Pacifica Radio: What Went Wrong?

In late 2008, faced with layoffs, a crash crunch, lawsuits, and a long-term decline in listenership, the National Board of Pacifica Radio, the original listener-supported network, decided to seek a $1 million dollar loan, reportedly using station assets as collateral.

In response, Ricco Ross, chair of Los Angeles station KPFK-FM’s Local Board wrote to Chief Financial Officer Lonnie Hicks and the National Board, calling for greater transparency and consultation in such decision making, and asking sister stations in Berkeley, New York, Houston, and Washington, DC to stand with KPFK against the action.

The letter concluded: "This appropriation of station assets without notice and consultation sets a precedent that endangers every station in Pacifica." A motion passed by the KPFK LSB called for the National Board “to require a repair and repayment plan as a condition for its approval of any collateralized loan agreement." Almost a third of the loan would go toward payment of a smaller loan obtained the previous summer.

Since August, the organization’s Executive Director and Human Resources Director had resigned, staff was reduced at most stations, and many national staff positions were cut. On the other hand, CFO Hicks returned to work in October after a three month leave of absence. A new ED job description was written, but the search had yet to begin. Meanwhile, discussion forums speculated about receivership, bankruptcy, and breaking up the network. National Board Members and most managers remained silent.

At KPFA, the resignation of Business Manager Lois Withers was announced. According to an editorial posting on Pacificana, a KPFA-based online forum, “While Ms. Withers is known by many as capable and responsible in her position as Business Manager, the more recent memory of her tenure was marred by her role in escalating a simple volunteer matter into a disproportionate action of calling the Berkeley Police into the KPFA building and exacting violence on volunteer programmer, Nadra Foster. The original charges? Using the phones, and printing paper.”

A dispute also brewed over the KPFA Local Station Board’s decision to hold its November monthly meeting outside of the local signal area, along with postponement of the next meeting until January 2009. In New York, a lawsuit over the 2007 station board elections at WBAI had yet to be settled. Other lawsuits against stations and the network drove up legal costs. In Washington, DC, questions were being asked about the financial results of a 30^th anniversary gala for WPFW.

Nevertheless, compared with recent news about station collapse and a phantom foundation set up to salvage what's left after bankruptcy and investigations, those were the good old days.

Such developments bring to mind my last in-person words to the PNB as Executive Director, delivered at a quarterly meeting in Los Angeles on July 27, 2007. I’d just come to an agreement with the Board on the terms of my departure; I’d offered to remain on the job until a thorough search could be done, and to help with a transition, but the Board passed on that option. Still, many of the problems and issues being discussed were addressed in that 12-minute report. It was, in abbreviated form, my basic assessment of Pacifica’s situation.

A financial crisis was likely and imminent, I said, but much could be done. Specific proposals to reform and revitalize Pacifica – many under discussion for years – were presented again. In short, the diagnosis was public and a plan was on the table. But some in governance and management weren’t persuaded, enough at least to make timely action next to impossible. Here’s what I said:

Report to the PNB, July 27, 2007

When I applied for this job, some of the Board members said that they were impressed with the fact that I’d studied the organization and its problems pretty seriously, and, in a sense, I got here by examining Pacifica as a journalist might and reflecting back to the Board what I’d found. Since then, however, there has been at times less interest in what I’ve learned by actually doing the job, and, at times, also limited enthusiasm for some of my proposals to address the problems that I’ve identified. But so it goes.

For the record, however, I’ve made several proposals and would like to reiterate them. I’ve suggested management reorganization, including more accountability of local management to national priorities and standards. There has been some controversy about that. I’ve advocated more aggressive and coordinated national programming, including a new national program and local programs carried by all sister stations, and national editorial priorities that are reflected in programming across the network. I’ve suggested that, like any other news organization, this one should have editorial priorities which change as circumstances change. Right now, I believe that those editorial priorities ought to be: ending the war on terror, health care for all, a restoration of democracy, and building ecological security. That is not to say that other issues and sub-issues are not also important. But these represent issues of great national concern, and which would – if reflected in national programming -- distinguish Pacifica as an independent radio network.

I have also argued for a serious investment, more serious than we have been able to provide so far, to technological re-tooling, including Internet channels with interactive content, more investment in new equipment, and increased distribution that empowers more listeners. I’ve suggested – and we are making some progress on this – more coordinated marketing and promotion with a serious and consolidated development and outreach budget, and training for affiliate stations. And finally, increased leadership within the independent media community, and work with other organizations on free speech campaigns.

But how has it gone? Slowly. Management organization has run up against concerns about local autonomy and, I think, a suspicion about the possibility that there could be another national power grab. Collaborative programming – we’ve made some improvements there, but there remains a sentiment that each station should control its own airwaves and that substantive changes should never be made without a long, thorough and, some would say, seemingly interminable process of consultation with many stakeholders.

Technological investment has been delayed by a tendency to create budgets from the bottom up, an approach that leaves overall issues that concern the national organization for last, and makes reductions in spending on network-wide needs the easiest solution when money is tight, as it is now. And coordinated marketing, which has been discussed with the term “branding,” has also proven difficult in an organization where no one really speaks for the organization without fear of being blindsided from within. There is not much consensus about image, except perhaps to be a passionate cheerleader for every good cause that comes along. I’m not denigrating those things, but a laundry list of causes is not a very effective way to market a radio network.

Meanwhile, Pacifica is grappling with several crucial issues: Adapting to fundamental changes in audio distribution, declining listenership and the erosion of Pacifica’s traditional revenue source, and, after five years with a new experimental structure, the need to make some serious adjustments. The current digital distribution project is an attempt to address one of these issues, and election-related bylaws changes acknowledge and address another. But declining audience and listener loyalty can only be fully addressed by looking hard at programming, and this is linked to unresolved questions about Pacifica’s mission and organizational structure.

Our CFO predicts that Pacifica is facing contraction and a cash crunch in the near future. But even if that doesn’t happen, and can be avoided in the next few months, the underlying problems remain and will resurface.

