radkeruling

It is an old saying, penned by Mark Twain, I believe, that a lie gets half-way round the world before the truth gets his boots on. Sadly, I have had cause on a number of occasions to quote these words in the course of my work at Pacifica, and sadder still, this will probably not be the last time his aphorism will be relevant.

National election supervisor Lester Radke's response to my second complaint about local elections supervisor Jane Tucker Bradley is not really a response at all.   It does not address me directly. It does not address any of the charges in my complaint. Instead, without a scintilla of proof (not to mention due process!) Mr. Radke writes an open letter condemning (and punishing) me for "assault." How valid his assertion is, we shall see directly, but even had his accusation any truth to it, some form of due process and investigation of the facts would have been necessary to establish the validity of the claim. This is, unfortunately, not the first time that those in power in Pacifica have dispensed with such basic rights as due process on the way to accomplishing their political control.   This feels a whole lot like what I imagine it feels like to Palestinians when "judgement" is rendered against them in Israeli "courts." It has more than a little in common with the US legal treatment of the detainees in Guantanamo.   Can this really be happening at Pacifica? If so, who is behind this? "You shall know them by their fruits."

Peace,
Ken Freeland
10-25-06

AN OPEN RESPONSE TO LES RADKE'S SPURIOUS CHARGE OF "ASSAULT' AGAINST KPFT LSB LISTENER CANDIDATE KEN FREELAND

Since most in the Pacifica community are unaware of the actual circumstances involved in the incident in question, which debunk Mr. Radke's "finding" as preposterous, I have interjected responses to his scurrilous ruling below (in CAPITAL LETTERS to distinguish from Radke's original text), to enable all to judge for themselves whether this network is being run in any way that answers to the description of democratic process, or whether in fact a reactionary tyranny of the entrenched has seized control, and is now obstructing the very thing that could threaten its grip on power: bylaws-mandated democratic elections, offering Foundation members the possibility of electing candidates like myself who challenge the subversion of the mission of Pacifica for which I hold Pacifica's current decision-makers directly responsible.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lester Radke [mailto:ballot@pacifica.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 5:27 PM
To: Melinda Iley-Dohn; Tucker; ballot@googlegroups.com; PNB@Pacifica.org; pnb_elections@googlegroups.com; kenfree@swbell.net
Subject: Concerning the Assault by Ken Freeland

TO: Pacifica Foundation Community
FROM: Lester Radke, National Elections Supervisor
RE: Assault by Ken Freeland
DATE: October 19, 2006

I have talked to several people who were at the KPFT the evening of October 15th, 2006. All parties I talked to agree on the following interaction between Ken Freeland and Tucker Bradley, the Local Election Supervisor.

THIS STATEMENT IS IMPORTANT. PRESENT WHEN THE EXCHANGE TOOK PLACE BETWEEN TUCKER BRADLEY AND MYSELF WERE TWO OTHER CANDIDATES. ONLY ONE OF THEM (WESLEY BETHUNE) WAS INTERVIEWED BY RADKE (AND HIS PUBLIC STATEMENT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE VERSION OF EVENTS OFFERED BY RADKE). IT IS REVEALING THAT WE ARE NOT GIVEN NAMES OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INTERVIEWED REGARDING THE INCIDENT. WHO WERE THESE "SEVERAL PEOPLE" IF ONLY ONE OF THE TWO OTHER CANDIDATES PRESENT WERE INTERVIEWED?

1)   Ken Freeland stated: I was informed that Mr. Aguilar and Ms. Iley-Dohn were going to be taking the calls from listeners. I reminded Ms. Bradley of her promise. She began making excuses for using them notwithstanding her promise. I informed her that I would protest both this decision and her breaking her agreement.

THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS TRUE. PLEASE READ MY ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE PROMISE MADE BY THE LOCAL ELECTIONS SUPERVISOR REGARDING WHO WOULD BE TAKING PHONE CALLS FROM LISTENERS DURING THIS FORUM, A PROMISE SHE THEN BROKE BY ARRANGING TO HAVE THE VERY PEOPLE SHOW UP TO TAKE LISTENER CALLS THAT SHE HAD PROMISED ME SHE WOULD NOT USE.

2)      Tucker told Ken that she was in charge of the program and that if there was an intentional glitch like his microphone being turned off that Tucker would be noting that. It was 3 minutes until airtime and we were not miked, and the candidates were not fully briefed. Tucker attempted to brief the candidates.

