HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CABLE-1993-04-28 411 C.
I
CABLE ACCESS ADVISORY BOARD
April 28, 1993
MINUTES
Present: Rick Gray, Lauren Steffanelli, Matt Ryan, Dave Huff, Mary Milne,
Harvey Gitlin, Joe Powers Public: Bill McCormick, Jean,Finley, Tom Doheny
1. Meeting was called to order at 7:15
2. Mary Milne was designated as minute=taker. Minutes of March 24, 1993
were approved. •
3. Public comment. Bill McCormick challenged the process and outcome of the
Special Committee where he saw the rules being abruptly changed due to one
complaint in a closed secret session with no public discusssion. He was incensed
that he never received anything in writing and was uninformed as to the
decisions made and deemed this "typical-. He was especially upset that this
came just at the end of the scheduling season which threw him off of his
planning for the next season in terms of lining up his guests. If the intention of
the Special Committees action was to encourage new producers why not give
them a one time priviledge of priority for time-slots. But this should not be
applicable to a once active user returning to do regular progamming, such as
Rick Lawrence whose complaint was the purpose of the Special Committee. Bill
aked that the recommendation be overturned, that a new rule, created with
public comment and due process procedures. be implemented at the beginning
of the next scheduling period.
Jean Finley then spoke about what appears to be a vendetta being waged
against her and Bill by certain parties that is fueled by a deep political and
personal animosity. She sees the channel being controlled by this small interest
group that seems bent on nothing less than getting Bill and Jean off the air. She
presented this campaign of harrassment in a long, detailed account that was
distributed to each board member shortly- before the meeting. One particular
issue was the charge of commercial content on the Strand telethon that she
produced. The charge was prompted by the close monitoring of the program by
the adversarial parties who brought it to the attention of the access staff. lean
requested a special hearing to contest the official written warnings the Access
Co-ordinator issued her on other points related to the telethon in order to clear
her record.
4. Report of the Access Co-ordinator. Lauren distributed her quarterly
report and ACC's written response to the budget proposed by the CA AB.
r i
•
y
She also said there is updated information on the FCC ruling of April 2 that is
now in appeal which could greatly impact on access. In such a ruling, cable
companies would be held more responsible for 'indecent'' programming which
could lead to a dampening of free speech. Oii the subject of the FCC, there
followed a discussion about it establishing a fair price for leased access. Dave
Huff said he had no idea what ACC's policy would be in this area.
On the budget, Lauren pointed out that almost all of Phase I
expenditures--the more immediate, higher priority items-- were approved.
Rick said it is a green light for those items both sides agree on. .Money was set
aside by ACC for governmental and educational groups; presumably for those
potential institutional users in smaller outlying areas although their level of
need has not been defined. Rick again emphasized the importance of outreach
and expressed hopes that the new staff would direct more attention to it.
Harvey raised the question of a county cable commission. a recurring
thought, but the problem of staggered franchises dampened that notion.
Matt asked about what items are considered in the 2% funds. Lauren said
this determination is tied to the contract negotiations. The point was made that
the capital expenditures should include installation costs but the cost of
maintenance should come from elsewhere.
There was a question of more lights and whether the system needed
approval of an electrician before a complete installation of light fixtures. Joe
asserted that a lot of reserve was built into the system and that the air-
conditioner would be the first thing taxed under a heavy usage. Dave Huff.
questioned the need for more lights, deeming the current levels adequate. Rick
said it was a question of flexibility for the access users.
In regards to the December deadline for submitting budget requests, Rick
asked Tom Doheny of ACC to clarify the company s financial schedule. Tom said
ACC's operating and accounting systems are on different calendars: the fiscal
year ends June 30 and the billing cycle ends the 3rd Thursday of December,
5. Report of the Government Committee. The New York Cable Commission
will come and help put together a board to act as a clearinghouse for all the
users of the governmental channel.
Tom spoke of ACC airing a commercial program Cable New York
produced by the Cable Association of New York State) on the government
channel that they felt had some public interest. Rick affirmed that this fell
under the fallow time provision which allowed ACC to use unfilled time as it
saw fit.
There was -a discussion whether a satellite dish should be allocated to
•
access to bring in free, commercial-free programming of interest. Lauren
questioned how much may be out there in this category and that it was up to
governmental and educational committees to decide on the priority of this.
