Waiting For A Synthesis of Salvation & Transformation, or: Godot Was Already Here And Left For All-Too-Obvious Reasons And We Didn’t Much Care For Him Anyway, So There
I half-assed half-sampled last night’s festivities of the PNB Strategic Planning Consortium, Gathering, and Assemblage for the Contemplation of Variant Possible Conceivable and Idly-Imaginable Futures Society & Random Rambling Speculation & Quilting While Sipping Beverages While Driving Club on the one hand and the PNB Audit Committee Gathering, Colloquy, and Assemblage of the Mathematically, Logically, and Coherent-Thought Challenged Contemplators and Opinionators on the other hand and, yes, a third hand would have helped I suppose, but difficult to locate, litrally.
Yes, litrally.
They appeared to be as of late civil, polite, and largely pointless.
A couple of simple, salient points then, screamingly if not deafeningly obvious to most sentient beings above the earthworm level. (Yes, I know earthworm lovers will take offense at that – take a number, because I care so very deeply and I’ll get right back to you, okay?)
Pacificans appear, after years and years of years and years, to have ‘gotten’ the idea, the insight, the notion, that they probably really oughta change, and they’re now referring to this shattering insight as the need to ‘reboot’.
Couple of problems there: 1) We all know that ReBoot, the program, was wonderful and brilliant and fun and hell, even had lots of G&S, but that the reboot of ReBoot pretty much, well, Sucked. Also, 2) Reboot means, really, simply, a restart. It doesn’t mean, or suggest, reinvention, rebirth, or anything – gasp – suggesting deep, radical, fundamental change, nor for that matter a return to and recreation of earliest roots revisited.
These are stumbler-bumblers of the first order we all know that, right?
Of course of course of course they don’t know that because… because they’re stumbler-bumblers, of course duh.
Ever-so-slightly more seriously… they’re making lists and ‘analyzing’. Thinking. Thinking. Pshew, thinking is hard, isn’t it?
Surely if they analyze sufficiently a Synthesis of Salvation & Transformation will Emerge, right…?
It’s organic, right…?
Marxist, right…?
Progressive, right…?
The whole Dialectic Thing, Right…?
Right…?
Wait for it.
1 of 5
ReplyDeleteLift the veil of secrecy? More a burka – with lead weights in the hem
The PNB meeting last Thursday, 10 May, was notable for a motion on PNB secrecy brought by Alex Steinberg, a director elected by Pacifica members registered by WBAI. I put it this way lest we forget that a Pacifica director is of the foundation, not a station: it is the well-being of the whole that they are elected to both defend & promote. It is consistent with that interest that Alex brought a motion to the PNB about the need for the Board to be transparent, not secret. Nevertheless, what happened that evening was shameful, yet unsurprising. That's how bad things are. But what happened deserves recounting. (The two audio files of the meeting: https://kpftx.org/archive.php; proposed agenda: https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb180510/pnb180510_5519_agenda.pdf).
Alex had brought his motion to the previous week's PNB, 3 May. It was due to be moved in the closed session (why not in the open session?); for some reason the motion was never heard (did no-one ask for a time extension?). On both matters, however, outsiders are left in the dark, examples of the problem, the deficiency, that Alex was addressing: the agenda & the minutes of that session are not publicly available.
Then last Thursday, 10 May, when the PNB agenda was up for discussion (7:01), Bill Crosier moved that Alex's motion be brought out of that evening's closed session & heard in open session. He also moved that it last not the original five minutes (sic), but "at least 10". Alex spoke next, in a deferential, apologetic voice, saying, "Bill is correct, this probably should be discussed in the open session because we're not – the motion itself does not have anything in it that's confidential, it's a motion to lift the veil of confidentiality from minutes in the closed sessions". So let me get this right: "the motion itself does not have anything in it that's confidential" – and yet the directors, most notably the mover and indeed the Chair, were happy it was secreted away in closed session. So another example of the default secrecy culture of the PNB? But let's move on ...
2 of 5
ReplyDeleteSo where on the open agenda? Bill said straight after minutes approval. That meant it would have come before two substantive items, so Alex asked if they had motions attached, and was told that there would be. Given this, Alex said put his in the middle, & Bill deferred.
