portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article portland metro

Where is the evidence?

With conflict of interest being at the center of the PCA [Portland Cable Access] case, allegations continue. A web of problems between the Portland city cable office, The MHCRC [Mount Hood Cable Regulatory Commission] and PCA raise the question; Is there evidence, or is it just mudslinging?
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

With conflict of interest being at the center of the PCA [Portland Cable Access] case, allegations continue. A web of problems between The Portland city cable office, The MHCRC [Mount Hood Cable Regulatory Commission] and PCA raise the question; Is there evidence, or is it just mudslinging?

From shredding of documents, taping over board minutes audio tapes, erasing computer hard drives, forging of documents, editing of minutes and theft PCA intranet master tapes,
assembling the evidence is no easy task.

As activities continure to go on that are believed to be criminal in nature, investigators build their case, connect the dots and try and manage a situation where timing is critical in order to protect the fidelity of the evidence.

Here is an unedited "draft" copy of the PCA board minutes from the board meeting held on December 5, 2000. Printed here in it's entiity, a startling look inside the operations of Portland Cable Access.

Portland Cable Access
Board of Directorís Meeting
Draft Meeting Minutes
December 5, 2000

NOTE: Documents referenced in these minutes are on file with the official minutes in the administrative office.

Call to Order: Director Carey, PCA Board President, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

Roll Call.

Directors: Celeste Carey (6:50); Rod Pitman (7:53); Diane Nudelman (6:54); Jim Lockhart (6:55); Michelle Neal (6:55); Dr. David Ritchie (7:00); Kohel Haver (6:55); Currin Snipes (6:55); Sylvia Gercke (7:00)

Absent: Steve Jolin (excused)

Staff: Robert Skelton, Laura Ferguson, and Tom Riley

Otherís Present: Bob Hedlund, Ray Larson, Royal Harshman, Linda Hawkins, and Gregory Franklyn

Introduction of New Board Member : Dr. David Ritchie.
President Carey introduced our new member to the Board, Dr. David Ritchie. Dr. Ritchie is the Mayor appointee, replacing Director Berry. The Board welcomed Dr. Ritchie in his new appointment.

Approve October Executive Session Minutes:

Director Nudelman stated that she corrected the October 2000 Executive Session Minutes to the best of her ability. Director Nudelman stated that the only corrections she had received through e-mail were from Director Kaplan. Director Kaplan had suggested corrections that Director Nudelman had already implemented. Director Pitman reported that he had made changes to the minutes and the corrections were not implemented. Director Pitman stated that he had e-mailed his corrections for the October Executive Session to the Board. Director Nudelman commented that she had received something from Director Pitman the day of the meeting (today) and Director Nudelman stated that it appeared to be a word-for-word transcription of a tape. Director Pitman stated that what was sent out to the Board were the changes to the October Executive Session Minutes and it appeared that the Minutes could not be approved and would have to be tabled until his corrections were made to the Minutes. Director Carey reported that the changes that she had were ones that had already been discussed at the meeting. Director Neal commented to Director Pitman that she remembered receiving an e-mail from him today and she concurred with Director Nudelman in that what she had received appeared to be a transcript of a tape. Director Pitman stated that one e-mail was the actual transcript from the entire October Meeting and the other e-mail was sections of Director Pitmanís corrections that were in brackets that needed to be added to the October Meeting Minutes. Several of the Directors indicated that they were confused by Director Pitmanís e-mail because there was no direction as to what the e-mails meant. Director Pitman stated that he did include directions with the e-mail. Director Pitman stated that the reason we do minutes is to reflect what actually happens at a meeting and doesnít understand how minutes can be correct if we donít include all of the information from the meeting. Director Carey stated that due to the fact the e-mail was somewhat confusing, the corrections were not clear. Director Carey reported that Director Nudelman would review Director Pitmanís e-mail with the noted changes and do her best to incorporate the changes to the October 2000 Executive Session Minutes. The approval of the October 2000 Executive Session Minutes will be tabled until the January 2001 Board Meeting pending corrections by Director Nudelman. Director Nudelman requested that the corrections that Director Pitman is requesting be sent to Laura through the Executive Director as she has already made her changes and she is not in charge of the minutes.

