California Attorney General Launches Investigation Into Pacifica Foundation

[Avid Listener]

So you have no facts....just a conspiracy theory. Keep them to yourself and off this board.

Neither one of us has facts. You have no more than I do. You simply accept whatever the government tells you, as long as it conforms to your biases, even when it is inconsistent with standard government practices. I am skeptical about what the government says because they'd lied way too many times. So if something should be kept out of the discussion, should it be some Pollyanna's wishful thinking, or some reasonable speculation that's consistent with how government has been proven to function historically?

 

[TheBigA]

Neither one of us has facts.

Not true. I have the specific facts of the case. I've posted them here. As I said, if you have something that disputes what I posted, let me know.

Your idea of "reasonable speculation" fall outside the TOS of this site.

 

[Wimmmex]

But writing a few sentences of explanation is not against any rules. However, it is courteous and demonstrates that the person launching the thread is going to a little bit of effort.

He included a few sentences that explained it enough to me.

Speaking of courteous......how about you stop playing board moderator?

Ignoring what you don't like is an essential element of being part of internet-based discussions....forever!

 

[radiocph]

What's the worst thing the California AG could do? They obviously don't have the power to lift the stations license...

 

[davideduardo]

What's the worst thing the California AG could do? They obviously don't have the power to lift the stations license...

They can revoke the non-profit status of Pacifica, and if there is malfeasance, that information could affect license renewal among other things. A negative audit could also wipe out any remaining donor support.

 

[TheBigA]

They can revoke the non-profit status of Pacifica, and if there is malfeasance, that information could affect license renewal among other things. A negative audit could also wipe out any remaining donor support.

But only for the two stations they own in California. The ones in New York, Washington, and Houston could re-incorporate. Of course that could trigger investigations in those states too. But it's a long process.

What's more likely, based on the complaint by the former employees, is a huge fine that could cripple them even more financially.

 

[K.M. Richards]

They can revoke the non-profit status of Pacifica, and if there is malfeasance, that information could affect license renewal among other things. A negative audit could also wipe out any remaining donor support.

But only for the two stations they own in California. The ones in New York, Washington, and Houston could re-incorporate. Of course that could trigger investigations in those states too. But it's a long process.

What's more likely, based on the complaint by the former employees, is a huge fine that could cripple them even more financially.

Last time I checked, all of the Pacifica stations had Pacifica Foundation, Inc. as licensee. That is a California corporation, and therefore any judgment made by the California AG impacts the legal licensee of all the stations. Even if, as BigA, suggests, they tried to reincorporate the remaining stations elsewhere, a revocation of the original license holder's incorporation would have implications of "fitness as a licensee" for all the stations.

I expect the FCC will be watching this carefully.

 

[TheBigA]

a revocation of the original license holder's incorporation would have implications of "fitness as a licensee" for all the stations.

I agree with that, but I don't think they'd revoke non-profit status. There are other issues, and it does bring up the "fitness" thing.

 

[K.M. Richards]

There are other issues, and it does bring up the "fitness" thing.

I just had a shuddering thought: Imagine the feeding frenzy there would be if the Commission did revoke Pacifica's licenses. Such a move would trigger auctions for 94.1 in San Francisco (Berkeley) and 99.5 in New York, as those are commercial allocations.

What would you bid for the CP to build the first new commercial FMs in those markets in decades? And in the case of KPFA, which is grandfathered in at a higher ERP for their transmitter location than a new Class B would be, would the FCC do the same thing they did when they yanked KHOF-FM's license in Los Angeles, which was to allow the grandfathered power to be carried over to the new license?

 

[TheBigA]

I just had a shuddering thought: Imagine the feeding frenzy there would be if the Commission did revoke Pacifica's licenses.

Hmmm...IIRC, when it was ruled that RKO was found "unfit" to hold a license, there was no auction. They just had to sell. Has the rule changed since then?

It's also possible that the licenses might be kept "non-commercial," thus they'd end up selling to a qualified non-profit.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

RKO happened in a time before the FCC was so focused on auctions.

The Commission has the authority to revoke a license, or not renew it, which I believe would result in an auction on the commercial allocations.
I'm unsure if the commission can force a sale. Presumably they can but I can't think of a time when they've done so.

