06-11-2014 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 23, 2014 Page 6 C. The NSCC's Renewal Formal franchise renewal In fall 2010, Comcast notified the NSCC's member cities of its desire to renew the NSCC-area franchises. At that time, Comcast hoped it could informally negotiate a renewal agreement with the NSCC, as it does in nearly every other community across the country. But the NSCC commenced formal proceedings in April 2011 and formally delegated authority over the process to the NSCC's staff, unidentified "designees," and a renewal committee comprised of three commissioners and another member -city representative. Comcast believes that the NSCC staff pushed for the formal process on the mistaken belief that the formal process would compel Comcast to pay for PEG -operational funding or face losing its cable franchises (despite that conditioning a franchise on an operator paying PIG operations is unlawful.) In the following months, NSCC staff and its "designees" conducted an ascertainment process ostensibly to assess the NSCC communities' cable - related needs. Unfortunately, the needs ascertainment process conducted by the NSCC was results oriented and was not designed to objectively assess true community needs but rather to support the desires of the NSCC's alter ego, the NSAC, its staff, volunteers, and beneficiaries, at the expense of Comcast and its customers. In April 2013, the full NSCC voted to approve the NSCC's staff's resolution to retain consultants for the formal process. In furtherance of its results -oriented approach, the NSCC hired perhaps the most prominent PEG advocate in the country—ether than an expert in statistics and survey research—to conduct a survey and prepare its main ascertainment report. The April 2013 resolution also formally delegated "the entire formal Franchise renewal process" to the Renewal Committee, the Executive Committee, the Executive Director, NSCC staff, the Bradley & Guzetta law firm, retained consultants, and more unknown "designees." None of these individuals or entities ever held public meetings to discuss and deliberate over the ascertainment results, the NSCC cities' community needs, or the review of Comcast's performance. Their meetings were held without public notice and were they not public meetings, as required by Minnesota's Open Meeting Law. Based on whatever deliberations or decisions were made in closed meetings of the various individuals and entities charged with conducting the formal renewal process, on July 29, 2013, NSCC staff issued a report and request for renewal proposal (RFRP). Among other things, the RFRP demanded: