1
OPEN LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON FAIR ELECTIONS:
BYLAWS & RULES VIOLATED IN KPFA BOARD ELECTION
KPFA’s recent Local Station Board (LSB) election was not
the example of media democracy it was designed to be. This LSB election:
• Was not conducted in conformity with
the Pacifica Bylaws;
• Was corrupted by KPFA and Pacifica management and some staff
intentionally violating rules to get votes for their allies' slate:
• Did not provide adequate information about the candidates
to enable voters to make educated choices;
• Did not provide ballots to many eligible voters in a timely
manner.
New bylaws were adopted after the 1999 “hijacking”
attempt was defeated by mass listener activity to protect and preserve
KPFA and Pacifica. These Bylaws incorporated fair elections of governing
boards for each station to eliminate the prior practice of self-appointing
boards, which led to the crisis in the 1990s.
Every subscriber and staffer, whatever their views on the issues and
candidates, has a right to expect that the process by which we select
our governing board will be fair, open, and orderly, in accordance with
the Fair Campaign Provisions established by Pacifica's bylaws and election
supervisors; that the information voters need to make an informed choice
will be available in a timely way; and that all candidates will be afforded
an equal opportunity to present their views and their qualifications
to the voters.
IN REALITY, THE PROCESS HAS FALLEN FAR SHORT
OF THESE STANDARDS:
Management influence and improper use of station resources:
The 2007 Fair Campaign Provisions, which every staff member, including
managers, was required to read and sign, state that "No Foundation
or radio station management or staff (paid or unpaid) or any other person
may use or permit the use of radio station air time, website space,
email lists, or other resources to endorse, campaign for or against,
promote or disparage, or recommend in favor of or against any candidate
for election as a Local Station Board." Yet on October 24, just
over a week after ballots were mailed to listener-sponsors, KPFA and
the other Pacifica stations posted on their websites an open letter
from Dan Siegel, then Interim Executive Director of the Pacifica Foundation,
with the admitted objective of influencing voters’ choices: the
letter directly disparaged one easily identifiable group of KPFA candidates,
denouncing their strongly stated but clearly political free speech criticisms
of some station personnel and management-allied LSB members, as "abusive,"
"hateful," "personal attacks." This letter remained
prominently featured on the KPFA website for more than a week, and was
never removed from the National Elections Web page, to which KPFA's
was linked.
Siegel's was not the only serious violation of the Fair Campaign Provision
quoted above. On October 30, veteran programmer Larry Bensky used a
KPFA e-mail list and server to send out to an as yet unknown number
of voters a message endorsing one slate of candidates and attacking
the incumbent board.
Defiance of supervisors' authority:
In the event of any violation of the Fair Campaign Provisions, the Pacifica
bylaws say "the local elections supervisor and the national elections
supervisor shall determine, in good faith and at their sole discretion,
an appropriate remedy." In response to Bensky's blatant violation
of the rules, the election supervisors devised a partial remedy, instructing
station management to allow each competing slate to send a 300-word
message of their own to the same e-mail list Bensky used. The slates
promptly produced their proposed messages, but KPFA's managers simply
stonewalled, refusing to take the steps necessary to get these messages
sent out on the list. As the National Election Supervisor eventually
ruled – after the ballot deadline - this refusal to comply with
the Election Supervisor’s order amounted to nothing less than
"obstruction of the governance of the foundation."
Inadequate information:
Without understanding of the issues at stake in LSB elections or of
the views of the candidates, listener-sponsors can't make meaningful
choices. The candidate statements mailed to listeners-subscribers with
their ballots go only a small part of the way toward meeting this need;
on-air candidate forums and announcements and in-person events are also
essential for informing the electorate. After past elections, there
have been both widespread sentiment and reports by election supervisors
calling for more such events and publicity,
but this year KPFA had less than ever before.
Only one two-part on-air forum was held before ballots were mailed to
listener-subscribers, but it was poorly publicized in advance, and afterwards
the audio archives were not posted at the station website for weeks.
Candidates were required to respond to a detailed questionnaire about
their views and experience, but their responses were not posted online
until the voting period was almost over. Candidate statements were posted
briefly, but then removed from the web for much of the voting period.
During the fall fund drive, which ran from Oct. 16 to Nov. 2, the station
provided no information whatsoever about the election,
on the dubious grounds that election information can't be combined with
fund-raising. KPFT in Houston does both.
