[Wpfw-lsb] THE QUESTION OF INTENT AND THE AUDIT VOTE

[Luzette King]

"I did so because, at its core, a bad precedent would
be created."

What exactly does this mean?  Is it ever a bad
precedent to hold to account those in positions of
authority, especially when dealing with finance?  
Would it not have made more sense to spend $10,000 on
financial accounting which would have added or
substracted to the ED's and CFO performance?  If in
fact it did add then this would be a good chance to
decide whether these two individuals are worth having.

I just can't believe what I am reading when the matter
of transparency is being dealth with in Pacifica.

Luzette


On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 14:25:22 EDT, DcProud at aol.com wrote:

Greetings,
 
    As Chair of the National Finance Committee (NFC),
and as someone who voted "No" on the main motion to
conduct an audit of inter-station transfers during the
period from 01-09/2002, I wanted to address my concerns
about this matter which has, for whatever reason, been
swirling to a climax in recent weeks, dwarfing much of
the fiscal progress Pacifica has made.
 
    As we near the historic passage of the proposed FY
'05 budget (and remember the budget we are currently
using was NEVER passed), local station boards in all
five listening areas are meeting, adjusting, and
studying the fiscal blueprint for Pacifica's immediate
financial future.  By the end of the month, all FIVE
station LSBs will have completed this vital process. 
KPFT has already approved their budget.
 
    Financial reporting throughout the network has
never been more explicit, or more transparent.  Monthly
financial statements, reporting both actual and
budgeted income and expenses, are being released,
reviewed, and posted on our website for every station
and national unit.  Additional requests from the NFC
for a breakdown of all governance costs (how much is
this democracy costing?) have been provided.  All legal
billings (how much did the mistakes of the past cost us
in legal bills?) have been completely extracted and
accounted for with the exception of two firms from 2002
which are being tracked now to complete the record.  A
solid debt-retirement plan should see all past
settlements finally off the books and off our backs by
the end of the '05 fiscal year.  
 
    We are in the midst of our second cycle of
elections to our local station boards and are coping
with the unanticipated expenses (almost $200,000)
surrounding our new democracy.  The elected Pacifica
National Board is meeting regularly, as are its
standing committees.  With the exception of a few
executive sessions, all meetings are webcast and
archived for all to hear.  Local station boards are
either in the midst of searching for GM and/or PD
candidates, or are evaluating the performances of those
in place.  A national committee drawn from all five
stations has begun the evaluation process for the
Executive Director, something which has never been done
before, to be followed by an evaluation of the CFO. The
Foundation is in the midst of relaunching a National
Programming unit and expanding its affiliate reach. 
What an extraordinary operation we have become.
 
    We have much to celebrate--and yet charges of moral
bankruptcy and "Cheneyism" continue to obscure this
record.  To what end?  In this latest flare-up, the
core question is NOT how much each station paid to dig
the Foundation out of the quicksand of 2002, but rather
what to do about it now?  We voted on TWO motions
yesterday.  
 
    The first called for an audit of this designated
period for all station transfers (despite the
additional expense) with the designated end result
being a letter of acknowledgment to any stations which
shouldered a disproportionate fiscal burden during that
critical time.  In particular, concerns have been
raised that KPFA, and possibly KPFK, paid more than
their fair share (a formula for debt repayment
apparently set goals of 25% for KPFA, KPFK, and WBAI,
and 12.5% for KPFT and WPFW).  Additional concerns were
raised that some funds directed to the National Office
to stave off bankruptcy and the associated turbulences
from that period might have been considered "loans" to
be repaid at a later date.  Since their are no national
funds for any such repayment, the letter of
acknowledgment (which one key member stated, at one
point, would be sufficient) following the audit was
offered as remedy.  I voted for this motion, but it
failed.
 
    The second motion also called for an audit, but
refused to address the question of remedy.  Previously,
ideas have been raised about reducing the central
services fee for some stations and increasing it for
others in order to "right the wrong."  Given the still
tenuous fiscal position of most of our stations,
coupled with the PNB requirement that each station hold
a cash reserve of one month operating income, the
notion of "taxing" some stations in order to repay
others did not seem workable to me.  But that is not
the primary reason I voted against this motion.  I did
so because, at its core, a bad precedent would be
created.
 
    Let me explain:  to me, Pacifica is like five
fingers on one hand struggling to become a fist, one
fist attacking reactionary forces in this country and
around the world.  All of our stations are owned by the
Foundation.  We are, in essence, a family bound to one
another.  During the hard times of the past, we have
leaned on one another for moral and financial support. 
Not just in 2002, but well before.  Whether it was a
transmitter problem here, or a bad fund drive, or an
unexpected bump in the road, or a new station--we have
rallied together, and that is why we have survived. 
Who knows which of us will need the support of the
others in the future?
 
    Now, like a family gathering to celebrate the end
of a dark day, we sit under the glow of a deed
well-done, and, rather than sip wine together, we turn
to each other and ask, "OK, who had the steak?"  Anyone
who has ever been to a gathering where bickering over
the check ended the meal knows how it ruins the
occasion.  None of us can undue what happened before,
but all of us have played a part in this wonderful
reconstruction.  Yes, we need to toast--to
acknowledge--those who had more to give.  We need to
thank them and their donors for coming through in the
pinch.  But all the stations contributed.  Everyone has
bruises still trying to heal.  Everyone suffered and
gave what they could.  Our strength today is the
byproduct of that giving.  We need to know how much
this whole episode has costs us (the historic record
demands it), but we should not, in my opinion, seek
redress for some to the detriment of others.
 
    I think it would be a mistake to hold up approval
of the proposed '05 budget on these grounds.  I believe
we need to be vigilant in the future to ensure that
Pacifica grows even stronger and that nothing like 2002
ever happens again.  We need to remember we are five
fingers on one hand trying to make a lasting fist. 
 
    Mark Roberts, Chair
    National Finance Committee
 
    P.S.  Article Eight, Section 3 of the new by-laws
clearly states that the Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
shall be a full member of the National Finance
Committee.

_________________________________________________
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com