Thursday, July 31, 2008

KPFK non-responsive to any questions, queries, calls

Our concern about KPFK is always repeated =that there is almost NO information about what is happpenning there forthcoming anywhere locally unless it is gossip, rumor, conjecture or complaint,

and then only at the fund drives do the KPFK volunteers meet each other while on site .... a strange lack of community or continuity otherwise or other far as we can find out...tho it would seem it should be otherwise, there is only a silent thud here.

And when KPFK was googled searched there is nothing more to find out, but that was how the Pacificana web site showed up way down on p 2 or 3 of google search - and it took a long & dedicated search to discover that one!... Actually, Pacificana informs more there than can be found in Los Angeles or newsgroups, or else these are so submerged that they are not popping into regular view.

Also the Pacifica's ED's momentary visit described there and the description of people she met briefly, ever so briefly at OUR radio station is contrary to what we experience her postings were of more interest because of course her position would give her a total different response and effect and from the top,...and we are at the bottom...'just a volunteers'.

The July 11 KPFK website post of the new GM was only up AFTER we had searched google repeatedly only to find it noted 7 days earlier elsewhere...but it was NOT on KPFK's website until the 7 day+ delay, and there is no notation of who or when it was put up if it didnt matter it was up way late .and while = a local info source [the only other place, where we here write or ask or comment or complain just a little - about KPFK to each other] because no one from the station ever seems to read it or care or respond or change anything at all....

So the GM appointment was Not announced promptly, the days earlier when he took 'office'or even before that, like when he was finally selected for sure ...and the info on website is also very minimal, w/no pix, no comment from him, nothing else that we can know... so what is the secret being held close there ? why? someone else said, we cannot be listening 24/7 to hear [maybe] an announcement, maybe even a short blurb or hear him talk.[as of July 15 anyhow] ..he may have by now...but we also cant' take in that much and listen and then maybe 'miss it' and are told, well," 'we did it is your fault for not knowing..." the usual passing on responsibility...

and the initial announcement being on Sonali's site instead of KPFK's site FIRST [even Pacificana copied it from there ! before KPFK put it up at all.] makes one wonder what connections she has that the other paid staff dont have... and the GM made a comment somewhere overheard that he thought her program somehow special or whatever words he used to elevate her program above others ???? huh???? has he listened to others too ?? was he just being polite because she interviewed him before anyone else had made a public announcement? Did she scoop this ? or was Sonali the only one willing to expose him ?

or What happened there? No info makes it all more suspicious than it probably needs to be. But that's what KPFK engenders and promotes - secrecy, thus more suspicion. Why is this happening ?

so it was all a bit strange, the order of how, when, who makes the prime announcement and who will see it ? or know? and who cares anyhow !!!!! right ? does this sound grumpy ?? well it comes with the futile search and not finding much.

We are still lured to trying to help improve/change/do something ! to keep KPFK from being the secret compartment closed enclave hidden agenda'd and totally non-transparent entity claiming "free speech" and openness and not displaying any.

Like all rebels, the KPFK programmers like to expose the "others" while in their own paranoia hiding themselves, excessively, fearfully. What strength can that be ?

Some of us recently attended the 2nd or 3rd meeting of a group called the "community advisory Board" required by Corp Pub Broadcasting =to give KPFK funds yearly....and already a few of us are already dismayed and discouraged by how this too goes.....dysfunctional is a positive description compared to the realities seen and far

It is said that this group should have been in effect already for a few years now [how many ?] but had not been meeting, and had been 'advising'some years before ....and yet because it is required to exist and advise for the financesto flow into the station, so it is being started up again. With no good guidelines of who they advise ...what was ever advised before ? what is possible to do as an external group to help ? to help the station's community's to really have a bit of input in programming or elsewhre, though all internal-workings are so closely held for that staff/programmer sense of personal-political-individual power...or so it seems, so often and clearly so.

So we dont expect to know or do anything... BUT at least we believe in exposing problems and refuse go into addictive-people's alcoholics...the whole station's staff and even many long time programmers collude to keep silent, never answer emails, never answer phone call msgs. and are impossible to connect to directly. it just dont happen !

