This sort of segues us into the report of the Board Development Committee. Because it's the Board Development Committee that has the LAB policy and review. And let me just say before we start that, as I recall in the council of chairs meeting, there was one major concern from one particular chair about the issue of staff being on the LAB. And there were other concerns about the role of the LABs and whether LABs would be doing something really important or not important. And I think all these issues are going to be addressed in your report.
But I remember those as the two basic issues that came out of the council of chairs meeting on the subject.
So please proceed, David.
MR. ACOSTA: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Back in September in Washington, this board decided to approve four at-large members to this board. We need their talents and skills necessary for a successful 50th anniversary campaign while maintaining the majority level at the local level. Although we decided, we recognized that it would realistically take us about a year to fill these positions, taking into consideration persons with the requisite criteria which was developed in Washington and their willingness to accept.
This committee has met several times and we have solicited and received numerous resumes of potential candidates from across the country. Some qualified recruits have declined, mainly due to time constraints; and some recruits have indicated that they're considering it and will let us know soon.
One person that accepted and we feel is very qualified to serve as an at-large member to this board is William Lucy. He was elected as international secretary/ treasurer, the second highest ranking officer of the American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees in May of 1972. He has been re-elected every four years, most recently in June of '92.
He joined the AFSCME international staff in 1966 as associate director of the legislative community before serving as executive assistant to the late president Jerry Wurf. He's vice president of the AFL-CIO's Maritime Trade Departments and Department for Professional Employees.
He served as first vice president of Public Services International. In addition, he was on the commission on skills of the American workforce which was established by the National Center on Education and the Economy.
William Lucy, who worked closely with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in the struggle for civil rights, is a member of the National Center on Civil Rights. He is the founder of black trade unionists and organization rank and file members dedicated to focusing on the needs of African Americans and minority group workers. Lucy and his wife Dorothea and their children live in Washington, D.C. At this time, I hereby nominate William Lucy.
MS. NASATIR: Second.
MS. BERRY: Any discussion? I am very pleased that Bill Lucy agreed to be on this board which needs to have a union person on it. He has some significant contacts and is respected throughout the labor the labor movement. So I think Bill, who has been in many protest movements and causes with me, and he and I have gone to jail together about five times and slept on the floor in a building we took over with them turning on the air conditioners and trying to freeze us out, all sorts of things. So he's my brother. And so I'm just very pleased that he agreed, and I told him he couldn't assume he would get elected. So he will be at the next meeting if he is elected.
Any other discussion? With hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye.
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: Opposed?
So ordered. Please proceed.
MR. ACOSTA: The second item that we bring before this body are the revisions to the document known as Pacifica Foundation Local Advisory Board. It is a culmination of many, many hours of work from the members of the Executive Committee and the local advisory boards through the council of chairs, as well as members of this committee and Pacifica staff. We feel that these revisions will clarify the role of the LAB member and serve to galvanize the LABs to action, as well as serving to foster a climate of unity and cohesion with management and the national board.
At this time, Madam Chair, I move to adopt the revisions to the document Pacifica Foundation Local Advisory Board as stated in this meeting's Pacifica governing board meeting booklet.
MS. BERRY: Could I hear a second?
MS. NASATIR: Second.
MS. BERRY: Discussion?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Yes, I think it's an excellent document that's been long in process and is finally really cohesive and comprehensible.
I have only one problem with it. It’s a political problem. That is with the issue of the role of the staff on the local board, the local advisory board, I would emphasize. I know that there is a great concern among many members that having staff on the local advisory board in some manner puts the staff in a superior position, a supervisory or review position of the managers. I think that would be the case if these were local governing boards, but they are not. They are local advisory boards. And advice may come from anybody since advice is not binding.
I particularly raise this at this point because we're entering a capital campaign in New York in order to facilitate our union and the campaign move. And the campaign would extend beyond the move, and we hope this would be a precursor and become part of the national 50th anniversary capital campaign. Which I think in all likelihood, New York -- not necessarily the station, but New York as a community will be key to, because there's, you know, so much money there. We're certainly going to be going there for some of it.
I can't imagine anything more damaging to such an effort than to re-exacerbate the ill will that exists right now on the part of the staff toward the board, toward management because of the -- because of the union problem that still exists there. Remember, it's been resolved at the other stations which is terrific, but so far we are still suffering from it in New York. And I would like to propose that that section which addresses this issue be tabled and that the rest be approved.
MR. PALMER: Could you tell me where that is specifically?
MR. BRAMSON: Page 74.
MR. PALMER: Where?
MS. BERRY: Page 74. Bottom of --
MR. BRAMSON: Second box from the bottom.
MR. PALMER: Uh-huh.
MS. BERRY: It says, "Station personnel may serve as ex officio non-voting members of the LAB."
MR. MILLSPAUGH: At present should I -- May I?
MS. BERRY: Yes, you may.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: At present at WBAI -- and this may be the only place where this is the case -- one hopes at present at WBAI, there is one non-paid staff member who is elected by the non-paid staff to serve on the local advisory board. And there is one paid staff member. To make this change at this time would be, I think, extremely disruptive to the amount of balance and peace that we've -- or at least suspended warfare that we've tried to achieve there to go into this fund-raising -- fund-raising drive and, furthermore, since it has been said that this is the only station that it applies to, it arouses the paranoia that, you know, once again the board is making on --
MS. BROOKS: Why is it?
MS. BERRY: I was told that the other LABs did not have this problem. At the council of chairs.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Well, now, that's what the people at WBAI think.
MS. BERRY: It may be not true.
MR. BRAMSON: I just wanted to know what the existing language is. Because the existing language, I don't know whether it addresses the ability of staff people to serve on the local advisory board. The preceding document dated April 11, '97, just says, under "Station Personnel," "Language to be determined." I would interpret if this was to -- if this was to move and to pass, this would be that station personnel may serve as ex-officio, non-voting, which means that they may serve as voting members. That's the way I interpret this language.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Would you give me that language?
MR. BRAMSON: I would interpret this sentence to say, non-voting members to the local area board. Where, in fact, they may actually serve as --
MS.BRADFORD: Voting members.
MR. BRAMSON: -- voting members.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: I interpret this as exclusive.
MR. BRAMSON: I do not.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: I see.
MS. BERRY: Let me recognize Cheryl.
MS.BRADFORD: I was going to ask what the change in the language is, but also to say I think that the -- the ambiguous language does need to be clarified.
MS. BERRY: The language originally was as Pete said. There was nothing. It just said "language to be determined."
MR. ACOSTA: It was silent.
MS. BROOKS: It is a point of information. It is silent in this document.
It is not silent in the –-
What did we decide it was yesterday?
MR. FORD: Bylaws.
MS. BROOKS: The policies and procedures manual spells out the proportion of paid and unpaid staff that can be on a local advisory board. So this document was silent, but there is another document that is not silent.