Even after the drive ended, station management did not
begin airing candidates' pre-recorded statements until less than a week
remained in the voting period, and then there was no transparent system
to ensure all candidates' carts got equal treatment. Management even
tried to satisfy its obligation to air the carts by playing them all
in a bloc –21 in a row - an approach guaranteed to minimize listenership,
and one that was particularly unfair to the candidates whose statements
were aired last. The management-allied slate's number-one candidate
had her statement played first on the list of 21. Only one in-person
candidate event was organized, in Berkeley, and it received very little
publicity over the air.
The black-out of election information during the fund drive was especially
damaging: it left voters with minimal information when they first received
their ballots, thus magnifying the advantage of the KPFA management-backed,
"Concerned Listeners" slate, that spent thousands of dollars
to send its own carefully-timed mailing to arrive with the ballots during
the black-out.
Failure to provide ballots to all eligible voters:
While, as in past elections, many listener-sponsors reported not receiving
ballot packets, the problem is – still – particularly acute
among volunteers voting in the staff elections, because management failed
in its duty to provide a timely, accurate, and complete list of the
unpaid staff. As recently as Nov. 29, after the elections should have
been closed, more than 40 unpaid staff members had not received a ballot;
on the other hand, members of management, who were not entitled to vote
at all, did receive ballots. The election supervisors have had to extend
the election deadline several times, but it still appears that many
eligible staffers will not receive ballots before the election finally
closes.
KPFA and Pacifica listeners fought hard for the right to elect their
governing boards, and for good reasons: to prevent a recurrence of the
kind of takeover that occurred in the 1990s; to give the listeners whose
support keeps the station and network afloat a way to shape their direction;
and to demonstrate that communities can govern themselves. All these
reasons remain valid today. We are deeply dismayed that some powerful
elements within the KPFA community have shown themselves willing to
subvert our hard-won bylaws and abandon basic principles of fairness
and democracy.
We
are collecting as many signatures to this statement as possible -
If you would like to support fair elections at
KPFA/Pacifica send contact information to Committee for Fair Elections
at
fair_elections@yahoo.com
Fair Election Committee member endorsers: (in progress)
Richard Phelps**, Henry Norr, Stan Woods, Akio Tanaka, Noelle Hanrahan,
Joe Wanzala, Attila Nagy, LaVarn Williams*, Chandra Hauptman* **, CURRENT
BOARD MEMBERS (*also PNB);
Carol Spooner, Steve Conley. Gerald Sanders, Sepideh Khosrowjah, Maria
Gilardin, FORMER BOARD MEMBERS;
Tracy Rosenberg**, KPFA LOCAL ELECTION SUPERVISOR 2006 ;
Bob English, Dave Heller, Mara Rivera, Steve Zeltzer, Carl Bryant, CC
Campbell Rock, 2007 BOARD CANDIDATES;
Linda Hewitt, Virginia Browning, Daniel Borgstrom, Steve Gilmartin,
Gregory Wonderwheel, Jim Curtis, Stephen Kessler, LISTENER MEMBERS
Adrienne Lauby, Anthony Fest, Ruthanne Shpiner, STAFF MEMBERS;
Molly Beyea, Chuck O’Neil, Janet Kobren, CR (Bob) Briscoe, Ann
Garrison, Rabea Chaudhary, Dianne Budd, Laura Wells, Lou Gold, Tim Modok-Pearson,
Peter Broadwell, David Keenan, Bill Carpenter, Barbara Deutsch, Barry
Deutsch, Steve Morse, Karen Engel, Mishwa Lee, Barbara Ruth, J.T. Rehbock,
Vic Saravia, Tony Brasunas, Margaret Browne, Tony Sustak, Lucienne O’Keefe,
Mike Donaldson, Mark Boynton, Neil MacLean, LISTENER SUPPORTERS.
** Re-elected in preliminary (uncertified) results
December 7, 2007
2
Dear NES Casey Peters,
As KPFA LSB candidates, current and former LSB listener representatives,
KPFA community members and listeners, we urge you to consider and immediately
implement significant, effective action to address the numerous, blatant
and critical election campaign violations and irregularities that have
prejudiced, tainted and subverted the KPFA LSB election to the point of
invalidating the vote count results.
