NES Response to FCP Violations

COMPLAINT 2021_005


4/24/2021 21:18:14

“(Staff member) committed an election violation on April 21, about 20 min into his show, when he urged listeners to check out He promoted New Day while on the air; this is a violation of the Fair Campaigns Provisions, even though I don’t know the number of the rules violation. His show is archived at (station), so you can listen to it for yourself.

Renée A Peñaloza alleges that this was a ‘minor violation’ that has already been addressed (See Complaint 2021 003 and NES response). However, that is not an equitable remedy. That is a slap on the wrist, which encourages repeat offenses. Would it be OK for people on the other side to do the same thing, and then read the same official canned statement as a cure?

Roy was clearly endorsing New Day, and as “”remedy”” he had to read a scripted statement in his most “”This is something I’m required to read”” voice. An equitable, balanced remedy would be for him to urge people to go to the Pacifica Fightback website, and to allow Pacifica Fightback to get equal time on his show.”

Violation Status: Not a violation. However NES reconsidering response to complaint 2021 003.

COMPLAINT 2021_004


4/24/2021 19:57:26

Yes “Regarding the 3-20-2021 (station) LSB Meeting, I notice no area to attach images, transcripts, etc!
During this meeting, not only various lies, out of content were told of the Foundation’s PNB and other Network Stations, but the Agenda devoted a considerable amount of time to the at around the the current matter of the New Day Pacifica Bylaws proposal. Four were absent at this meeting, I assume could those in protest… Why Governance time is being spent at this meeting, but this topic was not voted at the Governance Committee!
Pay attention to this opposition from Board Member (member 1) (to promote an anti democratic Bylaws, etc).. Then (member 2) actual lobbied for a staff indoctrination, because… (member 3) maintained that these Bylaws proposal are ill conceived, etc…
Member 4, Member 5 spoke against these Bylaws proposals…

On the Audio Stream on audio clip #(…) at around (time) on the archives at: LINK, Board member member 6 begins the topic of the New Day Pacifica Bylaws proposal… It spills over onto the next audio clip #(…) at: LINK
The audio stream was interrupted during roll call to adjourn or not at 39:26 but it returned after some silence…

Violation Status: Not a violation. 

COMPLAINT 2021_003


4/22/2021 18:42:26

Redacted text

“On April 21, 2021 on (station ID), at approximately 12:20 AM, the co-host of “(show name),” (Staff Member A), using the name “(nickname),” urged listeners to go the New Day Pacifica website for information about the upcoming bylaws referendum. I do not know the “number” of the rule that he violated. But, it is clearly a violation. I do not know how to copy the audio from the (station) Archives. The archives of this show cannot be downloaded. However, if you go to the (station) Archives, you can listen to the show by clicking “PLAY.”
(additional text removed as not relevant to the complaint)”

NES Response


04/24/2021 11:47 AM PST

Violation Status: Minor violation. Remedy issued.

Immediate Response: Email “warning” and on air correction remedy issued to Staff Member A. Also all station staff to be sent a reminder that the referendum should be referenced as “Pacifica Bylaw Referendum”.

“Dear Staff Member A,

I received a violation complaint last night referencing statements you made while hosting the (show name) show at 12 AM on April 21st. While a minor violation, it still needs to be remedied.
On the show, you invited people to visit (station’s website) and only state New Day Pacifica. Referencing (station’s website) is fine but stating “New Day Pacifica” without any context must not be referenced, as to the listener it sounds like an endorsement. Hosts should instead reference the “Pacifica bylaws referendum”, without any other descriptor. I will send out an email to all staff to make sure this is clear as I know that there may be some confusion.
To remedy this, please state the following on your next show. While it is ideal that it be on the same show and at the same time, this is not necessary. It is more important that you get this out next time on the air.
Please tell me which show and when so I can verify and document this violation as resolved.
Please do not even state this is a remedy as it will again provide an opportunity for people to interpret your stance as bias.
“I want to invite you to educate yourself on the upcoming Pacifica Bylaws Referendum which will happen in June by visiting The proposed bylaws make significant modifications to the foundation’s governance structure and will affect both the national and local station boards, including how you, as a listener sponsor, are represented and can participate.”
In the future do not directly reference New Day Pacifica, unless in the context of a discussion presenting proposed and current bylaws. Always point people to the elections website if you are asking people to educate themselves as this is where compare and contrast materials for voting members will be located.
Please let me know when you have received this!
Thank you for your cooperation”

COMPLAINT 2021_002


4/6/2021 16:19:11

Redacted text

“Hello Rene, I wanted to report an incident that has happened regarding voter intimidation, that many of us staff members don’t want to discuss publicly for fear of retaliation. But now that (the GM) is gone most of us can be free to speak more openly since they are no longer protected by the former manager (GM). (Name redacted) Staff Member A has literally came into our offices and asked us to vote on for his slates blatantly to staff, Engineers and myself a few times and very president about it. (Names redacted) Staff members B and C have also sent farewell letters and support letters for (the gm) on many occasions, a few us us don’t participate because we chose to stay out of the internal politics but when we are being asked to sign publicly it makes us stand out.”

