KPFT Notes

On Saturday, the Pacifica National Board announced the hire of longtime public radio broadcaster Nicole Sawaya as Executive Director of Pacifica. Sawaya, whose firing as KPFA General Manager in 1999 shocked KPFA staff and listeners and led to a crisis which rocked Pacifica, will start her tenure in mid-November.

The Pacifica Foundation is the parent organization of KPFA Radio.

“I am honored to be brought back into the Pacifica network,” says Sawaya. “Pacifica is a significant force in broadcasting, and we will continue to build upon the fine tradition of independent journalism and radio programming, unfettered by corporate ownership pressures so rampant in our media today, that Pacifica can and does exemplify.”

Nicole Sawaya has been in noncommercial media – primarily public radio – for over thirteen years. She started as a news reporter, then segued into management. Since then, she has been general manager at KZYX, KPFA, and KALW. She also worked at NPR in Washington DC.

Sawaya, who is Lebanese-American, has received numerous awards throughout her career, including the Milestone Award from American Women in Radio and TV, Golden Gate Chapter; several Silver Reel Awards from the National Federation of Community Broadcasters; and the 2005 Journalist of the Year Award from the Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California Chapter, for her work in building news and public affairs programs at KALW in San Francisco.

“This is an historic moment for KPFA and Pacifica,” says KPFA interim General Manager Lemlem Rijio. “Nicole is a radio visionary and her return to Pacifica is cause for rejoicing for those who care about groundbreaking, progressive noncommercial radio in this country.”

Sawaya replaces the outgoing Greg Guma. She will be based out of the Pacifica National office in Berkeley.

Mitch Jeserich takes over as the Executive Producer of KPFA’s Morning Show. Jeserich is an accomplished radio journalist, producer and anchor, who until recently was the News Editor for Wakeup Call, the morning show of Pacifica station WBAI in New York. He’s also the co-founder of the New York City-based Community News Production Institute, a project of People’s Production House, which trains members from historically marginalized communities to make their own media news stories.

“Mitch combines a multitude of talents – as a tenacious and gifted producer, national politics reporter, and mentor”, says KPFA’s interim Program Director Sasha Lilley. “We are very pleased to welcome him back to our airwaves.”

Mitch spent three years as the Washington DC Editor of Free Speech Radio News, heard throughout the Pacifica Radio Network, where he covered the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court. Originally from California, Mitch covered the state legislature in Sacramento for KPFA. Before becoming a journalist, Mitch worked as a community organizer in both the disability and immigrant rights communities.

“I’m very excited to be coming home where my career began,” says Jeserich. “KPFA has always been instrumental in the culture and activism that is so alive in the Bay Area and I’m thankful to have this opportunity to be a part of that again.”

The Morning Show is the most listened to local program on KPFA airwaves. Its daily two-hour mix of news, current affairs, analysis, and cultural programming can be heard from 7am to 9am on 94.1FM in the Bay Area and 88.1 FM on KFCF in Fresno. Jeserich takes over from interim Executive Producer Laura Prives, who will return to her position as the Morning Show’s Associate Producer.

Just a reminder that the closing date for the Simon Cumbers Media Challenge Fund Standard Grant is Monday, October 1, at 5 p.m. Or if your application is ready before then you are very welcome to submit it early!

The Simon Cumbers Media Challenge Fund is funded by Irish Aid. It is a grant scheme aimed at assisting and promoting more and better quality media coverage of development issues in the Irish media.

All the information and application forms can be found by clicking here.

This just in: Former KPFA manager Nicole Sawaya was named today as the Pacifica Foundation’s new Executive Director during the Pacifica National Board meeting in Berkeley. Sawaya was at the center of a long struggle within Pacifica following her work at KPFA.

FYI from Berkeley: word is an Executive Director decision is expected this weekend’s Pacifica National Board meeting. Stay tuned.

This article has moved to Urban Unrest.

Please join us Saturday, September 29 for a Five Year Anniversary Celebration of the Houston Institute for Culture from 6:00-8:00pm, followed by a talk and book signing by Dr. Alice Rothchild, author of “Broken Promises, Broken Dreams”, at 8:00pm.

Saturday, September 29, 6:00pm
Five Year Anniversary Celebration
Houston Institute for Culture
Havens Center
1827 W. Alabama Street

Houston Institute for Culture has many great accomplishments during its first five years to celebrate and tremendous challenges ahead, as we grow to become a substantial organization positively impacting many communities throughout the region. Working effectively to promote cultural literacy and social innovation with tested programs, our prospects for success are extremely good. We passed our four year IRS determination period (a public support test) and raised our grants by more than $100,000 over the past year. Our extensive educational program history extends to university campuses, public schools, community centers, small art spaces and large public venues like Miller Outdoor Theatre. Our research and service projects have reached communities from the Lower Rio Grange Valley to the greater New Orleans area.

A short program at 7:00pm will feature Latina authors, Loida Casares Ruiz and Rose Mary Salum, and a demonstration of the organization’s youth development programs (with a short film on Sexism made by middle school students).

Those attending the informal reception will meet volunteers and community supporters, enjoy refreshments, and learn more about several Houston Institute for Culture programs and initiatives, including:

-Camp Dos Cabezas (now in its fourth year)
-Students for a Better Houston
-Digital Story Resource Center
-Center for Localism
-And more

By ADAM LIPTAK
Via New York Times

Saying it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages, Verizon Wireless last week rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program.

But the company reversed course this morning, saying it had made a mistake.

“The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident,” Jeffrey Nelson, a company spokesman, said in a statement.

“It was an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy,” Mr. Nelson said. “That policy, developed before text messaging protections such as spam filters adequately protected customers from unwanted messages, was designed to ward against communications such as anonymous hate messaging and adult materials sent to children.”

Mr. Nelson noted that text messaging is “harnessed by organizations and individuals communicating their diverse opinions about issues and topics” and said Verizon has “great respect for this free flow of ideas.”

The other leading wireless carriers had accepted the Naral program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code.

Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters.

But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.

In reversing course today, Verizon did not disclaim the power to block messages it deemed inappropriate.

The dispute over the Naral messages was a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of “net neutrality” — whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers.

“This is right at the heart of the problem,” said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school, referring to the treatment of text messages. “The fact that wireless companies can choose to discriminate is very troubling.”

In initially turning down the program, Verizon, one of the nation’s two largest wireless carriers, had told Naral that it does not accept programs from any group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.” Naral provided copies of its communications with Verizon to The New York Times.

Nancy Keenan, Naral’s president, said Verizon’s initial decision interfered with political speech and activism.

“No company should be allowed to censor the message we want to send to people who have asked us to send it to them,” Ms. Keenan said. “Regardless of people’s political views, Verizon customers should decide what action to take on their phones. Why does Verizon get to make that choice for them?”

On Wednesday, Mr. Nelson, the Verizon spokesman, said the initial decision had turned on the subject matter of the messages and not on Naral’s position on abortion. “Our internal policy is in fact neutral on the position,” Mr. Nelson said. “It is the topic itself” — abortion — “that has been on our list.”

Naral provided an example of a recent text message that it has sent to supporters: “End Bush’s global gag rule against birth control for world’s poorest women! Call Congress. (202) 224-3121. Thnx! Naral Text4Choice.”

Messages urging political action are generally thought to be at the heart of what the First Amendment protects. But the First Amendment limits government power, not that of private companies like Verizon.

In rejecting the Naral program, Verizon appeared to be acting against its economic interests. It would have received a small fee to set up the program and additional fees for messages sent and received.

Text messaging programs based on five- and six-digit short codes are a popular way to receive updates on news, sports, weather and entertainment. Several of the leading Democratic presidential candidates have used them, as have the Republican National Committee, Save Darfur and Amnesty International.

Most of the candidates and advocacy groups that use text message programs are liberal, which may reflect the demographics of the technology’s users and developers. A spokeswoman for the National Right to Life Committee, which is in some ways Naral’s anti-abortion counterpart, said, for instance, that it has not dabbled in text messaging.

Texting has proved to be an extraordinarily effective political tool. According to a study released this month by researchers at Princeton and the University of Michigan, young people who received text messages reminding them to vote in November 2006 were more likely to go to the polls. The cost per vote generated, the study said, was much smaller than other sorts of get-out-the-vote efforts.

Around the world, the phenomenon is even bigger.

“Even as dramatic as the adoption of text messaging for political communication has been in the United States, we’ve been quite slow compared to the rest of the world,” said James E. Katz, the director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University. “It’s important in political campaigns and political protests, and it has affected the outcomes of elections.”

Timothy Wu, a law professor at Columbia, said it was possible to find analogies to Verizon’s decision abroad. “Another entity that controls mass text messages is the Chinese government,” Professor Wu said.

Jed Alpert, the chief executive officer of Mobile Commons, which says it is the largest provider of mobile services to political and advocacy groups, including Naral, said he had never seen a decision like Verizon’s.

“This is something we haven’t encountered before, that is very surprising and that we’re concerned about,” Mr. Alpert said.

Professor Wu pointed to a historical analogy. In the 19th century, he said, Western Union, the telegraph company, engaged in discrimination, based on the political views of people who sought to send telegrams. “One of the eventual reactions was the common carrier rule,” Professor Wu said, which required telegraph and then phone companies to accept communications from all speakers on all topics.

Some scholars said such a rule was not needed for text messages because market competition was sufficient to ensure robust political debate.

“Instead of having the government get in the game of regulating who can carry what, I would get in the game of promoting as many options as possible,” said Christopher S. Yoo, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “You might find text-messaging companies competing on their openness policies.”

