Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Someone get the door...


  • FY2016, Pacifica‘s third biggest loss in history: "slightly more than $2m"
  • Auditors turn Pacifica’s unaudited loss of $0.8m into more than $2m 
  • Auditors say IRS are coming knocking to audit the pension fund(s)
  • Auditors qualify the annual accounts (bad news for both CPB application & possible restructure of FJC loan)
  • PNB directors personally liable for the $0.5m plus deficit of the endowment funds account
This was the news delivered last Monday night by Pacifica’s auditors to the Audit Committee. The pension accounts proved the main stumbling block: the accounting records are so incomplete and chaotic that the auditors couldn’t quantify the liability with the required degree of confidence. The lack of verifiable accounting data have finally caught up with Pacifica, smacking it in the face with a reality check. The auditors, by their judgment, were forced to qualify the accounts because the hole in the pension accounts was material. The material knock-on is that it compromises, probably fatally, both any grant applications, especially to the CPB, and any attempt to re-structure the FJC loan, which would have put off the day when Pacifica has to cough up the principal (which seems to be $3.7m, not $3.2m, according to WBAI LSB’s motion at last Thursday’s PNB
https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb180607/pnb180607_5350_agenda.pdf). Given what the auditors told the Audit Committee it’s almost certain that the FY2017 accounts will also be qualified. But that task won’t fall to Doug Regalia and his colleagues: after a year immersed in Pacifica’s record-keeping hell, they’re out of there. Self-preservation is a great motivator – it just seems to elude the PNB. 

So from the horse’s mouth, auditor Doug Regalia:
https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/audit/180611/audit180611a.mp3
1) The need to qualify the financial statements (especially because of the pension accounts) and the IRS coming knocking:

4:01 "We felt that because of certain circumstances – the most I think important one being the pension plans not having completed audits or tax filings for at least a couple of years on one of them, and at least one year on another – is [sic] a scope restriction that prevents us from having an unmodified (or an unqualified) opinion […]"

And the size of the hole? 5:13 "[…] it's an unknown, and how significant of an unknown is it, we, we don't know, but we believe it's a very important matter. I believe the IRS feels it's very important. Generally, if you ask an auditor, if the IRS considers something to be important, and if the IRS is pursuing an investigation in an area, and it is just beginning, that's going to give any auditor a pause, and it's going to cause them to carefully, as best as they can, understand the circumstances and then determine what impact, if any, that situation might have on the audited financial statement."

6:24 "[...] the matters involved, which in this case probably would be an IRS audit investigation, and I'm aware of, of these kinds of activities, and you're probably looking at a 13-, 14-, 15-, 16-month process, and that's being optimist I think, and then upon the conclusion of that, oh boy, you're goin' to have a lot more information probably to better assess what impacts those results have in regards to the financial statements, and then at that time you might be able to issue an unqualified (or an unmodified) opinion [...]"

46:03 "[…] that's the problem with these uncertainties, we don't know, it, it could be larger, I mean, it could be there could be some serious issues involved with the conduct of, of these pension plans, you know, you've got – I, I can't even imagine the, the issues that the IRS might raise in an audit or audits with the pension plans, and I, I think that one is starting soon, and I, I, I've been through this often – "

Eileen Rosin (chair): "You think that you believe that the IRS will audit us directly?"

Doug: "[...] What we're saying is that there are just too many unknowns [...] it's an estimate, and, and accounting rules do provide for estimates [...] and is that the right figure? Phwwwur, I, I have no idea, it could be a third of that, it could be twice that, I, honestly I don't know. But it's, it‘s in recognition of the fact that there is some unknown liability, and I think the important part here is that you're telling the reader [of the auditor's report] that we acknowledge there's an issue here, and we're just not certain [of the magnitude] [...] I think in about two years you'll have enough information to determine what the number should have been." Two years. Two years. The pension problem is not a minor detail.

In common parlance, the figure given (not stated) is a guess, not an estimate. Estimate-talk gives the illusion of precision, it’s ideological, a precision that dissolves when Doug says, "and is that the right figure? Phwwwur, I, I have no idea".

