A few points of information from the KPFA LSB Meeting of September 15, 2018 which may be of some general interest:
Tom Livingston, iED terms out 30 September.
Sunday, 16 September, there may or may not be an announcement of a new permanent Executive Director.
The selection process had winnowed the number of total applicants, twenty-two, to three. The candidate who was considered most qualified then withdrew after listening to a few Pacifica Board Meetings, leaving two candidates remaining.
There may or may not be an announcement of the winning candidate in part because many board members have voted for ‘no candidate’.
At least one stated opinion was that neither of the remaining candidates is qualified.
There was then a wrangle over past choices re the possibility of bankruptcy.
A motion was presented to reduce the number of PNB directors and to have them apportioned proportionate to listenership.
Incidental to the above discussion the following membership numbers were mentioned…
After some further acrimony as to the past bankruptcy question the motion advocating the bylaws amendment was passed.
All looks wonderful in PacificaLand, yes?
~ ‘indigopirate’
I hope you listen to KPFK's meeting, indigo. I made a guest appearance.
ReplyDeleteI may have some more comments after I listen to the above meeting. However, the votes were counted at KPFK today after the meeting. The name will not be announced for a while. The "lucky" winner will be notified, offered the job and then told the salary. If he hasn't quit yet, there will be a background check. I didn't see any blank ballots although there were some who listed a preferance for either Candidate A or Candidate B and then a second choice (out of two) was "None of the above."
Tom Livingston termed out in June - six months after he arrived. He's on borrowed EEOC time.
I am against the motion to have the number of PNB directors based on the station's listenership. KPFA likes to think of themselves as the "best" station but their PNB directors have historically done some of the worst damage to Pacifica from their seats on the PNB. With any luck, and Pacifica doesn't have much, their bylaws amendment will go no farther than the KPFA LSB.
Kim
Thanks for the additional information.
DeleteAre you saying that in a lengthy multistage process as outlined by Livingston several times no background check was made even on the final three candidates?
Our understanding of English appears to differ once again. I’m aware his original term was extended, until the end of this month. Thus, in my understanding, he terms out at the end of the month.
You’re entitled to your preferred understanding of the language. I’m entitled to hold it in contempt.
As for information in general, I can only work with what’s publicly out there, and I have no reason to assign greater credibility to one person’s version of reality over any others.
I am however, of the longstanding judgement that this is a fairly random collection of dysfunctional lunatics drawing varying degrees of parasitic existence and/or imagined validation from an organization that mattered quite a bit quite a few decades ago and hasn’t mattered half-past a rat’s ass in the many years since.
Just a pseudo-pirate’s perspective, of course :)
~ ‘indigopirate’
Hi Indigo -
DeleteLivingston was hired at the end of January for six months. Because the job was not posted publicly it is the EEOC (the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) who limits insider hires to six months. Counting on my fingers, six months was July.
At Pacifica they wait until there is a candidate before doing a background check.
Kim
Can it really be true that Pacifica made a 'profit' in FY2017, one of $70 713, reversing eight successive years of losses? It seems in the last few days the Foundation posted a copy of their IRS Form 990 annual tax return for 2017, using the FY2017 financial statements (linked from the homepage of pacifica.org to http://pacifica.org/documents/financial/PACIFICA-FY17-990-Final.PDF).
ReplyDeleteOddly the 990 is signed by Pacifica's new principal auditors (they aren't doing pension audits), Rogers & Company PLLC, although the audit for the year those figures come from *hasn't even started* - indeed, Anita-from-NETA reported to the PNB Finance Cttee last Tuesday that many transactions since 1 October 2016 haven't even been posted onto Great Plains, the programme used by the National Office to prepare, first, a trial balance, & then draft financial statements to allow the auditors to start their work.
So it's puzzling how Rogers & Co. were able to submit a completed 990 to Uncle Sam.
Just to say, the return says income was up c. $1.2m, expenses down c. $0.9m. To repeat, this resulted in net income of $70 713.
A correction & four comments:
Delete1) the run of consecutive losses is 10, not eight: FY2007 was a loss of $217 848; & FY2008 was subsequently adjusted by the following fiscal year's auditor's report, transforming a net income of $1 068 901 into a loss of $433 161 – what's $1.5m between friends, between Pacificans? (Error made as I didn't have my notes to hand, & I relied on pacifica.org which lacks the FY2009 auditor's report.)
