PACIFICA FOUNDATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MEETING TRANSCRIPT
September 27-28, 1997
Garden Room, DuPont Plaza Hotel
1500 New Hampshire Avenue
Washington, D.C.
Saturday, September 27, 1997
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mary Frances Berry
Jane Makela
Frank Millspaugh
Alexis Gonzales
Dorothy Nasatir
Michael Palmer
David Acosta
Jack O'Dell
Adrian Zubrin
Cheryl Fabio Bradford
Roberta Brooks
Ralph McNight
Rob Robinson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Dick Bunce
Lynn Chadwick
Gail Christian
Garland Ganter
Burt Glass
Mark Schubb
Pat Scott
Mary Tilson
Valerie Van Isler
Bessie Wash
P R O C E E D I N G S
MR. O'DELL: On the record.
We are here today to try to lay out an agenda and make everybody comfortable.
But it's especially a pleasure for me today to welcome our new Chair, Mary
Frances Berry. All of you participated in our search and you know that Mary
comes to us with great credentials as author and historian and former
chancellor of a great university, University of Colorado, and as chair of the
Civil Rights Commission.
I've seen Mary in the trenches this past week, having known her over a number
of years and she brings more than just credentials. She brings an abundance of
wisdom and a lot of heart. And so I'm reminded of Duke Ellington's words, we
love you madly.
[Laughter.]
MR. O'DELL: So, Mary--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Thank you, Jack.
[Applause.]
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Thank you very much, Jack. I've been trying to learn
something about this organization more than what I knew from just listening to
some radio over the last few weeks and I'm not sure I've learned a great deal,
and I'm still learning.
It is with trepidation that I have decided to become chair of this Board. This
is a very complicated organization. It is more complicated than the University
of Colorado, I supervised. It is more complicated than $12 billion worth of
federal education programs, it's more complicated than the Commission which I
thought was about as complicated as anything can get.
There is so much history that everybody has with each other. In many ways it
reminds me of a dysfunctional family that's lived together too long and
everybody has ancient grievances and memories about things that somebody did
years ago. And it also is an example of what my brother said to me the other
day, that in any organization including one he's associated with, the seven
words that are the most deadly are, "but we've always done it that way." And
one says that over and over again in this organization. It has major structural
problems which I hadn't even thought about until the last few weeks. And I
don't know how to solve them, and I don't know how they were created.
There are people of goodwill who want the organization to succeed. It has a
great strategic plan, I don't know how much I can contribute to it, I am less
sure today that I can contribute anything than I was when I agreed to become
the chair of the Board.
I did not take this responsibility on to enhance my reputation.
[Laughter.]
MS. SCOTT: You would be sorely disappointed.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Right. I would like to believe that over the years that I've
been in public life my reputation to those at least who know about it is well
established. And that I do have a reputation for integrity, for standing on
principle, but for being practical and for trying to get along with people and
trying to work with what I have that's available to me.
I also do not, though, intend for this organization to destroy my reputation.
If it ever appears to me that being associated with this organization is about
to destroy my reputation for credibility, for candor, for honesty, for
responsibility and integrity, then I will resign. I'm telling you that right
now.
If it ever appears to me that most of the people who serve on this board are
more interested in posturing, or more interested in issues of what they call
power, more interested in being tied to some past that they remember and ten
other people than it is to try to serve the interests of disseminating good
public affairs programming to people and meeting community needs, and even
thinking about how to expand that, then I will resign.
If it ever appears to me that there are not a sufficient number of people on
this Board who are willing to try to move this organization forward, I started
to say into the 21st Century, but the president is always saying that, so I
won't say it--the bridge to the 21st Century--I will resign.
I'm telling you that just so you'll know that if I come one day and say, look,
hey, it's not going to work. I've read the materials on the Internet. I've read
all the things that people send me on e-mail. I've read all the people fighting
over procedural issues and I think that most of the process issues are about
people who disagree substantively with the way it has been proposed that the
organization try to move forward. And they have a right to their principles
just as other people have a right to theirs. But I will stay so long as I think
I can do something. And when I don't think I can, and when I think it's going
to be counterproductive or destroy, my reputation, then I won't. But for the
time being, I will give to it all that I have.
I suppose we then just go through the agenda. I have asked that the meeting be
transcribed. And that's why you have these microphones. I am accustomed to
running meetings that are transcribed. Half of what I saw on the Internet about
what happened at the Board meetings was about who said what, and did somebody
say something, and somebody else said something else. So it occurred to me that
if we had a transcription of what happened at the Board meeting which was
available to us, which we could then put up on our web site and anybody who
wants to see what happened at the meeting can see what happened at the meeting.
At least those arguments will no longer be necessary, and it won't be necessary
for people to come to tape the meetings because they think that somehow they're
not going to know. They can save that money. And maybe they can contribute it
to the organization. And we'll just move on.
But that's--it's not intended to keep and inhibit the discussion. It's just
intended to be a record of what has gone on here.
Now, what am I supposed to do next, Jack, just go on to the next item?
It says, "Seating of Chair, Seating of"--oh, I have to seat members. That's
what I have to do. Thank you Brother Jack.
I think I need a motion to seat by a majority vote the following people at this
meeting as at-large representatives for this meeting. And they are Alexis
Gonzales, Adrien Zubrin, Dorothy Nasatir, Ralph McKnight, and Michael Palmer.
Could someone move that this be done?
MS. ZURBIN: I move that the chair seat those mentioned.
MS. SCOTT: No, you can't move, you haven't been seated.
MS. ZURBIN: I'm so sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Somebody who is seated.
MR. O'DELL: I move that the chair seat the previously mentioned members.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Need a second?
MS. BROOKS: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All in favor--any discussion?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All in favor indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Opposed?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: So ordered.
I also by the provision in the bylaws on page 71 it states that in order to be
elected a member must receive the nomination and vote of a majority of the
station boards which he/she represents.
Ms. Fabrio--Fabio Bradford, having been duly elected by a majority vote of the
station boards which he/she represents, it is my understanding is to be
welcomed as a member of this Board.
If my understanding is incorrect someone could please object. But my
understanding is that she is elected when she is elected by a majority vote of
the station boards which she represents.
Yes?
