Here, sans a hint of pretense, is the September 20, 2018 PNB meeting. I have yet to hear it all, but Part 3 certainly will interrupt the heaviest of sleeps. You are on your own.
September 20 PNB meeting - Part 1
September 20 PNB meeting - Part 2
September 20 PNB meeting - Part 3
The meeting was broken for an Executive Session, which was to have lasted no more than forty-five minutes. After two hours or so (I didn’t note the exact time) they returned. The Report Out indicated they had approved the outcome of the balloting for Executive Director selection, and had sent a letter outlining their offer.
ReplyDeleteWhen the public might be informed of the choice as to Pacifica’s new executive director is unclear.
I as do we all look forward to the dawn of a fine brave new day for a fine brave new Progressive Pacifica.
Forward Comrades!
~ ‘indigopirate’
I remembered why I stopped listening to meetings. Listening amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
ReplyDeleteEven the parliamentarian gave up on this one. They did agree to start treating the affiliates as a separate business unit but they did so in the most clumsy awkward way possible at the very end of the meeting.
1) Not content with Thursday's meeting, the Intrepids re-assembled the next evening. After roll-call, First Secretary Koba resigned with immediate effect (3:30). She spoke for a few minutes, correctly bemoaning PNB's refusal to plan for honouring its contract with FJC (that is, getting $3.265m ready for late March 2021), & devising a repayment plan. She left the call straight after, not waiting for the Chair & the body to thank her for her work. https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb180921/pnb180921a.mp3
ReplyDeleteGiven the gravity of the current situation, the PF, the Pacifica Foundation, should be known as the TMO, The Micawber Organization.
2) Back at the Control Center, the Witchfinders-General met again to waste everyone's time, or as the calendar put it, "[t]his investigation committee shall take in executive session, testimonies concerning a PNB member for actions detrimental to the interests of the Foundation and to avoid lawsuits against the Foundation for exposure." The calendar still incorrectly describes the Ad Hoc Working Group as of the PNB rather than of KPFT; the error seems to be posted by the chair of the anti-coven, Nancy Saibara-Naritomi. https://kpftx.org/pacalendar/cal_show1.php?eventdate=20180922
No noctural movements were detected under the tree in the quietest corner of the KPFT plot.
They said that they shoutouts come back after the executive session on Friday, but I didn't hear anything on the stream, so they never came back on?
DeleteThey never returned, nor was any explanation offered. Pacifica, don't you know?
DeleteJara,
DeleteYou're starting to sound like Indigo Pirate.
That, sir, is a compliment.
1) As of Thursday morning, Eastern, still no part 3 of the audio (& no, the extant part 2 isn't a re-post that includes the missing discussion – that's if they had the energy, & will, to re-convene after the private session).
Delete2) It's worth noting that in her resignation speech, First Secretary Koba spoke of Pacifica not having a repayment plan, but she failed to say that the Pacifica negotiator(s) would have submitted one to FJC, according to FJC's own webpage on its Agency Loan Fund:
" Charitable organizations wishing to be considered for a loan begin the process by submitting an FJC Loan Application together with certain financial and other information about the organization [...] Applicants *must be able to demonstrate* that:
The cost and viability of the project are logical and achievable; [...]; *The loan can be repaid in full* from sources other than fundraising or a capital campaign; [...]" (my emphases)
http://fjc.org/fjc-agency-loan-fund
Pacifica to generate $3.265m from regular operations, not even from "fundraising or a capital campaign"?!? . . . let that pass like a whistling in the wind . . .
No-one in public session has asked for this document, be it a meeting of the PNB, or its Finance Cttee, or its Strategic Planning Cttee. Is anyone surprised? Do any of them even know it exists? Maybe someone should tell Point-of-order-madam-chair Adriana.
As I put it in my piece mentioned last week,
"What does the mandatory repayment plan say, the one Pacifica had to include in its loan application to FJC? What have Pacifica promised to do? Why was the PNB Finance Cttee not involved in drawing it up? When will it be distributed to the PNB, the PNB Finance Cttee, the PNB Strategic Planning Cttee, & the five Local Station Boards?"
http://www.mediafire.com/file/612jaw9hl2fldux/14Sep18_FJC%252C_its_Loan_to_Pacifica%252C_%2526_the_Future_%25281%2529.docx/file
A sale of assets (such as WBAI's broadcasting license) would qualify as not being "fundraising or a capital campaign".
DeleteYes, you're right in a way. Three thoughts come to mind:
Delete1) according to the 'loan summary' distributed by PNB chair Nancy Sorden, *all* of Pacifica's assets are currently collateralised to FJC, not just the buildings housing the stations in Berkeley, LA, & Houston. All of the Foundation's assets. The 'summary' also says the loan was made at an loan-to-value ratio of 2½; so for every $1m collateralised, Pacifica were able to borrow $0.4m. And if that $1m asset were sold, assuming no increase in the price it would fetch & that the transaction were costless, Pacifica would keep $0.6m – but not to do with it as it wants because that cash *itself*, in being an asset, would also be collateralised to FJC! Only if FJC gave a waiver could that asset sale be used to pay off the loan;
2) more likely than an asset sale as such would be a trading of broadcast licences, the oft-touted panacea of the signal swap – or swaps, as an assessment of DC & Houston, even LA, would also have to be made, not just NYC, all in the context of a particular future envisaged for Pacifica. It must be said that little of substance is ever said when signal swaps are spoken about, the details of its economics & politics. We deserve a proper, evidenced discussion. Achieving a signal swap or swaps may not be as easy as many assert: when bankruptcy was being considered, feelers were put out, but perhaps not too seriously, & no meaningful interest was found; &
3) so what did the (un-named) Pacifica negotiators promise FJC in the mandatory repayment plan they submitted as part of their loan application? Did they promise to raise the $3.265m from a signal swap, or three or four? Of course this draws attention to the fact that the promises in the repayment plan are *not* promises, not least because the repayment plan & anything else the Pacifica negotiators promised were *not* authorised by a decision of the PNB. This reality is obvious to any informed observer, including FJC, which begs the question, why have FJC made this loan, what are they seeking to gain in exercising their financial muscle? There can only be more here than meets the eye. But what is it?