2) How does the 990 data compare with the National Office's FY2017 draft income statement, published on Tracy Rosenberg's blog, 5 January this year? That document, if you recall, had a comparative, giving the FY2016 performance as a loss of $803 489 whereas the audited figure was 2½ times this, a loss of $2 030 693 ( http://pacificainexile.org/archives/2531 ). For FY2017 the document has a loss of $217 747 – and Rogers & Co., the new auditors who prepared the 990, have it as a net income of $70 713. Comparing the two, the draft had an income of $11 344 248 whereas the 990 has $11 596 172; & the draft had expenses of $11 561 995 & the 990 has $11 525 459. So the National Office missed a quarter-of-a-mill incoming? What's $0.25m between friends, between Pacificans?
3) The Form 990 is dated 15 August, so it took over four weeks for the National Office to post it on the website.
4) A KPFA delegate, director Tom Voorhees, disclosed, perhaps accidently on purpose, one of the last two candidates for Executive Director: Maxine J-something. Whoops (2:22:18 https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpfa/180915/kpfa180915a.mp3 ).
5) In the last 24 hours the pacifica.org homepage has a new item – but it isn't the unveiling of the new Executive Director. No, it's the set of pages to be used for the upcoming elections: https://elections.pacifica.org/wordpress/
Two corrections & four comments:
Delete1) the run of consecutive audited annual losses is 10, not eight: FY2007 was a loss of $217 848; & FY2008 was subsequently adjusted by the following fiscal year's auditor's report (note 18, page 23), transforming a net income of $1 068 901 into a loss of $433 161 – what's $1.5m between friends, between Pacificans? (Error made as I didn't have my notes to hand, & I relied on pacifica.org which lacks the FY2009 auditor's report – that's at quite a different site, http://pacificana.org/public/files/National/Financials/Audits/PacificaAudit2009.pdf .)
2) The cited Form 990 is the one for 2016 (not 2017), & it uses the FY2017 data.
3) How does that 990 data compare with the National Office's FY2017 draft income statement, published on Tracy Rosenberg's blog, 5 January this year? That document, if you recall, had a comparative, giving the FY2016 performance as a loss of $803 489 whereas the audited figure was 2½ times this, a loss of $2 030 693 ( http://pacificainexile.org/archives/2531 ). For FY2017 the document has a loss of $217 747 – and Rogers & Co., the new auditors who prepared the 990, have it as a net income of $70 713. Comparing the two, the draft had an income of $11 344 248 whereas the 990 has $11 596 172; & the draft had expenses of $11 561 995 & the 990 has $11 525 459. So the National Office missed a quarter-of-a-mill incoming? What's $0.25m between friends, between Pacificans?
4) The cited Form 990 is dated 15 August, so it took over four weeks for the National Office to post it on the website.
5) A KPFA delegate, director Tom Voorhees, disclosed, perhaps accidently on purpose, one of the last two candidates for Executive Director: Maxine J-something. Whoops (2:22:18 https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/kpfa/180915/kpfa180915a.mp3 ).
6) In the last 48 hours the pacifica.org homepage has a new item – but it isn't the unveiling of the new Executive Director. No, it's the set of pages to be used for the upcoming elections: https://elections.pacifica.org/wordpress/ .
"The candidate who was considered most qualified then withdrew after listening to a few Pacifica Board Meetings, leaving two candidates remaining."
ReplyDeleteGood to know how familiar with Pacifica antics candidates are...
SDL
The question is not if the candidates are qualified. The question is whether Pacifica is good enough for Maxine... uh I mean the candidates. Whoever gets the job deserves combat pay and a good number of mental health days.
DeleteQualifications should include a degree in child psychology. Any ED will have to deal with lots of children...
DeleteSDL
Looks like Interim Tom has new stomping grounds lined up:
ReplyDeletehttps://airmedia.org/board-appoints-tom-livingston/
Livingston and Associates founder, Tom Livingston, will also serve as AIR’s interim CEO beginning October 1, 2018.
So long Major Tom Placeholder. Its kind of interesting to have a recruiter in charge. Maybe they could just find another recruiter to run the place for a few months.
DeleteMore ranting from KPFA. Aren't these the same folks who tried to break away just a little while ago?
ReplyDeleteNow they want to reorganize the board based on their 17,000 members? Even if true, that's nothing to brag about. Good luck with that amendment. You need two other stations and the PNB to sign off on the idea.
No, they want to sent it directly to the membership. They think they can get more voters from KPFA to vote yes than all the other stations voting no.
DeleteYes, they've long wanted to break away. Giving them a larger vote on the PNB is obviously one way to do that.