MR. O'DELL: The Station Board's vote has the effect of nominating a candidate
to the governing board and we must now vote to elect her to the Board at the
meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, one of the things I am going to be a stickler about so
long as I am chair is following the procedure. There is nothing in this
procedure that I am looking at--now, if someone can cite to me another
procedure, I would be willing to do it. But this bylaw says that a member must
receive the nomination and vote of the majority of the station boards which she
represents unless such member is classified as an at-large member in which
event she must be elected by a two-third vote of the board of directors for the
foundation voting by secret ballot. And so I don't know whether the intention
was to say the person had to be voted on again, or not, but it doesn't say
that.
MR. O'DELL: In order to be elected they must be nominated by a majority vote.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: No it does not say that. Read on page 71. "She must receive
the nomination and vote of a majority of the station boards which she
represents."
Yes?
MS. BROOKS: The bylaw change that has been under so much discussion in the
previous meeting was the reason why it was tabled at the last meeting was
because the Pacifica attorney suggested that we separate out the nomination
from the election.
Now, you know, there was a move in the last committee that didn't--you know,
without this final change, but that particular part of it we probably ought to
consider adopting because he felt that it was just as you have found out,
misleading and unclear. So he wanted us to separate our nominations from
elections.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, for purposes of moving the meeting along, since I would
assume that there is no objection to her being here, if you want to vote on it,
you can. I'm assuming everybody would vote that it's fine.
But it is my understanding that she does not have to be voted on unless
somebody--and somebody needs to look at this language. And I don't know who the
somebody is. When I say "somebody", who is the somebody I'm talking about that
will look at this language and clarify it.
MS. BROOKS: The attorney has looked at it and felt that it needed
clarification, and that was appropriate in this bylaw change. And if we don't
adopt this bylaw change, we do need to incorporate that.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: The attorney has already looked at it and made that
recommendation to us as simply saying that it was unclear.
MS. MAKELA: Regardless of whether we need to or not, I would like to recommend
that we elect our newest representative since everyone else in my five-year
experience has been elected to the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, would you be willing to change your motion to say,
without regard to whether or not it is a required procedure, for the time being
you would like to move the following?
MS. MAKELA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay. All in favor indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: And this has to be clarified, because there may be an
occasion, not this occasion, in which someone will be sent here by a station
board and this Board may decide they don't want them. And if this Board is not
supposed to vote on them and the Board then does, then you've got a problem. So
this is not a matter that is to be taken lightly.
Okay. The other is to acknowledge--what page is the page that the alternates
are on?
MS. SCOTT: Page 70.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Page 75 or 70 what, 73. The governing board shall be taken by
the elected directors or their seated alternate.
For this meeting Rob Robinson has been selected by the WPFW station board to be
an alternate for Ken Ford who is not present. Is there any approach you've
taken in the past to doing something more about that that I'm unaware of?
I'm simply reading the language on page 73 and it has no procedure connected to
it. So I would simply acknowledge his presence unless there's--
Yes?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: I would be glad to move that if that is what is being--
NOT KNOWN: And I would second that.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: But if you are going to do so, I wish you would put the same
language in that was put in by June on the previous motion because there's
nothing in the procedure that says the person has to be elected. And we've got
to have this clarified because in the event, Frank, that someone else comes
again and we decide we don't want to seat them as an alternate, then what do we
do then? Okay.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Well, let's put it this way, whether--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Whether or not--
MR. MILLSPAUGH: --whether or not it is required--
[Laughter.]
MR. MILLSPAUGH: --I am happy to move the acceptance of this gentleman as an
alternate for the purposes of this meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay.
NOT KNOWN: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay. Any discussion?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All in favor indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Opposed?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: So ordered.
And someone, the someone whoever that someone is, the lawyer or whoever it is--
Yes?
MS. MAKELA: May I make a recommendation?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes.
MS. MAKELA: The secretary of the Board be charged with contacting our lawyer to
get--and working through language that can then be presented to the executive
committee before the next meeting, you know, clarifying the bylaws of this
whole election question and then we can vote on it.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All right. Is it the sense of the Board that you intended for
this to be a separate nomination and election process?
MS. MAKELA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: But that was your intent? It just didn't get written right.
MS. MAKELA: It was an intention and practice.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay.
MS. MAKELA: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: And what is your intent about the question of alternates? The
same intent?
MS. MAKELA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: So that the lawyer knows what he's writing?
MR. O'DELL: The intent has always been that the Board had the right to keep or
reject anyone that was sent here.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All right. So that means that the lawyer will be guided by
that and the secretary.
MS. BROOKS: May I ask, is it also the intent that the alternates will act or
that--let me tell you why this has come up. Because there's been so much going
on and many changes especially in this area, a lot of times, you know, a board
member that is not able to attend, there's been progress, there have been
committee meetings and then the person who has been active all along isn't
there and all of a sudden another person comes and then goes to the--you know,
takes actions and they really don't have any background. So that's why there
was a discussion about alternates. But it was not resolved.
Some of us thought we had feelings about it, but there wasn't a resolution by
the Board. So that may be something--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, the way the bylaws currently stand, there is an
alternate and there is provision for one.
MS. BROOKS: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: And the understanding is that the alternate does whatever the
person does who they are alternating with.
But there's no provision there for the election of the person by the Board once
the person has been elected by the station board--I mean the LAB which is what
we're talking about here. That question is--the one that you raised, Roberta,
is a larger question. That is, what can alternates do?
MS. BROOKS: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: I'm assuming they can do whatever the people do who they are
alternating for unless there is some wisdom to the contrary. That's what
everybody is shaking and nodding their heads.
MS. BROOKS: That's always been done.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: But we've always done that.
[Laughter.]
MS. MAKELA: I think this is something that should go to the board development
committee, you know, and then come out as a recommendation.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Executive director.
MS. SCOTT: If you look on page 72 of your Board book, the proposed language for
the bylaw amendment, all directors will be seated with a two-thirds vote of the
governing board of the foundation which is the first part of that bylaw change.
This was what was recommended by--
MS. BROOKS: That's the old language.
MS. SCOTT: Okay. Then it says, all directors, then it's the current language.
