Wednesday, April 23, 2014

FYI: Union Complaint Filed against Pacifica

The following is a press release from Pacifica Radio in Exile, published here—as before—for everyone's enlightenment and to invite comment. This is not R. Paul's BlueBoard, so the door is open wide for all viewpoints, although not for sandbox pixel pap—you know what I mean. 
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞


Berkeley-SAG/AFTRA has filed a  complaint at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against Pacifica Radio, for unilateral contract modifications and bargaining in bad faith with the union local at WPFW-FM in Washington DC. Acting/interim/disputed chair Margy Wilkinson approved the seeming contract violations at an April staff meeting when presented by WPFW's general manager Michele Price. The complaint report can be seen here. 
The full board of directors has not been notified of the grievance more than two weeks after it was filed at the National Labor Relations Board. One of the conditions attached to Summer Reese's contract as executive director was that the board be informed of all pending litigation and grievances *immediately*. Wilkinson has also continued to hold privately the workplace investigation report Pacifica ordered to address hostile workplace complaints filed against the recently rehired CFO. 

Temporary/interim ED Bernard Duncan has not returned from Los Angeles to the Berkeley headquarters after falling ill 3 days into his first week of employment. 

An open letter signed by hundreds of the network's staffers and supporters objecting to the breach of Reese's contract can be found here.
Pacifica's financial situation continues to be extremely perilous, driven largely by severe cash shortfalls at the local stations. DC station WPFW is down to $4,000 in its operating account with no clear way to pay the end of the month payroll and WBAI has about $250,000 in unpaid bills piled up. KPFT in Houston faces a March 27th deadline to get up to full power after 4 FCC extensions. Station managers are improvising without clear guidance from national about how to meet their obligations without enough cash on hand. Slow progress is being made on the overdue bank reconcilations at KPFA, but recent financial reports presented by the local board treasurer at the last two local board meetings both contained math errors and overstated earnings. The new audit completion date is anticipated to be no sooner than the end of June. 
A FAQ about the events of the last 75 days can be found here. 
The PDGG directors have called a special meeting for April 27th to address falsified minutes and the on-going lack of corporate counsel, but are not sure their colleagues in the majority will attend the meeting. The amended PDGG vs. Pacifica complaint can be found here in a 137-page full complaint and a 24-page Memorandum of Points and Authorities

42 comments:

  1. It seems that just as Russia's "United Russia" is Putin's pet political party, Pacifica Radio in Exile is Reese's own faction. Wait, it's not just Summer Reese, we have the entire Reese clan, a Progressive Dynasty, a first, with the exception of, maybe, the North Korea's ruling family. I believe that Reese will damage Pacifica, because she will run it as a for-profit enterprise, in the statements that she has made, she has referred to Pacifica as a "Corporation" and to herself as a "Captain" of a corporation. In addition to her attitude, there is her association with Gary Null, Christine Blosdale, and Tracy Rosenberg. Gary Null has a long history of promoting his products over BAI and Pacifica as fundraising premiums, Christine Blosdale runs a PR company and has been accused of promoting her clients work as premiums on Pacifica. Tracy Rosenberg posted on this website and proposed an objective criteria to review each program aired on Pacifica as part of a systematic program of evaluative reviews of programing at BAI for its effective as a way to get rid of sub-standard programming. I need to point out that Tracy Rosenberg runs the Media Alliance, a media consultancy, which evaluates broadcast programs to measure their diversity, inclusion, political correctness, etc. So, basically, if Rese implements a process for the review of individual programming, Rosenberg's Media Alliance will get the job. And for that matter, Rosenberg and Reese's faction were behind the firing of Brian Edwards-Tiekert and his Morning Show at KPFA, and Engelhard, Reese's predecessor, admitted that the move was at least in part motivated, because the Morning Show was bad mouthing some or all of the Pacifica National Board.