Earlier, I’ve mentioned that a re-evaluation of Pacifica’s mission is in order. This mission dates from Lew Hill’s 1946 prospectus for KPFA, arguably still the most crucial document in the organization’s history. One the key parts said that Pacifica would “engage in any activity that shall contribute to a lasting understanding between nations and between individuals of all nations, races, creeds, and colors; gather and disseminate information on the causes of conflicts between any and all such groups; and promote the study of political and economic problems, and the causes of religious, philosophical, and racial antagonisms.”

You know these words. This remains a fundamental philosophical statement for Pacifica. The idea behind these words is that peace can emerge from dialogue – that is, diverse groups openly communicating with one another. Not objective indisputable truth – none of us have that – an open exchange of ideas that helps us to know each other as human beings, dialogue that demonstrates the possibility that we can have peace in practice.

But today, too often, we have instead argument, an often angry struggle over ideology, airtime, and assigning blame that keeps Pacifica from creating constructive connections between people. On top of that we sometimes even have censorship; self-censorship actually, groupthink, avoidance of tough but necessary disagreement. So, I repeat: Pacifica’s mission needs serious study and reflection, a real long-overdue dialogue about the fundamental intentions of this organization – in this time.

The organization also needs a serious look at democracy as it is being practiced here. I hear it said that Pacifica is a “bold experiment,” a representative democracy of listeners. But to me it looks very much like a confederation, a very tentative association of communities –the stations – that view themselves as relatively sovereign, and operate under a common constitution – the bylaws – but with a weak central authority – the national office. My experience is that this structure makes it difficult to reach decisions, and to ensure that, even when decisions are made, that they’re actually carried out. It’s difficult to make even the simplest bylaw amendment, for example to increase efficiency, save money, or improve continuity.

The national organization is, by design, dependent on the stations, which view themselves as semi-independent. Without local cooperation and agreement, the central organization can’t provide essential services, and as a result, the funding of priorities like research, national infrastructure, development, and marketing is consistently neglected. In some quarters there is open hostility to the national organization, as if it’s some kind of parasite feeding off the stations. Therefore, it’s not very surprising that some managers and staff sometimes refuse to implement decisions made by the national board or national office.

In short, what I am saying, and what I have been saying for a year and a half, is that Pacifica’s confederal structure doesn’t work. For democracy to function compromise is essential. A minority that loses will only play along if it feels that the winning side is playing fair. This becomes difficult when groups adopt a stance of moral absolutism, or form factions. And we see both here. When factional disagreement becomes public and intense, the organization suffers from disunity, charges and counter-charges about the conduct of the elections, fraudulent or unethical conduct, and repeated attacks on so-called enemies. This is beginning to seriously undermine the legitimacy of the organization’s democratic process.

So, I ask you once again, as I asked when I traveled across the country: Are we running a media organization, or are we trying to build an alternative government? I hope it’s the former. ...

I don’t expect everyone to agree with my assessment of the situation, but I think it would be irresponsible if, after two years, I didn’t share with this community what I’ve learned and some of the reasons why I am leaving. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe a new Executive Director can make this organization work just as it is. I hope so, and I’ve greatly appreciated the opportunity to help. Pacifica remains, despite everything I’ve said, a unique and important institution, and I sincerely hope it will continue to make a significant contribution to lasting understanding between nations and people in the years ahead.

FURTHER PACIFICA READING: Check out Quiet Meltdown for more on the crisis; Planet Pacifica is the inside story of my early months as CEO, combined with episodes from Pacifica’s history. AUDIO: Report to the PNB, Greg Guma, July 27, 2007.

End of a Media Dream

In the midst of the national economic meltdown, Pacifica, the original listener-supported radio network, experienced its own. As Executive Director in 2006 and 2007, I was in a unique position to identify the dilemmas facing this important progressive media organization. This article chronicles my experiences and efforts to avert a crisis, continuing a narrative begun in 2008. To read previous installments, see the links at the end or look for Planet Pacifica: An Inside Story at -- Maverick Media. 

Part Five of Real Life on Planet Pacifica

Shortly after the January 2007 Pacifica National Board meeting in Houston, PNB member Berthold Reimer sent a revealing e-mail. “It is not up to the PNB to micro manage the Executive Director who should have the leverage to make decisions and implement them,” he wrote. “If the PNB is not happy with the way the Executive Director implements its directives, the PNB can decide not to renew the contract of the Executive Director or have an extraordinary session to terminate him/her. Short of that, we should let him do his job.”

I appreciated the sentiment, but the argument contained two interesting assumptions. The first was that I actually had a contract. In reality, I had been working without one for more than a year at that point, and an attempt to negotiate some basic terms had been derailed by stalemate in the Personnel Committee.


He also implied that the intent of the Board was often clear. On the contrary, there was rarely anything close to consensus. Divisions were especially apparent when the topic was “must carry,” the idea that some programs should be aired on all stations. Whether the example was Spanish language news, a national special, or a board-backed editorial, viewpoints varied and local control was a sore point. This became painfully clear when I attempted to mandate carriage of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

At the urging of the PNB, I had issued an editorial statement on Habeas Corpus shortly after passage of the Military Commissions Act in 2006 undermined this basic right. In adopting its motion on this topic, the board also voted for follow up, initiatives such as having the editorial posted on various websites, related programming to be developed locally, regular updates, and station broadcasts of statements by local or national experts. My editorial was aired, but local management’s response to the board’s initiative was cool and inconsistent.


Then, in mid-January 2007, KPFA host and correspondent Larry Bensky urged national coverage of the Judiciary Committee’s questioning of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The Senators would be quizzing him in less than a week about warrantless surveillance, suspension of Habeas Corpus, torture, and extension of domestic spying by the CIA and military. Covering key hearings was a Pacifica mainstay, and this looked like a golden opportunity to pursue the issue at hand. A proposal was quickly circulated to managers and national staff members. Technical arrangements were put in motion.