MS. BROOKS: No, it's not the current language.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Now, what, this language has no date by it. Now, I'm getting
hopelessly confused.
MS. SCOTT: I am too.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Can we simply--
MS. TILSON: May I clarify?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes.
MS. TILSON: The language in your book is the language that was proposed by the
Board and turned down at the last meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay.
MS. TILSON: The language at the beginning is what's proposed for this meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: So we will refer the question of clarifying this--these
matters consistent with the Board's view which is that there will be in a
separate nomination election and the alternate for the time being, unless it's
changed, does whatever the other person does.
Yes?
MS. BRADFORD: Could the LAB representative be accepted or rejected prior to the
Board meeting? You know--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Accepted or rejected.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MS. BRADFORD: Say it again?
MR. O'DELL: No one has ever been rejected.
MS. BRADFORD: Yeah, but I think that in getting on an airplane and coming here
I should know whether or not- -
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: You've been rejected, huh? That's a good question. They
should think about that, too, whether there are some timing problems here.
MS. MAKELA: Well, we've had discussions in the past that nominations--we
actually have codified something, but I don't have it in front of me, so I
can't refer to a page. But because of exactly that the LABs were requested to
get nomination in earlier. There was actually a number of days in advance, and
then the secretary was to receive them. There was a whole procedure to make
sure that the Board would be in compliance with, you know, the balance, et
cetera, et cetera.
MS. BRADFORD: I think in our experience we only assume because I got a Federal
Express package that maybe--
[Laughter.]
MS. BRADFORD: --I should get on a plane.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes, you should get on the plane, but it's just that they're
saying that they could have rejected you once you got here. And I'm saying that
that's very fuzzy and problematic under the pages.
MS. BRADFORD: Prior to me getting here you could reject. Anyway--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, they should--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Could the secretary and the lawyer--could the secretary and
the lawyer take this matter up and that's the Board Development Committee, I
guess.
The agenda. Could we have--could I get a motion to approve the agenda for this
meeting?
MR. McKNIGHT: So move.
MS. MAKELA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: The only discussion that I have, somebody else may have
something. I do have a query about the use of stationery by the community
advisory boards or LABs which I assume I can discuss under one of the other
committee discussions without having it be a separate item on the agenda. But
I'm just simply telling you that I do intend to raise that probably under Board
development or something like that.
Does anyone else have anything else they would like to either add to the agenda
or something that they feel they want to change? If not, all in favor of the
agenda indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Opposed.
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: So ordered.
A motion to approve the minutes 6/97, could I get a motion?
MR. McKNIGHT: So moved.
MS. MAKELA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Any discussion, changes?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Opposed.
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay. Now, we go to the executive director's report.
MS. SCOTT: As Jack O'Dell has eloquently already introduced Dr. Berry, but I
would like to welcome her on behalf of the staff at Pacifica who can stand back
there and welcome her.
[Applause.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Thank you, staff. Thank you, thank you very much. Appreciate
it.
MS. SCOTT: As part of the strategic plan one of the things that we've been
doing over the past year and will continue in the future is to improve our
infrastructure. We have had radio stations that did not have mics that worked,
did not have studios that were functioning. In one case you could hear the
toilet flushing from the on-air studio. So we have made some serious
improvements in the infrastructure, the technical infrastructure of Pacifica
and will continue to do so.
Currently almost all tape machines and material for tape machines is available
in the new format which is digital. Currently almost all equipment at Pacifica
stations is analog. So part of our strategic plan in dealing with our technical
infrastructure is to change that situation.
At WBAI we are moving and building new studios. KPFA moved several years ago
and has a new building which right now also needs some serious improvements.
KPFK under the able leadership of Mark Shubb has really moved from being a dump
where nothing worked to being a serious community radio station now, not that
it doesn't have its problems, but currently things work there. The bigger
problem there is that the transmitter is in serious disrepair and could go off
the air at any time. It requires a $150,000 investment in order to change that
dynamic.
We are taking the chance at this point that it will not go off the air while we
do some fundraising, while we move with this 50th anniversary campaign so that
we can support what needs to happen at that signal area.
WPFW moved several years ago. We did a bare bones construction project for
studios and for office facilities mainly because we only had the money to do
what we did. We have a lease at that station and hopefully we'll be able by the
time that lease is over with some organization and a capital fund drive in the
Washington area to be able to move those studios into a larger facility that
can take--that can really take care of the needs of the national staff and
national production unit as well as the radio station WPFW.
We are also looking at KPFT which is the rattyist of all our stations in the
Houston area which barely has the facilities to broadcast on a daily basis.
Garland has worked to be sure that it's functional in terms of being able to
broadcast, but that will be our next serious project in terms of trying to
rebuild that space or sell it and secure a new space and rebuild the office and
broadcast facilities. We are also involved in all our radio stations with labor
negotiations except for our two stations that do not have unions which is WPFW
and KPFT.
We have very gladly signed a contract with Communication Workers of America. It
was a very good process. It was a process that was a very short process. And
the contract has been ratified by the staff at KPFA. It includes over a three-
year period of time a 10 percent increase--10.3 percent increase and also takes
care of benefits that have been traditional at that station. So there was no
killing of any of that.
We are currently involved in union negotiations, however, at WBAI which is on
hold because we have a National Labor Relations Board appeal pending on whether
volunteers should be in the bargaining unit.
We also have protracted labor negotiations going on at radio station in Los
Angeles, KPFK. I have started these negotiations, have moved into dealing with
these negotiations with a labor attorney. Mark Schubb who has been negotiating
this contract for the past 18 months has found that his time in trying to run
the station has been seriously eroded because of the amount of time he spends
negotiating these contracts. So I will be negotiating this contract from now on
so that Mark can really pay attention to building the station in Los Angeles.
We are currently in negotiations with AFTRA which represents our national
production unit. Those negotiations are going well, and we hope to have a
contract by the end of this week--by the end of next week.
The WBAI move which most of you are aware of is really something that's
necessary. They're in a building that they've been in for 25 years as a
temporary quarters. The building committee and Valerie the manager--Valerie Van
Isler, the manager of WBAI and I have been looking at how we can move this. And
we were really very lucky to find space in a building that has been reserved
for a nonprofit organizations. Even though it has the--it is unfortunate enough
to be located at 120 Wall Street. It is in the same building with the National
Urban League, with the Ms. Foundation, there are 12,000 square feet. And
because the landlord and the city, when Wall Street was having serious problems
finding tenants, made an agreement to essentially take care of the taxes and to
have reduced rates for non- profits.