    There is some writing in the Pacifica Radio in Exile release about the two factions at Pacifica, but it is inadequate and misleading. I got the names from the original Court filing, and the Majority of 12 has moved to fire Reese. Minority of 9 supported her. Of the 9 supporters of the Reese faction, 8 are women except Richard Uzzell, and there were ZERO Latinos among the 9 Pro-Reese members. When I looked closer at the Pacifica National Board Members through the internet, I foud out that there are indeed two factions, but they are harder to define and the differences are extremely deep. All of the practicing lawyers are on the anti-Reese side - Tony Norman and Jose Fuentes. Members with the NGO and media management track records are also on the anti-Reese side - Lydia Brazon was associated with a UN-affiliated NGO that was representing Mexican Zapatistas to the media, and Hank Lamb spent a lot of years working in the established NGO's, Pacifica among them. Margy Wilkinson is a retired union official. Brian Edwards-Tiekert is a journalist, whose professional credentials are better than any on the pro-Reese side, Bernard Duncan also has a better experience running media organizations, than Reese, who has no professional credentials or managerial experience, her experience is in activism, and possibly, in marketing. And this is one of the differences between the two factions - The Wilkerson faction is more establishment, has a better experience working within the system (though not apparent in its running of the Pacifica) and it also includes all of the Latinos.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Reese faction, on the other hand, includes more radical activists who take part in direct action, and appears to be more radicalized. Richard Uzzell, the sole male on the Pro-Reese faction, is a fiscal responsibility a la Tracy Rosenberg Supporter (and I might add that I would have supported Rosenberg's actions, had she not used cost cutting and streamlining as a way to get rid of her faction's enemies, and Reese is a greater more aggressive ambition and the same hatchet style), but he appears to be a hands on activist, who has protected abortion clinics, escorted women, participated in demonstrations, etc, while earning his living as a carpenter. Found among Reese supporters was Carolyn Birden, a BAI representative of the ACE coalition (an opponent of Justice and Unity, and I think it may have been the astro-turf organization seeded by Gary Null and Steve Brown. Found among the Reese supporters you have Janet Coleman, a radical broadcaster, who postulated that the Arbitron can not measure the phantom audience of the undocumented, the disenfranchised, and the progressive, whom the Pacifica allegedly reaches, and therefore, the traditional ratings system should not be used to measure BAI's success. Found among the Reese supporters are both of Pacifica's Affiliate delegates. Both are Afrocentric women. One was running a music show on a community radio station in Minnesota, who had to move on after her show did not raise the adequate amount of money for the station (Janis Layne Ewart). The other is more successful in that she managed a community radio station for eight years and also as a member of an activist organization, that had something to do with the distribution of land to black farmers in the South (Heather Gray). As a contrast you have a Latino broadcaster Adriana Casenave, who ran a organic gardening and permaculture show on KPFT, who voted against Reese. Also on the pro-Reese faction, you have Janet Kobren, member of the Democratic Socialists of America, who took part in a number of the "Occupy" actions and also was on the flotilla that sailed from Turkey and tried unsuccessfully to break the Israeli blockade of the Palestinians.

    Looking over the whole thing, it seems that Summer Reese faction is the more radicalized, more activist, and less professional one. I am not sure how the Margy Wilkinson faction is reacting, but the pro-Reese faction is moving on to get rid of the PNB majority that opposes her. They discredited Tony Norman and are moving to recall both Jose Fuentes and Hank Lamb. Looking at the more radical and less mainstream professional Pacifica, that is the Reese faction., you will have a Pacifica, that will be less able to secure grants and other funding and will rely more on marketing of premiums and other schemes to collect money from the listening audience. What appears to be going on at BAI is that radicalized activists led by an economic opportunist with a marketing scheme are breaking away the more traditional and better established board.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BB-- sounds like a clearer analysis on your part than any other likely to be found on the East Coast. You might want to look into how Media Alliance has fared in the hands of Tracy Rosenberg. I'm told it served a real function for a large number of people at the time she took it over. Now, as I understand it, it has just about flatlined...

    I got into the brouhaha after the cancellation of the Morning Show, aghast at what I was hearing on my radio. At that point, my home and car radios, as well as the one on intermittently at work, was set to 94.1. Clearly-- a more-dedicated-than-usual listener, and one who shared my enthusiasm with friends, family, and co-workers. I had no idea who Ms. Rosenberg was until I started going to LSB meetings trying to find out what the hell was happening and what could be done to correct it. It was quickly obvious that if she isn't "the" evil genius behind the events of the last several years, she's in virtually 24/7 smartphone contact with him/her/them: her group at the LSB is notable for consulting their devices for what to say and how to vote. She has got them *very* disciplined-- for the most part, they are unquestioning, obedient soldiers who never break ranks. When she gathered a roster of candidates for her slate at the last LSB elections, each was on-message about "community radio" driven by community advisory boards whose function was to determine programming. So you had a slate of various activists, including the vegan who thought her "community" had waited long enough for a vegan show: you see how the definition of "community" has been distorted over the years into being narrowly exclusionary rather than broadly inclusive. There seems to be a peculiar appeal to "the politics of resentment." On the National, network level, you see this as the East Coast stations being told that the West Coast stations want to sell them off and keep the proceeds. The West Coast stations hear the rumors about how the East Coast stations see the solution as the sale of West Coast properties, with the proceeds going to bail out the East Coast station. You know the drill: "Why don't you and him fight." (While I walk off with what you're fighting over.)

    My own analysis is that the radicalized activists are the footsoldiers; the economic opportunists (of whom Reese and Rosenberg are the most visible) are driving the action and making the strategy. Radicalized activists are just so easily led by someone who knows what language to use and what buttons to push.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, fascinating analysis, that rings true! Do you think that Reese and Rosenberg are themselves foot-soldiers, or are they the ones running the faction. Have you ever seen them taking their orders via the I-phone? Also, have you ever attended any meetings with Reese present? How does she come across based on her statements and demeanor?

