a few of US, KPFK workers, volunteers, contributors, Sponsor-Owners have heard bits and pieces of rumors, of strange disapearances, of missing staff, of the KPKF building being sold off or used as collateral for other people's debts...

and yet we cannot get any information at our 'low' level....as non-Insiders...we are just the "people" who pay, not the paid staff or administration, not the LSB or other committees...no one of any importance it seems... ugh.

do you have any info you can share with us?

do you know anyone on LSB whose e-address can be shared so we can inquire further?

does anyone know anyone else who is "talking" or "leaking" the realities we know nothing about.......as there seems to be a GAG ORDER there .....or else the secrecy and dark holes we cannot see thru might be more visible and explainable too ??

are you too part of the conspiracy, of those who Can be getting-together-to-plan KPFK's-life... or demise... or changes?

what are you willing to do to help Expose what thre rest of "we and us" who are left out of, being deliberately being excluded t ? tho we are called "pledge-$$$$-contributor- owners" of OUR KPFK STATION ?

on air, we are"oh, so appreciated"... but not enough to be able to participate in the information - BEFORE an execution done by the executives of OUR investment in OUR station.

anything ?

please share if you will, if you can....

where else on line is anything being written about what is really happening - tho w/o transparency - and what is occuring at KPFK under exclusive- Insiders-Only Control ?

is it all happening without any input from those of us who have given tooooo much love, energy, time, money, heartfelt dedication and more? .... given also to maintaining the morality of this organisation ?

S.O.S. save our station.....now ! so..... tell us how....

also you may want to check out the blogspot below to add anything you dont want to write in here on Indymedia.

OK, folks, this is what I've got, and it isn't much. At the Local Station Board meeting on Tuesday, November 11, Grace Aaron, one of our PNB representatives asked for 15 minutes toward the end of the agenda (during the PNB report, I think). She used that time to tell the local board about the proposed mortgage of the KPFK building for $1M. Apparently, this plan had been kept confidential by the PNB until the PNB meeting on Sunday two days earlier.

The LSB exploded with questions and objections, and continued the meeting on Wednesday. On Wednesday, there was more confusion and questions: the loan application hadn't yet been filed yet: would the PNB have to approve the filing; what the loan would pay for; how much the loan would be for; what restructuring and repayment plans were in place. The answers to most of the questions were guesswork or contradictory. There were calls to not approve the loan (which the LSB can't do, since the Foundation owns the building); to demand the loan only pay for KPFK's obligations; to sell or move WBAI or broadcast on its signal from a skeletal staff in Berkeley.

I'll post the motion we passed on Wednesday here as soon as I get the correct wording, but it includes a request of the PNB for a restructuring plan, a list of expenditures paid with the loan, that pending (not new) staff reductions in the network be initiated, and that there be a repayment structure that obligates the other stations and the national office to contribute proportionately to the repayment.

Since Wednesday, there have been a flurry of email exchanges that I've been included in, and I'm sure there are others that I haven't been part of. I don't think it's right to post other people's email, but I will post two of my own here and hope these give you a sense of what's happening.

If you have more questions, ask here and I'll answer what I can as well as I can.

---

Subject: Re: Mortgaging the KPFK Building . . .

This is all the more difficult because I don't have the current financials. Does anyone here have the current adjusted budget (after the layoffs and resignations) and the rest of the current and projected financial documents?

Without the adjusted budget, I have several unanswered questions. I've asked some of these questions before, but I have yet to get answers. If the PNB is expecting KPFK to fundraise (and no doubt you are), it's way past time that we have answers for our listener-sponsors. "I don't know" doesn't cut it as a fundraising tool.

1) How much is the K building worth? What is the Foundation risking for $1M?

2) Is the amount of the loan $1M or $1.7M? We heard both at our LSB meeting. Or is it some other figure?

3) How is the loan to be allocated among the units, or, more precisely, how much is going to restore national staffing and/or nationalized programming? I have read that monies are owed to DN and FSRN, legal fees, and so forth, but what local benefits we can point to when we're asked to fundraise to repay this note?

4) Will K be free of its outstanding obligations except for the loan, or will some be left?

5) Is this, as it was presented here, a cash flow problem that will be resolved once the severances are paid and the payroll reductions kick in, or is this a fix for longer-term ongoing expenses? If it's a cash flow situation, why do we keep hearing about plans to pay this off over 30 years? Why not plan on paying this off over a year of two?

6) What is the repayment plan, and how will other units be mandated to contribute to repayment?