So currently we are spending $23 a square foot for space at the current
location of WBAI. The new rate will be $16.74 and we will essentially get for
that space probably-- I don't, if you look at the real square footage, you'll
probably get double the operational space that we had before and we will
essentially be spending only $20,000 more than we are currently spending, and
probably a lot less had we renegotiated space in the current location.
We are also fortunate enough to be able to get a loan from the current
landlord. And as well to get almost a half a million dollars in build out costs
from that landlord. So that essentially this building project will be bare
bones, as usual, hopefully the WBAI community can raise enough money to take
care of the better than basics. And we will focus our attention on building
really quality radio broadcast studios. And if we have to put hollow-core doors
on the top of file cabinets for the office space, that's what we will do in
order to keep in budget.
The foundation has no money to have overruns in costs on this project and WBAI
has agreed to help raise capital funds to complete this project in a way that
would make this a comfortable space for the staff at WBAI.
Frank?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Yes, I just wanted you to know that at the last local board
meeting the members present and voting voted unanimously in support of this
move with a great deal of enthusiasm and relief, and I will put their
resolution into the record.
MS. SCOTT: Thank you, Frank.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Without objection, so ordered.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Without objection.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: I have to say that.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: That's okay.
[Laughter.]
MS. SCOTT: On the personnel front there continues to be a search for a
permanent general manager at KPFA. As most of you know the manager at KPFA,
Marci Lockwood resigned and Lynn Chadwick has been the acting manager. Lynn,
would you stand up, please?
And Lynn has been doing a credible--incredible job.
[Laughter.]
MS. SCOTT: An incredible job especially as acting manager at KPFA. She is well
regarded by the staff and she works well with the national staff. And she has
gone through what is really difficult for permanent manager to do, she's made
some serious decisions about the budgeting process. We have had to lay off
staff because of lack of income. And it was done in a way that leaves all
parties feeling not injured.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Next show the people that got laid off.
MS. SCOTT: So I really want to commend Lynn for the job she's done in addition
to keeping her regular job as the president of the National Federation of
Community Broadcasters.
[Applause.]
MS. BROOKS: Here, here.
MS. SCOTT: On the national front, as you well know Pacifica radio has been
targeted for defunding by the conservative members of Congress during the
annual budget appropriations process. This year, however, opponents of public
radio in the House or Representatives opted to attack CPB of the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting overall funding without specifically targeting
Pacifica.
MS. BROOKS: Here, here.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: That's right.
MS. SCOTT: Not that we are completely safe from this, but it is a positive
signal that Pacifica has not been named as yet. Pacifica at CPB has had warm
support for what we are trying to do as an organization from the staff at CPB.
The problem, however, comes in the fact that CPB's board of directors turns
over on a regular basis. They have no history with Pacifica and the role that
Pacifica has played. And sometimes fall into the hands of the critics of
Pacifica without actually knowing what's going on here.
And that's the end of my report.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Does anyone have any--thank you, executive director. Does any
board member have any questions for the executive director? Or comments, or--
MR. PALMER: So what are we doing to ensure that we're familiar with the people
that _____(unintelligible) their membership?
MS. SCOTT: We actually don't have any role in that. When Pacifica was charged
with having closed meetings by the Inspector General, the current board was--it
was Alan Sagner who was the chair and several other political appointees that
made up the CPB Board.
Jack O'Dell and I went to speak with them to counter those accusations. And CPB
did not confirm that Inspection General's report. But we have had very little
impact on who the members of CPB will be.
MR. PALMER: I think it will be more customer relations as they change. Of
course, they're familiar with the--
MS. SCOTT: Well, I maintain a regular relationship with different people on the
Board and I maintain a constant relationship with the staff at CPB because
finally those are the ones that do make a big difference on how Pacifica is
treated.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: That was Mr. Michael Palmer speaking, for the reporter's
benefit.
Anyone else have a comment or a question on the executive director's report?
MR. O'DELL: May I say something?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes, Mr. O'Dell?
MR. O'DELL: Pat, would you mind just commenting on the overall financial
situation?
MS. SCOTT: The overall financial situation for Pacifica is that we have had
increases this year, percentage increase of almost 9 percent in listener
support. The other side of that, however, is that our expenses have gone up
more than that.
We are essentially trying to, as I said earlier in my report, to build a
technical infrastructure as well as-- and this is primary--develop programming.
I know that a lot of the criticism has come relative to the national versus
local programming, and I want to say for the record that Pacifica is still
primarily interested in local program at the local station level. Part of our
strategic plan was how we could pool our resources and produce national
programming that all of the stations could use so that we were not repeating
over, and over, and over again what was happening on a local level in terms of
production and so that we could do it all at one time. Let me give you an
example.
We would do a program--Noam Chomsky is speaking and we would have ten different
people at Pacifica stations call him. And while sometimes that still happens,
at least we have national production so that we can deal with this issue so
that we know that we are interviewing Noam Chomsky that is going to be
broadcast on the news or on Democracy Now, or on the Larry Bensky Show or
someplace. And so we are coordinating those efforts more than ever. Though
we're still getting some criticism about having duplications during the day.
So that is critical in terms of what our financial situation looks like. This
year, going into this budgeting process which we will deal with later in this
Board meeting, we are looking at still not having enough income to support our
larger vision which is why the discussion has taken place in committee on how
to move the organization forward with the 50th anniversary campaign and bring
more resources to the organization so that we can move on, so that we can
produce quality programming at a national and at a local level.
And we have all talked about the nature of that programming that it is cultural
programming and that it is public affairs and news that brings issues that
don't get discussed on other media to the floor. Interviews and talks to people
that you normally don't talk to or you don't hear on the major media sources
and that we analyze and have discussions with people in our communities about
how this impacts and affects them. So that is the focus of the work that we're
trying to do in Pacifica and it requires a lot more resources than we currently
have.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay. Any other? Yes?