The Executive Director asked the Board for recommendations on how they want to handle corrections regarding minutes and how does the Board wish to receive the minutes? The group consensus is that the Board would like a separate attachment with corrections sent out along with the original minutes in draft form.
All corrections will come back to the Board for approval and/or discussion. Director Neal would like to see changes as an attachment so she can ascertain what the exact changes are and whom they are from.

6. Director Haver made the suggestion that the title ìAssistantî in the November Executive Session Minutes be changed to reflect Lauraís name so that people will know who she is. Director Neal noted that County Commissioners should be changed to City Commissioners and Director Nudelman requested that one word be changed on page 2 in the last paragraph from bargaining ìoptionî to bargaining ìpositionî. Changes will be made to update and correct the November Executive Session. The Executive Director reported that the only changes he had received for these minutes were from Director Nudelman. Director Carey reported that these minutes were distributed to the Directors at the last meeting.

Director Nudelman made to the motion to accept the November 2000 Executive Session corrected meeting minutes. Director Lockhart seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Yay: Director Nudelman, Director Lockhart, Director Pitman, Director Haver, Director Snipes, Director Gercke, Director Neal, Director Ritchie Nay: None Abstain: Director Carey

Approve November General Session Minutes:

Director Nudelman stated that a change to the November General Session Meeting Minutes should reflect a correction to page 1, item #4, the word ìadaptingî the November Minutes should be changed to reflect ìadoptingî the November Minutes. The change was noted by Laura and will be reflected in the corrected November General Session 2000 Minutes.

Bob Hedlund stated that he feels that everyone should have equal rights, be it government or corporations or non-profits. Mr. Hedlund further commented that no special rules should be made for non-profits, government, and education regarding logos, phone numbers, or websites. Non-profit corporations should be treated equally with for-profit corporations as far as what is listed at the end of a program. Director Pitman asked for clarification on item #10. The ìNayî vote and ìAbstainî vote are missing. Director Carey stated that she would not be mentioned at all since she does not vote. Director Pitman asked why Director Carey didnít vote? Director Carey stated she does not vote on motions on the table unless there is a tie. Director Neal asked that Laura add that Director Carey is abstaining just to be consistent with the other minutes. Laura agreed and stated she would make the corrections. Director Pitman called for a clarification and reported that he is confused that Director Carey does not vote. Director Carey stated that this does not pertain to this discussion at this time. Director Pitman asked for the floor and Director Carey denied his request. Director Carey continued with making note of changes on the minutes. The numbering of the items on the minutes was duplicated and the Executive Director stated that staff would correct the numbering changes.

Director Lockhart made the motion to accept the November General Session 2000 Minutes with corrections. Director Gercke seconded the motion. Motion carried. Yay: Director Nudelman, Director Lockhart, Director Haver, Director Gercke, Director Snipes, Director Ritchie Nay: Director Pitman Abstain: Director Carey Note: Director Neal was out of the room when the motion took place.

Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items:

Bob Hedlund reported that tonightís meeting is very important due to election of officers. Mr. Hedlund stated he is here to make sure that the meeting is open to the public. Mr. Hedlund commented that he thinks PCA is a wonderful organization and does a real service to the community.

