[Wpfw-lsb] FW: Re: Resignation
billy edwards
bredwards at hotmail.com
Wed Oct 27 07:20:36 PDT 2004
>From: David Adelson <dadelson at ucla.edu>
>To: bredwards at hotmail.com
>Subject: Re: Resignation
>Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:43:04 -0700
>
>dear billy ray,
>i sent this response to ambrose to the pnb and the wpfw lsb list, but it
>bounced from the wpfw list...i asked several others to forward it to the
>wpfw list, but never heard from anyone that it had been sent...if it
>hasn't, could you do me the favor of sending it on to the wpfw lsb list?
>
>many thanks,
>dave
>
>>dear ambrose,
>>
>>At 10:07 PM 10/23/2004 -0400, ambrose I. lane, sr. wrote:
>>>Dave,
>>>Please forgive my taking so long to respond.
>>
>>we are all overbusy. i just returned from a weekend visiting my father,
>>who is in rather poor health, and so have not previously and cannot now
>>(since i have to be up in six hours to drive to a conference in san diego)
>>spend the time needed to respond in adequate detail.
>>
>>>Since I did not give an effective date for my resignation, I needed to
>>>meet with members of my LSB to get their permission and set an effective
>>>date. We agreed that I would serve out my term of one year.
>>>In reference to the executive sessions---only one of which was
>>>legitimate, in my view---I gave no details, just the overall thrust. In
>>>addition, had there been no 2nd and illegitimate---again in my view---
>>>session, I would never have even mentioned the thrust of either
>>>session. I felt that what I viewed as the chicanery that produced the 2nd
>>>session freed me to pull the cover off that "confidentiality"and let some
>>>sunshine in. The details, however, of what happened in both sessions are
>>>still confidential, unless someone else, other than me, revealed them. If
>>>I have been inaccurate, please advise.
>>
>>several points. first: the second executive session was approved by the
>>required vote of the board, as far as i recall. i could be wrong, but i
>>seem to recall that you were among those who voted in favor of it. you
>>did not at the time of the vote in favor of holding the 2nd session nor
>>during the 2nd session indicate that you felt the proceedings were
>>improperly held. so i had no way of knowing the confidentiality
>>provisions that i thought we were operating under were null and void in
>>your mind.
>>
>>as for chicanery, i will say - publicly - that the holding of the 2nd
>>session was something that i requested to deal with a motion i had put
>>forth and wanted discussed because i felt it held the possibility of
>>meeting disparate needs and visions on the board, i.e. i thought it might
>>help bridge some of the differences about how to proceed. if you'd like
>>to accuse me personally of chicanery in proposing that, you have my full
>>permission, indeed, my request, to name me by name. if you do not think
>>that i was engaged personally in chicanery, then i cannot see how the
>>calling of the session was the product of chicanery...if you recall there
>>were three proposals that had been put forth, including the one i had put
>>forth. the prior two that were considered were not mutually exclusive of
>>mine. that was the basis for continuing the discussion, which the board
>>voted on and approved.
>>
>>i want to deal with a number of other things you said in your letter
>>though i can't deal with some of them in any detail. at the heart of my
>>objections are your attributions about the motives of other people on the
>>board, attributions that i do not agree are accurate, and that i believe
>>gratuitously increase polarization that i had hoped could be minimized.
>>
>>first:
>>you wrote:
>>"insanity.
>>>> For the last 15 or more years, our listeners have contributed
>>>>between 10 and 15 million dollars each year to our stations. Our PNB has
>>>>done almost nothing to LEVERAGE their contributions. But, worse than
>>>>that, it refused---during the last board meeting---to even ask and allow
>>>>our CFO to investigate and report back to the board how we can borrow
>>>>$25 million and/or $50 million, the payback terms, and how that could
>>>>relate to vision and financial situation. A refusal to even get
>>>>information is, to me, the sign of a dangerously closed mind."