Prior to the hearing, confirmation was received from managers at four of the five stations that it would be carried live. Some were reluctant, but realized we were fulfilling the board’s instruction to “use the resources of the foundation to educate and inform the public on the dangers of this legislation, specifically including… consistent on-air coverage of the issue.” As it turned out, CSPAN ignored it, mainstream media coverage was minimal, and the questioning was dramatic, essentially starting the process that led to Gonzales’ resignation. But the reaction within Pacifica was even more revealing. Several board members charged that I had over-stepped my authority.


During a teleconference the following evening, I argued that the decision reflected a broad consensus and urged the directors to support my efforts to have Pacifica “act like a network.” In response, Bob Lederer, a WBAI delegate and JUC member, argued that there was a big difference between the general principle of maximizing coverage and mandating a particular program. The Board hadn’t authorized national carriage of the hearing, he said, and therefore stations shouldn’t have been required to air it. Referring to the 1990s, the bad old days when such decisions sparked rebellion, he wanted the board to make it clear that the National Office couldn’t impose anything except the authorized editorial.

Several Board members felt that collaboration was preferable to “must carry,” and that short notice forced stations to preempt popular shows without sufficient time. One member, WPFW delegate Acie Byrd, submitted a motion that said my action wasn’t authorized and I should henceforth refrain from imposing any program on the stations, unless and until the board spoke on the issue. The motion didn’t pass, but the discussion made it clear just how limited the power of Pacifica’s CEO could be.

Quite a few national specials were produced during the succeeding months, and most stations aired them. On the other hand, more lawsuits were filed, and the board ignored most of my recommendations for reorganization and programming, as well as repeated warnings about a looming financial crunch. When managers and national staff developed a unified policy to deal more strictly with obscenity violations, unpaid staff in New York almost succeeded in getting the board to block it. Local control advocates were mobilizing to protect station “autonomy” from my network-oriented agenda, and my early supporters were falling away, at least in part because I hadn’t satisfied their desire to “clean house.”


In late 2006, rather than offering me a contract the board had decided to conduct an evaluation. The process took months and asked more than 140 people -- national staff, station managers, and every national and LSB member – to rate my work. Some of the locals hadn’t even met me, and most had little notion of what I did. Basically, it was a referendum, a vote on whether I should get a raise, keep the job, go on probation, or be fired. I took to calling it an “evalu-lection.”


The day before a scheduled talk about it with the board in late April 2007, I received the results. Most staff members had opted not to participate, apparently out of fear that I might “retaliate,” and about half of the 59 responses came from Local Station Board members. About two thirds of those who did express an opinion said I was doing all right, at least enough to keep the job. The rest thought I was unilateral, unresponsive, and presumptuous in appointing a new GM at WBAI. The comments and ratings were anonymous, but it was easy to tell that the New York-based JUC contingent wanted me gone.

I’d had about enough myself. In a letter to the board, I suggested that a search committee be formed while I relocated to the East Coast in order to focus on the stations there, especially WBAI. Reminding them that I had originally agreed to stay for no more than three years, I offered to continue until at least mid-2008, enough time to conduct a thorough search and choose a long-term replacement. What I didn’t anticipate was that the proposal would be used to show me the door as soon as possible.


For the next three months, the board spent countless hours debating what to do. Rather than giving the organization a shot at a peaceful and well-planned transition I had inadvertently provided the opening for another power struggle. The “greg-istas,” as my supporters dubbed themselves, wanted me to remain as long as possible. Their opponents wanted to pick my successor before some of their terms ran out. One Board member thought I should be fired immediately. I could have resisted leaving, but that would have plunged Pacifica into a distracting battle that brought other work to a halt. We eventually settled on September 30, 2007, and a hastily-formed search committee rushed to recruit someone in time.


In the end, Nicole Sawaya was the only candidate interviewed by the board. Still, it looked at first like Pacifica had finally found a leader the entire community could support. Two months later, despite a multi-year contract, higher salary, and broad-based backing, she resigned.

Over the winter, as negotiations proceeded to woo her back, Pacifica’s stations found it harder to keep pace with rising costs, particularly health insurance, legal fees, and governance. On-air fund drives weren’t meeting their goals, most stations had meager cash reserves, and WBAI was a half a million behind its fundraising target, mired in its internal power struggle, and unable to pay its central services fees.


In early March 2008, Sawaya agreed to return. What changed her mind wasn’t revealed, but a fight with CFO Lonnie Hicks over financial control, an issue I had raised repeatedly, did result in a Board decision to grant her the right to directly supervise the national financial staff. One of her first big decisions was to cut the budget for Free Speech Radio News (FSRN) by 25 percent. What shocked some Pacificans wasn’t so much the cutback but the fact that it was done without prior discussion. Sawaya explained that the financial crunch required strong and immediate action. The Board decided to let it stand.


The next surprises came in July, just as budgets for the next fiscal year were being developed. The National Board had voted to convene in person that month, but the managers in the national office failed to follow up and the meeting had to be cancelled. Soon afterward, without explanation, Hicks disappeared from work. The Board made no announcement, but news leaked out that he was on “paid leave to deal with family matters.” Later, there were rumors that an investigation of his activities was being pursued – and that he might sue.


Sawaya announced her decision to resign (again) in early August, but asked those who knew not to say anything for a month. At meetings, she meanwhile tried to convince the Board and National Finance Committee that Pacifica needed to act like a network and “centralize” various functions, especially accounting and reporting. Directors listened, but nothing changed. As she departed in late September, after nine months actually on the job, she pointed to "dysfunctional” governance and “shoddy and opaque” business practices that were plunging the organization into a financial crisis.

Pacifica’s Human Resources director (the second in three years) also left for a new job elsewhere in September, 2008, and the National Board began to discuss what was being calling a “national office collapse.” Some nevertheless hoped to quickly recruit a new Executive Director. That process would take months, however, and pending recommendations to re-expand the CFO’s authority and apply strict performance standards to all managers were likely to get in the way.

Even if a new chief executive could be found – and the Board overcame its divisions to agree – there were still the elephants in the room: Pacifica hadn’t figured out how to resolve its financial crisis, and, even more difficult, restructure its programming and management to reverse the long-term decline in listenership and income.

