I would also remind you that I have been one of Roy's sharpest critics, and remain so in many respects, so I hardly come at this issue from the position of being 'pro-Roy'. Indeed, as I have said before, what is interesting about this picture is the split within the pro-management faction of the LSB (which certainly does not include me) and the pro-staff faction who, when we were last debating this issue around election time were allied on a slate called KPFA Forward. The pro-listener faction (which I am part of) has always been leery of Roy, but at this point, it is our sense that there is more to the 'Roy must go' campaign than meets the eye.
It is my current opinion (subject to change based on additional information) that the problems that some staff have with Roy is symptomatic of a deeper malaise at the station, and that simply removing him (putting aside for a moment the debate over whether or not it is warranted) will not necessarily get us where we need to go. If there is a problem with an unsafe work environment, for example, then it would make more sense to approach the problem comprehensively, rather than only to focus on the GM, (even though anyone in that position should be held to higher standard) and certainly if Roy is to be sanctioned then so must Weyland (or do you think Weyland, as an employee, should not be accountable for his actions?) Otherwise the problem will never be effectively resolved. I also think it is important to keep in mind what happened to the last GM, Gus Newport, another 'outsider' GM who, according to his account, met with the same sort of resistance from staff and was forced to quit within less than a year. I also think it is clear that we have a different interpretation of the mission of Pacifica, but I think both views have a place.
Joe W.
>From: Sasha Lilley <sashalilley at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: KPFA Agonisties Date: Tue, 19 Jul
>2005 22:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> > > From: "Joseph Wanzala" <jwanzala at hotmail.com>
> > Being
> > a KPFA board members is
> > a public position and it is incumbent upon me to
> > make public statements
> > (i.e. state my opinion) about station matters -
> > especially matters such as
> > this, provided I am not violating confidentiality.
>
>Yet it seems reckless for you to be making public
>statements about serious issues with potential legal
>ramifications that are currently under investigation
>by the board. It would lead me to conclude that
>you've already made up your mind about what's going
>on, without all the facts at your disposal, and based
>on political motives.
>
>This report
> > by the way was originally requested by Roy
> > Campanella himself)
>
>Not sure what your referring to here. Pacifica
>initiated several investigations into Roy's behavior,
>within months of his hiring, and none of these would
>have been done at Roy's request. Pacifica is legally
>compelled to hire an investigator if there is even a
>whiff of claims of sexual harassment.
>
> > agressive towards Roy. Roy certainly reacted
> > inappropriately, but it is an
> > undisputed fact that Weyland provoked the situation
> > deliberately.
>
> > I doubt
> > very much he was fixing for a fight. Either way, the
> > board has not completed
> > its investigation of this matter.
>
>The jury is still out on what happened and yet you
>know as "an undisputed fact that Weyland provoked the
>situation deliberately." I have also talked to
>witnesses, including people who have nothing to gain
>from Roy leaving, and they've told me differently.
>One eyewitness expressed their utter shock in Roy's
>conduct. You seem to be making excuses for Roy,
>instead of dispassionately (and privately)
>investigating the matter.
>
> > On this matter and the alleged sexual harassment
> > matter you seem to be
> > asking for a summary execution - some of prefer due
> > process.
>
>I'm all in support of due process, as I'm against KPFA
>being sued -- by any of the parties involved. But in
>almost any other workplace Roy would have been put on
>paid leave while this was investigated and then, if
>the evidence pointed in the direction where it seems
>to be pointing, dismissed. Instead, this is now being
>dragged into it's *eleventh* week. And the Local
>Station Board is now on meeting number seven. We
>staff have showed incredible patience. Is it a
>surprise if the workers at the station feel like this
>foot dragging is intentional?
>
> > There is also a clear double standard, where
> > 'violence' at the station is
> > concerned. Dev Ross, who actually committed a
> > violent act is still at the
> > station and the people calling for Roy's head are
> > not saying that Dev too
> > must go.
>
>Let me remind you of the email that other staffers and
>I received from Roy *two hours* before he said: "let's
>step outside, motherfucker" to Weyland. He circulated
>Pacifica's Zero-Tolerance for Violence in the
>Workplace policy, which reads:
>
>"Any employee who engages in violence, fighting, loud
>arguing, acts of disruption, physical harassment,
>intimidation, or similar actions will be subject to
>disciplinary action, up to and including discharge.
>Any employee engaging in any type of threatened or
>actual violence against any employee, or the Pacifica
>Foundation itself, will be prosecuted to the full
>extent of the law."
>
>Other workers have been banned for KPFA for less than
>what Roy did (I can think of three off hand) and if
>Dev were banned I would have supported it -- it was
>Roy's decision to keep him on, so if you have a
>problem with that, then you should be holding Roy
>accountable. Moreover, a manager by definition has
>power over other employees and therefore needs to be
>held to an even higher standard than staffers -- I
>assume you agree with me on that. If as a worker I
>feel that I may be threatened with violence for
>speaking out against my boss, that would be a hostile
>workplace -- with all the serious legal implications
>that should concern you as a board member.
>
>Finally, let's look at your murky Morning Show theory
>-- that staff opposition to Roy is really based on
>umbrage that he was considering moving KPFA's morning
>programming. As someone who couldn't care either way
>if the morning programming were moved (assuming that
>financial consequences were taken into account), this
>puzzles me. If it were all about that, then:
>
>1. Why are so many unpaid staffers, who presumably
>don't give a damn about the morning line up, opposed
>to Roy?
>
>2. Why is Roy's biggest supporter on the LSB, Marnie,
>someone who is against changing the morning line up?
>
>3. Why would the "entrenched staff" oppose him, given
>that he *didn't* change the morning line up? Wouldn't
>that make the "entrenched" embrace him?
>
>4. Why wouldn't the staff, if it was so hungry for
>power, want to keep Roy in the job, given that he is
>in such a position of weakness because of the many
>allegations swirling since early this spring? As it
>is, he's been going around promising various workers
>programs, perks, and other things (including an entire
>radio signal -- KPFB!) to try to buy their support.
>
>Doesn't it sound like something more complex is going
>on that can't be explained by yet another conspiracy
>theory?
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
_________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement