>However, the question that puzzles me is how can that liberal shit in the
>Pacifica foundation do their fifth-column work legally? After all, the
>foundation is NOT thier private property, and there are laws on the book
>that curb executive excesses is the stockholders decide to act. hence my
>questions: 1. who are the "stockholders" of the Pacifica foundation? - in
>other words, whose vote can bring the exec and the board down? or is it
>one of those executive empires that only the "nonprofit" status
>(=elimination of propriety interests of stockholders) can bestow? If that
>is the case, Pacifica is an important waring of the perils to democracy
>created by nonprofits.
>
>2. If there is such a "stockholder constituency" in Pacifica, why do not
>they do anything? Are they they same mold of liberal shit at Pacifica's
>directors, or are there other reasons of their inaction?
There are listener groups in all Pacifica cities, and there's litigation underway. The litigation is based on California corporations law. Its contention is that the Pacifica illegally converted itself into a self-perpetuating body with no accountability to anyone in a meeting last February. The litigants need money. For info on the suit, contact Lyn Gerry <redlyn at loop.com>.
Ironically, many of the leaders of the plot to banalize Pacifica are alumni of the CPUSA, in the grip of a "god that failed ideology," as the late program director of WBAI, Samori Marksman, once put it to me.
Doug