wbai.net Pacifica/WBAI history   events   links   archive   bylaws etc
PNB   LSB   elections   contact info   opinion   search

Regarding PNB resignations 6-14-01

From: Mark Hernandez
Reply-To: freepacifica@recordist.com
To: Free Pacifica
Subject: Resignations...So What?
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:10:12 -0500 (CDT)
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close

Following the KPFA LAB meeting, there was an earnest discussion of "what now?" with respect to the resignations of Acosta and van Putten...and it was only towards the end that I thought of why this doesn't mean so much as itg appears.

Bear with me as I try to explain this, and feel free to consider it as being reasonable or not.

We know Murdock and Ford are the testosterone-laden members of the PNB, who will not give up, will not admit defeat and will likely be dragged kicking and screaming away.

They also realize, however, that they could lose in the courts very quickly if they act to try and strong-arm anything.

It is my contention that Acosta and van Putten were _asked_ to resign from the PNB, using the current actions against them as cover.


Because their resignation removes the 2/3 margin needed to amend the by-laws, which keeps the court happy, but still allows them to control the foundation directly by majority vote.

The only real restriction on them _is_ amending the by-laws, and not on expenditures, income, hiring, policymaking, and the rest of the day to day operations.

This allows them the opportunity to present the _image_ of being "compassionate and caring" about the pressure being put on them, and how "unreasonable and inhumane" we are for continuing to badger, harrass and "threaten" them.

In other words, the PNB can now say, "But, Your Honor, we're harmless! We don't _need_ an injunction filed against us...we can't _possibly_ amend the by-laws now, so there is not _danger_ of this! This just _shows_ that these people are unwilling to compromise or be humane!"

...while still spending funds on matters outside the Pacifica interests and still without accountability by their now-two-seat majority.

These people are chess players, as Joseph Wanzala points out...they have no qualms about sacrificing someone to reach their goals, in a far more ruthless manner than we've been giving them credit for.

Cisco, Farrell, Chamber...those seem to be the best to target. Remove any one and MurFord will start scrambling. Remove _two_ more...

Mark Hernandez markh@repairnet.com
KFCF Volunteer | FFCF Member | KPFA Volunteer/LAB Member

top of page | opinion | home

sponsors this site