Someone asked me to comment on the letter sent by Pacifica Executive Director Pat Scott to KBOO's Board of Directors. (KBOO's original letter) This letter has been sent to various people and groups who have written expressing concern about the anti-union activity at Pacifica. Below, is Scott's letter with my comments and footnotes of documents at this site on which my comments are based.
----Lyn Gerry, November 1996

> >August 2, 1996

> >KBOO Community Radio
> >Board of Directors
> >20 SE 8th Avenue
> >Portland OR 97214

> >Dear Board of Directors

> >I am writing you today to respond to the charges that are currently being leveled against Pacifica Radio.

> >I want to be sure you have the full picture and let you know that you can always contact me if you have questions or doubts about what we are doing. Our detractors have launched an intensive media campaign against us, and we are trying not to be distracted from our work by the constant attacks that we are forced to respond to, It is important to me that you understand the context so that you are able to make an informed judgment about what is really going on at Pacifica.

Our critics have focused their efforts on two main charges. They accuse us of union busting, of hiring "high priced" help to do so, and of selling out the roots of community radio. None of these charges are true or justified. The backdrop is programming change currently taking place at Pacifica stations around the country and the contract negotiations now underway with the UE (United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers) at two of our five stations, KPFK in Los Angeles and WBAI in New York. It is an inevitable fact of any such process that there will be differences of opinion across the bargaining table. Frequently we see these differences aired in public. That is what is happening here. In the course of doing our best to come up with a reasonable contract that is fair and equitable to all our employees, our critics have hunted for any opportunity to brand us as "union-busters."

Workers have been operating under contracts which they considered fair and equitable since the late 1980's. Scott called in "labor consultants" to come up with a contract which would exclude the majority of the workers from the contract--especially those on air, whether paid or not. {Pacifica Against its Workers)

This is in line with the new Pacifica employment policy which describes all employment as "at will."--meaning anyone can be terminated at any time with or without cause. Their actions show they wish to extend this ability to as many workers as possible. (employee handbook)

The philosophy underlying this is that they are the "owners" of Pacifica, and that the people who have participated over the years, on the air or off the air have no "ownership." That they are merely "employees" there at the sufferance of the "owners", Scott and the Pacifica Board. This board has not been elected. Most of the people on these boards have not contributed a fraction of what the "employees" have. Nor for that matter, do the people who have supported Pacifica financially over the years have any "ownership." They are replaceable by many new potential "donors" out there. This has been publicly stated by management personnel--- a project is in the works to document these statements--stay tuned.

The "differences of opinion" are so extreme that unfair labor practices have been filed against Pacifica, in Los Angeles in June of 1995, and in New York in September 1996. The nature of the contract proposals presented are offensive to the workers at all three stations--KPFA was able to exercise it's right to extend its old contract for a year to avoid negotiating the contract that Scott describes as "fair and equitable." (various union documents)

> >Their main ammunition is a $1000 contract we had with a company, American Consulting Group (ACG) to advise us on some aspects of labor law, having nothing to do with the Union negotiations. Let me assure you that for a number of reasons, including the fact that we are very sensitive to union busting charges, we will not be working with ACG in the future.

This paragraph contains several outright lies. Both Erick Becker, ESQ and Glenn Haynes worked extensively for Pacifica management. Their firm, the American Consulting Group, has various subsidiary corporations, one of which is the Center for Human Resources. Scott is attempting to represent CHR as not affiliated with ACG--a lie. (docs showing ACG and CHR are one in the same)

Furthermore, over $60,000 has been spent by the Scott administration to attack Pacifica workers.(new info on monies spent)

The reason they will not be "working with ACG in the future" is the revelation of Pacifica's involvement with union-busters has set off a firestorm of protest. Had they not been caught in the act, one would wonder if they would still be using ACG. After all, they had no compunctions about hiring them in the first place

Read some of the press accounts of this and compare the conflicting denials made. . (articles)

> >It is true that the Pacifica management and the National Board of Directors support the removal of unpaid volunteers from the negotiating unit. This may be a debatable position, but it does not constitute "union busting." The inclusion of volunteers in a union bargaining unit is an anomaly practically unknown outside Pacifica.

Well, so what. This seems to imply that Pacifica "should be like everybody else." And Scott in fact greatly desires to be a corporate CEO--she publicly stated at the "Media and Democracy Conference" that the "corporate" model was the way to run a radio station. She and many of the others view Pacifica as a "business." However, the grassroots people who have built Pacifica over the years thought they were participating in a movement. In March of 1995, Scott and Odell asked for a meeting with several leaders of UE---at that meeeting they expressed wanting to remove "contractual impediments. " Chris Townsend, one of the UE people later expressed his outrage at the attitude portrayed by Scott and Odell. He said," They want to be bosses when the movement needs leaders." I have quoted this before because it really hits the nail on the head.

> >Volunteers have legitimate interests, and we are developing policies and procedures to protect their interests. These do not include lifetime tenure on air. We must be able to change, drop and add programs to further the Pacifica mission and adapt to the changing needs of the community.

> >There is no plan to replace local programming with an automated satellite program service. We have been producing national programs since 1968 and will continue to do so. The satellite system allows for the distribution and sharing of programs like the news, Democracy Now, Jerry Brown and national election coverage.

Let me draw a distinction here betweem local programming and community programming. Programming produced by "employees" whose content is controlled by management, whether locally or nationally is a very different animal. This small group of people intend to be the gatekeepers of information. By what right? They can't even truly claim to "own" the stations---the stations are owned by Pacifica---one must ask, by what right do they claim to be Pacifica, any more than anybody else?

When Lew Hill created KPFA, his philosophy was to give innovative and creative thinkers an environment in which to work, to experiment, to succeed or fail on their own merits. This is the creative process--for every canvas in a museum their are many that the artist threw away as failures----the freedom to explore is exactly what is excluded from commercial broadcasting, the "quality control" mentality makes failures too risky financially. There is no innovation without risk.(Lew Hill's Theory of Listener-sponsorship)

There are still people in Pacifica who grew up in the organization in that climate of intellectual and creative freedom---however if people like the current ones remain in control for too long, I believe Pacifica will cease to attract the innovators and iconoclasts---they will simply not want to work in such a bureaucratic environment. The "career" people will be all that is left, and people have been known to compromise their ideals to a great extent, as well as eat a lot of shit, to keep that paycheck coming.

> >At the heart of these attacks is the notion that we are selling out --forsaking Pacifica's traditional progressive roots. What we see here is a replay of a time-honored Pacifica struggle for the "soul" of the community radio station. There is a very small group of former employees and volunteers who are searching for any opportunity to discredit the positive changes currently taking place at Pacifica Radio, Incredibly, they do not believe that building a radio station's audience through quality programming should be a priority. Rather, they hold the somewhat elitist view that community radio can survive today as a viable operation as long as there is one intelligent listener for one intelligent person, to paraphrase an early Pacifica idea.

Where does she get off to say to such crap? I don't believe that anyone involved with this effort would consider the above paragraph an accurate representation of what they believe. I consider it more elitist that she and her ossified cadre have appointed themselves as the arbiters of the "progressive " viewpoint.

Let's talk about some real elitism here--- KPFK used to have a program guide which was sent to every subscriber,, even those who could only afford the low-income/student/senior rate. Publication was cancelled and the editor, a union member, laid off in April of 1995. There is still no program guide, but KPFK has recently posted a new job, a management position whose sole purpose is the cultivation and servicing of large donors. Voice of the disenfranchised, huh?

Unfortunately, not only is this an elitist view, it is also not a practical way to run a radio station, especially Pacifica stations with a strong signals [sic] in a very large metropolitan areas [sic]. This approach is also antithetical to Pacifica's other long stated commitment that I know you share -- to act as a leader for progressive social change, to empower and bring together all segments of our diverse community and to provide a voice for the empowered [sic] and the disenfranchised. As long as we speak only to ourselves, we simply cannot fulfill this commitment.

Pacifica's approach to providing a "voice for the disenfranchised" has traditionally been to let the "disenfranchised" speak for themselves. The disenfranchised are angry about their disenfranchisement. One way to create an understanding of the situation of oppression is for the people to tell their stories and share the experience from their point of view---not the ruling elite's point of view. Yet Dick Bunce, in a letter to Current Magazine, on July 8, 1996 (response to "Current" ) proudly boasts Pacifica has removed the "babble of haranguing ideologues." How can one search for truth without all perspectives? My personal experience is truth is often found at the interstices of those conflicts.

> >I am sure that you will be shocked to know that one of our most vocal critics recently stated publicly "propaganda is necessary in a democracy .... because you have to control [people's] minds." Our view is different. We see our mission as broadcasting information that people can use to form their own opinions, and make up their own minds.

What the fuck is this? Yeah, I am shocked to hear this. I thought I had heard all of the most vocal critics---I've never heard anyone suggest this movement is about mind control. How interesting that she hasn't attributed a name to this "quote."

> >And so as we approach our 50th anniversary, Pacifica Radio has embarked on a course to strengthen its foundation for the future. Our goal is to build a modern, relevant, effective, radio network that will challenge and impact the status quo. Our recent efforts have been well received by our listeners, supporters and donors. At all our stations, audience share has increased since we began making program changes last year.

> >Yet our detractors view these changes negatively -- as though choosing to expand our support base through providing strong programming, and providing our stations access to excellent national programs such as a national news service and our election special series "Democracy Now!" is somehow selling out of corporate America and selling out our ideals. > >

> >This is not so. There is not one shred of evidence that creating the best radio network on the radio dial and staying true to our progressive roots and commitments need to be mutually exclusive.

No, it need not be. But in the hands of people of limited imagination and "my way or the highway" mentalities, such a possibility seems remote. She has not addressed why all these great doings must be done behind closed doors, shrouded in secrecy. Obviously, critics do not agree that Scott's policies are going to create the best station on the radio dial.

> >I hope this letter helps fill in some of the details and context to this rather rowdy public debate that you are witnessing. In truth, the history of Pacifica radio is one of struggle, debate, criticism and self- criticism. And not always polite, either. We have been harsh on ourselves, simply because we are different from mainstream radio, and we want to stay that way. And we will continue to struggle to find solutions that will benefit our audiences, all of them,

Yes, but in this case there is no "debate" as anyone who disagrees is drummed out of Pacifica. Any conflicting viewpoints are censored. Those with dissenting or different visions of the organization have to go to great trouble to be heard--as those now in control of Pacifica actively work to prevent their ideas from reaching the public. Self-criticism, my ass!

> >This is not about right and wrong. It is ultimately about good radio programming. And if you doubt that the changes we are currently making are good, do yourself a favor and tune in a Pacifica station today. I am sure you will find, just as always, that we are providing outstanding, thoughtful and accessible progressive programming that will educate and interest you.

Well, some of us certainly do think it is about right and wrong. Right and wrong are embedded in the concept of social justice. What an absurd statement that this is not about right and wrong!