<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=MailContainerBody
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TEXT-DECORATION: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"
leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 acc_role="text" CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area"><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What you can look forward to:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>And I thought it was only detainees that could not see classified evidence
against them - see item 2 below.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:59 am In <A
title=mailto:ourkpft@yahoogroups.com
href="mailto:ourkpft@yahoogroups.com">ourkpft@yahoogroups.com</A>, "Ken
Freeland" <kenfree@...> wrote:<BR>><BR>> Last night's KPFT LSB
meeting pushed the envelope of illegality even<BR>> farther than it has been
pushed before, if anyone can believe that: <BR>> <BR>> In executive
session to review and approve executive session minutes:
<BR>> <BR>> 1) Ted Weisgal eloquently states the case why the
session should be public:<BR>> the original matter of these executive
sessions was not subject to closed<BR>> session: it did not meet the
criteria outlined in our bylaws or in CPB<BR>> open meetings requirements,
thus it would put our grant at risk to hold<BR>> this session in
secret. To no avail. Only a couple of Board members<BR>> grasped
the import.<BR>> <BR>> 2) As he was handing out copies of the
previously unpublished or otherwise<BR>> undistributed to members copies of
the draft minutes for three executive<BR>> sessions, two of which took place
AUGUST 2005 (these were the ones where my<BR>> illegal suspensions from the
LSB were hatched), KPFT LSB Secretary Richard<BR>> Uzzell first handed each
member a clipboard, requiring their signature to a<BR>> legal statement that
waived the right to retain the copy. Both Ted<BR>> Weisgal and I
refused to sign, arguing that this requirement had not been<BR>> passed by
the Board, and such a measure could only be adopted in open<BR>>
session. As a consequence, we were not permitted to see a copy of
the<BR>> minutes we were expected to approve. I requested of Chair
Susan Young that<BR>> the minutes be read allowed, but she denied this
request as well. When the<BR>> Board voted to approve these minutes,
with no discussion whatsoever about<BR>> their content, or any further about
the innovation of requiring Board<BR>> members to sign a legal statement in
order to review the minutes of<BR>> meetings they themselves had participated
in, I left the meeting, stating<BR>> that my inability to participate in this
approval process and not to access<BR>> the minutes of a Board meeting was
unsatisfactory, and therefore did not<BR>> meet the conditions according to
which my resignation from the Board could<BR>> take effect ("a satisfactory
resolution of the business pending in<BR>> executive committee" in order to
make the minutes of the executive session<BR>> of a year ago "accessible."
) I then left the meeting. I am told that<BR>> in my
absence, Susan Young stated to the Board that she considered my<BR>>
resignation effective anyway, and was supported by a majority
vote.<BR>> <BR>> Susan Young continues to drag the KPFT LSB from one
legal morass to the<BR>> next. It is not only that she appears ignorant
of the content of the<BR>> bylaws and Robert's Rules, she actually appears to
be acting under a<BR>> compulsion to abrogate the rights of opposition Board
members as much as<BR>> possible. It is hard to imagine a better recipe
for a dysfunctional Board.<BR>> <BR>> In any case, the Board's
decision is illegal, since resignations must be<BR>> voluntary, and only a
properly noticed meeting of the delegates can remove<BR>> a
member. Will the PNB do anything about these latest
abrogations of the<BR>> bylaws by Chair Young? It is unlikely.
The PNB has been alerted to her<BR>> illegal behavior several times over the
course of the last three years. In<BR>> no case has it chosen to
intervene to protect the bylaws. This suggests<BR>> that
the corruption of the PNB follows from the corruption of the LSB's,<BR>>
since it is mostly those in the corrupt majority cliques who are elected
to<BR>> the PNB. For KPFT, in any case, three out of four of the PNB
reps are of<BR>> the Majority Faction. So what chance is there that the
PNB will put its<BR>> fiduciary interests above those of its individual
members? (Just about<BR>> every LSB has skeletons in its closet, I've
noticed, and the deal seems to<BR>> be: we won't rock your boat if you
don't rock ours." ) Meanwhile, the<BR>> participatory democratic model
of Pacifica is increasingly mocked by the<BR>> concerted erosion of the
rights of elected Board members, and everyone<BR>> focuses on the next
election without giving thought to the fact that no<BR>> elected member's
rights are any more secure than anyone else's, and if the<BR>> KPFT LSB
officers can tyrannize over the rights of elected delegates in<BR>> Houston,
the same can (and probably sometimes does) happen in the other<BR>> signal
areas. <BR>> <BR>> I think that the bylaws assume that
those chosen for the PNB will consider<BR>> it a primary task to assure that
the LSB's operate within the framework of<BR>> the bylaws. Although
when I served as PNB member I did truly focus my<BR>> efforts in this
direction, it does seem to be the case in general that PNB<BR>> members
consider the legal rights of LSB members, if at all, a very low<BR>>
priority. But the Foundation depends on the LSBs for the performance
of<BR>> certain necessary tasks, which can never be fulfilled if the rights
of<BR>> their elected members (such as, the right to view or hear minutes
of<BR>> previous meetings prior to their approval) are constantly
abrogated.<BR>> <BR>> Peace,<BR>> Ken Freeland<BR>> Still a
member of the KPFT LSB despite Susan Young's illegal ruling!<BR>><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A
title=mailto:paa@crosierbiomed.com href="mailto:paa@crosierbiomed.com">Bill
Crosier</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=mailto:discuss@paa-tx.org
href="mailto:discuss@paa-tx.org">PAA Discussion List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:27
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [PAA-Discuss] Should I run for
KPFT's LSB?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Several of you are already planning to run for the Local Station
<BR>Board in KPFT's upcoming elections. Thanks to each of you who are
<BR>doing that. The LSB is an important part of KPFT, and is the only
<BR>group that is elected by listener members to provide governance for
<BR>the station.<BR><BR>If any others of you are interested in running for
KPFT's LSB, please <BR>see <A title=http://kpft.igc.org/elections/
href="http://kpft.igc.org/elections/">http://kpft.igc.org/elections/</A><BR><BR>Several
of you have also suggested that I run for the LSB. I'm <BR>already a
volunteer for the KPFT Outreach committee and have <BR>volunteered for a
number of KPFT events, and plan to continue. So <BR>far, though, I've
said "no" to requests that I run for the LSB, <BR>because I don't want the
time spent on that to take away from PAA and <BR>related activities. And
I've only been working part time (for paid <BR>work, that is) for the last
couple of years, so I could spend more <BR>time on political activities.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Remander of message deleted.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>