PACIFICA FOUNDATION
NATIONAL ANNUAL BOARD MEETING
Taken at the
DOUBLETREE HOTEL HOUSTON, TEXAS
Taken on the date of: SUNDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1999
(START OF AUDIO TAPE 3, SIDE A)
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. All right. We're going to start the meeting. This is the Governing Board of the Pacifica Foundation. Let me first say this is a public meeting. That we have had very strong advice from the Houston Police Department that based on their knowledge and information, and based on whatever happened yesterday, the facts of which I'm not fully aware, that we should not have a public meeting. They have also admonished me personally that my life it at risk and has been at risk for quite some time as a result of the Pacifica crisis. But we are going to have this meeting as it was scheduled. And I am glad that in the negotiations that took place behind the scenes that we were able to continue with it today. And I hope that the meeting and the exchanges today will be non-violent and orderly, and not disruptive. Although I must tell you that the Houston Police Department says that under the laws of the jurisdiction, that if people are violent or disruptive they will be arrested.
I do not want anyone arrested. I know that first of all, arrest make nice visuals. I'm not interested in giving anyone nice visuals. Two, I don't believe in having people arrested. So I would hope that we would be non-violent and orderly in this meeting. And we don't mind disagreement, that's why we have public comment, people who say whatever they want. We're not required to have it but we do. So I'm just asking you in good faith, and challenging you keep your behavior non-violent and orderly so that this can take place in the way that we all would want.
And I also want to tell you in advance that some of the actions that are going to take place at this meeting, are that there will be a resolution introduced and passed unanimously, I'm sure, to reaffirm again our commitment to not selling any of the Pacifica Stations, including KPFA, WBAI, all of the stations and the assets of the foundation, which is our position and that resolution will be passed today. We also intend to vote today on the recommendation that Pete Bramson (phonetic sp.) be named to the Executive Committee as the representative from the signal area. We also intend to affirm today that no member donations will be used to pay the security costs associated with the events that occurred at KPFA, so that none of the donations that have been contributed by members at any stations would be used for that purpose.
And other matters that I think, and we'll have some new members, some other matters that I think, I hope people will regard as things that they could support. So with that I want to proceed with the seating of the members and I turn to the Vice Chair, Mr. Acosta.
MR. ACOSTA: Thank you, madam Chair. I want to preface my remarks with reading from the addendum that we had added to the by-law change back in February of this year in Los Angeles. That the Board Governance and Structure Committee reports the following regarding the nomination of directors. The committee is committed to maintaining a National Governing Board composed of a majority of persons of color. Keeping in mind that this a goal and not a quota. The committee recognizes that Local Advisory Board will still have input in the Governing Board though the council chairs, and the right to nominate as a body or individually directors to the governing through the Board Governance and Structure Committee. The only limitation is that the nominee not be a LAB member and a Governing Board member concurrently. The committee will insure representation from the signal area of each Pacifica Station. And the Executive Committee must have representation from each of the signal areas. Today, the Board Governance and Structure Committee will be nominating three persons, two of those persons were nominated from the LAB. Before this meeting the majority of the persons on the Board were color. Three-fourths of the members came directly from the LAB's. And all the signal areas were represented on the Board and the Executive Committee. After today's vote the same thing is going to be true. So we are doing what we said we're going to do. At this time I'd like to place in the nomination of three people, Carolyn Van Putnam (phonetic sp.), Wendell Johns, and Thomas Moran.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Anybody second, do I hear a second.
AUDIENCE: Second.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes. Any discussion.
MALE SPEAKER: Is this a combined vote,
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes, it is.
MALE SPEAKER: or separate?
FEMALE SPEAKER: We're voting on all three of the nominations.
MALE SPEAKER: May I ask that they are separated?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Is there any support for the idea of separating the nominations?
MALE SPEAKER: May I just make a statement?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes.
MALE SPEAKER: I would just like to say at this time I feel it is more important that we accept the members that have been nominated to this door by the LAB. I made my position clear yesterday, but I would like to make that clear that I want to nominate the people who have been nominated by the LAB.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. Are you, is anyone supporting the motion to or the suggestion, which I guess you would make in the form of the motion to separate them. Yes.
MALE SPEAKER: I would like to, all right. I think that we should recognize that --
MALE SPEAKER: Speak into the mic here.
MALE SPEAKER: I think everyone should recognize that, that unless we have all three candidates selected, it will be likely that we wouldn't have the candidates some people would like elected at all. And this, this was a compromise that was made in order to protect the interests of the LAB, and make sure that the LAB's could have the director or to have someone to represent them. I know everyone won't be happy with that, it's the best we could do in the spirit of compromise.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Is there any other discussion, if not, then we would call for the question. All in favor of the motion as stated by the Vice Chair and second it by whoever did it, I forgot, yes, Lucy, indicate by say I?
AUDIENCE: I.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Opposed?
AUDIENCE: Opposed.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. All members voted in favor except Mr. Bramson, the nominees are elected and they may come forward to be seated, if they are out there anywhere. The nominees are Mr. Moran, Ms. Van Putton, and Mr. Wendell Johns, we need to make room for them at the table so that they can vote on matters that come before this Board. There is a seat over here, and there is one over there. Okay. And there is one there, I think, there, somewhere.
FEMALE SPEAKER: There is one right there.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. Yes, please.
MR. ACOSTA: I'd like us to just point out that when we made this change in the by-laws of the way directors were nominated and elected, there was concern from the community that local input was going to diminish, and I'm happy to say that both concerns have not been realized. Over three-fourths of the people on this Board, at this table, are members directed by the communities in local areas. And as far as diversity goes, we've always done this and we continue to maintain it, we have a very diverse group here. We have Hispanics, Anglo Americans, African Americans, and the next wave of nominees that we're considering were going to be woman, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Indian Americans. So that the communities can use this Board as an example to set in your community for diversity.
At this time also I'd also like to place in the nomination for the Executive Committee from the Bay Area, Peter Bramson?
FEMALE SPEAKER: And I would second it. Oh, somebody else second it, that's right, I can't do this?
AUDIENCE: I'll second it, I'll second it.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. And I would like to speak to the nomination, if I may, Vice Chair. I want to support very strongly the election of Pete to the Executive Committee. While Pete and I do not always agree about everything, if we ever agree about anything, it is, we have quite interesting discussions and I respect him, and respect his understanding of his role as a Board member. And I think he will make an important contribution having experience with the rest of the Board members here and is the best person at this time to be the representative of the signal area from which he comes. So I hope everybody else will endorse this. Is there any further discussion before we take a vote on this? Okay. Yes.
MALE SPEAKER: Before we vote I want to congratulate Pete on his new baby girl, Jessica Rose, two weeks old.
FEMALE SPEAKER: All right.
MALE SPEAKER: To support your decision.
FEMALE SPEAKER: And may she keep growing an ounce every day for a while. Okay. I call for the question, all in favor indicate by saying I?
AUDIENCE: I.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Opposed? Unanimous, so ordered. There should, the minutes, could I have a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting.
MALE SPEAKER: So moved.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Could I get a second.
MALE SPEAKER: Second.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor indicate by saying I?
AUDIENCE: I.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Opposed, so ordered. The next meeting of the Board will be scheduled for February 25th, 26th, and 27th. The 25th will be a Board training day. These seem to work very well, we need a lot of training, we haven't been trained too well yet. And we have some new members now. And then the committee is on the 26th and the meeting on the 27th, and we hope that members will be able to schedule themselves to be able to come to the meeting. Where as to where the meeting will be, there has been some discussion in the Executive Committee about having the meeting at a place where we have an affiliate. We usually meet where we have stations, but we have affiliates too, and we haven't had the idea in the past of meeting anywhere near an affiliate. So the question is try to identify an affiliate station that would, we could meet near, and to also consider the geography and the travel time, and everything else that would be involved for Board members. So we will hear more about where, where it should be. So the dates, if you would hold those dates we would very much appreciate it.
There should be at this time a report from the Local Advisory Committee share, Shirley Adams, that I do not think is here. She, is she here? You're not a she so you can't be here.
MALE SPEAKER: She said she would be here at 10 o'clock and she asked that (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: I can't hear what he's saying.
FEMALE SPEAKER: He says that she won't be here until 10 o'clock and ask that her place be moved in the agenda to accommodate that.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Oh, okay. Because I had a phone message from her last night that said that she didn't know whether she would be here. Is your information later than last night?
MALE SPEAKER: No.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Is your information later than 9 o'clock last night?
MALE SPEAKER: No.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Oh, okay. Is 10 o'clock?
MALE SPEAKER: Not yet.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Not yet. Well will defer to see if she, in fact, is able to come. If not, I can tell you a little bit about what the LAB Chairs had to say in the meeting that I, that I had with them which I had. Let's go on to the committee report. The first report is from the Executive Committee and the Executive Committee, the first thing we want to do is have a esolution recommended by the Executive Committee, which is a resolution which would indicate that this Board eiterates it's view and it's, if I can find the language. The Board reiterates it's view that the stations of Pacifica are not for sale. Pacifica eiterates it's firm position that no Pacifica station is for sale. That Pacifica indeed wants to strengthen, improve, grow, and diversify the audiences of our stations, and that they are emphatically not for sale. That is the resolution from the Executive Committee. If I could get a second, and then if we could have a discussion to see if anybody wants to modify language or to do anything else. Could I have a second?
MALE SPEAKER: Second.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Bill has got it good.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. Bill. Comments.
MALE SPEAKER: I would suggest the following in the no sale resolution. The Pacifica National Board of Directors hereby directs the Pacifica Executive Director take no action relevant to the sale, transfer or encumber. Pacifica Board keeps license of stations including, but not limited to the exploration of the sale or the sale itself. The Board further resolves in (unintelligible) whole Board or any Board committee or any individual Board members would take such actions.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes.
MALE SPEAKER: I'm sorry was that a resolution, was that a --
FEMALE SPEAKER: This is substitute resolution or a modification or amendment or in the nature of a substitute.
