An Open Letter to the Pacifica Community

MORE re KPFA LSB Elections

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:01:30 +0100

You know I try to keep my cool -- but sometimes I just have to let loose. We fought a long hard fight to win democratic elections for KPFA's station board. One of the most important reasons for that was so that listeners could be informed by the candidates of the issues and problems and their proposed solutions. Imagine, if back in 1999 we had had the ability to communicate with all the members and to elect -- and recall -- the board of directors (through our elected delegates on the LSB). In 1999 Pacifica silenced its critics, fired them, took them off the air, arrested them, put in armed guards at KPFA, boarded up the station and piped in music from Houston. Today, supposedly, the candidate's have the right to lay it out as they see it, and the voters have the ability to contact the candidates (those who give contact information) and ask questions and make up their minds who to vote for. This isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot more than we had back in 1999 when we had to ask the California Attorney General for permission to sue to remove the Pacifica board of directors. I say supposedly because Pacifica's current interim Executive Director is now trying to silence a group of candidates for the KPFA LSB and to prejudice the election against them for their revelation of certain issues of real interest to the KPFA membership. Based on complaints from KPFA's interim management and members of the "Concerned Listeners" slate of candidates for the KPFA LSB, all of the KPFA listener candidates' statements have been removed from the "official" Pacifica elections web page at www.pacificaelections.org. [I have just learned that they will soon be reposted with the names of persons mentioned in the statements deleted. That will certainly make them far less helpful to voters in deciding how to vote.] In addition, the interim Executive Director has posted an "Open Letter to the Pacifica Community" on the KPFA Elections web page at http://lsb.kpfa.org/lsb-elections/2007-lsb-elections/lsb-elections-2007 in which he characterizes as "abusive" and "hateful speech" the statements of "a group of candidates running for the KPFA local board" whose statements, Siegel says, "contain little more than personal attacks on their opponents and station staff." He has also conflated the KPFA "Peoples Radio" candidates statements with a racially inflammatory statement made by a WBAI candidate, and has wrapped them all up in the same stinky fish-wrap. [In addition, and on a related note, the interim Executive Director has delayed a mailer from going out in support of a group of candidates at WBAI in New York so that the mailing will not reach the voters until a week after the ballots have arrived -- contrary to the requirements of California non-profit law that the Foundation must make the mailing list available in a timely manner for such communications with the membership.] (continued in 2nd post below) - Carol Spooner

...

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:03:04 +0100

(Continued from post above) First, Pacifica management and staff are not permitted to make prejudicial statements about the candidates. They are not permitted to use Pacifica resources (including web pages) to the advantage or disadvantage of any candidate or group of candidates. Secondly, the "Peoples" Radio" slate candidates' statements cannot by any standard be characterized as "hate speech" or "abusive" or "personal attacks." They are not attacks on anyone's character. They are factual assertions and strong arguments concerning the positions and actions of other candidates and the station manager and program director with regard to the station and the LSB. Vigorous debate about these things is a proper purpose of the elections forum, so that the membership can make informed decisions when you vote. It is true that in September 2005 Brian Edwards-Tiekert (a staff LSB member currently running for reelection) sent an email to a group of people to schedule a meeting to discuss, among other things, "dismantling the LSB." Among those people was Sherry Gendleman (a listener LSB member currently running for re-election on the "Concerned Listeners" slate), Lemlem Rijio (who was then KPFA's Development Director and is now KPFA's interim Station Manager), Sasha Lilley (who was then a producer for "Against The Grain" and is now KPFA's interim Program Director), and Bonnie Simmons (who is a staff LSB member, the current LSB Chair, and an endorser of the "Concerned Listeners" slate of candidates). This is a matter that should be of concern to the voters. Dismantling the LSB is not the way to get good governance for KPFA and Pacifica. I am glad that the "Peoples Radio" slate chose to publish it in their joint candidates' statements. That email was widely circulated among those close to the station when it first came out, and the fact that it is now a campaign issue should be a surprise to nobody. It is an outrage that the interim Executive Director is issuing prejudicial statements and taking candidates' statements off the web page. (Apparently he didn't know what was in the candidates' statements before the voter-pamphlets were mailed or he would presumably have tried to censor them and embroiled Pacifica in a costly legal battle that it would have lost). So, while I believe more strongly than ever that it is essential that the "I-Team" candidates be elected to serve as a core of civility and sanity on the LSB and a "buffer zone" between the opposing factions, I also believe it is important to rebuke the Executive Director for his outrageous acts. That can be done by ranking Peoples' Radio slate members after the "I-Team" candidates. This will also preserve some balance on the LSB, as the "Concerned Listeners" hold a majority of the seats that were filled last year and are not up for re-election this year. And I'd certainly rather elect people who believe in free speech than those who do not and are trying to suppress it at Pacifica. Here is my recommended order of ranking: #1- #4 - listed in alphabetical order - you choose your order of preference Steve Conley, Chandra Hauptman, Tracy Rosenberg, and Joe Wanzala and #5 - #11 - listed in alphabetical order - you choose your order of preference Bob English, Dave Heller, Atilla Nagy, Richard Phelps, Mara Rivera, Gerald Sanders, and Stan Woods No matter how you vote, please do be sure to vote so the election makes its 10% quorum. The ballots must be received (not postmarked) by November 15th. Thanks, and best regards, Carol Spooner KPFA Local Board Member (March 2000-March 2005 Pacifica National Board Member (January 2002-January 2005) Lead Plaintiff - Listeners Lawsuit to remove the old Pacifica Board (1999-December 2001) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Let it come like wildflowers, suddenly, because the field must have it: wildpeace. ~ Yehuda Amichai (1924 - 2000) - Carol Spooner

