New!    New!   New!    New!    New!    New!   New!    New!     New!    New!   New!    New!    New!    New!   New!    New!     New!    New!   New!  
Together with several constituents, I have filed a lawsuit against  Lester Radke, national elections supervisor for 2006, Tucker Bradley, KPFT Local Elections Supervisor for 2006  and last and probably not least, KPFT General Manager Duane Bradley for conspiracy to defame me in an effort to prevent my reelection to the KPFT LSB and to prevent my ascension to Pacifica's National Board.  At the moment, I am barred by order of Duane Bradley from the premises of KPFT.  You can read the details and review the case by clicking here!
New!    New!   New!    New!    New!    New!   New!    New!     New!    New!   New!    New!    New!    New!   New!    New!     New!    New!   New!  

The struggle commences:  friction between various contending interests is already evident in the LSB.  Please click here to read some revealing correespondence between myself and some other LSB members on significant matters, including an open letter I wrote  to GM Duane Bradley (to which, of course, he never responded). 

      Greetings Houston/Galveston area Pacificans! While I do ask you to put my name, Ken Freeland, first on your ballot            
during this year's LSB election, this webpage will focus primarily on the brief and rather pathetic history of the KPFT LSB, as witnessed from the inside. It will not be chronologically arranged, because, in the interests of time, precious little of which I have available for this project at the moment owing to work demands, I want to be sure that you are informed of the MOST SIGNIFICANT events first – many of them involve incumbents who seek reelection to the Board, and you, as a voting Foundation member, are entitled to know the dismal record on which they stand.

Chapter 1   Mike Martin "evicts" LSB member Ken Freeland from a Management Review Committee meeting

As my campaign statement and radio spot emphasize, drastic and unconscionable changes were made by its managers to KPFT's programming on Mayday 2005. These reactionary changes have so traumatized many progressive KPFT listeners, that many of them have reported to me that they no longer listen to KPFT on a regular basis, except, perhaps, to catch Democracy Now! when they can. To reiterate, KPFT's management on May 1 of last year, pulled Democracy Now! From its new and very popular morning drivetime spot of 7:00 am. This move was made only a few weeks after the 7:00 am timeslot had been scheduled for that flagship news program, and only two or three weeks after Amy Goodman's visit to Houston, the cause celebrè for which the additional broadcast time had been originally scheduled, the public assuming the change was permanent (activists and listeners had been agitating for this drivetime broadcast of DN! since the hard-fought revolution in Pacifica governance in the year 2000, which was had led local activists to great expectations for the station, including this one). This “Mayday coup” also removed the following strategically placed programs from drivetime, some of them are no longer broadcast at all: TUC Radio, Alternative Radio, Counterspin, WINS, Taking Aim. In addition, Jeff Blankfort's highly informative Takes on the World (which like these other news programs often focused on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict), and MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, Dennis Bernstein's nightly investigative news program Flashpoints, was banished from its prime evening (live!) spot of 7:00 pm to the unlistenable time of 11:00 pm to 12:00 midnight, when most are getting their nightly shuteye in preparation for the next day's labor. This effectively put it out of listening range for most working people. Now --- now that the Israeli-Palestinian-Lebanese conflict has flared up again ... now, when live reporting from these “flashpoints” of conflict is more needed to counter the pap that is broadcast on most of the mainstream media... now, KPFT's astute managers had decided to kill Flashpoints altogether... it is no longer broadcast on our airwaves. Why not? I must tell you that, as an elected Board member, I don't even know. No rational explanation was ever forthcoming, except for some mumbling about diminishing financial support for the program during pledge time. Even if this were a fair statement (I believe it is not), it would be a flimsy excuse for removing the one evening news program that is produced by Pacifica, focuses on reporting from areas of conflict, and uses “sources of news not commonly found together in the same medium.” This phrase is quoted directly from the mission statement of Pacifica. What has Flashpoints been replaced with that brings fresh alternative world and international news directly from the most conflicted trouble spots in the world, from reporters like Kevin Peña in Haiti, Dahr Jamahl in Iraq, live reports from the ground in Palestine, anchored by some of Pacifica's most professional veteran news broadcasters: Robert Knight, Nora Barrows Friedman, and of course, producer/host Dennis Bernstein himself (although KPFT LSB Chair Susan Young, who requests your vote to be reelected to the LSB, calls Dennis a “whining dufus”-- rank has its privileges, don't you know!).  The answer is:  nada!  There is no comprehensive, fresh world news on our evening drivetime or primetime, any more than there is on our morning drive time  (Democracy Now!  is not broadcast until most people are already at work).
 