MS. BERRY: It's a personnel document -- But this document would take precedence over that.
MR. MCCLUNG: Let me just follow up on what Roberta was just saying, because it's an overall issue that came up in the council of chairs meeting concerning this current document that we're discussing and how it fits into the documents that have already been approved and passed by this body. And it all answers Pete's question of -- We have adopted and in place standard bylaws for the local advisory boards. They are still in place. They have been approved and are in place at all the stations, and they were approved by resolution of this board.
And those bylaws, at page 2, have a very -- I think that's what Roberta was meaning to refer to when she just said policies and procedures have a very -- about a half-page statement about how the staff and personnel in the station can be on the local advisory boards. That's in the current document which is called the Pacifica Foundation Station Board Bylaws last amended in October of 1994.
Now, what has to be done is, in implementing these new procedures, we can't just layer them on the old procedures. We have to be explicit about what we're repealing; and if we want to repeal the old bylaws, we can do that, but we need to be explicit in so doing.
MS. MAKELA: At a previous meeting, we put on the record that all other documents have -- including we specified local bylaws would be brought in -- must be brought into line with the policies once they're set by the board.
MR. MCCLUNG: I agree.
MS. MAKELA: So that's something that gets done locally. It's not for us to --
MR. MCCLUNG: I'm amplifying that. We have to be explicit and clear that what we're doing right now is amending the existing rules that are governing us, and we need to set someone the task from this board, or a consultant, to go back and unpack that and figure out what's --
MS. MAKELA: No, no, that's not what we said. No.
MR. MCCLUNG: Well --
MS. BERRY: One person at a time, please. Finish, please.
MR. MCCLUNG: The point is, if you have an existing set of policies and then you adopt a new set of policies, and then with the idea that you're going to make the old ones conform with the new, that's a very inefficient and potentially confusing and ambiguous way of doing it. It would be like saying we've got a bunch of laws and let's pass a whole bunch of new laws and we won't worry about how they conflict with each other. And I agree with what June is saying, but I think we should do it explicitly now when we pass these new rules and regulations, we should formally amend the old regulations or throw them out.
MS. BROOKS: They were thrown out. That's why all this work was done on this. It became very clear when we went through the retreat that local advisory boards cannot have bylaws because they are not governing bodies. They're advisory boards. So the nomenclature of bylaws was inappropriate organizationally. And we went through all that during the retreat and threw that out, and this is the new document.
MS. BERRY: It says, "1-26-97, approved by governing board."
MS. BROOKS: Right.
MS. BERRY: The legislative history is listed at the top. 1-26-97, approved by governing board; 4-11-97, visual changes; 1998, and then now we come to this point. So there was a document 1-26-97, and then there were amendments made after that.
MS. BROOKS: All amendments.
MS. BERRY: All of which were suggested and they're all in here. So that's an amendment to that document. The key point is, June is saying, if I understand you correctly, that at some point in the past maybe you intend to --
MS. BROOKS: Through the retreat.
MS. BERRY: Well, it would have had to have been done 1-26-97 when this document was approved by the governing board.
MS. BROOKS: It was done before this was approved by the governing board. Because we didn't have it yet. We knew that wasn't going to work.
MS. TILSON: Also, we consulted with our broadcast attorney who gave us a reading on this, that there is only -- there could only be the one set of bylaws by which the organization to run, and that's when the board stepped forward and said, well, then these other bylaws have to go.
MS. BROOKS: And we will create a procedures -- policies and procedures documents to replace the -- the -- What's the word I'm looking for? But the area that was covered by the previously existing erroneously named bylaws --
MS. BERRY: So that on 1-26-97, the governing board approved policies governing local station advisory boards. Sometime in advance of that, the governing board said there cannot be bylaws at local stations for the reasons given and that local station, quote, "bylaws," unquote, which were denominated in that way, any local rules may -- would have to conform both to the policies here.
What -- As I understand it, today, what we're doing is saying that if this document is passed in this assembly, amendments to the 1-26-97 document which is already in existence, that , the entire document reiterated supersedes anything that was done before in terms of policies governing local station advisory boards and local station advisory boards must act or are expected to act cooperatively because we value them and want them to be effective in conformity with these rules. And whatever is out on the table that was before ought to be in conformity with this.
MR. ACOSTA: That's correct.
MS. BERRY: Charles, do you have any questions about that?
MR. MCCLUNG: Well, what I would -- what I would suggest -- My only disagreement with the way you just summarized it is that the thing that we discuss in and during retreat -- and I was part of the retreat and I was on the national board in those discussions, we've got to be careful when we're dealing with the procedures that are the foundation of the enterprise. We can't be loosy-goosy about it.
We had -- I agree completely with Roberta, we had these discussions. But I don't believe -- And if there is a written record that proves me wrong, then I'm happy. But if you're right, then we need to take action on it today. I think the written record will show that there is no resolution of this board doing the repealing process of the old rules. We did say that we would make any old rules conform with whatever new policies we adopt, and all I'm saying is let's follow that previous resolution. Let's be explicit about it and we're going to repeal. Because I'm dealing with this at the local board level. I mean, everybody else is -- there's all these rules floating around.
Let's be very, very clear when we adopt these amendments today or adopt this policy today, because I think there is even some disagreement as to whether it was adopted formally back in February of last year -- Let's make all that very, very explicit. Let's, by resolution of this board, repeal clearly the -- any other policy rules, bylaws, whatever that may exist out there up to this point, let's just repeal them. We have the -- This board has the power to repeal it. Repeal them, adopt the new policies, then as of today we'll have complete clarity. We'll be living with one document, not multiple documents. And then we can correct whatever ambiguities we need to correct, as Pete points out, in this document and we don't have to refer back to other documents.
MS. BERRY: Mr. Chair, with all due respect as you make your motion to get your report passed, I would suggest that you might want to repeal the language -- to avoid confusion so that no one is confused that these policies supersede all other policies in existence, wherever they may be, by whatever authority, concerning the LABs so that nobody -- anybody who's confused about it -- The other stuff didn't happen on my watch, so I don't have anything to do with that, so if we can just be clear about it, but then we need to go back to the issue that was raised by Frank and raised by Charlie and Pete which was never resolved. How do we want to deal, Mr. Chairman, with the suggestion the language has on page 74 is unclear, and that perhaps it might be saying except as -- may not serve except as ex-officio non-voting members.
MR. ACOSTA: We can enter Frank's motion to adopt the rest of the document and table this item, and then we will go back and do research on it and deal with it at the next meeting.
MS. BERRY: You can do that or --
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Well, my motion is --
MR. ACOSTA: Frank, you're the one who said delete this.
MS. BERRY: We had a motion on the table. Was there a --
MR. MILLSPAUGH: I make a motion to table that.
