[PAA-Discuss] Mainstram media coverage

[Wendy Schroell]

Paul, the LSB has had meetings with two different attorneys in this 
matter - it was made very clear that the GM has the absolute 
responsibility to provide a safe workplace, and that the board has no 
jurisdiction other than to consider how it was handled at performance 
review time.  I can't talk to you about the lawsuit at all and won't.

I would like to clarify the thing about the board voting to dismiss all 
pending code of conduct complaints regardless of merit.  I do not agree 
with Sandy Weinmann on much in KPFT governance, but as you can see from 
those minutes, I supported the motion.  Ken likes to bring up this whole 
thing as evidence that there is a huge conspiracy against him, but what 
he doesn't do is tell you what those code of conduct complaints were.  I 
will try to get them (lost a hard drive since then) but from memory five 
of them were about how so and so talked in an email.  "this person 
called me a name." "that person questioned my motives" IN EMAIL!  The 
other one was someone storming out of a meeting and bumping him with her 
purse

Technically, the Code of Conduct does say that discussions should be 
centered around issues, not people - even on the internet.  I have 
always disagreed with this as Pacifica's whole reason for being is the 
First Amendment, and who the hell can enforce what happens on the 
internet?!!! 

So the board has a process for its own members violating the code of 
conduct - I think it sits for 30 days after everyone is notified and 
then the board meets in executive session to consider it.  Well, at 
every meeting the lsb runs out of time - much of that is a direct result 
of this same guy point-of-ordering every little thing, whether it makes 
a difference in the outcome or not - no, I'm not blaming it all on him 
but he has played a bigger part than anyone in making the meetings long 
and frustrating [as I read that sentence I can just hear Ken's response 
- that I am misrepresenting or participating in the conspiracy because I 
said EVERY little thing, and he sometimes does not say anything.  I'm 
leaving it in - the gist is correct]

So with the regular business, the time wasting, the urgent whatever that 
comes up, the LSB had accumulated 6 COC complaints that were all brought 
by one guy, and that were frivolous in the big picture.  He did not have 
the votes to get action on even one of them, and as much as Ken likes to 
play the victim, 2/3 of a body that size is not completely wrong (maybe 
even 3/4) - this board is not organized in any way except that it is a 
frustrating experience for all.

The motion to dismiss all COC complaints should have really come from 
Ken, (one was a year old!), but that is not how he works.  It does not 
matter that the votes are not there or that 24 board members' time 
(including his!) is valuable.  After that motion to dismiss them all 
passed overwhelmingly, Ken decided to offer his resignation, if the 
board would agree to certain terms - that is a whole 'nother chapter 
that is quite bizarre and took the board on another 4 month journey into 
the ludicrous - not ALL of that was his fault, to be sure.  It started 
out badly with a long ridiculous discussion about putting his statement 
into the minutes because they didn't know what he might say - again that 
silly first amendment!~

I hope that this helps at least a little.  I don't need to explain 
groups to this list - you kinda gotta work with each other if you call 
it a group.

