Lyn Gerry wrote:

While converting the 5 year plan to hypertext, it was very difficult to resist making satiric remarks---but then---the document is already a parody of itself. Nevetheless, the repercussions of such a "vision" are extremely serious for the future survival of our stations in any meaningful form beyond familiar call letters. So, here's my two cents worth:

The Introduction by Dick Bunce

This really contains the full picture of where these people are coming from. I consider some of the basic premises faulty and the implications alarming.

On page one: Bunce states that under the media trusts, public broadcasting and Pacifica Radio are "reduced to the media equivalent of mom-and pop grocery" or "craftshops."---- Not only is this nothing new, Pacifica was even more anomalous in 1948---there are actually more electronic media outlets, especially radio, than when Pacifica was founded. Print journalism has suffered greatly from the media trusts-----electronic media was always corporate--thus Hill's decision to found Pacifica.

Bunce quotes Don Hazen (who gave Pat Scott a "media hero award") as saying the information now provided to Americans "Is a deception that distorts reality and undermines people's faith in government, their sense of community, and the notion of shared social responsibility."

As to distorting reality, this has been the case with electronic media generally--it is hardly new------as to undermining people's faith in government---I strongly disagree that this is the effect---on the contrary it idealizes repressive forces of government such as the police (cop shows) and creates fear and alienation which lead to people meekly accepting anti-terrorism bills. If it were undermining people's faith in government it would at least be performing a valuable service.

Does Bunce think Pacifica's role is to build faith in government? This is a shocking permutation of Pacifica's mission of a community funded media, free of both government and corporate interest that Hill and the Pacifist Conscientious Objectors and Anarchist founders of Pacifica clearly intended. Hill and his group saw and understood the devastation wrought by governments in the service of capital--and this is more true today. Bunce cites the work of scholar Ralph Engelmann, on page 5, who expresses the Pacifica vision in its classic form. It is odd to me that Bunce cites this--does he really believe this is what is occurring NOW at Pacifica? Dissidents don't. The very heterogeneity spoken of by Engelmann here is put at risk by the "vision" this plan represents.

Mainstream Power Games

Bunce's introduction reinforces the theory that what is happening at Pacifica is about some liberal democrat/DSA types who have decided to use Pacifica's transmitters as a vehicle to "revitalize the electoral process" and perhaps get themselves re-elected. I am sure some of these people are well intentioned.

Well, some of us out here think no substantial change will ever occur through the electoral process---the people who really run this country never have their names on any ballot --- and that grassroots efforts are the hope of the future. This is a type of political analysis which as always been available on Pacifica in the past---in fact---- Pacifica's broadcasting played a significant role in undermining MY faith in government, for which I am grateful, or I'd still think as Bunce apparently does. The point is, such "controversial" views are increasingly hard to find on Pacifica's air, and all their other efforts of union-busting and secrecy are part and parcel of this scenario---- direct democracy and open process lead to a broadcast entity whose content is difficult to control--and I believe they intend to become shapers of public opinion along the lines of what I have described.

They see a vacuum created as NPR goes more corporate and intend to fill it. To this end, they are eliminating voices termed "irresponsible" These people apparently desire to make Pacifica a voice to be reckoned with inside the Beltway ---and to do this they need a "professional staff" whose utterances they can control, who will not create "embarrassment" on Capitol Hill, who will take orders from above-- unlike unruly grassroots community people. The union busting stuff is not about wages and benefits---it is about power---the contracts previously in place gave workers quite bit of say in setting organizational priorities. (See old versus current "contract from hell" proposal.)

A Left Corporate Elite

The words "professional" "leader" and "talent" appear frequently in the plan. Clearly, they intend the situation of "just anybody from the community" doing radio to come to an end. Well, what does "professional" mean? It does not mean "excellent" ---see Rush Limbaugh, Bob Grant , Howard Stern etc.---professionals all.

One thing it does mean is he who pays the piper calls the tune. Interestingly, Bunce's introduction posits increased demand for Pacifica's programming in the current environment, yet at the same time they are screaming financial ruin as a justification for these changes. If Bunce is right about the increased demand, and there I agree completely, Pacifica could stay quite strong by holding fast to its founding principles. This seems obvious, therefore I conclude the changes have other purposes than the stated "survival into the 21st century."

Another reason for the screams of financial ruin is the decision of a growing upper management class in Pacifica to pay themselves, in the context of Pacifica, lavish salaries---epitomized by Scott's raising of her own pay in 1995 from 52K to 67K, as well as that of other management personnel. These figures are in the IRS 990's.

In the final analysis, this document portrays a top-down corporate style organization, in which decisions are made by a professional managerial class. In the plan, one of the stated goals is to "articulate and maintain clearly defined roles, relationships and authority at all levels of Pacifica." In other words, your basic Corporate bureaucracy.

At the same time Scott and Bunce speak of "imagination" and "vision." I can think of no environment so antithetical to those processes as this--neither could Hill, and in his writings he made clear the people doing the broadcasting should be making the decisions.

Imagination? What imagination?

In terms of the programming, the formats are becoming formulaic, clock driven and many think, less thought provoking. For example, while We the People frequently has interesting discussion, a guest is often cut off in the middle of a significant point by a meaningless break to play 60 seconds of music of no particular relevance--when the interview resumes, the momentum has been lost.

Once again, this regimentation both in behind the scenes operations and on air, is highly unlikely to attract and keep creative people--Hill understood this---Pacifica has been an "embarrassment of riches" because of Hill's understanding and vision--a dynamic system capable of evolution.

It has also had some terrible problems--this is a fact which most in the dissident movement readily acknowledge. Dissidents see the Scott "vision" as neither visionary nor a solution.

Pacifica has a history of internal turmoil, and indeed this current crisis and battle is a direct result of a lack of accountable and democratic decision making.. Scott misrepresents the dissident movement as opposed to change. This not so---the movement, part of a nationwide grassroots groundswell to increase the scope of truly democratic communications, seeks a purer realization of the vision articulated by Hill----direct democracy by those who make the stations exist---workers and listeners, the community. This is the type of imaginative vision for the 21st century that we believe will truly make Pacifica a beacon for those disenfranchised by society, those who question the existing order, seek answers to our pressing human and environmental problems and strive to express our yearning for beauty and meaning. This is the mysterious ulterior motive of which we stand accused.

One question keeps coming up---if these plans are so visionary and wonderful, why are these people planning in secret, allergic to debate on this considerable departure from Pacifica's traditions, purging and attempting to muzzle dissenters and unwilling to let the subscribers know what's going on? Furthermore, what gives these individuals the moral or actual authority to make these unilateral decisions for the rest of the organization?

Let them raise these questions openly, and subject them to debate and democratic process. It is possible they could persuade the rest of their great vision, right? Unlikely. Why? They have no great vision, their activities are self serving, they are not "leaders" and this is a coup d'etat.

Pacifica's by-laws have no provision for referendum on the conduct or policies of officers. Thus, the organization repeats cyclical warfare. We wish to change this permanently, by creating democratic, open and accountable governance which can respond to the evolution of the mission over time...which sets an example for the world. Now, we have a reality far different from the "Democracy Now " rhetoric--- a situation which destroys our credibility as a voice for change.

I speak for myself here, though I know my assessment is shared by many in this struggle.

Lyn Gerry