By the end of 2008, staff had been reduced at most stations, and several national positions had been cut. After another round of PNB delegation selection, the balance of power shifted again. Discussion forums speculated about receivership, bankruptcy, and breaking up the network as a new Board chair, Grace Aaron of Los Angeles, became Interim ED. She had been among the most vocal local board members demanding Eva Georgia’s dismissal during my tenure.


Hicks briefly returned to work as CFO, but was terminated early in 2009, replaced by an old nemesis, former National Finance Committee Chair LaVarn Williams. As predicted, Hicks filed a lawsuit, alleging that he was dismissed because he was African American and a whistleblower. Clearly, he had a taste for irony, considering his frequent warnings about escalating legal costs, the fact that a majority of the Board and national staff were minorities, and that he had fought as hard as anyone to hold back information from the board and membership.


In May 2009, as the network’s crisis continued and WBAI fell deeper into debt, facing eviction from its New York studio, Aaron changed the lock at the transmitter site, removed General Manager Tony Riddle, who had replaced Robert Scott Adams, as well as Program Director Bernard White, and appointed Williams Acting GM of the troubled station. Justice and Unity members and other White backers in New York threatened to protest, boycott, and possibly sue unless this latest “national coup” was reversed. All this, and the search for a new ED had barely begun.

In other words, Pacifica was still at war with itself.


Next: What Can Be Done

Previous Installments: One: Rethinking the Experiment
Two: WBAI’s Delicate Condition
Three: Uncovering Fault Lines
Four: Pacifica’s War at Home

Real Life on Planet Pacifica

In the midst of a national economic decline, the original listener-supported radio network has been experiencing its own financial and organizational meltdown. As Executive Director in 2006 and 2007, I was in a unique position to identify many of the dilemmas facing this important progressive media organization. This article chronicles my experiences and efforts to avert a crisis, continuing a narrative begun last year. To read previous installments, see Planet Pacifica: An Inside Story at Maverick Media.

Part One: Rethinking the Experiment

“What are we trying to accomplish here? Are we trying to expand an extraordinary radio network, to support programming that addresses the mission I’ve described, or are we trying to create a government? If it’s the latter, we’re doing quite a job.”

--Remarks to the PNB, March 2006

When Pacifica Radio’s national board met in person during my time as the network’s Executive Director, it was normally an all-weekend affair. Actually more than a weekend: Managers and staff started arriving Wednesday for a full-day, staff-only summit on Thursday.

The location rotated according to a required order and timing, another bright idea, evidently designed to equalize local participation, by the reformers who recaptured the network about years ago. The trouble was that housing about 40 people for four days in New York, plus a meeting hall big enough to accommodate an audience and “public comments” by local activists, could cost double the price of the same digs in Houston, while a summer session in Houston could be almost unbearable. In short, it was an arbitrary, potentially costly arrangement.

On the other hand, the gatherings did bring together people from disparate cultures, and, if the mood was right, could build momentum for new ideas. My plan for the March 2006 session in Los Angeles, held just two months after I became ED, was to lay out the problems and get some early “buy in” for a network-oriented thrust. As Affiliates Program Coordinator Ursula Ruedenberg delicately put it during a “thematic” discussion that weekend, national programming “is very thorny just beneath the surface. It set the stage for what happened in the 90s. There began to be pressure to work as a national network,” she recalled, “and that process aroused all sorts of issues.”

At least the timing and location looked good. The board was about to adopt a National Programming Policy, which would trigger the hiring of a coordinator. Theoretically, he or she could pull together people and programs across the country. Meanwhile, outside the hotel in the streets of Los Angeles, over a half a million people were gathering for “La Gran Marcha,” part of a nationwide protest against a proposed law to raise penalties for illegal immigration and classify the undocumented – or anyone who helped them – as felons. Over the next few days hundreds of thousands more showed up in Denver, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, and Nashville. In the wider debate over immigration the protests not only demonstrated opposition to the bill but called for a “path to legalization” for the millions entering the country without permission.

It was a perfect issue for Pacifica, and the Board promptly took time out to join the march. For KPFK it was a golden programming opportunity. The station went live for five hours that day, airing reports and coverage in Spanish and English, the first show of its kind. Yet the other sister stations didn’t take it as a national feed, preferring local coverage or the usual shows.

Latino programming was at the top of the agenda. Largely at the urging of KPFK, the Board had decided that a daily Spanish language news show should be launched nationally. New York and DC Latino activists were also lobbying for more airtime. They had a point. The demographic trends in signal areas and nationally pointed to a large “under-served” audience. According to Arbitron, Latinos spent more time listening to the radio than any other ethnic group. In fact, Spanish-language media – Univision, Telemundo and radio stations – had helped to mobilize people for the immigration protests. In L.A. , Eddie “Piolin” Sotelo, a Spanish radio personality, persuaded friends at other stations to rally listeners and cover the event. But commercial radio’s interest in the issue was likely to fade, while Pacifica, if it made a sustained commitment, could build a large and loyal new listenership.

“I’m feeling a lot of pressure for change,” I told the board, “people waiting to see whether I will take sides, and waiting to judge. I’m bound to disappoint some people. There’s really no way to satisfy all of the expectations.” It might be possible to find some common ground, I acknowledged, but winner-take-all wasn’t the best starting point. “What we have, with certain exceptions, is a siege mentality, sometimes referred to as protecting turf.”

My strategy was to move slowly, step-by-step, protecting the staff, assessing their performance – and not becoming embroiled in every local quarrel. But that wouldn’t be easy. As usual, charges and counter-charges were flying, over money in New York, airtime and board elections in DC, and the management vacuum at KPFA. I’d been looking for an interim GM to handle the Berkeley station for a month now. No one seemed to want the job, and I had more to fill in the weeks ahead.

“What’s my vision of Pacifica?” It was time to start answering the question. “That Pacifica very soon will stop making war on itself,” I explained. “But this will require a leap of faith and an act of will.” Tolerance, respect, and diversity, all three would be needed. “And since I’ve said that I won’t use force – negative power – I’ll have to work with persuasion.”