wendy




Paul Myers wrote:
>
> *After reading the Chronicle article yesterday that is inserted below 
> in its entirety, I took the time to catch up and listened to the two 
> KPFT LSB meetings, for January and February, that are  currently 
> available on the KPFT web site. *
>
> *http://houston.kpft.org/site/PageServer?pagename=LSB_Meetings_Archive*
>
> *Would those interested in KPFT listen to this material?  For those 
> who don't have time to listen to it all, would you be willing 
> to listen to the January meeting, "file 1" from about 51 minutes to 63 
> minutes, to hear more about the situation and the general 
> presentation, professionalism of various members? Would you then be 
> willing to then determine for yourselves the validity of the banning 
> of the  LSB member from the station and the validity of the civil suit 
> brought by that member?*
>
> *A review of the files on the KPFT web site reveals inconsistencies 
> between by-laws, practice and documented agreed decisions and what 
> actual transpires, which are a major focus of points raised by Mr. 
> Freeland that include a lack of transparency at KPFT.*
>
> *A review of the goings on at KPFT cannot help but to observe 
> an effort, by some,  to isolate, exclude and ignore Mr. Freeland and 
> to minimize claims that he has made.  He was removed from the LSB and 
> then re-elected*
>
> *This is not to condone nor condemn any of Mr. Freeland's strategies 
> and tactics, but to observe that the effort against Mr. Freeland 
> continues.*
>
> *I have some empathy about the situation having recently been asked 
> for forgiveness by someone that admitted to me that over three years 
> ago, without familiarity with me, that she started and maintained a 
> concerted effort to exclude me from participation in a group due to 
> her desire to work with women and due to her dissatisfaction with a 
> form submitted by my wife about me.  It is, therefore, clear, to 
> me, that the effects of a conspiracy do have effects on people that 
> stimulate behavior that is not in their best interest.*
>
> *I have to question  the action to prohibit Mr. Freeland from the KPFT 
> station, when in the June 28, 2006 meeting minutes the LSB voted to 
> dismiss six **Code of Conduct Complaint claims made by Mr. Freeland 
> including physical aggression against Mr. Freeland.   It is also clear 
> that the person that made the motion to "dismiss the six ...Code of 
> Conduct complaints regardless of merit" was the subject of one of the 
> complaints.  Isn't that called a conflict of interest?  See link 
> **http://houston.kpft.org/site/DocServer/lsb_Minutes_2006.pdf?docID=5021**  
> pages 38 to 41 of a pdf that displays pages 4, 5 and 6 of the June, 
> 28, 2006 LSB meeting minutes.*
>
> *At the very least, are there not two different standards here?*
>
> *The concept of something or someone being a "threat" is not only used 
> here, it is used by our military to justify the killing of Iraqis and 
> by our police to justify killing of citizens of this country.  Have 
> not members of this list serve, those in the Houston "peace and 
> justice"  community and those in other parts of this 
> country complained about extreme reactions to such  claims, the most 
> recent in New York?*
>
> *I, therefore, in light of all of the above find that it difficult to 
> totally understand the Station Manager's action and do question his 
> judgment.  I do not question if Ms. Bradley experienced fear any more 
> than I would appreciate anyone rejecting my claim of fear of what 
> someone might do to me when they refer to my comments as "bull_ _ _ _" 
> and worse or when someone attacks me when they don't care for what I 
> have written.  Comparing Ms. Bradley's and Mr. Freeland' stature, it 
> is debatable who would have a physical advantage.*
>
> *One member of this list serve, just yesterday, wrote on another 
> discussion group, "Ken screamed 'Shut up, shut up, shut up' at her 
> with his face so close he was spitting on her and hitting her with his 
> cap. Ken, not Tucker, was out of control."  While it is clear and I 
> understand that many have emotion around this event I was compelled to 
> responded, **"Would you be willing to tell us if you were ever 
> "guilty" of speaking with enthusiasm and passion and had something 
> besides words come from your mouth? Would you be willing to tell us if 
> you were there? Would you be willing to tell us if you witnessed what 
> you have written? Would you be willing to tell us if you believe that 
> the Chronicle article and the publicity about this event, where no 
> legal charges had been filed, is positive for KPFT?  Would you be 
> willing to tell us if you .....really believe that Ms. Tucker was, in 
> fact, in any danger from Mr. Freeland's hat, voice and accoutrement?" ***
>
> *There has been no response to my questions.*
>
> *I hear and read plenty of personal criticisms about Mr. Freeland, but 
> little about the substance of his positions, just as the mainstream 
> press criticizes Mr. Kucinich and neglects to focus on the substance 
> of his proposals.  Listening to this year's LSB meetings somehow I 
> find it difficult to single him out for focusing on insignificant issues.*
>
> *I find it very odd that those LSB members that are members of this 
> list serve keep their silence here and in the audio of the two LSB 
> meetings held this year on what are clear inconsistencies, and 
> possibly a lack of fairness and injustices not to mention different 
> treatment for different people.*
>
> *I find it confusing that, as members of a LSB that is tasked with 
> oversight and governance, according to the by-laws, there 
> was not a demand for immediate action and resolution before the law 
> suit was filed by the LSB member, as the possibility was mentioned in 
> the January meeting.  Yet some  of these same folks complain that 
> the congress of the United States has not acted fast enough in their 
> governance duties because they have not passing a bill to for 
> immediate US withdrawal from Iraq.   *
>
> *Why?  Pretexts of "legal issues" or working within the system to 
> correct it or dislike for Mr. Freeland or abdication of oversight 
> responsibilities or acceptance of the unitary station manager concept?  *
>
> *So whatever one things or feels about Mr. Freeland, does baring him 
> from the station and the resultant law suit help KPFT?*
>
> *Let the LSB and the Station Management answer that question.*
>
> *Paul*
>
> ** 
>
>  
>
> *March 22, 2007, 9:10PM*
> Activist files suit against KPFT-FM    
> http://houston.kpft.org/site/PageServer?pagename=LSB_Meetings_Archive
>
> By DALE LEZON
> Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
>
> A Houston peace activist and board member of public radio station 
> KPFT-FM (90.1) filed suit this week after the general manager of the 
> station barred him from its Montrose studio.
>
> Ken Freeland alleges that Duane Bradley unfairly prohibited him from 
> coming to the station after Jane Tucker Bradley, no relation, accused 
> Freeland of assaulting her.
>
> Freeland, a member of Houston Coalition for Justice Not War, denied 
> the accusation.
>
> Duane Bradley said he banned Freeland from the station to protect Jane 
> Bradley and other staff members.
>
> Jane Bradley said she feared Freeland after a confrontation with him 
> during a forum for candidates seeking election to the station board in 
> October. She said Freeland "jumped into my face" and yelled at her 
> about the forum's organization.
>
> He didn't hit her, she said, but she filed a complaint against him 
> with the Houston Police Department.
>
> "His baseball cap was bumping into my forehead," she said. "I felt he 
> was a threat to me."
>
> Freeland said he didn't touch Bradley, and said he yelled at her only 
> after she had yelled at him.
>
> Duane Bradley said he filed a trespass affidavit against Freeland with 
> police after the confrontation.
>
> Freeland could be arrested if he goes onto station property.
>
> Freeland contends that the prohibition curtails his ability to fulfill 
> his duties as a board member and disenfranchises the people who voted 
> for him.
>
> State District Judge Tony Lindsay is scheduled to consider a temporary 
> injunction against the ban on March 30.
>
> Jane Bradley and Lester Radke, who hired her to organize the KPFT 
> board election, also are named in the lawsuit. Radke worked as the 
> national election supervisor for the Pacifica Foundation, the 
> station's parent organization.
>
> The lawsuit also claims that the three defamed Freeland by telling 
> others about the alleged assault.
>
> /dale.lezon at chron.com <mailto:dale.lezon at chron.com> /
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------
> Progressive Action Alliance  http://progressiveactionalliance.org/
> Discuss mailing list   Discuss at paa-tx.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, access the archives, or change your options on this list, go to:
> http://paa-tx.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_paa-tx.org 
>
> To reply only to the person posting this note, use "Reply".
> To reply so that everyone on this list receives your note, use "Reply All".
> Check the "To:" field in your message, before sending, to ensure it goes to the correct address.
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20070325/166b6b4f/attachment.htm>