Many of these violations are documented in candidate complaints filed
with you and local election supervisors, most of which are apparently
not yet fully investigated, reviewed or resolved. For a collection and
typical examples, you may refer below to a summary of complaint materials
previously and to be submitted by candidate Bob English.
The complaint materials, along with observations and documentation by
the LES and member volunteers involved in the election, reveal a myriad
array of unfair campaign practices, manipulations, interventions and “dirty
tricks,” as well as suppression (rather than promotion) of election/candidate
information and activity and voter participation (possibly including ballot
issuance). All of the above has been coordinated and conducted by elements
of Pacifica and KPFA management, key staff and allies – all to the
benefit of the single candidate slate they recruited, aided in fundraising
and supported during the election - and amounts to a fundamental corruption
of the democratic election process and results, which must be regulated
and remedied immediately and long term by the election supervisors with
Pacifica enforcement support, policy and by-laws amendment solutions from
the PNB and membership.
Please also refer below to the letter to the PNB from a KPFA member who
demands a new and fair election. We believe a careful reading and understanding
of this letter and it's extended application and significance does more
than anything we can say to highlight and emphasize the critical need
for an election resolution that is seen by the KPFA members as fair and
just, rather than expedient and corrupted.
Casey, in this light and for the sake of ensuring the absolute and hard
fought right of Pacifica members to clean, fair elections of representatives
now and in future elections, we suggest at this point you have limited
but effective, productive and fair options in terms of resolving complaints
and certifying or not certifying the elections results per the
Pacifica by-laws:
1. Declare that the results cannot, will not be certified
according to the by-law deadline due to massive and critical election
violations and irregularities, both known/established and alleged, and
due to currently unresolved campaign practices complaints and non-compliance
with violation penalties. The election can’t be certified until
at least the primary complaints are investigated and resolved by the imposition
of appropriate penalties and remedies, including remedies that could significantly
affect the vote count and results. In this respect, we note that
continued stonewalling non-compliance by KPFA management and staff with
your ruling and remedy for a primary violation, allowing Larry Bensky
on-air recently and continuing to deny access by three slates to the abused
KPFA e-mail list, is now subject to non-certification of election results.
2. If the results are to be certified, an effective
vote modifying remedy and/or penalty - appropriate to the nature and impact
of the violations and designed to reasonably offset or balance an unfair
vote advantage resulting from the primary established violations, including
the Dan Siegel letter and Bensky e-mail violation - must be applied to
and integrated with the final vote count and processing. I believe you
have received a proposal for such a vote tally penalty. A first step in
determining and applying such a remedy for the Bensky violation, for instance,
would be obtaining the e-mail list to count the number of members
who received the message recommending one slate, Concerned Listeners (CL),
then count or estimate the number of such members who actually voted
for that slate, then remove an appropriate number of that slate only ballots
to approximate the damage done by the Bensky violation, and finally run
the remaining ballots through the computer for a new count. Although some
CL supporters or candidates will complain, they - rather than the victims
of the illegal election conduct - would have the option and burden of
going to court. A proportional vote adjustment or mathematical handicap
could be established and built into the STV program.
We would of course prefer not to be compelled by certification
of clearly tainted or fraudulent election results - and by our long term
commitment to the integrity and continuity of fair democratic elections
in Pacifica – into alternative, less palatable remedies, notably
a lawsuit for a court restraining order, which may be necessary
but detrimental to all concerned: to KPFA and the Pacifica foundation
and membership, to the credibility of our democratic election process
and institutions, the credibility and reputation of responsible election
supervisors, adversely effected candidates who would unjustly have to
bear the burden and expense of legal action (rather than the candidates
who clearly benefited from violations), as well as to the credibility
of the questionably elected candidates and the legitimacy of the newly
constituted LSB.
Therefore we urge you to carefully consider and weigh these options.
Please reply to inform us of your pending decision and action. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steve Conley,** Atilla Nagy,* Richard Phelps* (re-elected), Gerald
Sanders,** Joe Wanzala,* Stan Woods*, Sureya Sayadi (elected), Riva Enteen,**
LaVarn Williams* , Maria Gilardin**
Carl Bryant, CC Campbell Rock, Bob English, Dave Heller, Mara Rivera,
Steve Zeltzer (2007 KPFA LSB Candidates);
Daniel Borgstrom, Molly Beyea, Virginia Browning, Bill Carpenter, Jim
Curtis, Maxine Doogan, Linda Hewitt, Hep Ingram, Steve Gilmartin.