Something to prep you for the upcoming Greg Guma interview, and the start of the Pacifica National Board meeting. This is Greg’s report:

Reports & Recommendations, 2006 – 2007

First Impressions

January 28, 2006, PNB Washington, DC

Shortly after I accepted this job, I talked with a dedicated Pacifica supporter who at one time also considered going after this position. From what I knew, this person seemed well suited for the job. So, why didn’t you apply? I asked.

The reply was revealing. “Well, I wanted to work again,” I was told.

The basic point, I think, was that it’s tough to work in such a highly charged environment – whether you are a general manager, a program director, or sometimes even a board member – without making enemies and finding yourself under attack at some point.

***

What is my vision for Pacifica? On this point, saying too little is as bad as saying too much. But I do have some preliminary ideas.

Management: We need to make communication within the network more regular and systematic. Yesterday, I attended my first Administrative council meeting, a time when the managers can talk frankly about what they have been doing and the issues on the table. I would like to see this turn into a more frequent occurrence, so that this can be an operations working group. The idea is to consult, share expertise, and support each other.

Governance: Pacifica’s overall structure is a bold experiment in democracy, but also poses a difficult challenge in how to make sure that democratic aspirations and rights do not lead to division, inefficiency, and exploitation of the structure. We don’t want our openness to become an excuse for demagoguery, or a war of attrition in which the loudest voices and those with the most time can simply wear the organization down.

Programming: My goal is to continue bringing diverse voices and excellent local production to new audiences, especially programming that deconstructs the false reality being force fed to people. One step will be to support the development of a sampler of programs from various stations that can be distributed through new venues…

Personnel: A systematic and fair employee evaluation process isn’t a panacea, it can’t prevent all lawsuits, but it can help us to do the right thing, and do it early, consistently, and do our part to make sure people are treated with respect.

…Beyond these practical tasks, I want to aggressively promote Pacifica as a relevant and popular voice for political change and social transformation — using its archives, its effective voices, its creative programmers, and its ability to train and cultivate new talent to define the network’s image for listeners who yearn for something better than the noise that passes for news, culture, and public discourse.

***

In the months ahead, the public may read or hear some strange things about what is happening at Pacifica – reports that sound disturbing, even dangerous. That’s unavoidable when you are involved in promoting free speech and open discussion. But think about it this way: Those who issue harsh, even cruel judgments will really be telling you more about themselves than the foundation and its work. They will be appealing to people’s fears, assumptions, and projections about what THEY might do if they were in our shoes. The truth is: they’re captives in a nightmare….

But we don’t have to listen to these nightmarish projections. It’s time to wake up and start focusing on what really matters. It’s time to renew our purpose, to project responsible advocacy, real news and informed opinion – about crony capitalism and imperial schemes, social justice and human rights – to celebrate our differences and our areas of unity, to realize the potential of this precious resources as a people’s medium, bringing sharp critique and a progressive vision to millions of listeners.

It’s time to wake up the airwaves and shake up the world.

* * * *

Unleashing Potential

March 25, 2006, PNB Los Angeles

Despite battles, disagreements, and limitations, Pacifica produces some of the most politically significant, culturally diverse and educational radio available in this country. And its boards, despite any shortcomings, try their best to reflect constructive values and guide the organization – often at great personal sacrifice.

That said, I am already feeling considerable pressure for change. Many people are waiting to see whether I will fall into a “camp,” whether I will “take sides” in some of the many disputes that continually bubble up throughout the organization.

They are watching, waiting, and, unfortunately for both myself and Pacifica, waiting to judge. To judge based on their assessment of the changes needed, and on their local, group, or individual needs and grievances. I say unfortunately because I am bound to disappoint people.

From what I’ve heard, there is really no way to satisfy all the expectations being projected. The Executive Director doesn’t have the power to transform Pacifica, and even if I did, you wouldn’t want me to. On the other hand, I may be able to help the community in finding some common ground. …

However, the current mode of operations – which I would describe as winner take all – doesn’t provide the best starting point. Despite bringing proportionality into the election process, Pacifica hasn’t yet brought the same spirit into its actual decision-making. Elections are proportional, but governance itself is winner take all. That’s a major governance problem, but it tends to bleed into operations since staff tend to take their cues from how decision makers operate. And the fact that virtually every general manager and program director is under fire doesn’t help. What we have rather than openness to finding common ground is, with exceptions of course, a siege mentality. People sometimes talk about it as protecting turf.

So, what to do? Personally, I feel that I have no choice but to move slowly. That means supporting the current managers and staff, while at the same time developing fair, objective criteria to judge their performance and effectiveness (with a plan of action), but also resisting the temptation to become embroiled in every dispute….

People often ask: what’s your vision for Pacifica? I think they may mean: how do you think it should be different, in terms of programming, its relationship with the larger media community, and how it is structured and staffed? But my response is more philosophical than that: my vision is that Pacifica will someday very soon stop making war on itself, that its many talented and dedicated people will do – within Pacifica – what the mission says: look at the “causes of conflict” and seek “lasting understanding” between people. When we can do it at home, then we will be truly effective in projecting that mission out into the world.

In a way, it’s a modest vision, a vision of a process that stresses tolerance, mutual respect, and true diversity. But it will be a huge undertaking, and requires a leap of faith and an act of collective will.

Mission Inspiration

We talk a lot at Pacifica about mission-driven programming. I’d prefer if it was mission-inspired. But the point is: what are we actually talking about when we refer to Pacifica’s mission? Consider these points from the mission and original articles of incorporation:

An outlet for the creative skills and energy of the community – I hope to address this through some new national programming, partnerships with independent and community-based media groups, and outreach that includes training, technical support, and promotion that encourages progressive organizations to apply for new non-commercial licenses that will be available before the end of this year.

Promote and aid cultural activities – When arguments erupt over whether we air too much music – or not enough public affairs and news – we ought to keep in mind that cultural offerings also have an important role to play, and each community has a different culture and some different short and long term needs.

Contribute to a lasting understanding between nations and people – This points to the need for dialogue, both within communities, across the Pacifica network, and with groups in other parts of the world. Monologue rarely leads to lasting understanding.

Promote the study of political and economic problems, and the causes of religious, philosophical, and racial antagonism – We do relatively well in this area, but sometimes our approach veers into discussion that crosses the line into less than constructive polemics. We have to guard against becoming antagonistic ourselves as we try to unravel the truth.

Promote the full distribution of public information – This points to a strong role for our affiliates and attention to emerging venues.

Access to and use of sources of news not brought together in the same medium – This points to a strategy that incorporates more than just traditional radio broadcasters, but brings in the best that print, TV, and film have to offer.

Let me ask one more question: What are we trying to accomplish – to expand an extraordinary radio network, to support programming that addresses the mission I described – or to create a government?

If it’s the latter, we’re not doing a bad job – we have local and national legislative bodies, factions that could soon become political parties, expensive and politicized elections, dropping turnout, endless political gamesmanship, and the emergence of calls for the creation of what could become judicial bodies?

But if it’s the former – to produce radio that challenges, informs and enlightens, I think we need to rethink this experiment – to take it back to the shop and debug it as soon as possible – before it makes accomplishing the mission nearly impossible.

The goal, at least as I see it, is to find ways to unleash the tremendous, often latent potential within and surrounding Pacifica – in other words, working synergistically with the larger independent media movement of which it is a part – and move forward together. It is long past time for this vital organization to retake its place as a leading voice and moving force in community-based media.

* * * *

Spreading the Word

 

April 20, 2006, Portland, Oregon

Remarks to the National Federation of Community Broadcasters Conference

On the one hand, corporate media’s handling of the news has become increasingly unreliable since the late 1970s, that crucial moment when wall-to-wall crisis coverage was institutionalized. In fact, mainstream journalists find it difficult, if not dangerous, to cover stories that do not fit neatly into what is known as the “Washington Consensus.” Meanwhile, corporations have developed sophisticated strategies to promote the stories they want to see, and prevent others from being aired or published. The result is perception management, a highly effective form of social engineering

On the other, small, accessible, and affordable technologies can help people to challenge the “knowledge” monopoly of elites. And radio is one of the most accessible vehicles for alternative viewpoints. It’s intimate, production can be inexpensive, and can reach people through hundreds of outlets around the country and sometimes the world. And at community-run stations there is certainly more diversity and programmatic pluralism than almost anywhere else in media.

… the best guarantee that information will be used on behalf of humanity is to work for its free flow. That isn’t to say “more” is always “better.” And it surely isn’t about that illusive thing – objectivity. But repressive regimes and secretive institutions are normally the first to oppose broad access to information. After all, information is power. So, we’ve got to be open, accurate, and fair…

What is my vision for the future of Pacifica?

* Getting more local voices out – more talent, more news and more issues

* Helping revitalize national programming

* Maximizing the organization’s human and technical resources

* Honoring and expanding its diversity

* Encouraging members of the community to work together with mutual respect.

Basically, the idea is to help reaffirm and realize the organization’s mission. One part of that mission is to be “an outlet for the creative skills and energy of the community.” An important way to do that, I believe, is to develop working partnerships with more independent and community-based media groups, and to provide useful training and technical support. Another is to encourage progressive organizations to apply for new non-commercial licenses that will be available soon. …

As My friend David Barsamian says, “Radio provides a means of intellectual self-defense and a vehicle for connecting with others.” I would add that, at its best, it conveys energy, vitality, and a commitment to improving communities. And that’s precisely what I hope Pacifica will do in the time ahead.

Pacifica has got to POP. In photography and other media, when something pops it stands out, it is clear and vivid. In this case POP stands for three things: Programming, Organizing, and Peace. By programming I mean locally-generated, mission driven national programming. By organizing I mean better internal organization to make full use of resources and talent. And by peace I mean a process of reconciliation. It’s time to bury the hatchets and move on.

At the March meeting of the Pacifica National Board in Los Angeles, I said that one of my goals is to unleash the tremendous potential both within and surrounding Pacifica –

in other words, to build stronger ties with the larger independent media movement of which Pacifica is a part – and move forward together.