Dave Huff spoke of the hassle of a variance to install such a dish. It was
suggested that some of the other uses, i.e. Cornell, take responsibility for a
satellite dish.
6. There were no specific reports of the Educational Committee or from the
City Cable Commission.
7. Discussion then moved on to the topic of the Special Committee. Rick
initially emphasized that the Special Committee had given an interpretation of
the existing rule on new producers and did not come up with a new one,-that
that was not in its power to do so. He went on to say that the issue of
harassment of volunteers by other volunteers is a very important issue. He
sees this particular conflict of personalities as so deeply embedded that it needs
to be dealt with in some comprehensive manner, and that previous piecemeal
attempts of the board to find a solution have only contributed to the problem.
He proposed that the parties involved go to the Community Dispute Resolution
Center to work it out, that a time-line should be set up to do so, and that the
parties be threatened with suspension if some solution can't be reached.
Jean was concerned that all might be suspended if one person backs out
of the process. It was then agreed that the mediators would be able to judge
which participants were acting in good faith.
Lauren brought up the issue of the cost of mediation, $35-$70 an hour,
although there are some cases for which the center will reduce its fee. Matt and
Dave questioned where that money would come from and objected strongly to
using the 2% funds. Dave was concerned that this may set some precedent for
all sorts of future disputes. Rick emphasized again the legendary proportion of
this unique case and how disruptive it has been for the station, for the CAAB
and ICCC, and most of all for Lauren's time.
Matt summarized the issue brought forth by the plaintiffs where one
producer can consume 10% of the time. and of the further domination when 2
producers combine time to produce virtually the same show. He further
questioned whether it was appropriate for access to have a proprietary
-broadcast concept of schedule blocks.
Rick said we can't place limits as long as everyone has enough time.
(Who else is really complaining about not enough time? asked Jean. There
seemed to be a general sense that the objection ca-me essentially from Rick
Lawrence and Robin Palmer and that the letters they had brought with them to
•f
the previous meeting had been aggressively solicited.) Rick Gray said if we
want more new faces we should be doing more outreach, not creating new
limiting policies. As for scheduled blocks of time these are important for people
to plan ahead for their shows. More discussion of the first come always served
rule. How do we determine who is first if we start fresh each season? asked
Bill. In discussing the new producer rule he again objected to Rick Lawrence
being considered a new producer.
Tom Doheny asked the board whether it felt its procedures were fair and
if so, we should then stick by them. Let (he objecting parties have a right to
complain through the formal channels but the board can then reject their case
by holding to the original rules.
Bill objected to how in their campaign of harassment these parties are
assuming the watchdog role that is the responsibility of the staff and are using
the rules to eliminate others from access. They are not granting a'good faith
effort but are prompting staff to punish peccadillos that might otherwise be
overlooked.
On whether this was an issue of harassment, Matt said that would be a
legal issue and not a case for the CRAB. Lauren said there is in fact a rule
against harassment in the station facilities.
Lauren said that there are indeed many slip-ups by volunteers and the
staff generally cuts some slack. She distinguished between major and minor
violations. Commercial programming is a major violation, but there are often
vagaries in that that are hard to pinpoint. One example given was when Robin
Palmer spoke on the air of a specific book, stating its price and the place where
it could be purchased.
The specific issue at hand was a host on Jean's Strand Telethon asking for
money, a slip-up after Jean had coached each one on what to say/not say. Jean
nevertheless feels that not-for-profit groups should not be held to the same
standard as for-profit groups. She quoted Steve Shea, staff of the NYS Cable
Commission, in a casual conversation saving it would be o.k. for a non-profit
theatre group to say on the air where to buy tickets for their show. This issue is
being directed to the City Cable Commission for a definitive opinion.
Dave said constantly interpreting rules was too great a burden on Lauren.
Matt said the rules are not written clearly enough and so are not being enforced
effectively. It was questioned whether the policies could be written more
definitively for every possible contingency. Rick asserted that the rules are
only an issue in this case and this case was really an issue of personality
conflicts. He repeated his call for a more thorough approach to addressing the
problem, via the CDRC, and that if money were the only obstacle perhaps we
could oass the hat. have a benefit. a telethon...?
board was in disagreement on the use of the c_DRc at this
Lime. an -_-,&;.:. was sugesied for Lauren to sit down in a i-oom with tne four
individuas invo;ved to conduct an initial fact-finding probe. Tee v: as then
unanimous agreeme.nt on the formalized motion.