MALE SPEAKER: I too would like to offer, what I guess is a substitute resolution.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Go ahead.
MALE SPEAKER: I would like the resolution as stated to be cast, however, I would also like it to be referred to the Board of Governance Committee for appropriate wording and submission to the Board, so that such resolution is enshrined as part of our by-laws. My purpose in doing that, if I may extend my remarks, is to require a super majority in any change in that status in the future. At present we offered a resolution which I certainly endorse, but which could be changed by a simple majority of any future Board. I'm sure the members here would not, a future Board might be able to change it by a simple majority. I would like to raise the threshold for taking such action by requiring the kind of two-thirds vote that a change in the by-laws would require.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Any further comment? Yes.
MALE SPEAKER: That is a really good idea, Frank. I think that given the sensitivity in the community that I come from and the work that I expect to do in the next few months, it would be very valuable to pass a resolution that Pete read and stated, and to do the committee work in the next three months, certainly pass that as the resolution in three months, thereby replacing this function. As you have stated, it would only take a majority vote in the next meeting to replace this one. So let's go ahead and pass this one and then we can come back with that good idea in February.
MALE SPEAKER: May I inquire as to the parliamentary status of my proposal, was that a second?
MALE SPEAKER: Excuse me.
MALE SPEAKER: Are you seconding my motion?
MALE SPEAKER: No, man, no.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Let me, I will answer your question about the parliamentary status of it, to the extent that I can, in a minute, I'm not parliamentarian. But let me ask you, Pete to read it again, the language. I know what language I read, others may not, but I know every, let me ask you to repeat again the language you wrote?
MR. BRAMSON: The Pacifica National Board of Directors hereby directs that the Pacifica Executive Director take no action relevant to the sale, transfer or encumber any Pacifica broadcast license of station including, but not limited to the exploration of a sale or the sale itself. The Board further resolves in the (unintelligible) whole Board nor any Board committee or any individual Board member will take such action.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes, Mr. Lucy (phonetic sp.).
MR. LUCY: This, of course, would be, does your, do you presume that the Executive Director have that authority do now?
MR. BRAMSON: I do not.
MALE SPEAKER: Either do I.
MALE SPEAKER: So why would we be directing someone who do not have the authority to do that?
MALE SPEAKER: It would be a matter of assuring a nervous community about the direction of the future of Pacifica.
MALE SPEAKER: But is the community nervous about, the director nervous about the Board?
MALE SPEAKER: Yes.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes.
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible). And clarify for me, my assumption is normally (unintelligible) that has the authority to sell anything that belongs to Pacifica is (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: That's correct.
MALE SPEAKER: And therefore I see no need to direct the director do anything. Anything the director did that was in conflict what we want him, her successor would not.
FEMALE SPEAKER: That's not --
MALE SPEAKER: I think I, depending on what the status of Frank's motion is, the question of how the by- laws would be amended, I think, is a question that would certainly give as much comfort as necessary that a super majority would be meeting (unintelligible) to ever vote for the sale of an asset. I certainly do not assume that the director has the authority or any convening of this Board would have the authority.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Right. So that's why it's a very puzzling kind of motion in terms of, as Mr. Lucy said, directing people who have no authority to do something, not to do something, and not directing people who do have the authority, it's very puzzling. Yes, Mr. Moran.
MR. MORAN: Madam Chair, you know, the, I, I follow resolutions that Congress passes or that legislation in California passes, and often times the resolutions that are passed are symbolic in nature, as well as amending. There are two aspects to what Pete just read, some of which is you have directly stated our redundant in the sense that the executive director does not have the right to do that. However, it is often the case by passing language that is, of that nature, we are reassuring the community. And I am looking for two things and one of them is for us to put some such resolution on the books that makes it a higher standard for this Board, and I welcome whatever comes out of the committee in February to raise that standard. I think it's also a message that needs to be sent to the community, and I don't see any harm in passing that resolution as stated.
MR. LUCY: May I continue my comments?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes, please, Mr. Lucy.
MR. LUCY: It's a question of, of putting this Board in a position where it could not take this action, and we ought to raise the bar beyond two-thirds. Whatever comfort level we get at this Board cannot initiate such an action. I'm not, I see no reason to get into a jerk off session with the director who do not have the authority to implement anything other than Board policies. So if we want to raise the bar in the Board, and then I think that something worth discussion.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Well, if, if the meaning is that I'm going to get to the by-law question in a minute, I'm going to do that. If the intent on this side of the table from the persons who feel themselves representing the community in the bay area, if the feeling is that even though the executive director does not have the power, and we know this, that the community thinks that the executive director does, and the community would be happy to have us have a motion saying that the executive director shouldn't do it, because they will feel better, then fine, let's pass a motion so that they will feel better. It is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the issue.
The most important question is, as Mr. Lucy said, is that the Board says that it will not sell the stations, encumber assets, or whatever else you said. And I think everybody here would be entirely prepared to vote for a motion which said that this Board will not sell any of the stations, encumber any of the assets, or the license. We would all vote for that. And so we're wasting time, I think discussing it. And the executive director must be guided by any decisions that the Board makes period. And then we can go on and refer Frank's motion about the by-law change to Board Governance for them to work on, and see what we come with as a resolution. And I think that everybody, and we can say that yes, and in passing it, saying the Board won't do it, it means, that the executive director obviously can do it because the director can't and can only do what we say, and we're happy to pass that. Yes.
MALE SPEAKER: If that so why don't we just take Pete's resolution, take out the part about the executive director and just phrase it the Board will not --
FEMALE SPEAKER: Do all those things.
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible) how that everybody can agree with it, a replacement recommendation, just (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Frank.
MALE SPEAKER: I'm a little concerned about the phrasing, about encumbering assets, whether that's a little over broad. Because although I'm sure I know your intent, we do have assets that are after all, non- controversial to some degree. I mean, you know, we have a whole stock say of tape, what if we wanted to take out a loan against the value of our archives in order to improve the status of our archives. I would hate to think that we were prohibited from doing that because we had signed on to not encumbering any assets. I also realize that to some degree, the fact that we have, we own property which has mortgages on it, and those mortgages are encumbrances, and I would hate to say, be doing anything that says, well, we have to discharge those mortgages like that because they are encumbered assets.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes, I think that in that case you're correct, Frank, it is unartfully drafted, but why don't we just say the part about encumber any licenses or station. I think that's what they mean.
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: I think that's what they mean.
MALE SPEAKER: It does not read assets, it reads encumbrance of any Pacifica broadcast license or station.
MALE SPEAKER: All right. Okay. Fine. I withdraw it.
FEMALE SPEAKER: And there was something about assets you read.
MALE SPEAKER: Should I read it again?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes.
MALE SPEAKER: The Pacifica National Board of Directors hereby directs that the Pacifica Executive Director to take no action relevant to the sale, transfer or encumbrance of any Pacifica broadcast license of station including, but not limited to the exploration of a sale or the sale itself. The Board further resolves in a meeting of the whole Board, nor any Board committee, nor any individual Board members will take such actions. There is no word assets in it at all.
MALE SPEAKER: Okay.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Why don't we agree to first pass the resolution disavowing the intent to sale, encumber broadcast licenses on the part of the Board. Work on the language. We don't need the Executive Director there except to say, if you want us to say the executive director is understood to have no power to, well, anyway, the language hear displays that.
MALE SPEAKER: The Pacifica National Board will take no action relative to, just cut the part out, directs hereby the executive director.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Well we could do that, but I hear from them that the community wants us to direct the executive director to do something. I'm not sure what?
MALE SPEAKER: To not to do something.
MALE SPEAKER: Or refrain.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Or not to do something, so.
MALE SPEAKER: I would second the Rabbi's suggestion, (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Why don't we then pass the resolution, which is simply, yes, Mike.
MALE SPEAKER: I just want to remind them to indicate individual Board members is redundant. Just saying we're also (unintelligible) in L.A.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Speak into the mic, please.
MALE SPEAKER: There was a motion passed that operations would be maintained (unintelligible) single areas, to such a degree (unintelligible) majority (unintelligible) and the idea to not foresee any of this (unintelligible) individual Board members is redundant. The Board is (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: And what was the language about individual Board members, just read that part.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Speak into the mic.
MALE SPEAKER: The Board further resolves that neither the whole Board, nor any Board committee, nor any individual Board member will take such actions which includes the exploration of the sale. So, because there is the language of exploration of sale, I think that's an important thing. Any question of redundancy, I kind of like redundancy, and also like saying things again.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Well let us, let us, let us be clear what is meant by no individual Board member shall explore, what does that mean to the people who propose the resolution? What is the meaning of that in terms of what an individual Board member may or may not do?
MALE SPEAKER: It means (unintelligible) individual Board member (unintelligible) exploration.
FEMALE SPEAKER: What do you mean by exploration?
MALE SPEAKER: Figure out what the license value is.
FEMALE SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
MALE SPEAKER: Figure out what the value of a license is, figure out the value of a station, something like that.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Why would, why would an individual Board member have a constraint on their freedom as an individual to acquire information if they wish personally to acquire, so long as they do nothing with it. I, myself do not intend to do such a thing, and I'm not interested in doing it, but it would seem to me that in the name of individual liberty that if an individual wishes to make any kind of inquiry about anything, that an individual has every right to do that. And for us to pass something saying what some individual cannot do violates every tenant I know of individual liberty. What is this all about. I can see a resolution that says that the Board will not do X, Y, Z. No individual can sell a station. You mean if some Board member is sitting at their home in the heat of the night some time, and say, boy, I wonder how much, you know, somebody would pay for one of these station, and they're talking to somebody and they say, well, we know somebody would pay, you know, 80 million dollars, I'm making it up. That they have violated the policy because out of inquisitiveness or curiosity, they found that out, and were exploring it. Is that what this resolution means?