MR. BRAMSON: Second.
MR. PALMER: What is the reason that you want to have this one particular section out of all other material?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: As I said --
MR. PALMER: Just make it simple so I can understand.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: I think it will blow the roof off the goddamn place and it will completely damage our efforts to --
MR. PALMER: Because you have voting members of the staff on.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Two out of 16.
MR. PALMER: I've always been under the impression in Houston we're not allowed to have any voting -- we weren't allowed to have any staff on the board.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Must have been a local choice.
MR. PALMER: Garland, could you clarify for me?
MS. BROOKS: What was the point you're making? Mike.
MR. PALMER: My understanding about why there was no staff on our board was because it was something that was coming from the top of the organization. I think the reason he's saying he wants to table this is because in New York it will create a great deal of difficulty to go into the capital campaign.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: It's furthermore a difficulty that I think could well spill over to the national's efforts to raise money in New York.
MS. BERRY: Yes, Roberta?
MS. BROOKS: Well, make the -- specifically because of this previous document, there has always been the possibility to have non-paid or paid staff on local advisory boards. The governing board can make a decision not to have personnel -- station personnel on the governing board.
The reason why the Board Development Committee went in this direction was because at this point in time the duties of the local advisory board finally, after all these many years, should be clear. Their duty is to do a needs assessment and program evaluation and assess if the programming serves the needs of the community.
The concern of the Board Development Committee is, How does the staff person, who may have a program, may be a programmer of a particular program that may not be serving the community, be objective in going out to the community and getting a real evaluation? It appears to the Board Development Committee that it's a conflict of interest given the duties that are clarified now.
I hear your political concerns, Frank. However, I would just say that that's always going to be true at the stations that have paid staff. And people don't look to lose anything. We all know that. But the reason why we came up with this as a compromise is, we're not saying that they cannot be participants. Because we heard the arguments that staff has made that they have information that they can share with the local advisory board that other people don't have.
Like I don't know what's going on in the station if I'm on a local advisory board. The staff can bring -- We're just saying they can't be a voting member. They can participate and actively participate. They can be an ex-officio member of a LAB. I am at KPFA -- I talk -- but you can look at the glass half full or half empty. I'm sure the people that are going to look at it as half empty because they lose the voting power, but --
MR. MILLSPAUGH: I know what the point is. I really do. I'm simply saying that the values to be realized by making this change are a little bit, you know, theoretical and the -- and the damage being done is very real. And explosive on our board. We are trying to create harmony, not divisiveness in order to do the work that we have to do with the board. I think it would be extremely disastrous at this time to institute such a policy here. It really would cause divisiveness. I am directly opposed to this. I think the suggestion about the language as we see how things progress, I request the Council of Chairs meeting report that perhaps we can consider it down the road. But at this time I oppose it.
MR. ACOSTA: One of the things we're trying to do with this document is to clarify the role of the LABs. We need to let the LABs know that they're advisory in nature. And one way to do it -- And I think if they were a governing board, this might be -- I may agree with you on that; but if they're advisory in nature, we need to let them know now they're advisory in nature.
MS. BERRY: The advisory boards have very important work to do that is essential if Pacifica is going to be what it should be in the next century. And some of that work isn't being done, not because the advisory board -- some members are in a position of not wanting to do it, it just hasn't happened yet and there are a lot of reasons why. But assessing the educational and considerable needs of the communities and telling us as a governing board what to do so that we can think about programming in an overall sense and the future of this organization, is an essential activity.
In my visiting the LABs, I have found in the ones that I've been to, with one exception, most of the discussion was about staff matters. The people either feel that those who are on the staff who were on the LABs, as we were in New York, people who came as staff members to tell about things, and the discussion -- almost the entire discussion ended up being about staff matters and operations with very little discussion or anything having to do with, community needs.
And the LAB Chair had great difficulty getting people to focus. We even went to another meeting. It was on an entirely different subject about money, and we spent the entire time on staff. I think there is too much time and energy spent with people trying to help stations or help the staff bring their grievance to get resolved or aired, which just creates tension. One way to handle this, and I said it in New York, is to have the chair to exercise very tight control. And if you have got staff members sitting there and all they do is just keep raising all these issues about staff, that's not what we're here for. We want to do community needs assessment.
What are your ideas about that? We want to assess the programming goals, which is crucial. We need that information here. That is your contribution to that, not about why Joe's program should be on and John's program should be off. And so maybe the answer is, it's contentious to not put it in, but to admonish the chairs of the LABs that the expectation is that they will devote themselves to the business at hand and not get bogged down in things that are not their affairs and that we will monitor very closely the LABs to make sure that they stick to their knitting, as it were, and that they will tell the LAB this is what we're about. So maybe if I've got real problems in some of your LABs with this issue, that might be one way to handle it and try to see if that will work.
MS. ROSS: Madam Chair, it also seems there is a correlated problem and that is discipline of the staff and their relationship to the LABs too that we have need to address at some future and different point. I don't know if that's to be.
MS. BERRY: You mean to --
MS. ROSS: In clarifying the relationship on the LABs, it's certainly clear that some instruction is going out to staff in terms of what is their relationship. So they should also not come to meetings bringing all of this stuff as well as the chairs. LABs are being resistant to it and so -- but that's -- that's a staff management problem that I think belongs in a different section, not here.
MS. BERRY: If we were -- Loretta, that's a very good point. And if we were to take the tack of taking it out and simply admonishing people and reminding people of their duties, I think you're quite right. And a statement should go forth to staff that this is not something that we're supposed to be bringing over here. You know, there are structures in which you do this.
MS. BROOKS: Well, I need to be convinced that it's not a conflict of interest when the program analysis needs assessment and program reporting is going to be coming to us. How am I going to know that the staff person who participated in this needs assessment didn't have a conflict of interest? I just need to be convinced and I'm not.
MS. BERRY: Plus their own programming involved --
MS. BROOKS: Precisely. Or their buddies'.
MS. BERRY: Rob, and then --
MR. ROBINSON: I think a continual problem with the way the board and the organization operates is, rather than saying what we want the -- how we want people to work together and what outcomes we're looking for, we talk about what we don't want people to do based upon specific cases in point. I don't think that that's a good way to make policy and I think it adds to the -- the adversarial nature.
I think if you want to limit the participation of people, you say that they should recuse themselves from any program discussions at all or at or certainly that which affects their program. Limit the number of volunteer programmers that you have. But it doesn't make sense to me to just say, because it's happened in one case or another, that a volunteer programmer should not participate on a board. If you have to prevent an abuse from occurring, state that. State what it is.
MS. BROOKS: I didn't say that the programmer cannot participate on the board. This thing does not say that the programmer cannot participate on the board. He cannot be a voting member.
The reason there aren't any examples, this isn't based on what somebody did. No station has ever done program needs assessment.