Open Letter to Dan Siegel

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:44:25 +0100

(Part 3) In fact, to keep nonprofits from even attempting to do what you have done, that is, to arbitrarily decide the organization might be liable for a candidate's statement and use that as justification for censorship, California specifically law protects nonprofits from any liability for candidates statements. California Corporations Code states: 5525. (a) This section shall apply to corporations publishing or mailing materials on behalf of any nominee in connection with procedures for the nomination and election of directors. (b) Neither the corporation, nor its agents, officers, directors, or employees, may be held criminally liable, liable for any negligence (active or passive) or otherwise liable for damages to any person on account of any material which is supplied by a nominee for director and which it mails or publishes in procedures intended to comply with Section 5520 or pursuant to Section 5523 or 5524, but the nominee on whose behalf such material was published or mailed shall be liable and shall indemnify and hold the corporation, its agents, officers, directors and employees and each of them harmless from all demands, costs, including reasonable legal fees and expenses, claims, damages and causes of action arising out of such material or any such mailing or publication. (c) Nothing in this section shall prevent a corporation or any of its agents, officers, directors, or employees from seeking a court order providing that the corporation need not mail or publish material tendered by or on behalf of a nominee under this article on the ground the material will expose the moving party to liability. This section plainly protects Pacifica from any liability for any material supplied by a nominee for director. As such it would also apply to nominees for delegates where the publication is in furtherance of complying with Section 5520's fair election procedures requirement. Thus your claim that your action is defending Pacifica from complaints by other candidates is patently false. The law specifically immunizes Pacifica from these types of claims between competing candidates. If Pacifica has a problem with any campaign materials or thinks that any liability may arise, then Section 5525 provides the remedy: seek a court order. The law says Pacifica and its agents and employees are not liable, but if there is doubt then Pacifica or its agents and employees who believe there may be liability may see a court review. You have subverted the statutory scheme by inserting your own view of potential liability for that of the due process provided by law for a court to determine if liability extends to anyone. This kind of usurpation of law is the definition of tyranny. If one candidate has a complaint against another candidate for alleged defamation, that is a private action and has nothing to do with Pacifica. You know that political speech is the most protected speech under the First Amendment that there is. Therefore any assertion that Pacifica has a duty or obligation to infringe political speech has no basis in law. Your actions of broadcasting your management favoritism and preference and your blatant interference in and attempt to influence the election, have now put the legitimacy of the KPFA election into doubt. You have directly exposed the organization to a viable election challenge. I can only hope the Pacifica Community repudiates your crass attempt to influence the outcome of the election and that the Pacifica Board of Directors directly repudiates your actions so that there will be not doubt that your petty tyranny is not taken at expressing the proud tradition of free speech at Pacifica.. Gregory Wonderwheel Santa Rosa, CA http://wonderwheels.blogspot.com - Gregory Wonderwheel