Disclosures

Director Pitman stated that he wasnít sure where the conversation occurred, but there was some mention made that Director Carey was supposed to do some internship here at PCA. Director Pitman requested that Director Carey clarify what her internship is or could the Executive Director clarify for the Board what Director Carey is doing? Director Carey reported that she is currently working on an Undergraduate Degree in Communications at Portland State University and Director Carey arranged to do an internship for the service of the Board for her Communication Degree. Director Carey has arranged to get credit for her Board service and other tasks that the Executive Director has given her. Director Carey reported that she would get credit for her role in a supervisory capacity as Board Chair as well as credit for a supervised position for whatever tasks the Executive Director gives her. Director Carey reported that most notably she has worked on the Corporate Capability 2000 Report. This report is basically a promo for PCA. Director Carey reported that she has worked on the Executive Director Contract as well as the Strategic Plan. Director Carey reported that she also attended the West Coast Alliance for Community Media Conference in Sacramento, which she reported on. Director Haver asked Director Carey if during the course of her supervision by the Executive Director was she working on the Executive Directorís Contract? Director Carey stated yes. Director Haver asked if the West Coast Alliance for Community Media Conference that she attended cost any money? Director Carey stated yes, there was a cost absorbed by PCA. Director Carey stated that the information on the West Coast Alliance for Community Media Conference was in the November 2000 General Session Minutes and she had also communicated to the Board in September that she would be attending the Conference in Sacramento and she went as the President representing PCA. Director Pitman wanted to know how the minutes reflected her attendance at the conference; did it state that Director Carey was representing the Board or her internship? Director Carey stated that both she and Outreach Coordinator for PCA, Veronica Hunter, attended the conference and that Director Carey represented the Board. Director Pitman asked the Executive Director how does this fit into to supervising Director Carey? The Executive Director asked Director Pitman to clarify his question and to restate what he is asking. Director Pitman stated that Director Carey said that the Executive Director was in a supervisory position over Director Carey, but Director Carey supervises the Board. Director Pitman would like to know what this means? The Executive Director stated that PCA gets the activities of Director Carey in a greater capacity than we do from a community volunteer. One of Director Careyís duties was to work on the Annual Report. As we went through the study with White Horse, we discovered that PCA just didnít have the money to do that. Then we tried to adapt a project that was bigger in scope and something that PCA could use into our celebration year. Director Pitman stated he wanted to know what the Executive Directorís immediate role in this is. Director Neal asked for Point of Order. Director Neal stated that this discussion or interrogation would be best to be discussed during the nominations of officers. Director Neal also requested a point of clarification regarding disclosure. Director Neal stated that she doesnít think this conversation is appropriate at this time and it is starting to sound like an interrogation. Director Nudelman clarified that a disclosure is anything that could put PCA in a compromising situation. Director Carey reported that the Executive Directorís supervision is limited to Director Carey working on the Corporate Capabilities document. Director Haver stated that this could be a conflict of interest under Section 8 that should have been fully disclosed. Director Haver would have been more comfortable if this had been laid out more clearly to the Board as this could have presented problems with Director Carey continuing on as President of the PCA Board. Director Pitman stated he certainly didnít mean it to sound like an interrogation but thought that this would be the correct place to ask the questions that he did. Director Carey commented that she had no problem with the questions, just the manner in which Director Pitman directed the questioning. Director Carey stated that this has been discussed during the summer and the internship actually ended in September, but had been extended through the end of this week. Director Neal wanted this reflected in the minutes that Director Carey or Director Neal may take a class from Dr. Ritchie and she wanted this stated for the record to prevent the impression that this is a conflict of interest. Director Nudelman stated that she does remember that Director Carey had mentioned that this was discussed at a prior meeting and had been disclosed.

Financial Report:

Controller Riley disseminated a 5-page summary of the budget as well as making the total budget available for those that would like to review it. Controller Riley stated that the last page of the 10/31/00 financial report actually indicates a report through November 29th. The report was done this way so Controller Riley could report on what has actually been spent because of the Overbuilders. To date, $256,007 has been spent, which is more than half of our capital expenditures. Because we have these accelerated capital expenditures, we used the working capital from the investment portfolio. We expect a check from the City of Portland for our quarterly payment and as soon as we get that, we will return $100,000 to the investment portfolio. The Executive Director explained that we get our quarterly payment from the City of Portland at the end of the quarter and sometimes we have to make purchases prior to receiving the check, which is why we transfer funds from the investment portfolio so that we can cover these costs. There is a very detailed project accounting report available and how the money has been spent through 10/31/00.

Controller Riley reported on the CD rate and the possibility of investing at Albina Bank. The rate is 6.85 for an 18-month CD at Albina Bank. The Executive Director stated that the reason we have thought of investing with the Albina Bank is that they reinvest in the community and we also want to start a relationship between PCA and the Albina Bank. Albina Bank is giving us a better rate than other banks.

Director Nudelman made the motion to allocate $100,000 for an 18 month CD at a rate of 6.85 per cent or greater. Director Pitman seconded the motion. Motion carried. Yay: Director Nudelman, Director Pitman, Director Lockhart, Director Haver, Director Snipes, Director Ritchie, Director Gercke, Director Neal Nay: None Abstain: Director Carey

Director Nudelman stated that FinCom is going to draft a new investment program for PCA and reported that is should be very interesting. Director Nudelman reported that FinCom would also be the committee that will be granting money for the community service programs that PCA will fund.

Review of process/Election of Corporate Officers

Director Carey stated that there is information available on the process/election of Corporate Officers, which the Executive Director disseminated to the group. Article II, section B, describes the election process, which PCA will be utilizing per the Executive Director.