(*incumbents, **former LSB members)
3
Subject: Bensky banned
To: Pacifica National Board
Attention:
Larry Bensky is banned from Pacifica airwaves.
Please respect this ruling, which Mr. Bensky brought upon himself by
violating the Fair Campaign Provisions then refusing to cooperate with
the remedy to the violation.
If Mr. Bensky appears on the Pacifica Archives Fundraiser or any other
Pacifica broadcast prior to January 31, 2008, or the end of my term
as National Elections Supervisor, whichever is later, the results of
the 2007 KPFA listener sponsor election will be voided.
-- Casey Peters
National Elections Supervisor
Pacifica Foundation
4
Larry
Bensky sent this letter to his KPFA email list, urging people to vote
for the Concerned Listeners slate. This is a misuse of station resources,
according to the Fair Campaign Provisions - see #3 below, relevant portions
in bold.
The
programmers have an advantage in influencing the listener election,
since they are well known, loved, and trusted by their listeners. The
Fair Campaign Provisions are an attempt to limit their advantage of
one-sided easy access to listeners through station resources.
Casey
Peters then had to design a remedy to the violation, by offering the
other slates a mailing to Bensky's list; however, Bensky compounded
the violation by not providing the list. Management is also implicated
in not obtaining the list.
The Bensky election violation
">>> Sender: bensky-bounces@lists.kpfa.org>>>
Errors-To:
bensky-bounces@lists.kpfa.org>>> Hello, everybody,
Please forgive the group e-mail, but I have received a number of inquiries
about the current KPFA election, and I can't possibly reply in detail
to all the thoughtful questions that people are asking.
First of all, I have endorsed the slate of candidates being presented
by Concerned Listeners (www.concernedlisteners.org). I've done this
because I know and respect many of these candidates. I also know, and
respect, those who have worked hard putting together this diverse and
talented group of people.
But most of all, I - and many of our most valuable KPFA staffers -
have endorsed this list because we believe it's the best hope we have
for putting a sane, dedicated, and supportive Local Station Board in
place.
It's no secret that I've been alarmed at what has become of our Local
Advisory Boards under the guise of "democracy." Instead of
the varied groups of people with whom I'd worked since first starting
as a programmer in 1969, the re-configuration into the current structure
has produced absolutely nothing of supportive value. Instead, we have
an impossibly complicated election procedure with minimal qualifications
for candidates and inadequate information for listener/voters. This
flawed process has produced minimal participation from listeners and
a complete disconnect between those unrepresentative people elected
and almost all of those of us who do the work at KPFA.
It's even worse than that. There is little or no financial oversight.
There is minimal communication of such basic information as board agendas
and minutes. And a quarrelsome, wasteful series of meetings that produce
abusive interactions and nothing of value.
I strongly believe that if we can elect the Concerned Listeners slate,
that can change.
Please vote for them. And urge all those you know to do so as well!
Thanks, as always, for your attention, and support!
Best,
Larry _______________________________________________
>>> Bensky List>>> To Unsubscribe, send an email
to
bensky-request@lists.kpfa.org with the word unsubscribe as the subject
This is one of the 300 word responses to the Bensky email authorized
by the NES, Casey Peters. to be sent out to the same KPFA list. These
were never sent because of noncooperation in providing the list.
REPLY TO LARRY BENSKY by People's
Radio (emphasis added )
Recently Larry Bensky sent a letter to his email list
endorsing the Concerned Listener slate of candidates for the KPFA Local
Station Board. In doing so, he violated a campaign rule that KPFA staff
members may not endorse listener candidates via email (although he no
longer hosts a weekly program, Bensky still does occasional work for
the station, such as hosting the live broadcast of the FCC’s Seattle
hearing on Friday November 9). For the sake of equal time, the Election
Supervisor has authorized this response to be sent to the email list
on behalf of the Peoples Radio candidates.
Bensky wrote, “There is little or no financial oversight. There
is minimal communication of such basic information as board agendas
and minutes.” He then said, “I strongly believe that if
we can elect the Concerned Listeners slate, that can change.”
*What Bensky doesn’t mention
is that the Concerned Listeners and their allies already have a majority
on the board, and hold all four of the board’s officer positions
(Chair, Vice-chair, Secretary, and Treasurer).