7) Whatever happened to posting Pacifica's financial records on the Pacifica website? Nothing's there since 2005. If we had seen what was happening over years, rather than hear dire warnings over a few months, some of us might have been tracking this mess and insisted on intervention before now. That's what transparency if for.

I get the feeling in this discussion that some are holding a full hand, and some of us are deliberately given only 2 or 3 cards and none of those are aces.

--Leslie

---

Subject: Re: Mortgaging the KPFK Building . . .

To the LSB,

Sometimes it's useful to look at what's not happening. The first thing I see is that, except for one generalized and categorical response from Mike Martin, *none* of our questions about the financial state of Pacifica, past, present, or future, about repayment or particular uses of this loan, are being answered.

Secondly, and not less importantly, all of this LSB's objections, reservations, and contingencies are disappearing into a void. Most notably, Ricco's firm and well-considered letter remains officially unanswered to my knowledge, which strikes me as insulting to our chair. My proposal that amended our budget to ensure repayment from national was sunk before I could bring it forward. All we managed to do at our last LSB meeting was pass a lukewarm resolution about what we nearly humbly requested *if* the PNB went ahead with mortgaging the K building.

The K LSB is being dissed, folks, and I can almost promise you that it's because the PNB's only "plan" is that somehow K, the most lucrative of the stations (as shaky as that is) will pay off the loan.

And I have little doubt that the PNB will go through with this, with or without us. That decision has already been made in loops and groups that most of us don't have access to.

Let me offer a few points that maybe we can collectively hang our hats on:

1) That we have a repayment agreement with national that encumbers all the Pacifica units or forces national to share the burden across the network

2) That we have a guarantee that K's current obligations to its creditors and central services will be paid with this loan

3) That any future budget cuts to K be proportionate, at least, to cuts at the other stations

4) That we not burden the next generation, or even much of the next LSB, with this, and

5) That we have transparent and timely financial reports from here on out.

This is the best I've come up with to protect K's listener-sponsors and staff from endless fundraising and without assurances that, at the end of the day, K sill be left standing.

--Leslie

Sorry about the messed up blockquotes. Here are the emails again, without the blockquotes. Hope it's right this time.

Subject: Re: Mortgaging the KPFK Building . . .

This is all the more difficult because I don't have the current financials. Does anyone here have the current adjusted budget (after the layoffs and resignations) and the rest of the current and projected financial documents?

Without the adjusted budget, I have several unanswered questions. I've asked some of these questions before, but I have yet to get answers. If the PNB is expecting KPFK to fundraise (and no doubt you are), it's way past time that we have answers for our listener-sponsors. "I don't know" doesn't cut it as a fundraising tool.

1) How much is the K building worth? What is the Foundation risking for $1M?

2) Is the amount of the loan $1M or $1.7M? We heard both at our LSB meeting. Or is it some other figure?

3) How is the loan to be allocated among the units, or, more precisely, how much is going to restore national staffing and/or nationalized programming? I have read that monies are owed to DN and FSRN, legal fees, and so forth, but what local benefits we can point to when we're asked to fundraise to repay this note?

4) Will K be free of its outstanding obligations except for the loan, or will some be left?

5) Is this, as it was presented here, a cash flow problem that will be resolved once the severances are paid and the payroll reductions kick in, or is this a fix for longer-term ongoing expenses? If it's a cash flow situation, why do we keep hearing about plans to pay this off over 30 years? Why not plan on paying this off over a year of two?

6) What is the repayment plan, and how will other units be mandated to contribute to repayment?

7) Whatever happened to posting Pacifica's financial records on the Pacifica website? Nothing's there since 2005. If we had seen what was happening over years, rather than hear dire warnings over a few months, some of us might have been tracking this mess and insisted on intervention before now. That's what transparency if for.

I get the feeling in this discussion that some are holding a full hand, and some of us are deliberately given only 2 or 3 cards and none of those are aces.

--Leslie

Subject: Re: Mortgaging the KPFK Building . . .

To the LSB,

Sometimes it's useful to look at what's not happening. The first thing I see is that, except for one generalized and categorical response from Mike Martin, *none* of our questions about the financial state of Pacifica, past, present, or future, about repayment or particular uses of this loan, are being answered.

Secondly, and not less importantly, all of this LSB's objections, reservations, and contingencies are disappearing into a void. Most notably, Ricco's firm and well-considered letter remains officially unanswered to my knowledge, which strikes me as insulting to our chair. My proposal that amended our budget to ensure repayment from national was sunk before I could bring it forward. All we managed to do at our last LSB meeting was pass a lukewarm resolution about what we nearly humbly requested *if* the PNB went ahead with mortgaging the K building.

