[PAA-Discuss] Mainstram media coverage
Wendy Schroell
wendy at radio4houston.org
Mon Mar 26 20:50:19 EDT 2007
Paul, I admire your concern and your persistance, but I already told you
that I would not talk about this lawsuit. When you think about it, you
have already forwarded my response to your queries beyond the venue in
which it was offered, and when you then combine the issue that I was
talking about (specific code of conduct complaints) with the lawsuit,
(not at all related), it makes me feel as if I am being baited.
I am happy to talk about all of this after this case is settled.
wendy
Paul Myers wrote:
> Thank you Wendy for you response. I appreciate the time you have
> taken to write it, and yes I am aware of much of what you have written
> because I have read much of the meeting minutes and information found
> on the KPFT web site.
>
> I just have a few observations and questions that are not necessarily
> in order that might help explain my concerns.
>
> The Code of conduct as posted on the KPFT web site does not
> differentiate between LSB members and others.
> http://houston.kpft.org/site/PageServer?pagename=code_of_conduct
>
> The posted Code of conduct certainly places responsibility for
> enforcement on the station manager.
>
> The posted code also provides for an independent fact finder chosen
> and paid for by KPFT for a final binding decision in the event charges
> are disputed. I believe that Mr. Freeland's recent note announcing
> the lawsuit states the reason for his action as not being able to
> resolve the issue and a lack of due process. Has Mr. Freeland's
> dispute of the the station manager's action been reviewed by an
> independent party?
>
> About process and having had some interface with KPFT, I can say that
> the processes that I encountered, certainly not all, have not be
> executed as advertised. At the public portion of the February meeting
> ( I heard on the audio recording of the meeting) an observer suggested
> that KPFT engage some sort of executive management advice group that
> could interview staff and others and make some recommendations. If
> the LSB and management has not done that I recommend that they do.
>
> The comment about the LSB having "no jurisdiction other than to
> consider how it was handled at performance review time" might make
> some sense, to me, if performance reviews were conducted regularly, or
> if the LSB provided frequent feedback to the station manager. When
> was the last performance review conducted of the Station Manager? Has
> it not been more than several years since an evaluation of the station
> manager was conducted?
>
> I believe that any Human Resource Manager will tell you part of an
> evaluation process is frequent feedback to the evaluated person, and
> not, repeat not waiting for the time of a performance review to
> provide feedback, especially for significant issues and concerns.
>
> Since there is a documented process to appeal decisions made by the
> station manager, it is not out of order for the LSB to inform
> the station manager of the signed mitigating witness statements and
> the need for prompt resolution of the incident including the required
> third party intervention?. Could the LSB also urge the station
> manager, in writing, to quickly and peacefully resolve this
> situation by using the documented Code of Conduct process and, if not,
> it will be reflected in his job performance appraisal and could lead
> to termination?
>
> Working with station management to help ensure that the station
> procedures are complied with does not take away any of the station
> manager's responsibility or authority. But isn't not doing so an
> omission of the LSB's oversight responsibilities and does it not
> support of the unitary executive concept, just as the United States
> Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibility for the past six
> years?
>
> If a lawsuit has been filed because the station managers has failed to
> utilized existing KPFT procedures to resolve an issue with the full
> knowledge and silent consent of those tasked with monitoring the
> station managers performance, have you not made yourselves vulnerable,
> at the very least to criticism? Not to mention court costs and
> damages from KPFT funds?
>
> About legal advice, it is just that - advice, not orders. Didn't our
> current Attorney General provide legal advice to the president that it
> is okay to torture folks?
>
> Speaking of legal advice, my lawyer has suggested that comments made
> about Mr. Freeland that are either false or are not based on factual
> personal observation could result in those making such comments being
> included in the lawsuit.
>
> If there is a special code of conduct process for LSB members, then
> why has the current incident not been handled by the LSB?
>
> Below it is mentioned that the Code of Conduct violations submitted by
> Mr. Freeland and handled by the LSB were "frivolous in the big
> picture". Are there witness statements to that effect? What is the
> big picture? Who and what determines what is frivolous? The points,
> for me, to be made here are
> 1. a motion is made by a subject of the claim and
> 2. LSB agreement to this motion to dismiss the claims regardless of
> the merits of the claims.
>
> Does part of this LSB process allow motions by LSB members that are
> subjects of the proposed code violations? Are members that are
> subject to the accusation allowed to vote or be party to the decision
> about the violation? Does the process allow for dismissal of charges
> regardless of the merit of the charges? Would you be willing to share
> a copy of this process and post it with the other code of conduct
> document on the KPFT web site?
>
> Would you be willing to answer any of the questions in this and my
> last message?
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Wendy Schroell <mailto:wendy at radio4houston.org>
> *To:* PAA Discuss List <mailto:discuss at paa-tx.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [PAA-Discuss] Mainstram media coverage
>
> 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.
>>
> ---------------
> 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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------
> 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/20070326/f7d0f8c9/attachment.htm>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list