For the record (and for a bit of history discussed in it) I thought I would post here a letter sent to each of the CPB Board members last week. --Peter Franck
=================================================================
PETER FRANCK
HANSON, BRIDGETT, MARCUS, VLAHOS & RUDY, LLP
333 MARKET STREET, 23RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, 94105
415.995.5055
F: 415.278.0493
May 14, 1997
Alan Sagner
Chairman of the Board of Directors
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
901 E. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Dear Alan Sagner:
I am writing to encourage you and your colleagues on the CPB board to accept the findings and recommendations in the Compliance Audit of Pacifica Foundation Report No. 97-01 of April 9, 1997.
The recent practice of the Pacifica Foundation board of conducting virtually all of its business in "executive session" is surprising and disturbing. I served on the Pacifica Foundation Board from 1975 through 1984, and served as President of the Foundation from 1980 to 1984. During that entire time, executive sessions were rare and short.
I happen to have at hand the record of a National Board meeting held in February 1983. I note that the Board's finance committee met that weekend during the day of February 4, a Friday; that the Board itself met in open session, with a detailed, published agenda, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, February 5, in executive session from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Sunday, February 6, and then again in open session from 11:30 a.m. until adjournment at the end of the day. Open session items included "report of finance committee," "discussion of lease or refinance of buildings," as well as reports of the Governance Committee and the Long-range Planning Committee, among other items. This meeting was typical of the practice of Pacifica during the time I knew it directly (in fact, there were many meetings where no executive session was necessary).
It should be clear that extended executive session meetings which do not comply with the limited exemption from the sunshine provisions of the Public Broadcasting Act put an organization outside of compliance with that Act. I certainly urge the CPB Board to uphold the Sunshine provisions of the Act.
I also note in the Inspector General's report, his office's concerns and recommendations with respect to the role of the Local Advisory Boards. As you may know, the provisions of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1978, requiring local advisory boards, were to a great extent modelled on Pacifica Foundation's own history and experience. I have been involved with Pacifica since the mid-60s and had the opportunity on many occasions to talk with people involved in its earlier days: The Board of Directors of Pacifica Foundation created Local Advisory Boards at a time when the Foundation had grown from being the licensee of a single station (KPFA) to a licensee of three stations (Berkeley, Los Angeles and New York). They found that as a single Board they could no longer stay in touch directly and effectively with the concerns of the various communities within the (then three) signal areas. They formed the local boards (at a time when there was absolutely no legal requirement to do so) to fill that gap and to ensure effective communication between the communities of interest in the signal areas and the Foundation Board. That purpose was the model for the present Act's requirements, and certainly any attempt to reverse the flow of information and ideas (from the top to the bottom, instead of from the local level up to the national level) turns the purpose of the Act on its head.
I would therefore urge you to support the Inspector General's recommendations. In so doing you will be helping Pacifica back to its tradition of open responsiveness to the communities of concern which it was created to serve, and strengthening the entire public radio system.
I want to thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Very truly yours,
Peter Franck
**********************
|