The K LSB is being dissed, folks, and I can almost promise you that it's because the PNB's only "plan" is that somehow K, the most lucrative of the stations (as shaky as that is) will pay off the loan.

And I have little doubt that the PNB will go through with this, with or without us. That decision has already been made in loops and groups that most of us don't have access to.

Let me offer a few points that maybe we can collectively hang our hats on:

1) That we have a repayment agreement with national that encumbers all the Pacifica units or forces national to share the burden across the network

2) That we have a guarantee that K's current obligations to its creditors and central services will be paid with this loan

3) That any future budget cuts to K be proportionate, at least, to cuts at the other stations

4) That we not burden the next generation, or even much of the next LSB, with this, and

5) That we have transparent and timely financial reports from here on out.

This is the best I've come up with to protect K's listener-sponsors and staff from endless fundraising and without assurances that, at the end of the day, K sill be left standing.

--Leslie

Here's the motion passed by the LSB passed last Wednesday regarding mortgaging the KPFK building. The LSBs are advisory, and the Pacifica National Board may or may not do this.
____
MOVED:

That the KPFK LSB requests that KPFK's PNB Directors move to amend any motion regarding the securing of a loan for the Foundation as follows:

That prior to the signing of a loan agreement, the following conditions shall be met:

1. The PNB and all LSBs shall be provided with a detailed statement specifying how the borrowed funds will be spent and what cost reductions will be achieved at each Pacifica unit to make Pacifica's financial situation sustainable;

2. Any staff reductions required to achieve needed cost reductions be initiated; and

3. That any motion to collateralize a major asset of any single unit include a mandatory replayment structure that distributes repayment among the units according to the proportions of debt paid by the loan.

ADOPTED 11/12/08 (Y:13, N:0, A:3)

Ok. I listen to the station and ONLY found out about this crisis and rumom mongering on this site when I relocated to another metro and began to use Indymedia as my media source.

I was in LA when the last struggle took place against the Mark Cooper, John Weiner, Beto Arcos faction of KPFK programmers who wanted to make the station, in my opinion, NRP North Hollywood. They were defeated. But afterwords, after Steven Starr left and Eva Georgia became General Manager and Armando Gudino Program Directir, fundraisers never spoke about the minimum payment to become a member. There were report to the listeners, yes, but there were problems. Jerry Quickley was the personality of the hour, a good one...but the station began to drift then towards the center. More in a follow up post.

What i am saying is that the way that Eva Georgia just disappeared (no goodbyes, no 'whare I am going) perplexed me. Then the fundraisers for milions upon millions, to the tone of "KPFK is in financial trouble," just made me wonder, what was going on. I have spoken privately to on air news reporters who acknowledge the financial problems.

If the struggle of the earlty 2000's is to be made real, those who love the station for what it is must OPPOSE any financial deals that could bankrupt the station, lay off people, etc.

I would even propose severing ties with PACIFICA and going it alone. The station could certainly make it.

Just a thought.

KPFK leaving Pacifica?

I don't know how anyone could break Pacifica's ownership, but, nonetheless, this is an idea that merits discussion.

As bad as KPFK's management, lack of leadership, and failure to build a community has been, the Pacifica Board has been worse. It doesn't do anything that I have been able to figure out. I likewise haven't been able to figure out why KPFK seems to do better than the other five. San Francisco, New York, and Washington have stronger progressive communities than LA but you would never know it from the local Pacifica stations.

All this again shows why we need the web listener user forums turned back on. So much needs to be said and would get said if a central forum existed for discussion.

Maybe the time has come to break up Pacifica and let the five stations chart their own future.

this is a reposting from www.pacifica.org
see it for yourself if you care to = at

http://pacificana.org/aggregator

A Pat On The Back for One Hell Of A Job
from : Media Justice: re KPFA - [and KPFK too]

During the October 2008 live broadcast of the KPFA Local Station Board's Report to the Listeners program, staff-elected representative to the LSB and treasurer Mr. Brian Edwards-Tiekert offered a 'successful' financial report on the KPFA Fall Funddrive (under, of course, an already lowered standard of performance), and proceeded to paint a grim outlook on the fiscal health of the Pacifica Network, inviting fellow LSB members to 'Pat ourselves on the back' for doing comparatively well.