Open Letter to Dan Siegel - Part 2

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:45:51 +0100

(Part 2) California law requires that a corporation provide fair and reasonable election procedures. It is not fair and reasonable to promise to allow website distribution of candidate statements and then revoke that promise at one station for arbitrary and capricious reasons while allowing the members at other stations to continue to have access to website candidate statements. Now, you allege that campaigning against opponents by pointing out the opponents words and deeds is a "personal attack." This Orwellian definition of personal attack is simply a Republican tactic at preventing debate. Nothing in the campaign statements that you object to contained personal attack. Providing information to listeners that they would not be able to get otherwise is not a personal attack. Providing the electors with the text of an email that advocates "dismantling the LSB" is not a personal attack. If anything is a personal attack it is your false characterization of political debate which falsely attacks the character of the candidates. Criticizing the Interim General Manager, Lemlem Rijio, for not attending LSB meetings is not a personal attack. Criticizing Sasha Lilly, the Interim Program Director, for telling programmers they couldn't encourage people to attend peace marches is not a personal attack. Criticizing Sherry Gendleman, an LSB member and candidate for reelection, for being against elected boards and against program council empowerment is not a personal attack. These are all fair political issues. As a community and progressive organization that supports free speech we must ask ourselves whether your type of unilateral dictatorial censorship is acceptable. Pacifica has important challengers and it can only meet this challenge if robust political debate is allowed within the organization. You demonstrate the heights of cynicism to claim that stifling debate is good for the organization. You are attacking the civil rights of candidates to their political speech in the name of protecting civil rights in society. What hypocrisy!. Free speech is established in our nation exactly to prevent petty tyrants from applying their personal definitions. What you label "toxic" debate is actually the first real debate in the new democratic structure of Pacifica. You may call the light of debate "toxic", but in this case it is only toxic to the infection that hides in the dark. Raising the question of the "morale" of "hard-working and underpaid staff" is an indicator of your misguided views. The morale of the staff is not uniform. There are staff people who oppose the status quo. Their morale is destroyed by current control by the status-quo-conservatives within the organization. Those staff members who are so petulant as to need protecting from open debate among the listeners should either get a thicker skin or leave the organization. Staff have their input into the governing process by their election of their representatives. If the staff oppose the majority of listeners then it is the staff who will have to adapt. The Pacifica staff and programmers have traditionally ignored and demeaned any listeners who disagreed with them. This attitude is what is destructive and does not need to be enshrined by you. Additionally, your actions are a blatant example of prejudice and favoritism since you are attempting to support and defend particular candidates against political criticism. Your duty was and is to remain neutral and to keep the appearance of impartiality in the election. You have violated this duty. You claim that "Many people are now calling for administrative and legal responses to abusive candidate speech." Excuse me, there is no such option. First the speech has not been determined to be abusive by any means of due process. Second, there is no administrative or legal response to candidate's speech by the organization. Nothing in the Fair Campaign Provisions discusses any "abusive" speech other than the abuse of endorsements which is what you have abused. In the process of adopting the Fair Campaign Provisions the question of abusive political debate.was raised and rejected as being against free speech and impossible to define. Your present arbitrary decision proves the wisdom of that choice. You admit that "distinguishing between reasonable criticism and 'personal attacks'" is "problematic" for the courts, yet you unilaterally and arbitrarily assert your own higher ability to do just that. (continued in part 3) - Gregory Wonderwheel

Open Letter to Dan Siegel - Part 1

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:49:30 +0100

Open Letter to Dan Siegel Interim Executive Director, Pacifica Foundation Re: KPFA Local Station board Election October 26, 2007 Dear Mr.Siegel, This is a reply to your "Open Letter to the Pacifica Community" dated October 24, 2007. (Attached below.) Frankly by criticizing campaign statements and removing them form the website, I'm truly amazed that you would take a position so diametrically opposed to the First Amendment. As the Interim Executive Director of Pacifica Foundation with the grandest tradition of free speech in the United States, your anti-free speech attitude is shameful and demeaning to the Pacifica community and a stain on the Pacifica tradition. You ask, "Is this type of rhetoric acceptable?" but you don't give even a single example of the rhetoric you are condemning. Thus you are not engaging in debate. You are attempting to stifle debate by presenting your opinion alone. But more importantly is your attack on "rhetoric" itself! Your question -- "Is this type of rhetoric acceptable?" -- is the same question used to attack Pacifica for its broadcast of George Carlin's now famous and precedent setting rhetoric. When I read your attack on free speech I laughed wondering what would George Carlin say? I think he would say that you are acting just like the owners of America who believe they can define what rhetoric is or is not acceptable. You confabulate the KPFA candidate statements with a WBAI candidate statement. For what purpose? There is no connection, and your including the two together in that way can only cause confusion in the Pacifica community. You allege that the KPFA candidate statements "contain little more than personal attacks on their opponents." By offering your personal conclusion and by not offering a single example, you are unduly attempting to influence the election. The Pacifica Foundation's Fair Campaign Provisions provide: [quote]"SECTION 6. FAIR CAMPAIGN PROVISIONS No Foundation or radio station management or staff (paid or unpaid) may use or permit the use of radio station air time to endorse, campaign or recommend in favor of or against any candidate(s) for election as a Listener-Sponsor Delegate, nor may air time be made available to some Listener-Sponsor Delegate candidate(s) but not to others. All candidates for election as a Listener-Sponsor Delegate shall be given equal opportunity for equal air time, which air time shall include time for a statement by the candidate and a question and answer period with call-in listeners. No Foundation or radio station management or staff (paid or unpaid) may give any on-air endorsements to any candidate(s) for Listener-Sponsor Delegate. The Board of Directors may not, nor may any LSB nor any committee of the Board or of an LSB, as a body, endorse any candidate(s) for election as a Delegate. However, an individual Director or Delegate who is a Member in good standing may endorse or nominate candidate(s) in his/her individual capacity. In the event of any violation of these provisions for fair campaigning, the local elections supervisor and the national elections supervisor shall determine, in good faith and at their sole discretion, an appropriate remedy, up to and including disqualification of the candidate(s) and/or suspension from the air of the offending staff person(s) (paid or unpaid) for the remainder of the elections period. All candidates and staff members (paid and unpaid) shall sign a statement certifying that they have read and understood these fair campaign provisions." (Article 4, Section 6)][/quote] While, this provision specifically applies to "air time", the clear intent is that Foundation management is not to make use of radio station facilities to endorse in favor or against candidates. Your actions on the KPFA website and your letter do constitute endorsement against candidates in violation of the bylaws. (continued in Part 2)[quote][/quote - Gregory Wonderwheel