If the board has done so poorly under the control of this slate, why
should voters elect more of them??
Moreover, anyone who has heard the on-air candidate forums must
have noticed that many of this year’s Concerned
Listener candidates have no previous connection with KPFA, and aren’t
even familiar with the issues.
KPFA subscribers who believe in democracy should vote
for the People’s Radio candidates. Stan Woods, Attila Nagy, Richard
Phelps, Dave Heller, Mara Rivera, Gerald Sanders and Bob English all
have long histories of service to KPFA and Pacifica. People’s
Radio stands for listener participation in decision-making, and accountability
by station management. See the People’s Radio platform at www.peoplesradio.net.
Please vote for People’s Radio candidates, and mail your ballot
today!
More
criticism of Bensky letter from Bob English
a)
Management, programmers, allies and Bensky himself responsible for
many of the deficiencies of the democratic process which he cites.
b) Qualifications and Pacifica/KPFA experience of pro-democracy
candidates (including some supporting Bensky and staff when fired and
locked out in 1999, others serving for many years as volunteers, on
committees and elected boards) vs. CL candidates non-involvement
with Pacifica and non-attendance of LSB meetings.
c) Partial list of positive LSB contributions include budget
review, GM nominations; resolutions on DN!, USPO, PC, meeting locations,
community carts, etc (some ignored by management).
d) CL hasn’t done or changed anything while in the majority and
has no plan or intention of remedying the LSB stagnation or changing
the station/management/ programming status quo which CL is recruited
to support.
5
Pacifica 2007 Fair Campaign Provisions
for Programmers, Staff and Management [emphasis added]
The Pacifica Foundation Bylaws require every
staff member (paid and unpaid), including all managers and
programmers, to sign this statement that they have read and understood
these fair campaign provisions for the 2007 Local Station Board elections.
Any programmer who does not sign and abide by these provisions may
be sanctioned up to and including being removed from Pacifica airwaves
by the National Elections Supervisor through the end of the NES term
in January 2008.
Any member of management or paid staff who does not sign and abide
by these provisions may have a letter from the National Elections
Supervisor and the Executive Director of the Foundation placed in
their personnel file regarding noncooperation or interference with
the governance of the Foundation.
1. All candidates for election as a Listener-Sponsor Delegate shall
be given equal opportunity for equivalent air time, which shall include
time for a statement by the candidate and a question-and-answer period
with call-in listeners.
2. No Foundation or radio station management or staff (paid
or unpaid) or any other person may use or permit the use of radio
station air time, website space, email lists, or other resources to
endorse, campaign for or against, promote or disparage, or recommend
in favor of or against any candidate for election as a Local Station
Board Delegate, nor may any air time, website or email lists space
be made available to some Listener-Sponsor Delegate candidates but
not to others. This also applies to prospective candidates
from the opening of nominations on July 25, 2007.
3. Foundation and radio station resources including, but not
limited to, staff services, access to equipment, and meeting space
may be provided to all candidates equally via the Local Elections
Supervisor. They may not be provided unequally.
4. Programmers may not use airtime to refer listeners to any website
where reference to a specific candidate is made, either explicitly
or via hyperlink to another web page. This directive includes all
websites linked through any Foundation or radio station website. Programmers
and staff may not endorse Listener Sponsor candidates via email.
“I have read and understood the above Pacifica 2007 Fair Campaign
Provisions.”x___________________________________________ date
_____________________
printed name: __________________________________________________________
position/ program _______________________________________________________
Please be advised that these provisions are subject to change per the
National Elections Supervisor.
6
Earlier
in the election cycle the interim Executive Director wrote a letter
characterizing the People's Radio booklet joint statement as personal
attacks, toxic, abusive, and hateful speech, and advocating that listeners
not vote for them.
Gregory Wonderwheel explains below how this violates the intent of the
Pacifica Bylaws.
This
statement remained up on the KPFA and Pacifica websites, in place of
candidates' statements which were not posted for several weeks, while
carts and texts were examined to censor or process any disparaging speech
or naming of names.
While
critical statements about other people may not be included in polite
discourse, it is essential in electoral campaigns, where people can
read good sounding statements of purpose, lacking in substance, but
not learn the record of candidates' actions from them.
