PNB Meeting - Jan 2007 - Executive Director Report

Article Index
PNB Meeting - Jan 2007 - Executive Director Report
Initial Goals and Assessment
Duties and Activities
Programming
Licensing and Distribution
Station Issues
Governance
Vision, Goals and Objectives
Footnotes
Appendix A
Appendix B

DUTIES & ACTIVITIES

In June, I presented a proposed new Executive Director job description and began to use it as a way to review recent activities. It was approved by the PNB in September. The description states that the Executive Director (ED) is the President of the Pacifica Foundation, General Manager, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Administrator, and is responsible for management activities of the Foundation, including hiring of Station Managers of the five sister stations and National Staff, with the exception of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO); implementation of Board policies and bylaws, and oversight of fundraising, development, national programming, financial stability, physical integrity, and compliance with CPB and FCC rules and regulations.

In the description, the responsibilities and duties of the job are divided into eight broad functions: General Administration, Governance, Communications, Human Resources, Finances, Programming, Legal, and Promotion.

 

GOALS

• Cooperation, financial transparency, and effective management that respects the contributions of staff and volunteers and the interests of listeners
• Implement a systematic and fair employee evaluation process

 

General Administration: By April 2006, a new Interim General Manager for KPFA, a National Technical Director, and a National Election Supervisor had been hired. In May, an annual evaluation process was initiated for 11 members of the staff (It was completed in August and the results were reported to the PNB in September). In June, an initial assessment was provided to the Board. In summary, it said that current management structure, including a dual supervisory role for LSBs and national management, emphasis on local independence, and reliance on “buy in” to pursue most initiatives, combined with other elements of the Bylaws and “factional” politics, can make effective supervision difficult.

 

Governance: The ED participates in meetings (teleconference and in-person) of the PNB, as well as meetings of the Coordinating, National Finance, Programming and Personnel committees. In 2006, I also convened and chaired the Corporate Counsel Search Committee, met with affiliates, and facilitated negotiations between Pacifica and FSRN. However, not all committees were able to maintain an active working schedule or reliably reach quorum; committee structure deserves some study as part of a bylaws review. More disquieting, the PNB and LSBs, which should be a source of constructive advice, support, and resources, are intermittently a source of rancor and frustration. Too much time is spent on procedural arguments and placing blame. Distrust, defamation, disinformation, and power politics can influence decisions and alienate supporters.

 

Communication: In addition to the modest improvements mentioned above, early last year I reviewed the motions passed by the PNB over the previous two years and circulated them, organized by category. In the current Board packet, that list is provided again, updated with substantive motions approved during 2006. As most people realize, e-mail has become a primary means of communication, a way to facilitate contact but also, in some cases, a weapon, or at the least a means to include some and exclude others.

Access to information was an issue during the year, due mainly to one PNB member’s request for information about donors. According to legal counsel, although Board members have almost absolute rights to information, there are limited exceptions. The issue has not been completely resolved, and is apt to arise again.

 

Finances: Despite a remarkable year marked by an increase in working capital and effective control of expenses, underlying financial problems have yet to be addressed.

Revenue rose by 6.8%, while expenses went up only 3.1%. However, listenership appears to be down at some stations, placing pressure on current and aging supporters to contribute more each year. In many cases, fund drives must be extended to meet budget goals; meanwhile, certain costs are rising substantially, most notably legal, governance, and employee benefits. The current budget process, which focuses primarily on the needs of individual stations and units, does not provide an adequate framework for identifying and accurately ranking some key priorities or dealing with network-wide needs such as retooling infrastructure, training, development, and promotion.

Listener support, which currently accounts for about 76% of total revenue, was essentially flat (up .36%) last year, while “other revenue” increased by 65.4%, or $554,000. Total revenue was up $1.1 million, but this was due to “other income” in the form of one time gifts ($622,000 cash, $700,000 restricted gifts), a situation reflecting our aging listener base and suggesting that the organization may become too dependent on such one-time windfalls. National fundraising has compensated for shortfalls in local fundraising, but this is not a long-term solution. The two most recent national mailings (September and December) have shown promising results, bringing in $295,400 by early January, and others are being planned. But the goal of increasing this form of revenue by more than $500,000 over last year is ambitious, not necessarily sustainable, and doesn’t explain how individual stations will cover rising expenses in future years. (3)

The second largest source of revenue – grants – brings in more than 12% of revenue, but most of this is CPB support, which could be reduced or even lost. Another 8% comes from sources such as PRA sales, investments, and SCA rents. Aside from investments, most of these are vulnerable to technological and market changes. The overall situation strongly suggests a need to identify and pursue additional revenue sources, and to rethink our programming and distribution strategy.

In practice, the ED depends upon the CFO for accurate, un-biased information. The two executives maintain a complex relationship only partially defined in the Bylaws. If they have divergent priorities, however, stalemate or disputes can cause problems. In creating a two-person executive, Pacifica’s bylaws give the PNB the responsibility to supervise both and monitor their relationship. The evaluations underway are a needed step.

 

Legal: The decision to obtain corporate counsel has improved Pacifica’s ability to respond to disputes, problems, and complaints. On the other hand, requests for counsel participation in Board sessions, as well as other requests for legal opinions, appear to be on the rise. Legal expenses were up by 182% in FY 06, reaching $325,000. The CFO has estimated that the bill could be even higher this year, due to several pending legal matters. In recent months, it has been my experience that someone – staff or Board member -- raises a question requiring legal counsel almost every day.

 

Promotion: The ED is expected to serve as a primary spokesperson for the Foundation, and to expand positive public awareness of Pacifica through events, media outreach efforts, and promotional campaigns. To some extent, there has been some progress; Pacifica’s image appears to have improved during the past year. But work in this area has been spotty and inconsistent, since other tasks – notably personnel problems, legal issues, financial planning, and governance demands – often take precedence.

Three fundraising letters, which have brought in more than $900,000 to date, were developed in 2006. Editorial statements and press releases were distributed, and an attempt was made to form a volunteer marketing and outreach team. Local support for national promotional and outreach initiatives has been limited; the need for “buy in” tends to undermine a united response, sometimes despite Board action and executive requests. To make national promotion effective, a financial commitment will be necessary, as well as more cooperation and coordination between the national office and local management.

 

Human Resources: Early in 2006, the national office began to deal with fair employment complaints at WPFW and KPFK, while mediation was initiated between the IGM and PD at WBAI. In addition, a consulting contract with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) consultant Francie Moeller, negotiated during the tenure of Interim Executive Director Ambrose Lane, was initiated. The work plan included site visits and training at each station and the national office. Since then, Moeller has visited WBAI, KPFA, and the National Office; I have asked her to complete the remainder of her site assessments by April 2007.

 

GOAL: Implement a systematic and fair employee evaluation process

As mentioned already, members of the national staff were evaluated during the summer. The objective was both to assess performance and to provide staff with insights that they could apply to their future work. In one case, the process led to a decision to change management; in another case, an employee was placed on probation. Both actions, as well as elements of other evaluations, were protested by those involved. In most cases, increases in base pay were not recommended due to current financial constraints, but one-time year-end pay-outs were provided to a number of staff members.