MR. ROBINSON: I don't understand how community needs assessment, which is assessing the needs of the community --
MS. BROOKS: -- and the programming needs of the community. Are the programs that are currently there serving your community? And program evaluation and program policy goal evaluation.
So what I'm just saying is, we've never done that before. We don't have an example to say, Well, Joe Schmoe had a program or went out to the community and tried to push his or her own show. We're not saying that. We do have a few examples. And all I'm asking for is, convince me that there is not a conflict of interest. And you didn't.
MR. ROBINSON: Why is there a conflict of interest --
MS. BROOKS: Because --
MR. ROBINSON: -- if they recuse themselves?
MS. BROOKS: What else is the local advisory board supposed to be doing?
MR. ROBINSON: Arguments of what's going on with the station or the staff or whose program came off of the air.
MS. BROOKS: That's not what I'm talking about. If you start to do what the board supposed to do, which is going out into the community, doing surveys, finding out if the program needs are filling the needs of the community, evaluating program policy goals, which is your new job as a LAB – that has never been done before.
MR. ROBINSON: I understand that.
MS. BROOKS: It's your new job. Just tell me why a programmer doesn't create a conflict.
MR. ROBINSON: Because, number one, the programmers are the principal connection point between the radio station and the membership of the station. We don't know about that membership unless we talk to programmers. We don't have a sense of where those people are or what level of support they're giving. We only can get that from the programmers.
One of our concerns -- and I'm going to make a recommendation for a change in the language -- is that we as a board need to be careful to have a working relationship with the station staff. And I think it would help to have at least one member of the board as a volunteer programmer who can vote, who can work with us in an ongoing basis and help us understand the programming activities as they impact the membership of our station in Baltimore, Washington and northern Virginia.
MS. BERRY: With all due respect, no one has yet stated why a programmer cannot do any of the things we have discussed without a vote.
No one has explained -- All of the arguments that have been made, if you went back and read the transcript, are about them providing information and being involved in discussions, being able to talk to them, being able to discuss their ideas. No one has yet explained why they need to vote.
MS.BRADFORD: I have to say two things: One is that the word staff does not mean that it has to be a programmer. So that's number one. Number two, I think that what New York is raising is the reality of the situation that Pacifica is in. We're all as LAB people well aware of the fact we have no one doing needs assessment because we've been sitting in front of the public getting mud slung at us.
So we're really clear on it. So the reason the issue of voting is at this moment important, it's -- Let me see. It's that kind of good faith thing. There's a lot of anger out in all of these stations. I don't -- Well, it's clearly in two of the stations. There's a lot of the conspiracy theory. It's a lot of everything going on. And I see a break from the past, a move to a forward position that we haven't really begun.
MS. MAKELA: The next report is how to still move forward. In that moment of trying to break from the contentious past moving to a forward position, you're raising back up an issue that is volatile and moves you back to the past. So that's why I think the vote is a --
MS. BERRY: So what you're basically saying and my understanding is without the vote, they can't do all these things like people --
MS.BRADFORD: I don't think they would do it.
MS. BERRY: If you take away the vote you have, you create a political problem and a team of people being suspicious and angry. Now, such a substantive issue I understand.
MR. PALMER: Allowing a staff programmer to vote is what created many of the problems in the past as well. So really we're discussing and at some point you got to break and -- You know, I think with this happening, while it all started two years ago with problems where there were voting staff programmers, it began to create the problems. And that's why I understand the history of this thing is that the whole board's feeling was that it shouldn't be a voting situation. They should be able to give as much input as they like and that's what the language reflects.
MS. BERRY: There is only one other thing when I think about this -- I hear you. There still is within the organization an insufficient understanding that LABs have governance power through their representatives on the governing board. It's not that they don't have governing power; they do, because they are on the Governing Board. But the route to governance is not the local advisory board trying to govern, the route is to have clear LAB representatives do the governing when they come here. And there's too much trying to -- as I go around and try to meet with people -- trying to govern or thinking if we didn't get some power here or couldn't, it's because of the history of the LABs exercising that kind of power. They think, "We're somehow losing something" instead of seeing that the representatives are still here at the Governing Board and change didn't take place as to LAB roles in governance.
LAB’s are in fact governing. And somehow I think those of you who are from the LABs have to explain that to your LAB. You have power. You have two people from each LAB on this Governing Board, and you don't have to worry about it. If something comes up through the Council and you don't like it, you don't need somebody at the LAB to do it. Your governing board governs and the Council of Chairs has direct access to the governing board.
MS. NASATIR: If we don't follow through and ask that staff personnel do not vote, we're saying that the general managers cannot vote and we're saying the staff can vote. I think to be consistent we say staff, which includes general managers, sit on and please -- rather, sit on the board, make comments; but personnel, you don't vote, both personnel and general managers.
MS. BERRY: Either they all vote --
MS. NASATIR: They all vote or they all don't vote.
MS. BERRY: Loretta?
MS. ROSS: It's hard for me -- It's hard for me in the midst of all of this to ascertain the will of this board. I really have trouble because I actually do think that conflict is going to be a natural reaction to everything we do as a board. And part of conflict, in my mind, should not be the determinant of our decision-making at this point, because we can do nothing and be in conflict. And so with all due respect to you, Frank, and I'm not saying which way we should decide, but we should decide. Because that is our course. Within the decision to stay true to that course, should be a decision to handle whatever fallout that decision makes.
MS. BERRY: I'm going to call for a motion to table. The motion to table is on the floor, the motion to table the section that is on page 74 concerning station personnel.
MS. BROOKS: Can I ask for clarification?
MS. BERRY: Yes.
MS. BROOKS: It could be that we would table because there's so much lack of clarity and we need to talk about it some more until the next meeting. But your vote to table was to table until the day will come at Pacifica when this would not be a problem. Some --
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Well, let me say that --
MS. BERRY: No. Let her answer. Each person can decide for themselves why they want to table it if they do. I don't know if they do, but I'm just saying we have to move on.
So we could either withdraw the motion as the maker of the motion and the seconder can withdraw it, we can have the chair of the committee decide he didn't want this and get somebody to second it, or we can vote on the motion to table. But in any case, we have to move on and the motion to table is on the floor. And in the absence of somebody making another motion, then I would ask all those in favor of tabling this revision indicate by saying aye.
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: Those opposed?
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Opposed.
MS. BERRY: We need to have a division of the house. All those who are in --
MR. PALMER: Did we have all the voting people that are opposed to voting --
MR. MCCLUNG: We have everybody that is going to be here.
MR. PALMER: Who is not voting?
MS. BERRY: All those in favor of tabling, raise your right hand.
(Mr. Ford, Mr. Robinson, Ms. Bramson, and Mr. Millspaugh and one other responded.)
MS. BERRY: Put your hands down.
