It has often been said that the more things change, the more they remain the same. This is certainly true regarding the relationship of the Pacifica Board of Directors to the stations and the communities that support them, it seems. Below are excerpts from Dallas in Wonderland: The Pacifica Approach to Free Radio,  a 1967 self-published account of his experiences as KPFK's GM and Program Director in the mid-1960's by Paul Dallas. Dallas writes of gag orders by the Pacifica Board and fierce opposition to elected governance at Pacifica, as well as demonization of community groups calling for democracy at Pacifica. It is disturbingly similar to the controversy that now rages more than 30 years later. Dallas' account shows that until the problem of governance is addressed, and structures put in place for open and accountable decision making, we will fight the same battle again and again.

What has changed is the caliber of management at KPFK. Dallas encouraged radical and innovative youg programmers while present KPFK Manager Mark Schubb wants middle-aged listeners with bucks; Dallas lead the station to break new ground, while Schubb has directed programmers to mainstream their content and removed anything controversial from the air. Worst of all, when controversy arose under Dallas' tenure, the airwaves of the station were open to discuss the issues with the community while Schubb has censored even news coverage of the battle now raging for the soul of Pacifica.

Dallas in Wonderland is now out of print. It is our hope to eventually transcribe the entire book for publication here. Anyone who wants to volunteer for the project, please contact the sitekeeper. For now, some excerpts:

 "The problem has its roots in the structure of the Board of Directors.Brilliant men, motivated by noble ideals, need that spark of challenge which is struck by their being held accountable.  In an atmosphere devoid of potent criticism and loyal opposition, minds grow old and fervor becomes jaded.  Reform is necessarily an external force.  When good, grey men sit around a table congratulating themselves, approving of themselves, and applauding their own devotion, it becomes a time for warm milk and
graham crackers.  Only on special occasions is a little sherry served; and then it is more often sniffed at than tasted.  Pacifica needs lusty men and women to guide it; radicals prodding conservatives; youth nipping at the heels of age; wisdom tempering impatience.  But even if this mix could be achieved, it would soon wither and grow dull if faced with nothing more stimulating than impotent critics.  Today, to its own deterioration, the Board holds the subscribers to the Pacifica ideals in a web of impotence. Unfortunately, they are abetted in this by many of the subscribers.

 "Vague fears permeate the thinking of many who consider the possibility of a subscriber elected Board. It is not suprising to find many of these ill-formed worries emanating from the Pacifica Board room.  It is not a characteristic of juntas to preside over their own dissolution.  To secure their permanence, it is necessary not so much to conquer the crowds as to prevent their union.  Alarms are sounded which point to the imminent danger of a tyrannical takeover by some frothing enemy if one scintilla of power were to be relinquished by the rulers.  All holy, noble, and pure power must be vested in the ruling clique so that it can prevent the contamination of the larger purpose.

 "But the larger purpose of Pacifica is dissent.  Whatever is popular, accepted, and established moves in easy, prefabricated channels.  The innovators, the daring and nonconforming thinkers are the ones who created and supported Pacifica.  And I cannot agree that this group needs a Great Father or a Big Brother to show it how it ought to nonconform.

 "When I was suspended from my position at KPFK, hundreds of letters came pouring in appealing to the Board to take cognizance of the subscribers' desires.  The Board's position was that it would be wrong to take notice of what amounted to a popular movement.  They justify their actions by carrying the theory to its extreme.  If they once acknowledge the existence of listener influence, soon Pacifica might turn into a rock and roll station, a formula of proven popularity.  They choose, instead, the other extreme; they operate on the theory that if a thing is unpopular, it must be good.

 "I replied to many of the people who had written and, after my termination, we held a meeting.  Out of this evolved a group calling itself Friends of the First Amendment-KPFK.  I was amazed at how much information I was able to give to this group.  The cause of my amazement was that the FFA-KPFK was composed of subscribers to the station, many of whom had supported the venture since its inception; yet they were grossly uninformed on the structure and working of Pacifica.  I was unable to find one of them who could identify the Local Board of KPFK.  A steering committee for the FFA-KPFK was elected which would serve until growth had been started and representation could be offered to KPFK's entire roster of subscribers.  My relationship to the FFA-KPFK was, and will remain that of consultant.  I am not a member of its steering committee, I will not run for office in the group, and I will decline any offer to which I might be elected.  What I have done, and will continue to do, is to consult with and speak before any group of subscribers who want information about the Foundation which they are supporting.

