Tracy Rosenberg

Why this vote matters

by

Dan Siegel“The result of these elections could determine whether Pacifica survives or continues its slide into bankruptcy,” writes Pacifica National Board member and SaveKPFA activist Dan Siegel in Counterpunch.

“Pacifica has always been fractious, back to when KPFA was founded as its first station in 1949,” he continues, going on to describe the network’s current leadership as “inept and politically sectarian.” That leadership, he writes, “has brought the Foundation to its knees. It has spent down all its reserves, incurring cumulative deficits of $5.7 million in the last four fiscal years, according to its 2012 audit report.” | READ Siegel’s article and this overview of Pacifica’s audit

Recall response: we called it!

by

Return KPFA to us nowSIGN THE PETITION HERE
In our last newsletter we pointed out that, when Tracy Rosenberg used a lawsuit to scuttle the count of recall ballots, her own court filings argued that it would cost KPFA very little money to fix the recall’s procedural problems by sending out a new ballot in the same envelope as the general election ballots due to be mailed on November 6.

Here’s what Rosenberg’s legal filing says: “It is understood that that PACIFICA has incurred expenses in conducting the present recall….However, the cost to Pacifica of a new election can be mitigated since it is about to begin a general election, and it is possible that a recall election can be conducted in tandem therewith, thereby avoiding some duplication in cost.”

We also predicted that, having won an injunction from the court, Rosenberg would make a 180-degree turn and try to prevent KPFA from doing just that — conducting a quick, cheap re-vote by stuffing an extra piece of paper in each ballot package.

True to form, Rosenberg delivered, arguing during the last meeting of KPFA’s Local Station Board that it would be too expensive to include a re-done recall ballot on November 6. (You can listen to the October 6 meeting here: part a, part b, part c, part d, part e. The recall discussion occurs in part d.)  And she wonders why KPFA listeners want her out of Pacifica?

It’s time for listeners to once again speak up. TAKE A MOMENT TO SIGN THIS PETITION, asking Pacifica’s election supervisors and national board allow all KPFA listeners to have a vote on the recall as part of this fall’s general election.

And after you’ve done that, please help us spread the word by forwarding this newsletter to friends who may be KPFA listeners. Thank you!

Mark your calendars: recall ballot count in court Sept. 11

by

Pacifica treasurer Tracy Rosenberg filed suit last month to halt the recall vote count, charging that Pacifica had delayed the vote too long. The recall was initiated nearly a year ago when over 800 KPFA listeners signed SaveKPFA petitions demanding a recall vote on Rosenberg. Over our repeated protests, Pacifica delayed the recall election past December 31, 2011 — which was the date called for in its own rules and bylaws.

Now Rosenberg is asking a judge to throw the recall out, and for Pacifica to pay her attorneys’ fees, because of the delays. But Pacifica’s legal counsel Andrew Gold writes in an August 27 brief to the court that Rosenberg “is complicit in the actions of the PNB that caused the delay in the selection of an election supervisor and thus the delay in the distribution of ballots. As a result, she cannot benefit from that delay.”

“Plaintiff Rosenberg participated in all of the PNB meetings where the recall election was discussed,” writes Gold, “and personally opposed one of the proposed election supervisors….Despite her intimate knowledge of the procedures, and her involvement in all of the decisions being made, Ms. Rosenberg never objected to the delay in appointing an election supervisor, never raised any issue concerning the record date…and never questioned the timing of the distribution of the ballots. Instead, she waited until the very end of the process to file her complaint.” | READ MORE at the court’s website; enter case number RG12641585. (Gold’s brief is dated 8/27/12 and titled Opposition to Application for Preliminary Injunction Filed.)

NOTE DATE CHANGE: The case will be heard on Tuesday, September 11 at 2:30pm in D-514 in the Hayward Hall of Justice (directions). The public is welcome to attend, so mark your calendars!

In early August, a large number of ballots was picked up by the election supervisor from the Berkeley Post Office, and as witnesses watched, transferred under court order to safe deposit boxes at nearby banks (see photo here).