MALE SPEAKER: Is, Madam Chair, is the relevance to an individual going to do it for, or an individual as a Board member?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Well, an individual is both an individual and a Board member.
MALE SPEAKER: So I interpret this as communicating hat as no individual Board member, take that out.
FEMALE SPEAKER: But individual Board members are individuals.
MALE SPEAKER: Again, the language.
MALE SPEAKER: Yes.
MALE SPEAKER: The language is in support of --
FEMALE SPEAKER: I'm not going to support that. People do have freedom to do what they want to do as individuals. The Board cannot, the Board cannot, and I'm strongly opposed to the Board doing this (unintelligible) and would vote for that. But I'm not going to be, the Board can vote for it if it wishes, but I'm not going to vote to tell some individual that if they wish to find out something they can't do it, I'm just not going to do that. Yes, Bill.
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible) the purpose of the (unintelligible), if that Board member, to some degree have a responsibility to (unintelligible) what happened. If I wanted to know what the value of any of the stations, assets, and licenses, and I sought that information I would be in violation of the (unintelligible) you propose?
MALE SPEAKER: The answer is to, the answer is not in direct violation, but if you look at what we're trying to do, the language, how to basically mediate (unintelligible) community has about exploration about sale of (unintelligible).
MALE SPEAKER: It's broader than just the --
MALE SPEAKER: The answer would be in --
MALE SPEAKER: Suggesting (unintelligible) don't do that. Do not know what I'm responsible for overseeing.
MALE SPEAKER: I'm suggesting that if we, if we are valuing the licenses, is that the specific question?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes.
MALE SPEAKER: I'm going to go to the station, if I saw information so that I --
(END OF AUDIOTAPE 3, SIDE A)
* * * * *
(START OF AUDIOTAPE 3, SIDE B)
MALE SPEAKER: Papers or make remarks which have to do with the economic impact of the non-profit sector which is, you know, as you all know, very very substantial in our society. And I have on past occasions cited Pacific economic value as part of that overall non-profit economic impact, along with that of other non-commercial radio stations. I don't necessarily go out and, you know, check with brokers to see what they would offer for Pacifica's licenses in order to arrive at that. But the information is derivative from such kinds of historical sources. Am I, in making such remarks or preparing such studies in violation of this, of this rule?
MALE SPEAKER: Yes.
MALE SPEAKER: Well, I think that's nonsense and I would move to delete that reference.
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes, I beg your pardon.
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible) question.
MALE SPEAKER: There is a question of the language that needs to be solved, because the language says including but not limited to the exploration of the sale or the sale itself, and that is the phrase that is referenced to when it makes reference to the individual or member will not take such action. It doesn't say about acquiring knowledge about the value of the station. The intent is clearly for work that the Board does. So there is nothing wrong with you acquiring knowledge about the value of the station, as long as you're not exploring as an individual the sale or the sale itself.
FEMALE SPEAKER: But you have two different opinions that have been stated here on the record by supporters of this resolution.
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible) language.
FEMALE SPEAKER: I understand that, but you are both supporters of the resolution, and you both have expressed diametrically opposite opinions concerning the input of the language.
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible) opinion.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Just a minute, Mr. Moran. My point is that if the two of you, who are in support of the resolution can take such diametrically opposed positions as to what it means, it means that it is confusing, that's what it means. What it means is that we should pass the resolution saying that the first part about the members, the Board should not do any of this stuff. And we should also say that we agree that it would be a matter of impropriety for individual Board members to therefore be trying to figure out how to sell he assets or any of that kind, because it would be contrary to the intent of the overall motion. But that we don't want to pass something that reasonable people might differ about, and disagree, and some may say that when Bill Lucy went out to acquire knowledge he violated the Board violated the Board policy, we don't want to put it in that position. So I think the way to, yes.
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible) three items in the second clause of this resolution. The Board further resolves that neither the whole Board, nor any Board committee, nor an individual, are you suggesting that we just strike the individual?
MALE SPEAKER: Yes.
FEMALE SPEAKER: What I am suggesting is --
MALE SPEAKER: I would agree to that if that really concerns about Mr. Lucy's ability to acquire knowledge, I would welcome that.
FEMALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible), did you want to say something, I would.
MALE SPEAKER: I just wanted to say that I think the discussion was around pointing emphasis and I think what the language is trying to emphasize is a case in which a member of the Board was taking action to do something that looked like it was sell, or if a rogue member of the staff was having discussions with the FCC or someone like that about the license. The point was, it would be clear that this Board took the position that it was not endorsing such action. However, I would point out that if we take categorical action that we do not intend to sell any of the licenses, that we will not permit the licenses to be sold, I think that's the important point. I think the language was just intended to make emphasis.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes, (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Madam Chair, my colleague Mr. (unintelligible), made a comment earlier about the value of the archives and the potential that we might want to at some point consider taking a loan on them to develop them further. I notice in the wording of the language in the resolution as proposed, that statement is including but not limited to the station and it's licenses, does that not address the possibility that there are other assets that Pacifica has?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Right. The language.
MALE SPEAKER: The including clause is (unintelligible) does not apply to that.
FEMALE SPEAKER: But included but not limited to means that something --
MALE SPEAKER: No, that is not in there --
FEMALE SPEAKER: May I please have a copy of what you folks are proposing?
MALE SPEAKER: Yes, sure.
FEMALE SPEAKER: So that I know what we're doing. I'm going to suggest in the interest of time that what we do here is that we pass a resolution much like the one that I first proposed augmented by the language that Mr. Robinson proposed, and augmented by the first part of your motion. So that the meaning is clear to everybody here so they know what they passed, and so that we can then refer to the committee, the idea that Mr. Milspaugh (phonetic sp.) has proposed here, about the by-law change, so that we can get a report back from them. And that what we are, in fact, suggesting is that the Pacifica Board will take no action relative to the sale, or transfer, or encumbrance of, we won't say transfer, relative to the sale, I mean I'm not sure what that means, or encumbrance of any Pacifica broadcast license or station. In other words, we're not going to sell the stations period, licenses or the stations. And that means that the Board itself will not even explore the sale of the, of a station or a license. And that the Board admonishes members not to do anything in their discretion that would lead people to believe that they are exploring a sale by the Board of the license or the station. And that we are admonishing them not to engage in such behavior. And so I think that that should be for sufficient for reasonable people in the interim while we move on to consider a by-law change. Yes.
MALE SPEAKER: Thank you. I would urge you to strongly keep the word transfer, which has a very clear meaning in communications law.
FEMALE SPEAKER: You mean swap --
MALE SPEAKER: What it means?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Is your reference to swap.
MALE SPEAKER: Transferring the license, means transfer control of the license to another entity. It is used constantly in communication law and I would urge you to keep it.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Well, I don't mind leaving it in there, because nobody intends to do that either.
MALE SPEAKER: Thank you, I appreciate that very much.
FEMALE SPEAKER: So the motion we're going to pass, if we pass it, is a motion which says, if I can repeat it again, what I think said, which is that, the Pacifica National Board will take no action to sell, transfer, or encumber any Pacific broadcast license or station. And that we will not, as a Board, even explore such a sale, and that we admonish Board members not to do anything that would lead reasonable people to believe that they are in the process of trying to explore for the Board a sale or the transfer of a license period. If we could do that and then get somebody to second it board and the members of the governing board to the public.
MS. BERRY: So we are free to discuss this statement and the statement will be issued as a press release. All right, the executive committee report. Why don't we just go on to the next committee report, the finance committee report.
MS. MAKELA: I will try to be succinct. There were two segments of the finance committee meeting, as often happens. We had an executive session first and then a public session.
During the executive session we discussed financial matters of proprietary nature relating to our CA budget, national office budget and KPFA budget. In the next segment of the finance meeting, as people are aware, we have begun over the last couple of years to look at proposed budgets for the next fiscal year.
In June, in preparation for final to myself, you know, as one of those people who feel that they represent the community. And we had a discussion earlier about representation. I want to make clear that since the by-law change in February, not really elect me as a member or representative member, that I don't want to represent, that I think that I was elected to this Board and represented this way, but rather that the Board chose to put me here and basically, as a member, any other member.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Understood.
MALE SPEAKER: I happen to have been nominated and supported by the (unintelligible), and appreciated it.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. Understood. So that's the sale of, the sale resolution thing that we had to do. The other resolution, well there is, before I get to the next resolution. The Executive Committee also engaged in a review of the Executive Director. The Executive Director was given a letter last year by the Chair of the Board with the support of the Executive Committee and the Board to offer employment on terms which did not include contracts of some of our employees, our managers are operating with a contract. But which, in fact, provided that the Executive Director would be reviewed by the Executive Committee and the Chair before the end of her one year term, and then a discussion would be had with her, depending upon the outcome of that review.
The Chair of the Board sent out notices of this to the members of the Board who were free to consult as widely as they wished with anyone about their reactions.
The Chair heard from some members of the Board orally, others in writing. The Chair also heard from various LAB Chairs, and other people concerning this matter. And the Executive Committee has conducted it's review and the Executive Committee has decided to renew the employment of the Executive Director for an additional year. The Executive Committee acknowledges that we've all had a very stressful and difficult year, and that many of the goals that the Executive Director had last year were truncated or put off by various events that happened at the stations. But that the Board, the Executive Committee made this decision and I am reporting this decision to the Board, since the understanding was it would be made by the Executive Committee. Is there, is there anything anyone wants to say about this matter at this point? Do you want to say anything?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes. I just want to say that I'm gratified by this decision. I deeply value Pacifica and Community Radio. It's where I have devoted my life's work. Last year a most challenging year for me, perhaps in my life, professionally and personally. It was hurtful to the community activists in community radio, of whom I am one. It was very hurtful that I was targeted by many of these people, and by the actions of some other members closely held in Pacifica. So much so that on any given day I do, it gives me pause to question my future with the organization, but I thank the Executive Committee for this decision.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else on it, if not I'm going to move onto the next item on the agenda. The next item on the agenda is, and if I can move the agenda, is the Finance Committee report. The Finance Committee is usually chaired by our Treasurer who is not here and will be back in November. And had asked Frank Milspaugh and Kim Ford to chair the Finance Committee at this meeting in (unintelligible) and Frank is here and will give us a report from the Finance Committee.