The meeting (second audio file, 12:41) finally reached Alex's item – after one timetabled for 10 minutes took 59. (What's new?) This was his motion:
"Whereas transparency of the work of the PNB is mandated by both the Pacifica by-laws, CPB regulations, & FCC regulations, as well as the desire of the members of the Pacifica Foundation, therefore
"whereas negotiations that once required confidentiality have now been concluded, & the terms of loans & contracts have been made public, the reason for their confidentiality has been removed,
"be it resolved that the veil of confidentiality be lifted from all PNB executive sessions in 2018 that have been approved by the PNB, the sole exceptions would be any items in the minutes that pertain to personnel items, negotiations that are still ongoing, & confidential discussions with legal counsel,
"therefore the PNB authorizes the publication of the approved minutes of the PNB closed sessions for 2018 with the redaction of the three exceptions noted above; the PNB authorizes the Secretary of the PNB & the Chair of the PNB to evaluate the minutes prior to publication to ensure that the items that require redaction are in fact removed & no other items are redacted."
Hang on a sec: this can't be true, can it, "the terms of loans & contracts have been made public"?!? The only Foundation public statement is that of 6 April. Inexplicably it isn't on the Foundation website! In the section 'Notices & News' there are only two 'news' items, one from 2015, the other undated but seems to be of the same year. However, WBAI has the statement (https://www.wbai.org/articles.php?article=3570). The statement says, "[f]unding for the [ESRT] settlement was provided through a loan from the non-profit lender FJC, which includes a reserve amount that frees Pacifica from making payments for the first eighteen months of the loan and interest payments only for the following 18 months before the loan matures after three years." But read on & one realises that's not the whole story: the 'providing' was only partially by FJC, as revealed by Chair Nancy: "I’d also like to thank our community members, especially from our Los Angeles station, KPFK, who came through with additional loan money to close the gap for what was needed."
I don't totally understand why but apparently there's no "reserve amount." I think it has to do with not being able to use KPFK's transmitter as collateral for the loan. Otherwise, thanks for the recap.
DeleteKim
3 of 5
ReplyDeleteSo the statement doesn't even give the size of each loan! In total, it only gives two terms, both of the FJC loan. No terms of the Socal loan. And no "contracts have been made public". How can Alex have claimed the contrary, how could he have got all this so wrong? And lest one forget, isn't knowingly telling a falsehood, a lie?
But back to proceedings. Bill moved an amendment (16:41): "[f]urther the PNB further [sic] authorizes publication of the documents for the FJC & Pacifica supporters' loans, & the Four Times Square tower lease agreement for WBAI, subject to the review of John Kriegler [sp.]. Any portions of the documents, or entire documents, that he says should not be disclosed, will not be made public, but other documents and portions of documents may be published after his review."
Jan Goodman immediately responded (18:04), saying she'd move her own amendment, to "add an explanation & background when we put out those papers because if you look at them on the face of the documents, as many people have, & then they say 'oh, these are outrageous, why did the – you know, why did anybody agree to sign these', & I think it's very important to put them in perspective [...] otherwise they're likely to be misunderstood [...]".
Quicker than a flash, Adriana dived in (19:15): it's as if "the membership is not smart enough [... no!] we release the facts – people can think whatever they want." You tell 'em, Point-of-Order-Madam-Chair! (In fact this time it was a (spurious) point of information – is there any limit to this woman's versatility?)
Then another quality of a seasoned performer was on show. Chair Nancy, ever the one to anticipate & counter what her opponents may have in mind, revealed (20:23) that she was already "working on a frequently-asked-questions document [...] I was hoping that would suffice in place of releasing the documents – the, you know, the summary of the documents, & the frequently-asked-questions because I – just like, just like people who are anonymous donors they don't like all people's stuff put out in public, I'm thinking that the organizations that we are in relationship with would prefer that we don't, you know, publish these documents [...] making them public is, is like, you know, publishing anonymous donors' names [...]".
4 of 5
ReplyDelete*No it isn't! A false analogy. If the lenders wanted a non-disclosure clause in the loan contracts then they would have asked for one. Why should secrecy prevail when it isn't required, contractually or otherwise (the grounds of which should be stated publicly by the PNB)? Why would a PNB director argue for secrecy when it isn't required? What has a PNB director got to fear from the plebs knowing what they agreed to? Why should the politics that prevail be that of 'not in front of the children'?*
To concretise what was mentioned earlier, whose interest should a PNB director defend & promote, that of Pacifica or a lender? Heaven forbid that a director may be trying to conceal that someone they know is earning a large sum of money from Pacifica – the talk is 9% interest.