MS. BRADFORD: I have one question. Between this document and something I was
handed yesterday I got one suggested that the listener--there was an increase
in listeners. The other one suggested that there was a slight fall back I think
generally around the stations. And so I just wondered if you had anything to
say about that?
MS. SCOTT: There's a general increase in listenership across the network. But
it does rise and fall during different periods of time. But we have seen over
the past few years a steady rise in listenership. And for all-- and all
indications are that people are really pleased with the national programming,
pleased with a lot of the local programming and also that we still have a long
way to go.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: But isn't it the case that some stations have had a decline?
Or have they all had an increase at the same rate?
MS. SCOTT: No, generally across Pacifica there is an increase. But some
stations have had a decline.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Maybe that's what--
MS. SCOTT: Yeah. But generally it goes up and down, so you can't say, for
instance KPFT has had a decline, but KPFT does rise and fall and that is one of
the issues that we're looking at KPFT particularly in the areas since KPFT is
our poorest station. It has fewer resources and a smaller staff. And so we're
looking at, and Garland will talk about how--what his plans are for dealing
with trying to get some local news coverage, because it's impossible to do
without resources.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Anyone else? Ms. Brooks, you had your hand up, did you decide
you weren't interested in saying anything? Like the students in my class.
[Laughter.]
MS. BROOKS: I think not at this--it is a little strong--
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Any other comments, questions on the executive director's
report?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay. Could I have a motion to accept--it says here, "accept
or approve". Now, which one are we doing? Accepting or approving?
MR. PALMER: Accepting.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Accepting the executive director's report.
MR. PALMER: So moved.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Could I get a second?
VOICE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All in favor? Any discussion?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: All in favor indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Opposed.
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: So ordered.
The next item on the agenda is the 50th anniversary report. Who is carrying
that discussion forward?
MS. BROOKS: Am I?
MS. SCOTT: You are.
MS. BROOKS: Oh, my goodness.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Ms. Brooks is carrying that discussion forward.
MS. BROOKS: What I didn't do was go over it before. So hold on a moment.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes, Mr. O'Dell is asking to be recognized.
MR. O'DELL: Maybe it would be good for us to take a five-minute break.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Do you need some preparation time, ma'am? We're a little
ahead on the agenda, so we could do that.
We will recess for five minutes while Ms. Brooks--
[Recess]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: On the record.
Okay. Ms. Brooks, why don't you proceed with the 50th anniversary report.
MS. BROOKS: First of all, thank you for your indulgence. I had expected a break-
-
We had our first 50th Anniversary Committee meeting last night. And we--Dick
made a presentation to us as a whole and then we had discussion and ideas. We
had essentially broken the first presentations into tasks and the resources.
The tasks that have to be done in the near future are development objectives
which will be formulated by the results of each of the six units of the
strategic plan.
So those of you that are involved in strategic planning in your own units, the
reason why we're doing this is to ascertain how much money we really do need to
raise to bring all the stations and all the units into the 21st Century, if we
can say that, and, you know, to fulfill what Pat articulated as a need.
The second is to develop feasibility studies in the five cities and at the
national level, to establish a gift chart that will be determined by the amount
of money that it is decided we need and then we develop a pyramid. The largest
gift is normally about 10 percent of the goal.
Then prospects which again is related to this gift chart, who are--who and what
are the entities that we will go to for gifts.
Cultivation and marketing plan which would again be based on the feasibility
studies, the gift chart for prospects and communicated--and this would be
communicated to the general prospects. There are various other things, the
sequential solicitation plan, time table, acknowledgment, collection, how long,
over what period of time we will be collecting the money. These are things that
will be decided later on.
What we see as the resources are, we're hoping that it will be approved later
in this meeting, either today or tomorrow, I don't know when, a proposal for
$150,000 from the SCA for launching this project which will cover some of the
tasks that are outlined a little bit further on.
We also considered resources of the staff. Dick Bunce will be involved with
this, but he will be working with a person that we will hire. We consider the
Board a resource which is one of the reasons why we feel a need to expand and
further develop this forum.
And promotional aspects and infrastructure we will have--and I will talk about
that a little further on.
What was a little sobering for Dick was a meeting that he had in Tucson with
all the development staff and the general manager's where there was
enthusiastic response on the part of everybody who had been part of the
strategic plan to have a 50th anniversary campaign but--and willingness to be a
part of it, but they really felt that they had no serious resources to do the
work at the local levels of any of the units.
We originally had hoped maybe each staff would have it's own person handling
the 50th anniversary campaign. It became quite clear from that meeting that
there was not going the be the resource at each station to do that. So that's
why we have kind of, you know, shifted the scope just a little bit into
probably being more of a nationally- directed project.
But there's tremendous enthusiasm for this naturally enough since most of the
money is going to--all of money is going to go to the units. There is
enthusiasm and everybody wants it to be done, but what we had hoped was going
to happen, where a lot of this would actually originate from the station, is
not going to happen.
So, we decided that we will--we have asked for approval for $150,000. That will
include hiring a national person who will work with each of the units to help
define this--you know, finalize the strategic plans and put those all together
into the formulation of goals and objectives for the campaign. Launch and lead
feasibility studies in the six unit areas, I'll say five station areas and then
a whole overview. And all of the steps that we have talked about, actually
early objectives, feasibility studies, gift charts, cultivating prospects, et
cetera, the first year's activities will be funded in that way.
There will be a 50 anniversary committee which will provisionally work with
Dick to select the director. We want to solicit from this entire board names
and prospects for people who might fit this category--you know, fit this job
description which will be further developed by Dick.
The Board will be involved in the early side of the project--leadership, and
presentations to individuals and foundations or whoever we go to and help with
our gifts. There will be this on-board component and then there will also be
eventually development of an off-board 50th anniversary committee and, again,
we want you all to start brainstorming, coming up with names of people that,
you know, live in your own area that you know that would be both, honorary
people on our 50th anniversary committee and hands-on people.
There will also be promotional assets--part of our assets are in national
programs, you know, in archives, we'll be developing themes and programmatic
historical spots, probably a logo of some kind, perhaps a set of CDs and tapes
from the archives, a traveling archive that might be videotaped, but probably a
perspective of some of the experiences that we have had with Pacifica in the
last 50 years.