There’s more to the mission, of course, and much more to say. But for now, please consider this:

The tasks facing independent media in the months and years ahead are crucial. With the Bush administration in free fall and the Right in disarray, it’s time to seize the moment. The question is how. My suggestion is that we work together, set aside our minor differences and squabbles – we can get back to them later – and project responsible advocacy, real news and informed opinion. While doing that, however, we should also celebrate our differences rather than allow them to divide us; after all, isn’t respect for diversity one of the things that distinguishes us from the forces that have used fear of those who are different to undermine freedom?

Our job, as I see it, is to bring a sharp critique and a progressive vision to millions of radio listeners, to wake up the airwaves and shake up the world. It is an opportunity we should not miss, and a responsibility we cannot afford to ignore.

Radio can be a central medium for social action and creative engagement. That’s certainly been so in other parts of the world. The key, I think, is to provide a convincing counterpoint to the commercialism and menu of info-tainment and disinformation people are force fed each day.

Let me end with this thought: The survival of a free society depends ultimately on the actions of self-governing people. But people cannot manage their society, or their own lives, if they lack the sense of dignity that comes from exercising the right of self-expression. No government can guarantee democracy. No business can manufacture it. And the media can’t sell it.

But what we must do is keep the door open. If we simply do that, the vast potential of humanity will take care of the rest, and the promise of a self-governing society may yet be kept.

* * *

Re-Imagining Pacifica

 

June 3, 2006, PNB New York

Start by imagining an audio production center with multiple channels and schedules open to frequent change, a place that breaks down distinctions between listeners and producers, a hothouse for the cultivation of talent and a laboratory for new ideas, a place where people converge, contribute – and then move on, a center for the development of informative, educational and entertaining programs with community partners and like-minded organizations.

But it’s more than that. It’s also place where people learn how to communicate, an audio resource center that offers state-of-the-art training and a variety of platforms to get messages — news, information, opinions, music, humor, drama and more — out into the world.

While you’re at it, imagine a workplace where people look forward to the challenges of each day, where the discussion is vigorous and dynamic, and where disagreements aren’t feared but rather welcomed because those involved realize that they can lead to creative solutions. And imagine a staff that sees its job as nurturing, teaching, and enabling others to freely and effectively express themselves.

Now look beyond that, and imagine a network where diversity is a cause for celebration rather than conflict, where programs offer people hope and alternatives, a clearinghouse that shares ideas, talent and programs with more than 200 affiliates, a truly national network that educates and entertains by stimulating dialogue and asking hard questions – and does this with a combination of irreverence and respect.

This is some of how I envision Pacifica in the future, and I hope you can imagine something similar. But however our visions may differ, we obviously have some challenges, significant work to do and key decisions to make to get from here to there.

A changing landscape

There is no time to waste. The evidence suggests that, at the moment, the audience for traditional radio appears to have leveled off, and some stations are even losing ground. Meanwhile, Internet stations, podcasts, MP3s and iPods are changing the way people around the world listen. Increasingly, they have more control over their audio consumption. They can listen to programs and stations from other areas, and at times more convenient to their schedules. They can even carry their favorite radio shows and entire music library around with them.

Recent studies indicate that within five years a third of public radio’s weekly audience will listen at least two hours a week to programs delivered through a platform other than a primary broadcast channel. The shift could go even further – half of the entire audience could be using new platforms up to four hours weekly. That translates into somewhere between 8 and 25 percent of public radio’s total service. The question is: Will Pacifica be ready to provide these new platforms and services?

We are beginning to gear up, better coordinate our efforts, and develop new capacity for training and distribution. But we need to continue investing – in equipment, concepts, and personnel — if we are going to create the reliable new infrastructure we need.

Another aspect of the change is high definition – or HD radio, which piggybacks digital signals on existing analog signals and promises high quality reception. So far less that 10 percent of US stations are broadcasting in digital, and the cost of HR receivers remains high (about $300). But eventually, the price will come down and radio stations will be able to offer greater choice by multicasting on up to 3 channels. Imagine having not only the current Pacifica station channels, with a mix of news, public affairs, and music, but also a second channel, perhaps one on which we could broadcast hearings, rallies and other specials events – a veritable progressive radio version of C-Span, and even a third channel for more experimental programming, or arts and humanities shows, or perhaps to lease or sell to pay for new initiatives.

The question is: Will Pacifica make a sufficient and timely investment to be at the leading edge of this transformation?

Troubling trends

On average, our five stations currently devote less than 20 percent of their airtime to network news and public affairs shows – less than five hours a day — even though this form of programming has fueled public radio’s growth over the last decade. In comparison, we devote almost 40 percent to local news and public affairs, and another 40 percent to music.

The percentages obviously vary from station to station. According to a recent report for the Radio Research Consortium, called “Audience 2010: 21^st Century Trajectories,” two stations – WBAI and KPFK – devote substantially more time to local public affairs shows. At WBAI, it’s around 63 percent, almost two thirds of all content; at KPFK, it’s 56 percent. And two other stations – WPFW and KPFT – devote considerably more than the average to music: 59 percent at KPFT and about 71 percent at WPFW.

And what’s the result? In general, both the Audience 2010 study and recent Arbitron reports indicate that both listenership and, more worrisome, loyalty are on the decline. Loyalty – measured as our share of our listeners’ total radio use — grows from sensitivity to what people want to hear, and correlates strongly with financial support.

… we can argue about the validity of the figures and assumptions, or the fairness of such classifications. But what seems clear is that, on the one hand, we are losing ground at the moment, and on the other, national news and public affairs shows, along with credible and familiar hosts, engender the most loyalty and are the most sustainable parts of the current mix.

Programming priorities

But Pacifica doesn’t want to set priorities merely on the basis of what is popular. Put another way, it chooses not to be market-driven. Instead, it is committed to creating space for new voices, mission-based programming, and identifying new and currently under-served audiences. And to do that, while remaining relevant and fiscally sound, program schedules and mixes must change. But the current organizational and staff model, as well as the governance structure itself, makes this difficult. What we need is a fair and more effective way to set limits on how long programs remain on the air, a review process that gives managers and program committees the ability to open space and make needed changes.

For some time, the Board has been urging that Pacifica place more emphasis on programming for the nation’s growing Latino population. This is a very appropriate priority, both in terms of outreach to an under-served audience, demographic trends in our signal areas and nationwide, and the nature of this potential audience.

According to Arbitron ratings, Latinos spend more time listening to the radio than any other ethnic group. And although commercial Latino stations have recently engaged in pro-immigrant advocacy, the corporations behind many of these stations are less than thrilled, and the current emphasis isn’t likely to continue. Pacifica, on the other hand, can sustain its commitment, and attract a larger and more loyal Latino audience by developing and strategically scheduling more programming.

At the same time, Pacifica needs to make a sustained commitment to national news and public affairs programming. The first step is a new and original network program that responds to current events during the fall election season. … Once election season ends, we should use the same time slot to showcase successful local programs from our stations and affiliates for limited, but potentially renewable periods. In 2007, I suggest that we use this new network time slot for another 10 week series, this one focusing on race in America.

Second, I recommend that the Spanish language news show we are launching be scheduled to air with other Latino programs (music, public affairs, immigration themed) to create a program bloc that can build a loyal audience. All Pacifica stations should make a significant commitment to serving this emerging audience by devoting at least 2 hours per day to Latino programming.

In a more general sense, what I am suggesting is that we open up space in all station schedules for the type of new programs that meet our mission, weave together local and national elements, and generate greater audience loyalty and additional financial support by getting infrequent listeners — those currently on the fringe — to tune in more often.

Reorganizing for change: Recommendations

1. National production capacity should be reorganized and expanded, bringing resources and personnel into a more coherent structure. This means a national programming budget; coordinating various outreach, development and marketing efforts; improving supervision; and revising some job assignments.

2. Our national programming should include two half-hour national newscasts five days a week – one in English, and one in Spanish. They should use the skills of staff at sister stations, emphasize collaboration, and be coordinated by a Senior News Producer.

3. National public affairs programming for the next year should including Democracy Now!, the archives program From the Vault, two new limited series, and local programs carried by all sister stations, under the supervision of a new Network Programming Coordinator.

4. We need to fund the rapid enhancement of Pacifica’s technological capacity through a network-wide assessment, local staff and infrastructure development – including digital conversion, expanded streaming capacity, Internet channels with interactive content, investment in new equipment, increased distribution that empowers listeners as virtual programmers, and training programs.

5. We also need a coordinated marketing and promotion effort, as well as major donor and planning giving campaigns. This will require an adequate, consolidated development and outreach budget, and the cooperative efforts of a team that should include our Affiliates Coordinator – who is already involved in significant outreach activities, as well as our Archives Director, national staff, and station representatives.

6. Finally, Pacifica needs to step up to its responsibility as a leader in the independent media community by supporting new non-commercial license applications, continuing to expand its affiliate network, offering training to affiliate stations, and working with other organizations in support of free speech campaigns.

Questions and a vision

These priorities don’t answer all the questions. For example:

How much effort and investment should we put into broadcast services and how much into newer channels and platforms? And how quickly can we shift investments toward these new delivery systems?

How much should we invest as creators of original content and how much as selectors and context-setters for content produced by others?

What content is most suitable for new channels, compared with the primary broadcast signal?

What are the most promising avenues for shared research, development, and investment? And who are the appropriate partners?

As Pacifica stations move from managing a single channel in each signal area to operating as multichannel, multiplatform, interactive production and resource centers, how will they acquire the needed knowledge and skills?

And, in a larger sense, can we recapture the humanistic spirit that animated this organization more than a half century ago?