 "What are the aims of the FFA-KPFK?  It's basic purpose is simply stated: subscriber representation on the Board of Directors.  Does this mean that the entire Board must be elected by the subscribers?  Would it suffice to elect only a few members of the Board?  How would nominations be handled? How would elections be held?  What safeguards need to be built in to prevent a takeover by organizations opposed to our ideals?

 "FFA-KPFK doese not pretend to have the answers to these question.  Nor does it believe that it is the logical source of nominees.  It does believe, strongly and indefatigably, that the resolution of these questions will be found in open and unrestricted discussion by all subscribers to the Pacifica family of stations.  It refuses to accept the notion that a wide debate of the issues can somehow be more harmful than a unilateral lecture on how things ought to be.  "The Pacifica reaction to the FFA-KPFK was truly astounding when one attempts to relate it to the piously prated sentiments of the present Board.  Several of the more vociferous Board members took to the air to denounce the FFA-KPFK as a group intent on scuttling the station.  Hallock Hoffman [Pacifica Board Chair at the time] followed suit, referring to the group as the "Dallasites," presumably with the intention of identifying me so strongly with the FFA-KPFK that there would then be but a single target at which to shoot.  The tactic is a familiar one.  Rather than allowing the reasoned voices of subscribers to be heard, if the Board could convince the crowd that the FFA-KPFK was a "Dallas" movement, they could then concentrate their energies on discrediting me personally.  Should this strategy prove successful, the FFA-KPFK would very likely be destroyed.

The following account begins on Page 211.   It chronicles Dallas'attempt to notify listeners of the existence of his book about what was happening at Pacifica by advertising the book in the station folios ofKPFA, KPFK, and WBAI.  It deals with what he described as "skullduggery"in scuttling that attempt (current Pacifica Board member Frank Millpaugh is mentioned),and then deals with imposed gag rules and the refusal of the Board toconfront its critics or their critiques.

 "Al Partridge, then Acting Manager of KPFK, and Hallock Hoffman [PacificaBoard Chair at the time] both agreed that contracting for paid advertising was a proper course to follow.  They agreed to accept and publish an advertisement for this book.  Al told me that Francis Roberts had been hired to put out the KPFK Folio but he would clear things with Roberts who apparently needed the approval of higher authority before he could make so momentous a decision as to accept an advertisement proclaiming dissent.Interestingly, Hallock had just been appointed to serve as a judge in the annual contest of the American Civil Liberties Union for the best published works dealing with free speech; under the circumstances it came as a matter of course that Hallock emphatically agreed that each station should accept the advertisement.  The deadline for the September Folio was August 5. KPFK had never really insisted on this deadline because advertising was a valuable source of revenue.  But in order to make sure that my advertisement did not become the victim of a technicality, I reserved the needed space, a half page, on July 24.  On July 26, I met with Roberts and checked to see that Al had passed the word on to him.Roberts told me that Al had indeed mentioned it and that space was being reserved.  Within the next five days I prepared the advertisement and took it to a photo-offset establishment which laid it out, supplied the typesetting, and delivered me photo-ready copy.  This was a convenience not ordinarily experienced by a KPFK Folio Editor.  I delivered the completed copy on August 1, four days in advance of the deadline.  On August 3, Hallock phoned me and suggested the removal of the Pacifica Bird from the ad.  I agreed to its deletion.