 

In the first year of the LSB (2004), one of its signal accomplishments was the completion of the annual review of KPFT's General Manager and Program Director. As a member of the committee which organized and drafted it, I take some pride in this. [By agreement with the LSB, it was supposed to be published on KFPT's website, but it can no longer be found there....] One of its conclusions was that while the GM and the PD (Duane Bradley and Otis Hardy Maclay respectively) could be provisionally recommended for up to another year of employment in their capacities, certain issues were in such pressing need of improvement that a quarterly review of both positions was believed necessary. The deplorable changes in programming referred to above were announced just prior to the April meeting of the Management Selection and Review Committee. The first quarterly report was due. Present at the meeting were Duane Bradley and his interim program director, Ernesto Aguilar (appointed as such without the slightest consultation with the LSB, as was Otis Maclay's departure which, it emerged later, had been forced on him by GM Bradley). Yet none of these bylaws issues was on the agenda for this MSRC meeting. However, we did manage to get the subject of the impending programming changes on the agenda. During my turn to speak, I asked both Duane Bradley and Ernesto Aguilar whether they had consulted at all with the LSB's programming committees before deciding on these severe changes in KPFT's news broadcasting. When they both publicly stated that they had not, I made a motion to the effect that these managers be replaced as soon as possible, as they had violated their fiduciary responsibility to make programming decisions in a “respectful and collaborative” manner, the Bradley/Aguilar method being the exact opposite.
 
 

What followed next? Merely this: Committee member Mike Martin (who is asking for your vote for a seat on the LSB), at whose office the meeting was being held, yelled at me at the top of his lungs to leave the building, demanding that I leave forthwith on the basis of his “landlord rights.” This event was witnessed by all in attendance, though a somewhat sanitized version appears in the minutes of that meeting [not the first time that I was to encounter a tendency to distort the report of a meeting to fit someone's personal agenda, as opposed to what actually happened – more on this issue another time. I had submitted my motion in writing to the Chair of that meeting, Al Delaney, but you will notice that it is not reported verbatim (as required by standard parliamentary procedure) in these minutes , only his tendentious summary appears. His report entirely omits the fact that I was individually evicted from the premises... it was not the committee that was told to leave, but me, the committee member who had dared to call for new management ] This, good people, is Mike Martin's version of participatory democracy. Be sure to ask him about it next time you see him!
 
 

In the spirit of nonviolence, I complied with his outrageous demand to leave his building, but I immediately submitted a Code of Conduct complaint against him, for his ferocious attack on the democratic process. It is notable that at the next meeting of the LSB, I was taken aside by Board member Al Delaney, who threatened to file a Code of Conduct complaint against me if I persisted in mine against Martin.
I was not intimidated -- I  continued to press my case, and Mike Martin resigned from the LSB, so naturally I withdrew my complaint against him, but Mr. Delaney followed through with his against me (despite its having no basis). As opposed to taking up his Code of Conduct complaint at the next LSB meeting as required by the LSB's standing rule, it was delayed for several months by Chair Susan Young's manipulation of the LSB agenda. But in the end, it led to my illegal suspension from the LSB. But that is another story, and I will tell it soon, because both Susan Young and Teresa Allen played leading roles in that illicit LSB action, and both are seeking reelection to the LSB this year. It is therefore vitally important that the true record of their actions on the LSB be known to all Foundation members. (to be continued....)
 