C,.:::,,A;T: l't-.qt.::tuniends that ail four parties at a designaled time in the
next 3 weeks, ,,,.' i.1 met in session with Lauren to ii . odt the root of the
proOem. :',.i--d that important consequeriue.s would re',:iut for those who are
uni,.7iLiing to co-Goer-ate. _
CABLE ACCESS ADVISORY BOARD
Meeting
Wednesday, April 28, 1993
Tompkins County Public Library
7:00PM
AGENDA
1. Call to Order/Designate Recorder
2. Approval of Minutes of March 24, 1993
3. Amendfnents to the Agenda/Announcements
4. Publics Comment
6. Report of the Access Coordinator
6. Report of the City Cable Commission
7. Report of the Educational Committee
8. Report of the Governmental Committee
9. Report of the Special Committee
a. Hearings of two disputes
b. House Keeping: A Modest Proposal, brought to you by the
Access Coordinator and the CAAB Chair(and we don't mean
windows and dust)
o. Other related issues
10. Old Business
a. Amend policies and procedures based on understandings
reached at February meeting with Ray McCabe.
i. Aooess playback policies for Eduo. and Govt.Channels
II. Access playback facilities re-configuration [time-line]
iii. Formalizing promotion strategies
b. Discussion of status of 1993 expenditures for"capital PEG
access equipment replacement and expansion" [it's the Budget.
Stupid. Remember?].
11. New Business
a. Plan to expand facility hours of operation: The Survey. Not.
b. Plan for expansion of Access facilities at 612 W. Green St.: A
Bid.
12. Set next meeting time &place/Adjourn
cis
B. .:
To: Lauren Stefanelli,Access Coordinator
From: Rick Gray, Chair, Cable Access Advisory Board[CAAB]
Date: April 18, 1993
Subject: Recommendations from the Special Committee of the CAAB convened 4/14/93
to hear a grievance of a Public Access User
Background.
Current policies permit long-term multiple reservations of cable-casting time and facility
time to facilitate the users ability to create program series and rationalize the access
coordinator's[AC] process of creating long-term[a 4 month period or season] schedules
for cable-casting and facility use. Existing users are given an opportunity to renew their
reservations frdm one 4 month period to the next;however,prior consideration is given
those qualified users who have not exercised their privilege to make long-term multiple
reservations for the entire,or any portion of,the previous 4 month period.
Grievance
The aggrieved user[AU] had a long-term multiple cable-casting reservation for a portion
of the Winter/Spring'93 season. He did not exercise his privilege to request long-term,
multiple reservations for facility use in that season. The AU alleged that in consideration
of his privilege to request long-term facility use in the current season[Spring/Summer'93],
the AC's interpretation that long-term cable-casting and long-term facility use reservations
are somehow bound together creates an inequitable condition. The AU alleged that in
attempting to make a long-term facility reservation in the current season,he is relegated to
third-class status--after qualified new users and after users who already have time-slots to
re-reserve.
Discussion
The special committee agreed with the AU that the current interpretation of policies
regarding long-term multiple reservations of cable-casting time and facility use indeed
created an inequitable condition and potentially a third-class category of users.
Furthermore,when the changes to these policies were discussed and implemented in the
Fall of 1991,the intent of those changes recommended by the CAAB was specifically to
eliminate the inequitable but permissible condition whereby users could exercise a virtual
proprietary right or claim to specific time allotments of the cable-casting and/or facility
schedules year after year after year....
Access use is a right. Long-term multiple reservations of all types are privileges which
are offered only because of the benefits to all. The terms and conditions for exercising
these privileges may be altered in the interest of preserving the preeminent right to access
for all. The condition alleged by the AU is a punitive situation created by an interpretation
of the policy which links reservations of cable-casting time and facility use time. The AU
should be afforded the privilege which was intended by changes to policies in 1991,not
punished by these changes.