      Delete
  4. Nope Booser. No job for me at Pacifica. Nothing personal, but I don't like the way Pacifica treats its employees and I don't want to be one. The pay is lousy and the working conditions are bad. Evaluating radio programs is not what I do. What I do is advocate and write about media policy including broadcast regulation, telecom policy and internet freedom. Have a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well so much of what Ms Reese says does not ring true for me. It still doesn't make any sense to me why she got rid of Andrew Phillips. It almost seems like we have at pacifica exactly what we have in this nation when we go to vote. 2 parties that really will not save this nation, 2 factions that are only bringing this glorious institution down. We need to have people that have no underlying agendas. I don't see Janet Coleman as someone with enough backbone to really make any significant change. She has her own agendas also. It really is a shame. Journalism is in such a sad state and we need a real healthy pacifica more than we have ever needed it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There haven’t been any credible, responsible journalists at WBAI since Marty Goldensohn and Abe Aig – that is a *fuck* of a long time ago.

      Since that time there have been only ‘progressive’ hacks putting out reportage about as credible as that of Radio Moscow or Tokyo Rose of truly ancient times.

      Reese did not ‘get rid of’ Andrew Phillips. She was, of course, the one who brought him in to WBAI, and she supported his attempts to raise the level of programming. When the October fund drive, based on his ‘the program is the premium’ predicate instantly failed she overruled him and put the scam-fund-raisers back in place.

      Phillips resigned in protest.

      Both were reasonable positions.

      Reese had made clear that she saw the weak programming at WBAI as the key problem, and Phillips was brought in precisely because he shared that judgement.

      The cruel fact of the matter was that despite Phillips sensible, intelligent, and fiercely dedicated efforts, there wasn’t enough time by October for the programming situation to have been sufficiently turned around to meaningfully affect the fund raising needed to keep the station alive.

      The numbers were catastrophic – no one’s fault, simply reflections of the fact that a situation which had been chronic for years and years couldn’t be turned around in the blink of an eye (a little over two months).

      Reese, faced with ultimate responsibility for keeping WBAI alive if at all possible, and facing the catastrophic numbers, pulled the plug on Phillips’ fund-raising approach for October, and turned fund-raising largely over to the jackals.

      Reese has been criticized for pulling the plug quickly, and Phillips has been criticized for resigning rather than swallowing his pride temporarily and remaining as iPD.

      In my judgement both people took reasonable positions, and both behaved honorably.

      Sometimes there are no good choices, and sometimes it’s not even objectively clear what the least-bad choices may be.

      This was such an instance.

      ~ ‘indigopirate’

      Delete
  6. Indigo,

    When forced to choose between the Pacifica's own Free Speech Radio News and Democracy Now!, Reese has chosen to cut the less expensive FSRN and keep the expensive and disadvantageous Democracy Now, which collects a huge bonus every time DN! is used in fund raising. You have an explanation for that? Why would anyone destroy their own asset and rely on a more expensive outside vendor? Would you care to tell me why the "Morning Show" was cut at KPFA when it was one of its strongest assets?

    You missed the point about Phillips quitting - Reese sided with Reimers and people currently running BAI, which severely compromised Phillips ability to effect any changes or implement his vision.

    Reese lost her integrity, when she used cost cutting as an excuse for getting rid of her faction's enemies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I understand it, Summer Reese would not have been able to cut DN! with the stroke of a pen. Besides, whatever we might think of the program in its present form, it remains the only Pacifica-associated program that has any kind of audience.

      Summer Reese did not side with Berthold Reimers, but she was not sufficiently familiar with the details of WBAI's fundraising history to foresee the immediate results of cleaning up the act. It did not take long for tallies to reveal that people wanted cures and not culture, so she panicked and decided to revert to the something that had worked.

      Without consulting or even informing Andrew, she ordered business as usual, so suddenly, there was Null in the AM, Blosdale on an eastbound plane, and a roundup of the usual scam artists. It worked as far as income was concerned, but it made it impossible for Andrew to continue. He had been hired to repair the damage, and If Summer Reese thought this could be achieved seamlessly and without a costly period of adjustment, she wasn't thinking.

      True, something had to be done, but this m. o. was irrational. Summer should have raised enough money to see WBAI through that transition before jumping into a predictable sinkhole. Of course this must have pleased Reimers, for he has never had a solution that didn't exacerbate the problem.

      Andrew Phillips choices were to sell out or get out—he wisely and commendable opted for the latter.

      I don't know who you call the enemies of Reese's faction, certainly not people like Hamilton, Knight, Davis and Armah, all of whom shamelessly practiced pandering.

      Delete
    2. The enemy faction was the purge of the Morning Show at KPFA. Engelhard was the PNB Chair at the time, and Reese was her chosen successor. Engelhard admitted that political considerations were part of the reason that KPFA's morning show was sacked. Reese is part of the same clique. Also, firings of the Morning Show and FSRN, and also the discrediting of Tony Norman and those, who tried to strengthen the station in DC, both by starting their own network and by carrying NPR content to appeal to a greater audience, were fired by Reese. All these actions seem to be fitting a pattern of making stations weaker and more dependent on Pacifica Foundation.

      Delete
    3. Brooser:

      I don’t know what fantasy planet you live on, but it’s not possible to unilaterally renegotiate a contract, and it’s also not possible to renegotiate a contract downward when you’re not in a position to actually pay anything at all. If you’re in a position where it’s not possible to pay full terms, but you are in a position to pay *something* you *may* be able to get the other party to renegotiate – but not necessarily – in this case, for instance, it may be that the other party is content to let the amount owing pile up against the possibility that in the collapse of the network there may be assets to be sold that will pay her in full – in which case there’s nothing to be done, other than to bide your time as the amount owing piles higher and higher – whether it will ultimately ever be paid, and if so in what amount, being another question entirely.

      Duh.

      As for Mr Phillips: You have a habit of saying to people they ‘missed the point’ or didn’t ‘get it’ when they fail to share the infinite wisdom of your ‘analyses’. Try that in court or in a debate forum other than the internet and you’ll be staring at an overwhelming and embarrassing defeat.

      Duh.

      If you disagree as to the wisdom of Ms Reese’s judgements as to Mr Phillips (as does Mr Albertson), that’s fine. It is not meaningful, however, to note the fact of your disagreement and then spin fantastic paranoid ‘analyses’ for which you’ve neither offered nor established any basis in fact other than your preferred interpretation of the limited set of facts available – stick to WoW – or at the least try to reach the skill level of a minimally competent junior high school debater.

      A challenge, I know.

      Bottom line, Brooser: Saying to someone who disagrees with your ‘analysis’ that you think they’re wrong doesn’t actually constitute an argument in any mind other than your own or in the minds of those who already agree with you.

      It convinces no one. It impresses no one. It moves no one.

      As for Tactics 101: I don’t know about you, but if I have to cut costs I’m going to cut my enemies, not my allies.

      Of course I lack your deep strategic and tactical insight ;)

      ~ ‘indigo, pirate’

      Delete
    4. Indigo,

      I like it how you impose the defeatist mentality on the Pacifica. Are you THAT naïve, to think that Pacifica could not stopped airing the DN! or paying the exorbitant fees to them. It can be done. I could have had it done legally.

      Regarding you Tactics 101, there is a concept of common good, regardless of your differences, you do not act contrary to it. That is what separates law abiding folks from criminals and psychopaths. It takes wisdom and professionalism, but you would be surprised how many large mainstream organizations have really nasty internal politics and still manage to uphold that concept of common good. Translated into terms that you could understand, when time to cut costs comes, you cut judiciously and multilaterally, if acting without consensus, then at least with a preliminary discourse involving all stakeholders. Obviously, such behavior is beyond the scope of capacity for Reese and her clique, who are economic opportunists, and that very opportunism makes them unsuitable for Pacifica. As a prime example of it, consider that during the Reese's tenure as a chairman and as a member of the PNB, no added effort was made to expand the grant-writing activity or to fund Pacifica as a traditional non-profit, or to expand Pacifica as a traditional journalistic organization.

      Delete
    5. You cannot unilaterally and arbitrarily abrogate or modify a contract because you feel like it – your infinite legal expertise notwithstanding.

      According to all accounts I’ve seen to date, Pacifica has been paying very little or nothing in actual monies to DN. They’re carrying it as monies owing. A number of people have pointed out that if at any point Ms Goodman chooses to sue for what’s owed it will collapse the network into receivership.

      That might actually be desirable from some perspectives, indeed in many ways it would make sense for these fools to be in the hands of court-appointed trusteeship, but it’s rather a weak negotiating position – Ms Goodman holds all the cards, and Pacifica holds essentially none.

      If you know of some way to unilaterally and arbitrarily abrogate a valid contract, please feel free to share, I’m sure the legal world is waiting for the inside scoop.

      If when you have to cut personnel you prefer to cut your allies and keep on your enemies, then more power to you, BB.

      You go right ahead and do that,

      ~ ‘indigopirate’

      Delete
    6. Isn't it ironic, Indigo, that willing as you are to give up moral high ground, you are so innocent of what litigation can accomplish. Of course, Pacifica's downfall is their refusal to bring the real pros on board.

      Delete
    7. Take a moment, BB, and enlighten me as to how litigation would accomplish that?

      As an ignorant fool who's never negotiated a contract, I shall listen attentively to your words of wisdom.

      Help me out, how would that be done?