>>
>>
>>happily, the discussion and vote on your motion took place in public
>>session, so there is a public record that your statement that "the PNB
>>refused to even ask and allow our CFO to investigate and report back to
>>the board how we can borrow $25 million and/or $50 million, the payback
>>terms, and how that could relate to vision and financial situation" is
>>false. the PNB did not refuse your proposal, it referred the request to
>>the finance committee. i went further and argued that because of the
>>reasonable perceptions and concerns that might attend the board voting to
>>investigate such matters, a number of people throughout the network might
>>be very upset about the intent, and thus the intent should be discussed
>>first. this does not constitute a refusal. you may see it as a refusal,
>>but i do not...i see it as a reasonable response. as for it being
>>indicative of a dangerously closed mind, i doubt that you will find anyone
>>on the board who has as much difficulty as i do with the concept of our
>>inviting a large debt when we do not have our own house in adequate order
>>to know that we'd do anything but squander it, leaving the assets of
>>pacifica at considerable risk. i look at how the U.S. financial
>>establishment has used lavish development loans to establish debt in other
>>countries in need of investment around the world, and used that debt in
>>turn to impose structural adjustment and market discipline when the
>>investment couldn't yield the promised return. that said, i am still
>>willing to consider the question, and as you know i spent time discussing
>>it with you and even consulted a financial expert who is a friend about
>>the implications of such a loan, and also some other creative ways of
>>getting access to capital without putting the assets of pacifica at risk,
>>nor of putting pacifica at risk of having to adopt market approaches in
>>order to meet debt service if those market approaches to broadcasting were
>>at odds with our mission. and i want to say that i have no objection to
>>your right to make the request and in fact i think the request is properly
>>an information request by a director of the CFO. that is, i don't dispute
>>that *you* feel it is in the best interests of pacifica. but if *i* have
>>to vote on it, then i don't want to do it until there has been a public
>>discussion, one that includes the LSB's, because i would not consider it
>>outrageous for people to be upset about it. in fact, i would consider it
>>justified. so if we're going to deal with it, fine. but please
>>understand that i do not consider my difference of opinion about it with
>>you to be evidence of me having a "dangerously closed mind." in fact, i
>>think that's a gross MIS-representation.
>>
>>luckily, as i said, the discussion on that point is part of the public
>>record, and anyone can go back and listen to the recording, or read the
>>minutes and find that in fact the PNB did not refuse the request, as you
>>suggest above.
>>
>>unfortunately, the proceedings of executive session did not occur in
>>public, so other differences of perception or fact about what took place
>>are difficult to deal with by bringing further facts to bear upon your
>>assertions. nonetheless, i'll try a few that i do not think violate the
>>confidentiality i understood us to have agreed to.
>>
>>you wrote:
>>"We who came late---I among them---were thankful that our Mark Roberts had
>>held up their "fire the ED train"until we got there and could stop the
>>train. "
>>
>>i'm not sure how you, not having been there when the discussion was going
>>on, became aware that Mark Roberts "held up the train" but it was not at
>>all my perception that Mark was either individually nor predominantly
>>responsible for the outcome, nor could one person have done so. in fact,
>>had the group that you've intimated was so unscrupulous truly been so
>>unscrupulous, it could have begun the session when quorum was
>>achieved...in fact, though there was no parliamentary need to wait there
>>was delay for some time, til past 8:30 of a session called for 8:00 if i
>>recall, waiting for even more people to arrive so that all could be
>>present.
>>
>>due to fatigue and a number of demands tomorrow i can't go through the
>>other issues i have with representations in your resignation letter and
>>the subsequent letters tonight (this morning really).
