From the San Francisco Bay Guardian,
May 7, 1997

MEDIA

IN A BLISTERING report on the Pacifica radio network's secretive ways, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has vindicated the complaints of Pacifica critics across the country.

The report, issued April 9 but released to the public only last week, was conducted by CPB auditor Joe Arvizu, who spent four days combing through Pacifica's archives and financial documents, many of which were denied him by top management.

His conclusions were unequivocal.

"Pacifica had not been complying with the intent and spirit of the Communications Act, as it had not 1) provided reasonable notice of meetings to the public; 2) restricted [governing] Board executive sessions to those deliberations that met the Act's criteria for closed meetings; and 3) issued written notices to the public disclosing the reasons for holding closed meetings," the report states. "Also, the local advisory boards were being threatened to support Board decisions or resign; the advisory boards were not being given the autonomy needed to assess public needs and make recommendations to the governing board."

The report recommends that the CPB make the next fiscal year's funding for the network -- comprising about 15 percent of Pacifica's total budget -- contingent on the network's complying with the laws governing public-radio accessibility.

Activists who have criticized Berkeley-based Pacifica station KPFA's secrecy, and who brought the network's problems to the CPB's attention, said they were hopeful that change would come as a result of the report.

"We feel totally vindicated; the report supports all our complaints except on the matter of board retreats," former KPFA development director Maria Gilardin told the Bay Guardian. "I can't see how there wouldn't be a change based on this, because it's totally spelled out what's wrong -- and by an agency that's not given to radical statements."

Gilardin, speaking on behalf of listener group Take Back KPFA, said the report raised disturbing questions.

"The degree of secrecy is even deeper than we expected," she said. "The inspector general was only given a small portion [of Pacifica's documents], and most worrisome was that he wasn't allowed to see the Executive Committee minutes, and that, we suspect, is the true ruling body."

Pacifica spokesperson Burt Glass attacked the report's findings as inaccurate, insisting that the network's meetings have in fact been open.

"This is a major error, and we will be making a formal response to the board of the CPB," he told the Bay Guardian. As for the documents denied Arvizu, Glass said, "We were very generous with the amount of openness we gave him."

Arvizu concluded that the Pacifica board has been holding closed meetings based on minutes from board meetings dating back to 1994. He wrote that, aside from one public file, "Pacifica held all other documents as confidential" and would not allow him to copy or even remove the public documents from the room where they were stored.

Arvizu wrote that Pacifica's executive director, Pat Scott, "explained that all governing board meetings used to be open to the public until the board and staff started experiencing problems with the public." According to the Communications Act, that does not qualify as a reason for exemption from open-meeting provisions.

If the report is approved by Arvizu's superiors, the CPB's national board will consider it. The board must approve Arvizu's recommendations for them to take effect.

Belinda Griswold