      Would you contract with the illustrious firm of Bombast & Fustion, LLC,

      Thanks in advance for the advice,

      Sincerely,

      ~ 'indigopirate'

      ps: I have literally no idea what morality is, sorry, I'm absolutely amoral.

      Delete
    8. I don't give advice. Attorney work product is a marketable commodity, among other things.

      Delete
    9. As a member of the NYS, DC and CA bars you’re only willing to bill out at your standard rate of $1100/hr and no pro bono work, of course.

      I understand perfectly.

      ~ ‘indigopirate’

      ps: Say hi to Lloyd when you're next in Philadelphia, okay now?

      Delete
    10. I like my work to be fun and give me a sense of accomplishment... no four figure hourly rates for me!

      Delete
    11. Indeed not – I understand perfectly.

      ~ 'indigopirate'

      Delete
  7. Tracy, Pacifica pay sucks and the office politics is even worse, but you were Pacifica's Treasurer for a time. Can you explain, if you can, why the Pacifica's contract with Democracy Now! was not renegotiated in a downward direction in proportion with the Pacifica's audience decline?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Because when that was pointed out to Amy, she said sorry I don't want to negotiate and my attorney's name is Michael Ratner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course she would say that. Interesting, that she would pull Michael Ratner out of a hat over what is essentially a financial matter. However, I can think of a number of ways, all perfectly legit, to apply pressure on her to bring her to negotiate. As far as the Pacifica National Board is concerned, was that even doable, or did they have ideological blinders on, and would not entertain putting pressure on her? Am I correct in thinking that when the banned and the exiled faction beat the Pacifica Foundation in court, they saddled it with the Democracy Now contract? In retrospect, the biggest mistake that Pacifica made, was not making the situation absolutely transparent to listener-supporters.

      Delete
    2. She 'would say that' because she's a non-fool, and has no reason to 'renegotiate' a contract when such renegotiation is not in her interest.

      Duh.

      ~ 'indigopirate'

      Delete
    3. Yes, Indigo, she is on your wave-length. I got that. I know a music producer who is owed a few hundred thousand by a musician he worked with. Both are on the dole and living in Section 8 housing. I see THAT in store for Democracy Now; not quite as impoverished, but similarly so.

      Delete
    4. Must be a very successful producer to be every bit as judgement proof as a musician he produced.

      Clearly the sort of person who navigates life on earth with savvy and skill.

      I therefore can well appreciate your acquaintance and your respect for his judgement.

      I very much doubt Ms Goodman expects to see her monies until Pacifica is forced into receivership – at that point, with assets on the block, as a debtor she's in a position to collect.

      In that consideration, with Pacifica all-too-clearly likely to be forced to sell assets, why on earth would she renegotiate her contract downward?

      Ah, yes, because the BB's of the world could say nasty things... and scowl... and turn the world against her ... that would do it!

      ~ 'indigopirate'

      Delete
    5. Talent does not go hand in hand with commercial success. Surely, you must know that! I love song and I collect musical recordings, that no one else has and that money can't buy.

      There is a Russian saying, Indigo: What does your money smell like? Meaning that it's not the money you make, but you make it like a man, with integrity - you don't work on your knees and you don't earn in a bent over position, or, in the case of Amy Goodman, you don't make your money by being a vulture. From what you been saying, it sounds like you have no concept of integrity, you don't care how the money is made, and you project these values on Amy Goodman.

      Delete
    6. You’re attempting to shift subjects, Brooser. You had offered your infinite depths of experience and wisdom as to the subject of contract negotiation/renegotiation, particularly in the area of entertainment law, and in this context you had offered the charming anecdote of an impoverished ‘music manager’ as if it might suggest credibility to your various declarations and pontifications – in which you’re consistently and indeed persistently inclined to present argumentum ab auctoritate – yet, of course, you have no authority in these areas, and simply present declarations implying same.

      If you’re so deeply knowledgeable in these areas, who the fuck was that ‘Lloyd’ I referred to?

      Let me be clear: I’m claiming no authority of my own in any area which I in any way address on this board. I’m anonymous. You don’t get to see my credentials. I’m content to let my arguments stand or fail on their own merits or lack thereof.

      I’ll leave vague implications of authority to you, okay?

      So… to the point of the moment: We are all, I’m willing to bet, aware of the fact that artistic merit has little if any correlation with commercial success. That wasn’t the point.

      The point was that you were holding forth, time and again, how easy it is with your deep knowledge of contracts in the entertainment arena to force someone in Ms Goodman’s position to renegotiate her contract.

      I presented the position that that seemed essentially inconceivable, that given the positions of the parties concerned Pacifica had no abiity to persuade her to negotiate simply because Pacifica would like to do so.

      You then vaguely asserted that, in your vast experience and knowledge in this area it was easily done.

      When I asked, simply, how, you attempted to deflect with a joke about your lack of interest in things monetary.