So that's it. The 150,000 will launch the first year activities of the 50th
anniversary. We really encourage people to start thinking about a person or
persons to do this, a person to be hired, and then additional names.
We're assuming we'll get the $150,000 from the Board. We have set the date of
Thanksgiving for the strategic plan to be completed from all the units, so
those of you on the Board, please, you know, or if you have any-- or if you're
working with your general managers, make sure that this gets accomplished from
all units because that's the information we're going to need to develop the
goals.
The national search will start as soon as possible. Again, I repeat, please
send names of any major fund-raisers that you know, or fundraising--with
fundraising experience. And this committee will work with Dick on the selection
of this person and we hope to have that person hired by the executive director
by the end of this year.
And finally the 50th anniversary Committee. When we ask you to think of names
of people to be on this committee, we want you to be expansive and think of the
areas that Pacifica has actually worked in.
There's a whole free-speech area. Pacifica has led the battle in the courts on
many occasions for free speech. They led the battle for the National Endowment
of the Arts' struggles with Congress. There are obviously other radio networks,
the whole social justice, the whole civil rights movement, in any of those
areas that you can think of are people that we should be getting to be a part
of this, what should be an extraordinary celebration of this work of Pacifica.
So, any questions?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Does any member have any questions?
[No response.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, until a member has a question, my understanding is that
for a person who will be hired to do this work. There will be a search and
there will be consultation with the committee that you're on?
MS. BROOKS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: You didn't say that.
MS. BROOKS: I didn't?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: No. Unless--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: No, no, no, that there would be consultation--
MS. BROOKS: The 50th Anniversary committee will work with staff to make the
selection and have the executive director make the hire at the end of the year.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay. So the committee will consult about that. Okay.
MS. BROOKS: The 50th anniversary Committee is on this Board.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Right. And the other point I wanted to make, it's my
understanding from other boards I've been on that when you have a major
fundraising campaign that for the first large amounts of money, that's raised
before it goes public, is that the Board itself is expected to make a
contribution. And in the case of this organization, I guess, the local advisory
board members would too, along with some significant gifts from some other
major donor before the campaign actually goes public.
MS. BROOKS: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Would that understanding pertain with this board?
MS. BROOKS: Yes. I think so. First of all we probably won't go public until
April of '99. Actually public.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: '98 or '99?
MS. BROOKS: '99. The year will go from April of '99 to April of 2000. But, yes,
I'm glad you brought that up because this isn't something we discussed last
night, but we did this on another occasion when we had launched the national
program endowment which was not met with enormous success, but we did at that
time get from every member of this board a contribution of whatever size.
Because it was very helpful for Dick who was going to the foundations to be
able to see our Board has financially supported this. And I think you're
absolutely right. We would expect that for this board and the committee would
be following up with board members to that extent.
And, also, I think you're right that since there is a component for local
advisory boards that it would be important to be able to say to people that
we're going to, that, yes, we do have financial support from everyone at our
local advisory boards.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: And is it too early for board members to suggest things that
they think ought to be added as major items for consideration as to targets for
gift- giving? That is the goals of the--for example, if somebody thinks that
the network should be trying to obtain enough money to expand, say, to Atlanta,
I just picked that out instead of Nashville where I'm from--Atlanta. Or that it
should expand to Boston, I'm just making, you know, anyplace like that, or
would something like that be--instead of simply just strengthening the existing
stations, which ought to be done, but to have other kinds of targets. Or, for
example, to say that consistent with the articles of incorporation resources
ought to be raised to try to make sure that educational programs could be
carried out at the station for community people. I'm just making these
suggestions.
MS. BROOKS: Yes, I think that those kinds of ideas are really excellent.
Because, as I said, there's the signal area strategic plan and then there is a
national overview and that would be where I would think expansion to another
single area would be extremely appropriate.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Uh-huh.
MS. BROOKS: We've always kind of dreamed, you know, of having some station in
the south--having a station other than--
MR. PALMER: This is the third time that Houston is getting ribbed in this
meeting.
[Laughter.]
MR. PALMER: --the poorest, and all that other stuff, I mean--
[Laughter.]
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MS. BROOKS: And also Chicago was one that we've often thought about. We really
don't have--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Is Houston in the south or southwest?
MR. PALMER: Deep in the south.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: In the south--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MR. PALMER: Straddling the southwest, too.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MR. PALMER: There are no tumbleweeds in Houston.
[Laughter.]
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: In the southeast.
MR. PALMER: Southeast, yeah.
MS. BROOKS: Southeast and then one in the center of the country. So I think
that that's very appropriate to be included. And I also think your other point
about targeting a particular programmatic area will be very appropriate.
MR. PALMER: I have a question, it's coming more from my professional
background. And I don't know if it's appropriate or not, but aren't there
people that go out and tap philanthropic organizations for people to contribute
the seed money that we could say, you do the job, you get this pay, whatever
that number is. And we could tap from now, you know, that we wouldn't be maybe
having to allocate precious resources--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MS. BROOKS: We have to talk about that. One of the things that we were thinking
about that we haven't tapped that we thought might be available, and Frank
might want to speak to this a little bit, is NEA and then also say Councils on
the Arts. Every state has a Council on the Arts and they do have a pot of money
to do this kind of infrastructure building.
So those were some ideas we discussed last night.
MR. PALMER: I'm thinking about in my fair city of Houston, Texas there are
individuals that just have the right cause, they just do it. And their
percentage, I'm sure they contribute back in the program, but they know the
right people to talk to. And I'm just thinking from a business point of view
about this thing of saying, this is what we're thinking of doing. There's two
or three people that could probably say, these individuals or this--this
foundation would be glad to get behind us and to be seen.
And I'm thinking just for the expediency of finding out the validity of doing
something.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: There are two questions being asked--two separate questions.
And I think the first question, Ms. Brooks was asking Mr. Millspaugh--Frank
Millspaugh to answer which related to the discussion and the committee about
the Arts and Humanities Council. I think that's what you were being asked to
comment on, but the second question was about whether there's some different
way to fund-raise in terms of early, in terms of identifying people who are
philanthropists and the like.