All those opposed to tabling, raise your right hand.
(Mr. Acosta, Ms. Makela, Ms. Ross, Mr. Palmer, and Ms. Nasatir and one other responded.)
MS. BERRY: What's the vote?
MS. TILSON: Yes, five. Bradford abstains.
MS. TILSON: No, six; yes, five; and on abstentions.
MS. BERRY: So the motion to table fails --
MS. ROSS: So we need a new motion about that.
MS. BERRY: -- by a vote of six to five. So therefore it is still there. Mr. Charlie McClung, would you proceed. And do you want to clarify?
MS. MAKELA: Before we accept that language.
MS. BERRY: And I'm only considering the correction not to act on it, but because I was told it was unclear as to whether staff should serve on the LAB as ex officio.
MR. PALMER: Serve as opposed to why not serve. Change -- It's unclear.
MS. MAKELA: Can we say "may only serve"?
MS.BRADFORD: Just say "serves."
MS. MAKELA: "May only serve."
MS. BROOKS: Is nobody ambiguous about the general manager serves -- Well, we can do it with "shall." "Station personnel must serve as ex officio --"
MS. BERRY: "-- serve as ex officio, nonvoting members of the LAB."
MS. ROSS: There is one other point that I do need to reveal is the problem that it makes a reference in this document to the policy manual which articulates what station personnel is. And it is clarified in that document. It's a revision to this procedure. And was it in -- And we all need not being concerned about if we haven't the stuff that was in the old bylaws, which were repealed, that there was a ratio of those numbers of personnel.
MS. BERRY: Roberta, the way we would do it is in the total document. It clearly is talking about the repeal of all the preexisting matters that are inconsistent.
MS. BROOKS: Articulate at some point what that ratio is of personnel to non-personnel on the LAB.
MR. MCCLUNG: Just hold on. Instead of -- We still might want to --
MS. BROOKS: We might want to look at it. Or can the board qualify? Are you going to ask about the document and the relevant portions that are not considered by this document be repealed? Can we have those that object to the ratio of personnel to non-personnel on the --
MS. MAKELA: Can I just say something?
MS. BERRY: I do not think that makes for a difference if we're going to serve as --
MS. BROOKS: That's right.
MR. ACOSTA: They're not voting members.
MS. BERRY: They can all come if they want to. The
(unintelligible)
(unintelligible)
MS. FORD: It would -- I cannot be supporting a position that would table the whole policy if we can resolve it today.
MR. BRAMSON: Was the motion seconded?
MS. MAKELA: As opposed to tabling it, I want it done.
MR. MCCLUNG: There wasn't a second.
MR. ACOSTA: I move to adopt the revision to the Pacifica document governing all local advisory boards as stated in this meeting -- that was the Pacifica governing board being referenced here as the section of the policies and procedures manual.
MS. BERRY: Is there a second?
MR. PALMER: Second.
MS. BERRY: And the reason why that position is okay.
(Unclear proceedings.)
MS. BERRY: Did you hear that? I didn't hear you.
Does the record reflect his statements?
THE REPORTER: I did not hear Mr. Millspaugh.
MS. BERRY: It didn't get reported. So, so it will be the same, so as not to create additional animosity, I will ask you to repeat your motion, please.
MR. FORD: My motion was that in the interest of the document is that we table it, the adoption of the policies in order to iron out that part in the document. And supposedly the problems are still -- we still had a little or whole lot if you have consensus. Having a 5,5/4,5 split on the issue is not going to solve the problem. We need consensus, a document we all can live with is the rationale for it.
MS. BERRY: Seconded by...? Frank.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Second.
MS. BERRY: Discussion?
My own view is that the discussion we've had is about one section of the document. It's not about the whole document. So that the point about it being contentious is related to this one revision. I haven't had anybody -- no one has made any comments yet about the other so it is not fair to say that the entire document was determined by a vote of X, Y, Z solely to be contentious. A lot of hard work has gone into this document. We have been working on this like crazy to try to come up with something. And the only issue that was there was this issue. So my only problem is that I don't understand why we would refuse to act on it just because there is one area that people believe is contentious. And then we might urge our colleagues, those of us who feel -- who may feel that that issue was still contentious, despite trying to reconsider our motion on that issue. But I would be -- I'd be -- and our colleagues could be asked, not in good faith -- but it said the entire document would be rejected after all re- --
MR. FORD: Rejected, tabled.
MS. BERRY: Tabled, yes, which means that we still have some clarity concerning this issue. It's just going to create a muddled situation that will just keep going and going and going and going. I for one am not prepared to meddle with these documents and provisions, all 15. I feel a responsibility to begin trying to clarify all these issues.
So would all those of you and your colleagues be willing to do that and then let the rest of the document pass?
MS. MAKELA: I guess I just want to support this that we need policies for boards. The boards are in flux as it is and we need policies.
And also anything in this organization voted on in the past can be revisited by a board member raising the issue and putting it on the agenda on the meeting. As we have already done on this thing.
Personally, I have voted I think five times on the issue of staffs on boards in this organization. I'm tired revisiting something at every meeting because -- well, people have already made the statements. I think we need to -- We've seen this committee do a lot of work. We need to vote on things; and if someone wants to introduce the whole thing or begin at another member, we can.
MS. ROSS: Call the question to whether to table the entire document.
MS. BERRY: All those in favor of the motion to table the entire document indicate by saying aye.
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: All those opposed to tabling the entire document?
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: Let's have a division of the house. All those who are in favor of tabling of the entire document, please raise your right hand.
(Ms. Brooks, Mr. Millspaugh, Mr. Ford, Mr. Robinson, Ms. Bramson, and Mr. Bradford responded.)
MS.BRADFORD: I'm still stuck on the question that I asked you before.
MR. PALMER: The question is, Would you call?
MS.BRADFORD: I'm still stuck and I'm trying to figure out the process.
MS. BERRY: We can have a motion on that when we finish, but we have to count the votes on this thing first.
MS.BRADFORD: I'm sorry. You're saying that we can vote on this and go back and revisit the thing?
MS. BERRY: If any board member wishes to raise a motion and the motion is seconded, then we want to discuss the person's motion. Those are Roberts Rules of Order.
That's what I'm saying. Okay. Now, all of those in favor of tabling the entire document please raise your right hand so we can count again.
(Mr. Ford, Mr. Robinson, Ms. Bramson, and Mr. Millspaugh and one other responded.)
MS. BERRY: Please put your hands down.
All of those opposed to --
(Mr. Acosta, Ms. Makela, Ms. Ross Mr. Palmer, Ms. Nasatir, and Ms. Brooks responded.)
MS. BERRY: Take your hands down, please.
What's the vote, please, Mary?
MS. TILSON: Were there any abstentions? Yes.
So anybody? Yes, five; no, 6; no abstentions.
MS. BERRY: So the document is not tabled.