As I said earlier, time is short, and there is no time for distractions. That is why I am asking you to imagine a different future….

Imagine Boards whose members contribute as much as they demand, Boards that bring skills and resources together in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect, with members who offer as much positive reinforcement as criticism, who actually enjoy their time together and see their work more in terms of shared responsibilities than authority, and lead by inspiring respect and being the change they wish to see.

And finally, imagine Pacifica Radio as an educational media organization – not a tool of any movement, group or faction, no matter how just its cause. Imagine an education organization dedicated to self-management of information, to empowering people with the capacity for full self-expression. An organization that understands it is possible to have diversity as well as unity, and that operates on the basis of a simple and yet profound idea: freedom of expression is fundamentally a personal and not an institutional right, and freedom of the press means the right of people to use all means of communication. Pacifica’s job, as I see it, is to help make that a reality.

One change leaves the way open for the introduction of others, a philosopher once said. So I say to you all, let’s make that change.

* * * *

Progress Reports

September 29, 2006, PNB Walnut Creek

What does Pacifica Radio do? It’s important to keep this in mind: It encourages the creativity and energy of diverse communities across the country. It presents and distributes accurate, comprehensive news, much of which would be otherwise unavailable or ignored. It contributes to deeper understanding between people and diverse cultures. And it gives all of us the chance to share information and ideas on the causes of conflict and – perhaps not often enough — the solutions to political, economic, racial and spiritual problems.

Most of those words are from Pacifica’s mission statement. And I mention that it’s a privilege to be involved because, at times, I think we tend to forget and begin to assume it’s a right to be jealously protected. But working in an organization fundamentally based on voluntary action is about responsibility, commitment and cooperation, not power, entitlement, and a battle for political victory.

Accomplishments

Here are a few highlights. In Los Angeles at KPFK, an exciting new Spanish Language news program has been developed for national distribution. At KPFA here in Berkeley, a management change has brought more stability. In Houston, KPFT’s audience is growing and the station is receiving public praise and awards. And despite serious financial challenges and the enormous pressures of their jobs, all of Pacifica’s station managers and program directors work hard to sustain and build audiences in a more competitive environment.

Relations with Pacifica’s affiliate stations have improved and, thanks to the work of Ursula Ruedenberg the affiliates network continues to grow. New Websites have been launched for the affiliates, for technological skill sharing and for Board/Committee activities. And at some stations IT capacity has been upgraded. We’re fortunate to have Pete Korakis on the job. The hiring of national technical director Jon Almeleh is producing a serious assessment of long-term needs, while helping to assure consistency, quality, and compliance with legal standards.

The Pacifica Radio Archives, led by Brian DeShazor, has produced a new weekly program — “From the Vault” — for national distribution, and specials have been aired nationally on key government hearings and nominations, immigrant rights, the Iraq war, and the ongoing impacts of Hurricane Katrina. DC Bureau Chief Verna Avery Brown has played a key role. More recently, a fall national series on election-related issues has begun to air, bringing together producers and on-air talent from across the network.

These initiatives reflect Pacifica’s renewed commitment to mission-driven national programming, one aspect of the National Programming Policy developed through the determined leadership of Rob Robinson, and, in part, already approved by the Board.

Pacifica is also pursuing working partnerships with other independent and community-based media. One example is our active involvement in a joint campaign to promote applications for new, non-commercial radio licenses….

Challenges

Although the proposed FY 2007 budget modestly expands support for the Affiliates Program, the Archives, and Internet operations, other areas — specifically, training, new distribution strategies, technological retooling, and marketing — await serious attention.

Selection of a Network Programming Coordinator could be a significant step, facilitating increased collaboration and helping to fulfill Pacifica’s commitment to diverse, mission-inspired programming. But the network’s complex, decentralized and somewhat ambiguous structure will also require attention if it is to effectively balance democratic aspirations with a timely response to the changing media landscape, and make best use the organization’s human and technical resources.

To continue moving forward, Pacifica will also need to identify new sources of revenue. “Listener fatigue” has proven to be a significant problem, placing pressure on current and aging listeners to contribute more each year. Let’s not be distracted by the fact that we remain in the black – for now. We have yet to seriously address two serious underlying problems –declining listenership and rising costs. Building new audiences, re-evaluating staff structure and programming, and technological innovations hold many of the long-term answers, but Pacifica has not yet agreed on the key priorities and areas for new investment.

We also need to systematically address the need for bylaw revision and, related to that, re-affirm and clarify fundamental purposes. Both are necessary if Pacifica is to overcome the drift toward factional conflict, rebuild trust, and nurture a community in which volunteers, staff, and elected leaders work together with mutual respect.

Diversity: Pacifica continues to struggle over the nature of diversity it hopes to achieve. The US government makes certain limited criteria a requirement for funding, but Pacifica – and individual stations – have other, more “inclusive” interpretations.

While the organization as a whole is considerably more diverse and inclusive than most in this country, local situations do vary. In some places, racial or ethnic clashes, combined with competition for air time, can make progress difficult. Since voluntary cooperation is essential to Pacific, how to achieve meaningful diversity without resorting to compulsion poses another major challenge.

Elections: Despite the progressive intentions of Pacifica’s experiment in media democracy, participation appears to be declining – possibly to the point where the legitimacy of some local elections could be called into question. I think we need to ask: what does it mean to be a Pacifica member? Is the current approach to elections – which sometimes rewards negative campaigning – really working? And, is a democratic model based on victory for those with the most free time to spend at endless meetings the best we can do?

Must Carry: Whether the National Office should ever impose a “must carry” order remains a matter of heated debate. When the possibility that such a decision might be applied to either the Spanish Language newscast or the Fall election show, one LSB passed a motion requesting that the PNB prohibit such a move. The Board chose not to do that. But the underlying issue remains.

Some Pacifica members argue forcefully that ideas and initiatives should always be generated from the “bottom up.” But Pacifica also has national priorities, and local preferences and dynamics are only one aspect of the organization’s responsibility. Despite the preference of some for “local autonomy,” special intervention and national oversight must remain options when solutions don’t emerge locally, or when local decisions or divisions place the foundation at risk.

Beyond that, Pacifica has a responsibility to listeners and communities beyond the five sister stations, including a responsibility to project a national programming agenda and bring local voices to a nationwide audience. Pacifica is currently allocating significant resources to the production of two new national shows, both already demonstrating high quality. All five stations should be airing and promoting them.

Technology and Innovation: The hiring of a National Technical Director has led to a more serious needs assessment and improved reliability. But we are currently under-funding technology development. Equipment is aging and needs replacement, and increased use of and dependence on the Internet as a distribution vehicle has not been matched by creative thinking and sustained investment.

Related to this, we need to more fully take advantage of Pacifica’s wealth of content and capacity to serve as a vehicle for empowering more programmers — without undermining its financial sustainability. But doing that means addressing the issue of rights and licensing in a way that respects the work of volunteer programmers and protects current revenue sources, while allowing Pacifica to distribute content using innovative strategies based on reciprocal relationships and shared rights.

* * * *

The Road to Reconciliation

January 27, 2007, PNB Houston

So, what does the ED do? I’ve sometimes described myself as a traffic cop, or a glorified executive secretary. Too cruel? Maybe. To help explain the position a little, let me give you a sense of how much time I spend on the various aspects of my job. In order to make it a bit more rational I’ve divided it into eight basic functions:

1. Communication. I could easily spend hours every day just responding to the volume of phone calls and e-mails that constantly accumulate. It’s quite the multi-tasking challenge and takes perhaps a quarter of my time. Why not delegate more of that? Most people don’t want to talk to my administrative assistant, and some staff aren’t even that eager to talk to each other. Everyone wants a piece of the ED.

2. Personnel and human resources issues. Our office in Berkeley deals with complaints virtually every day. Some aren’t that serious, just the normal hassles that arise over supervision, pay raises, or problems with communication. But some become chronic, like bruises that just won’t heal. They take time and, if not resolved, cost money. I probably spend at least 15 percent of my time on these delicate issues, plus evaluating and supervising staff.

3. Legal responsibilities. Obviously, we have attorneys to do research, handle lawsuits, and provide opinions. But the ED also needs to understand the issues and weigh in. In a way, it would probably be smart for the Pacifica’s CEO to have a law degree. From bylaw issues to personnel problems to FCC requirements, legal questions are a daily concern. I probably spend at least 10 percent of my time on legal-related issues.

4. Board and other governance issues – attending and planning meetings, monitoring the election process, supplying information and reports. That easily accounts for at least another 12 percent. The problem is that this leaves less time than needed for…

5. Overall effective administration of this highly complex organization. I do keep in contact with staff – some more than others. It’s easy to spend at least an hour or two a day on the phone. We also hold conference calls. But management should also involve some thinking and planning. And that probably doesn’t get as much attention as it should. I probably use about 13 percent of my time on general administrative matters. It’s not enough.

6. Financial oversight. The CFO obviously does the heavy lifting, but we do consult on a wide variety of issues, and keep in touch on a daily basis. I have to weigh in on decisions, review spending, approve reimbursements, and assist with budget planning. We probably work together an average of an hour a day.

That leaves no more than an hour out of the average day to deal with two of the most important aspects of the organization…

7-8. Programming and Promotion. Having a Programming Coordinator on board will obviously help. But we need more change than that. That’s why I’ve called for a revised national structure including the following divisions: programming, technology, outreach/development and finance. The goal is to effectively delegate substantial day-to-day authority and directly supervise fewer people. For example, the programming coordinator should actually have some resources and staff to get programming off the ground.

Obviously, changing programming is always contentious. At this point, I think most staff would actually like to make some changes, but they also feel that they’re judged mainly on the success in on-air fundraising, and they obviously face conflicting pressures from their program councils and the community. So far, the argument that there’s a demand for national news and public affairs shows, and that they can build audience and loyalty, hasn’t been that persuasive.