>>
>>for now i will say that i think your representations are not simply a
>>matter of presenting facts, but of arguing in favor of a set of
>>attributions that i do not think stand up in the context of many more
>>facts that you've omitted. and i think that the effect of your letter is
>>to exacerbate suspicion and innuendo that i don't think are warranted. i
>>see what is happening and has happened as people seeing a given set of
>>situations through different lenses, different values etc. and i think
>>that understood as such there is room for constructive engagement. i feel
>>your letter puts that goal further out of reach, and i can't help but feel
>>that that was intentional. i'd be interested to know otherwise...
>>
>>one last point, you wrote:
>>>>We do not have Pacifica-wide personnel policies, job descriptions,
>>>>salary scales, a manual of operations, and other normal non profit
>>>>documents.
>>
>>i suspect that a motion that instructs the ED to provide the board with
>>these documents asap would be widely welcomed...certainly, a number of PNB
>>members have been attempting to determine whether such documents exist and
>>have been trying to get them via director information requests for some
>>time now...
>>
>>i intend to respond to some of the other accusations and attributions in
>>your letter shortly. some i will not be able to elaborate on in public,
>>but i will do as much of that as possible because i remain very concerned
>>about the perceptions created by your letter on your LSB, and the
>>potential impact of those perceptions on the ability to achieve a
>>synthesis of differing goals and politics on the PNB and within pacifica.
>>
>>dave
>>
>>
>>
>>>Ambrose
>>>
>>>On Oct 20, 2004, at 3:08 PM, David Adelson wrote:
>>>
>>>> dear ambrose,
>>>>
>>>> i thought that board members were committed to hold the proceedings of
>>>>executive sessions confidential.
>>>>
>>>> i do not feel that your representation of what happened in executive
>>>>session is an accurate reflection of what happened, but it is now a
>>>>public representation, one which i am in no position to respond to,
>>>>since that would violate my own commitment to maintain the
>>>>confidentiality of executive session.
>>>>
>>>> dave
>>>>
>>>> At 11:42 AM 10/20/2004, ambrose I. lane, sr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: "ambrose i. lane, sr." <weourselves at mac.com>
>>>> Date: October 20, 2004 2:40:03 PM EDT
>>>> To: wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org
>>>> Cc: pnb at pacifica.org
>>>> Subject: Fwd: Resignation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: ambrose lane <inpow7 at comcast.net>
>>>> Date: October 20, 2004 2:33:25 PM EDT
>>>> To: wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org
>>>> Cc: pnb at pacifica.org
>>>> Subject: Resignation
>>>>
>>>> Dear WPFW LSB Members:
>>>> Please accept my deepest thanks and appreciation for honoring
>>>>me by electing me as one of your four representatives to the Pacifica
>>>>National Board (PNB). I think we both hoped and believed that the
>>>>newly-elected PNB would envision and move expeditiously to begin the
>>>>creation of a powerful national radio network. If you and I shared that
>>>>hope and belief, we were both wrong; if only I had that hope and belief,
>>>>I was wrong.
>>>> As energetically as I accepted your honor many months ago, I
>>>>now request that you accept my resignation from the PNB and replace me
>>>>as one of your four representatives. This is an extremely difficult
>>>>request, but my integrity requires that I make it.
>>>> It is my considered judgment that the current mindset and
>>>>composition of the PNB do not and cannot serve the best interests of
>>>>the listener-contributor- supporters of our five stations. The current
>>>>PNB membership has no---and refuses to create---a vision for the
>>>>Pacifica Foundation or even the corporate infrastructure required of
>>>>501c3 corporations. Too many of its members are involved in petty
>>>>bickering, attempts to even old scores, attempts to attack and fire
>>>>management staff, meaningless politicing, and intellectual posturing to
>>>>do what boards of directors are supposed to and required to do. That sad
>>>>story is daily revealed in hundreds of sad, mad, vicious, racially
>>>>tinged emails that clog up the internet.