For many people, Pacifica isn’t just about education or even media. Crossing the country I had asked many times: What are we building – a network or a government? Standing before the national board I posed the question again. “We have local and national legislative bodies,” I pointed out. “We have factions that could soon become political parties. We have expensive and politicized elections. We have dropping turnout, endless political gamesmanship, and the emergence of calls for the creation of what some might view as judicial bodies. But if it’s the former – to create radio that challenges, informs and enlightens – I think we need to rethink this experiment, take it back to the shop and debug it as soon as possible, before it makes accomplishing the mission nearly impossible.”

The goal, I said, “is to unleash often latent potential that exists both within and around the network; in other words, working synergistically both with each other but also with the larger media community that we sometimes lead and sometimes follow, an independent media movement of which we are just one part. It’s long past time that this organization retakes its place as a leading voice and a moving force in community-based media.”

The applause was encouraging when I finished the report. But the discussion that followed put the enthusiasm into perspective. Despite my good intentions Ken Freeland, a disgruntled board member from Houston, felt that I was making his job more difficult. He was particularly displeased that I had let KPFT General Manager Duane Bradley attend the Texas Music Awards, where the station was up for a prize, rather than come to L.A. and submit to his questioning.

Like other Amy Goodman fans, Ken was angry that Democracy Now! didn’t get earlier “drive time” airplay and wanted Duane in the hot seat. I felt Ken was missing the point. “There’s a lot more programming we need to develop,” I told him, and I didn’t intend to force stations to broadcast DN at a specific time. Others asked about the Spanish newscast, which had been discussed by the staff two days before. KPFK was ready to launch a daily one-hour broadcast. But some of the stations still weren’t willing to commit.

Next: WBAI’s Delicate Condition

Pacifica Meltdown: The Price of Democracy

Rob Robinson, a member of Pacifica Radio’s National Board representing WPFW in Washington, DC, has been working on programming issues for years. In 2006, he finally succeeded in getting a National Programming Policy adopted, although several key elements were sidetracked and few people have read it. In early September, at a meeting of the network’s Programming Committee, he explained again that stations are losing listeners and not meeting on-air pledge goals. The current programming schedules aren’t attracting enough people, he argued, and the audience is aging. “I’m not trying to dictate to management,” he promised, yet he stressed that some accountability is needed.

The Committee’s main business that night was to deal with a series of new proposals Robinson had put forward in his role as chair. But those on the phone were also thinking about a motion referred to them by the Pacifica National Board. Concerned about listenership, the Board was asking the Committee to consider a series of “performance requirements” for managers developed by KPFK director Grace Aaron.

The basic idea is that Program Directors, Station Managers, and the Executive Director should be working to increase listenership by 7 percent each quarter, or else have their failure to do so “kept on file” as part of performance evaluations. Some Board members had problems with the idea. “Magical thinking doesn’t work,” said KPFA Director Bonnie Simmons. “I can’t imagine people working under this system.” Others called it reckless, arbitrary, and punitive.

In the end, the motion was passed, but mainly because it would be referred to the Programming Committee for further consideration. When the Committee met, however, it wasn’t ready to deal with the issue, and Robinson said that his intention wasn’t “to implement a specific growth rate.” Still, one of his proposals was to establish “quantifiable programming goals designed to reach new listeners, convert them and get renewals.”

Another was to develop “objective measures to evaluate programs and schedules.” Revenue isn’t the only way to measure a show’s success, he said, but there should be “incentives” to free up space and develop new programs. Since the 16-member Committee didn’t have a quorum, it was clear from the start that no decisions would be made. But that would have been unlikely anyway, since there was disagreement about most of Robinson’s ideas. George Reiter, a director representing KPFT in Houston, saw the proposal for evaluating programs and schedules as a way to spark change, but Simmons found it troubling and advised asking the staff how they felt. “We shouldn’t throw lofty but impossible things at the stations,” she cautioned. KPFK Board Member Sherna Gluck looked for common ground, suggesting that people needed to be reminded that the current national policy hasn’t been implemented.

Robinson also urged that resources be allocated to reach larger audiences “by helping current shows and developing new programs.” WBAI Board members Lisa Davis and Cathy Davis were uncomfortable with that, noting that cutbacks at their station are being considered and the staff there should determine the needs. Next, Robinson suggested that money be “reallocated” to produce “quality news programs, documentaries, and specials,” noting that most stations don’t carry the network’s “Headline News” service and too often rely on soft-edged “talking head” interviews. Several people objected strongly to his analysis and defended their local news operations. The real problem, several people asserted, is training.

When Robinson proposed “national access to local airwaves,” the chorus of objections was almost unanimous, even when he stressed collaboration and local initiatives. Simmons and Lisa Davis opposed the suggestion that stations “must carry” any program. “Mandating builds in failure,” Simmons argued. The consensus was that the National Programming Coordinator should suggest some local shows for national distribution, but stations shouldn’t be forced to air them.

Another idea was to consolidate and coordinate the network’s news operations. After discussing the uniqueness of local news, as well as Free Speech Radio News and the DC News Bureau, the group agreed that better communication would help but the proposal itself should be dropped.

Finally, Robinson urged more aggressive digital distribution of programs. Cathy Davis agreed but added that it should be handled “station by station,” while Simmons argued that the real issue is “getting people to focus” on the network’s best shows.

In the end, while there seemed to be agreement that improving programming would eventually increase revenue, the Committee remained stymied on how to do it. The overall thrust was that stations and their staffs are best equipped to make any needed changes, and forcing the issue won’t help. Robinson’s assertions that Pacifica currently has no standards, that station schedules haven’t significantly changed for years, and that listeners are rejecting them failed to persuade.

The stalemate over programming reflects a more general problem, the difficulty in making any substantive changes with a management and governance structure that imposes a complex deliberative process, and requires input from literally hundreds of people prior to any action. Complaints about this often bring the response, “Democracy is messy.” But there’s more to it. If a group of people – for example, a local Board faction, or a group of unpaid staff members – or the management at one or two stations objects to something, they can usually block it by demanding consultation, threatening to protest, or simply ignoring the idea. One obvious result is that there has been no new ongoing national programming in a decade, since the launch of Democracy Now! Less obvious, but equally troubling, is the failure to adopt network-wide policies in key areas.

