this is a re=post from http://pacificana.org/aggregator regarding KPFK as part of Pacifica and the distrust exhibited and experienced therein too. Parts have been exerpted to protect privacy of individuals named in original article, and parts that appear to not relate to KPFK as much as other aspects of this posting. mj
During an early March 2006 meeting with Pacifica Radio’s attorney in the lawsuit ....[about] KPFA ....... As it turned out, money was less the issue than her future in Pacifica .......... In between I searched for someone willing to step in as manager of KPFA on an interim basis. Most potentially qualified candidates turned down the opportunity. The people I thought could handle it felt the station was virtually unmanageable, and those few who wanted the job didn’t seem quite right.
..........It was a controversial decision for some (..............and [person named] was both praised and criticized. If nothing else it was a change, an inside management promotion rather than an outside “star.....and did calm the mood at the station for a while.
In a report for the March National Board meeting, my first attempt to describe my assessment and plans, I pointed out that any decision made by the Executive Director could potentially be nullified by the board. Therefore, I asked for more and clearer delegation of authority. I mentioned the problem of civility, especially criticisms that crossed the line to “insulting characterizations, paranoia, and a deep well of distrust that tends to poison the atmosphere.” I criticized myself for raising expectations “about what could be accomplished without adequate knowledge of the organizational constraints,” and for, at times, becoming “too forceful with my own opinions.” For some it was the first time they’d ever seen a Pacifica manager admit to making a mistake. I discussed fairness, inclusion, and management instability, the problems facing fund drives, and the need to balance autonomy and cooperation in programming.
I also praised the accomplishments of the Affiliates Program and the Archives, but warned that the importance of Internet technology services had been underestimated for too long. .................
The underlying issue, I argued, “is that Pacifica’s identity as a network is a bit unclear. Like the other words I’ve mentioned, this one too is not adequately defined, in part because there is some concern that being a network could be disempowering to local stations. During my cross country trip, people occasionally questioned whether being part of a network is even important, suggesting that stations might do fine without any national staff or presence. Even if I wasn't the ED of this organization, I would find that proposition an unacceptable abdication.
“Pacifica is not only a national network, with the potential to reach literally millions of people; it is a unique national resource that must not be under-utilized. That said, reaffirming the terms of our social contract is vital, including assurances that persuasion rather than force will be the standard practice. On the other hand, Pacificans – boards, staff, volunteers – need to agree on high priorities, and I would argue that projecting a progressive counter-narrative nationwide – through public affairs, news, and culture – ought to be on the list.”
While trying to avoid fights I laid out my assessment as frankly as possible. It wasn’t especially visionary; I was saving that for later, when I had a firmer idea of what reflected both the possible and the ideal. For the moment, my bottom line was that the time had come for Pacifica “to retake its place as a leading voice and moving force in community-based media. “
As I prepared for another trip – according to the bylaws, it was time to meet in Los Angeles – my mood was relatively optimistic. It wouldn’t be easy but maybe I could accomplish something after all.....
any comments on this educated opinion and relevant revealing of what is not just local to Los Angeles ?