MR. MILSPAUGH: Yes, unfortunately, Kim has to leave to catch a flight. I am pleased to report that the Finance Committee meeting, did meet yesterday. Received budgets from each of the departments of the foundation including all five stations with certain minor amendments presented by the controller. The budgets were balanced budgets and the committee voted to recommend approval of those budgets. The only exceptions were small deferrals as yet were certain line items affecting, accepting salaries of senior staff, which will be subsequently negotiated. I would say also that because listener support exceeded our projections, the projections that were made at the time that the budgets had to be drawn up, the budgets may be adjusted upward in time, well, by January, which would be the next round for budget adjustment. But with that in mind the Committee reports our approval of the budgets as proposed and recommends that to the full body.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. Is that in form of a motion?
MALE SPEAKER: Yes, it is.
FEMALE SPEAKER: The Chair has moved that the Board adopt the year 2,000, is that the next year?
MALE SPEAKER: Yes.
FEMALE SPEAKER: 2,000 budgets of Pacifica except for the, as proposed, except for the salary increases, not salaries, but salary increases, you heard that me say that Sandra, salary increases, of the managers and the national staff. Could I get a second to that?
AUDIENCE: Second.
FEMALE SPEAKER: All right. Is there any discussion of this particular motion, yes?
MALE SPEAKER: I will be abstaining just because I didn't (unintelligible) discussion of the budget.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. Any further discussions, okay. All in favor indicate by saying I?
AUDIENCE: I.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Opposed. So ordered. Other matters that you would like to report on, anything else on Finance, Mr. Chair?
MALE SPEAKER: I would simply stipulate your earlier remarks regarding no use of listener support or certain areas of expenditure.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Right. There will be no, there was a Finance Committee that recommended as part of this budget process and that there would be no use of donor funds, that is listener given money to the stations to pay for the security guards during the recent events. And the controller, and the Executive Director, and the Treasurer, when she gets back will work out all the budget details, but that is a principle that we have adopted. Is there anyone on the Board who is opposed to that principle, I think anybody is. Okay. All right. Let us go to the Board Governance and Structure Committee. Do you have anything else to report? But before you do that Mr. Chair, could I, could I take the opportunity to say here, because I forgot to say it earlier, that in terms of committees, when Board members are appointed they have to serve on committees. And so what I would like to do, the Executive Committee is elected, so Pete's already been elected to that, and Pete's already on other committees. But I would like, if you have no objection, to ask Thomas Moran if he would serve on the Board Governance and Structure Committee. Does that have any appeal to you?
MALE SPEAKER: It sure does.
FEMALE SPEAKER: It doesn't?
MALE SPEAKER: It does, (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible). I would also like to ask him if he would be willing to serve on the development committee also?
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Or figuring out how to do it?
MALE SPEAKER: Sure.
FEMALE SPEAKER: You don't do it personally?
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible) how many committees are you going to (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: At least two, some people are on three or four, but I'll ask you to be on two?
MALE SPEAKER: That will be fine, thank you.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Is that fine?
MALE SPEAKER: Yes.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. And then I would ask Carolyn is you would be willing, in light of your expertise to serve Ken Ford, with Ken Ford on the Technical Committee, that's one, and would you be willing to serve with Frank Milspaugh on the Program Policy and Standards Committee.
FEMALE SPEAKER: I will.
MALE SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Vice Chair for letting me use part of your committee time. Is anything else your committee, aside from the nominations has to report?
MALE SPEAKER: Yes, aside from the nominations, one of the big things we're working on right now is process review. And the problem that we had with the language of the resolution just earlier today, gives you an example of the kinds of details that have to be determined, and how hard it is to change things in this organization. Especially since we have so many different components in the Pacifica Family and so many relationships, this undertaking is going to be difficult and time consuming. I'm going to read you what the mission is of this particular sub-committee, which is chaired by Peter Bramson. It says that the mission of this sub-committee is to review, design, and propose processes and procedures that will help ensure the communication and input is available to all members of the Pacifica family.
This mission in itself needs a process and it is our hope that by the February meeting we are going to have a process by which we can determine the other processes and improve on them. And if there is anybody else on my Governance Committee that would like to say anything about this, they are free to now.
MALE SPEAKER: You doing the say anything else about processing?
MALE SPEAKER: Yes, (unintelligible).
MALE SPEAKER: Okay.
MALE SPEAKER: I want to, (unintelligible) for the mission, I want to make sure that within the development of the process that there is a lot of input from all the members of the Board, from all various members of whatever we want to call communities. It's a matter of setting up the process to make sure it's good, it's developed well. I will ask support from my co-patriot Thomas in developing that, because Thomas has specific skills on that. But to develop a fair method of two-way communications between members of the community, members of the Board, staff, et cetera, to be able to setup a process for (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay.
MALE SPEAKER: Yes, excuse me, could you hold on a second.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes, I can. The truth, the candidates, you've got two more nominations to consider.
FEMALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Can you speak into the mic, please.
MALE SPEAKER: Andrea is a member of the Governance Committee and I would ask her to speak now. Andrea Cisco (phonetic sp.).
MS. CISCO: Just wanted to add as a member of that committee, the WBAI has submitted the names of, has nominated two people that have gone through the process (unintelligible). Frank and I have met with both of these people (unintelligible). What WBAI is going to do with the nominations, the names are Leslie (unintelligible), you should know, and Beth Lyons, activists, are very very long time. But what those folks are going to do is sit on the LAB for the interim as being nominated, be part of the LAB. And once they (unintelligible). For the process is working WBAI. We want everyone should know that we all work, continue to work with our LAB, constant in communication with them so that support of the community is brought forward. And our LAB, (unintelligible) LAB when (unintelligible) for lack of them, interviewed the person, access to interview them, we (unintelligible). So we want you to know that we are working on the process of the community (unintelligible). Thank you.
MALE SPEAKER: Thank you, Andrea. I also want to request from the community and from the LAB's to help us in our quest to fill-up the vacancies on the Board. And that we're looking primarily, but not necessarily with exclusion to anybody else, but people in the Asian community and Hispanic community, and the Indian community and women. And that anyone who wants to can send a nomination to the Governance Committee. You don't have to be part of the LAB or part of this Board here. Just a person, anybody, or individual can do that. I request that you all think about that, think about somebody that you would think would add to this, to this Board and please submit them, thank you.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. The, this will provide a segway into the next committee report program policies, practices and standards by saying that there were two ad hoc subcommittees, other ad hoc sub-committees of Board Governance, one was going to be strategic planning to which we never really appointed anybody, except I think Andrea was appointed. And we don't need that because we had started it because the strategic plan is expiring. The strategic plan which is most of the time an orphan, in which no one will admit to having anything to do with generating, and so I have yet to find out the identity of all those people who developed it.
But anyway, the, what we have done instead is we had some proposals to consider. One proposal for a task force programming, which is the heart of what we do. And the other was a proposal concerning governance issues coming from outside the Board. And frank's committee considered those and he's going to report on something which will lead up to a rethinking of the strategic mission for the Board. So that that would obviate the need for a specific strategic planning committee. And the process by which this task force will operate will also relate to Pete's process review subcommittee, because much of the kind of information and feedback that he will need in order to do that job can probably be handled with these two processes working together. So I'm just sort of segwaying into your discussion, Frank. So if you would proceed with the Program Committee, please do.
MR. MILSPAUGH: Thank you very much. The Committee met yesterday and the first, the first we received reports from each of the station managers regarding their program development planning. The managers described the program changes undertake, both those undertaken and planned. Discussed some of the impediments to change, especially some of those embedded in Pacifica's institutional culture. But I thought of particular interest was the growing recognition that such elements, mundane as they may be as forward or what was characterized in one instance as, one instance as diagonal promotion are indeed part of programming, not intrusive elements into it. And further, the quality of care sound is an importance to the accessibility of program content to listeners.
The discussion also included a lengthy discussion of the relationship to national and local programming, and it was in that context that we introduced the document written by Ralph Ingelman, Professor Ralph Ingelman who is a former member of the National Board, and a former chair of the Local Advisory Board in New York. Who along with the current chair of the Local Advisory Board, another member of the LAB, and a task staff in LAB member, had written a lengthy document, a very thoughtful document, not one that I agreed with in all instances, but one which the overall thrust of which I certainly endorse, which is to create a task force that would involve all elements of the, of the Pacifica constituencies in making recommendations for the programming direction and integrity of the organization. It's based, I think, on three premises which Nan Rueben further developed in a paper which he has presented to us in draft form, that program is Pacifica's primary mission. That this programming must be free of commercialization and corporate underwriting. That programming is a partnership, represents a partnership among many elements including paid staff, volunteer programmers, community groups, supporters, and listeners, and that is not, of course, a list which means to exclude any other conceivable legitimate stakeholders in the organization. While we can't always expect a consensus, we must always recognize and respect the fact that all those constituencies are important participants in shaping programming. And it our proposal that we engage in a formal and nationwide effort to formulate this policy that would involve all these constituencies and elements.
We then went from that into a discussion of the numbers, because the top lines had been just been issued, and the only thing I want to say there is to congratulate KPFT, our host station this weekend for it's having achieved a 1.5 share which is just dramatic, dramatic progress. And I'm very pleased and I know the entire Board is, and should everyone be. Finally, finally we had a discussion which was introduced at the request of the administrative council on on-air professional standards, that which is sometimes referred to the "dirty laundry" rule. And a resolution emerged which will now be presented to you.
This resolution is in three parts. Part one, these standards, the on-air professional standards apply equally to all stations without exception. Enforcement and implementation are at the discretion of the managers and their discretionary powers extend to all program sources local and national. The Board has especially concern the personal attacks and vilification, as well as hate speech not be aired by Pacifica stations.