"Then all was silent until August 24, a date I shall always associate with skullduggery.  On August 24, exactly one month after I had first reserved the space for the ad, Hallock phoned to say that he had just received notice of a "distressing situation."  Frank Millspaugh of WBAI had just called his buddy, the new manager of KPFK, to inquire whether I had actually paid for the KPFK ad.  He had been informed that KPFK had not yet received payment.  Hallock went on to say that Millspaugh then indicated his intent not to run the ad in the New York Folio on the grounds that no money had been forthcoming.  I was shocked and told Hallock that I had never received a bill from any station but that I was prepared to make payment immediately upon receipt of a bill.  Each station has its own rate schedule and these schedules vary from time to time.  I asked Hallock if he knew the rates and he said he did not.  Under the circumstances he expressed sympathy with my position and told me he would call Millspaugh and straighten things out.  I thanked him and hung up. What I did not know was that even as we were talking the printer in Los Angeles was delivering to KPFK its 12,000 September Folios.  These Folios did not contain my advertisement.  Francis Roberts, summoning his entire store of honest courage, wrote me a letter which I received on August 25, the day after the Folios had been delivered to KPFK.  He stated that he was returning my copy which he had not included in the Folio because he had run out of space!  He made no mention of payment or billing but insisted that the decision to delete my advertisement was his own, exclusively, and made for reasons of space alone!  He further stated that if I wished to resubmit the advertisement for the October Folio, he would consider it at that time...but he would have to see a copy of the book before making any decision.  This was an extraordinary implementation of the First Amendment.

"And so, once more, perhaps for the last time - perhaps more is yet to come - I was surrounded by the velvet fog.  Millspaugh at WBAI was threatening to pull my ad because I had not paid KPFK who had not run it! "The Board of Directors of the Pacifica Foundation are on record as being opposed to any airing of the dissenting views of the Friends of the First Amendment-KPFK.  The basic aim of this organization is to bring about subscriber-representation on the Board.  At the same time, the men who comprise this Board are exercising their power, derived from subscribers'donations, to deny them voice.  If the FFA-KPFK is a dangerous bunch of scoundrels, how better to destroy them than to expose them to public debate?  Has the Board no faith in the intelligence of its own subscribers? Or is the Board worried that those who support Pacifica possess too much inate [sic] wisdom to risk an uncensored scrutiny of the issues?  The FFA-KPFK does not seek to dictate action, it asks only for debate.  It does not demand the right to make unchallenged charges and its [sic] asks the Board to refrain from thundering one-sided accusations while stifling response.

"Hallock Hoffman, the same Hallock Hoffman who serves as a judge of the ACLU's Communications Contest in the interests of furthering Free Speech, has explicitly ordered the personalities who conduct KPFK's telephone-in programs not to solicit discussion on the air about my dismissal or the issues involving FFA-KPFK; further, they were not to express opinions of their own on either of these subjects; and to make sure that no loophole was left unplugged through which some information might seep, Hallock personally ordered that in the event some caller should bring up the issues, the conducter of the program *was not to respond* [underlined in the original]

"Freedom of speech be damned.  To hell with the First Amendment.  Hallock Hoffman is a Member of the Board of Directors of the Pacifica Foundation.He is, in fact, Chairman of the Board.  His position is threatened by voices sounding dissent; is this a time for the First Amendment?  Bring out the Fifth!  The Tenth, the Nineteenth...anything but the First.Within this Land of Wonder known as Pacifica, Hallock would be hard pressed for time had he to answer all the questions that are being raised about his administration of things Pacifica.  After all, he is on the payroll of the Center for the Study of *Democratic* [underlined in theoriginal] Institutions; and in November he will be quietly judging entries in the ACLU's Free Speech contest.  In the press of time it is better, far better, that Folios run out of space for distributing books and the airwaves be purged of dissenting voices.  How can a man think weightily of democratic ideas such as Free Speech, if he keeps being disturbed all the time by ungrateful supporters? "As for me, I loved the concept of Pacifica before I ever knew that it existed as a broadcasting medium.  In the years I was permitted to be involved with KPFK, I was part of a beautiful dream become real; but it was a precarious reality and something must be done, now, to preserve its truth.  I believe that a handful of men, together with a sprinkling of their paid cronies, are stifling that truth.  If I am wrong, I ask them to quit screaming their wrath from a mountain top and to come down among us like ordinary men, to debate their beliefs in an open and unfrightened fashion. [This final paragraph is underlined in its entirety] "Directors of Pacifica, subscribers to KPFK, WBAI, and KPFA:  Do not be afraid of the First Amendment.  Speak out...agree...dissent...discuss...far from visiting hurt upon Pacifica, the beautiful, free growth for which we yearn will ensue.