This post now at urbanunrest.org.
10.1.07 / 9pm
I am pretty sure that Guma did not study with Murray Bookchin, unless it was for a *very* brief period in the 70s. I lived in Burlington, Vermont and worked closely with Bookchin for a number of years and can say without hesitation that Bookchin (and many others) despised the “progressive” (i.e., social democratic) politics that Guma and the people around him represented.
10.1.07 / 9pm
Thanks Chuck! I took Guma at his word on this. You raise fair points. I hope you’re well!
10.2.07 / 12am
He adds that “there are employees who are not competent working for this network.” In some cases, Guma says it’s better to dismiss them and fight the inevitable lawsuit than to continue to carry employees who do no work.
I liked Greg, basically. But he should have pushed harder to get rid of the lousy employees.
I think he should have known no matter what he did he would get shit, so why not do the right thing.
I really appreciate that he is so frank. I hope he writes it up for wide publication.
10.2.07 / 11am
Thanks, Ernesto, for documenting this exit interview. It’s the sort of thing that Pacifica Foundation ought to do with all it’s employees, but never does.
This interview contains dozens of serious and devestating indictments at how poorly Pacifica is managed, and it’s systemic problems. Just his description of the employment reviews in this network are enough to make you dizzy.
It’s a shame that Greg doesn’t leave us with a list of names. He talks about the delusional people, the incompetant employees and at one station whose local boards and Directors blocked him at every step. (I would venture to guess it was WBAI.) But even under his humiliating departure, he’s managed to uphold the same secrecy that is part of the problem. There are so many secrets in Pacifica about it’s internal failures. The network constantly rants about the failings and greed and crimes of the right wing or big corporations, but seems unwilling to face it’s own shortcomings.
In LA, Greg told me that the PNB had pushed him out, but I heard him tell Bertold that he didn’t want to make it public and “embarass the PNB.” So, there you have it. He warns the next ED to make the tough calls, but he was unwilling to do that himself, so how likely is it that we can expect anything different from the next ED?
Pacifica was formed around altruistic concepts, but it functions far from it’s potential because of the self-interests and inadequacies of our volunteers and staff. Many of the things Greg talks about have been on the table for 20 years now. Pacific and traded leadership, hired consultants, gone on retreats, solicited input to death. Everyone knows the problems, the conflicts, the opposing agendas, but it seems impossible to get a team of leadership and management who can work together, sort their way through the war zone, and create a valid operation. Instead, power is grabbed, dirty politics rule the day, there is an utter lack of respect for individuals and fair play, there is very poor management which results in a nearly systemic low morale among staff. But worst of all, there are millions upon millions of our potential listening public who are turned off by our programming at a time when we are in desparate need of finding the best and most forward thinkers to address the many social and global ills and the artists who have gifts to give.
I think that Pacifica is a sad indictment on the lack of cohesive can-do competancy of the progressive left. It has the right ideas, but is apparently unable to put those ideas into practice on anything more than an amateur and noisy sideshow. Pacifica is a vulnerable organization that, by definition, cannot impose a consistant level of quality. imho, the new structure has made it even more difficult to make the necessary changes. So far, those who tried to “save Pacifica” have only made it worse.
Thanks again, Ernesto, for your initiative in putting this interview together. I enjoy your blog very much and applaud your good work.
Nalini Lasiewicz
http://www.kpftChat.org
10.2.07 / 1pm
Thanks for posting this, Ernesto.
Obviously, there will be different points of view about what was or should have been done. My comments and opinions were provided simply to help people understand what it felt like to view Pacifica’s operations from a management” perspective. Since the interview was recorded more than a month ago, I also want to say that I believe the selection of Nicole Sawaya represents a step in the right direction, and am glad I was able to play a small role in moving Pacifica to this point.
I must, however, take issue with Chuck’s statement about my relationship with Murray Bookchin, which began in the mid-70s and continued throughout the 1980s. We were good friends during that time, and worked together within the Clamshell Alliance, on creating neighborhood councils in Burlington, and fighting against longer terms for Vermont politicians, among other projects. Murray refered to my research in his writing, and I learned much from our professional and personal relationship.
To describe my politics as social democratic is laughable, as I was an early critic of the Sanders administraton (chronicled in my book on Vermont, “The People’s Republic” 
and worked with a variety of radical and anarchist groups. My play, “Inquisitions (and Other Un-American Activities)”, as well as other writing, describes my politics.