Item two, the requirement, the requirement which we got passed at a previous Board Meeting. The requirement that each station permit a monthly one hour window of opportunity for the venting of perceived personal grievances be terminated.
Number three, managers are to remind all staff and volunteers in writing of Pacifica's existing policies regarding on-air professional standards. And that's the proposal and that concludes the report from the Program Committee.
FEMALE SPEAKER: The first, what was the number, the first bullet?
MALE SPEAKER: First bullet, these standards apply equally to all stations without exception, enforcement and implementation are at the discretion of the managers, and their discretionary powers extends to all program sources, local and national. The Board is concerned of personal attacks and vilification, as well as hate speech, not be aired by Pacifica stations.
FEMALE SPEAKER: The Board members may recall that, I think it was in June, in response to on-air discussion of matters concerning Pacifica in violation of the dirty laundry rule. The Board passed a policy which asks the stations to have an hour of listener comment and debate, and staff, and anybody who wanted to say anything about Pacifica as way, a hope to diffuse the situation, and that it did not diffuse the situation. People felt that having an hour wasn't enough, they should be able to talk about it any time they want. The whole thing became irrelevant because we then embarked upon the noble experiment at KPFA of permitting the staff to say whatever they wanted to say about anything, including Pacifica 24 hours a day. The rule that is in place already and reaffirmed again, that managers must have reports to the listeners in which people can call in and ask questions and go back in forth remains in place.
(END OF AUDIOTAPE 3, SIDE B)
* * * * *
(START OF AUDIOTAPE 4, SIDE A)
FEMALE SPEAKER: So there is a National staff. But that rule applies everywhere in the network. Which means that the manager at KPFA can choose to continue with the noble experiment or adopt whatever policies they want to at KPFA, just as we have at all the other stations in terms of implementation. But a reminder that under FCC rules and because of common decency, we do not expect people to use racist remarks or bigoted characterization of people or anti-semitic remarks on the air about people, to personalize people in ways that are vicious on the air unnecessarily in the course of debate, because that does not informed debate, that's just, you know, talking about how much you want to hate something or other, and calling people names. So that, that's all this particular statement does in terms of uniformity. The managers asked us for this statement, and so we have now, he is proposing it. Does anybody want to second the motion?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Second it.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Any discussion by the Board? Yes.
MALE SPEAKER: The issue about at the manager's discretion, as opposed to sensitivity towards implementation, and sensitivity to enforcement should there be issues arise input, and I hope that there will be a clarity in regards to the noble concern. I appreciate terminology, but if the station in my signal area will be judged in regards to their performance, in regards to noble experiment, I hope that will be spelled out very clearly once again, regarding communication.
FEMALE SPEAKER: I don't understand what you mean, because the only way it affects, what he said in the motion is already the policy everywhere. All it says now is that at KPFA also, it's up to the station manager to figure out how to implement whatever they are doing there, because there is an acting station manager now, and there wasn't one at the time that this was done. That's all it does.
MALE SPEAKER: Right.
FEMALE SPEAKER: No one is judging anybody about anything. What was the judging part, I don't --
MALE SPEAKER: No, what I'm saying is, I think Lynn and I had a conversation, which is to somehow develop some kind of statement that goes (unintelligible) staff.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Oh there should be a written --
MALE SPEAKER: So they can effectively implement (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Uh, uh.
MALE SPEAKER: And if it's a matter of three strikes or zero strike, then it is very very clear.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Now I understand.
MALE SPEAKER: Well this report does not perhaps go to that, but it certainly does not exclude that, and would be the basis upon which such would be done, I suppose.
FEMALE SPEAKER: And each station is different.
MALE SPEAKER: Agreed.
FEMALE SPEAKER: So that's all it does, and it doesn't change any noble experiment at all if that's what the people at KPFA want to do. Any other discussion. Okay. All in favor of the resolution indicate by saying I?
AUDIENCE: I.
FEMALE SPEAKER: I, opposed? So ordered.
MALE SPEAKER: Accept your report.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Beg your pardon?
MALE SPEAKER: Is the Committee Report --
FEMALE SPEAKER: Uh, the Committee Report.
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible) report.
FEMALE SPEAKER: I beg your pardon.
MALE SPEAKER: Is this the time to comment on it?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes, can we accept the report of the Program Policy Committee in general. Could I get a motion accept, Frank wants his report accepted?
MALE SPEAKER: I move to accept it.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. Can I get a second.
MALE SPEAKER: Second.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Discussion.
MALE SPEAKER: I just like to make two comments. Ms. Rueben sent me a copy of the draft that you are working on (unintelligible), and I also had a discussion with her yesterday. I'm very supportive of the kind of process to look at programming from principles that are basic, Pacifica's mission. I think one other point that she made reference in that draft statement, was the importance of the progressive message. One of the key cornerstones of Pacifica's programming. So I think that I just want to go out find (unintelligible) how I read it, and I'm (unintelligible), that obviously.
The second was that I wanted to command and put my support behind the line of questioning that happened at the Program Committee yesterday led by (unintelligible), which provided a very healthy challenge to our station managers in terms of making the virtue of the audience a key goal of the stations, and to challenge our preconceptions of whether that means reaching outside the traditional boundaries and so forth, probably breaking (unintelligible) listeners (unintelligible).
And that there are many creative ways to reach out and make sure that we have audience diversity. And I thought that was a very particularly good line of questioning. I wanted to add that to the record.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments before I call, yes, Mr. (unintelligible).
MALE SPEAKER: This is on Frank's report. And it was hard to hear the depth of discussion that took place in committee, all (unintelligible) recommendations (unintelligible) strategic (unintelligible). In listening to some of the areas where solicit comments and (unintelligible), I certainly hope that you figure out how to get to an organized labor and workers view with regards to some of the areas of the programming and et cetera, figure out how we do that. One of the parts I think would be extremely useful.
MALE SPEAKER: Certainly charge the members, study group, which is going to be certain anchored for the Board by Andrea, we'll certainly charge them with that because (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes, Andrea Cisco will anchor, as you put it, the process of the task force on both programming and governance issues with Dan as a consultant for us. Yes, Michael.
MALE SPEAKER: I'd like to follow-up on (unintelligible) comments. Managers will be encouraged to proceed with (unintelligible) program, so that the current programmers should also make every effort, because they are the one's that have (unintelligible), they are the ones (unintelligible), and not the managers (unintelligible), it's a (unintelligible) and interesting programming.
MALE SPEAKER: Could you please speak in a microphone.
MALE SPEAKER: I would also hope that all the programmers at all the (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: He's speaking into the microphone. I will repeat what he said. He has bells palsy and he cannot speak any louder than that, the microphone doesn't take any louder. I will repeat what he said, if you will just be patient, I will repeat it as he says it, okay. Patience, please.
MALE SPEAKER: I would also hope that the individual programmers will also exercise their own professionalism and the morality in (unintelligible), so that the managers in the individual units, don't have to (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay.
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: What he said essentially is that the programmers who are on the air, he hopes, will take responsibility for a diversity of their programming, as opposed to us just talking about the audience, and what the managers should do, that the people who are on the air, who have the programs will take responsibility, and that he also hopes that the programmers who are on the air will take responsibility for seeing to it, that there is not the kind of personal attack, or the venom, and all the things we were talking about in the resolution, because they are the ones who are on the air, and not just rely on the rules or somebody enforcing the rules. Is that the spirit of what you said, Michael?
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. All right. We still didn't go to accept Frank's call for the question. All those in favor of accepting the report of the Program Committee indicate by saying I?
AUDIENCE: I.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Opposed. Okay. I have several things that I need to say because, before we go to public comment, and let me try to remember to say all of them, and if forget any of them, David help me. The first thing I want to say is that we received, the Board members have received a memorandum from the folks at KPFK, the Advisory Board concerning their community ascertainment or issues which was in draft for comments and which will go to the Board governance committee. If you could read that, it's not anything for action or anything like that, but you should have it somewhere. So that you can give some feedback on that, we would very much appreciate it, so that we can get the Board Governance Committee to get back the final on it, and to work on that, that's the first thing I wanted to mention.
We also have received a variety of resolutions from various LAB's on various issues. Including and from staff at certain stations, including KPFK in Los Angeles, in which they indicated to Board members that they are very disaffected by the actions of their LAB, and believe that the LAB has been acting in opposition.
I say, believe, in opposition to the best interest of the station, and it's staff. And we would hope that we will take that under further consideration in the Board Governance Committee and have a response. We don't have one today, but we would hope that some way would be found for them mutually at the local level to resolve the difficulties that they have with each other. These are very difficult times, but a lot of this stuff has to happen at the local level. The Board does have the authority to dissolve LAB, but the Board hasn't dissolved any since I've been chair. In fact, what we did was to restructure and recreate the one in Los Angeles. So we would hope, especially, having done that, that some way would be found to resolve whatever difficulties occur there.
The other thing that I want to mention is to say that we want to thank the Houston Police Department, and we want to thank the security here at the hotel, both, especially for helping us and being protective of our interests, and making it possible for these meetings to forward under very difficult circumstances. We also want to point out that we have for our files as a Board, and as a staff, letters from the hotel, Director of Security yesterday, explaining that we would not be able to have the public come to this meeting today because of events that they alleged occurred yesterday, we have that letter. We also have a letter from the police, Houston police indicating that there is, but that for our own personal safety, they did not believe that we should relocate this meeting to any other building this morning. Those letters are all on file. I'm only pointing them out after the fact, since we've resolved it and we are having this meeting, and we are going forward despite the admonishments, and with the cooperation of the audience, which has been very cooperative, up until this time, so that the record is clear as to what indeed has happened.
