When it comes to the current crisis, we have been given a breather, but not a solution. The debt is no longer an axe ready to fall, nor is it but a memory—nor is it all that needs to be fixed.
At WBAI, unqualified token management, hosts and producers are still in place, still vandalizing, still scamming and feeding a fast disappearing intellectually downgraded listenership the same old pap.
Here, Jara Handala continues his detailed commentary on Pacifica's current financial state and what it bodes for the future. It can be read or downloaded as a PDF file:
Jara's ongoing thoughts and insight.
CORRECTION (with apologies)
1) still don't know why, but I gave the wrong figure for FY2008: big mistake, as rather than a loss of $433 161 it's actually a net income of $1 068 901. This is the only time a loss didn't occur in the 10-year period examined, the one ending 30 September 2017 (this assumes loses in FY2016 & 2017, as per the cited spreadsheet posted on Tracy Rosenberg's blog); &
2) the FY2009 audited statements are not available at the Foundation's website, http://pacifica.org/index.php; what's there are FY2005 thru 2015 (bar FY2006 & 2009).
The other way to pay the debt off at the end of the 3-year loan is to sell assets -- buildings -- or sell or swap broadcast licenses. It's very unlikely that another lender can be found to payoff this lender. The FJC loan was negotiated on the premise that Pacifica would liquidate assets to pay it off, and that the loan was a "bridge" loan to allow time to accomplish that.
ReplyDeleteImo, there is no legitimate way Pacifica qualified for the FJC loan. As pointed out, they cannot produce any current audited statements, also any current financial statements or balance sheets - which are required by the lender (see their website). We don't know how Pacifica claimed it would pay back the principal, another requirement of the lender. They cannot say they will sell or swap a license because the PNB does not have that authority without a vote from the membership (and certain permissions from the FCC). All the buildings Pacifica owns - KPFK, KPFA, KPFT - are collateral for the loan. Apparently Jan Goodman's $500k "friends" loan will be paid back if/when the Nakapon/NO buildings are sold. We also have no idea how much she and her friends are making off that transaction. They were trying to use KPFK's irreplacable 110,000 watt tower on Mt. Wilson as collateral but apparently the Feds wouldn't sign off on that. That $500k, which originally made the loan $3.7m, was supposed to be used to pay the interest. The lender supposedly gave Pacifica a six month waiver to get their financial information in order - but the signer of the loan, iED Livingston, cannot say who was responsible for the assertion that Pacifica can gets its financials in order by September. The CFO basically resigned because Pacifica cannot comply with the loan from the very moment of its being signed. One might call this a predatory or "liar's loan." Need I add what a stupid, incompetent, possibly corrupt - or worse - transaction this was? It doesn't really matter. One faction or the other one was going to take Pacifica down one way or another way. That it's this way and not the other way makes little difference. The reason there's so much secrecy is because they're so incompetent they don't want the public to hear them. Naturally, they're not having elections which were supposed to start in a week. Pacifica is toast.
ReplyDeleteKim
2 of 2:
Delete5) the Socal loan: "[w]e also have no idea how much she and her friends are making off that transaction": true, although why do you think Ms Goodman is a party?
No term of this loan, not even its size, has been disclosed by Pacifica – be it a press release, or a statement to Pacifica members & listeners, or a motion passed by the PNB. The Pacifica Foundation, Inc. – in the person of the interim Executive Director, the interim Chief Financial Officer, & the directors (who constitute the Pacifica National Board) – have all decided that the members of the Foundation & the listeners of Pacifica do not deserve to know adequate details of what has been decided supposedly on their behalf & in their interest. This is called a democratic deficit – and must be remembered when they, & their associates, are up for election.
(Tom Livingston, in some audio earlier this month, said he is now also iCFO: did the PNB in closed session decide this, but chose not to tell the rest of us? At least with the Trumpanzee, as Sarah Sanders repeatedly tells the WH press corps, if a personnel change is made you'll soon know.)
