While visiting Maine two weeks ago, NA Confidential watched as the Windham town council held its regular weekly meeting.
Because the meeting was televised live over the area’s cable access channel, there was no need for citizens to brave the wintry elements in order to observe the council’s workings. The telecast came in the form of a split screen incorporating two camera angles that showed the entire meeting room and remained “live” from start to finish.
At the most recent New Albany City Council meeting on February 7, a long-running topic again was broached with reference to videotaping the council’s meetings.
Going back several months, local resident Valla Ann Bolovschak has undertaken to absorb the expense of professionally recording the council meetings with the concurrent idea that they be broadcast on the television arm of New Albany High School’s WNAS, which can be seen on Insight’s cable channel 25.
Quite predictably, and regrettably, discussions of this phenomenon have tended to digress into political considerations, both real and imagined.
What are Valla Ann’s political motives? Did City Council President Jeff Gahan apply pressure to the Superintendent of schools to prevent transmission of the videotapes? Does someone wish to keep governmental workings a secret? Is the Mayor part of this vast conspiracy? Who are the heroes, and who are the villains?
Quite frankly, NA Confidential finds these questions tedious, misplaced and utterly reminiscent of junior high school dating intrigue.
What we would like to know, while confessing from the outset that we don’t have an answer to the question, is this:
Given the organizational basis of the various entities involved, are there compelling reasons for the school corporation to agree to broadcast the videotaped city council meetings?
According to the FCC, the New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation is the licensee of WNAS.
According to the “Code of Ordinances for the City of New Albany, Title XI, Chapter 113 – Cable Television System,” the chosen cable provider (Insight) has several obligations, among them this:
§ 113.10 SERVICE TO MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AND SCHOOLS.
(B) The company shall reserve one channel for use by public and parochial elementary, secondary and college level schools.
And, according to Karen Stokes of Insight Communications:
“Educational Access (Ch. 25) is the Community Access channel for your area.”
The following explanation of “community access” comes from the web site of Fair Lawn Creative Cable Community Access Television in the borough of Fair Lawn, New Jersey:
“Both the Cable Acts of 1984 and 1992 permit local governments to include and enforce requirements for PEG (i.e., public, government and educational use) access equipment, facilities, services, and support in a franchise.
“Access can be subdivided into public access, educational access and government access. The term "PEG access" is called "public, educational, and government use" under the Cable Act.
“Public access consists of video programming and other electronic information produced, directed, and engineered by community volunteers. (For convenience, all types of information carried on PEG channels will be referred to as "programming," although PEG channels are used to carry video information, data, video text, and voice communications.) In the case of public access, the programming is developed or acquired by nonprofit community groups, neighborhood organizations, social service agencies, and individual citizens. It focuses on many aspects of community life, ranging from the services and activities of community organizations to the opinions and beliefs of individuals in the community.
“Educational access is developed or acquired by school or college employees, students, and school volunteers. It typically focuses on distance learning, school activities, and information that the school/college wants to get out to the community or share among schools.
“Government access is created or acquired by local government employees, elected officials, and volunteers. It typically focuses on information about services provided by local, State, and regional governments, issues faced by local governments, and public meeting coverage. Government access is also used for other purposes, such as providing training to City employees or exchanging information between City agencies and other institutions.”
Now, it would appear that according to an ordinance authored by a previous City Council, New Albany has chosen the educational access option, and in this case, the option is exercised by WNAS, which is licensed through the school corporation and not directly through the city of New Albany.
On the surface, none of this would seem to have anything to do with the City Council or its meetings, videotaped or otherwise.
We return to the original question:
Are there compelling reasons for the school corporation to agree to broadcast the videotaped city council meetings on its television station?
City Council meetings are but one element of local government, so what of County Council meetings and Board of Public Works and Safety meetings, just to name two?
Why broadcast one but not the others?
Is there money available to begin doing this in a taxpayer-supported, comprehensive fashion?
If not, who pays to videotape which meeting?
Furthermore, who actually “owns” the information on the videotapes if they are financed by the private sector and not the public sector?
Taking all this into consideration, how, then, does the school corporation decide what to broadcast and what not to broadcast if some meetings are financed by the private sector and others aren’t?
There certainly seem to be many more questions than answers, and the questions seem to suggest far more in the way of complexity than simply reducing the story to one of heroes vs. villains, or of whistle-blowers and bureaucrats ducking and covering.
The governing ordinance clearly states that New Albany’s community cable access is to be in the form of educational, not governmental, programming.
Given the absence of any legal obligation according to the prevailing code or any obvious mandate to do so, what is there to be gained by the school corporation becoming involved with any of this, especially since there remains at least the possibility that such involvement might be construed as politically partisan in nature?