2) Pacifica posts its third biggest loss, "slightly more than $2m" (20:14). This comes as a bit of surprise because the draft income statement gave it as a loss of $803 489 (Tracy Rosenberg’s blog, 5 January 2018 
http://pacificainexile.org/archives/2531). So the Finance Office were out by a factor of 2½. As Doug would say, that’s a material difference.

Total income was down, c. 9%, $11.5m in fiscal 2015 to "10.5[m] almost" (the draft income statement had $10.6m). This was combined with rising expenses, c. 7%, $11.7m in fiscal 2015 to c. $12.5m (the draft had $11.4m, so out by c. 10%). Guess having a budget in sight can discipline the mind – maybe.

The loss of c. $2m is more than 2010’s $1.975m but less than 2009’s $2.701m and 2013’s $2.824m. But it’s more than twice the combined losses of the previous two years (2014’s $771k and 2015’s $168k). Looking forward, the draft income statement had the 2017 loss as $218k, so we’ll see. If it’s out by x2½ it’ll be $500k, but will anyone be surprised if it’s $1m?

3)  Doug was met with silence when he explained (48:27) that if Pacifica were to expire then the directors would, as of 30 September 2016, be personally liable for $639 212. This is because the permanently restricted endowment account has nominal assets of $1 116 055 but Pacifica only holds assets of $476 843 for that account; the difference is the deficit. When did this arise? The 2008 statements give no quantitative info; the 2009 statements are not on Pacifica’s website; and the 2010/2011 double report notes a deficit as of 30 September 2011 (p.17) but gives no further details, not even its size. The next year’s statements show that this figure was $800 598. So it seems the deficit may have arisen during 2011, so it’s a fixture (pardon the pun). And anyway, Pacifica would never be broken up, would it?

4) Auditor's note regarding going concern status: "that's an issue, that's been an issue for a couple of years now" (9:38). Doug didn’t say what opinion was given in the auditor’s report, so I think we can assume it wasn’t negative – but we’ll see.

5) Conclusions:
a) the 2017 audit will almost certainly also have a qualifying opinion because the pension liability will remain unquantifiable. With two years’ statements being qualified it is highly likely that a CPB grant application would fail;

b) likewise, the same fate for any loan application permitting the restructuring of the FJC loan, which currently requires the principal, which seems to be $3.7m (WBAI LSB), to be paid c. 31 March 2021; 

c) although it seems Pacifica is trying to hire a book-keeping firm, there is no evidence that the repeated annual loses will end any time soon; so . . .

d) with annual income stagnating, if not falling (c. $11.5m 2013 thru 2015, c. $10.5m 2016), and any programming battles yet to start, reinforced by organisational inertia and political myopia, all of this means that there’s only one place where cash can come from: Pacifica’s members will have to vote to agree to a WBAI signal swap so that at least $5m, if not $7m, will be available to pay FJC and fund the recurring annual deficits through to 2025 or whenever.   —Jara Handala 

Here again is the open session Audit Meeting. on Someone get the door...

And here are snippets from the same meeting collected by Indigo.

13 comments:

  1. Who is Jara Handala? Appreciate your reports very much. Which station are you from? Are you on an LSB, or otherwise engaged in Pacifica governance or management. Or just an astute observer?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don’t think there is anyway this ends without Pacifica selling signal(s). Which is essentially something akin to burning the furniture to heat the home. Or amputation. Pick a metaphor; any metaphor.

    I believe those who advocated for loans will be seen to be quite superficial and glib in their analyses. They strayed far from their areas of knowledge in order to be unprofessional, bombastic “experts.” As such they flim flammed the Uber gullible of Pacifica.

    Pacifica will pay the price as it always does. Watch these folks closely in the aftermath. There’s every reason to believe that they may personally profit from Pacifica’s demise.

    Among those who advocated for loans were those whose opinions often hold gravitas to the barely sane zealots of Pugilistica.

    The WBAInicks were easy prey. They’ve shown themselves, over and over, to be desperate to survive—no matter the cost to the organism itself.

    Even so, and to vanquish their skeptics, they often resorted to belligerence, belittling, public shaming, ridicule, mockery etc.

    Pretty standard for Pacifica, really

    They behaved right out of Bully101. Sure that if they yelled loud enough and intimidate and belittle others harshly enough, most of their opponents well shrink away.