However, I do agree that Murray disapproved of Vermont’s progressive movement. I remember well when he “broke” with Bernie Sanders. In fact, that viewpoint — sometimes expressed in vitriolic ways — did eventually lead to a split between us.
In late 1989, after my Vermont book was published and while I was coordinator of the Peace and Justice Center in Burlington, a special election was held to fill a vacant city council seat. I was asked to run by the Progressives, but delayed a decision in deference to the Green Party, which was considering a decision to field a candidate. They eventually decided not to enter the race, and I was then also asked by the Democrats to run. My intention was a fusion campaign with a “green” platform, since I had held these beliefs for many years. But I also hoped to win, so I accepted both party endorsements, while opposing new road building and calling for a moratorium on urban redevelopment. The head of the Republican Party went to the media and denounced me publicly as a “serious professional revolutionary anarchist,” a phrase I subsequently used with pride on a campaign button.
Murray was nevertheless incensed, and called a press conference to denounce what he viewed as proof that there was “no difference” between Progressives and Democrats. I received 42% — not enough to win — and the decision to run did harm our friendship, though we reconciled before his death.
I loved Murray, and learned much from him, as I have also from Dave Dellinger, Grace Paley, and other radicals who lived in Vermont. But Murray also showed me that ideological zealotry can be divisive and destructive. I feel that he spent too much time denouncing those whose approach (or occasional tactics) didn’t conform to his social ecological theory and vision. In a way, he reminds me of some Pacificans who feel that rival “factions” must be denounced as fascist, reactionary, racist, and so on. Like some I’ve met in Pacifica, Murray had trouble disagreeing without “splitting.”
Nevertheless, we were comrades for a time, and I also had friendly relationships with members of his family, especially Bea, Debbie and Joey. Thus, I must take issue with Chuck’s charge that my association with Murray must be somehow false. We had our differences, but we also shared many good times and struggled together.
Chuck’s indirect attack on so-called people “around” me is also deceptive. One might ask, who is he talking about? Bernie Sanders? We certainly had our differences. The entire progressive community? I have worked within many activist movements, as well as with many publications and media outlets. Did Murray despise the IMCs, the anti-globalization movement, campaigns for peace and disarmament? Hardly.
One brief reminiscence: When I and dozens of others were arrested for blocking arms shipments out of a Burlington defense plant in 1983, Murray immediately drove to the police station to pick up us and take us back to the plant gate. It was a great day, one of many we shared.
I can certainly accept criticism that I should have done things differently or better while ED. But I can’t remain silent about misleading statements concerning an old friend.
10.3.07 / 11am
Next
10.4.07 / 12am
ernesto:
* excellent interview. one could argue, more for the sake of history, than anything else.
for those who don’t know–a large group, indeed–your interview was one of the things pacifica was supposed to be about: an important topic, fully explored without regard to dogma, litmus testing, ideological considerations or fear of the truth. pity it took so long.
also rather glad to see it came from houston, eh?
pacifica became a surrogate-religion masquerading as a radio network a number of years ago. for a host of reasons, since then, it has appealed to a variety of self-selected, development disorder miscreants, many of whom despise themselves in a variety of totalitarian ways. how that happened is quite interesting anthropologically, but that’s another conversation.
your interview provided greg guma the opportunity that he very much needed + wanted to speak the long-overdue truth to power about the above, about the network’s duplicitous leaders + its now-sadly distorted mission. one can only hope that over time–as he marinates further in his pacifica experience– that he will have more to say on the matter.
again, a memorable interview, ernesto. a good job + better history. the future thanx you.
gg
10.4.07 / 9pm
After having read the comments above, I realize that I didn’t thank Greg as well for his candor. At least he left Pacifica with an excellent collection of reports and recommendations. That is far better than what we got from our other recent Executive Directors.
Good luck, Greg Guma. And enjoy yourself. After Pacifica, I’m sure you’ll need a good rest and some TLC. Thanks again.
Regards,
NL
10.6.07 / 10am
A few notes in reply:
@Greg Gieselman: Your feedback on this is appreciated. Since the interview was posted I (and I hope Greg too) have been contacted by various folks presumably referenced in the interview, disputing Greg’s interpretations or versions of happenings. I’ve invited some to post replies. None have, to this point, posted. I hope those with different interpretations take the time to speak up.