Pacifica has about a dozen national committees dealing with finances, governance, personnel, audits, programming, the internal election process, affiliates, allegations of racism and sexism, and so on. It also has a Coordinating Committee, which is supposed to keep the process moving. But many committees have trouble consistently achieving quorum, resulting in a work backlog, or are divided along various factional lines. The one committee that has been explicitly avoided in the 2002 bylaws is an “executive committee,” which could allow some decisions to be made when other parts of the system break down. Yet, some directors clearly have more influence than others.

On Sept. 7, when 11 members of the National Board convened in hopes of moving forward with a “strategic recovery plan” to deal with Pacifica’s current financial problems, nothing could be done because the other 11 Board members didn’t show up. This approach – preventing a decision through non-participation – is relatively common. It could be argued that such a response represents democracy in action – the withdrawal of consent – but the immediate result is inaction.

The meeting demonstrated the dynamics of the Board split. Those attending included two directors each from KPFK, KPFT and WPFW, three from WBAI (the winners in a highly contested election that led to a lawsuit), one director representing affiliate stations, and one from KPFA. All but two just joined the Board this year. The absent members included the other affiliate director, one from WBAI, plus the remaining three KPFA delegates (including the Board chair), and the remaining six directors from the other three stations, including the chairs of the Coordinating and Finance committees. Three in that group were elected by station staffs, and a majority have served on the Board for two years or more. In other words, the turnout suggests that the Board’s leadership, and most directors representing KPFA and staff, are at odds with a new insurgent group.

The bylaws impose some rules that have been difficult to follow. For example, the National Board is supposed to meet in person four times a year in specific months and a prescribed rotation between station areas. But this requirement has frequently been sidestepped, and the most recent quarterly meeting was postponed, then cancelled. Two attempts to change this meeting requirement have failed, due in part to other strict amendment requirements, and another attempt is currently underway. But another section of the bylaws says that amendments can only be put forward once every 12 months, so if several are proposed they all must be handled at the same time – unless the Board decides otherwise by a two-thirds vote.

At the moment, at least five possible amendments are in the pipeline. In addition to the one allowing the Board to reduce the number of in-person meetings (if two-thirds of the Board deems it necessary due to “emergency conditions”), proposals include allowing amendments at any time during a given year; a new category of “monthly” Board meetings that can be held by telephone, video conferencing or other means; allowing earlier election of Affiliates Directors, so that they can be seated along with others in January; and, possibly, elimination of bylaws language that describes the duties of election supervisors.

The election supervisor amendment is being considered in response to concerns that classifying national and local election supervisors as contractors despite the inclusion of their qualifications and specific job descriptions may violate California employment law. The solution being considered is to strike anything that describes job requirements or duties.

If the Board decides to move forward, any proposed changes – also according to the Bylaws – will have to be posted on the Foundation’s website and announced two times daily on all five sister stations for 60 days before each Local Station Board (LSB), as well as the Pacifica National Board (PNB), votes. All the voting must occur during the same month.

Fortunately, Pacifica isn’t electing new local board members this year. That will happen in 2009 and 2010, using a process that takes up to nine months and can cost $200,000. But each station will vote in January on who should represent it on the PNB, and after that, the National Board will have to reconstitute itself, holding new elections for officers and committee membership. That process can take up to two months, further slowing down the Board’s work.

In the midst of all this, Pacifica will have to fill some key management vacancies – Executive Director and Human Resources Director, and KPFA will continue to struggle with whom to appoint as permanent General Manager in the midst of an emerging local revolt. In addition, the PNB will be looking at a new job description for its Chief Financial Officer.

Last Spring, at the urging of Executive Director Nicole Sawaya, the Board decided that national financial staff should report to her. But Sawaya is leaving, and the Personnel Committee has meanwhile voted not to incorporate that reporting requirement into the new job description, while giving the CFO responsibility for investing Pacifica’s funds and managing its banking relationships. Thus, the situation may return to where it was before.

None of these problems are insurmountable. But the current financial crunch won’t make things easier, and, as if things weren’t tough enough, Hurricane Ike forced KPFT off the air on September 12. According to Sawaya and GM Duane Bradley, the staff is all right and power will soon be restored, but the transmitter site was burglarized. This is the longest period that the Houston station has been off the air since it was bombed about 38 years ago.

When the next ED is chosen, she or he is very likely to have a smaller national staff, and thus less ability to coordinate resources or advance new initiatives. There will be union negotiations at stations, a new Pacifica election season, and lingering complaints and lawsuits to resolve. At WBAI the cash crunch is severe enough that the PNB may be forced to either further tap Pacifica’s line of credit, let the station fail, or consider the unthinkable – sale of a station.

A decade ago, when the rumor that a station might be sold began to circulate, it added fuel to an already smoldering revolt. This time, if the option of selling an “asset” is publicly voiced by those in charge, the response could be different. The confederal structure put in place after the “Save Pacifica” movement makes change difficult, but also stresses that individual stations have a right to chart their own paths. The Local Board and management at KPFA, Pacifica’s flagship station, don’t always see eye to eye, but they do agree that the current crisis could put the station at risk. That makes it unlikely that KPFA’s stability will be further leveraged to save a sister station.

In a Sept. 12 open letter to KPFA supporters, a group of managers underlined the seriousness of the situation as the station prepares to begin a delayed on-air fund drive on Sept. 18. “Given the Pacifica Network's current financial condition,” they write, “if we don't raise the money we need soon, KPFA could have to close its doors.”

Yes, democracy is messy. But cleaning up this mess, with a divided Board and a fragile national structure, may well require sacrifices that put Pacifica’s version to the ultimate test.