Director Neal requested if it was all right with the rest of the Board, could we reverse the process of electing the officers? Director Carey stated we need to go in order to comply with procedure. The Executive Director stated there are provisions for nominations from the floor. Director Carey asked if the group had any questions on the procedure? No questions were brought forward.

Director Carey opened the discussion to the floor for nominations. The Executive Director asked if people could nominate themselves? The group consensus was that there was no problem. Director Nudelman nominated Director Carey for President. Director Carey accepted the nomination. Director Neal asked how the process for officers occurs. Director Carey stated she has cards for the voting process and that the group needs to put the personís name that they are voting for on the card. Once they have voted, fold the card over and give it to Director Lockhart, current Board Secretary. The nomination process is card color-coded. All those voting for the president will utilize a pink card. Write your choice for office on the card. Laura and Director Lockhart will count the votes together. After names have been submitted, the nominee can give a presentation; then the candidates will leave the room for the group to discuss the candidate and then vote. Director Haver nominated himself. Director Haver stated that he feels that Director Carey would like to involve herself more with the group. Director Neal asked Director Haver what are his qualifications for President? Director Haver stated he has been a Chair for several non-profit Boards. Director Haver is very interested in the business of PCA. Director Haver feels we should run PCA more like a business and feels PCA isnít always run the way it should be.

Director Carey stated that she sits on a lot of committees. Director Carey stated that since she doesnít chair the Executive Committee, she does have a chance to speak her mind. Director Carey reported that she has been instrumental in forming some partnerships with some non-profits for PCA, including Sabin CDC. Director Carey has assisted in developing our partnership with PSU and is working on another partnership in outer Southeast Portland as well as bringing youth to PCA. She has attended 3 conferences representing PCA. Director Cary is working to make sure that staff is recognized and making the City aware of whom PCA is and what we offer.

Director Pitman stated that the contributions that Director Carey has made have been very valuable and thanked Director Carey for making those contributions. Director Carey stated that she couldnít have made those contributions without Director Pitmanís assistance.

The gavel was passed to Director Pitman. Director Pitman asked that Director Carey and Director Haver leave the room for group discussion. Director Pitman is now directing the meeting.

Director Nudelman stated she likes Director Haver and because of the contention that has been occurring recently, Director Nudelman reported that she would like to go with new leadership.

Director Gercke stated that the few times she has been at the Board meetings, she feels that Director Haver would be the person to deal with the legal questions and employee bargaining. Director Gercke feels that he is experienced in law and could deal with the business that PCA has and would feel good about having Director Haver as the President.

Director Snipes commented that he has spent the last three meetings trying to ascertain how this Board works. Director Snipes has been troubled with how the meetings have been run. Director Snipes reported that he has known Director Haver for the past 10 years and feels he is very detail oriented. Director Snipes stated he sees PCA going to a new level and needs new leadership. Director Snipes commented that this is a business that needs to be run like a business.

Director Neal reported that this is a hard decision. Director Neal does think that we are going in a different direction and PCA needs to be run like a business. Director Neal likes the fact that Director Haver would run this like a business and would ask the questions that need to be asked. Director Neal also likes Director Careyís passion and her ability to try to run this meeting with all the different personalities while trying to stick to Robertís Rules of Order but having the ability to allow the group to have fun. Director Neal stated that Director Carey also has the ability to make people comfortable. Director Neal commented that Director Carey and Director Haver compliment each other because of their different styles, but acknowledged that PCA doesnít have co-chairs. Director Neal stated that she likes the fact that Director Carey is Afro-American and a female in the Presidentís role. Director Neal reported that Director Carey has good community outreach in the neighborhood that we are in.

Director Pitman spoke to Director Ritchie and asked if he had any questions or thoughts that he may have. Director Ritchie commented that he didnít have anything to say.

Director Lockhart stated that he is happy that we have a copyright lawyer on the Board. Director Lockhart commented that this is a business but is also the communityís voice and that Director Carey speaks to that issue well. Director Lockhart commented that Director Haver would manage details and the situation internally very well. Director Lockhart suggested moving Director Haver to the Vice President position and leave Director Carey as President and felt they would work well together.

Director Pitman requested input from the staff as well as a producer that isnít on the Board. Director Pitman asked Bob Hedlund for his input. Mr. Hedlund stated he would probably nominate Director Haver, however, Director Carey does a good job with outreach.