Now the floor is open for other motions.
MS. ROSS: There was one motion on the floor to accept that -- to accept that amendment and vote on that.
MR. MCCLUNG: It's been moved and seconded twice.
MS. BERRY: Is there a motion on the floor? Ruling of the chair was that the motion made by whoever I had it -- Frank.
MS. MAKELA: Ken and Frank.
MS. BERRY: -- was on the floor before your motion.
Okay? Okay.
In the order of motions, yours was made -- Who seconded it?
MR. PALMER: I seconded it.
MS. BERRY: -- and seconded, so yours is on the floor now for there to be discussion of it. You need to speak, then, clearly. It's on the floor. It's the motion to approve the document.
MS. ROSS: Vote.
MS. BERRY: With the change.
Go ahead.
MS. MAKELA: With that language change or did we not?
MR. ACOSTA: We did not change it. We left it positive.
MS. MAKELA: We took out the word "may" on page 74. So the only amendment in the document is that station personnel serve. We've deleted the word "may" on page 74.
MS. BERRY: Cheryl, would you like to speak to the motion or is there anything you want to say?
MS.BRADFORD: I don't have a sense here -- I do have a sense of the amount of energy that this board has put into this issue, but I don't have a sense of the organization's polling about it. From the place I come from, it would be problematic. So I think that I'd like to revisit a previous motion to open up for further consideration from other aspects of this organization the technical language here on whether or not ex officio -- on whether or not staff in its broadest sense can serve with the vote. And I would like to attach to that this, that this process be done and maybe even resolved in executive committee and that it does not continue into perpetuity.
MS. BERRY: So what you're asking for is an amendment to the motion?
MS.BRADFORD: To the motion that was just passed.
MS. BERRY: The motion that's on the floor. You're asking if an amendment to the motion which would take out the section on station personnel, return it to the language to be determined, or something like that, and have the -- and have the rest of the document voted on.
MS.BRADFORD: Yes.
MS. BERRY: And that I then ask the board development committee to reconsider or to review with all discussion what has taken place and everything else in issue once again because of its personnel conflict and other issues. You want to amend the hearing to vote for the document by doing so.
MS.BRADFORD: I would also like to say that yesterday in that committee, that word "may" jumped off the page at me. And there were certain personnel discussions and that somehow or another we were very tedious about all these other items. But I walked away not having a sense of what the answer was going to mean. So yes, this is what I'm --
MR. ACOSTA: We've taken the word "may" out.
MS.BRADFORD: But if we took it out yesterday, I think a lot of this discussion would have happened in the committee. So it didn't go out yet yesterday. We discussed. And so I want to be sure that the entire organization has agreement. So I am asking for what you're saying.
MS. BERRY: Could I get someone to second the amendment?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Second.
MR. PALMER: Don't we have anything on the board?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: We have a motion to amend.
MS. MAKELA: Are we speaking to it?
MS. BERRY: You can speak to it.
MS. MAKELA: I'm just --
MS. BERRY: I don't know what is next. Charles?
MR. MCCLUNG: I want to speak in favor of Cheryl's motion --
MS. BERRY: Amendment.
MR. MCCLUNG: -- motion to amend, and I want to add one other reason why I think it's important. There are a million staff people that are members of our local advisory boards who are voting members presently. And I think, when we approve this, which maybe we impartially will, we need to take care and address what we expect as a governing board to happen to those people because, again, if they're a voting member of the board and all of a sudden we tell them we're not a voting member of the board, there are some problems with that. They're a duly elected voting member of the board by the entire process and to all of a sudden say they're not voting members, it's -- It's a New York problem.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: That's alleged.
MR. MCCLUNG: I got that from (unintelligible). And this Council of Chairs document, it might not be correct.
MS. BERRY: I read the union document which was sent to me, and I didn't see anything in there about it. But it didn't mean the issue should be decided one way or the other. I waited to see if it was part of the union contract and, if I'm recalling correctly, I don't think it was.
Yes, June?
MS. MAKELA: Just in the response to one part of what Cheryl said about soliciting feedback, the fact is that the document, with all of its parts -- has gone out and in and out and in and, again, Council of Chairs has given feedback. So the LAB has given feedback. Staff has given feedback. Various board members have given feedback. The executive committee has looked at -- at least three board meeting have and there is still division. We know (unintelligible) reason you have contention on some issues in this document. On other issues, the new language you have before you reflects input from the Council of Chairs. In some cases we have got input from local LABs. There is a new version that reflects a whole other round of input from all of the stakeholders in our organization. It's not a question of has this been checked and didn't we know that -- but I feel very strongly that we have solicited a broad input and it is now our decision to make.
MS. BERRY: Loretta?
MS. ROSS: I think if I do speak, it will be to ask June what is at at the heart of her concerns.
MS. MAKELA: It is of particular concern to me and I really think if we failed to make a decision on this, we certainly have the facts to revisit the decision. It is their right, but -- but please make a decision. I don't know what else we can get from another source that will make us make a better decision at some future date.
I'm speaking against the amendment and speaking to vote on this particular motion.
MS. BERRY: I'm going to make one other comment and it's that we vote and we have to move on.
MS. BROOKS: This could only be about the earlier amendment to the amendment. But a compromise would be to allow those current station reps to fulfill their existing term, a nonrenewable term so that they're not kicked off, they don't lose their voting power if they've been voting. We could keep them; but it's a non-renewable term, but the term it gets is a special voting, yet non-renewable term. But I definitely oppose the amendment since I think we have to make a decision.
MS. BERRY: Therefore, let us vote on the amendment -- First, let me ask the maker of the amendment if anything that Roberta says in opposition to the amendment caused you to make any changes to the amendment.
MS.BRADFORD: It sounds so --
MS. BERRY: So it means that the amendment becomes somewhat --
Somebody say the amendment.
MS.BRADFORD: There is language read.
MS. BERRY: It's a friendly amendment.
MS.BRADFORD: Restate.
MS. BROOKS: This would be an amendment to the motion. No, it's on a motion to hear.
MS. BERRY: So June said it.
MS. MAKELA: Hers releases hers.
MS.BRADFORD: No, it is.
MS. BERRY: She said it. Just a minute.
The board accepts Cheryl’s suggestion.
MS.BRADFORD: But it's already with you all. Quickly, what we're doing now is we're about to vote. The issue was raised and I'm saying that station personnel can continue to vote in the near term, and I'm saying that I believe that would be an acceptable amendment so we can --
MS. BERRY: So how about if the amendment all reads "station personnel may serve as --" "Station personnel serving as ex officio" means serving persons except those who are currently serving members can continue to vote until the end of their terms --
MS. ROSS: Seems reasonable.
MS. BERRY: -- terms which are on a nonrenewable voting basis.