There are a few volunteers who work on site who confirm this also, to their own frustration, trying to be responsible to the KPFK listerner public, yet they dont understand and cant get anything or anyone to be more responsive - even while at the premises working there for gratis !!!

... nothing is confidential here... and it's noted that the KPFK website has requests 2 volunteers for 2 days of reception afternoon work...huh?so while the hope or assumption may be that the new GM will be somehow different or better, I already dont think they could do much even if they wanted to make the great effort to change the elephant's stripes...they will change him,the GM, not him change the whole teetering mega station. or rather the tightly held corporation...

and if a person has been on "a program for '25 years" as a programmer claimed and insists this gives them permission to keep on having their own special program, what does this also tell us ? entrenchment is what the programmers are all about...even within the great variety that does also exist, I admit and why I still remain loyal to the station.

if anyone at all is interested in what is happening at KPFK from the Outside, as there is no central channel of truth or sharing information, then again la.indymedia has some articles that can be searched and briefly reviewed...but who has time to do this ? who cares ?

yes, we can write and carry on, apologies to those irritated by these complaints, but these complaints repeat because we want them to heard, healed, changed and the station's secretive ways to be opened up to it's owners and sponsors and dedicated loyal volunteers, not just paid staff that are in divisive factionalized conflicts already...

that so many in LA listeners must know...or who cares ? whatever......
peace, maybe....
mary janie
written on July 15,2008 8:04 pm PST

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

What Fairness Doctrine, again ? lost it.....

No Candidate, No Fairness Doctrine and No Equal Time

Broadcast Law - 27 July, 2008 - 19:38

[reposted here from ]

The New York Times ran an article about how certain African-American radio hosts were acting as cheerleaders for the Obama campaign, and contrasting that to past elections where talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh gave a boost to Republican candidates on their programs. How is it that these programs can take political positions without triggering requirements that opposing candidates get equal time? Under FCC rules, unless a candidate' recognizable voice or image is broadcast by a station, there is no right to equal opportunities. In the past, until the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine by declaring it to be unconstitutional, even without a candidate appearance, the station would have had an obligation to give both sides of a controversial issue of public importance, such as an election, free time to respond to on-air statements by an announcer. When the doctrine was abolished, stations were free to air pointed programs taking positions on issues, giving rise initially principally to the conservative commentators, and more recently to their more liberal counterparts such as those heard on Air America radio.

The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine also allowed broadcasters to editorialize, even endorsing candidates for political office without having to give the opponent of their favored candidate equal time, just like print media can do. Similarly, a station can take a position on a ballot issue, or on another controversial issue of public importance in their communities without having to provide time to those with opposing viewpoints - allowing stations to fully participate in their communities political life. Under the Fairness Doctrine, stations even had to give time to those with viewpoints opposed to parties who bought time on a controversial issue if the opponents could not themselves afford to buy time. The occasional discussion of reviving the Fairness Doctrine ignores these issues.

The one aspect of the Fairness Doctrine that has never been officially abolished is the Zapple Doctrine, a rule that required that supporters of a major-party candidate be able to get time to respond to broadcasts by supporters of the opponent, effectively "quasi-equal opportunities." The doctrine was argued by supporters of John Kerry in their request for equal time when Sinclair Broadcasting threatened to run the Swift Boat "documentary" during the 2004 Presidential election. Perhaps fearing that the Zapple Doctrine had continuing validity (or perhaps fearing bad publicity), the film was never run in its entirety, so no decision was released as to whether the Zapple Doctrine had continuing validity after the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine. Presumably, this policy, even if still valid, would not be applied to talk shows, as the statements of talk show hosts, while certainly biased and pointed in one political direction or another, rarely state outright "go vote for candidate X." Of course, any application of the Zapple Doctrine, or any reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, would no doubt bring about a constitutional challenge to the regulatory scheme. Given the recent deference of Courts to the First Amendment rights of broadcasters, supporters of the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine should get the message.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Repeatedly, when anyone is seeking information it is NOT on the website, not information about LSB and other KPFK meetings especially, and no minutes of recent meetings, no agendas, etc.

even the announcement of the new GM was well DELAYED 7 days after it was announced on Uprising and Pacificana websites....why the lengthy delay ?

the webmaster's excuse probably is "they didnt give it to me earlier"...which means he is NOT RESPONSIBLE for eliciting or obtaining important information that is to be given to the listener-shareholders of this station?