I DO NOT RECALL THE ABOVE STATEMENT BY TUCKER. THE DISCUSSION AT THE POINT OF THE EXCHANGE CONCERNED WHO WOULD BE RECEIVING PHONE CALLS FROM LISTENERS AND TRANSCRIBING THE QUESTIONS FOR THE CANDIDATES. THE QUESTION OF NOT BEING MIKED YET AND THE CANDIDATES NOT BEING FULLY BRIEFED YET WAS TUCKER BRADLEY'S OWN RESPONSIBILITY. AT HER REQUEST, WE WERE MEETING OUT ON THE BACK PORCH. ALL THREE CANDIDATES HAD BEEN PRESENT FOR HER "BRIEFING" FOR 20 MINUTES OR MORE. WE HAD DRAWN LOTS FOR QUESTION ROTATION AND SO FORTH. EVERYTHING APPEARED TO BE READY TO GO, WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED (WHICH BEGAN WITH TUCKER, OUT OF THE BLUE, RAISING HER VOICE AT ME AND DEMANDING TO KNOW WHETHER I WOULD SHARE AIR TIME WITH THE OTHER CANDIDATES.... SEE MY ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DETAILS). WAS THIS PART OF A REASONABLE "BRIEFING" OR WAS IT PURE PROVOCATION?   WE COULD HAVE BEEN MIKED ANYTIME WE LEFT THE BACK PORCH AND ENTERED THE STUDIO, WHICH OBVIOUSLY HAD TO WAIT UNTIL THE PREVIOUS PROGRAMMERS WERE DONE WITH THE STUDIO ANYWAY. THE BRIEFING, IN SHORT, HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.... FOR ABOUT 20 MINUTES. THE ABOVE STATEMENT MAKES IT SEEM THAT TUCKER BRADLEY WAS " ATTEMPTING" TO BEGIN A BRIEFING, BUT THE BRIEFING HAD CONCLUDED BY THIS TIME, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES.

At that point, Ken Freeland leapt at Tucker so that his baseball cap was pushing her forehead backwards. He was spitting saliva in her face as he yelled as loud as he possibly could one inch away "youshutup youshutup youshutup youshutup youshutup youshutup" over and over.

THERE ARE FOUR "SPECIFICATIONS" IN THIS CHARGE:

1) KEN FREELAND "LEAPT" AT TUCKER
2) KEN FREELAND'S BASEBALL CAP PUSHED TUCKER BRADLEY'S HEAD BACKWARDS
3) KEN FREELAND WAS SPITTING SALIVA IN TUCKER BRADLEY'S FACE
4) KEN FREELAND WAS YELLING "YOUSHUTUP" TO TUCKER BRADLEY

NOT ONLY DO I, KEN FREELAND, DENY THAT ANY OF THESE THINGS TOOK PLACE, BUT THE TWO OTHER CANDIDATES PRESENT HAVE STATED FOR THE RECORD THAT THEY DID NOT OBSERVE ANY OF THESE THINGS. (PLEASE READ THE STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE WESLEY BETHUNE AND THE STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE DON COOK).

Ken Freeland filed an Unfair Campaign Practice because of this. He argued that Mr. Aguilar and Ms. Iley-Dohn were biased against him and therefore he implied he had a right to veto them as people who would help the Local Election Supervisor, Tucker Bradley.

THERE IS VERY LITTLE TRUTH TO THE ABOVE STATEMENT. THE ESSENCE OF MY COMPLAINT WAS THAT TUCKER BRADLEY HAD BROKEN HER AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE NEUTRAL PARTIES TO INTERCEPT LISTENER PHONE CALLS AT THE EVENT, AS WELL AS, OF COURSE, THE FACT THAT SHE WAS DENYING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN MY SCHEDULED ON-AIR CANDIDATE FORUM, THUS ASSURING THAT ONCE AGAIN, THE RESOURCES OF KPFT WERE NOT ACCESSED EQUALLY BY ALL CANDIDATES, IN FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE FAIR ELECTIONS PROVISIONS IT IS HER RESPONSIBILITY TO ENFORCE AS LOCAL ELECTIONS SUPERVISOR. AT NO TIME, AND CERTAINLY NOT IN MY COMPLAINT, HAVE I ARGUED THAT I HAVE A RIGHT TO VETO ANYONE. THE ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR THE REPACEMENT OF THESE VERY PARTISAN INDIVIDUALS WAS ANSWERED BY AN ASSURANCE BY AN EARLIER TUCKER BRADLEY THAT THEY WOULD BE REPLACED ON SUNDAY EVENING WITH NEUTRAL MEMBERS OF THE NEWS DEPARTMENT, DURING A PHONE DISCUSSION ON 13 OCTOBER.

A candidate has no right to determine who is helping the Local Election Supervisor. If bias is shown, there are remedies that can be administered by the National Election Supervisor, such as appearing on additional forums.