Local control is clearly a major concern. On the other hand, some national intervention and oversight should be possible when local decisions, division or paralysis get in the way of smart programming choices. I also think that Pacifica has a responsibility to listeners and communities beyond the five sister stations, including a duty to offer and project a national editorial agenda and bring local voices to a nationwide audience.

In some cases, mandatory carriage decisions are appropriate; for example, when they follow up on Board initiatives or are sparked by vital public events and national issues. Pacifica also spends a significant amount on two national shows. All five stations should be airing them at reasonable times on a regular basis — and actively promoting them.

Governance

The most recent elections saw a modest increase in turnout and the National Office was more proactive, but the situation is far from ideal. Some insist that the election process is somehow corrupt, or that nefarious forces are conducting some sort of internal coup, or that Pacifica still isn’t democratic enough. The atmosphere of confrontation and mutual suspicion hasn’t gone away.

Meanwhile, local Boards frequently experience rude outbursts and disrespectful behavior. Roberts Rules are turned into a weapon, e-mails are used to spread rumors, and productivity suffers. All this alienates many people.

Let me pose what I hope are some fundamental questions. Are the elections bringing the needed talent and resources to Pacifica? They do help to clarify issues, and most of those elected are dedicated to serving Pacifica’s mission. But the elections also take literally 8 months to conduct, cost about $200,000 a year, take up considerable staff and airtime, and lead to interminable debates and disputes. And after all that, do those elected truly “represent” the will of the community and bring with them all the talents Pacifica stations need? Most non-profit Boards recruit people with specific skills. Pacifica has rejected this approach, and replaced it with an election process that has created warring factions on every local station board.

So, what to do? Virtually everyone at Pacifica seems to agree that the bylaws need an overhaul. But we also know it’s hard to make even modest changes. Therefore, I urge Pacifica to adopt a comprehensive approach, including a review of bylaw sections relating to elections, candidate qualifications, staff eligibility and recognition, hiring and termination, committee powers and structure, Board diversity, affiliates delegate elections, local and national responsibilities, and a clearer definition management vs. governance. No doubt others will have their own lists….

***

I’ll end with something I wrote a couple of months ago: My hope has been to stimulate a process of reconciliation and reconstruction. But I have to admit, I’m not too impressed with my progress to date. Too many people still focus on keeping “enemies” out of stations or off the air, others accuse those on the “inside” of plots, or trying to control programming for political purposes or financial gain.

What I’ve described as a deficit of trust remains almost as large as it was when I arrived. And this deficit, combined with an organizational structure created to prevent another “coup,” is instead preventing natural evolution and the emergence of new voices.

The answer is that Pacifica needs to take some risks.

Taking risks – and sometimes making mistakes – is one of the things that makes radio and other forms of communication exciting and creative. We need more, not less, such risk takers and system changers, people who can help to liberate society from repressive structures — including repressive structures of thought.

* * * *

Fault Lines

April 28, 2007, PNB Washington, DC

When the Pacifica National Board met in Houston in late January, the prospects for a productive year looked good. Despite some election glitches, eight new Board members were seated without incident. The mood was conciliatory and respectful. Changes in Board leadership were modest: the chair and vice-chair were re-elected, and only the Elections and Personnel Committees saw competition for seats. An informative discussion about the need to move rapidly into the era of digital distribution led to a decision to develop a plan that would “aggressively establish Pacifica’s presence on the internet and satellite.” At the end of the weekend, resolutions on current political issues ranging from the Iraq War and press freedom to Haiti and a pending death penalty case were passed.

It is hard to believe that was only about two months ago. Since then, two new lawsuits have been filed – one by a staff member in Los Angeles, another by a local Board member in Houston. In Washington, an attempt to remove the General Manager was initiated. In Berkeley, listeners and dissatisfied staff joined forces to protest what they describe as a new “gag rule,” some threatening to stage a fundraising boycott. In the wake of a successful International Women’s Day broadcast, questions were raised about the process of hiring producers and other consultants, with the implication that Pacifica’s top management is not sufficiently committed to racial and ethnic diversity. And when a Board member took the initiative to help develop a plan for digital distribution, based on the motion passed in January, critics throughout the network charged that hiring a Board member as a consultant would be unethical, if not illegal. These are just the most visible disputes.

Looking across the network, it appears that every station manager and program director is under attack, and groups rally for combat over what they believe are new threats to democracy, transparency, and free speech. The various factions mounting these challenges obviously believe their causes are just, and may not intend to bring Pacifica’s progress to a halt, but – justifications notwithstanding – that may well be the result.

Meanwhile, the staff tries to handle the day-to-day challenges of running a national organization, meeting financial goals and legal requirements, reaching agreement on administrative policies and programming, and coordinating the activities of more than 250 paid staff and an estimated 1000 volunteers in an atmosphere of rapid technological change and heightened competition.

Carriage Issues

Shortly after the January Board meeting, PNB member Berthold Reimer wrote that, “It is not up to the PNB to micro manage the Executive Director who should have the leverage to make decisions and implement them. If the PNB is not happy with the way the Executive Director implements its directive, the PNB can decide not to renew the contract of the Executive Director or have an extraordinary session to terminate him/her. Short of that, we should let him do his job.”

That argument contains some assumptions — for example, that a formal “contract” exists and that the will of the Board is always clear. In truth, we’ve been discussing these issues throughout much of the last year. Concerning the question of whether the PNB has ever actually “mandated” carriage of any programming — Spanish Language news, editorials on Net Neutrality and Habeas Corpus, and recent political motions — there are varying opinions on the Board itself. This came to a head in January when I attempted to instruct stations to carry a Judiciary Committee hearing.

In November, at the urging of the PNB, I had issued an editorial statement on Habeas Corpus. In passing its motion, the PNB voted for additional follow up, initiatives such as having an editorial aired and posted on various websites, related programming to be developed locally, the airing of five minute weekly updates from the Center for Constitutional Rights, and station broadcasts of statements by local or national experts on a rotating basis.

The stations did air the editorial statement, but the overall local response to the Board’s motion was cautious and, as I described it at the time, somewhat inconsistent. Then, on Jan. 13, KPFA host Larry Bensky initiated discussion about a special broadcast of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questioning of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Thursday, Jan. 18 about warrantless surveillance, suspension of habeas corpus under the Military Commissions Act, torture and extension of domestic spying by the CIA and military. This seemed like an ideal way for Pacifica to cover the issue. A proposal was developed and circulated to all managers and national staff members, and technical arrangements were put in motion.

Prior to the hearing, we received verbal or written confirmations from managers at four of the five stations –KPFA, KPFT, WPFW, and WPFW — that it would be carried live. As I saw it, such coverage fulfilled a pledge the organization had made, and the motion empowered the ED to “use the resources of the foundation to educate and inform the public on the dangers of this legislation, specifically including…consistent on-air coverage of the issue…” However, some Board members felt that I had over-stepped my authority, and that the only concrete action approved was to develop the editorial.

Beyond political considerations, my goal was to keep the promises we were making and seize an opportunity. As it turned out, CSPAN backed out on carrying the hearing and mainstream media coverage was minimal.

It turned out to be a dramatic hearing, and putting it on the air was a revealing process. In the end, four stations carried the hearing either on their broadcast air or via web stream — KPFA, KPFK, KPFT and WPFW. The next night (1/19), the PNB had an important discussion about how this matter had been handled.

During that meeting, I argued that this decision followed up on a Board motion and a broad consensus, and that there was no clear policy on mandated carriage. I urged the Board to support my attempt to have Pacifica “act like a network.” PNB Member Bob Lederer noted that although the Board’s position on habeas corpus was good, it is important to distinguish between the general principle of maximizing coverage and whether a particular program should be mandated. He noted that the Board had never mandated carriage and that since the Board had never specifically authorized it, it should not have been done. He also pointed to the 1990s, when such decisions caused serious problems. As a result, he forwarded a motion that would make it clear that the National Office could not impose any requirements for coverage of the issue aside from the editorial the PNB had authorized.

Several Board members expressed the idea that collaboration is the key ingredient, and that short notice on programming decisions puts stations in a difficult position. Acie Byrd submitted a motion that issuing a “must carry” for the hearing wasn’t authorized by the PNB and that I should refrain from imposing a mandatory rule on the staff until the Board acts on this issue. Although it didn’t pass, its introduction underlined the ongoing dispute over what is appropriate for the national office to do.

Board Member Disputes

There have been a number of altercations between local Board members, and requests for HR to intervene. In response, we have received the following advice from counsel. In such cases, the chair of the relevant LSB should be promptly informed, and should appoint a neutral party or parties to investigate the matter and recommend a resolution to the LSB for action. If the chair cannot appoint anyone viewed as neutral by both sides, a substitute approach is for each participant to nominate an investigator, and those two appointees to nominate a third party. If neither approach is possible, then the PNB would have to handle the matter.

What would help, in any case, is for the Board to resume its discussion of a possible Code of Conduct. Such a code would logically address the following:

* Honesty and ethics, including ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest.

* Compliance with applicable government laws, rules and regulations.

* Maintaining the confidentiality of appropriate information except when authorized or legally obligated to disclose.

* Zero tolerance for violence, the threat of violence, intimidation, or harassment.

* Dealing fairly with customers, suppliers, competitors, volunteers, and employees.

* Providing accurate, objective, relevant, timely, and understandable information.

* Protecting and ensuring the proper use of company assets.

