Pacifica Update Letter

Mr. Murdock's group, until recently, refused to seat Mr. Moran who had been appointed to that committee almost two years ago. Mr. Moran's appointment to that committee was made in view of the public, and is on tape. In spite of this, Mr. Murdock's group repeatedly denied this appointment had occurred. [3]

Why might have Mr. Murdock and his allies suddenly relented and agreed to seat Mr. Moran? Because three lawsuits filed against Mr. Murdock and his colleagues have passed the roadblocks, demurrers and bogus change of venue requests filed by Mr. Murdock's law firm, that have been set in the way of Pacifica constituencies trying to remove the predators.

These efforts at "dialog" will no doubt be placed before the judge, to dissuade him from issuing restraining orders against the board-packing and by-laws amendments that Mr. Murdock's group wishes to implement by portraying Murdock and company as reasonable and responsive. Hearings on these injunctions are scheduled for next month. While the law prohibits evidence to be entered in the record regarding "settlement" discussions, these fall outside of that definition, and would therefore be admissible.

We have been repeatedly lied to, and are sick of it. In 1999, then spokesperson for this same Board group, Chairperson Mary Francis Berry also made public denials that discussions of the sale of stations were occurring. Shortly afterward a dissident Board member, Peter Bramson, held a press conference to reveal that Berry had lied. [4] And all of this followed earlier revelations by watchdog group Media Alliance in San Francisco that they had obtained a misdirected memo from now Board Treasurer Michael Palmer, advocating the sale of either KPFA or WBAI. [5]

Following a broadcast, by KPFA journalist Dennis Bernstein, of a Media Alliance press conference on the memo, horrified listeners in the Bay Area heard Mr. Bernstein pursued by armed guards placed in the station by Pacifica. Mr. Bernstein was removed because his broadcast was deemed a violation of the "gag rule." Mr. Bernstein, as well as dozens more KPFA staffers and listeners were arrested, and the station was shut down for three weeks.

The only regrets expressed by Pacifica Board Chair Berry, who brought Mr. Murdock on, was that she had not acted sooner to stifle dissent. [6]

More than half a million dollars of the listeners' money was spent in efforts to gag broadcasters attempting to inform us of serious problems with the governance of Pacifica, or to hire spin-doctors to lie to us. [7] Until this takeover attempt began in the mid-nineties, Pacifica had no need for "communications directors" or public relations firms. We are outraged that our own money is being spent for these purposes. Furthermore, revelations in the East Bay Express [8] confirmed that the KPFA shutdown had been planned at least a month in advance, as the Palmer memo indicated. Equipment necessary to reroute the signal, as well as personnel ready to implement the orders had been put in place well before that day. It was not a spontaneous "error of judgement," as after the fact spin-meisters have suggested.

As you can see, Mr. Murdock's associates have a long track record of lying.

For example, Murdock's proposal accords even greater power to the "Executive Committee" which has been command central for the Pacifica takeover. It would permit a handful of Executive Committee members to decide via a conference call to sell a station.

It would also enable a simple majority of the Board to vote to expel other members, instead of the 2/3 presently needed. This obviously refers to Mr. Moran, Leslie Cagan and the other dissident Directors (two of whom are suing Mr. Murdock and his colleagues.) On this, you need to run the numbers; Mr. Murdock is one vote short at the moment, either to eject the dissidents or to ram through his proposed by-laws. I think this may explain why he is interested, so suddenly, in "dialog."

In order to pass by-laws amendments, the law requires that notice must be given in advance of the board meeting of a vote. Therefore, it was not possible for Mr. Murdock's faction to add the additional new member in time to ram through the by-laws. Because of the court cases, the Board predators are, for the first time, dotting all their i's.

However, creating diversionary "dialog" would enable Mr. Murdock and company to turn this disadvantage to advantage. By pretending to offer dialog, they will attempt to persuade the judge that a restraining order on their conduct is not needed. Once the restraining order has been denied, after costing the people's forces thousands of dollars and many person-hours, they may come at it again. It's no wonder they want to discredit Juan Gonzalez' call for a boycott; they are using the listener-sponsors own money to fund their campaign to steal Pacifica from the people who built it.

Mr. Murdock spent a more than a few moments in yesterday's broadcast decrying the "hate speech" allegedly used against him and his colleagues. Actions speak louder than words it is been said. Mr. Murdock and his allies' actions could fairly be characterized as "hate actions" against Pacifica, its traditions and its supportive community of listeners and workers. I would say that this trumps speech of any kind, no matter what its content.