Our comments today are not intended to attack or defend any single person involved with the ongoing discussion of City Council meetings and the videotaping of them by private citizens. They are, however, an attempt to identify some of the core issues involved with the discussion.
What have we missed here? Please let us know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Excellent questions Roger and very good research. I agree that live broadcasting is the best method for bringing the council meetings into the home. You asked what are we missing here? One option that should seriously be explored is to webcast the City Council Meetings and as you mentioned, The Sewer Board, Board of Public Works etc. this would eliminate any accusations, implications etc. The what you see is what you get idea, nothing like real time info to shed the light on actual proceedings.
Regarding Valla Ann, I think she should be thanked by citizens of New Albany for lighting the torch to opening up the council meetings for all to see.
That is the true spirit of Democracy and I would consider her to be a breath of fresh air and a true patriot.
jeepers... complicated ain't the word for it. Before I make a sophomoric comment, I have a question which I hope is not too much of a segue. Is it "illegal" for a citizen to place a cassette recorder (on 'record' of course) on or near the dais, or table, where city councilmen sit during a public meeting? And, by extension, can they bring a cam-corder?
As to whether it is in the interest of the school board to get involved with videotaping government meetings... I can easily see why they would conclude, on balance, no. As in, why put your foot in a fire?, or no good deed goes unpunished. Sad, but possibly the most practical stance for the 'corporation.'
On the other hand, I think WNAS has a slew of reasons why it should actively seek to do it. The strongest one being it fits pod-like into the whole mandate of "educating"... and I mean just the students (many positives here, from learning to handle and use technical equipment to seeing first-hand how local government works. etc).
And that doesn't even reach down to the secondary benefits...the facilty citizenry would have re keeping informed (eg WE have some bad weather here too). And, way down on the gravy list, if Councilman X is being irrational, or intemperate, or a babbling fool... it is well that we know that.
Lastly...hooray for Windham, Maine, and to Roger Dodger for his research efforts.
One thing that’s missing is a discussion of how locally owned media networks or the lack thereof affect the public’s ability to communicate/receive information.
As a college student, I worked for what used to be Cardinal Cable. Other than the insertion of local commercials into national programming, my main job responsibility was to attend local events and videotape them for airing on the local access channel. We also maintained a video billboard to advertise local happenings.
The company that bought Cardinal quickly put an end to that practice. Insight doesn’t provide that service either. What good is a public access channel if nobody has the ability to produce programming for it? Arguments as to what should or shouldn’t be broadcast on a public access channel are moot in the absence of content.
Again, this is a clear case of the public subsidizing a private communications company and receiving very little in return. We should focus on the part of the acts that state local governments can require franchisees to provide “access equipment, facilities, services, and support in a franchise”.
Should NAHS be required to broadcast government meetings? No. But Insight should be required to not only broadcast the meetings but to provide the equipment necessary to tape them - not an unreasonable request given the millions of dollars of land use our various levels of government provide them each year.
From a practical standpoint, this isn’t a complicated issue. Point camera at council. Focus. Push record button. We don’t need a professional three camera shoot with a director barking shots. We simply need an accessible public record.
I think making the meetings available after the fact is more important than a live feed. If you have time to sit and watch at the exact time of the meeting, then you really have no reason (other than mobility issues) to not attend in person. It’s meshing one’s schedule to that of the council that’s a problem.
As mentioned, web casting is also an option. An online archive could easily be created making all past meetings available 24/7. A web based system would be much more effective with universally available broadband, of course, but that brings us back to the public subsidy/private company dispute.
Joe (Emmersonlives), according to the Office of the Public Access Counselor's guide to the Open Door Law:
"A citizen has the right under the Open Door Law to be
present at a public meeting, other than an executive session,
and to record the meeting by videotape, shorthand, or any
other method of recording, subject to reasonable restrictions
as to equipment and use that may be imposed. Rules and
regulations that prohibit the use of cameras, tape recorders or
other recognized means of recording a meeting are void."