Obscenity, Profanity and Indecency

In late January, the managers and national staff completed work on a new obscenity, profanity, and indecency policy. Pacifica has opposed, and will continue to oppose, content regulations that encroach on political and artistic expression. Nevertheless, in the meantime Pacifica’s management feels that a strict enforcement policy is necessary. In response, some have argued that the current policy is too restrictive. As a result, the PNB has voted that programming and engineering staffs (paid and unpaid) and staff unions and organizations should be able to recommend changes, and that the PNB Programming Committee should recommend a final policy. In other words, rather than this remaining an administrative matter, this will be reviewed as a governance issue, although the Board did stop short of putting the policy on hold until after the PNB adopts a final policy.

As I have been attempting to convey since I arrived, the distinction between governing and managing at Pacifica is far from clear. According to the Bylaws, the Board’s job is to

ensure – a word repeated several times – that the Foundation’s purposes are fulfilled within the law, to monitor its finances and station activities, to supervise the top managers, and to delegate powers and duties consistent with the law and the bylaws. In practice, however, whenever an interest group objects to a management decision, that initial delegation of authority can be rescinded. In addition, Pacifica is constantly struggling with pulls toward centralization and decentralization of power, with many sub-systems and constituencies vying to influence not only how the organization runs from day to day but where it is going. Complicating the issue further is that different people – including various members of the PNB – may have very different ideas about its true mission. Although wide dissemination of such a policy at issue is essential (including a requirement to acknowledge when one has seen it), and some changes may be appropriate – especially as standards change – I urge the Board to steer clear from attempting to resolve the issue and allow the managers to administer and supervise. This is, after all, why you hire and pay them.

At a recent meeting, the point was made that it’s better to have a policy about obscenity, profanity and indecency in place and alter it later than not to have one until every constituency has been satisfied. Current FCC rules – as much as we object to them –don’t permit mistakes, and the FCC will not give much credence to a disciplinary policy that merely warns staff for a first offense. What those who object to the policy hope to change is not so much technical definitions but rather the penalties they may face for violating the rules.

In this case, the argument is apt to be that “progressive discipline” should apply. But in the case of profanity or obscenity, this would be viewed as a mere “slap on the hand” by the FCC. Therefore, the current policy – although making the possible consequences quite clear – also allows for the consideration of “local and mitigating conditions” and a range of penalties. Someone who negligently (or deliberately) plays material with several prohibited words and someone who takes a call during which someone curses need not be treated the same way. Even union contracts acknowledge that progressive discipline is not applicable in some cases where a law has been violated.

Distribution and Programming

Pacifica has been attempting to seriously assess the potential of an open licensing system to expand Pacifica’s audience and increase revenue. That’s the goal of the Digital Distribution Project. We need to rapidly design and implement a voluntary “open source” archive of future programming with agreements (licenses) that encourage people to share, allow listeners and others to access and organize content for non-commercial distribution, and create contractual relationships providing income for both creators and the network.

Beyond that, Pacifica is under-funding technology development. Equipment is aging and needs to be replaced. Increased use of and dependence upon the Internet as a distribution vehicle has not been matched by creative thinking. Investment in technological improvement, transformation, and coordination should be substantially increased.

Meanwhile, listener loyalty is on the decline at several sister stations. Part of the solution is to create space for new voices, and focus on currently under-served audiences. Specifically, we should nationally showcase successful local programs from our stations and affiliates. To do that, program schedules and mixes need to evolve. Pacifica stations need a fair, impartial, and effective way to set limits on how long programs remain on the air, and an evaluation process that encourages managers and program committees to cooperate, open airtime, and make needed changes.

In addition, more programming for the nation’s growing Latino population is an important priority, both in terms of outreach to an under-served audience, demographic trends in our signal areas and nationwide, and the nature of this potential audience. Pacifica should also make a sustained commitment to national news and public affairs programming.

Management Reorganization

I also want to reiterate the recommendation that Pacifica should re-align the national-local relationship to expand effectiveness, and bring resources and personnel into a more coherent, accountable structure. The goals in this area include: increasing the ability to make national programming decisions without facing local obstruction; coordinating various outreach, development and marketing efforts; improving supervision; and revising some job assignments.

The national office budget already includes a break out budget for programming, but the management structure does not define the appropriate dynamic between the national organization and local stations. Efforts in the areas of technology and outreach are even more fragmented. Therefore, in addition to the current finance division under the supervision of the CFO and national staff under the general supervision of the ED, I have recommended a revised national structure including the following divisions: programming, technology, and outreach/development.

The Programming division should operate under the general supervision of the Network Programming Coordinator and include staff such as the DC Bureau Chief, national program producers and, where appropriate, staff involved in producing nationally aired specials or series. The outreach and development division should include the affiliates program, other designated national staff, and a marketing team that includes staff assigned from each station. The technology division, including the expanding Internet functions of Pacifica, should also have a coordinator, and should coordinate technology efforts at all stations.

The concern expressed has been that such changes would constitute a move backward, or permit unilateral action by an authoritarian executive. However, the current “buy in” approach allows individuals or special interests to block progress or decline to assist in joint efforts. This can lead to wasted time and resources and, in some cases, means turning a blind eye to actions (or inaction) in defiance of Pacifica National Board decisions. In attempting to avoid potential “power plays,” the current structure promotes inaction, delays, and status quo thinking.

* * * *

Toward Lasting Understanding

July 27, 2007, PNB Los Angeles

When I applied to be ED two years ago some Board members said they were impressed that I’d studied the organization and its problems in some detail. In a sense, I got here by examining Pacifica and reflecting back what I found out. Since then, however, there has been somewhat less interest in what I’ve learned by actually doing the job, and only limited enthusiasm about my proposals to address the problems identified.

For the record, I’ve made several basic proposals:

1. Management reorganization – including more accountability of local management to national priorities and standards

2. More coordinated and aggressive national programming – including a new national program and local programs – carried by all sister stations – and national editorial priorities* that are reflected in programming across the network

3. A serious investment in technological re-tooling – including Internet channels with interactive content, investment in new equipment, and increased distribution that empowers listeners

4. Coordinated marketing and promotion – with a serious, consolidated development and outreach budget and training for affiliate stations

5. Leadership in the independent media community and work with others on free speech campaigns

* At the moment I recommend the following four editorial priorities: Ending the War on Terrorism, Health Care for All, Reclaiming Democracy, and Building Ecological Security.

So how has it gone? Management reorganization has run up against concerns about local autonomy and suspicion about a national power grab. Programming collaboration has improved somewhat, but there remains a sentiment that each station should control its own airwaves and no serious changes should be made without a long, thorough and seemingly interminable process of consultation with many stakeholders. Technological investment has been delayed by the tendency to create budgets from the bottom up – an approach that leaves overall issues for last and makes reductions in spending on network-wide needs the easiest solution when money is tight.

And coordinated marketing? This has proven difficult in an organization where no one is really empowered to speak without fear of being attacked from within, and there is little consensus about image – except perhaps to be a cheerleader from every good cause that comes along. Unfortunately, a laundry list is not a very effective way to market a radio network.

Meanwhile, Pacifica is grappling with several crucial issues:

* adapting to changes in audio distribution

* declining listenership and erosion of Pacifica’s traditional revenue source, and,

* after five years with a new experimental structure, the need to make some serious adjustments

The current digital distribution project is an attempt to address one of these issues, and elected-related bylaws amendments acknowledge and address another. But declining audience and listener loyalty can only be fully addressed by looking at programming. And this is linked to unresolved questions about Pacifica’s mission and the organization’s structure. Our CFO predicts that Pacifica is facing contraction and a cash crunch. But even if it doesn’t happen in the next few months, the underlying problems remain.

Earlier, I mentioned that a re-evaluation of Pacifica’s mission is in order. This mission dates from Lew Hill’s 1946 prospectus for KPFA, arguably the most crucial document in the organization’s history. One of the key parts was this: that Pacifica would “engage in any activity that shall contribute to a lasting understanding between nations and between individuals of all nations, races, creeds and colors… gather and disseminate information on the causes of conflict between any and all such groups.. and promote the study of political and economic problems, and the causes of religious, philosophical and racial antagonisms.”

The idea is that peace can emerge from dialogue – that is, diverse groups openly communicating with each other. Not objective, indisputable truth — an open exchange of ideas that helps us know each other as human beings. Dialogue that demonstrates the possibility of peace in practice.

But today, instead, we too often have argument, an angry and endless struggle over ideology, air-time and assigning blame that keeps Pacifica from creating constructive connections between people. And on top of that, sometimes self-censorship – group think.

So, I repeat: Pacifica’s mission needs some serious study and reflection – a real, long-over-due dialogue about fundamental intentions.

The organization also needs a serious look at democracy as it is being practiced here. I hear it said that Pacifica is a bold experiment — a representative democracy of listeners. But it looks and operates very much like a confederation, a tentative association of communities (the stations) that view themselves as relatively “sovereign” and operate under a common constitution (the bylaws) with a weak central authority (the national office).

My experience is that this structure makes it difficult to reach decisions, or to insure that when decisions made they’re actually carried out. It is difficult to make even the simplest amendment, for example to increase efficiency, save money, or improve continuity. The national organization is, by design, largely dependent upon the stations – which view themselves as semi-independent. Without local cooperation and agreement, the central organization can’t provide essential services. As a result, the funding of priorities such as research, national infrastructure, development and marketing is consistently neglected.

In some quarters, there is open hostility to the national organization, as if it is a parasite feeding off the stations. Therefore, it’s not surprising that managers or staff sometimes refuse to implement decisions made by the national Board or national office. In short, I am saying that Pacifica’s confederal structure isn’t working.

For democracy to function, compromise is essential. A minority that loses will go along only if it feels that the winning side is playing fair. This becomes difficult when groups adopt a stance of moral absolutism or form factions. And we see both here. When factional disagreements become public and intense – as they often do in Pacifica — the organization suffers from disunity — charges and counter-charges about the conduct of elections, and fraudulent or unethical conduct, and repeated attacks on so-called “enemies.” This is beginning to seriously undermine the legitimacy of the organization’s democratic processes.