And if not, who is responsible ?

and why is the only the date and not the time of the posting up ? It might be interesting to find out the late hour of posting... every other posting at misc. blogs, etc. lists date and time...why is KPFK not doing so?

the recnet CAB meeting is now posted, without a date of when posted, or who submitted it. Should this not be included to be providing the INFORMATION freely that KPFK extolls?

Can someones please make some agreement that information is provided, not the minimum but the MAXIMUM and that it is requested, posted, provided without pulling everyone's teeth and hair out in having to request, to repeat search, to have 'outsiders' clamor for information that should be available on KPFK we bsite as it pertains to station's doings...

and if the webmaster is told he is only to sit passivelty awaiting what to post and has no say, tho he IS on the LSB and perhaps other committees so not so unpowerful that he need to use that "it's nt part of my job" excuse, we hold his RESPONSIBLE for requesting, and reminding whoever need be that the information is due to the pay-for-programs-audience...that is us.

and those who dont have a computer or are not so literate, they are left out, surely.... as there is no way to know without listening 24/7 if any announcements are made..

A space on the listing or event could be added that lists date & time an on-air announcement is made for those who dont and cant get online to search....repeatedly and with stubborn insistence to find out what is it takes that much...

the CAB announcement was not on website last week, and it is on now, but who knows when it came up to be noticed and to get people who want to attend to know about it ...

Much improvement needs to be made about the quality and responsibility of informing US, the sponsors and payees of this station and it's staff's salaries, plus all else, of what is occuring at the station, IN the station, and how it is run as well....secrecy and opacity is contrary to the station's stated ideals.

Please let us all know, with any means of feedback, that something improving is being done, not the usual silence that says no one cares, no may even read this email, no one responds to the efforts and suggestions given, no one ever calls back on voice mail messages left and 'the public' is so left out that we feel we are being pulled by a sled that has no driver, going down, down down, secretly and evasively.

Please correct this lack of informaton and please le tme know you have heard and cared eough to even do more than the 'automatic' reply that goes to spam rec'd as well.

On the website, right this minute, notice that last 'station board' minutes were for Nov 2007.....over 6 months ago, is that informative and up to date ?

Last "LSB resolutions" is for 2006....huh ? nothing has happened since then ?

Last financial reports are lists it as "2007' budget, a while back no ? uncurrent and therefore not very informative either.

Hey, the Program Council is just as outdated !!! they list the July 2007 meetings, a year ago ? nothing happened since then ? is this possible ? and their last "minutes" is dated 1/17/ unhelpful is that antiquated informaton.

WHAT IS WRONG HERE ? Who is responsible, of whoever are responsible, to provide up to date feedback of what is HAPPENING WITH AND AT THE STATION at least on the website as again, no intersted listener can catch by chance a announcement if it is ever made at all.

how hypocritical to claim to be relevant, current, up to date and providng "news" but not of itself...only about others that KPFK criticizes so easily, weasely too.

Shame on the management for allowing this to continue on and on so long... Excuses of not having money and staff is the usual, name any business that does not claim the same and KPFK denies their excuses but uses the same ones itself. Shame !

Friday, July 25, 2008

[This is an older post, repeated here for general information and as a source to also utilize for those interested in KPFK & other pacifica station's financial stuff...maybe..]


"Pacifica Financial Info 29 July, 2007 - It would be good to collect Pacifica's financial info here.

The 2006 audit is posted at The previous year's audits and 990s going back to 2001 are posted here,cat_view/gid,1
Pacifica foundation is NOT keeping its financial reports up to date on its web site. But people who have this information could post it here if we had a place to do it."