Remedy Required

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:45:17 +0100

The "Open Letter to the Pacifica Community '' written by Interim Executive Director Dan Siegel, and posted for at least several days on the KPFA website, describes one slate of candidates' political assertions in the election pamphlet as ''personal attacks '' and later on uses the term ''hateful '' speech in an obvious reference to them. He goes on to strongly imply that voters should not vote for those who, at KPFA, engaged in such ''personal attacks. '' Siegel's letter has now been widely distributed via numerous email lists, reaching possibly thousands of potential voters. If there is press coverage of this matter even more will read these allegations. It is a blatant attempt to influence the election against one slate of candidates. The slate Siegel calls "attackers" resorted to this method of disseminating information because only that candidate or those slates of candidates who could raise over $14,000 for a mailing to all members could widely distribute information. Elections should not be bought. The $14,000 slate also has an even more powerful tool: airtime. Maybe you hear programs you like and say "well, they're good so where's the problem?" Aside from the problem with the same method being used, once it's sanctioned, by other than such wunderkind, gaining access to the airwaves for even better programs is currently insurmountable for many creative, insightful souls. Siegel's ''Open Letter'' should immediately be removed from the KPFA website. There should also be mandated a public apology as widely distributed as the "open letter" was. And, because the many mailing lists used by station staff and ex-station staff are not something that can be monitored (of course!), it seems reasonable to me to call for airing the apology over the air multiple times. Perhaps this could be in concert with even ONE announcement of the current election by the staff – and if announcements are made, referring listeners to an apology that somehow sincerely attempts to de-bias the election. Some are calling for punitive measures to be taken against Mr. Siegel. I can't imagine how those could help create a fair election, but maybe the prospect of watching Dan Siegel dressed like Peggy Noonan crawling through tar singing show tunes might attract a big enough crowd to hear an actual debate by the candidates, something we'll not get otherwise. (Dan Siegel's comments are analogous to Peggy Noonan's saying those who don't like George Bush hate America.) I urge you to consider the mess that you have invited and spare no effort to stop it. Virginia Browning …..KPFA Listener/Sponsor - Virginia Browning

...

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 06:16:01 +0100

I don't get how this democracy thing works for running a radio station. Probably it doesn't. The elections cost a lot of money, and what exactly comes out of this? Not much of anything. Some needy people with issues and agendas {which may or may not have something to do with the actual mission of the radio station} get a podium, a microphone and their 15 minutes of airtime, mostly at the listener's expense. The struggle to get ten percent of the eligible electorate to return completed ballots ought to be enough of an indicator that somethings not happening here. At least, not for the majority of listener-member-sponsors. Dismantling the LSB is appalling to LSB members and their closest cohorts, but probably not to a whole lot of the ninety percent who don't return ballots. I think it's an idea worth looking into. - April Corsiva

Dan Siegel is corrupt

Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:39:33 +0100

WBAI is bankrupt. Dan Siegel of the Pacifica National Board is corrupt. He has been temporarily placed on the national board for one month to sabotage the elections and allow the WBAI and Justice and Unity corruption to continue. - lonnie