>>>> During the last PNB meeting, for example, a faction tried---on
>>>>two separate occasions---to fire Pacifica's Executive Director. Please
>>>>understand, I have no problem in firing staff and have done so many
>>>>times in my 25 years as ED of non-profit corporations, but I will resist
>>>>any and all attempts to do so when the Board has failed to do what only
>>>>it can do; namely, draft a Bill of Particulars that specifies how staff
>>>>actions or inactions violated terms of a job description, a contract,
>>>>and/or specific requirements containing tasks and time tables, etc. As
>>>>one faction member said:" I've checked with my lawyer and he said that
>>>>under California law the ED serves at the pleasure of the board. We
>>>>don't need a reason to fire him." That came from the mouth of someone
>>>>who calls himself a "progressive." When this faction failed in its first
>>>>attempt, it tried to get its way the next morning at a special 8 am
>>>>meeting called to consider only two specific matters. It appeared that
>>>>they had plotted their strategy during the night, since they ignored the
>>>>the two matters and moved a motion to fire the ED. We who came late---I
>>>>among them---were thankful that our Mark Roberts had held up their "fire
>>>>the ED train"until we got there and could stop the train. Our efforts,
>>>>led by Mark, placed the matter in the hands of a newly created committee
>>>>with an elected member from each station, Mark representing WPFW.
>>>> It is my passionate belief that a major responsibility of a
>>>>board is to enhance the value of the non profit corporation we serve. A
>>>>major responsibility of the PNB, in my view, is to do all we can to
>>>>LEVERAGE the donations we receive from our listeners. We have to do more
>>>>than just PITCH our listeners, RECEIVE their money, SPEND their money,
>>>>and AGAIN PITCH them for their money, ad infinitum, three to four times
>>>>each year. We do not even receive interest on their money and do not
>>>>even have a line of credit with established banks. The BANKS make money
>>>>off our listeners' money, but neither we nor our contributors make any.
>>>>In my humble opinion, that is fiscal insanity.
>>>> For the last 15 or more years, our listeners have contributed
>>>>between 10 and 15 million dollars each year to our stations. Our PNB has
>>>>done almost nothing to LEVERAGE their contributions. But, worse than
>>>>that, it refused---during the last board meeting---to even ask and allow
>>>>our CFO to investigate and report back to the board how we can borrow
>>>>$25 million and/or $50 million, the payback terms, and how that could
>>>>relate to vision and financial situation. A refusal to even get
>>>>information is, to me, the sign of a dangerously closed mind.
>>>> Yet, this "progressive" PNB has been provided information that
>>>>staff with 20-25 years of service to Pacifica still do not have health
>>>>insurance. We also have a wide staff disparity between stations in terms
>>>>of number of staff as well as compensation. We do not have Pacifica-wide
>>>>personnel policies, job descriptions, salary scales, a manual of
>>>>operations, and other normal non profit documents.
>>>> These have been the issues I have tried to push this PNB to
>>>>deal with. I do not want to waste any more of what time I have left,
>>>>since I have had to defer a revision of my latest book and work on two
>>>>other unpublished books to deal with PNB problems. It is sad that so
>>>>many intellectually bright people continue to waste their intellects
>>>>in pettiness, posturing, "evening the score," and old battles. Sadder
>>>>still is our gross neglect in implementing ALL of the purposes of the
>>>>Pacifica Foundation's Articles of Incorporation. Yet, on two
>>>>teleconferences, we were on the telephones from 8 pm to 1:30 am, taking
>>>>care of business that should not have lasted more than 3 hours, maximum,
>>>>if each had come to those calls to take care of business, instead of
>>>>posturing and "running our mouths" and using Roberts' Rules of Order as
>>>>weapons.
>>>> In asking you to accept my resignation, I also want you to
>>>>know how fortunate we all are to have my WPFW colleagues on the PNB;
>>>>they are the best and most focussed and hardest workers there. I thank
>>>>them and believe we should all thank them for their exceptional service
>>>>to ALL of Pacifica.
>>>> P.S. I did not have the chance to edit this.
>
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
More information about the Wpfw-lsb
mailing list