[Where else is financial information posted for share-holders-sponsors-pledgers to see ? mj ]


[This post seems as relevant to other pacifica station doings as it may refer only to one of them... so it is reposted here to inform us all and may be helpful... notation by maryjanie ]

Planet Pacifica: Making Democracy Work from
Posted by Greg Guma at 7/16/2008 05:11:00 AM

Excerpts from remarks at a KPFT planning retreat, January 2008

When rumors fly through the Pacifica Radio community or attacks get especially nasty, people often blame provocateurs and charge that the government is out to get radio’s voice of the people. There’s some basis for this suspicion. The FBI had Pacifica in its sights as early as 1958, and took a special interest in 1962 when former Special Agent Jack Levine gave KPFA an interview. Levine exposed the Bureau as a threat to democracy and a tool of J. Edgar Hoover, its vain and obsessed director. According to Mathew Lasar, who reviewed Freedom of Information Act files, the Bureau poked, prodded, and harassed the organization for years, even planting agents disguised as private citizens.

In the last decade, however, charges of counter-intelligence operations directed against the organization have been speculative at best, and occasionally excursions into free-range paranoia. When messages critical of program hosts or local activists are posted on Internet lists and websites, their authors – some long-time Pacifica members – are sometimes charged as accomplices in an alleged government conspiracy to destabilize the organization. Board members and station managers aren’t exempt from insinuations that they’re part of the plot.

Personally, I found no solid evidence of a government operation during my tenure as Executive Director. But even if a disinformation campaign was being pursued, it would be overkill. At this point, the Pacifica community is capable of destabilizing itself without a federal assist. Outside forces aren’t responsible for the current bylaws or listener activist distrust of staff, the slow response to the digital age, confusion about the basic mission, programming gridlock, financial decline, or misbehavior of board members and volunteers.

Part of the problem is the version of democracy put in place after Pacifica was “saved.” The five stations have about a million regular listeners. Of this total, about 10 percent make financial or volunteer contributions, qualifying them to participate in local elections. Of that total, little more than 10 percent actually return ballots. Due to proportional voting, it takes at most about 300 votes for election to a station board. In other words, LSB members draw their right to govern from less than one percent of the listeners. And in order to win, candidates often resort to negative appeals, especially charges that the process is corrupt and Pacifica isn’t democratic enough. In general, the elections tend to perpetuate an atmosphere of confrontation and suspicion.

They also take at least eight months to conduct, cost more than $200,000 each time, consume considerable staff and airtime, and lead to interminable legal disputes. Most non-profit boards recruit people with specific skills needed by the organization. Pacifica has replaced this with an election process that creates warring factions on every station board.

In the past, Board meetings have frequently featured rude outbursts and other disrespectful behavior. Roberts Rules of Order are often abused, becoming weapons of obstruction rather than tools to promote rational discussion. E-mails are used to spread rumors and promote debates of marginal relevance. In many cases, factional alliances manipulate the rules. Productivity suffers and questionable behavior opens the organization to legal liability. All this has the effect of alienating potential supporters or future board members.

Voting is not a panacea. It’s a mediated form of political engagement, and can sometimes divert energy from more effective forms of political and social action. Just because a group is elected, that doesn’t always mean it makes the best or even the right decisions.

Since the status-quo encourages competition rather than cooperation, a viable alternative would need to provide incentives for actively seeking common ground. For elections to be constructive, the process must reward helpful ideas rather than negative appeals. Pacifica might consider having some at-large, appointed board members, people who have needed skills and aren’t so entangled in the internal political struggles.

The organization could also benefit from some form of open-source governance, an emerging “post-national” approach that draws from the collective wisdom of a whole community. An open-source model could help de-couple setting policy from station management. A small step in this direction is to post all the policies – local, national, financial – in one accessible public registry and update it regularly.

The current structure is, in part, a form of grassroots democracy. As much decision-making as possible is granted to the lower geographic level of organization. This sounds fine, but means in practice that power resides with local institutions – the stations – and not with individuals. In contrast, participatory systems give people equal access to decision-making regardless of their standing in a local chapter or community. The question is who and what Pacifica seeks to empower.

