PNB Meeting - Jan 2007 - Executive Director Report
Page 2 of 11
INITIAL GOALS AND ASSESSMENT
Shortly after starting work in January 2006, I addressed the PNB at a session
in Washington, DC. At that time, I outlined a series of goals. They were to:
- make communication within the network more regular and systematic
- balance local authority with the need to intervene and proceed nationally
- implement a systematic and fair employee evaluation process
- cultivate a culture of cooperation, financial transparency, and effective
management that respects the contributions of staff and volunteers and the
interests of listeners
- bring diverse voices and excellent local production to new audiences
- promote Pacifica as a relevant and popular voice for political change and
social transformation
- ensure that involvement in the election process doesn't drop and that as
many people as possible are actively involved
So, how has it worked out? I’ll begin by addressing the first two goals
on the list.
GOAL:
Make communication more regular and systematic
To improve communication, I instituted regular meetings of an enlarged staff
group. Known as the OC (for Operations Collective), this group, including general
managers, program directors, and national staff, has continued to convene over
the phone about twice monthly throughout the year, as well as prior to each
in-person Board meeting. It has become a productive work team that addresses
concrete matters such as procedures for national specials, fundraising, obscenity
standards, schedules, budgets, and program evaluation, encouraging frank discussion
and clear decision-making.
In addition, I have provided regular and hopefully thorough reports to the
PNB, maintained regular contact with most Board members, and worked with various
committees. While more improvement is still needed, I think it is fair to say
that communication is more consistent and issues are handled in a more timely,
transparent manner. However, it also has become clear that the span of ED communication
responsibility is a bit unwieldy.
One person cannot effectively maintain substantive contact with more than 20
managers, 22 national Board members, as well as respond to LSB members, staff
with complaints, and listeners who feel that Pacifica’s CEO ought to be
available for their advice and complaints. In too many cases, individuals who
should be working out their problems and projects with one another choose instead
to bump their issue up to the ED. In short, while expressing distrust of centralized
authority, many people involved in Pacifica – staff, volunteers, and listeners
alike – seemed a bit preoccupied with it, and don’t seem to acknowledge
any authority except that of the ED and CFO. I often hear the complaint from
staff, “They won’t respond (or, don’t respect me), could you
please get involved.”
GOAL:
Balance local authority with the need to proceed nationally
This has been equally problematic. In September, a management evaluation that
addressed aspects of this issue was provided to the Board. For example, it noted
that, in recent years many of those technically supervised by the national office
have become accustomed to operating without much effective oversight and, perhaps
as a result, tend to resent it when they are asked to comply with what sound
like “orders,” whether they emanate from the Board or the ED. Some
staff have become accustomed to setting their own priorities and tend to view
cooperation with other staff members as an option. Accountability and lines
of authority are unclear, and there is intermittent resistance to national initiatives
and requirements.
Some Pacificans argue that ideas and initiatives should always be generated
from the “bottom up” and emphasize sensitivity to local needs and
priorities. But Pacifica also should have some national priorities. Local preferences
and dynamics are only one aspect of the organization’s responsibility.
Respect for the emphasis on “bottom up” initiatives, for example,
doesn’t relieve the national office or the PNB of their responsibility
to protect the financial integrity of stations and the foundation, and oversee
the quality and effectiveness of programming. The same is true for editorial
initiative on constitutional rights or police brutality. (1)
My conclusion is that Pacifica needs a more coherent and effective management
structure, one that takes full advantage of human resources and more strongly
encourages cooperation. (2) The concern most often expressed is that such a
development would constitute a move backward, or permit unilateral action by
an authoritarian executive. On the other hand, the current local “buy
in” approach allows individuals or special interests to block progress
or decline to assist in joint efforts. This can lead to wasted time and resources
and, in some cases, means turning a blind eye to actions (or inaction) in defiance
of Pacifica National Board decisions. In attempting to avoid potential “power
plays,” the current structure promotes inaction, delays, and status quo
thinking.
About 
