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

[billy edwards]

Mark R
When you understand how and where the body buried, then you might understand 
what i have been saying and focus on the prize, "wpfw broadcast license"  
soon as Pacifica is Solvent, by any mean's necessary is were we should be 
going, and Mark, keep thinking we are a part of the whole in good standing.

The Pacifica i knew and Love  died in 1987 when individual producers and 
programmer's no longer had any responsibility and control over programming, 
and the only thing left to do is put the dirt over her, and thats taken a 
little to long already to stop the pippin and prostitution of this community 
by the Pacifica Foundation who hold our station License.


Did the PNB not Elect Marty Durlin as chair, by the same token why can't we 
have a strong debate to dissolve Pacifica after we get our direction and 
priority's in order "wpfw station license" for this community and an become 
a affiliate to the foundation.

I'm sorry i took you both off of the issue, i see some right on both side's 
of this issue i will address at another point in time.

Mark, i'm glad that you understand being on the PNB is a catch 22 and i'm 
sure by you knowing this it's only going to empower the wpfw community, long 
the network know we got lsb members who has the know and how to and can 
crunch numbers, so please feel no way this can only help you in order for 
you to help this community not to be considered the step child of Pacifica, 
but stroung leaders and in this debate you and Luzette, has proved this to 
those around this network that we can stand toe to toe at any level,Thank 
You.>>>Peace and Love.>>>Billy Ray


>From: "Luzette King" <luzette_king at justice.com>
>To: DcProud at aol.com
>CC: wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org
>Subject: Re: [Wpfw-lsb] THE QUESTION OF INTENT AND THE AUDIT VOTE
>Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Mark,
>
>The intention is not to attack or assault you.  My
>campaign is for opennes and transparency.  In this case
>it is about establishing whether the former LABs lent
>money to the National Board to save the network from
>bankruptcy and who is liable for repayment of that
>loan.
>
>While I understand your point about WPFW not having the
>money to repay a loan at this time it is important that
>we know how money is being spent in the network.  If
>this loan was lent without authority, I am not sure we
>can be liable.  Also, if we are liable then we need to
>face up to and honor our promises.
>
>Again, we just had a meeting last week and this was not
>a matter for discussion inspite of the fact that we had
>reports from our national reps.
>
>Mark, this is not to attack you.  I am trying to insist
>that we are given every opportunity to live up to our
>promise to serve the best we can.  It is on that basis
>that I recommended that we have a special meeting to
>discuss the budget.  While I cannot agree with you that
>the FY2005 needs to be revised I have to say that the
>LSB members who do not belong to the Finance committee
>need time to understand a little better what they are
>voting for.  As far as I am concerned this is all part
>of transparency.
>
>I wish or rather hope that am not the only one who is
>committed to looking out for WPFW.  I am sure we are in
>some small way.  In my case, I am trying to ensure
>transparency so that we don't get any unnecessary
>surprises.
>
>Let us deal with the MASC matter in another e-mail.
>
>Luzette
>
>
>
>On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 20:16:37 EDT, DcProud at aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 8/14/2004 7:33:37 PM Eastern
>Daylight Time, luzette_king at justice.com writes:
>"I did so because, at its core, a bad precedent wouldbe
>created."What exactly does this mean?  Is it ever a
>badprecedent to hold to account those in positions
>ofauthority, especially when dealing with finance?
>Would it not have made more sense to spend $10,000
>onfinancial accounting which would have added
>orsubstracted to the ED's and CFO performance?  If
>infact it did add then this would be a good chance
>todecide whether these two individuals are worth
>having.I just can't believe what I am reading when the
>matterof transparency is being dealth with in
>Pacifica.Luzette
>  This argument is difficult for me to understand.  As I
>stated clearly in my email, TWO motions were considered
>by the National Finance Committee.  BOTH sought an
>audit for the record.  BOTH sought an accounting.  But
>the one I voted for, the one seeking the solution of a
>letter of acknowledgment for any stations that paid
>more than they think was fair, failed; both KPFA reps
>voted against it.
>
>     What they seemed to be seeking was a way to tax
>WPFW and the other stations to get back some portion of
>the money they paid two years ago at the expense of the
>other stations' current and proposed budgets, including
>ours.  We cannot afford that, and neither can the
>network.  We at WPFW still have not found a way to pay
>for our proposed budget AND maintain the one month cash
>reserve required.  To be honest, our proposed FY '05
>budget needs serious reconsideration.
>
>     KPFA still remains the most cash-rich of all our
>stations.  Why this sudden need to revisit 2002?  How
>are the other stations to pay this tax?  And what about
>earlier times when the network came to KPFA's aid?
>
>     Luzette, you, once again, fail to consider fully
>the implications of this policy for US, even as you
>cast yourself as the protector of WPFW.  When I fought
>to disclose salary range information to LSBs (who are
>NOT included in the by-laws on full access issues;
>by-laws I did not author), I was "forgetting where I
>came from."  When I demanded that LSB Treasurers, the
>fiscal officers of the LSB, be empowered to receive
>access to ALL financial information and then share it
>with their LSBs (something not expressly stipulated in
>the by-laws), I was "stealing LSB authority."  Now,
>when I vote against penalizing WPFW (and the other
>stations) for past network debt repayment, I am an
>obstructionist.  And when you seek to vest the full
>authority of the LSB body to screen, interview, and
>select GM candidates  solely to your MASC advisory
>committee (and I challenge that by-law violation), I
>am, once again, out-of-line.
>
>     Sooner or later, we at WPFW have to decide who WE
>are and what WE stand for.  Yes, we are part of the
>whole, but we are also unique.  What is the point of
>all this work, on my part and the part of others, if we
>just keep getting attacked by one another.  Like others
>who have walked away, I am sometimes growing TIRED of
>the assault--especially when it comes from one of "our
>own."
>
>     Mark
>
>     P.S.  I have limited this response to our own
>listserv.  Time to keep some things "in the family."
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________
>FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
>http://www.FindLaw.com
>Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
>http://mail.Justice.com
>_______________________________________________
>Wpfw-lsb mailing list
>Wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org
>http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/wpfw-lsb
>free hosting provided by http://www.mutualaid.org/

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/