Urban Unrest

29 July 2007 | Pacifica | Ernesto Aguilar

Hopefully you have an opportunity to listen to Greg Guma’s report at Friday’s open of the Pacifica National Board meeting. In it, he blasts the ongoing lawsuits against Pacifica as aimed at crippling the organization. He received rousing applause for his remarks. Earlier in the month, this open letter was released on one of the cases. Credit to pacificana.org for originally posting this.

STATEMENT ON KPFK ALLEGATIONS, LITIGATION AND FUNDRAISING

I have received a statement from a group of producers and programmers at KPFK concerning their belief that it is “economically and ethically wrong” to raise money from KPFK’s listener-sponsors without full disclosure of the potential financial costs of current litigation brought by a staff member. They also put forward a number of proposals.

While it is not the practice of Pacifica to discuss pending litigation, the fact that this letter has been forwarded to the national office, the Pacifica National Board, and the KPFK Local Station Board, and is also apparently circulating publicly, makes some response necessary. As our corporate counsel has stated previously, the Foundation carefully investigated the claims in this matter when it became aware of them. Although counsel concluded that those claims were unfounded, Pacifica did make a good faith effort to reach a settlement in order to avoid the expense and stress of litigation. Unfortunately, those efforts were not successful.

Concerning the specific contents of the letter, its stated aim is to help Pacifica fulfill its potential, yet the dissemination of allegations such as “financial improprieties,” “embezzlement” and “potentially criminal behavior” clearly and unnecessarily undermines the organization. The national office has, in the past, carefully examined any accusations brought forward. To date it has found, after a detailed audit, no evidence of embezzlement or improprieties. In my opinion, the decision of the signers to assume guilt and spread rumors represents a rush to judgment and a disregard for the best interests of the Foundation.

This lawsuit, like virtually all others, is not only directed against an individual but also against the station and the Foundation. The decisions to pursue a possible settlement, and when the negotiations foundered, to defend against what counsel concluded were unfounded allegations, were made by the Pacifica National Board. When a lawsuit is filed against Pacifica or one of its employees, funds must be allocated to defend or to settle. Article XI of the bylaws, subject to California law, requires the Foundation to indemnify any director, officer, or employee against expenses, judgments, fines, and settlements unless there is reasonable cause to believe that unlawful conduct was involved. Despite the desire of some to create the impression that this is the case, Pacifica has been presented with no evidence of such unlawful conduct.

Our attorney has advised us that Pacifica is required by law to provide a defense for the General Manager and to pay any damages assessed against her or any settlement made on her behalf. We have no choice in the matter, he reports. Whether we like it or not, Pacifica is financially responsible for this lawsuit, just as we would be if someone caused an injury as a result of becoming involved in an automobile accident while covering a story for one of our stations.

We cannot as individuals decide which of Pacifica’s bills must be paid.

The letter also suggests that there has been a cover up, and argues that raising money for the station to defend against the charges in the lawsuit would constitute a “betrayal of the public on our part.”

But there is also absolutely no evidence that anything is being covered up; the National Finance Committee and the Local Station Board, representing the Foundation’s membership, are kept informed about the costs. The letter resorts to loaded language as a substitute for rational argument.

Apparently, the signers feel that they, rather than Pacifica’s elected representatives, are best equipped to determine what legal expenditures are justified.

The so-called “moral quandary” outlined in the letter sounds like a smokescreen. The subtext is a veiled threat to undermine fundraising unless the organization accepts their demands. And what are these demands? That no Foundation funds be spent to defend a lawsuit filed against the Foundation, that the station’s General Manager be placed on paid leave, and that any money raised be placed in escrow until an “impartial” committee is chosen to oversee its use.

In effect, the proposal is to ignore the bylaws of Pacifica because a group of programmers and producers - who, by the way, have been at odds with the current General Manager — has concluded that the lawsuit should not be defended by the Foundation.

If anyone wishes to file a grievance against a manager, there is a stated policy for doing so. If they desire to see a General Manager disciplined, the appropriate process is to appeal to the Local Station Board or to me, and present some evidence. But this letter is not an appeal and does not offer evidence. It is a threat, backed by the force of negative publicity. It does precisely the type of damage that its signers claim they want to avoid.

The Pacifica Foundation remains committed to the defense of free speech, even speech with which it disagrees. But those who govern and manage this institution should not be intimidated by provocative arguments and destructive rumors wrapped in progressive rhetoric.

Greg Guma
June 14, 2007

****
Executive Director
Pacifica Foundation

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!