An Open Letter to the Pacifica Community
From Dan Siegel, Interim Executive Director
October 24, 2007
Dear Friends,
Pacifica's local station board elections have taken a particularly nasty
turn. A group of candidates running for the KPFA local board have issued
statements that contain little more than personal attacks on their opponents
and station staff. A candidate at WBAI engages in blatant race-baiting.
As a community and a progressive organization we must ask ourselves
whether this type of rhetoric is acceptable. Pacifica has important
challenges. We live in a nation whose leaders wage unjust and unpopular
wars around the globe, attack our civil rights and liberties, oppose
efforts to achieve racial justice and equality for all people, and pursue
policies that widen the gap between rich and poor. The often toxic debate
within Pacifica restricts our ability to respond to these issues, saps
the morale of our hard-working and underpaid staff, and discourages
people of good will from participating in our organization.
Many people are now calling for administrative and legal responses to
abusive candidate speech. We are reviewing our options, but libel laws,
difficulties in distinguishing between reasonable criticism and "personal
attacks" (as well as deciding who should be empowered to make such
judgments), and Pacifica's tradition of support for free speech make
such measures problematic.
In the end, Pacifica's members will decide whether hate speech and hateful
speech will be tolerated in our community. We need leaders who will
work to improve our programming, broaden our listener base, and attract
needed financial support. I urge all of you to carefully review the
candidate statements and to cast your ballots for candidates who reflect
both your views on how this organization should be run and your values
on how democratic debate should occur in a progressive organization
that reflects the diversity of our society.
Dan Siegel
Interim Executive Director
Pacifica Foundation
7
Open Letter to Dan Siegel,
Interim Executive Director, Pacifica Foundation
Re: KPFA Local Station board Election
From Gregory Wonderwheel
October 26, 2007
Dear Mr.Siegel,
This is a reply to your "Open Letter to the Pacifica Community"
dated October 24, 2007. . . . .
Frankly by criticizing campaign statements and removing them form the
website, I'm truly amazed that you would take a position so diametrically
opposed to the First Amendment. As the Interim Executive Director of
Pacifica Foundation with the grandest tradition of free speech in the
United States, your anti-free speech attitude is shameful and demeaning
to the Pacifica community and a stain on the Pacifica tradition.
You ask, "Is this type of rhetoric acceptable?" but you don't
give even a single example of the rhetoric you are condemning. Thus
you are not engaging in debate. You are attempting to stifle debate
by presenting your opinion alone.
But more importantly is your attack on "rhetoric" itself!
Your question -- "Is this type of rhetoric acceptable?" --
is the same question used to attack Pacifica for its broadcast of George
Carlin's now famous and precedent setting rhetoric. When I read your
attack on free speech I laughed wondering what would George Carlin say?
I think he would say that you are acting just like the owners of America
who believe they can define what rhetoric is or is not acceptable.
You confabulate the KPFA candidate statements with a WBAI candidate
statement. For what purpose? There is no connection, and your including
the two together in that way can only cause confusion in the Pacifica
community.
You allege that the KPFA candidate statements "contain little more
than personal attacks on their opponents." By offering your personal
conclusion and by not offering a single example, you are unduly attempting
to influence the election. The Pacifica Foundation's Fair Campaign Provisions
provide:
"SECTION 6. FAIR CAMPAIGN PROVISIONS
No Foundation or radio station management or staff (paid or unpaid)
may use or permit the use of radio station air time to endorse, campaign
or recommend in favor of or against any candidate(s) for election as
a Listener-Sponsor Delegate, nor may air time be made available to some
Listener-Sponsor Delegate candidate(s) but not to others. All candidates
for election as a Listener-Sponsor Delegate shall be given equal opportunity
for equal air time, which air time shall include time for a statement
by the candidate and a question and answer period with call-in listeners.
No Foundation or radio station management or staff (paid or unpaid)
may give any on-air endorsements to any candidate(s) for Listener-Sponsor
Delegate. The Board of Directors may not, nor may any LSB nor any committee
of the Board or of an LSB, as a body, endorse any candidate(s) for election
as a Delegate. However, an individual Director or Delegate who is a
Member in good standing may endorse or nominate candidate(s) in his/her
individual capacity. In the event of any violation of these provisions
for fair campaigning, the local elections supervisor and the national
elections supervisor shall determine, in good faith and at their sole
discretion, an appropriate remedy, up to and including disqualification
of the candidate(s) and/or suspension from the air of the offending
staff person(s) (paid or unpaid) for the remainder of the elections
period. All candidates and staff members (paid and unpaid) shall sign
a statement certifying that they have read and understood these fair
campaign provisions." (Article 4, Section 6)
While this provision specifically applies to "air time",
the clear intent is that Foundation management is not to make use of
radio station facilities to endorse in favor or against candidates.