Chapter 2    LSB majority (including all the usual suspects) conspires to remove management critic from Board, then illegally suspends him

Al Delaney's "Code of Conduct" complaint, which resulted in so much illicit action by the Board, was not really a Code of Conduct complaint at all.  The KPFT Code of Conduct has the sole purpose of protecting members of the KPFT community against verbal and other aggressive acts by those whose behavior is less than "Pacifican."  At no time did I violate this Code of Conduct, nor was I accused of doing so.  Rather, the KPFT Code of Conduct was used as an entrèe into a call for my removal from the Board.  It is important to note that no particular bit of misconduct is alleged against me.  Rather, according to Mr. Delaney's claim, by calling for the replacement of KPFT management I had somehow, in his view, violated the Code of Conduct.   Mr. Delaney was never required to explain exactly how my doing this had violated the Code of Conduct.  But no matter....  Susan Young, as KPFT chair, insisted that this Code of Hearing against me be held in a meeting closed to the public.  Knowing myself innocent, I insisted that the charges be made and heard in public.  I even presented to the Board a notarized "Hold Harmless" statement that exempted them from any harm done to my reputation or standing as a consequence of holding the hearing in public.  To no avail:  the meeting was moved to the KPFT studio when several individuals, protesting this injustice, refused to vacate he premises of the original meeting site to allow the closed session to take place.

It is important to note that while the LSB has the authority to discipline its members for breaches of the KPFT Code of Conduct, it does not have the authority to remove LSB members from their position, as the LSB is legally a committee of the PNB, which is the parent body.  Only when meeting as a body of delegates, and for actions so serious as to threaten the welfare of the Pacifica Foundation, may the local elected body act to remove a member.  But such a meeting of the Delegates must be given due notice, the charges against the member must be specified, and only the delegates would be able to participate in any closed meeting of their assembly.  Contrast that legal requirement with the actual case here:  General Manager Duane Bradley, after barring the door to all interested members of the public, himself attended this meeting (he is not a "delegate"),   and demanded that the LSB "do something" about Ken Freeland.  And so they did:  first of all a number of LSB members took turns denouncing me, BUT NOT IN RESPONSE TO ANY PARTICULAR CHARGE OF MISCONDUCT.   When I insisted that the hearing must focus on specific charges against me, in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order, I was "overruled"  by chair Susan Young (who is seeking your vote for reelection to the LSB), who allowed the kangaroo trial to continue.  After several hours of this,  a vote to remove me from the Board was taken.  They had misread the bylaws to the extent of thinking themselves empowered as a Board to remove another member, but they did notice the requirement of a 2/3 vote "of the Delegates" to effect such a removal.  The Board failed to reach the required threshhold.  By now it was 1:00 am, and adjournment had been called for, and several members had left.  But Leighza Welch (who is once again running for the LSB, this time as a staff member -- loyalty to management has its rewards)  called for my sixty-day suspension from the Board. No cause was stated.   I was alerted outside the building by another Board member that this was happening, and returned to hear Teresa Allen (also seeking reelection to the Board), argue that the LSB could do this in Houston, because it had already been done to an LSB member in New York.   (She did not mention a cause for the suspension, nor the fact that the suspension of the member in New York was being protested by a number of LSB members there, as a violation of the bylaws.)   A majority of the Board voted to suspend my Board membership, something they have no legal right to do, and something done in the absence of any charge or proof of wrongdoing on my part.  This was simply a political payback for my principled opposition to KPFT management's assualt on our alternative national/international drivetime and primetime news programming.   I protested this decision all the way to the PNB, but found little support there.  (Later, when I would be elected to the National Board myself,  I found out how self-interested most of the PNB members are, and how unresponsive to appeals for justice from constituents.   Of course, it's not too surprising:  Teresa Allen, Sandy Weinmann and Deb Shafto were members of both the pro-management faction of the LSB, and of the PNB, and were in a position to stymie my appeal to the latter body.)