6) Kim, you say, "[t]he lender supposedly gave Pacifica a six month waiver to get their financial information in order". What is your source for this?
7) Lastly, you say, "they're [Pacifica] not having elections which were supposed to start in a week." However, at the end of her report, Grace Aaron says "[t]he Pacifica Local Station Board elections will be starting very soon."
2 of 2:
Delete5) the Socal loan: "[w]e also have no idea how much she and her friends are making off that transaction": true, although why do you think Ms Goodman is a party?
No term of this loan, not even its size, has been disclosed by Pacifica – be it a press release, or a statement to Pacifica members & listeners, or a motion passed by the PNB. The Pacifica Foundation, Inc. – in the person of the interim Executive Director, the interim Chief Financial Officer, & the directors (who constitute the Pacifica National Board) – have all decided that the members of the Foundation & the listeners of Pacifica do not deserve to know adequate details of what has been decided supposedly on their behalf & in their interest. This is called a democratic deficit – and must be remembered when they, & their associates, are up for election.
(Tom Livingston, in some audio earlier this month, said he is now also iCFO: did the PNB in closed session decide this, but chose not to tell the rest of us? At least with the Trumpanzee, as Sarah Sanders repeatedly tells the WH press corps, if a personnel change is made you'll soon know.)
6) Kim, you say, "[t]he lender supposedly gave Pacifica a six month waiver to get their financial information in order". What is your source for this?
7) Lastly, you say, "they're [Pacifica] not having elections which were supposed to start in a week." However, at the end of her report, Grace Aaron says "[t]he Pacifica Local Station Board elections will be starting very soon."
1) Yes, puzzling how FJC agreed to risk its money with Pacifica given the absence of verified financial info since 30 September 2015. Wonder whether the FJC trustees/supervisory board/internal auditors will deem it negligent?
Delete2) Sam Agarwal's resignation letter (28 March – https://wbai-nowthen.blogspot.com/2018/03/why-agarwal-cut-out.html) drew attention to a term in the loan re Pacifica continually submitting financial info to FJC in quasi-real time, that is, "on a current basis". Given current conditions he predicted that Pacifica will breach its contract:
"Recent PNB action in approving a $3.7 million loan has put me in an impossible position. The loan mandates extensive accounting and financial reporting requirements which cannot be met in any foreseeable period of time. We do not produce Balance Sheets monthly, so cannot track/report our liabilities on a current basis. We generate Balance Sheets only at the time of audit which is running about 500 days late. Under any loans, it is almost mandatory to produce current audit reports in a reasonable time. We cannot comply with this requirement."
3) Pacifica's collateral for FJC loan: why do you say, "[a]ll the buildings Pacifica owns - KPFK, KPFA, KPFT - are collateral for the loan"? You may well be right, but, in the absence of a Pacifica statement, what's your source?
4) the Socal loan: likewise, in the absence of a Pacifica statement, what's your source for saying it "will be paid back if/when the Nakapon/NO buildings are sold"? (Apparently it's one building, albeit with two entrances, at least according to Grace Aaron's report to the KPFK LSB meeting of 20 May, posted to this blog, 27 May.)
5) the Socal loan: "[w]e also have no idea how much she and her friends are making off that transaction": true, although why do you think Ms Goodman is a party?
No term of this loan, not even its size, has been disclosed by Pacifica – be it a press release, or a statement to Pacifica members & listeners, or a motion passed by the PNB. The Pacifica Foundation, Inc. – in the person of the interim Executive Director, the interim Chief Financial Officer, & the directors (who constitute the Pacifica National Board) – have all decided that the members of the Foundation & the listeners of Pacifica do not deserve to know adequate details of what has been decided supposedly on their behalf & in their interest. This is called a democratic deficit – and must be remembered when they, & their associates, are up for election.