To find out more, read Part One and Two of this series:

Part One: Quiet Meltdown on Planet Pacifica

Part Two: Budgeting for Triage

The Pacifica National Board met in Washington, DC, Sept. 19-21.To access archived recordings, go to http://www.kpftx.org/. See agenda below. Sources for these articles include meetings of the Pacifica National Board, National Finance Committee, Coordinating Committee, and Personnel Committee, LSB minutes, and members of the Pacifica community who provided information on condition of anonymity.

PNB meeting, Sept. 19 - 21, 2008: Preliminary Agenda

Friday, Sept. 19

10:00 AM - Executive Session, with legal update

12:00 - Lunch

1:00 PM - Open Session

Welcoming Remarks; roll call, approval of agenda/minutes

Executive Director's state of the network address

Updates: General & Specific

2:00 PM - By-law revisions

3:00 PM - Executive Session; solutions, strategies

4:00 PM - break

5:00 PM - Open Session - Host station presentation

5:45 PM - Public comment

7:00 PM - Reception

Saturday, Sept.20

9:00 AM Sharp – All Day Session: Finances/Budgets

Presentation and approval of 7 budgets; personnel issues; implications for re-organization; National Office staffing issues/ transition

Sunday, Sept.21

8:00 AM - PNB Public Session

Audit Committee report & presentation of new firm; report out on work; ED report

10:30 Public comment

11:30 Committee reports

Pacifica Meltdown: Budgeting for Triage

Developing budgets for the Pacifica Radio network is an arduous task that involves more than 150 people – members of five local station boards (LSBs), managers and staff at Pacifica’s sister stations, the Pacifica National Board (PNB), and national staff, including a finance team in Berkeley and other personnel across the country. Each station develops its own proposals, discusses them with the main office, then forwards them to the National Finance Committee, then back for local approval, followed by review and, hopefully, eventual sign off by the PNB. Since funding for national operations is dependent upon local station contributions, it’s hard to determine how much will be available for projects such as the Pacifica Radio Archives, Affiliates Program, national programming, development and technical infrastructure until the five station budgets have been finalized.

The whole process takes at least four months, and sometimes budgets are kicked back even after the annual meeting.

Talking frankly with the National Finance Committee in early August, Executive Director Nicole Sawaya, who had privately submitted her resignation not long before, described Pacifica’s current cash position as “not good at all.” At that point the year-to-date variance between projections and the actual situation was $1.6 million, she said, adding that this was the reason “we’re going into a relationship with the bank.” A line of credit (since obtained) was already in the works, using a $400,000 C.D. held by KPFA in Berkeley as collateral. But an equity loan also will be needed, she added, and that would take longer.

Meanwhile, management was looking for other ways to economize. For example, staff members were being “migrated” from “incredibly generous” health care programs to less expensive HMOs; the option of “reimbursing employees for their purchase of health care” was also being considered. “We’re trying to ferret out every liability and pending expense as we build these budgets,” Sawaya explained, “to mitigate any surprises,” notably potential legal costs.

Board Chair Sherry Gendleman, who is also on the KPFA local board, saw the situation as “enormously distressing,” concerned that the PNB was on the verge of making decisions that could “destabilize” her station by “using it as a cash cow.” Sawaya responded by asking whether Pacifica was “a network or five stations.” In a very real sense, that is precisely the choice facing the organization as it deals with financial and other challenges.

Station Budgets

The National Finance Committee began reviewing individual station budgets in August. Presenting the plan for KPFA, Brian Edwards-Tiekert, a staff member who also sits on the local board, called it a “break even budget” from which travel and most consultant costs had been eliminated. About $125,000 in staff reductions (about two and a half positions) were also being proposed, but “we may not be conservative enough.” The reason, he said, is that “fund drive revenue plateaued a year ago and is going down.”

The Committee felt that the cuts weren’t deep enough, and Edwards-Tiekert agreed that “if revenue doesn’t go up, we’ll face another $300,000 in cuts” in the future. After looking over the situation, the committee recommended trimming an additional $80,000. The network is “putting enormous responsibility on KPFA,” Gendleman noted, referring to the loans.

Before it began to meet in executive session, due in part to the personnel implications, the Finance Committee also began to look at KPFK in Los Angeles and KPFT in Houston. KPFT has the smallest budget (about $1.3 million) and, along with WPFW, the smallest staff. The proposal was to cut the next year’s KPFT station budget by 6 percent, mainly by eliminating two staff positions, and implement an immediate 10 percent cut in management salaries. But the conservative estimates led to questions about why income from on-air fund drives, Pacifica’s main source of revenues, was declining.

Fundraising was level through the 1990s, Edwards-Tiekert offered, followed by a “surge of support after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.” But spending went up with income and to maintain that level a fourth on-air fund drive was institutionalized. “We’re now returning to an historical average,” he said.

Turning to KPFK, the Committee considered the Los Angeles station’s plan to make $250,000 in payroll cuts and heard that KPFK also owed money to the national office. Board member Grace Aaron noted that the summer “mini-drive” wasn’t going well, jeopardizing the ability to cover the September payroll. She also pointed to frequent sabotage, including hackers who attack the station’s website. But the underlying problem, she acknowledged, was that the age of the average listener is 54, and core listeners are over 60, calling the overall situation “very troubling.”

Others pointed to the issue of fulfillment rates, the percentage of money actually collected once a fund drive has ended. At times the fulfillment rate at KPFK has been below 80 percent. The station’s new General Manager, Sean Heitkemper, believes he can change that, but some on the Committee were skeptical.

The biggest question mark, and largest financial challenge, is WBAI in New York. That station has been losing about $500,000 a year, according to Committee sources, sometimes leading to short-term bailouts by the national office. Yet, the Committee had still not reviewed its budget by the end of August, with charges flying back and forth about whom to blame. “National is in no way impeding the process,” Sawaya insisted, while WBAI Board member R. Paul Martin expressed concern that “the PNB is rushing into things before the LSB sees it.”