THIS IS GLIB INDEED, COMING FROM A NATIONAL ELECTIONS SUPERVISOR WHO HAS FAILED IN EVERY INSTANCE TO PROVIDE REMEDIES FOR PRIOR COMPLAINTS ABOUT MS. BRADLEY'S DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT OF SOME CANDIDATES, SUCH AS THE FACT THAT THE PUBLICATION OF MY CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT ON KPFT'S WEBSITED WAS NOT EFFECTED UNTIL A FULL WEEK AFTER THE POSTING OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES' STATEMENTS, AND FOR PART OF THAT TIME I WAS NOT EVEN LISTED AMONG THE CANDIDATES.   OTHERS WHO HAVE FILED COMPLAINTS HAVE ALSO BEEN IGNORED.

Instead, Ken Freeland assaulted the Local Election Supervisor. This is possibly battery in the legal definition of the word, but is definitely assault.

THIS IS A FALSE STATEMENT, AND NO DOUBT LEGALLY ACTIONABLE. WHETHER THE CURRENT DIRECTORS OF THE FOUNDATION WISH THE PACIFICA FOUNDATION TO BE PUT AT SERIOUS LEGAL RISK IN THIS WAY REMAINS TO BE SEEN, BUT AS SOME OF THEM ARE RUNNING FOR REELECTION ON THEIR LOCAL BOARDS, VOTERS MAY WANT TO WATCH VERY CLOSELY HOW THEY RESPOND TO MY APPEAL.

MR. RADKE WOULD BENEFIT FROM LEARNING THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF TERMS LIKE "ASSAULT" AND " BATTERY" WHICH HE BANDIES ABOUT SO CAVALIERLY. HERE IS A GOOD WORKING DEFINITION:

assault, in law, an attempt or threat, going beyond mere words, to use violence, with the intent and the apparent ability to do harm to another. If violent contact actually occurs, the offense of battery battery, in criminal and tort law, the unpermitted touching of any part of the person of another, or of anything worn, carried by, or intimately associated at that moment (as a chair being sat on) with another. Contact must be intended by the aggressor, must be reasonably considered offensive, and must be without consent by the one affected.

The bylaws state that:

“Under the direction and supervision of the National Elections Supervisor, each local election supervisor shall coordinate the elections of the Delegates for the radio station area to which s/he is assigned to ensure a fair election in compliance with the terms of these Bylaws.”

Because of this assault the Local Election Supervisor will not be able to ensure a fair election if Ken Freeland is present at any events. He therefore will no longer be permitted to take part in any campaign events, either at the KPFT station or any public events run by the Local Election Supervisor. This policy is in effect immediately.

AS WE CAN SEE, NO "ASSAULT" OCCURED IN THIS INSTANCE, AND THE OTHER TWO CANDIDATES WHO WERE PRESENT, ONE OF WHOM WAS INTERVIEWED BY RADKE PRIOR TO HIS RULING, DID NOT OBSERVE THE SPECIFIC EVENTS HE HAS ALLEGED TOOK PLACE. RADKE'S CLAIM THAT ALL PARTIES HE TALKED TO SUPPORT THE VERSION OF EVENTS HE IS RELATING MUST THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE, GIVEN THE STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD BY CANDIDATE BETHUNE WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT RADKE'S VERSION OF EVENTS. IT IS CLEAR THAT NO CREDIBLE INVESTIGATION WAS DONE BY THE NATIONAL ELECTIONS SUPERVISOR PRIOR TO HIS DECISION TO BAN CANDIDATE FREELAND FROM KPFT ELECTION EVENTS. NOT ONE OF THE MANY COMPLAINTS FILED BY KPFT LSB LISTENER CANDIDATES HAS RECEIVED A FORMAL REPLY BY MR. RADKE. AT THIS WRITING (10-25-06) NO REMEDIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO ANY OF THE DISCRIMINATORY TREATEMENT ALLEGED BY SEVERAL CANDIDATES.

PEACE,
KEN FREELAND
25 OCTOBER 2006

I attach the Pacifica Foundation’s policy prohibiting workplace violence.

PROHIBITING WORKPLACE VIOLENCE

The policy is consistent with what has been called a "Zero Tolerance" approach. Violence or the threat of violence by or against any employee or member of the Pacifica Foundation’s network is unacceptable and will subject the perpetrator to serious disciplinary action and possible criminal charges. There is no such thing as a "joke" when dealing with this subject. It is not funny when employees speak about "going postal", "getting" another employee or anything remotely similar.

Pacifica Foundation is committed to providing its employees a reasonably safe and healthy work environment, free from intimidation, harassment, threats and/or violent acts. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), workplace violence is defined as:

"any physical assault, threatening behavior or verbal abuse occurring in the work setting. It includes, but is not limited to beatings, stabbings, suicides, shootings, rapes, near suicides, psychological traumas such as threats, obscene phone calls, an intimidating presence, and harassment of any nature such as being followed . . .."

Les Radke
Pacifica National Election Supervisor
ballot@pacifica.org
(510)849-2590 ext.209