(Tom Livingston, in some audio earlier this month, said he is now also iCFO: did the PNB in closed session decide this, but chose not to tell the rest of us? At least with the Trumpanzee, as Sarah Sanders repeatedly tells the WH press corps, if a personnel change is made you'll soon know.)
FOR CONTINUATION, PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO NEXT REPLY. —JH
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE REPLY:
Delete6) Kim, you say, "[t]he lender supposedly gave Pacifica a six month waiver to get their financial information in order". What is your source for this?
7) Lastly, you say, "they're [Pacifica] not having elections which were supposed to start in a week." However, at the end of her report, Grace Aaron says "[t]he Pacifica Local Station Board elections will be starting very soon."
Yesterday (Wednesday) morning Michael G. Haskins was hawking this 3-part series:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTg4qnyUGxg ("The Power of Nightmares") premium for a measly $150.00. Hopefully Haskins/Reimers received BBC approval to do this.
ReplyDeleteOf course not. I don't know if she is responsible for this particular offering, but Mimi has been very busy throwing together material gathered from the internet. There is never a mention of authorization—anyone can access this series at Youtube, but selling it shifts this scam to a very different ballgame.
DeleteIt is also interesting to note that these bozos keep saying how unique WBAI is—the only station that tells the truth, etc., etc. So why do they have to consistently engage in theft of intellectual property? They even steal from the networks, like ABC and CBS, having repeatedly proclaimed Pacifica's independence from such awful Wall Street instruments.
Haskins is not wrapped too tight, so he may think it's okay to sell it, but he should know better. As I so often note, these are pure crooks.
1 of 2:
ReplyDelete1) Yes, puzzling how FJC agreed to risk its money with Pacifica given the absence of verified financial info since 30 September 2015. Wonder whether the FJC trustees/supervisory board/internal auditors will deem it negligent?
2) Sam Agarwal's resignation letter (28 March – https://wbai-nowthen.blogspot.com/2018/03/why-agarwal-cut-out.html) drew attention to a term in the loan re Pacifica continually submitting financial info to FJC in quasi-real time, that is, "on a current basis". Given current conditions he predicted that Pacifica will breach its contract:
"Recent PNB action in approving a $3.7 million loan has put me in an impossible position. The loan mandates extensive accounting and financial reporting requirements which cannot be met in any foreseeable period of time. We do not produce Balance Sheets monthly, so cannot track/report our liabilities on a current basis. We generate Balance Sheets only at the time of audit which is running about 500 days late. Under any loans, it is almost mandatory to produce current audit reports in a reasonable time. We cannot comply with this requirement."
3) Pacifica's collateral for FJC loan: why do you say, "[a]ll the buildings Pacifica owns - KPFK, KPFA, KPFT - are collateral for the loan"? You may well be right, but, in the absence of a Pacifica statement, what's your source?
4) the Socal loan: likewise, in the absence of a Pacifica statement, what's your source for saying it "will be paid back if/when the Nakapon/NO buildings are sold"? (Apparently it's one building, albeit with two entrances, at least according to Grace Aaron's report to the KPFK LSB meeting of 20 May, posted to this blog, 27 May.)
At the end of the post I gave a twofold correction, the first being "still don't know why, but I gave the wrong figure for FY2008: big mistake, as rather than a loss of $433 161 it's actually a net income of $1 068 901". The explanation is that the latter figure, from the 2008 audited financial statements (p.3), was soon revised by Pacifica to the former figure, then presumably accepted by the 2009 auditors, with the adjustment appearing in those audited statements ("presumably" as they are missing from the website, pacifica.org).
ReplyDeleteThe source of this adjusted figure is the 2011 auditor's report: "[f]or the past four years the Foundation has sustained losses of $433,161, $$2,701,432, $1,974,849 and $564,339 for the years ending September 30, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 totaling $5,673,781." (p.21).
http://pacifica.org/documents/AUDITED_FINANCIAL_STATEMENT-FY2008.pdf
http://pacifica.org/documents/Audit_FY_2011_final_signed.pdf