    Of course all the loan documents are secreted away. It makes sense that PNB faux-fascisti would do so. Listen to the debate on the PNB over Alex’s motion to release the loan documents. You’ll hear voices saying they were preparing FAQs to explain what they did. Or not releasing the documents but instead some sort of cherry picked abstract or summary of them. You’ll hear board members demanding that explanatory paperwork needed to be released alongside the loan documents—so that people looking at these documents could “understand why we did what we did.“

    It’s my understanding that these loan documents forbid Pacifica from entering bankruptcy. Of course they do, because the people loaning the money don’t want Pacifica to cover their fiduciary nudity with the thong of bankruptcy protection . But how tragic.

    Pacifica will not be able to enter into bankruptcy. So it will have to resort to auto amputation. Wait till you to hear the hear the howls from that.

    The only thing louder is the silence of the belligerents who shilled for loans. It’s Groundhog Day every day for them. Get ready. Winter rises.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Amy doing the seemingly obligatory half of her show about race yet again .
    She's owed millions , yet no problem adding to the overdone race based garbage.
    Pacifica must be so happy with her.
    Overall good show , but.....

    ReplyDelete
  4. There are a number of known unknowns and unknown unknowns. We should ask the auditors about...Hey Regalia! Where are you going? Get back here...Wait..Wait...Oh Crap. I think we need a CFO. OK.
    $639,212/22 directors=$29,055.09....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Even I am speechless over this giant crapshow of complete incompetence and corruption. Thanks to Jara for doing this work.

    Kim

    ReplyDelete
  6. I couldn't stay speechless for long and sent this out yesterday:

    Dear PNB, Tom, et al.

    I listened to the June 11 Audit Committee Meeting and heard auditor Doug Regalia’s presentation on the completed FY2016 audit. Of most concern: he said the IRS has started an investigation on Pacifica regarding the pension matters.

    I am asking for an official and public statement from Tom Livingston regarding this investigation. Pacifica employees have not been paid their pensions that have been owed for several years. Pacifica does not have the money. This looks like it makes the FJC loan in even more default than has already been pointed out by me and others. This all has serious consequences. What is being done?

    Also, please include a report about what has been decided as to the accounting staff situation in order to deal with the regular financial reporting needs plus an IRS investigation.

    Since the Audit Committee has pushed acceptance of the audit over to the PNB, I request that the Auditor’s report be read in open session at the next PNB meeting so that members, employees and all PNB members know the facts of the matter.

    Here is a link to the audio recording, with some additional commentary from a concerned listener: https://wbai-nowthen.blogspot.com/2018/06/someone-get-door.html.

    Kim

    ReplyDelete
  7. And just like that tonight's PNB meeting went from 'regular' to 'emergency'

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1 of 4:

    #1) The auditors address the PNB tonight, Thursday, at 10.25pm ET. It's in open session, livestreamed to the world (link below). Not surprisingly it turns out to be another opportunity for the Pacifica democratic deficit to continue, with only 25 minutes allocated for what the agenda denotes as "[d]iscussion and Q&A with 2016 Auditor", presumably a misnomer for 'auditor's presentation and Q&A, and discussion'. I say democratic deficit because when the auditors did the same with the Audit Cttee on Monday, 11 June, it lasted almost three times as long: Doug Regalia's report was 33 minutes, and the Q&A 37 minutes (2:17, 35:39, 1:12:41 – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/audit/180611/audit180611a.mp3). (Tonight's PNB open session agenda is also where the livestream link is: https://kpftx.org/).

    Besides a paucity of public discussion, the Pacifica democratic deficit also has an expression in the default culture of the higher-ups: secrecy. A culture of secrecy regulates the great majority of the crucial decision-makers, the directors & the senior managers. It even means that PNB cttees. are kept out of the loop: half the Finance Cttee are non-directors – the treasurers of the five stations – and unbelievably the Cttee has yet to be told the terms of the two loans (let alone seen the signed contracts) – a complaint repeated at Tuesday's Finance Cttee, 12 June (Nick Arena, WPFW treasurer, 4:25, https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/180612/finance180612a.mp3).

    Which brings us to Mr Livingston. In his sojourn he has publicly taken the line of least resistance, accommodating to this culture, consistently refusing to publicly condemn it, never taking the opportunity to explain that secrecy undermines both morale and Pacifica's ability to garner support, monetary or otherwise. But then he's not a leader, just paid to lead.

