06-11-2014 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 23, 2014 Page 16 Formal franchise renewal But these actions are conceivable when one considers the structure of the NSCC and its relationship with the NS.AC.'ihe NSAC is a 501(c)(3) organization with the purpose of promoting and managing PEG channels in the NSCC cities, and is almost entirely funded through grants imposed on Comcast subscribers under the franchise. ':nie NSAC has a significant interest in this renewal process. Yet the NSAC staff is the NSCC staff. The NSAC's board of directors it the NSCC commissioners. The executive director of the NSAC is also the NSCC's executive director handling regulation of Comcast. One law firm represents both entities; in fact, understanding when the firm represents one versus the other is often difficult. Worst of all, these individuals—the NSAC's staff, its law firm, and executive director ---were c!c%gcrted complete auiborlldy over conducting the ascertainment and review of Comcast's performance, and they have apparently done all the work behind the recommendation to deny. For the ascertainment process, the NSCC retained the Buske Group, who not coincidentally is perhaps the most prominent P'EG advocate in the country, to conduct privately the study of the community's needs. And of course the NSCC and NSAC share the same website and make no distinction about what are the NSAC's statements and what are the NSCC's. '.['he influence of these various entities and individuals had been largely kept from Comcast (and the public in general) because there were never open meetings of the executive director, staff, or its legal counsel in discussing or creating the Staff Report and RFRP—in other words the demands that the NSCC ended up malting for purposes of formal renewal. These individuals (who were delegated full decision -malting power) and the Renewal Committee held several non-public meetings in violation (in Comcast's view) of the Open Meeting Law. Comcast made objections to the RFRP and Staff Report that came out of this process, explaining that they were unlawful and lacked record support, for example, in its demands for PEG funding. But the issues were never corrected and NSAC staff continued essentially 10 run the formal process. The Renewal Committee of the NSCC started opening its meetings this year when Comcast complained of the OM1., violations. But still, there had been no puhlie debate ordealrion-makinm+ at all by the commissioners about the demands in the RFRP until the very limited discussion that occurred shortly before the NSCC adopted its recommendation to deny renewal. The NSCC's chairman apparently instructed commissioners to not discuss issues publicly at meetings, presumably on the advice of NSCC staff and legal counsel. The conflict of interest between the NSCC and NSAC became apparent when Comcast saw the contents of the NSCC's website before the April 17