      Now you’re figuratively waving your arms and attempting to invoke anecdote and claims of moral authority.

      Did someone make you the Pope of Russia?

      I’ve already stated that I’m amoral – I make no claim to moral or any other authority.

      You’re very quick to claim moral authority, BB.

      You want to know what a Russian or any other peasant’s money smells like?

      It smells like shit.

      I would think that obvious.

      ~ ‘indigopirate’

      Delete
    7. Goodman's contract with Pacifica can be successfully litigated and mitigated. No point in divulging it here where anyone can read it, is there? There are other things besides litigation that can also be done, again, try thinking out of the box.

      BTW, you are foolish to claim yourself amoral, unless you have previously acted without integrity and profited from it, do not idealize or admire others acting immorally, there is nothing in it for you.

      Delete
    8. I assume most readers know an empty bluff when they see one, Brooser – keep waving those arms and mumbling 'I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you.'

      There's a box?

      ~ 'indigopirate'

      Delete
    9. Of course there is a box, Indigo, and you are in it. Had you done research on how to mount a challenge to the DN! contract, you would have seen several approaches. Problem is, the PNB has no political will to actually oppose Democracy Now! and no competence to run the syndication of the show to Pacifica's advantage.

      Delete
  9. "This is not R. Paul's BlueBoard."

    What a disgrace he is to his own values. This is a guy who has spent not years but decades cultivating a reputation as a big free speech advocate. If you go on his website, you are greeted with a bunch of self-important crap about his opposition to a 1996 law restricting certain internet-based speech. And of course, he would never shut up about free speech on his stream-of-consciousness show on BAI. But at the end of the day, when he held the power to censor and control speech, he couldn't resist it. He revealed himself to be as big a hypocrite as a fundamentalist pastor who rails against sin, and is then caught with a hooker. And the fact that he choked off that board at a critical juncture, when it actually might serve a real purpose, makes his hypocrisy even more egregious.

    Not that you haven't done enough already, but have you considered adding a bulletin board/forum platform to this website? You could make it nice and blue and set the font to look just like the old board. It would be worth doing just to piss off that hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just to clear the record regarding my resignation from WBAI and Summer Reese's and Berthold Reimer's implementation of the Null/Blodsdale juggernaut. I resigned because Null/Blodsdale were imposed by Reese in Morning Drive, something I'd specifically demanded not happen. Reese called late on a Monday night demanding Null run next day in the morning - no consultation just "do it!". I said no, that I planned to arise again at 4am and make it uptown to the Harlem studio and announce the change - which I did. And then I resigned. I knew the plan would not work. And I certainly was not going to be kicked around by a neophyte like Reese who has zero experience in broadcasting and bullied and bullshitted her way to lead Pacifica. Call it hubris on my part but it was the last straw, particularly after the way she'd treated me at KPFA when she and Tracey Rosenberg engineered an ersatz investigation of my "racist tendencies" and removed me as iGM at KPFA. To this day I don't know what the charges were, was never interviewed in regard to the charges not told the result of the "investigation". I was a fabrication. The outcome was the removal of J.R. Valrey, who himself had spread disgusting racist gossip on and off air and whom I'd suspended whilst I was iGM. Furthermore, it was Summer Reese who was supposed to deal with that situation - she took it out my hands but did nothing leaving KPFA open to serious litigation. Following the "investigation" Valrey was permanently suspended from KPFA which was the right decision. I believe the action by Reese and Rosenberg was a cover for their own culpability. All this was documented by me and reported to the KPFA LSB but now its water under the bridge. But that was some of the background to my relationship with the pretender, Summer Reese. And note too that it was Rosenberg who was behind the removal of KPFA's morning show back in October 2010 which was really a cover for the removal of the talented and hard-working Brian Edwards-Tiekert. I eventualy was able to reinstate part of the old KPFA Morning Show which greatly improved morning drive and brought in substantial funds - up to $8k in an hour but at least half that consistently in a much smaller market than NYC. But more importantly, produced an excellent and consist program

    Back east Reese asked me to take on WBAI and I agreed since I had a plan. I'd been monitoring WBAI whilst I was on administrative leave in he hills of Oakland. I told her that "when a bone breaks it heals stronger at the joint" and I took on a the task to try rebuild WBAI. There is a lot more to this story and perhaps one day I'll write it one day

    Drive time (morning and evening) was/is an opportunity to build audience and though it was very, very late in the game it was the only possible approach to attempt rebuilding audience. There was no way that Null could do it. His credibility and his premiums are bankrupt and he demands upwards of 50% of the cost of the premium so the real financial benefit is much less than it appears. Additionally and importantly, after the implementation of Null in the morning he made very little money in that slot anyway. I believe the most he made was less than $2k. So it was a stupid move by Reese and Berthold on all counts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My very sincere thanks for sharing your observations, your knowledge, and your perspective on a few aspects of the various madnesses that have long been and are still Pacifica.

