Attorneys advise but are Not the deciders at Pacifica nor KPFK, we hope.

An attorney and member of the PNB tells us some things which can be dangerously wrong about the role of an attorney with respect to a client, such as Pacifica has been a client to resolve some some of it's HUGE debt thru WBAI's leasing with ESRT.

It was written elsewhere that : 
“attorneys  have an absolute duty to represent the interests of their client.” --   
But: That is not really quite accurate, and in this case may be significantly wrong.  

                                                 [KES cartoon - google]

Yes, attorneys, have an absolute duty of loyalty to their client, and an absolute duty to give their client the best possible advice they can, but it ends there.  The Client makes the decision, not the attorney.

Attorneys on may often deserve appropriate respect…. But advice is advice.  

Everyone, including the PNB and all who are involved with Pacifica's chaotic finances  should carefully consider that advice, including the source offering it  while remembering that it is an offer, not a command ! 

....tho those who fear making the wrong decision want to believe anything a professional says over their own understanding or judgement, passing on actual Responsibility for those decisions. 

But the actual responsibility for the decision is the Client’s (there referring to the PNB). Those who sign documents representing their organization are the signatory ones  = thus responsible for having that official position and job. 

While the advisors are suppose to be know-it-all-RIGHT-only and offer the Correct-only position, information &  advice. 

Tho the ultra-high fees and monies paid to attorneys may give another mis-impression of their value and abilities, the client-PNB-Pacifica officials must remember that they are just trained, & maybe experienced in that field of law, advisers who everyone Hopes can be Trusted to Know.  They sometimes do. 

                      [google images],confirming" the POWER of attorneys" 

Sometimes attorneys don't know enough but wont admit that either. Pride. Maybe getting the next contract, job, retainer, referral is connected too. Being praised. Proving to their colleagues that, 'of course ! they can Do This too.!'  All  these plus more factors are also not stated, but involved in whatever that advice that was given.

But the greatest error:   it is most often assumed that: The attorney’s job is to tell us whether or not we should sign something.  (NOT TRUE. THE ATTORNEY’S JOB IS TO ADVISE WHETHER TO SIGN SOMETHING.)

 There has been considerable discussion around Pacifica, and KPFK as well, about the need to have more people with organizational, legal, accounting, broadcasting competence on the PNB.     

Even if a member brings the skills of a lawyer and an experienced  official to the PNB, that is very good, but she cannot hide behind the presumed expert lawyers’ skirts.

Decisions have consequences and board members must take The Responsibility and also explain clearly to their constituency why any prior decision was [or was Not] the right one.   

We – all  the Pacifica stakeholders, investors, donors, activists, = all involved in it’s sustenance  have Not been hearing the Full story at all. We consider ourselves as "members" tho the Pacifica By-laws may limit that membership further than those who pay up and volunteer and work hard to sustain and keep Pacifica going do. 

see : http://www.pacifica.org/kewg.org/bylaws/art3sec1.html 

lots there, also "There shall be two classes of members: (A) "Listener-Sponsor Members" and (B) "Staff Members", who shall collectively be referred to as "Members...."  

and

"Listener-Sponsor Members" shall be any natural persons who within the preceding 12-month period: (1) have contributed a minimum of $25 to any Foundation radio station, or such minimum amount as the Board of Directors may from time to time decide; or (2) have volunteered a minimum of three (3) hours of service to any Foundation radio station."....
[emphasis here added is ours, not in bylaws ]

Most importantly- it is realizing and remembering that attorneys are neither neutral, unbiased – they are  not in it altruistically or w/o any motives of their own [be it a Win, pride, competitive advantage, prestige,or to prove something for any number of reasons too ]….or attorneys are offering their ‘good’ or ‘best’ advice is also:    for a gain or advantage themselves or for someone else.

                                         

                                      [David Coppertep cartoon]

Remember  that attorneys are   not all  equally competent, specialized or experienced in all fields of law, or that they [want to be not always able, or often can]  offer ONLY “GOOD”, expert, professional, & also intelligent advice at all time. NOT. 

It may even be advice that fits 1 category and maybe not all the others. Maybe. 

(c) mj 2018 - more than a member writes here.