More prosaically, in the meeting Mansoor made a public declaration of his fidelity with the powerful, the need to help the minions think the right thoughts (24:03), & Benito shook his head, saying that trying to spin the news only invited "controversy" (24:43). Kathryn showed that she'd forgotten what Bill's amendment was all about (26:35), & Chair Nancy repeated her anonymous donors' diversion, saying publication would only upset people – and she didn't mean the ordinary listener (no timing deserved).
By now Chair Nancy's brain was in overdrive, & she came up with the whizz (30:48) to move that Bill's amendment be magically elevated to the status of a motion, & that it be taken out of the meeting & plonked into the next one, leaving Alex's motion to be voted on. At this Adriana exploded. Mr Parliamentarian saved the day by coming in on his white charger, sprinkling some sense upon the body.
This left Jan's amendment (a PNB statement giving context to the documents) to be voted down 5-12 (with 4 abstaining). The '5' were Carole (KPFA), Jan (KPFK), Mansoor (KPFK), Maskeelah (WPFW), & Kathryn (WBAI).
Bill's amendment (publish primary documents): 6-13 (with 2 abstaining). The '6': Carole (KPFA), Chris (KPFA), Sabrina (KPFA), Adriana (KPFT), Bill (KPFT), & Alex Randall (affiliate). Abstainers were DeWayne (KPFT) & Chair Nancy.
5 of 5
ReplyDeleteChair Nancy then asked if there was any objection to the main motion, Alex Steinberg's (publish the 2018 closed session minutes, redacted if need be). Tony piped up (41:33), calling to make a point of order, only to immediately move a motion! He started by saying "Robert's Rules say ...", so one knew this wouldn't go well. Tony wanted Alex's motion postponed to the next regular meeting so as to check with legal counsel. Chair Nancy went along with this; Bill & Adriana said being recognised to make a point of order didn't confer recognition to make a motion; Mr Tatum got involved; no-one challenged the Chair; so Tony's motion went to vote.
The excitement mounted, someone changed their vote, it was called 10-9, Nancy voted abstain, someone said there was a mis-count, it was corrected to a 10-10 tie, & surprise, surprise – not – Nancy changed her vote to kick Alex's motion into the long grass – 7 June, in fact. The joy of Pacifica.
The two other substantive items in open session were (1) sequestrating both the Nakapon/National Office sale proceeds & a perhaps $100k or $200k left over from the loans, & (2) budgeting for paying off the FJC loan. The first one, as already noted, was allocated 10 minutes but took 59 – this for a no-brainer, keeping those monies out of the general fund, a motion which ended up being approved without objection. The second wasn't heard, the time extension motion getting a majority but not the needed two-thirds (10-8, with 2 abstaining – meaning the 21st director melted away in exasperation). Of the WBAI peeps, only William Heerwagen voted in favour of the public hearing a discussion of how the hell Pacifica plans to pay off the c. $3.2m loan (plus interest) starting October next year; denying listeners were Kathryn Davis, Ken Laufer, & Alex Steinberg. Great. And it's not as though anyone would move in closed session that a public report be made of the views & ideas expressed by directors.
And, oh yes, there was no mention of Sam Eagle, so it seems he flew the nest on Friday 4 May. Bye, Sam – just hope your Pacifica pension comes through as expected.
It's Sam Agarwal. Sam was a particularly hard worker, competent and honest. They don't seem to realize at all what they've tossed away for spite. But it seems Livingston is OK with consolidating more power while still doing little. Looks like he's now iED and iCFO and they're not going to have elections.
DeleteKim
I give you Tom Livingston Lord of Pacifica. He is now iED, iCFO and in charge of finding new ED and two program directors. Its Pacifica's answer to the illiberal democracies in Europe. Unfortunately, his role also includes owing millions of dollars in loans and responsibility for audits. That's a problem to worry about tomorrow. For now, enjoy the power Mr. Livingston. Bask in the glow of total control of Pacifica. Let all those people trying to reach you wait a few minutes longer. Tell the PNB you'll join their little conference call when you feel like it. Randomly pick a couple of people to fire just because you can. I suggest a certain person in New York but its your call. Remember, the buck stops with you.
Delete