      As an outside observer with inadequate information to work with, I’m inclined to see the October conflict as a clash as to the assessment of emergency financial priorities and as to programming judgement – I readily acknowledge that you’re infinitely more experienced and knowledgeable in that latter than is Ms Reese.

      Perhaps most importantly, I respect your resigning on principle.

      Best wishes, in all things,

      ~ ‘indigopirate’

      Delete
    2. Andrew,

      It's not okay for you to continually lie about the workplace investigation at KPFA. I have already told you that if you will waive your right to privacy that I will post the investigator's report that led to your removal as the IGM at KPFA and transfer to WBAI. You have declined to do so, but that does not give you the right to mis-state the contents of the report in public. As you know perfectly well, you were found to have mis-handled several complaints at KPFA, 3 is the number. The most serious had to do with an internal hiring committee, where you were clearly notified multiple times of severe irregularities leading to a discriminatory outcome, yet you took no corrective action and in fact, yelled and emotionally abused the staffer who told you about the problems. This matter ended up with the Department of Fair Employment in California and a formal apology was sent to the staffer who had dealings with you on behalf of the Pacifica Foundation with regard to your behavior. Nothing at all to do with JR Valrey. The workplace investigator did find fault with your actions and recommended that you be removed from a general manager position. If you would like me to publish the report, I will, but otherwise you do need to cease and desist from mis-characterizing it. Thank you.

      Delete
  11. So you Tracy Rosenberg who seem to fit the category of "yenta" , think it's okay to tell others what Pacifica never told me, never asked me about, never heard my side of the story, to publicly share personal, personnel information on this blog and to call me liar here. You should walk very carefully at this point. Your information is biased and uncorroborated. You exaggerate and spin anyway you can in an effort to justify the kangaroo court you supported. You brought my personal emails between Summer Reese and I to a KPFA LSB meeting - you distributed them at that meeting and somebody made sure to remove the confidentiality clause. And then you misrepresent what I said. You have done this more than once, sticking your nose in other peoples business just as you are doing now. Why would I accede to you - and again what does any of this have to do with you anyway - why would I accede to you publishing a report I have never seen. The whole thing was a charade. And pray tell how I could I "misstate the contents of the report" when I have not seen the report. Your characterization that I "yelled and emotionally abused the staffer" is highly exaggerated. I think if people who know KPFA and its staff knew to whom you were referring they would understand completely how this whole thing seems to have spun way beyond any sense of reason. And it's so interesting to me that the work place investigator who never asked me anything about the so called investigation, was able to come to the decision you describe. And if so how strange it was that Summer Reese would appeal to me to help out at WBAI if I was such a risk. It's you who should cease and desist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tracy wrote, "As you know perfectly well, you were found to have mis-handled several complaints at KPFA, 3 is the number.The most serious had to do with an internal hiring committee, where you were clearly notified multiple times of severe irregularities leading to a discriminatory outcome, yet you took no corrective action, and in fact yelled at and emotionally abused the staffer."

      I did submit some angry, disparaging e-mail from you, which I considered abusive, to KPFA's insurance investigator in 2013. However, I don't actually remember you "yelling" at me in person. I can't say that you were nice in person, or in meetings, but "yelling" is an exaggeration except insofar as one can yell online. A staffer making every effort to help you avoid creating legal liability for Pacifica, as I was, should not meet anger, insult and rebuke, as I did. Neither by e-mail nor in person.

      Far more serious, however, was your failure to take corrective action with regard to the KPFA hiring committee that had created legal liability by acting in ignorance of California law, the CWA labor contract, and written Pacifica policy regarding affirmative action, The issue was NOT racism. The issue was management. It is the station manager's job to protect the station and the foundation from legal liability.

      Delete
  12. Everything Rosenberg says is highly suspect. Above, she complains that Mr. Phillips hasn't waives his employee right to privacy, then she proceeds to say whatever she wants anyway, most or all of it likely made up! This is the person who has been in charge of the network's finances for years, so when you look at the state of the network, take a good hard look at Ms. Rosenberg.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You offer no proof to back up your assumptions, so don't expect them to be taken seriously.

      A good hard look needs to be taken at all sides of this sorry situation.

      Delete
  13. Chris when you say: "your offer no proof..." I assume you are referring to Ms Rosenberg. She is hiding behind the confidentiality of the so called investigation on one hand, reporting from it on the other though there is no way to know if what she says is true or if true, how the findings were made - and remember I was never, repeat never consulted on the matter, not even told what the charges were.