I think Guma lays out a diverse range of issues in which the participants aren’t simply a single camp. In that sense, Guma’s perspective is refreshing. He bastes the board for perceived slights, as well as staff for what seem to be matters of vision (e.g. programming evolution). In many cases, I agree with him, though I also see the position of national staff and station management, which is simultaneously under fire (by the same boards, in many cases) to develop/change programming (often at the cost of displacing shows that are popular with listeners or serve important constituencies) and to keep stations successful on the finance and outreach fronts; to keep stations open to everyone, while maintaining a level of order that protects the foundation’s liability but is largely disliked for the exclusivity it engenders; to produce great programming while supporting almost complete autonomy for programmers, even at the cost of doing less than great programming, et al. Unacknowledged, but presumably a factor in Guma’s analysis, is the intersection of such ideological and practical considerations among the internal battles he details. Probably worth a much longer series of posts, as I don’t think some of those points are mutually exclusive, but Guma does raise great questions for which answers are provocative and worth exploring.
I’m unsure if the failures are so much the fault of one group or another are communications breakdowns, mistrust and unwillingness to offer one another the benefit of the doubt. Again, probably this is worth exploring more fully too.
@Nalini: Appreciate and concur with many of your assertions and efforts. The deep divisions faced in attempting to envision a new language and organizational culture perhaps rendered efforts to change the culture ineffective. At the very least, as Guma notes, it seemed incredibly frustrating. I could speculate about who he’s specifically referring to, but ultimately, I do think we’re looking at issues larger than a few people or even stations. I believe we’re often wrangling with how to create a space in which all our diverse views are respected, or if indeed that’s what we want, and whether the ED is as much a visionary and supervisor of upper management or whether the role is, as Greg puts it in the interview, a caretaker of board decisions, or both and to what extent. In addition, Pacifica is still struggling with suspicion (some as legacies of our stormy past, others of which people cite current history) for which everyone can lay blame, but few wish to take ownership in setting aside old differences and correcting. As you remark on the Left’s history, maybe this is an outgrowth of such. Hard to say, but you certainly raise salient points.
Per your sideshow comments, I think my viewpoint differs only slightly in that, though I agree a management team could be pulled together to navigate the firestorm, my hope is that we collectively shift the culture more to working together. I am keenly aware that Pacifica, over the last 20 years, has attracted opinionated people (as well as people who, arguably, may inherently be inadequate or self-interested by virtue of being imperfect humans). Yet, though we get focused quite a bit at times on the strong opinions and individual failures, we probably need to try more to focus on shared values: listening, trusting one another to do the jobs each was elected or hired to do (in spite of pasts imperfect), compromising with each other in the interests of better stations, etc. As a Pacifica management type, I recognize we, more than others, need to model such a change. However, such basic principles need to guide us all a lot more. You’re far better than most at sticking to issues, but I’m certain you’ve seen the personalized and often nasty, uninformed and misleading nature of many of our dialogues, whether it’s at board meetings or message boards. Our approach as a whole has to change.
Appreciate you crossposting your original comments and the interview as well. I regularly monitor most of the lists and boards, and am glad people got to hear Greg’s thoughts. Thanks.
@Greg Guma: Thanks for coming by to clarify some important history, and for the congenial words during our interview. I appreciated your acknowledgment of efforts here to cooperate with national programming initiatives (I’m proud to say KPFT airs virtually all national specials where many others don’t, and we’ve created a lot this year too). I do believe you contributed what we needed to get to a better space and, while any of us can find fault with your work, few of us could do it without going a bit mad. Thank you again for all you did and for your ongoing efforts for a more just world.
10.6.07 / 11pm
This interview will be a valuable document for the incoming ED as well as for anyone interested in the functioning and malfunctioning of Pacifica. His slight revealing of the politics surrounding the ED has been a fascinating look behind the curtain. His idea to air our ‘’dirty laundry’ is laudable in my estimation. I only wish it had been recorded professionally so I could play it on the air. I did send the URL to the entire KPFK staff for their edification.
Of course I oppose Guma’s suicidal program to combat ‘careerism’ amongst the programmers. It sounds good, but he evidently gave zero thought to my talk before the national board when I stressed that we shouldn’t be overly focused on our side of the microphone. There are listeners too, and among them, there are our sponsors. To replace successful programs with newbies every year or two or three is a policy that fires our sponsors. It takes that year or two to even establish an audience. And to routinely eliminate programs to give Joe and Mary Smith a chance to be on the air is to eliminate their audiences too, which effectively eliminates our income. The audience comes with the program, NOT with the program time. New programs can hold the audience for about 5 minutes, and that is not enough to carry them to the next fund drive.