MS.BRADFORD: Would you give it more clarity? Is it people will serve ex officio -- they could not vote at the LABs. Maybe can we can bring it back to the next board meeting.
MS. BERRY: So station personnel serve as ex officio, nonvoting members of the LAB except that if currently they were serving as voting members they may continue to -- may retain their vote in the sense -- until their terms expire.
Their terms will be nonrenewable on a voting basis. Now, does that clear up "on a voting basis"?
MS. ROSS: "As a voting member."
MS. BERRY: Their terms shall be nonrenewable as voting members.
MS. MAKELA: Just for clarity's sake, instead of "serving currently," "serving as of" and a date. "Serving as of the date of the adoption of this document."
MS. ROSS: As of March 1.
MS. BERRY: -- all those in favor of the amendment indicate by saying aye.
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: All opposed?
Aye.
MS. BERRY: Raise your hands, those who --
A majority was in favor, but let's get a feel who was opposed to -- Palmer and Acosta.
MS. BERRY: So ordered.
Now, let us vote on the main motion. All of those in favor of approval of this document with the amendment added indicate by saying aye.
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: Opposed?
MR. BRAMSON: I do.
MS. BERRY: A majority clearly voted affirmatively; you voted negatively.
Anyone else negatively? Frank, abstains. It's taken care of.
Let us proceed. The next report is a report of the program committee.
Meeting come to order, please.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. MILLSPAUGH: You have in the board document, beginning on page 78, the report of the Program Standards and Practices Committee. And at our meeting yesterday, amendments were made to "Recommendations" section, which starts on page 81, and on "Action Steps" on page 82, which I will go through as quickly as I can.
Under "Recommendations," "A, Training," in the last sentence should read, The general manager should arrange training meetings with -- should arrange training meetings -- Strike the word "regular," insert the word "training." And in the last line, "air and off the air, and to provide community input in the listening assignments," the section should conclude with the word "programming," striking the characterized program type, et cetera.
Number C should be retitled "Academic and Professional Assistance," insert "of professionals in the field and." Should be inserted after the first line of that section. In "Community Needs Assessment," in the third line the word "with" is struck, following words are inserted: "And develop other mechanisms to solicit the opinions of community leadership, et cetera." Striking the word "and cosumers" and adding the word "and experts." In the first bulleted line, the word "for" was struck.
The section on reporting. The first paragraph is deleted and replaced by the following: "Number 1, LABs will report their findings and recommendations to their general managers and to the governing board. Item 2, The governing board, as it deems desirable, will give instructions to the national office. Number 3, The national office will instruct the general managers. Number 4, The general managers will report the appropriate programming actions to programming staff and to the listeners."
Under "Action Steps" -- Let's see if I can figure this out. Under "Action Steps," number D or letter D, strike the last words "each subsequent board meeting," substituting words "subsequently on an annual basis." And a letter E is added to the Action Steps, "The governing board to direct national staff to work with LABs to develop resources and how to materials to guide the LABs in the implementation of the above recommendations."
MS. BERRY: All right. Could we get a motion to approve the report of the Program Committee?
MR. ACOSTA: So moved. And a second.
MR. BRAMSON: Second.
MS. BERRY: Discussion?
MR. BRAMSON: I thought it was a great document. Very insightful, very to the point. I like the fact that you included action steps. I thought it was wonderful.
MS. BERRY: All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: Opposed?
Abstentions?
So ordered. Is there any other report from your committee?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: No. That was the entirety of the business that we were able to discharge yesterday.
MS. BERRY: Then we want to thank the Program Committee for its work.
The next report will be from the 50th Anniversary Committee.
MS. BROOKS: Can I just say that we forgot to report, the Board Development Committee, that the name will be changed to the Board Governance and Structure Committee so that people would not be henceforth be confused with the word "development."
MS. BROOKS: The 50th Anniversary Committee met yesterday, this is the second time we met. The first time was at the last board meeting. Cheryl Garner-Shaw, who is the new development director for Pacifica, who is back there. Has done a lot of work. She and I had talked and she made essentially a presentation of how we're going to proceed in terms of structure. The time line, the goals and the tasks in general will be presented at the next June meeting, as will a report on with regard to the budget for the 50th Anniversary by June.
There will be four -- There will be one board committee that the 50th anniversary -- who will monitor the progress of the 50th anniversary, other committees assist the development committee of the 50th Anniversary Committee when requested, and make sure that there are board members on the other committees which I will henceforth describe, et cetera.
The committees that Cheryl had proposed and that we accepted were a Communications Committee -- Now, these are not board committees. These are staff committees, but board members are participating on them.
MS. BERRY: No, they are not to serve -- they serve as liaisons.
MS. BROOKS: They're liaisons to the full board. They are liaisons, period. And the Communications Committee which is to be chaired by Bert Glass, the national communications director, will develop themes that will be carried forward on a national level, will develop a public relations plan and work with local stations to develop coordinated messages for the media.
There will be a Program Committee chaired by Lynn Chadwick and Gail Christian. Gail Christian is the national program director. They will develop an agenda that to be provided for local station access to sustain and kick off the campaign. They will draw from prior research and recommendations and develop a common theme for all the national programming, and are currently developing 50th anniversary spots, 100 of them, which will be finished in April.
have Loretta Ross is the liaison to the Communications Committee, and Micheal Palmer is the liaison to the Program Committee.
And I might also --
MS. ROSS: Loretta Ross is a wonderful, wonderful woman.
MS. BROOKS: Loretta --
MS. ROSS: Ross. She's a good friend of mine, but she ain't me.
MS. BROOKS: I do this every time. Excuse me, Loretta.
Micheal Palmer will be the liaison to the Program Committee.
There will be a Development Committee which Cheryl will to convene. To create consensus on how to proceed redoing budgets, et cetera. I will be the board liaison to that committee.
And there will be a Local Station Committee which will be the local 50th Anniversary Committee. All stations will have local activities for major donors. The general manager will be part of that. The local development directors will chair, and at least one LAB representative to the governing board will be included in that local committee, as well as local program director.
One more issue. The issue which has not been determined is the decision on final allocations of monies received, but that's going to be worked on at a later time by the committee with recommendations for Cheryl. Okay?
MS. BERRY: Could I get a motion to accept the report of the programming committee.
MS. NASATIR: I so move.
MS. BERRY: Second?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Second.
MS. BERRY: Discussion?
MR. ROBINSON: I thought at the last board meeting that we -- In regard to the 50th Anniversary Committee, I may just be confused. Is Ms. Garner-Shaw development director for Pacifica, or for the 50th Anniversary Committee, or both?
MS. BROOKS: For Pacifica.
MS. MAKELA: Both for the time being.
MS. BROOKS: For the time being, yes. The decision has been made to put on -- to move to June or July the hiring of the 50th anniversary director who will report to Cheryl.