And, finally, there are the lawsuits. Once again, legal maneuvers are taking a toll on morale, time, resources, and the organization’s image. Pacifica is being defamed and threatened by a small group who see it as an easy target. Does Pacifica have problems? Certainly. But are the charges being made true? In most cases, no – and both the lawyers and the litigants know it. Rather, this represents a cynical, organized attempt to intimidate Pacifica, to undermine its finances, to spread disinformation, encourage cynicism, and gang up on the organization in an effort to extort settlements.

“Whispering tongues can poison truth,” wrote Samuel Coleridge. Today, these tongues – amplified by the Internet — are poisoning Pacifica. This should not – cannot – be allowed to continue without challenge.

So, let me be clear. Pacifica is not the horrible, oppressive, discriminatory workplace its critics would have the public believe. Their lies, fabrications, and self-serving disinformation must be disavowed and challenged.

* * * *

Voting and Democracy

“An organism at war with itself is doomed.”

– Carl Sagan

August 15, 2007

We need some basic agreement about nature of the problem – not simply that the “other side” is dishonest or racist. For what it’s worth, one of my conclusions is that the current structure and process encourage competition rather than cooperation.

A viable solution should 1) encourage a greater willingness on the part of all to cooperate – to actively seek common ground, 2) create an election process that rewards constructive ideas rather than negative campaigns, and 3) move Pacifica toward a revised structure that balances democracy (in this case, voting people onto Boards) with increased effectiveness (in part, by recruiting some appointed Board members who have needed skills but aren’t so engaged in Pacifica’s internal political struggles). I know full well that the latter suggestion will be very controversial. But just because a group is elected, that doesn’t always mean it makes the best or even the right decisions.

It is important to keep in mind that voting is no magic bullet. It is a mediated form of political engagement, and can sometimes divert energy away from more effective forms of political and social action. Representative democracy isn’t participatory democracy. I often hear calls for more people to be consulted in decision-making processes, yet the current structure rewards exclusive, majoritarian alliances of those who are elected.

Pacifica may want to seriously consider an alternative model. One example is some form of open-source governance, an emerging approach that allows policy development to benefit from the collected wisdom of a whole community. This has been called a post-national governing structure. In Pacifica’s case, that would mean post-station, since stations are the “nations” in Pacifica’s world. In an open-source model, policy-setting would be de-coupled from station management. A small step in this direction would be to maintain all policies – local, national, financial, etc. – in one accessible public registry and update it regularly.

The current approach at Pacifica seems to be, in part, a form of grassroots democracy. In this model, as much decision-making authority as possible is granted to the lower geographic level of organization. It sounds fine, but it means that in practice power resides with local institutions – stations – not with individuals. In contrast, participatory systems allow people equal access to decision-making regardless of their standing in a local chapter or community. The question here is who and what Pacifica seeks to empower. Shouldn’t people who support Pacifica in ways other than working at or contributing to a sister station be allowed to participate in important decisions? From the station point of view, however, they are sometimes viewed as outsiders; at the very least, they are not “members.”

In short, claiming to have a democratic structure doesn’t end the discussion. What kind do we actually have, what kind does the community actually want, and what kind will work?

Relevant democratic models (here are 11, but there are many more)

Grassroots – As I mentioned, this gives decentralized units the authority to make local level, binding decisions. We have elements of this, but there’s a tension with a more hierarchical structure that asserts centralized power in areas such as budget control.

Workplace – This form emerged as a response to top-down management hierarchy, and often uses lateral approaches like arbitration when problems arise. These days it is usually implemented in some compromise form. But an important element is that important decisions like centralization and management change only happen by request or with overwhelming majority acceptance, and work teams retain the power to resist change. Putting staff on Boards is a bow to this form, but creates some problems, e.g. the perception of conflict of interest.

Parliamentary – In this system, the executive branch is typically a cabinet, headed by an individual who is initially elected to the legislature. It’s something to consider, since someone who rose to the top would very likely have a strong working coalition. However, this would also lead Pacifica further in the direction of becoming a political movement and creating a “government,” perhaps distracting from its essential media purposes.

Jacksonian – This basically means a strong executive branch that asserts itself over the legislative body. Few in Pacifica want this, although there is a sentiment that, once empowered by the legislative branch, the executive should plow ahead. In my experience, some Pacificans do want a strong executive – until that person does something with which they disagree.

Democratic Centralism – In practice, this means debating things and taking a vote. But once the vote has happened, everyone is supposed to follow the decision in public. That’s not likely to work in Pacifica, but some groups who participate and have influence do tend toward such a disciplined approach.

Electronic – Some institutions are using technology to enhance the democratic process. Pacifica is attempting to do this to some extent, but it’s certainly not a panacea and technology can certainly be misused.

Participatory – Here the focus is on consensus decision making and greater representation for those who get involved. The advantage is that people have access regardless of their local “standing.” But it requires a lot of information if the process is going to wortk, and therefore, use of technology that empowers.

Deliberative – This means hearing out every alternative, from every direction, with enough time to do the research. It sounds great and we sometimes try to apply it, but it has some serious limitations for a media organization in which quick reactions in response to unpleasant but unavoidable market forces are needed.

Multi-Party/Faction – This approach gives power to large blocs. The trouble is that they usually can’t agree on overarching principles. This appears to be a direction in which the current structure is leading the organization.

Representative – This type of democracy is indirect, and power is held by representatives. This is clearly an element of Pacifica’s approach, combined with some grassroots, deliberative, and multiparty tendencies.

Radical/Dialogic – This approach emphasizes nurturing and tolerating difference and dissent in decision-making. The idea is that oppressive power relations should be out in the open, re-negotiated, and changed. But it can be difficult — or inefficient — to make decisions in a group while being tolerant and accepting of dissent and antagonistic views. And it will probably be tough for those making the decisions to acknowledge existing oppressive power relationships. Still, a bit of this could be refreshing.

Alone, any one of these approaches has limitations, but elements of several – along with incentives for cooperation and some appointed Board members — might be combined in a revised and improved model. In the meantime, Pacifica needs to look at its basic purposes and move away from bureaucratic or rigid responses to disputes, fueled by a structure that is incomplete, inefficient, frustrating, and the result of a tentative political compromise that may not hold much longer.

* * * *

Beyond Bureaucracy

When discussing Pacifica’s organizational structure with those who are unfamiliar with it, I’ve sometimes described it as a political bureaucracy, making comparisons with a school system or a small city. Bureaucracies are supposed to be strictly administrative in nature, and yet they often exercise far more power than that conferred on them by elected or appointed officials. They may respond to the demands of factions or interest groups, or occasionally to the personal pressure of a high-ranking official. At worst, they can degenerate into nepotism and corruption, crippled by political infighting and a tendency to consider process more important than outcomes. In any case, they follow certain “operational” laws, and will tend over time to become systems of decision.

In my own experience, bureaucracies function on the basis of three main principles:

1. Continuity and Stability: Personnel changes, but the administration largely remains the same. There is a constant structure, a continuity of tradition. In the case of Pacifica, that tradition is its identification as a membership organization, defined in terms of affiliation with one of the five stations. Other aspects were identified by Florence Green, a consultant who conducted a management audit 22 years ago. She noted, for example, that Pacifica was a refuge and a therapeutic community for some, a situation that sometimes made problem-solving an exhausting process. She also argued that the “missionary zeal” expressed by people who care deeply about the organization is both a strength and a weakness. Finally, she noted that some people in the organization have nowhere else to go and, partly as a result, may resist change.

2. Specialization and Rationalization: Bureaucracy exists in order to function. It doesn’t promote ultimate truths and can’t often consider the needs of individuals; it follows the basic rule of efficiency. There is usually no effective central leadership; instead, managers strive to make their own departments function without crisis or work stoppage. Each person relates to a sub-system, and has only limited interest in knowing the whole. Looking at Pacifica, the key sub-systems are the stations, and the crucial “standing committees” are the local station boards, whose powers, duties and responsibilities relate to specific stations rather than to the organization as a whole.

Another aspect of rationalization is “group think” — in other words, a lack of critical thinking that can prevent the organization from recognizing its own mistakes and limitations. In her analysis, Green noted in this regard that the roles of various Boards were unclear, that relationships were not well defined or — even if they were – didn’t determine concrete action, and that “political correctness” was often more important than skills.

3. Anonymity and Secrecy: Managers often give only general instructions, usually not concrete and therefore not requiring specific actions. People may also try to evade responsibility and seek anonymity by avoiding documentation, or creating excessive paperwork and confusing documents. Ultimately, decisions become independent of individuals. Obviously, this tends to undermine accountability.

In her analysis of Pacifica, Green talked about two forms of communication. One was the “benevolent dictator” approach, in which directives were issued without regard to appropriateness or skill. As a result: they were often ignored. The other was the “passive approach,” in which the communication was too unclear to be useful, or so indirect that concerns were more often shared informally or behind people’s backs.

The three laws of bureaucracy can, in turn, be subsumed under a single idea: that bureaucracy knows no law except necessity. Meanwhile, a combination of rigidity and inertia make decision-making slow or even impossible, delaying change, evolution and adaptation of old procedures to new circumstances. As a result, in a bureaucratic system the most effective way for a manager to promote change, given such patterns and restrictions, is to re-staff the organization with his or her own people.

What about elections? They create an impression that political channels are open. But this is largely an illusion, a belief that meaningful participation is possible in a bureaucratic organization — that bureaucracy can be controlled democracy.

Of course, Pacifica strives to be a community rather than a bureaucracy. But a community can thrive in the long term only when its members can see or at least sense their common purpose and relation to the whole; in short, experience a living togetherness that is the essence of sister and brotherhood. Few would argue that this is currently happening.

