On June 18, the national public TV and radio broadcasting publication, Current [not to be confused with Minnesota Public Radio's (MPR) The Current], published a portion of an article by editor Steve Behrens that will appear in full in its June 23 edition. The article is titled "Fans of two defunct stations claim progress in campaigns to wrest licenses from APMG."
In the article's third paragraph, an MPR statement is quoted:
" 'There is no valid legal basis for challenging Minnesota Public Radio's purchase of the station,' MPR said in a statement this week."
Stating a belief doesn't make it a fact. MPR's statement conveniently ignores Minnesota state charitable trust law and the recent court order that clearly determines that there is a legal basis for challenging the sale. MPR's statement is particularly unfortunate and troubling when one considers that APMG/MPR has a responsibility concerning its own non-profit status/charitable trust to its own donors.
Behrens goes on to write:
"The Minnesota case would have gotten more attention if MPR had been shutting down the only classical station in the Twin Cities area, but it wasn't. WCAL's listeners were fighting the takeover because they preferred the programming at St. Olaf's over MPR's classical music service."
While we, too, believe that the WCAL issue might have attracted more attention if WCAL had been the only station with "classical" programming in the immediate region, our campaign has never simply been about a programming preference. We have always realized that the story of WCAL is a story of the mishandling of a charitable trust. Furthermore, the WCAL story is a cautionary tale in a number of ways.
The only areas where the station's programming played a significant role was in SaveWCAL's efforts before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), where raising concerns about programming was was an appropriate part of the strategy. Raising charitable trust issues before the FCC and CPB would have been inappropriate because they would not have been considered relevant.
When it came to the legal aspects of the case, it has long been SaveWCAL's contention — and now the Court's affirmation and ruling — that it clearly falls under Minnesota charitable trust law. Charitable trust law is a state matter — which is why SaveWCAL implored the Minnesota Attorney General to commence an investigation of the matter in 2004.
Behrens went on:
"Most attorneys familiar with non-profit law contacted by Current say voiding the sale of WCAL four years later would be a long shot."
Well, "most attorneys" contacted about any aspect of the WCAL case over the last four years have said that, whatever the issue was, it was a "long shot."
We smile and steadfastly continue our qwest. SaveWCAL, our cause and our strategy has clearly been underestimated. That's OK with us.
While it is true that a number of colleges and universities have chosen to divest themselves of their campus radio stations over the past decade and more, there are a few things about the WCAL sale that make it unique.
- WCAL was "in the black" and, as of May 2004, received no direct financial contributions from St. Olaf College.
- WCAL was not a station with declining membership or fundraising.
- The donors to the station had tried to open dialogue with the college to purchase the station, keeping the trust intact and allowing St. Olaf to have the funds it apparently needed for its budgetary issues, first announced in Fall 2003.
On more than one occasion, SaveWCAL has noted the interesting timing between the announcement of St. Olaf's budget issues on October 15, 2003 and the reported "unsolicited initial" offer from MPR in November 2003.
Strangely, the college steadfastly refused to engage in any direct or indirect discussions with the donors. Senior administrators and the Board of Regents were determined to sell to MPR — in spite of receiving a larger offer from another entity and an equal offer from SaveWCAL. Why?
SaveWCAL has noted, time and again, the links between the St. Olaf Board of Regents, the MPR Board of Trustees and the Board of Piper Jaffray, the company that would have underwritten the bonds. Several Piper Jaffray board members were serving on at least two of the above boards at the time — and stood to gain financially (either corporately or, perhaps, personally) from the WCAL sale.
- If St. Olaf had obeyed Minnesota state law, the donors would have had the opportunity to appear before the court and ask the court to officially consider their offer.
- St. Olaf did not obey state law, as the recent court Order has confirmed. Perhaps St. Olaf and MPR were determined to make sure that the deal went "their" way instead of honoring the donors?