NES Response


04/07/2021 11:28 AM PST

Violation Status: Resolved.

Immediate Response: Email “warning” and response request to Staff Member A

“Dear Staff Member A,

I hope you are doing well. I have received a report that you have been pressuring people to side with you regarding the bylaws referendum. The behavior could be interpreted as harassment. I encourage everyone to express themselves and encourage participation, but it cannot impose a position one way or the other.
I invite you to respond to this report. I will post your response anonymously. Consider this a heads-up, a warning that the way you have been approaching getting people involved in the process is too forceful.
Thank you.”
Staff Member A Response
04/07/2021 3:37 PM PST

Hi again Renee,

I wish you had sent the link in the original email so I would be aware of the exact nature of your request, which is clear now.
I work (work schedule time redacted). I usually arrive at work about (redacted)PM and leave (redacted)AM. I talk with board-ops when I arrive and leave the station–mainly shop talk. I mainly see/talk with three other board-ops who are already well aware of (station)/Pacifica’s ills and I need not to “pressuring” them to take certain action.
I only see the aforementioned people since the station has been in the lockdown from March of 2020 and no one suppose to be at the station–occasionally, one or two programmers are at the station but we do not engage beyond waving hello and goodbye–and some even don’t do that–from inside of the MCR due the pandemic.
In the complaint letter, it is stated that “they are no longer protected by the former manager (GM)”, which is a FALSE accusation and character assassination since the GM is no longer employeed by Pacifica and not there to defend himself. By the way, GM was very fair minded and respectful of all staff and their concerns at the station–to just correct the history!
The only occasion I can recall that I asked one person if s/he would like to write a supportive letter for the GM–I believe the subject was brought up by that person–was many months ago on a topic that was none-related and had nothing to do with the by-laws referendum–many staff wrote supportive letter on their own then! And, to this day, I do not know if that person wrote the letter!
Hope this clarifies and addresses your concern. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

COMPLAINT 2021_001


4/5/2021 16:36:19

Redacted text 

“A board op (redacted) was notified by another board op, that their signing a petition to change the Pacifica bylaws, resulted in {a staff member}(name redacted) calling them and saying that they might be fired if they “side” with the group that wants to change the bylaws… and that they should un-sign the petition. This particular person is not a union member which could be why she went after them…since they have no union protection, and may not know their rights as an employee. However this is a clear EEOC employment violation, could be interpreted as creating a hostile working environment and clearly violates the definition of a “fair campaign”, the secretary and assistant of the iED and employee of the national is threatening peoples’ jobs. I will ask if the board-op is willing to go on the record and testify.”

NES Response


04/05/2021 10:00 PM PST

Violation Status: Resolved.

Immediate Response: Warning issued and all staff notified via e-campaign on 04/05/2021.

The NES sent an e-campaign to all ~1000 Pacifica staff members with the following text:

“Greetings Pacifica Staff Member,

We are currently in the notice period of the 2021 ByLaws Referendum. To ensure fairness, all staff are bound by the Fair Campaign Provisions through the end of the balloting period (July 7th, 2021). Additionally, you should know that workers (union or not, volunteers, unpaid or paid) are protected from intimidation, threats or persuasive actions by California State and EEOC workplace guidelines.
If anyone has been threatened to force a change in their position regarding the ByLaws Referendum by Pacifica staff or your station’s staff, management, or members of the local or national boards please file a violation (Fair Campaign Violation Form) with me, Renée A Peñaloza, the National Election Supervisor.
Today, I received a violation report today in which a staff member insinuated another staff member would be fired if they did not change their position on the ByLaws Referendum. This particular case is still under review, but I wanted to communicate that this is not legal, and if true, requires some form of punitive response.
While my role and powers are limited, I will continue to do my best to document and respond to all violations, hence the importance for you to speak up. I will respect your need for anonymity. Each report of a violation is examined, addressed and documented in the final report which accompany the referendum results.”
Email response from Staff Member A
04/06/2021 11:31 AM
Subject: “Accusations against me”

Text (redacted):”Dear Renee Peñalosa,

As per our phone conversation regarding alleged acts of intimidation on my part towards one of the (station) board ops, my understanding of the allegation is that I told someone that they would lose their job if they didn’t unsign the NDP petition.

In fact, it appears that there were acts of intimidation, but not from me. In a conversation with one of the board ops (I’ll be glad to give you the name if needed), this person made references to the referendum and to job security. It wasn’t me who initiated the conversation in this direction.

This person said they were extremely worried about losing their employment at the radio station if they didn’t sign a letter of support for the GM, who was being evaluated and expected his employees to give him his total support. The board op also expressed concern about their job security and the future of other (station) employees depending on the outcome of the upcoming bylaws referendum.

In the days prior to the last referendum, a PNB director who was also a (…) staff member had made a presentation to (…) staff at (station), seeking employees’ solid 100% support for the “Yes” vote in the referendum, a vote they later lost.

One has to wonder whether the current allegations against me have more to do with management’s fear of losing again in this upcoming referendum, hence the motive to bring phony charges against someone like me, as I’ve been vocal in my support of the “NO” vote.

Should you have any further questions, feel free to contact me. ”