Yes, radio stations change their formats frequently. But radio stations do not change successful formats. Training programs can be valuable, and to see Pacifica as an educational institution is an important point of view. But we should not limit our educating to the dozens of people who want to learn how to produce radio,. There is an audience of many more people who should be our focus.
I think Greg is well meaning, but this particular view is an example of why our future officers should have radio experience.
10.8.07 / 6pm
For those interested, Chuck Morse wrote a new piece on Murray Bookchin:
10.13.07 / 4pm
A huge effort.
Thanks for making this available.
Yes, we must improve.
-Gavin Dahl
KAOS Olympia volunteer
Northwest Community Radio Network volunteer
10.14.07 / 11pm
Why was this not recorded for radio? This sort of candor and transparency is what the network needs to hear to begin a open discussion on what is this network and where do we want to go. Do we want to be a group of stations sharing “Democracy Now” or do we want to be more?
10.22.07 / 3pm
It seems to me that Guma arrived at his post with an overemphasis on his voice; when in fact it would have been more suitable mediator of sorts. I make this point without intending to insult Greg Guma, but moreover to highlight the notion that his gift of voice is simply more effective in the broader world of freelance journalism. KPFA should remain for the most part locally focused, because it’s located in the progressive nucleus of the planet. If the appropriate changes to ensure our ill planet’s recovery are made they will continue to spawn from the actions of Pacificans and San franciscans.
10.22.07 / 3pm
I’d like to restate my last sentence ending as Bay Area residents.
12.6.07 / 11pm
Mr. Guma is only the latest in the long history of White domination of the community airwaves that some folks call Pacifica. What they call Pacifica was founded on White Supremacy and as long as the insitution perpetuates this Racism, there will be no real Justice. And that is the purpose of the community airwaves. If we cannot get justice then what are we fighting for?
And did someone not say that this “objective interview” was not on the air of any Pacifica radio station for a good reason. I challenge Mr. Guma to say what the same things on WBAI. One of the best and most experienced interviewers in all of Pacifica, Mr. Bernard White, would give Mr Guma a level playing field.
FREE MUMIA!!
6.15.08 / 12pm
It was a surprise to hear that Greg Guma became Executive Director of Pacifica…but no surprise that he left in a turmoil. Where ever Guma goes he searches, divides and destroys! Guma is a catalist for disrupting everything and everyone around him but has a persuasive way of talking his way into people’s private lives and organizations. His pen and mouth, though poison, is mezmorizing and hipnotic at times. He is bad news for everyone on every issue once he gets his foot in the door. He is well documented when he first started out after graduating from Syracuse University in 1968 and set up for the first time in Bennington, Vermont as a reporter for the Bennington Banner. He left divisions in the community that still are at odds with each other. He professed interest in environmental issues and historic preservation but never once achieved anything but the destruction of both locally. He is persuasive but now convincing. Once he milked Bennington for all he could get out of it he left the disaster he created, blaming everyone but himself for failure, to try his hand in Burlington, Vermont situating himself in the middle of UVM student activities, which he was good at disrupting, dividing and destroying with his diatribes and disguised interest in saving the planet. Naturally he would go after all the political pundits and look for government election if he could but he isn’t leadership oriented. Guma should take a good rest somewhere in the most remote part of the frozen tundra of Alaska in a cave and be deprived of his computer for the rest of his life. There is nothing more for him to say. He has managed to disrupt all he touches but manages to get sympathy and pity by pretending he is a good-intentioned, sensitive and artistic minded person. He is now an aging monkey that sees only evil, hears only evil and speaks only evil….the kind of aged monkey that quietly walks up to you, climbs your leg, sinks his fangs into your hand and takes the bag of peanuts from it…then slowly walks back to his place on the steps and and looks you in the eye as he eats the contents not leaving or sharing anything with the other monkeys.
Pacifica should be thrilled to get rid of him.
6.15.08 / 12pm
Tzaims Luksus, Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, London. Founder & Director: Vermont Foundation of the Arts, Vermont Academy of the Fine Arts, Vermont Academy of Music, Bennington Opera House, Bennington Council on the Arts.
6.15.08 / 12pm
GREG GUMA: BENNINGTON’S HIPPY GADFLY, Political Fiction Writer on TZAIMS BLOG.
http://tzaims.blogspot.com/
6.16.08 / 2pm
GREG GUMA: THE LORD OF MISCHIEVOUS WISDOM on
http://om-budsman.blogspot.com/
6.17.08 / 5pm
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
21 Comments
Jump to comment form | comments rss [?] | trackback uri [?]