    And yet again, expression of the secrecy culture came out at Monday's Audit Cttee, when Grace Aaron, without argument, said the PNB would be voting in secret on the auditor's report: "I'd like to move that we as a Committee accept the audit report so that the PNB can also have the option of accepting it in the closed session on Thursday" (1:05:27). Grace is an operator, knows Pacifica inside-out, but still finds herself in secret mode, unable to face the reality that voting on the auditor's report could never meet the test of having to conduct business in secret, the euphemistically named 'closed' or 'executive' session.

    To remind everyone, the by-laws exhaustively list what counts as a matter warranting secrecy: "personnel, proprietary information, litigation and other matters requiring confidential advice of counsel". That's it. It continues immediately, explaining that the fourth item is "[advice] involving commercial or financial information obtained on a privileged or confidential basis, or relating to a purchase of property or the use or engagement of services whenever the premature exposure of said purchase or sale, in the Board's sole opinion may compromise the legitimate business interest of the Foundation." (article 6, section 7 – http://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art6sec7.html).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction: relying on Pacifica's website can be misleading, & this is an example. The by-law cited above differs from the legal requirement, specified in the Communications Act of 1934, in two ways, one much more important than the other. It's often said in Pacifica meetings that personnel matter X can't be discussed because it's a confidential matter, & "personnel" does indeed appear in the cited by-law. But that is not what the Act says: that speaks of "matters relating to individual employees" – §396(k)(4). Big difference. And of course, the Act trumps the by-law.

      So, for example, discussion of a redundancy programme – which is obviously not a discussion of individuals, named persons – cannot be secreted away in the refuge of the secret session. This is pertinent given Pacifica's financial crisis, one demanding drastic cost cutting within the next six months, not even waiting until next spring. As of 30 September 2016 Pacifica had audited net liabilities of c. $4.5m, & with the extraordinary charge arising from the ESRT settlement, c. $4m, that makes net liabilities of c. $8.5m, & that's not even including the almost certain losses of the last 21 months. So, as of today (even allowing for the Nakapon sale), net liabilities are almost certainly of the order of $10m, with no evidence that Pacifica currently exercises any financial control other than what's in the bank that day. (The newly hired NETA will confirm this in their first report on the financial function to the Executive Director – obviously a PNB that is transparency-respecting, member- & listener-respecting, & efficiency-orientated would order its distribution to all directors & LSB delegates, & post it on all Pacifica websites . . . truth, knowledge, power, as Bacon, Democracy Now! & even Pacifica would say.) With personnel being 56% of expenses (audited fiscal 2015), Pacifica will not be able to avoid a redundancy programme: people will have to be fired. Politically, neither the PNB nor the LSB's are prepared for this. Things are going to get a lot nastier.

      The minor correction is that the punctuation of the by-law, & its insertion of "involving", led me to misinterpret its meaning. CPB has its own interpretation of the Act (that interpretation helpfully linked from Pacifica's Calendar webpage); it is unambiguous, & shows the utility of numbering points (or using semi-colons, neither of which is done in the Act itself):
      "The Act allows stations to hold Closed Meetings, or to close an Open Meeting, when discussing any of the following:
      1. matters concerning individual employees;
      2. proprietary information;
      3. litigation and other matters requiring confidential advice of counsel;
      4. commercial or financial information obtained from a person on a privileged or confidential basis; or
      5. purchase of property or services, if the premature disclosure of the transaction would compromise the station’s business interests."

      https://kpftx.org/, https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf (p.216 of the PDF), & https://www.cpb.org/stations/certification/cert2

      Delete
  9. 2 of 4:

    #1 (contd.)) However, in Grace's mitigation, one must acknowledge that the vote on the previous auditor's report, for FY2015, was done in secret (17 August 2017). From a democrat's point of view, what is more noteworthy is that the minutes of that secret session do not record that anyone protested. Default secrecy may not be the result of ill-intent, personal failing. It may simply be automatic, habitual, an expression of a Pacifica phenomenon repeatedly evidenced by senior managers & the PNB: a lack of thinking. This is one reason why these individuals need to be challenged, held to account – and not just at election time.
    https://www.pacifica.org/documents/pnb_exec_170817.pdf

    On the current PNB, Bill Crosier stands out as the most consistent advocate of disclosure. In the last month Alex Steinberg has raised his head above the parapet, albeit nervously (his 10 May PNB motion has yet to be voted on – maybe 5 July, or 2 August?). The WBAI Local Station Board motion to the 7 June PNB also requested contract disclosure (seems it has yet to be discussed; with a backlog of items are we looking at 6 September, five long months after the ESRT settlement?). So there are stirrings . . . but will it lead to anything?