The main dispute, according to members of WBAI’s local board, is the insistence by the national office that the station cut 6.5 staff positions from its next budget. The station currently has a staff of 23 full time equivalents. At a recent meeting of the station’s LSB, General Manager Tony Riddle listed a series of disagreements with the national office and said he was being pressured. His list included the amount budgeted for legal fees, projections for direct mail and website income as well as increases in health care costs, and a plan to cut station rent through “reduction in physical space” (the national office reportedly wants written confirmation from WBAI’s landlord). Out of total budget of $2.4 million, the station pays $277,969 a year for its Wall Street headquarters, plus $350,778 to transmit from the Empire State Building.

According to a September 12 article in The Indypendent, the newspaper of New York’s Independent Media Center, the station and national office are also arguing about exactly how much WBAI owes the national office. “We’re in major negotiations with Pacifica over this,” WBAI LSB chair Mitchel Cohen told the publication. “WBAI has been unfairly billed and we’re asking for a line-by-line accounting.” Whatever the debt may be – somewhere between $300,000 and $450,000 – an obvious problem is the station’s low fulfillment rate, hovering around 70 percent.

The station continues to be mired in a long-term factional struggle. The Sept. 3 LSB meeting, which attracted only 15 members of the public, “was delayed half an hour in order to reach quorum, then quickly descended into hour-long bickering over the agenda, Robert’s Rules of Order (which outlines meeting process) and what constituted an excused absence,” The Indypendent reported. “Finally, after almost two and a half hours of thinly veiled contempt and bickering, the LSB meeting began addressing the most pressing issue — the budget.”

The two budgets yet to be discussed in public are those for WPFW in Washington, DC, and the national operation. Concerning the former, no information is publicly available yet, except Sawaya’s August comments that she has been attempting to get information and sees as a major challenge the need to relocate the station in a year.

The National Dilemma

The options for the national budget, which relies largely on “central services” payments from the stations, range from cutting about $200,000 to $600,000, depending on the severity of staff reductions. If staffing remains the same, the deficit could top $800,000. On the other hand, if most positions are eliminated – a scenario labeled “national office collapse” – the shortfall would still be around $250,000. The main problem, based on the national office’s analysis, is that WBAI and KPFK haven’t forwarded their full central services payments, and none are expected from WBAI next year.

Health and insurance expenses are expected to rise, and a contract with Democracy Now! calls for a 4 percent increase. Pacifica pays DN about $600,000 a year for the distribution of its daily public affairs show, plus Amy Goodman’s help with on-air fundraising. There might also be unanticipated severance payments and legal fees.

Sawaya has stressed that there is no choice but to borrow, and “anyone lending money will demand a balanced budget.” That apparently won’t pose too severe a problem for some stations. For the national office and WBAI, however, the impact could be devastating. For several years, the New York station has been assisted by national. Now both are in jeopardy.

With both Sawaya and the network’s Human Resources Director resigning, the temptation is to downsize. CFO Lonnie Hicks has been on leave over the summer, but is still being paid and may return. The Pacifica Radio Archives has agreed to make staff reductions, but has a proven financial track record and is too valuable to the organization to sacrifice. Not having an HR Director could be dangerous, given the frequency of employee disputes. So could the lack of an Executive Director for any length of time, although finding someone willing to take the job – and acceptable to most Board members – may be difficult. That leaves technical staff, the DC Bureau, the national programming coordinator, Free Speech Radio News, finance staff, and the Affiliates Program.

The Affiliates Program generates fees from member stations, around $200,000 a year, and has only one full-time staff member, Ursula Ruedenberg. Though modestly profitable, questions have been raised about how much it actually costs, and whether too many low power and Internet stations have been allowed to join without paying. On the other hand, it represents a significant form of outreach to the larger independent radio community, and expands the reach of Pacifica programs. Cutting the program could have a significant impact on how Pacifica is perceived.

The DC Bureau was created when the Pacifica National Office moved from the East to West Coast about six years ago. Verna Avery Brown, who had been Deputy Executive Director, was left behind and agreed to take on a new position. Since then, questions have been raised about her main contribution, daily news headlines available to sister stations and affiliates. Most don’t carry them. The one-person Bureau currently costs around $100,000 a year and doesn’t directly produce income.

Free Speech Radio News provides a daily half hour news program to Pacifica and its affiliates. Last Spring, Sawaya and Hicks cut Pacifica’s payments to FSRN by 25 percent, and funding beyond next Spring is unlikely. FSRN is already seeking alternative sources. But its departure would leave Pacifica without a national newscast, and there is no money to produce one in-house, unless existing local news operations take up the slack. When Pacifica last produced its own national daily newscast, it cost around $1 million a year.

If fully staffed, the national finance team includes four people plus Hicks. Sawaya has suggested that financial management could largely be “outsourced.” But she has also said that Pacifica needs more centralized accounting and reporting. Thus, the questions become whether to strengthen national oversight, and how to do that given the desire of stations to control their own budgets. Each station has its own business manager.

The other members of the national staff are Programming Coordinator Nathan Moore, Technical Director Jon Almeleh, and Internet Projects Manager Pete Korakis. If Pacifica were to eliminate any of these positions, its ability to coordinate programming and technical services, including governance, could be seriously undermined. Still, some members of the community question whether a national infrastructure is worth the price.

This brings the discussion back to Sawaya’s key question: Is Pacifica a network or five stations? If a choice must be made, the overarching structure – which places control in the hands of Board members whose primarily loyalty is to their local stations – makes it likely that the answer will, at least for now, be the latter. But if the national organization is dramatically scaled back, the main reason to pay central services fees is gone. And if those fees are seriously reduced to ensure balanced budgets for the stations, it could take years to reconstitute an effective national organization.

In sum, Pacifica has reached the point of unavoidable triage. Some parts will have to be sacrificed to ensure the organization’s survival. What they will be remains unknown, at least until the National Board meets in Washington, DC on Sept. 19-21. But both the future of Pacifica as a functioning network and the viability of WBAI appear to be on the line.

Sources for this article include meetings of the Pacifica National Board, National Finance Committee, LSB minutes, and members of the Pacifica community who provided information on condition of anonymity.

Coming up: Programming, governance, and the Bylaws