In the digital age, people can listen to any station they want, at any time they want. They are no longer bound by geographic proximity or access to an FM frequency. Some way needs to be found for people who support Pacifica, but don’t work at or contribute to a specific station, to participate as members. They represent a vast untapped audience and certainly shouldn’t be viewed as outsiders. In short, claiming to have a democratic structure doesn’t end the discussion. The real issues are what form of democracy works best, and who is really a member of the community in this new era.

Beyond a fresh look at listener democracy, Pacifica also needs a serious review of its outdated mission statement, which currently adds to the confusion, and a radical overhaul of its bylaws. Perhaps being the loyal opposition, covering the stories that other media ignore, is the path ahead. But if so, where and how do dialogue and national programs fit in? Is it really a network or merely a convenient umbrella for local stations that basically go their own ways? Resolving such questions will help to determine the best formats and schedules to serve the mission and attract more listeners. It might even lead to less internal warfare.

Planet Pacifica will resume sometime in the future. A hyperlinked chapter list will be released soon. Keep in touch with Maverick Media for frequent updates on politics, perception management, alternative media, Vermont, and Pacifica today.
[any comments back to him or us here ? please be informative, not accusatory if possible. thanx mj ]

[this is a reposting of an article giving some history for those of who were and are 'not there'....mj]

KPFK: The Price of Stifling Dissent
Posted by Greg Guma at 6/25/2008 12:41:00 PM /2008/06/kpfk-price-of-stifling- dissent.html

In 1999, shortly after Lynn Chadwick replaced Pat Scott as Executive Director of Pacifica Radio, a new phase of its internal war began. Chadwick had begun her radio career as a volunteer at WPFW and served as president of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters for more than a decade, receiving the Edward R. Murrow Award for "transforming the organization into an industry leader." But her tenure at Pacifica was tumultuous, especially once the national board gave itself the authority to select its own members – supposedly in response to a Corporation for Public Broadcasting dictate – and major changes in KPFA’s format were attempted. This and subsequent heavy-handed tactics, including a lockdown and alleged union-busting, led to four lawsuits and large public protests.

At KPFK in Los Angeles, after Vince Ivory, a volunteer for 14 years and producer of a “community calendar” show, went to a demonstration outside the building, General Manager Mark Schubb sent him packing. Fernando Velasquez, a producer and programmer in both Spanish and English, got the same treatment for the same basic offense.

Freelance writer Robin Urevich was also “banned,” in her case for writing about Pacifica in an outside publication. She had been a Pacifica reporter for six years and recently won a Golden Mike Award for Best Reporting by a Network. One publication that printed her story was Toward Freedom, the magazine I’d been editing for the past half decade. After outlining the history of the conflict, she acknowledged that programming had become “more polished” in recent years, but argued that the overall atmosphere didn’t allow for dialogue, questions or creativity. She talked about a “siege mentality” in which critics were viewed as enemies.

“The station has paid a price for stifling dissent,” she concluded. “People who came to KPFK assuming they’d be able to report on issues they were passionate about are mostly gone. Newsroom conversation is less about issues and more about where to find a job at the very radio and television outlets that come under so much criticism on the station’s own airwaves. It’s next to impossible to encourage news and public affairs staff to question authority outside the station while suppressing disagreement inside. In short, the ‘world of ideas’ that KPFK promises in station promos is an increasingly narrow one.”

Schubb’s next move was to require that volunteer programmers, even those who produced shows at their own expense, give up at least partial ownership to the station. To remain on the air producers would have to sign what was called a “Y2K contract.” Many refused and had their shows cancelled, including Roz and Howard Larman, who had been co-hosting Folk Scene, one of the station’s most popular programs, for three decades.

For many Pacifica loyalists this was too much. But Schubb seemed oblivious, and further deepened the discontent by providing a tone deaf defense during an interview with The Los Angeles Times. "People use radio like an appliance," he said. "If they find something they enjoy listening to, they'll listen to it. It's a wonderful time slot. Whatever we put there, we'll find an audience."