Historian William Irwin Thompson has defined the current era as a time of transition from the cultural ecology of the Atlantic, marked by a capitalist, industrial approach, to a new “Pacific ecology” that is more communal and balanced. “In the age of mental understanding of doctrine (the current Atlantic era), obedience to law is evil, for it aborts the development of the mind,” he writes. “In an age of universal compassion (the new Pacific era), understanding of doctrine becomes evil, for it simply sanctifies murder in religious warfare.”

The key factor may well be the acceptance of difference, “the consciousness of the unique that contributes to the understanding of the universal.” The main danger, on the other hand, could be what Thompson has labeled “collectivization through terror,” the stamping out of differences. Just as mono-crop agriculture does violence to nature, a mono-crop society — essentially the extreme of an industrial mentality — is deadly to human nature. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of a bureaucratic organization to disregard or marginalize dissenting opinion, even when such views suit the available data better than the opinion of the majority.

When Konrad Lorenz wrote the book On Aggression, many readers confused the word “aggression” with “violence,” even though the ethologist (student of animal behavior) emphasized that most animals avoid killing. He subsequently realized that in translating his title from German the connotation of the word “aggressivity” had been lost.

Lorenz’ insight was that both animals and humans seek some sort of dominance, in the form of a drive that differentiates all of us as individuals. “If you lack personal aggressivity,” he wrote, “you are not an individual. You have no pride in yourself.” Put another way, the collective enthusiasm that, unfortunately, produces war is also the motivator for our most creative achievements. “Without the instinct of collective enthusiasm,” noted Lorenz “a (human being) is an emotional cripple; he cannot get involved in anything.”

The point is that “aggressivity” is a potential force for constructive change. This doesn’t necessarily imply hostility or evil. When it lacks civility or purpose, of course, such a striving for dominance can produce devastation. Purpose tells us where we’re heading, and when we’ve arrived. Its absence leaves us roaming, lost, searching for victories we won’t even recognize.

That said, being “pacific” – in other words, seeking peace and opposing violence or war as a means of settling disputes – doesn’t mean rejecting all forms of conflict. On the contrary, sometimes airing conflicts can be a very healthy activity, as long as group values can be clarified and ultimately realized.

Finally, in the search for harmony, peace should not be confused with liberation. Peace can be imposed through repression – in mature bureaucracies often through aggressive “group-think” — rather than being promoted through free expression. But in the end, liberation is only possible when principled dissent and civil disagreement aren’t just tolerated but actively encouraged.

* * * *

Taking Stock

September 7, 2007

When I began work as Executive Director on January 23, 2006 – after being hired only three weeks before – the rebuilding of Pacifica’s organizational and programming infrastructure, after years of struggle, was still incomplete. At KPFA, the General Manager departed just days before I arrived, and both staff and Board were clamoring for a replacement. There was no National Technical Director; serious questions surrounded how to handle national programming; there was little cooperation between units and no clear process for developing special broadcasts; and a major lawsuit was looming. The national staff rarely met, and the only time General Managers discussed issues as a group was immediately before in-person PNB meetings. In other words, there was no ongoing, substantive coordination of key management and national staff. There were also few records in the national office explaining how management functioned and no clear record of Board decisions.

I mention this not to place any blame, and I certainly can’t take credit for many of Pacifica’s recent achievements. But since this is my last report to the Board, I believe that both a baseline and an overall review are in order. Among the changes and accomplishments that have taken place since early 2006, I include the following:

1) HIRING: An Interim General Manager for KPFA was hired, and has proven to be both competent and strong. The result is that, despite the disagreements over policy decisions you would expect, the atmosphere at this station is considerably more calm. Pacifica has also gained an excellent National Technical Director, a creative Network Programming Coordinator – after working out the scope of this new position with the Board, and a new Interim General Manager for WBAI. As promised, I’ve brought new people and ideas into the organization.

2) STAFF COOPERATION: We’ve initiated and maintained a regular schedule of productive staff meetings, and simultaneously broadening the participation in these bi-weekly work sessions. The Operations Collective has met more than 30 times, and has become one of the main forums for developing initiatives and working out problems. Ask General Managers, Program Directors, or national staff and you’ll find that they are more engaged and have developed stronger and more productive working relationships.

3) PROGRAMMING: The capacity to produce national programming has been greatly expanded. In 2006, Pacifica launched the Spanish language newscast “Informativo Pacifica,” the weekly archives show “From the Vault,” and a successful election season series, “Informed Dissent” – which can be a model for future ongoing national programming. (More than 55 producers from 15 states were involved in this 10 week series, an unprecedented example of collaborative production.) Pacifica staff – often working in teams that involved people from more than one station — also produced numerous specials – live coverage of key hearings, and broadcasts on labor, immigration, the 2006 elections, constitutional rights, race, media democracy, Palestine, gay rights, and the US Social Forum, among other topics. Pacifica is recreating its capacity to produce national programming. This Spring and Summer, the Board heard directly from staff about their ideas for the future. There is still work to be done, but we’ve come a long way in less than two years.

4) DIGITAL DEVELOPMENT: To project this new programming, as well as the diverse offerings of the stations, new and improved websites have been launched. Pete Korakis has created a content-rich main site, as well as separate websites that provide timely information about governance and the network. Pacifica still doesn’t devote sufficient resources to its digital infrastructure, but we have gained some ground. This summer, after an extended debate, we launched a digital distribution project that will have a profound impact on how Pacifica reaches audiences in the years ahead. Inexpensive storage of audio content makes it possible for listeners to “time shift” – that is, to personalize their listening habits. This emerging media landscape also makes it possible to tap more creativity and talent – to create a new kind of dialogue with listeners. If we continue to move forward, Pacifica has the potential to again use its unique position and resources to protect and expand free speech – this time by using multiple platforms and supporting the broader movement to preserve a democratic Internet.

5) PRESERVING THE LEGACY: The Pacifica Archives has not only launched a weekly program, but succeeded in having it distributed internationally. In addition, Brian DeShazor and the PRA staff have continued to promote the importance of Pacifica’s unique resource, attracting donors through creative marketing, producing specials, and even testifying before the Library of Congress. PRA is currently developing an ambitious preservation and distribution project, focusing on historic audio from the late 1960s, with the potential to influence public understanding of that crucial period.

6) NETWORK DEVELOPMENT: The Affiliates Network has expanded significantly – from less than 90 stations when I was hired to more than 125 today. This is largely due to the efforts of Ursula Ruedenberg, who has also taken the lead in making Pacifica a key part of the Radio for People Campaign — the push to have as many local groups as possible apply for new, full-power licenses next month.

7) POLICIES AND RECORDS: New policies and procedures have been implemented – concerning confidentiality, election processes, reimbursements, reporting, national broadcasts, job postings, and harassment – and in general, communication has been much more open and inclusive. The Board and the community can now see all the major decisions that have been made over the past four years, organized topically and available online. People may not always agree with such decisions or policies, but I don’t think it’s easy to argue anymore that Pacifica’s management or leadership is not transparent. I’ve also developed and regularly updated an extensive new filing system for various aspects of national management, In short, the Board and the community have been kept informed, and my successor will have the benefit of significant records on developments and issues addressed since early 2006.

ELECTIONS: In 2006, Pacifica had successful elections. There were flaws and criticism, but I say that there were successful because (a) the cost was reduced, (b) more of the process was handled in-house, (c) turnout slightly increased, and (d) no major complaints were filed. This year, the elections are off to a solid start with an increased number of candidates, a strong National Election Supervisor, and a clear, public outline of the deadlines and rules.

9) LEGAL ISSUES: I led the process of hiring a general corporate counsel, who has since helped us to control costs and keep pace with issues as they emerge. During my time here, two legal cases have been put behind us, and although there are still pending legal issues, I want to stress that — with only a few exceptions – the legal issues facing Pacifica stem for disputes that date back more than two years. I’ve commented previously on the nature of these actions and the damage they do. I urge everyone who loves this organization to look for other ways to resolve differences.

10) IMAGE: This brings us to the last point – Pacifica’s image. When I arrived, it was still known as an organization hobbled by conflict. According to a description in Wikipedia, “years of internal legal battles and financial mismanagement had taken a toll.” Since then, I believe we have begun to repair the damage. Part of my strategy has been to consistently promote the accomplishments and vision of the network by writing articles, making public appearances, issuing editorials, and attempting to serve as a credible voice for what is best about the network. There’s still a way to go, but Pacifica’s public image has improved. Earlier this year, for example, at the annual National Federation of Community Broadcasters conference, Pacifica was publicly thanked and praised rather than criticized. If you search the Internet today, you’ll see more about our stands on issues and our programming than about any lingering internecine warfare.

When you look back at the last two years, I think you will find that it was a time in which Pacifica began to rebuild its capacity and recover its self-respect. My goal was not to force radical change; I realize that some people who hoped that I would “clean house” may be disappointed with that. But it was my view that the key tasks were to rebuild trust, foster cooperation, and methodically develop – with as little disruption as possible – more proactive and collaborative programming, more efficient and effective management, and a culture of renewed civility and mutual respect.

This is certainly still a work in progress, and I’ve probably been neither as successful as some supporters claim nor as bad as critics accuse. In some cases, however, the claims of those who feels management has been ill-informed or out of control have been based on little more than bitterness and projection. What I have done, I hope, is help spur a process of reconciliation, while moving forward in some key areas, and meanwhile clarifying differences and tasks where there is still crucial work to be done.

– Greg Guma

Executive Director

January 2006 – September 2007

The bylaws amendment to alter the election timeline was approved by KPFT’s board and will go into effect for the 2009 election cycle.

The amendment to hold elections in odd numbered years only and change term length from 3 to 4 years failed before KPFT’s board.