http://www.in.gov/pac/handbook/
THE NAHS CAN MAKE UP ANY NUMBER OF REASONS NOT TO SHOW THE COUNCIL MEETINGS. ONLY ONE REASON I KNOW TO SHOW THEN IS TO INFORM THE PUBLIC. DOES THE PUBLIC KNOW HOW THIS CITY IS RAN. DO THEY KNOW THE INDEBTENESS IT HAS, AND HOW THE CITY WILL PAY FOR THIS. NEW TAXES OR CUTS IN SERVICE. DOES THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT POLICE OFFICERS LIVING 3 COUNTIES AWAY HAVE TAKE HOME CARS. IF NA RESIDENTS ARE TO GET THE FACTS,THE TRIBUNE IS NOT THE PLACE,THEY MUST BE ABLE TO SEE THE COUNCIL & MAYOR IN ACTION. TO ONLY WEBCAST THESE MEETINGS WOULD ELIMINATE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE COMPUTERS. ALL OLDER CITIZENS (TAXPAYERS )HAVE TV SETS,AND THEY VOTE ON WHAT THEY SEE. I ATTEND THE MEETINGS AND STILL WATCH ON TV TO SEE IF I MISSED ANYTHING. IF OTHER CITIES & TOWNS CAN BRODCAST THEIR MEETING SURLEY NA CAN.
and we will quit calling you surley
Mr. Stewart, I am not suggesting that the council meetings should only be webcast, I see it as another way to show it. I totally agree that local Cable or WNAS should and does have a public responsibility to make the council meetings available to all.
MR. Stewart, I am not suggesting that the webcast should replace local cable or WNAS as a medium to show the council meetings, I am only suggesting a webcast as an option, especially since the city has a website and webmaster. I totally agree with you that all citzens should have the opportuntity to see the council meetings as they actually were, rather than reading council minutes or news reports that may not completely portray the exactness of the meeting.
PLEASE STOP SHOUTING! We can hear you.
This issue should be another no brainer.
We just got home from a trip to Sarasota, FL.
They have been broadcasting their council meetings for several years.
This issue is not a matter of anything but money.
If I were in the political arena I would look forward to more of my constituants watching me in action.
KWZ
Council Video Tapes on School Station- I FEEL THE POINT THAT YOU HAVE "OVERLOOKED IS THAT THE CITIZENS" OF NEW ALBANY ARE INTERESTED IN SEEING "WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. PEOPLE ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND ALL OF THE MEETING DUE TO HEALTH,FAMILY LIFE,JOBS,AND BUSY SCHEDULES. WE SHOULD SEND A PERSONAL "THANK YOU" TO THE PERSON WHO IS WILLING TO FUND AND MAKES THE TAPES AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. THE SCHOOL SYSTEM SHOULD SEE THIS AS A "GREAT PUBLIC SERVICE". TEACHERS SHOULD USE THIS AS A WAY TO SHOW THEIR STUDENTS WHAT GOVERNMENT REALLY LOOKS LIKE IN OUR WORLD TODAY. AS I WILL BE ASKING MYSELF AT THIS THURSDAY'S NEW ALBANY COUNCIL MEETING. IS THE "BIG AND ONLY ONE QUESTION I WANT ANSWERED-"WHAT ARE" THE PERSONS WHO ARE TRYING TO PREVENT THIS SHOWING OF "THE COUNCIL TAPES TRYING TO HIDE?"
ALSO AS A TAXPAYER-WHEN I AM SITTING THERE LISTENING TO ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND SPEAKERS.I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO HEAR EACH AND ALL COMMENTS BETTER.IF WE AS TAXPAYERS "TAKE THE TIME TO GO TO A MEETING THE "SOUND SYSTEM SHOULD BE BETTER."OR AT THE NEXT MEETING WE ALL SHOULD COMPLAIN WE CAN NOT HEAR THE SPEAKERS? CONCERNED TAXPAYERS
The reason why I asked the questions I did was to illustrate that the school corporation's jurisdiction in this matter quite likely is governed by an ordinance with respect to the cable provider's access channel.
How is it, then, that people who wish to stand on the exact wording of an ordinance in one case (posting of agendas for meetings, etc), then return later to insist in another case that the ordinance (access) be ignored?
Furthermore, I see that Concern Taxpayer remains anonymous. What's to stop me from asking the obvious question: What is he/she trying to hide?
Roger ,
I keep seeing you and others trying to confront posters on this blog as to why they wish to remain anonymous .
But I personally have no idea who any of these posters are.
It seems to me that you are just selecting the ones that you personally do not recoginize.
I have no idea who any are.
Their anonimity has no effect on their post in my mind.
However,
it has been my experience that folks who are not willing to sign there name to something are usually hypocrits.
KWZ
Kevin Z,
Roger is perfectly capable of speaking for himself (as you know) but I offer MY reading of his sometimes tepid mad-on re anonimity (sic):
Namely, I observe that he invariably picks on those entries (and by extension, senders) which are poorly drafted (grammar, spelling, etc), cacophonous, and/or nearly incomprehensible... and only then IF they are ankylose to the shield of anonymity.
In other words, I suspect that it is NOT the idea of a lack of identity alone, per se, that irks him; rather, it is the combinition of THAT and some other sin, as exampled above.
Post a Comment