    Secrecy culture is an internal regulator for Pacifica, but it also faces external regulators: the discipline of both lenders & the state. So, for example, it's a moot point whether Pacifica would pass an audit by the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, an examination of its public anti-disclosure practices, its lack of transparency.

    Reminder: tonight's PNB meeting with the auditors, Regalia & Associates, 10.25pm ET: https://kpftx.org/

    ReplyDelete
  10. 3 of 5 (not 4):

    #2) The pension problem, & the auditor's report to the Audit Cttee, came up at Tuesday's Finance Cttee – but no-one said anything (19:42). Nay, I exaggerate: Mansoor piped up straightaway, "what issue?" Indeed. A pension plans issue? Some pension problem? Whoever knew? And the IRS too? Perhaps the Finance peeps don't listen to Audit proceedings – no need to build Pacifica's own Wall. As WBAI's treasurer, R Paul Martin, put it in a report on Wednesday, the Audit Cttee "discussed the Internal Revenue Service starting an audit of Pacifica’s handling of the pension plans, which were not funded and the tax filings for which were not done in a timely manner. No one on the NFC knew anything about this" (WBAI treasurer's report, 13 June, delivered that evening to the LSB, & gratefully posted immediately to this blog – link below). So this must have been known by Tom Livingston, & perhaps by Sam Agarwal (who seems to have stopped working for Pacifica the day the audit was completed, Friday 1 June). But known by no-one else on the Finance Cttee. The silver lining is that at least they know how South Korea's president & the Japanese prime minister feel (cancellation of military exercises).
    https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/180612/finance180612a.mp3
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/q4dw88uaoik6jj2/treasurers_report_2018-06-13.pdf

    The item had 20 minutes but took less than three. Most of that was spent wondering whether Mansoor was right in saying the item should be postponed, not tabled . . . Rome . . . burning . . . The chair (Joseph Davis, KPFT) had said Pacifica might soon be sued re the pensions (yes, it was all rather vague); then R Paul asked if any directors had heard about the IRS. Moi? The chair should have asked each directly, to get them on the record, but he didn't. Talk of the IRS animated no-one, so not asking was perhaps a close shave for the directors, or at least some of them.

    In his subsequent written report, R Paul continued: "I have since listened to some of the audio of the Audit Committee meeting and the auditor does seem to be saying that there will be an IRS audit of Pacifica’s pension plans [...] The loan repayment plans remain a mystery, although there is a motion on the floor of the PNB to release that information. The IRS audit sounds very serious, and I’m sure that we’ll get more details soon. [...] Overall, things are looking ominous for Pacifica at this time." Repayment plans, you say? Even the terms of the loans are a mystery! And this is a station treasurer speaking, someone trying to draft a FY2019 station budget! Secrecy culture certainly has its disutilities, its harms.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 4 of 5:

    #2 (contd.)) Despite this widespread ignorance of publicly available info (including no mention of either the third biggest loss in Pacifica's history or the auditors having to qualify the financial statements, perhaps a Pacifica first – anyone know?), this should not have precluded discussion of the agenda's "pension audit issues" (on the agenda at R Paul's urging – 19:56). This is the Finance Cttee. Pacifica's fiscal finest. Surely they could have referred to their copy of the latest written reports on the pension plans (from Sam & from the specialist auditor hired by Pacifica, both now resigned), the latest written monthly (or quarterly) update report on progress in straightening out the payroll records, the latest verifiable written estimate of the current pension liability, the current pension remedial action plan, the current checklist & milestone timeline the Cttee never lets out of its sight . . . but no-one said anything.