Kim
Meanwhile, on Staten Island, Bob Fass, his deranged wife, and their nine cats will soon be homeless:
ReplyDeleteThey’re tossin old Bob Fass out in the street,
Oh they’re tossing poor old Bob into the street,
And they’re tossing out the cats,
His loony wife and all her charts,
They’re tossin’ old Bob Fass into the street.
Now they’re tossing poor old Bob into the street,
They’ve grabbed him by the hands and by the feet,
His loony wife will throw a fit,
But the cops won’t give a shit,
Because they’re throwing poor old Bob into the street.
They had bought a brand new house then burned it down,
They threw a log in the gas fireplace and burned it down,
Soon the cold winds shall start to blow,
And they got no place to go,
Now they’re dumped old Bob Fass onto the ground.
Now here’s a lesson that I hope you all will see,
You just got to learn to stand on your own feet,
If you’re just smoking pot and dreaming,
Instead of working hard and scheming,
You’ll end up like poor old Bob in the street.
I hope no-one's making fun out of both mental illness & someone in particular being mentally ill, perhaps even with such a history.
DeleteNo one is ridiculing mental illness: just bovine stupidity.
DeleteThe PNB met last Thursday, & the Californian LSB's met last weekend. None of the three addressed two matters that have remained unsaid, unacknowledged, since Pacifica took out the largest loan in its history, in late March:
ReplyDelete1) why has no-one told the members that the lender, FJC, sell on debt to "a private foundation", according to FJC's auditors?; &
2) FJC doesn't wait for a borrower to default, they sell it on when "FJC determines a loan to be potentially impaired" (FJC's latest auditor's report, FY2018, http://fjc.org/uploads/user-uploads/image/FJC%203-31-18%20FINAL.pdf ). Solvency is a requirement of Pacifica according to the loan summary sent out by PNB chair Nancy Sorden. The last audited balance-sheet date when Pacifica was solvent was almost *nine* years ago, 30 September 2009; at the last audited balance-sheet date, 30 September 2016, net current liabilities were $6 719 281, that is, every dollar of current assets Pacifica had was being chased by $11.55 from creditors. With the six-month waiver given by FJC expiring late September, it means Pacifica will be immediately in default of its contractual requirements.
These, & other matters, are discussed in this downloadable four-page document:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/612jaw9hl2fldux/14Sep18_FJC%252C_its_Loan_to_Pacifica%252C_%2526_the_Future_%25281%2529.docx/file
Why should they? They're proud of what they did. They feel they saved Pacifica. There is plenty of time in their opinion to worry about how to pay back the loans. There is a pattern in how board members work. They dismiss valid concerns and then wait until the last moment to impose the solution they had been working on quietly the whole time.
DeleteI sent this 9/18:
ReplyDeleteDear PNB Members, Tom Livingston and Eileen Rosen -
Thank you for posting the FY 2017 990 on pacifica.org. Having reviewed it, I have some serious concerns.
Tom Livingston signed this Form 990 on August 15 but I wonder if he reviewed the contents or knows enough about Pacifica’s finances to review the contents without outside help. A cursory look at the Form shows many serious discrepancies and omissions.
For starters, on page 6, Section C, question 18, which “requires an organization to make its Forms… 990… available for public inspection,” Tom checked the box to provide this Form 990 on “Own Website.” I asked several times publicly for it to be made available to the public on pacifica.org. On September 13, I sent a formal letter requesting a copy per the IRS code. This was all unnecessary. As of a few days ago, this 990 can now be found on pacifica.org.
This 990 was not authorized for filing by the PNB as they would have had to take a public vote. Even in closed session, there would have to be a report out.
I am listing some of the serious shortcomings that I am able to identify.
1. Page 7 – Compensation: The form does not specify the amount paid to two Directors, Kathryn Davis and Mansoor Sabbagh, although both were paid compensation.
2. Also on page 7, the hours listed for Jonathan Alexander are two whereas he is a full time employee. The hours should be 35 or 40.
3. I believe Bertold Reimers and Quincy McCoy should also be listed as high-salaried employees.
4. Balance Sheets are not prepared monthly. These are prepared only during the audit. We have also been told that the books were not ready for the audit. Therefore, any numbers that relate to a Balance Sheet for FY 2017 like Cash Balances, Liabilities, etc., can only be considered as “made up.” Some of the balances do not make sense:
a. Page 1, Line 21. It shows that Liabilities have gone up by about $172,000 during FY 2017. This does not seem right. WBAI did not pay Empire State rent for the full year and accrued penalties and late charges. This alone would add roughly $700,000 - $800,000 to the liabilities.
b. We know that pensions have not been paid for the last several years. The unpaid amounts, interest and penalties have to be accrued in the books. This will also increase the liabilities significantly.
c. Page 11, Line 1 shows Cash Balance of $944,879. How is it possible there was almost $1 million sitting in the bank?
