<!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 6.00.2900.3059" 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>Interesting string of messages. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As suggested in the last message below, "absurd and improper", while
somewhat judgmental expresses the shock of the actions planned. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now tell me there is no conspiracy.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Forget about impeaching the president, how do listeners impeach LSB
members?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Why can't KPFT attract folks that express themselves as clearly as Mr.
Goodman, and why haven't the LSB members on this list spoken out about such
absurdities? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Susan Young
[mailto:susan@<WBR>southmainallianc<WBR>e.org] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, April
09, 2007 9:54 AM<BR><B>To:</B> lsb@kpft.org; 'Duane Bradley'<BR><B>Cc:</B>
'Richard Uzzell'<BR><B>Subject:</B> FW: motion to have management
present<BR><BR><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial>Fellow Board members
--<BR></FONT></FONT><BR><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>Please
note that the following motion has been offered by Sandy Weinmann and will be
listed on the agenda under new business.<BR></FONT></FONT></FONT><BR><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial>Susan<BR></FONT></FONT></FONT><BR><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=2><FONT face=Arial>cc: Richard,
Secretary.<BR></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT size=2><B>From:</B> augwest@aol.<WBR>com
[mailto:augwest@<WBR>aol.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, April 08, 2007 8:29
PM<BR><B>To:</B> susan@southmainalli<WBR>ance.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> motion to
have management present<BR></FONT><BR>I hope that this will be a time is of the
essence idea and that we will hear this issue right after roll call at our next
meeting.... Your feedback on this proposed resolution would be appreciated.
Also you might want to consult with Mike M about this ... When we are
ready could you have Richard add this to the
agenda...<BR><BR>garcias<BR>sandyw<BR><BR>"In that members of the LSB have filed
suit against Duane Bradley and in that Mr. Bradley's council has instructed him
to have no interaction with those who have filed (by name Robert Graham and Ken
Freeland) including time spent at critical meetings of the board, its committees
and other important infrastructure such as the program council... And in that it
is vital for collaboration between management to occur at many levels and in
that collaboration is impossible with one party absent...<BR><BR>Be it resolved
that both Ken Freeland and Robert Graham be absent during;<BR><BR>1.
Meetings of the LSB<BR>2. Meetings of the Finance Committee<BR>3.
Meetings of MSRC<BR>4. Meetings of the Program Council<BR><BR>Until
such time that the legal matters which prevent management from participating
while said members are present are settled."<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">-----
Original Message ----<BR>From: Terry Goodman <tiji@flex.com><BR>To:
fulcrumsofchange@<WBR>lists.riseup.<WBR>net<BR>Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007
7:59:01 PM<BR>Subject: [fulcrumsofchange] Re: FW: motion to have management
present<BR><BR>
<DIV>On Mon, 9 Apr 2007. Ken Freeland wrote:<BR><BR>>No comment (but I'm sure
that major domo Terry Goodman will twist some passage of the Bylaws to support
this latest repressive effort)<BR><BR>The KPFT LSB is under no obligation to pay
attention to this legal advice given to Duane Bradley by his individual
counsel. It is for Duane to consider that advice in deciding whether
or not to attend the meetings in question.<BR><BR>The LSB controls the
membership of its committees and can remove one or two committee members for the
convenience of management if it wishes. However, the LSB does not
control the membership of the LSB, since all elected Delegates are assigned a
seat by the bylaws. Of course, this hasn't stopped the KPFT LSB from
illegally denying Ken Freeland his LSB rights as a Delegate in the
past.<BR><BR>Sandy's motion that Robert Graham and Ken Freeland "be absent" is
both absurd and improper. It is absurd because the attendance of
committee members at meetings is up to those individual members and the
attendance of the public at public meetings is up to the public. If
the LSB doesn't want Robert or Ken on their committees they should simply
remove them without prejudice. If the LSB doesn't want Ken to attend
meetings, then they can probably get away with scheduling those meetings at the
station while a no-tresspass order is in effect, at some slight risk of
increasing the award of damages (if any) in the current suit. The LSB
has no basis upon which to restrict the rights of Ken Freeland or Robert Graham,
in my opinion, unless a member is prepared to present charges of conduct adverse
to the Foundation calling for their removal as Delegates, and the Delegates must
then meet as a body and give the persons so charged a fair
hearing. Any motion specifically designed to prevent a member from
exercise of their rights outside of proper disciplinary procedures is improper
on its face, violates fundamental principles of parliamentary law, and should
immediately be ruled out of order. <BR><BR>Moreover, in
that Mike Martin is representing the GM in the current case and is on the LSB,
the LSB should avoid any related action without Mike Martin's guidance and
approval, since they risk providing additional evidence useful to the
Plaintiff.<BR><BR>--Terry Goodman, KPFK
Delegate</DIV></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>