Via Paul Rampel: "Recently an exchange took place on the West Marin Commons' soapbox forum, between Jim Kravets and Tess Elliot, regarding Jim's of an acquisition discussion between Pt. Reyes Light and West Marin Citizen. My post regarding this exchange is as follows: (go to
http://www.westmarincommons.or... for the entire thread)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tucked away in their rebuke of Jim for "jumping the gun, Linda, Tess & David ask all our help to make their deal happen. Fair enough: I agree we should all have a better understanding of the Point Reyes Light ownership - issues touched upon in Jim Kravet's blog before we endorse anything to do with this proposal.
For starters how about explaining the current structure of the Pt. Reyes Light ownership: The first sentence suggests that MMI will not be involved in the purchase - but this is hard to understand on its face. If MMI is the owner of the "Point Reyes Light Publishing Company L3C LLC" (PRL LLC"), and PRL LLC is the acquirer how can this not involve MMI, at least as a fiduciary, if not an active participant? MMI and PRL LLC are themselves opaque operations - since the founding of PRL LLC (see
http://investigativereportingw... the role of Cory Goodman appears to be a constant in the operation as a recent check of the online records of the Secretary of State of California still show Goodman as the agent (see
http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/) yet there is no mention of Cory Goodman's role in this deal.
Reports have also appeared that state Mark Dowie is a part owner of the Light. This involvement appears to extend the role of Dowie beyond that of contributor, editor, and publisher into a new realm of involvement. (Citizen Dowie?) We should also be asking to understand the money - where exactly does the purchase price for the Citizen come from? Is this a payout based upon future expected cashflow of the combined operations, perhaps based upon unrealistic expectations of excess cash realized from "operating efficiancies" and increased (combined) advertising revenues, or is a separate investment being contemplated, and if so, from whom? For example, reports have previously circulated that Phyllis Faber was a major backer of MMI and PRL. Its time that we understand who the money players are. Yet, Tess et al suggest that the discussion is amongst Linda, Tess and her partner David.
This seems to be at best, incomplete disclosure - not a promising basis for an organization that is intended to provide a public service to the community.