Your actions on the KPFA website and your letter do constitute endorsement
against candidates in violation of the bylaws.
California law requires that a corporation provide fair and reasonable
election procedures. It is not fair and reasonable to promise to allow
website distribution of candidate statements and then revoke that promise
at one station for arbitrary and capricious reasons while allowing the
members at other stations to continue to have access to website candidate
statements.
Now, you allege that campaigning against opponents by pointing out the
opponents words and deeds is a "personal attack." This Orwellian
definition of personal attack is simply a Republican tactic at preventing
debate. Nothing in the campaign statements that you object to contained
personal attack.
Providing information to listeners that they would not be able to get
otherwise is not a personal attack. Providing the electors with the
text of an email that advocates "dismantling the LSB" is not
a personal attack. If anything is a personal attack it is your false
characterization of political debate which falsely attacks the character
of the candidates.
Criticizing the Interim General Manager, Lemlem Rijio, for not attending
LSB meetings is not a personal attack.
Criticizing Sasha Lilly, the Interim Program Director, for telling programmers
they couldn't encourage people to attend peace marches is not a personal
attack.
Criticizing Sherry Gendleman, an LSB member and candidate for reelection,
for being against elected boards and against program council empowerment
is not a personal attack.
These are all fair political issues.
As a community and progressive organization that supports free speech
we must ask ourselves whether your type of unilateral dictatorial censorship
is acceptable. Pacifica has important challengers and it can only meet
this challenge if robust political debate is allowed within the organization.
You demonstrate the heights of cynicism to claim that stifling debate
is good for the organization. You are attacking the civil rights of
candidates to their political speech in the name of protecting civil
rights in society. What hypocrisy!.
Free speech is established in our nation exactly to prevent petty tyrants
from applying their personal definitions. What you label "toxic"
debate is actually the first real debate in the new democratic structure
of Pacifica. You may call the light of debate "toxic", but
in this case it is only toxic to the infection that hides in the dark.
Raising the question of the "morale" of "hard-working
and underpaid staff" is an indicator of your misguided views. The
morale of the staff is not uniform. There are staff people who oppose
the status quo. Their morale is destroyed by current control by the
status-quo-conservatives within the organization. Those staff members
who are so petulant as to need protecting from open debate among the
listeners should either get a thicker skin or leave the organization.
Staff have their input into the governing process by their election
of their representatives. If the staff oppose the majority of listeners
then it is the staff who will have to adapt. The Pacifica staff and
programmers have traditionally ignored and demeaned any listeners who
disagreed with them. This attitude is what is destructive and does not
need to be enshrined by you.
Additionally, your actions are a blatant example of prejudice and favoritism
since you are attempting to support and defend particular candidates
against political criticism. Your duty was and is to remain neutral
and to keep the appearance of impartiality in the election. You have
violated this duty.
You claim that "Many people are now calling for administrative
and legal responses to abusive candidate speech." Excuse me, there
is no such option. First the speech has not been determined to be abusive
by any means of due process. Second, there is no administrative or legal
response to candidate's speech by the organization. Nothing in the Fair
Campaign Provisions discusses any "abusive" speech other than
the abuse of endorsements which is what you have abused.
In the process of adopting the Fair Campaign Provisions the question
of abusive political debate.was raised and rejected as being against
free speech and impossible to define. Your present arbitrary decision
proves the wisdom of that choice. You admit that "distinguishing
between reasonable criticism and 'personal attacks'" is "problematic"
for the courts, yet you unilaterally and arbitrarily assert your own
higher ability to do just that.
In fact, to keep nonprofits from even attempting to do what you have
done, that is, to arbitrarily decide the organization might be liable
for a candidate's statement and use that as justification for censorship,
California specifically law protects nonprofits from any liability for
candidates statements.
California Corporations Code states:
5525. (a) This section shall apply to corporations publishing or mailing
materials on behalf of any nominee in connection with
procedures for the nomination and election of directors.