Recommendations
The special committee recommends that the two privileges of long-term multiple
reservations be unlinked and that in this case the AU should be treated as any qualified user
who did not have a long-term reservation for facility use in the prior season. The AU
should have priority in the long-term reservation of facility time over existing users for
this season[Spring/Summer'93]. The committee further recommends that this
interpretation of policy take effect immediately in order to eliminate a clearly identified
inequity in this and all similar cases. The committee recommends that a review of the
policies in question take place by the CAAB at the next regularly scheduled meeting and
public comments would be accepted at that time.
Additional Evidence
The access coordinator provided additional documents to the special committee.
A. A letter[3/27/93] to all existing series producers,giving notification that
adjustments could be made affecting long-term requests for use of facilities
and cable-casting time.
B. Evidence that sufficient facility time was available to satisfy all known
requests for long-term reservations by new and existing users of access
facilities given current limits.
This evidence was used in our deliberations. It provided reasonable assurance that actions
pursuant to our recommendations would in fact not impose any new limits on long-term
reservations by new or existing producers nor could they be construed by existing
producers as unexpected or arbitrary.
Time-line of the Grievance in Question
4/9/93. A grievance pertaining to the interpretation of access policies by the access
coordinator[AC] was brought to the attention of the CAAB chair by an access user and the
AC by phone.
4/10/93. The CAAB chair discussed the grievance independently with the AC and the
aggrieved user[AU].
4/11/93. The CAAB chair agreed that the grievance had sufficient merit to create a special
committee to hear the case [pursuant to 2.d. of Resolution 3.91°Procedures for
Mediation...]
4/12/93. The chair notified the AU and the AC that a hearing would take place.
4/13/93. The special committee was formed and all parties were informed of time and
place for a hearing. The Ithaca City Cable Commission was informed, during a regularly
scheduled meeting,that a hearing would take place and given a brief verbal out-line of the
details of the grievance.
4/14/93. The closed-door hearing was held consisting of 3 CAAB members and the AC.
The AU was present for approximately 15 minutes to present the case. The
recommendations of the committee were formulated by consensus. The AC was verbally
offered the recommendations of the committee and she confirmed that she understood the
nature and intent of the recommendations. The AU was notified verbally of the
recommendations of the committee following the closed-door deliberations. Both AC and
AG were assured by the committee that a written summary of the recommendations would
be provided without unreasonable delay.
CAAB Resolution 3.91 - Procedures for Mediation by the Cable Access Advisory
Board; Passed 7/1/91
1) The fastest, simplest, and most direct way of having a conflict mediated by a
CAAB representative is to request the assistance of the access Ombudsman. The
ombudsman is a member of the CAAB whose appointed role is to mediate disputes
and solve problems involving access volunteers. The ombudsman will consider a
conflict and attempt to mediate a satisfactory resolution between the disputing
parties. The ombudsman can only make recommendations; resolution of the
dispute depends on the willingness of the parties to the dispute to accept them.
The current ombudsman's phone number and address are listed below.
2) A special committee of the CAAB may be formed to provide
mediation of a dispute. Those in the following situations may
request a hearing by such a committee:
a) Anyone on whom the Cable Company (or other access
administrator) has imposed a penalty resulting in a suspension
of privileges may request a hearing. After the hearing, the
committee will advise the Access Coordinator to remove, reduce,
increase or leave in effect the penalties that were imposed.
b) The Access Coordinator may request that the committee mediate in the case of
an alleged violation of access center rules. The committee may recommend
penalties be imposed in accordance with provisions in the access Policies and
Procedures manual, or it may recommend that the matter be dropped.
c) Disputing parties may voluntarily submit a disagreement for mediation by
the committee, with an understanding in advance that the final
recommendations of the panel will be accepted by both parties.
d) Others involved in conflicts pertaining to access may request a hearing by a
committee of the CAAB. It is at the CAAB's discretion whether or not to create
a committee to hear such cases. After any such hearing, the committee will
offer its non-binding recommendations to the those involved in the dispute.
If you wish to request a hearing by the CAAB, please contact the ombudsman or the
chairperson.
Ombudsman: Chairperson:
' Blizzard 0•4000../ 6;+4;■ ter Hess 11(;vie-- C rr-c%
44 . filler Rd. 111 Jay St.
PO ox 3y . Z" l»"cc Ste•
Ithaca, 4850 Ithaca, Y 14850
272-7563 �' 'rCvr�f' A.*72-183 N Y MFSSG?
/4.28