Meanwhile, during the LSB broadcast and also at the LSB's November meeting in Fresno in which the Board majority continued to elude public comment on pressing issues from the constituents and listeners in its own immediate service area, Edwards-Tiekert momentarily distracted from KPFA's issues, instead seeking to unify the LSB factions in agreement to charge and find New York sister station WBAI as guilty and cause for KPFA's problems.

Apparently many of the KPFA board, along with a KPFK board member as well as KFCF reps and listeners in attendance, despite most possessing high journalistic ethical standards, seemed to accept it all at face value, without testing the sole source of this 'information' nor questioning its accuracy from the voice of an otherwise respected reporter.

But then, what can be expected from an organization that is content with the practice of 'Rip and Read' headlines off the wire, and passing it on as 'News' that is truly worthy of its paid staff?

Before getting to the WBAI issue, let's look at this one claim Edwards-Tiekert made in Fresno:

"The Pacifica Network is exploring the possibility of taking out a real estate loan,...so they're looking at borrowing against our (KPFA) building."

Although this would be of both real and emotional interest to the KFCF board and listeners, this turned out not to be true:

In reality, the Pacifica National Board soonafter considered an application against KPFK assets as collateral; reportedly per the suggestion by one rep on the KPFK LSB, while causing outrage from other members. (it is yet unknown if the application for a loan will actually be submitted).

Next. WBAI, New York...

Between the KPFA LSB "Report" in October and in Fresno, Mr. Edwards-Tiekert repeatedly names WBAI in the context of Pacifica's financial problems, offering dramatic and simplistic metaphors. Like speeding towards the cliff then slamming on the brakes, and peppered with blanket descriptions like "sucking up a whole lot more money than they can afford"; all the while omitting the assessments and measures already taken by WBAI's new General Manager Anthony Riddle to bring the station towards fiscal solvency: by early November, WBAI had actually paid over $85,000 to Pacifica's Central Services in the past two months, getting caught up two months or more ahead of schedule.

At the Fresno meeting, Mr. Edwards-Tiekert also stated that he don't know why with a full power signal in the largest media market in the world a potential audience "exceeding 22 million", that WBAI doesn't have more listeners. (did anyone catch Edwards-Tiekert a moment contradicted this a moment later saying WBAI signal population area of 7 million-?)

Besides figures that show that WBAI listenership actually went up, albeit incrementially, while listenership at other Pacifica stations have continued to decline, how is it that Edwards-Tiekert could allude to the "largest media market in the world" and not also take into account that this is synonymous with a fiercely competitive broadcast market, which hosts four of the top ten public radio stations in the country?

Is Mr. Edwards-Tiekert intentionally skewing the information to conceal the fact that WBAI actually has the largest audience of all the Pacifica stations, or did he misplace a comma that led him to declare KPFA with that distinction? Or did he really miss the fact that WBAI is the only station in Pacifica that is listed in the Top 30 public statons nationwide?

Well perhaps he's reading the former Pacifica Program Director's recent interpretations of the numbers, despite that several in the network were not really confident as accurate to begin with.

But hey: no need to take these figures as gospel; why not instead call Arbitron, and ask for the full read out that delineates between one-time percentage ratings with/vs. aggregate numbers.

And meanwhile, ask them how they're doing with that lawsuit against the 'Portable People Meter' now being installed at all Pacifica stations...

Or better yet, why not contact Mr. Riddle.

And since Mr. Edwards-Tiekert seems to enjoy patting himself on the back for forensic fiscal analysis for the network and other stations, perhaps he can answer some of these questions closer to home that were raised by his own colleagues at station KPFA:

- For how long can or should KPFA hold on that $90k from the CPB in light of its blatant non-compliance of conditions for a Community Advisory Board and the Community Needs Assessments?

- How does Mr. Edwards-Tiekert reconcile the claims made by the iPD to some staff of having financed the recent national election coverage, for 'The Network' which he himself helped to co-produce, with KPFA money, and then prescribing staff cuts at the station? Will the acting iPD continued to be allowed to spend local KPFA money in this manner at will?

- Given Mr. Edwards-Tiekert's apparent concern for fiscal transparency, advance planning and fiscal responsibility vs. "spending money as if were an upward trend", perhaps he can point out under which budget line item he voted to approve to allow the iGM to hire herself a personal consultant Mr. James Deslonde, who reportedly professed to some as being a licensed attorney in California, but cannot be found listed with the California Bar Association (www.calbar.org) - ?