Another alleged comment cemented his image as a manager out of step with Pacifica’s mission. According to Amy Goodman, it happened during a September 14, 2000 meeting with the network’s general managers. Schubb took the opportunity to repeat a criticism he’d been making for some time, Amy wrote in a memo. His view was “that audiences don’t want to hear graphic details of police brutality before breakfast, or as he said last year ‘before I have my coffee’.”
Schubb denied making the comment, but the news spread like wildfire. Until he was finally put on administrative leave and then terminated in January 2002, whenever picket signs appeared outside the station some of them usually included the image of a coffee cup.

Steven Starr, the Interim GM brought in to replace Schubb, was a New Yorker who had worked with L.A.’s Independent Media Center. This new, Internet and event-driven media model had emerged in 1999 during the Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization. The Los Angeles IMC was launched to coincide with the Democratic National Convention held in the city in the summer of 2000. By the time Starr was hired, more than a hundred IMCs had been established around the world.

His tenure included a strong fund drive and some promising changes. But he lasted only two months. His replacement was engineer, producer and station operations manager Roy Hurst, another interim choice. About four months later, however, Eva Georgia was selected as permanent general manager. Eva had developed and managed community stations in South Africa, and worked briefly in southern California. She was a woman of color with a compelling personal story and a talent for outreach.

The following year senior producer Armando Gudino became program director, a decision not without its critics. Folk Scene was brought back, though eventually moved from Sunday night to Saturday morning. Fernando Velasquez also returned, now as co-director of the News Department. Robin Urevich worked for a while with Free Speech Radio News and later returned to the station. The station’s broadcast installation on Mt. Wilson was completely rebuilt. And Sonali Kolhatkar, a former Cal Tech computer programmer and astrophysicist active in Afghan women and refugee groups, became host of the local morning public affairs show.

It sounds almost like a fairy tale ending. Unfortunately, Pacifica stories don’t have neat endings and are anything but predictable. To start, Schubb didn’t leave without a fight. Instead, he filed a lawsuit claiming contract violations, retaliation for alleged whistleblowing, and discrimination. The whistleblowing claims were based on a presentation to the Board in January 2002 during which he charged that grant money earmarked for KPFK’s transmitter was used to cover business expenses. In other words, he accused the organization of defrauding the grantor.

The contract charge centered on a policy in the Pacifica handbook. According to the organization’s personnel manual, he claimed, he was terminated without being allowed the benefit of “progressive discipline,” a gradual process during which he would have been given the chance to mend his ways.

But the most dangerous accusation was that he had actually been fired not because of his management record but rather because he was a straight white male. His evidence was a public comment by National Board Chairperson Leslie Cagan, who was on the search committee for a new WBAI general manager at the time. Cagan argued, “We don’t want to end up with five white men as our station managers. I have nothing against white men, but as a national organization, we cannot have five white men. I might add five straight white men, just to put it out there.”

Both Cagan’s comments and the process used to fire Schubb created serious legal exposure. According to research on California employment cases, every white male who had filed a reverse discrimination case in recent years won a favorable verdict. There was enormous pressure to avoid a runaway jury. Pacifica’s commitment to racial diversity in hiring might prove to be unpopular, especially since a trial would be held in Glendale, a white middle class area near the station. In reality, Cagan had no control over Schubb’s termination. But a jury might see it differently. Insurance could also be a problem. If Schubb’s lawyers could prove that any of his claims were the result of intentional conduct, coverage would probably be denied.

Despite all this, the case dragged on for two years. Pacifica and Schubb finally settled in February 2004. He walked away with a reported $325,000, less whatever he paid his lawyers. Pacifica’s insurer covered much of the total. The experience left the Board and management with tough lessons, especially that any comment made by a board member or manager – whether written or oral, and however offhand – could come back to haunt the organization. Part Nine of Pacifica Radio: A Listening Tour

[ from /2008/06/kpfk-price-of-stifling- dissent.html]


KPFK forming it's required Community Advisory Board for CPB, but how?
by mary janey 7/27/08

There have a few meetings attempting to gather those KPFK listener-sponsor-volunteers who are willing to meeting monthly to fulfill the requirement needed to get the Corp Public Broadcasting annual dollars it so badly needs and wants.