The Executive Director requested that staff not be put in a position of stating who they would prefer as Board President for obvious reasons.

Director Pitman passed the gavel to Director Lockhart so that he might be able to speak. Director Pitman stated he would like to address a few things. Director Pitman stated that he wanted to address an issue that Director Neal touched on. Director Pitman stated he is Native American and is happy that he had the opportunity to serve on this Board. Director Pitman stated he doesnít mean this as degradation at past presidents, but Director Frederick impressed Director Pitman in how he worked with the Board. Director Pitman commented that what Director Carey has done is very admirable during the past year.
.
Director Pitman stated he doesnít know how much his vote will influence others, but he feels it is time that we take the organization to a new level and run it more like a business. Director Pitman commented he would like to see things run smoother and hopes that we put aside any preconceived ideas that we may have had before we came in here tonight and lay the personal agendas aside. Director Pitman asked the group to vote for the best candidate that they feel would best benefit PCA. Director Pitman reported that the Officerís are held to a higher standard then the rest of the Board. Director Pitman asked the group to vote from their heart to reflect the best candidate for PCA.

Director Pitman called for a point of order. Who counts the vote? Director Neal stated that the number of votes should only be reflected in the minutes. Director Lockhart will count the votes and will confer with Laura to record the number for purposes of the meeting minutes. Both Director Haver and Director Carey were asked to come back into the room. Director Pitman reported to the group that their new Board Chair is Director Haver. Director Haver received 5 votes; Director Carey received 3 votes; 1 member abstained. Director Haver is the new Chair for PCA. The gavel was passed to Director Haver.

Director Haver stated that the next office for nomination is Vice President. Director Pitman nominated Director Snipes. Director Snipes accepted the nomination. Director Neal nominated Director Carey. Director Carey accepted the nomination.

Director Haver asked Director Carey for a statement. Director Carey stated that she would stand on her previous comments.

Director Snipes reported that he doesnít have the experience that Director Carey does. Director Snipes has been an observer for the past three months. Director Snipes stated he would be interested in serving in an additional capacity and would do his best.

Director Haver asked the candidates to step out of the room.

Director Neal commented that Director Snipes is nice but was very surprised that he accepted the nomination because he has only been here a short time. Director Neal stated that someone in the Vice President position needs to know how the organization works and Director Snipes hasnít been here long enough and isnít qualified enough to be in this position. Director Neal thinks it is important that we show some diversity on the Board and feels that there should be some female representation on the Board. Director Haver stated that the Vice President presides over the Executive Committee as well as other committees. Director Neal stated that someone in the Vice President position should have more experience than Director Snipes. Director Nudelman commented that Director Snipes has not been here long enough to be in the Vice President position. Director Lockhart stated that Director Snipes hasnít been here long enough to know how PCA operates. Director Neal stated that Director Haver and Director Carey would balance each other out. Director Pitman stated that he thinks Director Carey cares and has been the President of PCA and in the past has served as Vice President of PCA and has served well in both capacities. Director Pitman stated he had strong hesitations about Director Nudelman coming on as new Board member and being voted in immediately as an officer and that was very difficult for him. Director Pitman reported that Director Nudelman didnít have the knowledge when she came on the Board and Director Snipes has as much knowledge as Director Nudelman did at that time. Director Pitman doesnít see Director Snipesí lack of time on the Board as an issue for him to become Vice President. Further, Director Pitman commented that bringing new blood to the Board would be good. Director Pitman thinks that Director Snipes could bring a new vision to the Board. Director Pitman stated that Director Carey has already been Vice President and doesnít feel that she should be voted in just because she didnít get the President position.

Director Haver asked that the votes be turned in to Director Lockhart.

Laura and Director Lockhart counted the votes for the Vice President position and the numbers were reported to Director Haver. The vote was tied. 4 votes for Director Snipes; 4 votes for Director Carey; 1 vote abstaining. Director Haver asked the group to revote.

Laura and Director Lockhart recounted the votes and the numbers were reported to Director Haver. The vote was 5 votes for Director Carey; 4 votes for Director Snipes. Director Haver asked Director Snipes and Director Carey return to the room. Director Haver reported that the new Vice President is Director Carey.

Director Carey nominated Director Nudelman for Treasurer. Director Nudelman accepted the nomination. Director Nudelman was voted in unanimously. Director Haver congratulated Director Nudelman.