    Tracy Rosenberg has a well recognized record of obfuscation, misrepresentation or in a word "bull shit", documented and corroborated by minutes and witnesses of the KPFA LSB. She has misrepresented my statements on more than one occasion shared my private personal personnel emails, claimed I resigned when I did not, claimed I applied for a national program director's position which I did not - I was offered such a position but requested more information which I never received from the lackluster Summer Reese who very seldom returns emails or even puts anything in writing. I saw her offer as a ruse to maneuver me to leave KPFA which turned out to be true since after offering me the position three times, when I did not accept it (since it was a phantom position and there was no money to pay me anyway) Reese ordered me to vacate my office immediately (which I did not since I had almost 100% of the local LSB and most of KPFA's staff) and the whole thing was a frame-up and many knew it. But as an at-will and interim employee I did not have much option other than step aside - albeit on administrative leave which meant I still was paid and only that because the LSB supported me and Reese/Rosenberg were ordered to do so by the Pacifica national board on advisement by Brian Edward-Tiekert who was staunch supporter of mine.

    Sorry for the long run-on sentences! God I am so sick of this sniping. My record as iGM at KPFA is a good one. The two R's may try to besmirch me, manipulate, throw up a kangaroo court's judgement against me but I know, the KPFA documented their support for me and not for the two R's - there maybe less than one dozen of the hundreds of producers at KPFA who did not support me and bought into this bullshit - nah - its a freaking joke and I should just leave it alone. But being retired now and almost a hermit up here in the bush doing a big of writing, gardening and teaching permaculture it fills a bit of time and possible amuses a few of the WBAI and Pacifica cognoscenti.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew, I was actually addressing the anonymous poster's vague assumption that Tracy "most likely" makes up most of what she says. That response was not meant to be interpreted as me aligning myself with one side or the other. The truth is that I am as confused as most people who follow this exchange must be.

      That said, I have had outrageous lies and deliberate misinterpretations slung at me on the BlueBoard—it is par for the course over there, but still ever a source of amazement.

      As for the current situation, I thought Reese was an improvement over Engelhardt, One reason for that was her hiring of you to straighten out the WBAI programming mess, another was her long overdue firing of Berthold Reimers. Then, just as I was beginning to soften my views on Reese's earlier actions, she blew up your efforts to take WBAI down the right path.

      Then came the Margy Wilkinson takeover. I hope your seeming endorsement of that is a reflection of your disgust with Reese rather than an acceptance of the enacted scenario. I think it was underhanded and it gave a slight boost to my low opinion of Reese, but that was short-lived, because I now found myself trusting neither side. That is still the case—I really don't see any hope for Pacifica as long as these players are in the cast. Clearly, they are not all going to vanish, so I'm afraid Pacifica's days are over and its stations have to be placed in capable—hopefully, enlightened—hands.

      In my opinion, you did the right thing by resigning and not selling out—it was the only honorable choice. These people are all fighting a losing battle, and for the wrong reasons. One consolation is that truth eventually finds its way out—and when that truth is on your side, you can relax. I hope you are keeping notes for the book somebody has to write.

      Delete
    2. Andrew, what you described makes sense. My condolences at what you refer to as "water under the bridge". I am not familiar with the facts of your case, but I am fully aware, that the one thing that could bring you down in the middle ages was the allegation of witch-craft. In the Stalinist Russia it was the allegation of being a foreign agent, and in present day America, your career can be utterly ruined by the allegation of work-place discrimination or sexual harassment. And just as there are real instances and real victims of workplace harassment and discrimination, there are also those who use these allegations for political maneuvers and to advance themselves and their careers by any means possible. So, my condolences.

      Am I to understand, that Brian-Edwards-Tiekert's Morning Show was cancelled, because he was the supporter of the KPFA faction, and his show's removal can be seen as a move to weaken KPFA and make it more dependent on the Pacifica national foundation. Or were there other reasons that they shut down his show?

      With regards to your characterization of Reese, it is consistent with her overall conduct. From what I was able to gather, and correct me, if I am wrong, her professional background is in sales and in working as a paralegal for some activist lawyers. Was she doing marketing for Federal Express, when she started getting involved with Pacifica? She was exposed to street activism by her parents. That political style, you describe as bullying and bullshit, dodging e-mails and avoiding putting anything in writing, is part street posturing, part activist organizing, and part legal, as in avoiding self-incrimination; all self-serving. That part of the organizing of her faction, previously described - where everyone stays on message, speaks in unison, and constantly keeps in synch with other members (or the leader) via texting, etc is straight from the radical left/communist playbook. It is called "party discipline" and not following it was grounds for expulsion from the legacy Soviet Communist Party. My big question is, did this organizing come from Reese or did this faction exist before Reese and Rosenberg came along, and if this faction preceded them, was this faction Marxist?

      The picture that emerges of Reese is that she is ambitious, self-serving, and ruthless. What I am really curious about, is whether she is doing it out of her own opportunism and ambition - get herself a decently paying job for the middle years, maybe even personally profit from the revenue generated by Pacifica, or whether Reese is working for someone, and she has backers and silent partners?

      Delete
  14. the center cannot hold

    ReplyDelete