BREAKFAST WITH CAROL SPOONER

by Alice Chan

(1162 Words)

______________________________

Folio: When we last checked up on the Listeners’ Lawsuit, it was still languishing in Federal court, and we were hoping that the judge would send it back to the state court where it belonged. That did in fact happen. So now where are we?

Carol: There are several motions pending. Of course there’s Pacifica’s motion to dismiss the Listeners’ lawsuit, which we hope will not get anywhere. The Listeners have multiple motions pending. The first is a motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Pacifica from amending the bylaws, adding or removing any directors, moving the finance office, or doing anything substantive to change the operations or management of Pacifica. Next is a motion to disqualify the firm of Epstein Becker and Green from representing the directors in the lawsuit. And on Friday the Thirteenth of April, the listeners filed a new motion for a preliminary injunction to prohibit Pacifica from advancing any costs or expenses of the defense for any of the sued directors.

Folio: The first preliminary injunction you mentioned sounds really significant.

Carol: Yes, it is. In order for the judge to rule in our favor, we have to show the likelihood that our entire lawsuit will be successful on its merits, and that we, the plaintiffs, will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. The judge’s ruling on this matter will give us a clear hint on how the entire case will go. If he grants the motion, that means that there is a high likelihood that we will win the case.

Folio: What about the motion you filed on April 13^th? What’s significant about that?

Carol: Pacifica should not be using listeners’ funds to pay for defense attorneys for illegally-seated directors. They should be using defense counsel provided by their insurance company. The foundation is putting Pacifica’s assets at risk by paying for the directors’ lawyers unless the directors post bond to repay any funds advanced for their defense. Do you want any of the funds you sent in after the last pledge drive to be spent to defend Pacifica?

Folio: Of course not. It’s outrageous that that could happen. I’m still furious that they used my money for the armed guards in Berkeley in 1999. If the judge rules in your favor on these motions, and does not grant Pacifica’s motion to dismiss the case, what happens next?

Carol: Our next move will be to file a motion for summary adjudication. The motion will focus on the very narrow issue of who are the lawful directors of Pacifica. There are currently fifteen individuals acting as directors. We’ll seek to remove those who were seated after the illegal by-laws changes, as well as the two who have been voted out of office by the corporate members who originally elected them, and the four who have continued acting as directors after the expiration of their 3-year terms. If we succeed in this motion, that will leave three directors: Peter Bramson, Rabbi Aaron Kriegel, and Rob Robinson. With these three, we will be able to move ahead towards the goal of restoring Pacifica to its founding values.

Folio: Ah, "restoring Pacifica to its founding values." What is your vision of a post-lawsuit Pacifica?

Carol: Lately I’ve been interested in the difference between being listener-sponsored as opposed to being listener-supported or even community-supported. The distinction may be subtle, but I believe a "supporter" is a passive role, while a "sponsor" is an interactive role.

Lew Hill thought money was enough evidence of the interactivity; that is, that the listener-sponsors could "vote" with their money for the programs they liked and that the board and staff wold take that greatly to heart in making programming decisions. I don’t think Hill envisioned today’s situation where Pacifica can "fire" the listeners and get others who will "vote" with their money for something other than the kind of programs Hill wanted KPFA to produce. He didn’t envision "juke-box radio" or "The Sounds of Texas" or Washington, DC’s jazz station. I don’t think he envisioned "premiums" to induce support, either. I don’t think that’s what he meant at all.

In Hill’s day, the programmers themselves got the intimate feedback of how much money was coming in and had to decide what to do about programs that listeners didn’t like. Those decisions were not taken out of their hands and decided by some remote or hierarchical structure back then. Today, I think we need to return to "listener-sponsorship" and the notion that it is interactive, that the listener-sponsors have a real say. Money isn’t enough. I think the decision-makers must be elected by the staff again, together with the listeners, as we recently did with the KPFA LAB elections. And real dialogue and creative tension must be restored to the programmer-listener relationship.

Folio: What about the national board – who should they be answerable to?

Carol: I think the board should be answerable to both the staff at the stations, and the listeners. How do we attain that? By a direct election of the board members? Should the LAB's elect the board members? Or some combination of both? If you look at the various email lists, you see a great deal of discussion and controversy on this subject. After we win the lawsuits, we must spend a year in discussion, brainstorming, and sharing ideas.

Folio: You mention the KPFA LAB elections. Many of us view a democratically-elected LAB as a big step in the direction of returning Pacifica to its founding values, although Lew Hill didn’t think much of the idea, it seems. What’s your view of the value of a democratically-elected LAB? And how’s the new KPFA LAB doing?

Carol: The new KPFA LAB has been struggling to find its focus and purpose, and get its feet moving on the path towards the restored Pacifica. One of the challenges is that democracy does not guarantee agreement. In fact, it may guarantee disagreement. But in selecting proportional representation as the model for the KPFA LAB, we wanted to insure a diversity of views and voices.

How do we get agreement under those circumstances? We vote, and the majority rules. It is most important that we get people to talk, to take risks and express their views, to be willing to be shot down. This requires trust, openness, and a willingness to change your mind. It’s a high human calling, and I’m not sure we’re up to it. At times I feel a sense of disengagement in this LAB. The question is, do we have an agreement that making it work is important? The challenge is that failure is an argument for autocracy, for finding good people we trust, appoint them, and let them make decisions for us. But that’s what got us where we are now.

Folio: So what’s next?

Carol: We’re looking at our May 10 court date. That’s my focus today. Each court-date as it comes.

_________________________