The suspension voted on August 24 2005 was supposed to apply only to LSB meetings, and allow for my continued participation in the many committees on which I served.  But the following week, another LSB meeting was scheduled, which I attended in silent protest (wearing a mask that read "censored"), and a second closed session of the Board was held to add further punishment.  It is notable that I requested to attend this closed session to defend myself, but that this was not permitted! The minutes of the open session during which I debated my right to be present have been omitted from the record, however, the audiotape of that session, of which I believe I still have a copy, bears witness to a vote by the Board the prevent my attendance at this executive session, the purpose of which was to consider a prolongation of my suspension, and to expand it to include barring me from attending all fiduciary commitees to which I'd been appointed.   [Please note this pattern which will be referred to again and again of minutes which do not reflect the actual events and decisions which took place at meetings... this is a hallmark of the current Board majority faction.]  In any case, the executive session was held, and the motion by Deb Shafto to thus lengthen and expand my suspension from the Board was passed in my absence, I having been denied the right to self-defense.  My further appeals of this nonsense to the Pacifica National Board fell on essentially deaf ears.  Nothing has ever been done about it, (nor about the equally illicit suspension of LSB member Paul DiRienzo at WBAI in New York).  The PNB must thus be seen as colluding with the LSB majorities to allow the denial of essential rights to elected members of the Board, when it suits the political convenience of these majority factions.  Please note that every bit of what I've related above is accurately reported, and every bit of it stands in stark contrast to the requirements of the bylaws. It makes a mockery of democratic elections of Board members, when the majority is able to tyrannize over the minority in this way.

Chapter 3 --KPFT's "Teflon" Management

While it hardly needs repeating that KPFT management insitituted its regressive programming changes on May 1 2005 in the absence of any open consultation with the LSB or its programming-related committees, it should not be assumed that no LSB members were involved in these decisions.  Indeed, it is probable that some of the impetus behind these changes came from LSB members who promised management political cover if they were instituted.  While there is no "smoking gun" that ties any particular LSB members to these decisions, the very fact that the KPFT LSB "majority faction"  (who nearly always vote as a bloc) has "protected" management against the annual reviews in which this uncollaborative and disrespectful programming decision-making by management would be a factor, suggests an underlying quid pro quo between some LSB members and management.  How else to explain why the Management Selection and Review Committee was not permitted for the entire year of 2005 to review management, as required by the bylaws?  Indeed, the LSB had done so in its first year of 2004.  That review was a near masterpiece of collaboration and collective feedback, setting a standard for the network.  I am proud of my role in helping to craft the survey of staff that was employed to field opinion.  (You can view a late draft of our staff survey for reference.)  But in 2005 the LSB found one excuse after another for neglecting this primary duty.  In early 2006, several of us, including LSB member Page Keller and myself, made a issue of this in the Governance Committee.  The Management Review committee then authorized its subcommittee to construct a new survey  and to conduct a related review of management.  Despite the success of the subcommittee in putting together a stafff survey virtually identical with the 2004 survey, and after the committee had adopted it, and had put together a timetable for its distribution and collection, KPFT LSB Chair Susan Young showed up at a subsequent meeting with a new majority that proceeded to trash the subcommittee's work, and to argue for a new version.   Shortly after this, a frustrated Page Keller resigned from the LSB (noting in her resignation the "viciousness" of the LSB majority), and with the result that at this writing, no survey of management has yet been conducted in 2006, putting the  LSB about two years behind its bylaws-mandated obligation to review the local managment.  We should mention in passing that the LSB has yet to issue its quarterly financial report also mandated by the bylaws. 

The failure of the LSB to review management performance is intimately related, in my opnion, to the regressive programming changes made by management that are secretly supported by a majority of this current LSB.  By not allowing a comprehensive review of management performance, such as that conducted by a healthier LSB in 2004, the Board effectively sidelines opposition to those programming changes, and denies it an effective voice -- quite the opposite of how the bylaws envision the process of constant dialogue between Pacifica's stakeholders (which is supposed to include you, the individual Foundation member!).  To repeat the phrase I use in my on-air campaign statement, these Board members, many of whom are incumbents seeking reelection, have provided political cover for the mismanagement of KPFT's programming.