5. Revenue and expense numbers will change substantially when the books are ready. I believe Empire State charged hundreds and thousands of dollars in late fees and penalties which were never accounted for. When this is accounted for it will increase the losses substantially. This is just one example and clearly the income statement numbers that are stated in Form 990 are not correct.
6. It is not mentioned anywhere that these financial numbers are based on unaudited statements and will change after the audit is complete. It is a serious mistake to let readers believe these numbers are final.
7. On Page 6 and 30, Tom certified that the books are in the care of Sam Agarwal. Tom’s signature is dated Aug. 15, 2018. Sam resigned in March, 2018 and left a month or two later. This statement is easily identified as completely false and makes it easy to question if anyone reviewed this.
8. Several Declarations on Page 6, Section B Policies are questionable. For example, Line 12a and 12b asks for a Policy regarding Conflict of Interest. I never saw such a policy when I was on the PNB and I am sure none was made since then. If there is any such policy, please provide a copy so the public is assured there is one.
End of part 1.
Kim
part 2
ReplyDelete9. Page 27, Schedule O, Part VI, Section B, line 11b – Notwithstanding the process described is unrecognizable as Pacifica practice, it states: “After a full review (with modifications where necessary), the final version of the tax return is provided to all members of the Organization's voting body.”
a. I think Tom is providing a false certification here as I do not believe the Form 990 was presented before the PNB nor reviewed by them. It was not approved for filing.
b. I do not believe Tom has the authority to approve the return for filing on his own. Nevertheless, it is the PNB who has the ultimate responsibility for presenting truthful or untruthful information to the IRS and the public.
Tom signed this return “under penalties of perjury,” that he examined this return and “it is true, correct and complete.” I have serious doubts about such certification based on the shortcomings I have pointed out above. This falls under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Although Sarbanes Oxley, passed by congress in the aftermath of the collapse of Enron and its subsequent litigation, was written for public corporations, guidelines I have read indicate that non-profits should also follow those rules, especially where it disallows a CEO, or ED, from claiming they “didn’t know” what was going on in the company or organization.
The Form 990 is supposed to be accurate and complete information about a non-profit organization. It appears that the Auditor, and designated tax preparer, has also failed to ask questions or verify the information provided by management. This is serious.
The PNB has the ultimate responsibility to provide correct information to the public. I have based my analysis on publicly available information plus my knowledge and experience with Pacifica. If any of my statements turn out to be incorrect, please provide documentation or explanation. I would also expect the PNB to publicly report what action they plan to take, including if substantial changes are required.
But, more importantly, why was such misleading information allowed to be filed with the IRS? Who is watching Pacifica’s compliance with laws and reporting?
I am making my comments public and request that any responses also be made publicly.
Kim
Thanks for all your detailed work, Kim.
Delete"the rest of us" are not involved nor know about any of the details you describe =
we do appreciate your questioning and ASKING for verifications / corrections / data and explanations = that is what is still important now- as always.
With little to no trust in such an organization, who then wants to donate or join in ?
Corporations are still supposedly regulated [until caught red-handed ] and are not free to play with words or #'s, and should not just try to cash-in because of their non-profit" claims.
The many lapses & lack of transparency continue...as you also clarify repeatedly.
And the "pretenders-to-know-it-all", and those still attached to the old Pacifica ideals
are trying to save what may be still a failing org. in so many ways.
Those few, like you and a few here, who care enough to search out details & data and then do share it openly, [as is only now possible here ?] are dedicated and commended.
You are still working hard to keep some semblance of accuracy and visibility of numbers out where some of the accounting and questionable claims can at least be read, even if not fully understood by us 'ordinary members'.
Thanks.
WBAI does not have 'members,' WBAI has customers who purchase patent medicines, new age nostrums, and get rich quick schemes. For some reason, WBAI insists on considering these suckers committed members of a community dedicated to listener supported radio. I wonder what goes through the mind of someone who bought a piece of expensive quackery hawked on some infomercial when they get a flyer and ballot about the all-important Local Board election, the outcome of which will determine the future of the people's struggle for liberation. They probably wonder why they never got what they paid for.
ReplyDelete