Let me recognize you first because your hand was up first. And then we'll see--
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Well, I'll speak to that--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Speak to whatever you like.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: I did raise the possibility that we have never tried to go to
the National Endowment for the Arts which does have a long lead time. What that
means is the time you start with is right now, and that shorter lead times that
are often more accessible are the state councils of the arts. And radio is
considered, in their view as an art. And so therefore radio, per se, is
considered an art form. So I think those would be good prospects to immediately
start researching and making contacts with. I think that each of the managers
and certainly in New York, the manager, I believe, already is familiar with
some of the state council people, but I'd be glad to, if not, to introduce her
to the ones that affect our area. And I'm sure that's true in each state.
To speak to the other issue, if I may briefly, about fund-raisers working on a
commission from what they raised. According to the National Society of
Fundraising Executives and Council this is considered unethical and you want to
be very careful of anyone who purports to do that for many reasons which are
obvious; inflated expenses, inflated revenues against the expenses which result
in the highest possible percentage to the person. It's considered ethical to
take a specific percent fee for your work and so that all of the revenue
generated above that goes to the charitable enterprise.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Michael, did that relate to what you were saying or not?
MR. PALMER: Well, I think I heard what he said which was that there just has to
be a fee identified as opposed to a commission.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: That's correct.
MR. PALMER: A commission, a fee, to me it's the same thing because that's what
you call it in my business, a commission. Or a fee depending on the size of the-
-
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Well, I didn't know for sure whether you meant commission in
terms of a fee or in terms of a percent. If you meant in terms of percents,
then that's considered unethical and you would want to really be- -you want to
really scope anybody that offered to do that.
If you mean by a prenegotiated fee, then absolutely that's a completely legal
and customary thing to do. But I would defer, I think, to Dick's judgment as to
whether that was the best route to go or to hire the in- house person and have
them perform that function.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Well, I don't know what business you're in, do you want to
proceed, Micheal, to respond to that?
MR. PALMER: Well, I understand about the fee part. But that still didn't get to
my question which is, are there people that do this?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Oh, yes. I use--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MR. PALMER: I mean, if we don't have to front money, then--I mean, that's the
question, do we have--
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: You have to front money.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: No, no, no. To raise money without--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: There are people who raise money who we could get to raise
money without us having to have outlays from the funds of the foundation to
begin with; is that what you're saying?
MR. MILLSPAUGH: Not to my knowledge. I always order a fee up front and then
something periodically, monthly or quarterly thereafter.
MS. BROOKS: Do you have any comment on this, Dick? Could we ask Mr. Bunce to
comment on this?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: I guess. Yes, you're recognized.
MR. BUNCE: Just briefly. You know, there are no guarantees in fundraisers.
There's no way of saying, you know, we pay you $50,000 you guarantee that
you'll raise 500,000. It's all hiring people to perform tasks. And that's what
we're proposing is hiring a very professional top-flight person to provide
leadership for this campaign. And, you know, I think we can find someone. But
there are no simple, black-box arrangements that are possible with this kind of
fund-raiser.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: But I'm still left a little bemused as I think you are
because I'm aware without getting into percentages and all that, I am aware
that there are people who have business enterprises, some of which are in the
city and are major business enterprises, and they haven't gone to jail to or
anything, or there's no, you know, people raising any--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: --who in fact--who in fact raise money and in fact who may
not get a percentage of it, but whose contract to raise it is dependent on--
their payment is dependent on how successful they are over time in raising
money.
In other words, if you gave them a fee and they never raised any money, then
when they got ready for the next payment you don't have to pay them. Now, I
don't know what you call that, but I know they do--
MR. MILLSPAUGH: It's--
[Simultaneous conversation.].
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes, June.
MS. MAKELA: In my limited but some experience with this, and particularly
advising a lot of people on fundraising for left and progressive causes my
experience is that these professionals--and there are dozens of them-- function
best for fundraising for traditional charitable causes. And, in fact, they get
hired by the American Red Cross and the March of Dimes, colleges, et cetera, to
either coordinate endowments, to put on gala special events, you know, do
capital campaigns, et cetera. And they work best when you have a know--you
know, identified population of prospects, they come into organizations that are
already successful in fundraising and they will do specific things.
In my experience in groups like ours fellow progressive organizations that have
not been able to invest and really build their own major donor base, you end up
having to spend so much time explaining your politics, your philosophy, your
culture, your style, and who your prospective donors might be and you spend a
lot of money doing it. And you can have limited success. I mean, you don't
necessarily fail, but you spend a lot of money and time.
And then our prospects, you know, I'm not sure our prospects would be--would
warmly receive a professional outside fundraising, slick fundraising outfit. So
I tend to be convinced that a very good in-house fund-raiser and not a lot of
our effort.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Does that answer your question, Mr. Palmer?
MR. PALMER: I think I hear the answer.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Okay. All right.
MS. BROOKS: And I could just amplify that a little bit. The most successful
experience we've had within Pacifica has been the Capital Campaign where we
hired an outsider, Dick Bunce, who you may know, and he was an outsider at the
time, and he--we had a goal of how much, Pat?
MS. SCOTT: The feasibility said we could raise $660,000, but we eventually
ended up raising $2.5 million over a period of two years.
MS. BROOKS: And the strategy that Dick has presented here is essentially a
similar strategy and it took a year of development before we went public. At
the time we went public we announced a $400,000 gift and we had all these
things in place. And Dick and I worked very closely with the local board. I was
actually brought on the local board at that time because having worked for the
local congressman for years and I knew a whole lot of people and a lot of other
people knew a whole lot of people and a lot of other people knew a whole lot of
people and we had hundreds of meetings with these people to expand the list. It
was a, you know, a kind of ever-growing process. And that's probably the way
this is going to have to work because it is a very different community that we
go to than just the American Cancer Society.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes. Executive director?
MS. SCOTT: We essentially had to make the same decision, Michael. Dick wasn't
quite an outsider. He was on a local advisory board with me at that time.
MS. BROOKS: That's true.
MS. SCOTT: And moved over to deal with the Capital Campaign, but he was a
person that was familiar with Pacifica. He was familiar with KPFA. He had been
involved in the media business himself, in a the progressive media business
himself, so he really knew this dynamic.