MR. ROBINSON: Because I thought what we had been asked to do at the LAB level was to submit names to be considered.
MS. BROOKS: That's still true.
MR. ROBINSON: But they should now go to Cheryl directly.
MS. BROOKS: I'm glad you brought that up because it's something we didn't discuss in the committee meeting. But we will be actively soliciting names of people who could chair that 50th anniversary campaign. So if you think Cheryl Garner-Shaw in the Pacifica office --
MS. ROSS: When we were discussing it last night, I had in mind that this is a paid position.
MS. BROOKS: It is.
MS. BERRY: Which one?
MS. ROSS: The 50th anniversary chair position.
MS. BERRY: Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor of accepting the report of the 50th Anniversary Committee, say aye.
BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.
MS. BERRY: Opposed?
So ordered.
We have exhausted the items on our agenda, unless I am mistaken, except for public comment. That means that we can now take a break, and because there may be those who may be need to check out of the hotel or whatever, but before we do that, let me see if anybody has any future business or agenda item they would like to mention.
MS. FORD: One question we were somewhat remiss in reporting. Now, was it in the executive committee you reconstituted or constituted a new committee, Technology Committee?
MS. BERRY: Technical committee.
MS. FORD: I need to have you appoint people to that committee.
MS. BERRY: We now have a technical committee. We now have the people.
MR. ACOSTA: Ken Ford, you're the chair, and Andrea Cisco. Peter Bramson, Cheryl Fabio, and Ralph McKnight.
MS. BERRY: Anyone else who has the interest in the technical aspects of the broadcasting and you are a member of the board, we would be happy and pleased if you would so indicate, and then I will direct that you be.
MR. ACOSTA: Ken Ford, chair, Andrea Cisco, Peter Bramson, Cheryl Fabio, and Ralph McKnight.
MR. FORD: One last request. Could we get the staff to send us an updated listing of the board members' addresses and phone numbers?
MR. ROBINSON: Oh, yes.
MR. PALMER: All the way around.
MS. BERRY: Everyone needs to have copies of the updated list for the information on how to get in touch with one another.
MS. MAKELA: Can we add their term or have some list of terms?
MS. BERRY: Yes, I like that idea. That's a great idea. We should keep track of terms. So could you please list the terms of the board members and when they expire so that people know, because we have to do something.
MS. TILSON: We have a separate document.
MS. BERRY: So that everybody can see it when it goes out so that we all know and can think about what -- Pete.
MR. BRAMSON: Can I -- The issue about documentation.
I assume we'll see copies before the next local board meeting of the new Pacifica Foundation policy governing local station advisory board which was passed.
MS. BERRY: Yes.
MR. BRAMSON: It's in two weeks. And to follow that, in regards to the document about the report of program standards, can we also have that so timeliness is good so we can discuss it at the next board meeting?
MS. BERRY: How long will it take the staff --
MR. BRAMSON: If it can --
MS. BERRY: Let's find out. How long will it take the staff to prepare these documents? They're already on the computer so it's a matter of editing them and getting them out, so how long will it take before the board members --
MS. TILSON: It depends on the process ultimately in terms of reviewing them. When do you want documents?
MS. BERRY: These two documents. What I want is the documents and a draft letter that I can send out with them, which you will give to me, and then I will agree to it and then we'll send it out.
MS. TILSON: If I can talk to Frank about the changes.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Sure.
MR. BRAMSON: That's great.
MS. BERRY: And I'll review them as soon as you give them to me. Yes, proceed.
MR. BRAMSON: Next meeting is...?
MS. BERRY: Thank you. The next meeting is in June, and the date was changed. But did anybody keep track of what it was? Because I will be out of the country on the days that were originally -- I discussed with Pat.
MS. MAKELA: The 12th, 13th, and 14th of June.
MS. BERRY: What was it originally?
MS. MAKELA: The weekend before that? The executive --
MS. BERRY: The 13th and 14th of June. And in New York City. Is the 13th a Friday?
MS. ROSS: Saturday and Sunday.
MS. BERRY: Then I'll stay home. I do not threaten -- I do not challenge the fates. Anyway, 13th and 14th of June.
Any other business before we -- Yes.
MR. PALMER: What about the meeting after that?
MS. BERRY: The following meeting already had a date. September the something? We do not have a date for the fall meeting. We cannot set a fall meeting date because I don't keep my calendar. My assistant does. And I have no idea when I can meet. You can tell the staff that we don't need to do that in this meeting. And I could commit to a date and then when I go back here, they'll tell me I can't do it, so -- so I don't want to tell you a date.
So could you please, staff, as you get these two documents out, find out from folks when they are available and then we'll set some dates and send you a notice. The meeting will be where, though?
MR. PALMER: Houston.
MS. BERRY: In Houston.
We're going to break here until the public comment session, and some people may have to leave, but if they do leave, it does not mean they're not interested in the proceedings. It's simply that there are logistical reasons why they have to do so. So let's take a break and promptly begin again at 11:00.
MS. ROSS: We had this excellent report on statistics and I was wondering if we were going to have a chance to comment.
MR. GLASS: I passed it out from our on-line coordinator -- Sorry, it's late in coming, but it just shows and gives a graph, shows how many people are looking at our WEB site, both the Pacifica sites.
MS. BROOKS: How many hits?
MR. BURT: It's two -- How many people are looking at the front WEB page, and then how many people -- how many different hosts, or basically like AOL or other types of hosts, are visiting. Those are the two ways. I look at the former statistics. There is a chart showing it. I know it's not on the agenda, so I'm happy to talk to people now about what that means. Also attached to your materials are photocopies that give you an idea of what the new redesigned WEB site looks like that's scheduled to go on-line the next week or two, so -- so that's why it's provided.
MS. BERRY: Why don't we take our break before we start discussing airplane schedules. That would be part of the transcript of the meeting. That is not part of the meeting.
(Recess taken.)
MS. BERRY: Now, going to the public comment portion of the meeting. The board members be in order.
First, let me recognize the first person on the list for public comment.
Let me also explain the rules. Each speaker has two minutes or less. There will be a response to the speakers at the end of the session by myself. And maybe other board members who wish to have any discussion. The first person to be recognized is First Speaker.
Would you please come forward.
FIRST SPEAKER: Where shall I stand? Here?
How much time do I have?
MS. BERRY: Two minutes.
FIRST SPEAKER: Well, I want to repeat --
MS. BERRY: I need someone to be a timer. Who will do this? Staff? Somebody. We don't have any staff.
MS. TILSON: Yes, we do. Do you want me to be a --
MS. BERRY: Please. And let me know when two minutes is up. You can sit there if you want. Go ahead, First Speaker.
FIRST SPEAKER: I've been involved with Pacifica and KPFK since the very beginning in the late 1950s. I helped begin the station in a very minor capacity, I assure you. I've had no influ