(Besides the controversial speculation of the consultant's possible extracurricular relationship with the iGM posing a potential conflict of interest, there also remains the failure to have produced Personnel Policies for ratification as was the purpose stated to the LSB in April 2007)

- How much is a local phone call? And how much is a ream of paper?

- If 'Misallocation of Resources', such as for unauthorized paper prints and a phone use, constitutes grounds for immediate Banning, why should not the standard be applied to a Manager who has 'Misallocated' a significantly larger amount of funds such as hiring unaccountable and unproductive consultants?

Is this another job for the Berkeley Police to enforce another removal?

Or is 'Misallocate' too big a word?

- - - - - - -
Perhaps as the Fresno meeting is eventually found to have been illegal, might allow the Treasurer an opportunity to save face and offer a more valid and accurate report for The Record;

Or better yet: how about focusing on pressing matters at KPFA, instead of distracting from the real and important issues?

Listen to the November 2008 KPFA LSB meeting:
http://www.kpfalsb.org/archive/20081108-lsb.mp3
**************************end of reposted material******

now, why are we dummies in Los Angeles at KPFK not even checking what ELSE is happening to our affiliates that affect our finances or ours interact with theirs ?

WHAT ELSE DO WE NOT KNOW....

and how much manipulation, disimulation, misinformation, secrecy and deliberate avoiding telling any of us who actually CARE and SHARE our hard earned monies...how much is being taken to be used in ways we did not contribute it for ???
huh?

dummies....or dupes...or activists once we findo out more ?

Re: Pacifica Radio: What Went Wrong?
18 November, 2008 - 14:57 — mediareform941

Comment reply to Greg Guma's posting, "Pacifica Radio: What Went Wrong?"
syndicated to Pacificana.org:

Thank you for your continued valuable insights and analysis on the current state the Pacifica Foundation. The acknowledgement of the editorial from the Media Justice: KPFA website is also appreciated.

However, please do take note: shortly after its syndication to Pacificana.org, the article was updated with a correction to the reference from a widely distributed posting to various Pacifica lists:

In a follow up to the post in question, it was clarified by a KPFK LSB Finance Committee Member and former PNB Finance Committee Secretary that the 'letter' was actually a draft. It was not penned by the KPFK LSB chair, nor was it approved by the LSB and thus not sent to the National Office.

Writes the K-LSB member:
"However, the KPFK LSB ...did approve a detailed resolution calling for several prudent conditions to be attached to the PNB's approval of any loan collateralized by a major asset at any Foundation unit."

In the absence of direct communications and transparency from the currently leaderless organizaton to its loyalest of members and stakeholders, there is reason to believe these collective efforts to piece together some truths will and do raise the quality and quantity of dialogue.

Hopefully this will serve to overcome the denials and misconceptions about the changing state of the media landscape, the stations, the Foundation, and a reaffirmation for the relevance of Pacifica's Mission to engage our respective communities and society-at-large.

- Ed. - Media Justice: KPFA

[then a further comment ]

19 November, 2008 - from mediareform941 to
Update to previous comment -

Update to previous comment: though not officially and publicly reported out as of yet, it is turning out the KPFK LSB Chair may have well approved said communication. Though it remains unclear whether such a letter was send to the NO and/or the PNB, the fact that such a communication expressing concerns does exist is, in its own right, important enough.
If this is the case, the original articles on our respective web logs would be

++++++++++++++++
also see reposts of our local indymedia comments on the pacificana.org "aggregator" forum too...a small attempt to connect these disparate sites....

see
http://pacificana.org/2008/11/24/kpfk-commentators-do-not-know-what-going-still

Here's an interesing development from KPFK PNB member Margaret Prescod on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kpfklsb

Re: [kpfklsb] Re: Mortgaging the KPFK Building . . .

I don't have updated info, the last pnb mtg was held at the time I had to chair a community mtg, by the time I joined the mtg the discussion had already happened. I am trying to find out however. I don't think the objections from kpfk re the kpfk building were discussed, but likely the other directors would know. When I asked about it my question was out of order since they were on a different agenda item. One of our directors is on the finance committee and likely knows the latest info.

What I heard was a discussion and a vote on spending a good chunk of the money to hire a consultancy management firm and other professional "specialists". My personal view is that this is odd to say the least, especially but not only since staff has been and are being laid off at the various stations and the gm's, a few of whom are new hires, could likely come up with a recovery plan if given the opportunity, as opposed to mortgaging a building to in part do what others could.

I hear at the next pnb mtg this firm will be hired. So we mortgage a building to use the money this way? To me it begs the question frankly on whether a loan of this size is really needed. Pacifica is not and should not become a jobs program, and should pacifica be putting its real estate on the line in part to hire consultants? I have made this point to the pnb.