We also, at that same time, interviewed firms to run this capital campaign and
made the decision at that time that we were better served by hiring someone
like Dick. And we proved right in making that assessment.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Does anyone have any other questions or comments on the 50th
anniversary report? Okay. Yes.
MS. BROOKS: And please get names of any suggestions for such a person to Dick
and also be thinking regularly for the next year and a half of individuals and
especially in the near run--of individuals who you think would be appropriate
people on the 50th anniversary Committee and ask your board--local advisory
board also to be working on it and developing some of these names.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes?
MS. GONZALES: Just to clarify. Earlier in your report you had said that none of
our units felt that there were serious resources. So other than what you're
asking of us, what is the local commitment? If you could just recap that?
MS. BROOKS: There isn't.
MS. GONZALES: There isn't?
MS. BROOKS: Financial commitment. At this point the launching of this will--the
proposal that's going to come before us is the launching of SCA money.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Should there be? Since you raised the question.
MS. GONZALES: Let me put it this way, I was surprised that that was the unit,
so I wouldn't second-guess it, but--
[Simultaneous conversation.]
MS. GONZALES: --report that did. I believe if I could just counter your
question with a question is, could there be? I mean--
MS. BROOKS: Well, what Dick said he was told in no uncertain terms in Tucson
was that every member of every staff in all of the local stations and all the
units were stretched to the max and that the budgets in each of the units was
stretched to the max. And, in fact, those of us who were on the finance
committee yesterday saw that not only are they stretched to the max, but these
are conservative figures.
So, it looked unlikely that we were going to get the kind of commitment--
realistic commitment that we're going to need to move this thing forward from
the units.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Did you have a comment to make?
MS. SCOTT: Yes. Just in terms of a strategy for financial development or
anything else, when we look at money that comes into Pacifica, whether it's
allocated to a local or national level, it belongs to everybody. And so we try
to allocate resources in the best way possible. This way we're dealing with
what money, you know, that would go out to the units in other ways, and we've
decided to allocate it to this project so that everybody can share.
It's analogous to the earlier discussion about programming. What can we do on a
national level that we can share at the local units? This is the same issue.
You know, what can we do on a national level that we can share with the local
units so that we can all benefit from it.
MS. BROOKS: To follow that, but I suppose you could say that $150,000--units
they might have come to ask for and it would have--
MS. SCOTT: Well, they did come and ask for it.
MS. BROOKS: They did.
[Laughter.]
[Simultaneous conversation.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: So it's being used for this purpose rather than some other
purpose.
So the units are participating by not getting something.
MS. BROOKS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes, June.
[Laughter.]
MS. SCOTT: By not getting something else?
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Yes.
MS. MAKELA: Also, I don't think we should--it's not as simple as--let's see,
this does not eliminate the potential for other resources and I think we
shouldn't quickly dismiss that there aren't local resources available.
There's no money in the local budgets. That's one source.
MS. BROOKS: Right.
MS. MAKELA: And paid staff, particularly development staff, is stretched very
thin. But everybody is going to have to work on this campaign.
MS. BROOKS: Oh, absolutely.
MS. MAKELA: And so the resources the stations have are all of the people paid
and unpaid and playing different roles at the local stations that can find a
place in this campaign. So, lots of people have to be involved in asking lots
of people for money.
MS. BROOKS: Definitely.
MS. MAKELA: And so that can be programmers and LAB people and finding people in
the community who might like to sign on to Pacifica to be part of the 50th
anniversary campaign and no other role is something. It would be a resource
from the locals. So I think we shouldn't simply say there are no local
resources being contributed.
MS. BROOKS: Oh, yeah, absolutely.
MS. MAKELA: Or expected.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Or expected. Yes, Mr. Robinson?
MR. ROBINSON: I only speak for the WPFW LAB. But I would think that if the
committee approaches LABs such as ours and is flexible in discussing how to go
about doing it, what the goals and objectives are for expansion, whether it's
going to be station expansion or geographical expansion in the country and
openly discusses different ways of raising the money, LABs such as ours, I
would think, would be very interested in exploring that process with the
committee to raise money.
I think what I hear is that there are a lot of things that people are concerned
they can't do as a station or ways that people may want or not want to raise
money. But I think if you want to get the LABs such as ours involved and have a
flexible discussion about what goals and objectives are and how to go about
doing it, you may find more support from the LABs than I hear reflected in this
discussion.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Point of clarification, and it's appropriate to ask under
this section since we do have a little time. What kinds of funds can the
foundation accept or not? And last week I've heard at least 10 different
answers. Some people say that the stations can't accept--let's see, what is it
you can accept? Can accept any money from a corporation--can accept some money
from a corporation so long as its not for programming. Cannot--can so long as
it's not mentioned that they're sponsoring a program. Can accept money from a
foundation--cannot accept money from a foundation.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: Can accept it so long as on the air one does not have to
mention that the foundation--
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: --is giving it. So I would like--and I haven't been able to
find anything in any of the documents, and I'm still looking for documents,
could someone--who would know the answer to this question in this organization
and could answer it definitively?
MS. MAKELA: Pat and Dick.
MR. MILLSPAUGH: You just set it apart very clearly.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: I did? Wow. Could we have an answer to this question? And
also could we have, if you have it available to you, citations to where this
material is that, or by inference that what we are inferring this from or
whether it's a policy decision, or it's written down somewhere or it's just
something that goes back to the time when the memory of man runneth not to the
contrary--
[Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: --or just what it is. Madam Executive Director?
MS. SCOTT: I'd actually like for Dick to start answering the question and I'll
complete it. Dick?
MR. BUNCE: Well, I think what you're asking for is actually a document that we
can prepare and circulate to the boards.
CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: It does not exist?
MR. BUNCE: Well, there is a--there's a general document. I don't have it in my
hands, but there is a general document that is in every station's file that
reviews what the policies are on funds. And in a nutshell, Pacifica's current
position is that it does not accept corporate underwriting. And that is a
specific term that refers to support or fund a program that is on the air from
a commercial entity. That's the critical principle that differentiates our
funding from virtually all the rest of the public radio stations, the public
radio program producers, and all of the commercial broadcasters.
Now, for a campaign of the sort that we are talking about waging for the 50th
anniversary, it doesn't