I also wanted to mention that we are very, just unhappy that our presence here, if it did, in anyway, contribute to any uneasiness at the local Pacifica station. We also want to express and lament the fire that took place at the KPFT, in the building behind KPFT in which they store materials which, according to what the latest information from police, has been, that it was arson, yet unsolved. And we hope that, we have enjoyed our time here, it may not seem so, but we have. And everyone in the KPFT community has been very supportive and very gracious to us, and we appreciate it. And I want to particularly congratulate them for the article that was in the Houston press, indicating that they had the best station in the Houston area. I wanted to say that.
I want to turn to you, Mr. Vice Chair, because you may want to say something about the Houston PD.
MALE SPEAKER: Okay. I'd like to extend my personal thanks to the Houston Police Department, whose only concern is the safety of everyone who comes into their jurisdiction, and especially Officer Van Campler, thank you very much. I'm from Houston, I know many of these people personally, and I appreciate their efforts.
FEMALE SPEAKER: There is no report?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes, I have it.
FEMALE SPEAKER: There is a report?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes.
FEMALE SPEAKER: I thought there was no report?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes.
MALE SPEAKER: Well, let me see what Michael wants, first, yes.
MALE SPEAKER: I'd like to say to the (unintelligible) agenda this time, some were overlooked and (unintelligible) the first of which being that all of the managers and all of the programmers at the stations did extraordinary work doing the most recent fund drives. All of them were successful. Some of them were hugely successful, and we want to acknowledge that, (unintelligible). Managers and (unintelligible), and also the fact that some of these managers in some of these units are having to deal not only with regular (unintelligible) business, but all the other distraction that are (unintelligible) around them. And that hopefully with the bigger decisions that come out of this meeting this weekend that all of the people involve can begin to be on the same page (unintelligible) of Pacifica, as opposed to cross purposes, a tremendous amount of energy, and positive actions come out this Board this weekend, and I hope they can do that. And I'd also like to say that from a financial point of view, Houston is solvent now, (unintelligible) for the first time in 12 or 20 years, and regardless of what anybody thinks, that is the major threshold to that cross, and that WPFW was also solid financial for the first time in a number of years. These are significant events in lieu of all the other distraction and concern about how they achieve that threshold. Those are significant points to bring out at this time. And I wanted to go unnoticed or unappreciated by us or the larger Pacifica community. The more solid these units are, the more, the more, the easier it is (unintelligible) all these other (unintelligible) strategic initiatives (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible), for those who didn't hear Michael, essentially what he said was that the, he wanted to call attention to the fund raising success of the managers this time out, and he also, under this very stressful conditions, and the hard work that they've done, and call attention to the fact that KPFT is solvent for the first time 20 years, 20 years. And the hard work, and how important it is to be solvent among other things. And that we shouldn't lose sight of that because that's related to how well we can all work together, and go forward to meet some of the other strategic goals, and to wish that we would do that, yes.
MALE SPEAKER: I think they learn about which look at their needs in terms of technology, particularly in terms of digital equipment. So we asked them to try to (unintelligible) Board meeting they are able to tell us exactly what they need.
Jim Bennett shared also with all of us, there was software that people could attain free which is worth about 10,000 dollars. And so we ask that anyone who has resources, technological resources that are free or otherwise to let us know so we can advance ourselves and get into the future in terms of technology.
MALE SPEAKER: That's a good point.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you very much. And let me just say this and then we'll go to the public comment. I have said, before Pete said I said this, so I guess I did say it. That I would refer to the mission statement of Pacifica at some point during each Board meeting. And what I'm about to say about the mission statement is I'm not going to read everything that's in the whole Pacifica charter and everything else. But the mission station as summarized in 1946, the mission is to promote cultural diversity and pluralistic community expression. To contribute to a lasting understanding between individuals of all nations, races, creeds, and colors, to promote freedom of the press and serve as a forum for various viewpoints, and to maintain an independent funding base. Let me say that in addition to the good news about fund raising that occurred, I had decided and we have discussed this, that every Board Meeting now we will talk about audience and we will talk about audience numbers to put it on the public record. And as a reminder we did this in the program committee and we had reports from each one of the managers, about their plans for program development to meet the goals of audience growth and diversity, greater diversity. And there were some very interesting plans that the various stations had. And I was particularly pleased to hear the plans that Jim Bennett talked about from KPFA, pleased about all of them, but I was particularly pleased about that.
I just wanted to point out that in terms of audience numbers and money, while we pat ourselves on the back, we should not pat ourselves on the back too much. We should just spur ourselves to work harder because the audience at the stations, within Pacifica, the audience at WPFW is increasing. The audience at KPFT is increasing, that is Houston and Washington, and they have much smaller markets to operate within. And that the audience KPFA is either decreasing constantly or flat, depending on how you look at it. Even during the crisis, and even during all of the media support, and the media focus, if I might say that, since the media isn't suppose to support, they are suppose to focus on the crisis. The audience in KPFA has --
FEMALE SPEAKER: Generally increasing.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Is generally increasing. And so what we want to do, but the audiences are all too small given the markets in which these stations exists, and give them the need to have a greater reach for progressive voice. And I point out also, because, there has been a great deal of mis-information about this, Pacifica did not begin to collect audience numbers when I became chair of the Board. It's been doing that for years, and years, and years. What we're doing that is different is publicly stating what these numbers are, and trying to grapple with them, and deal with them, and figure out what they mean in terms of our community, and to see how we can better serve our communities, and to realize that we're just taking up, the voice is not reaching far enough, and we're not, we're not doing as well as we should be doing given the assets that we have, which are the transmitters, the reach, the strength of them, and the markets in which we are engaged. With that let me just say that this part of the meeting is now over, unless I forgot something. Did I forget anything. I thanked the hotel already, I want to thank the hotel again for their being willing to accommodate us. And we now go to public comment. It's open until 12:00 noon, or 12:10, because we started it a little late. And the public comment, there is a list of people who signed up for public comment. Where is the list, who has the list?
FEMALE SPEAKER: There is a list back there, Molly is holding it up, please sign up.
FEMALE SPEAKER: There is a list back there of people who signed up and we're going to take them according to the list.
MALE SPEAKER: Should we sign now?
FEMALE SPEAKER: If you haven't already. There already people signed up, I'm sure, because people always sign before they, could somebody give me the first five or six names so I can start calling people, in the interest of time.
FEMALE SPEAKER: We need somebody (unintelligible).
MALE SPEAKER: They literally just started signing up, the first one is Peter (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Who is Peter Fowler?
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible) of Washington (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: And they told me (unintelligible) KPFT.
FEMALE SPEAKER: I asked them. Well who is going to keep time?
MALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Whose going to keep time? The time for the speakers is limited to two minutes per person, so that as many people as possible can be heard. Sign up is at the rear of the window.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Ask Jim Bennett to keep time?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Where is he?
FEMALE SPEAKER: He's right over there.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Right over where?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Against the wall.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Will he do it?
FEMALE SPEAKER: I don't know or is he too chicken shit to do it. We need somebody to keep time.
FEMALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible) I'm afraid.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Who can we get to keep time?
MALE SPEAKER: I'll keep time.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Who will keep, will you, are you willing to keep track of the two minutes, Aaron can do it.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. Aaron will do it, that's great.
FEMALE SPEAKER: All right. Could we, could someone tell me who the first four people are so that I can start?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Peter Frank is the first person. 21 FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Peter Frank (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Peter Frank is first, and then Brian Nelson is second. Mr. Peter Frank, could you please start. And Rabbi Segal is the time keeper, Kriekel, I'm sorry, did I Segal, sorry. Sorry about that Aaron.
MR. FRANK: Segal is somebody else. Well it's interesting to be here for me, it's interesting to be the first speaker. I've been a member of KPFA local Board since 1973, and was elected by this Board in 1975, and served as the President of the Foundation from 1980 to 1984. I think that what you have face is Pacifica is having an identity crisis. Little (unintelligible) found Pacifica as listener sponsored radio. When he found he couldn't talk about the (unintelligible) cold war storm because the fear of sponsor anger. Ralph Ingelman's article, the chair he is referring to her, I think, I commend everybody, especially the first part of it, clearly states there is a breakdown in consensus, with emphasis (unintelligible) of an organization we are. I think within this planning process or some other is appropriate, it seems to me strongly that Pacifica has to make a commitment about the nature of the kind of organization it is, just like the no sale resolution, which you just passed. And reaffirm to the community hat it's existence as an independent alternative, listener sponsored organization devoted to peace and understanding and an alternative few, and they can clear hat's very different from commercial or government media, and apply those criteria of success, not their numbers to figuring out whether you're doing your job. Thank you.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Mr. Brian Nelson.
MR. NELSON: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the Board. My name is Brian Nelson, I'm a long shoreman from San Francisco, California. And I would like to tell you what it is that brings long shoreman to Houston, (unintelligible) believe me. I can tell you that the Long Shoreman's Union in San Francisco, and on the west coast was born, struggle, violent struggle against police repression and that it has survived through the last 65 years with the structure that remained democratic, belongs to it's membership, membership votes on everything that comes before it of any significance. I love my (unintelligible) and I'm dedicated to it, and I love my radio station because I feel that it is part of our community. Pacifica has, unfortunately, broken the feeling. Love, trust, or whatever you want to call it that I thought I had with it, because it has become self-selecting, self-perpetuating, and (unintelligible) said here today, which I feel is progress, until that fundamental flaw is corrected, you're not going to see an end the vices and wrongs that we have. Thank you.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Mr. David Cobb, Mr. David Cobb, and after that it's Ms. Natalie Powervichi.
MR. COBB: Thank you, Madam Chair, my name is David Cobb, I'm a local community organizer and activist. In fact I have been thankful to be a guest on KPFT on occasion. I would want to put out that Pacifica Foundation Governing Board Meeting minutes that were published today, there is, I think three things that are very important. One, it proudly references the significant archives that Pacifica has on the most significant, historical events of the progressive community in the United States of America. That is the mission of Pacifica and I'm very proud to be a long time committed member and part of the struggle.