    It seems they don't have much to say because they don't know much – the relevant facts, the right questions to ask, fundamentally, the expertise. Plus being cut adrift by the PNB & Livingston. In the wider sense, it's not so much the individuals themselves but a collective lack, the lack of a tailored induction programme for new members of any Pacifica cttee., this an enduring institutional deficiency. Constant firefighting, a lack of cash, has exacerbated institutional decay.

    Incidently, according to the chair, Pacifica now has an Acting Chief Financial Officer: Tom Livingston (0:52). Just for the record, for this function, has anyone seen any documentation that he has ever done this before, or have any relevant qualification, or expertise? All seems a bit rich given that he's just written a candidate requirement for the Executive Director post. And how much extra are Pacifica's listeners paying him for this difficult & very responsible work? Will they ever be told?

    In any case, on his first day, Tom didn't turn up. He wasn't there. He didn't explain. He didn't apologise. He didn't request an excused absence. It's a sign of the concern of his fellow Cttee members that no-one asked why none of this was offered, & why he wasn't there. Deference, rather than disinterest, seems the order of the day. And perhaps his absence was a coincidence, given the disclosures the night before by the auditors.
    https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/180612/finance180612a.mp3

    ReplyDelete
  12. 5 of 5:

    #3) FY2016 audited annual financial statements being qualified: I should have said this seems to be a Pacifica first ('seems', not least because FY2006 & 2009 can't be checked as they're not on the website, pacifica.org; 2009 was its greatest loss, $2.7m).

    #4) Going-concern status: I should also have said that the previous year's statements, FY2015, got the Black Spot from the same auditors, when they said, "The Pacifica Foundation has suffered recurring losses from operations and has a net capital deficiency that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern." (7 August 2017, p.1b).

    In the post I assumed the FY2016 auditors hadn't raised a substantial doubt because, in his Monday report to the Audit Cttee, Doug Regalia mentioned the going-concern matter but didn't say that the auditors had made an adverse opinion. But one needs to ask, how can the FY2015 adverse opinion (merited on 7 August 2017) be reversed on c. 1 June 2018 (the date the FY2016 audit seems to have been completed) given that the two warranting reasons (losses, & net capital deficiency) have both deteriorated, because of (a) the FY2016 performance, and the post-balance sheet events of (b) the expense arising from the ESRT settlement & (c) taking out the two loans?

    Lastly, FY2015 seems to be the second time Pacifica received the 'substantial doubt' designation, the other being FY2011 (auditor's report, 15 June 2012, pp.1 & 21).
    http://pacifica.org/documents/financial/Pacifica_Audit_FY2015.pdf
    http://pacifica.org/documents/Audit_FY_2011_final_signed.pdf

    #5) Going-concern status (contd.): this concept appears in accounting discourse in two different ways: the above 'substantial doubt' idea; & the basis on which financial statements are prepared, a liquidation basis or a going-concern basis. If the FY2016 auditors had judged Pacifica to be currently not operating as a going concern (that is, a lot worse than 'a substantial doubt') they would have said so to Monday's Audit Cttee.

    It's also worth mentioning, although 'common sense' would say that substantially doubting that an organisation is a going concern would count as qualifying their financial statements, that's not how it is in AccountingWorld – yes, it's an alt-reality, just like PacificaWorld.

    #6) Signal swap: is it the case this would need a vote by all Pacifica members? I assumed so, but is it? Does it arise from a restriction imposed upon Pacifica when it became the owner of this property? (The by-laws are silent on who has the power to dispose of property.) Does anyone have a link to definitive evidence?

    #7) Bill, Tom, & Adriana: at Thursday's PNB, 7 June, Bill Crosier pointed out (46:15) that the Pacifica website had not listed an open session for the Audit Cttee, which was meeting the following Monday, on the 11th. Bill said the auditors would be presenting their FY2016 report, & under FCC rules it was required that this, & questioning, had to be open to the public, not delivered secretly. The tight-lipped Tom Livingston: "I'll be glad to pass that along" (46:54). No statement of regret!
    https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb180607/pnb180607a.mp3

    It was only after this that the 'Calendar' pages of the website, both the linear list & the monthly grid, showed an open session – although in the grid it bears this declaration: "[p]osted: 05/30/2018 - 8:44 PM", and signed "Adriana Casenave". Oh, dear.
    https://kpftx.org/pacalendar/cal_show1.php?eventdate=20180611

    ReplyDelete