Director Nudelman nominated Director Snipes for Secretary. Director Snipes accepted the nomination. Director Carey nominated Director Lockhart. Director Lockhart accepted the nomination. Director Pitman nominated Director Gercke. Director Gercke declined the nomination.

Director Lockhart stated that the Secretary sits on the Executive Committee and he would like to continue his duties as Secretary. Director Lockhart feels that he has grasped the majority of information he has been given and feels he is doing a good job.

Director Snipes appreciates the nomination and is eager to get involved in whatever capacity he can serve.

Director Haver asked the candidates to leave the room. Director Neal volunteered to retrieve the votes and count them with Laura. The numbers were reported to Director Haver. Director Snipes received 5 votes; Director Lockhart received 4 votes. Director Haver asked the candidates to come back into the room. Director Haver announced the new Secretary, Director Snipes.

Director Neal made the motion to change the next ExecFinCom Meeting from January 2nd to January 9th and to reschedule the Board Meeting from January 30th to January 16th. . Director Carey seconded the motion. Yay: Director Haver, Director Carey, Director Nudelman, Director Snipes, Director Neal, Director Gercke, Director Lockhart, Director Pitman, Director Ritchie Nay: None Abstain: None

Director Neal made the motion to table the nomination for committees. Director Pitman seconded the motion with a friendly amendment that we elect members to the Executive Committee tonight. Yay: Director Haver, Director Carey, Director Nudelman, Director Snipes, Director Neal, Director Gercke, Director Lockhart, Director Pitman, Director Ritchie Nay: None Abstain: None Director Haver asked if any Board memberís would like to be on the Executive Committee.

Director Neal and Director Lockhart volunteered to serve on the Executive Committee.

Director Carey made the motion to add Director Neal and Director Lockhart to the Executive Committee. Director Lockhart seconded the motion. Motion carried. Yay: Director Haver, Director Carey, Director Nudelman, Director Snipes, Director Neal, Director Gercke, Director Lockhart, Director Pitman, Director Ritchie Nay: None Abstain: None

Director Haver stated that the group needs to review the committees and we will assign members to committees at the next Board Meeting in January 2001.

Establishment of Committees

Standing Committees:
The President shall be an ex-officio member of all committees.

The Executive Committee:
The Vice President shall chair the Executive Committee and the membership shall include the Secretary, the Executive Director and not less than two voting members of the Board of Directors.

The Finance Committee:
The Treasurer shall chair the Finance Committee and the membership shall include the Executive Director and not less than three voting members of the Board of Directors.

The Nomination Committee:
The President of the Board of Directors shall annually appoint a nominating committee of the Board of Directors composed of not less than two voting Directors, the Executive Director, and may include a non-voting Director.

The Needs Assessment Committee:
The Needs Assessment Committee shall consist of not less than five members of the voting Directors and such other persons as seem appropriate to the President, who shall designate a Chairperson from among the five members so appointed.

Sub-Committees:
The Community Assessment Sub-Committee
The Technology Assessment Sub-Committee
Ref. Article 5 of the By-Laws

Opportunities for change in agenda

OR & P ñ Articles 4.70 & 4.71

Director Lockhart stated he noticed some problems on the OR & P. He is working with producers on it and will bring this back to the January 2001 meeting.

Video on Interstate Firehouse Cultural Center:

The Board viewed a video for the Interstate Firehouse Cultural Center and thoroughly enjoyed the video.

Director Haver and the Board congratulated Director Nudelman on her recent name change.

Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

homepage: homepage: http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=5256&group=webcast, http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=5013&group=webcast,

Check your medication levels. 11.Dec.2001 11:05

aintno haint

Justin... if that is your real name... or is it Rod. No longer on the board of directors and now your going to be deep throat and tell all... gee bud, the board meeting minutes from PCA have been posted on their web site since January of 2000, because Rob Skelton the executive director at that time wanted them easily available to the public.
 http://www.pcatv.org/board/minutes_20001205.htm
I suggest you get a little outside professional help. Your rocking chair is getting close to the edge of the porch.