The second thing on page 37, in the National Program you reported that only 20 percent of all the stories you're hearing on Pacifica Network News are originating from the Pacifica local stations, that is tremendous. What saddens me is that we must observe that those coming exclusively from KPFA, WBAI, and KPFA, not a single story from KPFT. And there is a reason for that. Unfortunately, as much as I appreciate the incredible efforts that go (unintelligible), his incredible professionalism, the quote sound of Texas as a format, and I want to quote directly from his unit report, it's a quote "clean, streamlined format featuring musicians and artists not heard on commercial stations" does not further the goal of Pacifica's mission statement and basically ensures that KPFT cannot e part of continuing that phenomenal archive.
My general comment is as wonderful the job as Norman Gantry (phonetic sp.) has done by bringing professionalism to the staff and to the station, that can be done and accomplished at the same time as keeping true to the mission statement. If the committee and local organizers have that voice, that non-corporately filtered voice we will continue to be successful. Thank you, Madam Chair.
MS. POWERVICHI: Good morning, everyone. Well I won't KPFT (unintelligible) professionalism, (unintelligible) schedule of, actually finance money (unintelligible), I want to remind (unintelligible) telegraphic groups, and groups (unintelligible) not always be there. I also want to recommend more for the decision to (unintelligible) purpose (unintelligible) university. I want to remind that 80 percent of the money is always (unintelligible) charities, and that's the (unintelligible) strength (unintelligible). But I think that there needs to be (unintelligible) and with the community, in particular terms for (unintelligible) with the receipts from our donation. We should receive financial records for (unintelligible), that's critical to being (unintelligible). Number two, this, when (unintelligible) is facing (unintelligible). That's (unintelligible). And this is constructive criticism.
But I (unintelligible) fundamental identity crisis and very basically, we do not (unintelligible) for endorsing audience, we do for (unintelligible) community (unintelligible). I think that we continue to be much more (unintelligible) in the community. Last week had the first conference of (unintelligible) musicians (unintelligible), none of the (unintelligible) came. That's really, and this was a landmark musicians, so (unintelligible) needs to be visible in the community.
And way you handle this, we have to work it out, we have to be visible. So many people here do not know what the (unintelligible) organizers (unintelligible) community, and the Latino community, and (unintelligible), no, (unintelligible). Anyway, I have --
FEMALE SPEAKER: Your time is up.
MS. POWERVICHI: (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Ma'am, other people, other people wish to speak, ma'am. Thank you. Mr. Rick Mitchell.
MR. MITCHELL: My name is Rick Mitchell, I'm a professional journalist. I'm been a KPFT volunteer programmer since 1990. Before that I was a volunteer programmer at KPOO in Portland, Oregon from 1972 to 1987. I also served on the staff there and on the Board, which I was add, was at that time, and still is, as far as I know, a (unintelligible). I've seen these issues from all different sides over the last 25 years and I can assure you that some of these same issues that we're dealing here, we were dealing at (unintelligible) 20 years ago, in a more localized way. I just want to remind people of two, you're not looking this way, and I'm also see (unintelligible). I just want to remind people of two things that I think are relevant here. The first is that the type of format that makes since for KPFT doesn't necessarily make sense for Berkeley or for New York, or for L.A. Different communities, we don't have a big national consultant that's going to tell us what our pledge should be, or even how to play this. We can, like the (unintelligible) different communities, I was tuning into the blue grass program last Saturday as I was trying to do my show. I pulled into a gas station next to a guy who had an impeached Clinton bumper sticker on the back of his car and a National Rifle Association bumper sticker. He pulled open the back of his van, I first I thought he was listening to a right-hand militia program, and then I realized it's not a blues program, it's the guy that's on before me. I realized this guy is going to be listening to me well in 15 or 20 minutes. Now some people might look at that as KPFT has sold out. I think the opposite, I think it's (unintelligible) bringing people in. Because we're not just preaching to the choir. For one thing, the Houston choir is not big enough for it. But (unintelligible) democracy now and here is the dramatic reporting that (unintelligible) best (unintelligible) many of us are already aware of, East Jamor (phonetic sp.), a lot of people are. Second point, really briefly, there is a great, greater trend of freedom of information flowing in our society then some of the unfortunate events that have taken place at Pacifica this year. While we're sitting her bickering amongst ourselves, there is massive revolution in the communication industry in terms of court, on the recent (unintelligible) on each other and merging, and now the newspapers are petitioning to have the law changed so you can own newspapers, tv. I just hope we can all keep it in perspective. There is an historic opportunity in the public radio, there is the community (unintelligible), please everybody keep it in perspective.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Jenena Ader, and after that Rita Roof.
MS. ADER: Good morning, is it still morning, (unintelligible). I had a couple of points. My name is Jenena and I am a programmer at KPFA and I'm representing Elemental Roots. What's up? I want to speak about the diversity issue, because I've seen it on he news and I had some particular issue for you, Dr. Berry. And I would just like to say that KPFA has an apprenticeship program that has been in place since the early eighties. That's been in place, the people, more people have (unintelligible) on the air and that has not been implemented. Nobody came to the apprenticeship program and said we need to diversify the air, nobody came and spoke to us, and the people are there, we just haven't been utilized. And we're very well trained, and very professional and ready to diversify the airways.
Second point I wanted to make was about age. Carolyn, you mentioned something about people being under 21, something like that in the room. I'm actually, I'm over 21 but I'm under 30, and I actually like to know how old you are. I'm really not trying to be disrespectful, but there is no one under 21 on this board either. And I know my perspective was a little different because I am younger, so, you know, I just wanted to just let that be known as well. I don't know what that has to do with anything. But maybe you could, you know, we can talk, you can let us know where you're coming from.
The other thing, the point I wanted to make is about payment. I don't think there should be any unpaid staff at KPFA because, you know, there are people told there is no money for this, and they are in a lock-out, these people got paid, what was it a half-million dollars, something went to security. And I go there every week and I'm like where, why is so hard for me to get tape? Why is it so hard for me to get any of the supplies that I need? The securities guards are being paid so much money and I've been there for years.
The last thing that I noticed there has been a lot of judgement between, you know, people on the news, how they have been judging us.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Your time is up, ma'am.
MS. ADER: Well, I just want to say there is no judgement and there should be, and we should listen to each other.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you for your time. Ms. Rita Roof, please.
MS. ROOF: Good afternoon. I'm Rita Roof of the People's Action Coalition and I want care be bear, I care and I'm here. I promise you that most people are decent, and if you don't gag us or lock us out of Board Meetings or hearings we will behave ourselves. Because if you don't behave properly we can't either. So let's work together, (unintelligible) common decency, all right. We all know a (unintelligible) would be, the devil is in the details, and I know how hard you must all have to work, we appreciate you, and thank you for the use of this hearing, we appreciate that too. We have a right to be here, though, I'm going to remind you of that always.
So we know we have to get the (unintelligible) show, free speech is one (unintelligible) of like public school education of our democracy. We must ever keep it, we must always keep it, and cherish it, and work hard for it.
The point is (unintelligible) participate and the people like me, and the rest of us here. We're all very dedicated and anyway we can help, I'm a great speaker, great writer. These people have great ideas, I have great ideas. The thing to get the thing going is to have a variety, diversity. I mean, I hate to say it even, but even for religion, (unintelligible) my mouth is so, (unintelligible) maybe a little of that. But we should opera, we should have music from the sixties, because grew up on the sixties, although it's an older flower child, of course, real old. And (unintelligible) songs that came from our great struggles, like the (unintelligible) riots, the welfare riots, and the Holocaust and Vietnam. Those are beautiful songs. Songs of freedom and protest, and we should always keep them alive. We should also have (unintelligible) music, and a little bit of this, and a little bit that.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Ms. Roof, your time is up.
MS. ROOF: (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: She has five seconds, five seconds.
MS. ROOF: Five seconds. Let's have variety. I look forward to another opera, I love opera. So let's have a little bit of that.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Time.
MS. ROOF: Time, oh time is up.
FEMALE SPEAKER: (unintelligible) G. Colloy, and then after Waylan Lynn and Andrea Buffet. Please proceed.
MR. COLLOY: I'm in producing and programming, Asian and Pacific Island issues, and other kinds of programming, (unintelligible) programming at KPFA since I graduated from the apprenticeships as one of the few trainees (unintelligible) man of color on the issues (unintelligible) particular in 1989. I've been in programming continuously since then, whenever we get the opportunity. And we had Asian (unintelligible) which was (unintelligible) in 1995, along with (unintelligible) many other things. I find it ironic that, that you don't (unintelligible) would actually speaking about diversity when you never even consulted us, (unintelligible), that family members, and friends (unintelligible) take various status, particularly putting William F. Buckley in his place, (unintelligible). I think that's great. But in terms of how you manage this I think you've been very emotional at the wrong times. And you just recited the Asians, (unintelligible), KPFA, the (unintelligible) KPFA. You never even responded to our e-mail. We confirmed the (unintelligible), do you just read things that say KPFA (unintelligible) like I understand. Does your assistant not go over that either. And do you Board members who also receive it, just ignore. Now I need to finish this statement, so let's say, the United Nations (unintelligible) warned you about mis-using specific funds. And that 500,000 dollars plus (unintelligible) from listener responses, that is disrespect, (unintelligible). You are paying the salaries of the staff and with trust as one of the directors of the Board, that is (unintelligible) and now (unintelligible). That's not for the purpose of free speech. I would like to ask you if you really believe that you are (unintelligible) violating your mission --
FEMALE SPEAKER: Your time is up, sir.
MR. COLLOY: And, please response --
FEMALE SPEAKER: Time is up, sir. Your time is up, sir. The next speaker is Waylan Lynn.