 

[davideduardo]

RKO happened in a time before the FCC was so focused on auctions.

The Commission has the authority to revoke a license, or not renew it, which I believe would result in an auction on the commercial allocations.
I'm unsure if the commission can force a sale. Presumably they can but I can't think of a time when they've done so.

I can recall a few cases where the FCC pursued a licensee for being "unfit" and some resulted in revocation and others in a settlement where the station would be sold.

Before the auction era, if a license were revoked, anyone who wanted it could apply for the facility. Good examples would be the Don Burden stations (WIFE,KISN, KOIL etc) and KRLA in Los Angeles / Pasadena. In one case, the stations went silent, in the other the FCC agreed to an interim operation while the competitive application process proceeded.

Another case in the past would be where an applicant or group of applicants applied for a station based on alleged poor operation of the station. These became known as strike applications and many were promoted in the 70's by an arm of the United Church of Christ which even published a book on strike apps. A specific case was WRSJ in Bayamón, PR where the operator failed to keep the station on the air and properly supervised; a competing application won the license and is WXYX today.

Still another situation was when, pre Docket 80-90, a station applying for a "major change" was exposed to a strike application. The deciding case here was the Bonita Springs case in FL where Dick Friedman applied to change his station from an A to a C, opening up competitive applications where Friedman lost the station. The FCC no longer considers a "major change" to be the equivalent of a "new station".

 

[davideduardo]

Hmmm...IIRC, when it was ruled that RKO was found "unfit" to hold a license, there was no auction. They just had to sell. Has the rule changed since then?

I don't recall when the auction process replaced competitive hearings. I think it happened in the late 90's but that's just a "memory" guess.

Prior to that, in some cases "unfit" could be negotiated to a sale, while other cases a revocation happened. IIRC, RKO actually lost the Boston TV license, and was, in the process, deemed unfit as a licensee due to issues of candor and the underlying illegal activities of General Tire. The FCC indicated that it would be in RKO's best interests to sell before revocation proceedings stripped them of the rest of the stations. .

It's also possible that the licenses might be kept "non-commercial," thus they'd end up selling to a qualified non-profit.

What has changed things more than anything else is the longer term of station licenses. When licences were good for 3 years, the window opened often for strike applications. Combined with the absence of the auction process, parties would file against stations in the hopes of getting a free station via the competitive hearing process.

I was involved as an expert witness in the proceedings where a mid-20's guy who wanted to broadcast his personal preference for rock on the channel used by WOJO in Evanston / Chicago. The station was the only full coverage fulltime Spanish station in that large market, but the applicant alleged that broadcasting in Spanish did not serve the city of license, the mostly non-Hispanic Evanston. A considerable number of days were spent by the opposing attorneys in arguments about the differences between "city of license" and the "community of license". After the Wheelers, the owners of WOJO, finally won the case for renewal, they were left with over a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees because some guy wanted to hear more hair bands on the radio.

 

[TheBigA]

Pacifica can ill afford any legal bills. They might be well advised to sell to a qualified, like-minded owner before they're forced to do anything. The group that produces Democracy Now might be a good replacement licensee. That way, the licenses are kept "in the family."

 

[K.M. Richards]

It's also possible that the licenses might be kept "non-commercial," thus they'd end up selling to a qualified non-profit.

I just looked up both in the FCC's CDBS. WBAI is a commercial license and KPFA is "commercial channel operating educational".

BTW, here is the grandfathered signal for KPFA:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=http...RKELEY&state=CA.kml&output=classic&dg=feature

 

[K.M. Richards]

Reactivating this thread because of relevant new developments:

The Pacifica National Board met on the 12th to discuss the financial problems they are having at four of their five stations. Rather than rehash, here is a link to the article in the Daily Californian, an independent media outlet run by college and university students:

http://www.dailycal.org/2015/11/16/...rategizes-financial-solutions-threat-default/

I wish someone had defined just what that board member meant by "financial swaps of broadcasting rights", though.

 

[TheBigA]

I wish someone had defined just what that board member meant by "financial swaps of broadcasting rights", though.

My sense of it, knowing some of their assets, is that they own a lot of original content in their archives that is basically just sitting there.

Perhaps the board member is aware of a way to turn that dusty old audio tape into money.

Pacifica is also in the syndication business, although the demand for that has dropped.