The first meeting was a ‘dummy’ meet with only 6 people present and while CPB info was passed out, the question of what actual “advisement” could be given and to whom was clearly indicated as “not”, with the meeting leader repeatedly 3x saying “you have no power” in various ways.

The second meeting was also not publicly announced, but LSB and interim-GM and staff members knew about it and attended. Luckily someone posted summary of what was said and who attended on for the rest of KPFK members to see that it had already happened – past tense. Another posting on the same site gave actual information about the next [3rd] meeting. The article indicated that at the next meeting some were to conduct a survey of who they represented, et al.

This one was held at KPFK station room, with 18 present, an ‘interim-chair’ left over from unannounced meeting then ‘nominated’ another chair whom most in attendance did not know and did not refute, so he quickly became the “chair”. It was basically a meeting where each person ranted on about themselves as an introduction and nothing else was discussed or resolved. There was no agenda in sight. No report nor mention of any surveys was provided.

The next [4th] meeting will be on July 31,2008 again at the station. Some questions about who is ‘representing’ whom and what does ‘represent’ actually mean plus a slew of other relevant questions of definition of what could happen within that Board was sent to the Chair... who offered to send out those concerns to all participants for discussion at the next meeting.

Questions like = “What people are doing when they say "I represent" ? it their own personal background and friends they are representing or a particular organization ? One they just belong to or one that has agreed to give KPFK feedback about it's needs/wants/etc. ? How are representatives going to obtain the info/feedback/etc. from their groups they represent ? Everyone choosing to do their own asking others ? How many others? How small or large a group is really being represented, or subset or sect or what ? Who or how is it decided what is being represented and validly ?How little is too little
a survey/set ?

How legitimate is it to say "I represent: blacks, hispanics, feminists, homeless, unions, et al "? What does it really mean to say this and how is it believable ? [Ask 2-3 friends or cohorts ? is 4 enough ? ]
What deadlines are set for when a report or reply goes to CPB ?
Who in KPFK is this CAB advising ? The GM ? Who specifically ?
What is the process that all agree on what is advised/reported: Majority vote? All agreed? Loudest takes the lead? Ones closest to LSB get more pull? How ? Who?
Where are the prior reports, advisements in writing and who will copy and distribute these to be read to all CAB members ? Who will seek ,search these prior years reports out ? Not just last one, but more than 1-2 ? Is the information in these reports considered 'private' by management ? Are CAB members required to keep quiet about what they see & hear in these meetings?
Is it ok to talk together or to others at KPFK about what goes on ? Since everyone is invited to CAB for now , how long is that open invitation extended ? Who closes it ? Why ?
Can the summaries continue to be posted on Indymedia as Ken's were for the 2nd meeting ? Do you as chair review his notes for accuracies and fairness before they become posted or distributed ? Why is the 1st meeting I attended not being acknowledged at all as one ?
Who will be sending out the agenda to all who did turn in forms by email ?. There were 18 in room.
Do other members, those who will return for sure, get each others' info or should it be a personal decision for those who want to share with all or only a few chosen others?
These are real questions and of course we are concerned about....we are listeners who want to know and learn and know what we are getting into.... Are we continuing to invite more people to attend next session as maybe 1/2 may not return? Or not ? “

It is important that a wider community than those who attended the 6/26/08 meeting come together to inform the KPFK management of their feedback, their concerns, their wishes for further & future programming, and their views of how the station itself is run also.

There is some concern about the fruitfulness of these meetings – that they do not become just a face-saving pretense to listen to anyone but the ‘insiders’ who run the station with opaqueness and much secrecy, and that many ‘communities’ and segments of interested parties have some genuine input, now and later too.

To just form a “Board” to fulfill a monetary requirement and then no utilize it fully for what these people, even if continually changing people & groups, would be a loss...of opportunity to give KPFK relevant and authentic feedback and to help it fulfill it’s stated mission.