06-11-2014 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 23, 2014 Page 9 Farina] franchise renewal E. The NSCC's review and the meeting on April 17 After Comcast submitted its proposal, the NSCC still would not publicly discuss or deliberate the substantial public interest issues raised by the differences in the NSCC's RFRP and Comcast's formal renewal proposal. Comcast complained about the NSCC's process to the NSCC's counsel in February 2014. After disputing that there had been any problem with the Open Meeting Law, the NSCC's counsel (Bradley & Guzzetta) apparently consulted attorneys for the League of nfinnesota Cities and the NSCC de - designated the various decision -makers (like its lawyers, staff, and consultants) that it had earlier declared to be decision makers (who would be subject to the Open Meeting 1.,aw).'l he NSCC started noticing renewal -committee meetings and stopped noticing closed meetings of the full NSCC. (Comcast still reserves its rights with respect to challenging what it believes are the NSCC's earlier Open Meeting Law violations.) On .April 17, the NSCC held a meeting to permit Comcast to present its proposal to the NSCC. But instead of simply hearing and deliberating on a presentation of Comcast's formal proposal, the NSCC's staff used the event to mobilize PEG programmers and other PEG advocates against Comcast. As further described below, the NSCC staff created materials for its website and distributed those materials warning (falsely) PEG programmers specifically and the public generally that Comcast's proposal would mean the end of C'I"V by not providing the demanded PEG operational funding. The materials and other statements by the NSCC's executive director rallied opposition to Comcast's proposal on this basis. During the meeting on April 17, Comcast summarized its proposal to the commissioners and tried to inform the commissioners of the lack of factual record supporting their renewal demands, the legal problems with the Staff Report and REM', and the reasonableness of Comcast's proposal under the Cable Act. PEG programmers and other interested individuals then proceeded to the podium to urge denial because they (mis)understood Comcast's proposal to be designed to "kill" PEG and CTV. Nothing could be further from the truth. Comcast's proposal, itself, shows that this is not the case. F. Belated Notices of Franchise Violation During the meeting on April 17, Comcast informed the NSCC that it could not recommend denial based on past performance because, among other reasons, the NSCC's Staff Report and REM) did not identify a single