The firm Mr. Murdock works for, Epstein, Becker and Green, is notorious for assisting corporations to quash union-organizing, Mr. Murdock himself represents HMO's, which persistently attempt to deny treatment to sick people so that they can make a bigger profit. Lawyers have told me in confidence that EBG is known for its unscrupulous tactics. Lawyers will never, of course, say this publicly, so ask a few you know in the labor field to speak to you off the record.

: Mr. Murdock blithely suggested that banned workers should pursue their grievances through their union. However, management consistently ignores grievances, thereby necessitating expensive arbitration procedures [12] that, again, USE THE LISTENERS' MONEY to fund their attempts to squash the workers. Mr. Murdock leaves redress for the monumentally aggrieved listener-sponsors out of the equation altogether.

At my former station, KPFK in Los Angeles, a written order from the management has existed since 1996 that orders station personnel to cut off the air any caller who attempts to raise issues concerning Pacifica or who attempts to announce a community meeting to discuss Pacifica matters. And this order remains in place. [13]

While Mr. Murdock, his associates, and their management surrogates have often claimed that their actions are for the benefit of the listeners, programs attempting to cover the issues at Pacifica stations have been repeatedly censored. [14] As in your case, this is rationalized by claims that those with critical views are spreading "disinformation." That hardly demonstrates an interest in "dialog."

I recall one incident much like what you experienced that I heard on the air at KPFK when it was undergoing the process of gentrification now underway at WBAI. Ron Wilkins, a long-time host of an African issues program had as his guests several programmers of color from KPFK and other Pacifica stations who had been removed from the air. The announced topic was to be the treatment of programmers of color at Pacifica. The show was taken off the air mid-broadcast by station manager Mark Schubb, and Mr. Wilkins, his guests and the engineer were permanently banned. Even a volunteer who was in the building at the time fixing computers was banned merely because he was seen talking to Mr. Wilkins in the studio after his show was cut off.

At KPFK especially, management spokespersons have claimed that such coverage must be suppressed because it damages fund raising totals. Pacifica News director Dan Coughlin was attacked on those grounds and subsequently removed in 1999 for reporting on a boycott by 16 of Pacifica's affiliates in response to policies implemented by Mr. Murdock's allies. [15]

What does this really mean? That if the broad base of donors were given access to information as to how their money is being spent that they might choose to withhold it? If Mr. Murdock and his associates are truly acting in the best interests of the listener-sponsors, as they ought, why has there been a consistent effort to hide the facts about their activities and policies behind gag rules?

But this is not just about policies that Mr. Murdock may claim were established prior to his tenure, though that in itself would be as credible as Dennis Hastert disclaiming legislation put through under Newt Gingrich. Mr. Murdock's firm recently sent letters to several web sites maintained by listener/worker groups critical of the management of Pacifica, threatening them with trademark infringement actions if they don't shut down. [16] Not only are these SLAPP suits legally indefensible, they are being paid for with donations the listeners contributed, which were certainly not sent to Pacifica for that purpose.

Furthermore, a member of Mr. Murdock's firm told an attorney representing the site holders that they intended to bring suit in Virginia (!) a location hundreds, or thousands, of miles away from the locations of the would-be defendants, thereby heaping hardship upon harassment. [17] This may be the normal manner of operation of Mr. Murdock's firm, but it is certainly inconsistent with Mr. Murdock's calls for "dialog."

Another feature of Mr. Murdock's by-laws proposal was to allow financial compensation to Directors for "professional services" and to allow the transfer of funds from the sale of assets to other "non-profit organizations." These "services" could of course include legal fees and real estate commissions on the sale of Pacifica stations. Given that WBAI might fetch as much as $200 million dollars, even a three percent real estate commission, for example, is a sum of money that would inspire more than a few people to endure nasty letters or public denunciations.

These "non-profits" could of course be administered by Mr. Murdock and his allies. What possible good faith reason could exist for putting forth a by-laws proposal containing such language, whether a draft or not? Pacifica has never been a granting institution. Why would a group, that on the one hand, has repeatedly justified its actions on the grounds that they will increase the financial stability of the organization for the future, be in such a hurry to give away money to "non-profit organizations?"