(b) Neither the corporation, nor its agents, officers, directors, or
employees, may be held criminally liable, liable for any negligence
(active or passive) or otherwise liable for damages to any person on
account of any material which is supplied by a nominee for director
and which it mails or publishes in procedures intended to comply with
Section 5520 or pursuant to Section 5523 or 5524, but the nominee on
whose behalf such material was published or mailed shall be liable and
shall indemnify and hold the corporation, its agents, officers, directors
and employees and each of them harmless from all demands, costs, including
reasonable legal fees and expenses, claims, damages and causes of action
arising out of such material or any such mailing or publication.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prevent a corporation or any of its
agents, officers, directors, or employees from seeking a court order
providing that the corporation need not mail or publish material tendered
by or on behalf of a nominee under this article on the ground the material
will expose the moving party to liability.
This section plainly protects Pacifica from any liability for any
material supplied by a nominee for director. As such it would also apply
to nominees for delegates where the publication is in furtherance of
complying with Section 5520's fair election procedures requirement.
Thus your claim that your action is defending Pacifica from complaints
by other candidates is patently false. The law specifically immunizes
Pacifica from these types of claims between competing candidates.
If Pacifica has a problem with any campaign materials or thinks that
any liability may arise, then Section 5525 provides the remedy: seek
a court order. The law says Pacifica and its agents and employees are
not liable, but if there is doubt then Pacifica or its agents and employees
who believe there may be liability may see a court review. You have
subverted the statutory scheme by inserting your own view of potential
liability for that of the due process provided by law for a court to
determine if liability extends to anyone. This kind of usurpation of
law is the definition of tyranny.
If one candidate has a complaint against another candidate for alleged
defamation, that is a private action and has nothing to do with Pacifica.
You know that political speech is the most protected speech under the
First Amendment that there is. Therefore any assertion that Pacifica
has a duty or obligation to infringe political speech has no basis in
law.
Your actions of broadcasting your management favoritism and preference
and your blatant interference in and attempt to influence the election,
have now put the legitimacy of the KPFA election into doubt. You have
directly exposed the organization to a viable election challenge.
I can only hope the Pacifica Community repudiates your crass attempt
to influence the outcome of the election and that the Pacifica Board
of Directors directly repudiates your actions so that there will be
not doubt that your petty tyranny is not taken at expressing the proud
tradition of free speech at Pacifica..
Gregory Wonderwheel
Santa Rosa CA
http://wonderwheels.blogspot.com/2007/10/open-letter-to-dan-siegel-re-kpfa.html
************************
8
Other Campaign Problems
There
were numerous other problems in this election; just a few are listed
here:
If
you have other problems to report please send them to contact@peoplesradio.net
!
* Money and Democratic Party influenced voting: the Concerned Listeners
used superior financial resources to raise enough money to mail postcards
to all or most listeners.
The CL has a political & recruiting base in KPFA
management/staff and organizations including the Wellstone Demo Club
and CC, and introduced corporate party style campaigning practices,
tactics and financial resources to what was intended to be an alternative
Pacifica democratic election process. They used superior financial
resources to raised over $8,000 (from events attended by well known
KPFA staff/programmers), enough money to mail postcards to all or
most listener members and one member bragged about it publicly at
a candidate forum, saying candidates who can’t match their fundraising
effort don’t deserve to be elected.
* Candidate information was not posted right away on the KPFA or Pacifica
websites.
Certain candidate on air forums were removed from the website until
the election was almost over.
* One candidate was interviewed on the morning show, a campaign violation
on the part of programmers as well.
* Election White Out During Fall Fund Drive, which lasted halfway through
the election period. No candidate carts were played, no election information
or candidate forums were aired.
* Cart playing was then further delayed because one candidate had not
yet recorded his.
* The only live Meet the Candidates forum was arranged by a listener
- thanks, Virginia - in cooperation with the Local Election Supervisor
and Les Radke - but happened late and with not much time for publicity.
* KPFA management and staff public statements and commentaries, on-air
and in local media including the Berkeley Daily Planet and indybay/indymedia,
intended to influence the election outcome and transfer responsibility
for election info suppression to the election supervisors.
* And of course, a lot more, adding up to little motivation from the
network to run effective and informative election campaigns.
|