There was also a vote for underwriting by non profits, no discussion on that point happened before the vote. This to me is very alarming. Not having underwriters was one of the things that really set pacifica apart from npr and others. I am deeply concerned about all of this. I frankly think the listeners need to find out what is going on in their name and too their station/s.

_________

I might also suggest that concerned listeners try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newpacifica and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freekpfk. Although these are often off-topic these days, the people there are other folks intersted in Pacifica, and you might get a good conversation going.

Here's an interesing development from KPFK PNB member Margaret Prescod on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kpfklsb

Re: [kpfklsb] Re: Mortgaging the KPFK Building . . .

I don't have updated info, the last pnb mtg was held at the time I had to chair a community mtg, by the time I joined the mtg the discussion had already happened. I am trying to find out however. I don't think the objections from kpfk re the kpfk building were discussed, but likely the other directors would know. When I asked about it my question was out of order since they were on a different agenda item. One of our directors is on the finance committee and likely knows the latest info.

What I heard was a discussion and a vote on spending a good chunk of the money to hire a consultancy management firm and other professional "specialists". My personal view is that this is odd to say the least, especially but not only since staff has been and are being laid off at the various stations and the gm's, a few of whom are new hires, could likely come up with a recovery plan if given the opportunity, as opposed to mortgaging a building to in part do what others could.

I hear at the next pnb mtg this firm will be hired. So we mortgage a building to use the money this way? To me it begs the question frankly on whether a loan of this size is really needed. Pacifica is not and should not become a jobs program, and should pacifica be putting its real estate on the line in part to hire consultants? I have made this point to the pnb.

There was also a vote for underwriting by non profits, no discussion on that point happened before the vote. This to me is very alarming. Not having underwriters was one of the things that really set pacifica apart from npr and others. I am deeply concerned about all of this. I frankly think the listeners need to find out what is going on in their name and too their station/s.

_________

I might also suggest that concerned listeners try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newpacifica and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freekpfk. Although these are often off-topic these days, the people there are other folks intersted in Pacifica, and you might get a good conversation going.

thanks Leslie --
for being as open and informative and directing the rest of us peons of KPFK, telling us of other places to read about info and what is actually happening to OUR station.

My wish is this:

1. for you to continue to write also on Indymedia, as an article instead of a comment so that the conversations can be displayed and maybe - who knows ? - read by those who suddenly latch on to this exposed great site Sometimes the comments are lost in the slew of new articles.

2. That those who read these articles and comments not necessarily identify or write words but somehow make themselves visible so we know that this site is accessible and utilized as a Discourse Locale for those who have no voice, no say, no power, no nutin but still do pay cash to KPFK regularly anyhow.

3. That KPFK would open up it's carefully controlled secret ways and inform the rest of US who live so dedicatedly for the growth and life of OUR RADIO station, and not think we need-not-know what they do or decide.... when we are worried, fearful, anxious, frustrated and angered by being so cleverly "left OUT" .

4. That the LSB of KPFK represent a group[s] of listeners and seek their opinions before voting or making any decisions, instead of only representing their individual selves as seems to be the case now.

Who does each LSB member actually represent ?

Do they ever tell us about the size of groups they actually inform, ask, represent ?

What are the slants of those they represent ?

What are the ways listener-sponsors can have input to LSB members to be included, instead of just hanging out here ?

the way the LSB member was elected was by campaigning for votes but are these secret lists only they maintain and respond to...or are these voters then later ignored ?

Who decides who gets on the Pacifica National Board from LSB and what is the procedure for getting to move up
there ?

and does it actually take hours and days and weeks of reading the bylaws and rules and all that small print to get generally informed about how KPFK & Pacifica too is actually run ?

does one have to be a quasi lawyer to understand the legalities, meanings of cue words and phrases and the maneuverability of motions, language and ploys played out to have any input in what happens to OUR KPFK ?
huh?

A link description I saw tonight on www.kpfk.org said:

Friday, 07 November 2008 14:33 Patrick Burke

The 20th and final KPFK Evening News Election Panel features Eric Garcetti, Allan Hoffenblum, and Gloria LaRiva. Resigning News Director Patrick Burke moderates the discussion on the new President-Elect and California's verdicts on the propositions. Listen

I didn't know Burke was "resigning." I would have thought this would have come up before now.

The time has come to make an issue of the listener web forums being turned off. The LSB should order them turned back on.