Chapter 4 -- A Farce is Born -- the So-called "KPFT Progam Council"

Early in its first year of existence, the KPFT LSB decided, mistakenly in my opinion, that it ought to form jointly with management a "program council"  to make binding recommendations to management regarding programming. Exactly how binding these recommendations were to be was an open question,  as was the way it was to be constituted, and all of its paraemeters.  Nonetheless, I agreed, with some reluctance, to co-chair the committee that was to formulate this plan for the Board.   Concerned that this process might delay the implementation of the Board's establishment of its own programming policy formulation and progam monitoring vehicles, I requested that a maximum of one month be allowed for this process.  But the members of the commiittee proved not to be in any kind of hurry, and various causes for delay were found, including the preposterous claim by Susan Young (who is asking to be reelected to the Board) that the Program Director, who was made an ex officio member of the Committtee, did not properly represent management.  This delayed things for a full month on its own, while the question was clarified to her satisfaction, but then Ms. Young did an amazing thing:  in abrogation of Robert's Rules of Order, she decided to have herself made chair of this committee!  (Robert's Rules states that only the authority appointing the chair can change the chair.)  Later I appealed this litttle coup to the LSB, but incredibly, Chair Mike Martin (who is also running for re-election to the LSB) refused to support the parliamentary authority established by the bylaws.  This was my first taste of Susan Young's illicit methods of getting what she wants, but unhappily was not to be my last.  In any case, under her chairmanship, the process of deliberating this question took an entire year (I resigned from this Committee after unsuccesfully attempting to restore the Committee to parliamentary order).   

I had earlier submitted a proposal for a program council that would have included representation from all of the LSB's programming-related committees, plus the Committee of Inclusion and the Anti-racism and Diversity Committee.   This would assure that input from these relevant bodies was taken into account in progamming decision-making.  This proposal was rejected by the  Committee in favor of one that was composed of LSB members elected at large, listener volunteers elected by the LSB, and staff members elected by staff.    There was, in short, no accountability built into the model.   And at the last minute, a change was made to weaken the authority of program council recommendations, so that in effect management could essentially take them or leave them.  Also, there was no requirement to hold its deliberations in public.  I smelled a rat, and refused to vote in support, though  the Council had overwhelming approval by the LSB.  

As those of you know who have followed its history, the "Program Council" did exactly the opposite of what it was originally intended to do:  Under the chairmanship of LSB member Evelyn Bethune, instead of making its deliberations in public, lending transparency to this essential process, the Council held every one of its deliberative meetings secretly, and pledged its members to silence on their deliberations.   Foundation members who were not on the Council knew no more about this decision-making then they did prior to the institution of the Council.   Over time, the council came to be increasingly dominated by management.  This is demonstrated most conclusively by the fact that halfway into its year of operation, the Council, under management pressure, assigned itself the task of redesigning itslelf in order to give management more say over its composition (this despite the  fact that it had no authority to do so).  And all this time, no programming changes of any note were revealed by the PC, or undertaken by management.  The PC effectively served to seal the fate of those national and international news programs that mangement had purged from the program lineup on the very eve of the program council's launching.

It should not be said that everyone on the Progam Council was complicit in this bastardization of the Program Council:  the one member who understood EXACTLY what was going on, and resigned from the PC in protest, was Chris Sampson.  Chris, you might recall, was the producer of Music Beyond Borders program.   But unlike most of the PC's other members, Chris Sampson understood the difference between democratic process and management manipulation.   His resignation was an act of integrity, something rarely seen these days  in the toxic environment that KPFT has become under its current management.

You will find very little in the posted minutes of this Program Council to reveal any serious deliberation about much of anything, or about decisions made by the PC except for those pre-approved by management.   There is one interesting exception to this,. which fans of the journalistically excelllent Flashpoints show will find interesting, however, it only deepens the impression that the Program
Council was not something that could be taken seriously:  At its 7 Septemember meeting, the PC made the following decision:

[still to come: the  KPFT LSB puts itself above the law!    In the meantime, I can be reached with any questions or concerns you might have at kenfree@swbell.net]
 

Don't forget to visit the website UNIONPACIFICA!  You will find on that site a page entitled KPFT LSB Electoral Follies 2006 , which contains substantial of documentation of the many abuses alleged against local elections supervisor Jane Tucker Bradley by listener-candidates like myself who have been openly critical of  manageement, as well as allegations of favoritism shown to candidates who are known to be  "friends of management."  The powers that be apparently do not wish the true, sordid history of the KPFT LSB to be exposed to the public,  and appear to be doing whatever they can to silence the voices of dissent at KPFT!