MR. LYNN: My name is Waylan, I am one of the programmers from KPFA in Berkeley and I also for the record of the apprenticeship program there. And we would just (unintelligible) very much comments from my brother and sister Jenine and (unintelligible). In terms of diversity it's been incredible stuff for those of us who have been fighting on behalf of diversity and trying to preach beyond the choir with our programming and never got any kind of support from this Board. It seems to be that diversity is something we need to take charge of. And I am also dismayed, as (unintelligible), that you did not respond to the (unintelligible) letters that came from the People of Color that were organizing the station when you were saying (unintelligible) one of the reasons for what was the decision that were made around the crisis, was the fact that (unintelligible) diverse or not. I hope that you would still respond to that letter and open up (unintelligible) with us.
In terms of what went on (unintelligible) I'm also (unintelligible) hearing which has been charged with trying to help resolve this crisis. I don't have time to go through all the demands. But one demand in particular that I haven't heard discussed at all this weekend is the retiring of our manager (unintelligible).
I hope that we can sit down, and I hope that the Board can honor the process that was begun with the steering committee. And recognize the steering committee as the representative on dealing with this crisis.
Also the (unintelligible) solidarity with Argentina (unintelligible) struggles and also with KPFT. And also (unintelligible) radio, public radio, we're going by this program here, and when you go by things like (unintelligible) ratings and things like that, that's great for commercial radio, it's good for public radio, but the last time I checked (unintelligible) Pacifica (unintelligible) was not even listed as a category. (unintelligible) creative ideas on how to (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Your time is up there.
MR. LYNN: I hope that we can (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Your time is up, sir, thank you. Ms. Buffet, and Mr. Adelson, and Mr. Lei Lo.
MS. BUFFET: I'm Andrea Buffet, the Executive Director of (unintelligible), I was present at your last Board Meeting. I believe that you feel that you made some reconciliations or adjustment at your meeting and I just wanted to provide you with a different perspective on your actions since the last Board Meeting. Since the last Board Meeting you closed down your flagship station, KPFA for several weeks and spent half a million dollars on security guards and (unintelligible) and have never come out to the area to explain your actions, or to enter into dialogue with anyone in the KPFA community. You allow journalists to be censored at your Washington, DC and Los Angeles stations. When they tried to cover what was going on in (unintelligible) network, it's obviously a significant concern to the community under the Pacifica umbrella. And when those issues were being covered in other media outlets.
Before the last Board Meeting, at the February Board Meeting you took away anyway for listeners and staff who pay for and support this network any means by which to participate in decision at the network. You eliminate the community voice of community radio entirely at Pacifica. You failed to fire an Executive Director, and in fact just renewed her contract. This is an Executive Director who would waste at least 500,000 of this organizations money, ruin the reputation of the network throughout the United States (unintelligible) community, and (unintelligible) politicians, listeners, staff, community leaders, and (unintelligible) free speech throughout (unintelligible) California.
At this Board Meeting you renewed Lynn Chadwick's contract, an incompetent Executive Director. You seated Carolyn Van Putnam as a Board member. An individual who is opposed by the KPFA Local Advisory Board, and for people throughout the San Francisco Bay area. You were willing to lock the community out of this meeting, despite us finding another location for the meeting. And the only reason we're here is because of our own persistence. You were going to allow now for my (unintelligible) programmers at stations. And the reason you pass a no sale resolution, which we're very happy about, is because we made sure it was on the agenda.
This unacceptable behavior and it is really really sad coming from the Board of Directors of the only progressive radio network in the United States. For the sake of the future of the network, and we're all here because we care about this network, an acknowledgement of the importance of independent community broadcasting, I besiege any Board Member who participated in making the decisions about these issues to step down from the Board immediately. (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Your time is up, Ms. Buffet, your time is up, Ms. Buffet, please stand down. Thank you. Mr. Adelson.
MR. ADELSON: Hello, ladies and gentleman of the Board. I'd like to say very much appreciate your having 11codified your repeated intent to (unintelligible) encumber any asset. I am also very pleased to hear from 1WBAI the intent to pursue the elevation that to the level of by-laws. I'm also delighted about hearing about the WBAI process regarding bringing members onto the (unintelligible) and we would like to submit to the Governing Board. We very much like to see a similar codification of your repeated intent, desire to include representation from each of the signal areas. I understand you have a great deal of money now then you expected. Perhaps some of the money can go towards the re-establishing of station folios at each station that would support an electoral process for the Local Advisory Boards.
The element I hear a lot of talk about the numbers going up, the ratings and other things and I know that we don't have any numbers by which we measure mission success. Mission success can be measured in terms of the participation of the communities, the way that's an influence is the way your communities respond to your programming, not just whether they heard it or not. I'd like to see work done in establishing a mission in that direction, so we can now doing better not just in terms of reaching a goal, (unintelligible). Thank you very much.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Adelson, (unintelligible) and after that Mark Wild and Stan Merriman. Please proceed.
MS. LO: All right. I wanted to underline what somebody else said about the (unintelligible) ratings. This is not about entertainment, it's about knowledge and getting informed about what's going on in this Government. (unintelligible) the community and you want to enlarge and include them in your program, don't go out and find out what music they listen to, (unintelligible).
If I could say also when you talk about the audiences, that now they are turning on and listening. If they are listening to the music that's not what Pacifica is about. I also wanted to say (unintelligible), there must be someone to clarify what dirty linen is, dirty laundry, sorry, what dirty laundry. Because when you try to announce on the program ahead of time that you're going to have town meeting, I think that should be allowed, and it was not allowed until the day before our town meeting, not the recent one, but the last one. And also we have not been allowed a debate, and it's not necessarily, we're not going to call people names, we're going to talk about the issues.
The third thing I wanted to say is, that we are a non-violent people. We did not start that fire, there are a number of possibilities that started that fire, (unintelligible) the number of homes people had either been living there, or trying to living there, and Mr. Gander had regularly thrown them out, they might have been angry. It's an old building and (unintelligible) and let people think. I happen to believe in the heavy hand of the Feds and I think this might be very much like the shot that was fired in Berkeley. And I think that might be a possibility. Thank you.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Mark Wild.
MR. WILD: Thank you for allowing me to speak, Madam Chairman and members of the Board. One thing I want to say that I'm a bit overtaken by the opulence in this room. It's sort of reminiscent of Strauss losses, and people in evening dress flossing around. It does appear from this that Pacifica has arrived. And in a larger extent in that, Houston has larger market share. They have more money then they have ever had. They are financially solid. But what it is, it's a modification of community radio, (unintelligible), community we have sounds of Texas in the world and music to get through your work day that is not (unintelligible), specifically (unintelligible).
I have here an announcement that was sent by Jim Hightower from Boston that I'd like to read for a few minutes. The Pacifica Board meeting here this week is ultimately responsible for the deep crisis that continues to rupture the organization. The current Executive Committee should step down, and the remaining Board Members should nominate (unintelligible). The reconciliation slate has suggested by fair and other groups, and individuals, would be a great transition team to return Pacifica to it's former leading voice in the progressive community. I urge the leaders of the Board who have brought about this (unintelligible), essential, and this essential voice of the people to step aside for the good of the entire community. Thank you.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Wild.
MR. WILD: One thing, and that was the comments that have made by Dr. Mary Tea (phonetic sp.). I want to congratulate her on her success, trying to marginalize the opposition here, (unintelligible).
FEMALE SPEAKER: Your time is up. Your time is up. Mr. Merriman, and then after Mr. Pothoff (phonetic sp.), and Mr. Labussierre (phonetic sp.). Mr. --
MR. MERRIMAN: My name is Stan Merriman. Am I up next?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes. Mr. Merriman.
MR. MERRIMAN: Thank you. My name is Stan Merriman. I'm a 30 year listener of KPFT. My encounter with KPFT goes back about 30 years where I had the privilege of first visiting the station in it's first quarters in downtown in Houston in Upper Loft with David Lopez, one of the early founders I'm sure, known to many of you here. I felt privileged at that time to become acquainted with free speech radio, myself, a community activist and have served in that kind of capacity for the past 30 years.
I take a little different view of what has been going on and I'll intend to my station. I am one of those people perhaps representative of these people, who in the last year have withheld modest contribution. And I have not withheld without pain because I am a very strong supporter of the programming brought in the mornings to the Houston area, (unintelligible), Andy Goodman's programming. And at the same time am pained by the reality that what seems to be working and we cannot dismiss what is working. We are raising more money. The station is successful financially for the first time because we are dealing with the assimic (phonetic sp.) side of people, and we need aesthetics, the soul needs nurturing. But the intellectual and the physical needs of people being met as well. And you are, I'm sorry, to say, visiting along with my friends from the bay area, I am originally from the San Francisco Bay area, breathing the worst air in America as you (unintelligible). You are in the shadow of the medical center abuses, one of the three most profoundly successful medical centers in the world, and at the same time we have a million people in this area uncertain about the healthcare system.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Merriman, your time is up.
MR. MERRIMAN: I've concluded my remarks, thank you.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Thank you.
MR. MERRIMAN: I'm admonishing Mr. Garland Ganther who has done a magnificent job to now look to the community and provide us the fulfillment of the mission of Pacifica to address these and many of the issues that are important to us.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Merriman. Mr. Pothoff.
MR. POTHOFF: I'll try to keep my remarks short and to the point. I think you should fire Garland Ganther. (unintelligible) I think is that free (unintelligible) which is historic (unintelligible) area in Houston is now being bulldozed and (unintelligible) and there is no rewarding about that KPFT. That's one reason. Another thing is that democratization of the Board, the National Board should be elected and the LAB's should be elected. (unintelligible). If you want to (unintelligible) something that says there will be no hate speech, or personal attacks (unintelligible), but otherwise there should be free speech. And that's it.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Pothoff. Mr. Labussierre and then Lyn Kershaw, and Chris Barboza, Pierre Labussierre.
MR. LABUSSIERRE: Good morning (unintelligible) members of the Board, brothers and sisters in the audience. I want to, I'm from Haiti originally and his, I'm from the Bay area and (unintelligible). When he crisis was going on our people, our people were dying on the high seas, as refugees, I went to the public media try to ge