---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:36:52 -0800 From: David Adelson <dadelson at ucla.edu> Reply-To: freepacifica at recordist.com To: freepac at recordist.com Subject: {FP} status of LAB lawsuit v. Pacifica
Twenty-one members of local advisory boards (LAB's) from four (WBAI, KPFA, KPFK, and WPFW) of Pacifica's five stations filed suit against Pacifica in July, 1999, claiming illegal changes in by-laws including those enacted at the Feb. 28, 1999 Pacifica Board of Directors meeting in Berkeley, CA. The effect of the changes was to grant the Pacifica Board exclusive right to select its own membership. Prior to the changes, a majority of Pacifica Board members were elected by Pacifica station LAB's. The suit alleges that the changes were illegal because the voting rights of a class of members cannot be revoked without their consent, irrespective of whether provision for such consent is present or absent in the by-laws of the corporation. The central point of contention is whether LAB members were members of the corporation at the time of the changes. Additionally, the suit alleges unfair business practices by Pacifica, as well as failure to respect its own by-laws with respect to the conduct and selection of its executive committee.
On Monday, December 10, Judge James A. Richman of the Alameda County Superior Court sustained the defendants' (Pacifica's) demurrer to the complaint and gave the plaintiffs (LAB members) the opportunity to amend it. According to Dan Siegel, attorney for the 21 Pacifica local advisory board members who filed the case, the judge's ruling means that he believes that there are defects in the complaint but that the defects can be cured.
A demurrer attacks the legal basis of a complaint. It is based upon the assumption that what the complaint says is true but then argues that the plaintiffs do not have the legal right to assert their claims. In this case, Pacifica filed a shotgun demurrer. They argued that (1) plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case because they are not members of Pacifica; (2) the individual national board members are immune from suit; (3) the complaint was vague and uncertain; (4) it is not an unfair business practice for Pacifica to make false claims in its fundraising appeals; (5) the case is not properly brought as a class action; (6) plaintiffs have no right to recover monetary damages, etc.
At the hearing on December 20, Judge Richman indicated that the complaint should be amended to include more specificity, particularly with regard to the issues of (1) the liability of the individual national board members, and (2) the misleading fundraising appeals.
Judge Richman indicated that he did not have a problem with the standing of the plaintiffs to bring the case, although he did not make a final ruling on this issue. This point is critical, because it was the most important issue in the demurrer and in both sides' arguments.
Siegel is asking supporters to send him examples of misleading fundraising letters from Pacifica. These should be no older than three years and should talk about how funds will be used to carry out Pacifica's historic mission, etc. The point is that we need to prove that Pacifica raised money by making such promises and actually used the funds for different reasons, such as the changes at the Houston station, security guards and public relations fluff at Berkeley, etc. Fax letters to Siegel & Yee at 510/444-6698.
- /*This message comes via the freepac list. */