Aintno Haint 15.Dec.2001 15:19

Samantha

Robert Skelton? The public asked PCA for ever to make minutes available since day one. Kohel Haver was not in favor of it because he didn't want "the public" having that data. Robert Skelton didn't want the public to have anything, that's why he destroyed documents and erased tapes. You would have to check the date on when the minutes first appeared on the web-site, but I think that Jim Wrathall was the one that finally pushed it through. Skelton and Haver didn't want the minutes on the web-site for the same reason that they did not want the board meetings broadcast because the MHCRC and The City Cable Office are opposed to anything being available to the public because someone might connect all the information and see that there are big problems with their organizations and the way they have mismanaged the "oversight" of PCA.

Again, it is interesting that you would bring up Robert Skelton as if he cared about the public. Kohel Haver and Royal Harshman thought that Skelton was doing a "good job" even though they knew different. The first emergency board meeting after Skelton fled the organization members of the board attempted to vote him back in. They even went onto suggest that if he were not to come back that Sue Deciple assist the board in finding a replacement. Sue Deciple was the one who brought Skelton into the organization. If that wasn't enough, the first board meeting with Godfrey Becket, who knew next to nothing about the organization or the damage that had been done by Skelton to the organization suggested that he be brought back in as some sort of a strategy or ploy. Another director even suggested PCA give Skelton money in a employment separation agreement. Luckily there was a "clean attorney" representing the organization there to temporarily put the breaks on this shameful performance.

Skelton had a long term "sleeper agenda" to destroy PCA and move on. All he cared about was lining his pockets and influence peddling whatever he could'nt actually remove himself. Kohel Haver complained about the minutes verbally and "Skelton's edited versions" as did Julie Olmelchuck of The City Cable Office. You would know this if you have read the minutes. What are the true records of the organization are the audio tapes from board meetings and committees. The ones that have not been destroyed have not been safe guarded or accounted for. They should be transcribed as well as burned to dvd as suggested by Jim Wrathall. You should check your facts before you become so arrogant.

He was a tall man but he wasn't a big man 15.Dec.2001 16:03

Deep Throat

The only thing Robert Skelton made easily available to the public was rumour mongering and disinformation. With men, the standard approach was rumour mongering, [gender bashing or acusations of womanizing, substance abuse etc.]followed by character assasination if the mongering didn't "do the trick". He even spread rumours about the board chair's inappropriate behavior with women to the point that he decided to tell his wife about the rumour mongering before she found out from someone else. With another director he tried to imply some improper sexual liason with a former staff person or producer. It was awful.

Women were his specialty. It worked like this; First, character assessment, find out their weaknesses whatever they were. Then; Are you a lesbian? Are you Bi? Do you live with your mother? Are you cheating on your partner? Have you ever had sex with anyone connected to PCA, MHCRC, or The City Cable Office? Between actual research and his spying on staff and board via email and voicemail, all he needed was a dress and he could be the cable industry version of J. Edgar Hoover.

Now, kill the women with kindness, lot's of sugar, sugar. Very charming. It was like stealing candy from a baby. The women thought it was grapes they were tasting, but it was really wax fruit. By this time it was too late, he was "huggy bear" and now they were working for him.

If you think this is a smear against Skelton, ask Kohel Haver, and Jim Wrathall. As for the spying you can ask Tom Riley and Gregory Franklin. There are actual emails and board discussions to confirm it. It's in the minutes. Or on the tapes, but there is actually documentation.

This even stretched to "consultants" employed by PCA. The sex thing was only one aspect of the navy intelligence style domestic psych ops techniques Skelton used on people.

Rod Pitman, Guy Alvis, Jay Smith and Bob Phillips stood up to Skelton and he ran like a sheep.

Other women were not so lucky. Before Veronica Hunter got the hint on "how the game is played" he reduced her to tears with his overbearing psychological abuse. Jo Chrisman was another innocent victim that was verbally assaulted and abused by Skelton. Hunter may not want to admit to it now, but she knows what Skelton did to her at the time. I'm sure Chrisman would be happy to testify in open court. You may get an insight into the intimidation techniques he likes to use on gay men by reviewing the Franklin lawsuit.

He is a bully and a coward. From most accounts, the only time Skelton made anything easily available to the public was his opionion, which was anti-access as well as anti the first ammendment. A lot of questions remain concerning his abuse of power and it's relationship to editorial programing sensorship.

Aintno Haint, If you worked for Skelton [which you did if you supported his behavior]in any capacity that concerned money or influence peddling, and it was in any way connected to PCA, PCA's consultants, PCA's public, staff, the MHCRC, or The City Cable office, you may want to look into getting a good lawyer.

You are going to need one.

"Deep Throat"