PLEASE NOTE: This unofficial website represents the views of neither
the City of Reno nor its Citizens Cable Compliance Committee.

BEFORE THE CITY OF RENO'S
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS REVIEW TASK FORCE

THURSDAY
December 9, 2004


    NOTE: The city's director of community relations refused to provide an electronic copy of the following, which was reproduced from a copy faxed by the city clerk. Errors noted appear as submitted to the task force by city staff.

[[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE THOSE OF CITIZENS CABLE COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE CHAIR ANDREW BARBANO.]]

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:08:13 -0800
From: "Steven Wright" <wrights@ci.reno.nv.us>
To: <barbano@frontpage.reno.nv.us>
Cc: "Lynnette Jones" <JonesL@ci.reno.nv.us>
Subject: Re: your presentation

Lynnette is taking care of that as she is overseeing the task force.
Steve

>>> Andrew Barbano <barbano@frontpage.reno.nv.us> 12/13/04 11:05AM >>>

Dear Steven:

Please e me a copy of your written response to the boards and commissions review task force so that I may distribute it to the CCCC.

Thanks and happy holidays.

Andrew

OVERVIEW AND RESPONSES TO TASK FORCE QUESTIONS
FROM THE CITIZENS CABLE COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE



PRESENTATION BY CITY OF RENO
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS STEVEN WRIGHT


Boards and Commissions Review Task Force
Citizens Cable Compliance Committee


1. When and why was the board originally formed?

The board was created in 2002 to serve as an advisory body to the City of Reno and to monitor franchise contract compliance by each community antenna television ("CATV") company and to report to the Reno City Council on the status of compliance at least once per year. In particular, the focus of the this committee involved ensuring that the new master cable ordinance and the franchise address consumer protection issues.

2. Has the original objective been met?

Yes, with regard to the master cable ordinance and franchise issues related to consumer protection.

3. Has the objective changed over time?


Yes. The chairman of the board has made this committee a platform for his personal agendas. Even though, (sic) the Council has repeatedly told the committee they were not to be involved in the negotiations, the Chairman chose to inject the committee as often as possible. It has also become a forum for the Chairs (sic) editorial comments and personal feelings about Charter Communications.

[[BARBANO NOTE: Mr. Wright ignores the fact that the committee voted to ask the council for involvement in the renegotiation of the franchise after finding evidence of mismanagement.]]

4. Has the major work been completed?

The major work with respect to the master cable ordinance and franchise has been completed. There is an annual reporting component dealing with compliance that could still be conducted by the committee. However, this work does not require the monthly, televised 2-1/2 to 3 hour meetings currently being held.

5. What are the mission and goals of the board?

There is no established mission or goals for the board other than the purposed (sic) stated in number one and the duties outlined in the committee's bylaws.

[[BARBANO NOTE: THE FINDINGS AND AUTHORITIES OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS 6077 AND 6178 ARE QUITE EXPLICIT.]]

6. What are its five-year work projections?


There are no five-year work projections.

[[BARBANO NOTE: ALL THE MORE REASON TO ADOPT THE COMMITTEE'S LONG-RANGE PLAN WHICH THE COUNCIL TABLED AT THE SUGGESTION OF COUNCILMAN AIAZZI ON 13 OCT. 2004.]]

7. What has this board accomplished in the past?

The committee has reviewed and made recommendations to the Council regarding the master cable ordinance and the new Charter franchise. There (sic) entire focus for the last year and a half has been the master cable ordinance, the franchise negotiations and finding Charter in non-compliance.

[[BARBANO NOTE: A GLANCE AT THE UNOFFICIAL WEBSITE WILL SHOW THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS DONE FAR MORE. See http://www.barbanomedia.com/charter.html ]]

8. How many times has this board met during the past five years?

The committee has met approximately 18 times over the last year and a half including regular monthly meetings and special workshops.

Unique function

9. Do other agencies duplicate this board?


The City, state and federal government all have roles in cable regulation. This group was formed at the recommendation of a consultant and against the advice of City staff to monitor Charter's compliance because of past errors, some real and some perceived, by City staff in regulating Charter.

[[BARBANO NOTE: SOPHISTRY AND NON-SEQUITUR. THIS COMMENT UNFAIRLY UNDERCUTS THE $54,000 ACTION AUDITS COMMUNITY ASCERTAINMENT STUDY. THE COUNCIL AND STAFF IGNORED ITS MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS AS WELL AS THE COMMITTEE'S. THE RESPONSE DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.]]


10. Is another board or commission providing the same or similar function?

No.

11. Does this board have a unique function?

No. The federal law states that limited regulation of cable operators falls under the purview of local governments. City staff is involved in regulation and compliance on an on-going (sic) basis including keeping up-to-date on legal and regulatory issues in partnership with the City Attorney's Office.

Effectiveness:

12. Could the function be provided more effectively through another method other than a City board or commission?


The function of cable regulation in 99% of municipalities is not overseen or handled by a citizens committee because there are too many on-going (sic) variables and issues that require attention of professional staff and because the legal authority rests with the governmental entities.

[[BARBANO NOTE: AGAIN, THE RESPONSE DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.]]

13. Does this board need City Support? (sic) If yes, what kind?

The committee has adequate city support. However, many times, the chair and hence the committee ignores (sic) legal advice and opinions offered by the City Attorney's Office as well as recommendations by professional staff.

[BARBANO NOTE: SO WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE?]]

14. What City Resources (sic) are being utilized to support this board?


The committee uses professional minutes transcriptions services, staff support from a Deputy City Attorney (sic), Public Communications Specialist, (sic) and the Director of Community Relations. (sic) The committee also requires monthly live-broadcast services from SNCAT as part of the City's SNCAT contract allotment.

[[BARBANO NOTE: CITY STAFF IS WELL AWARE THAT THE COMMITTEE VOTED TO MOVE TO A QUARTERLY MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2005. FURTHER, THE CITY DID NOT INCLUDE CABLECASTING THE MEETINGS OF THE CITIZENS CABLE COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE IN ITS NEW CONTRACT WITH SIERRA NEVADA COMMUNITY ACCESS TELEVISION (SNCAT).]]

15. What is the cost to the City?


The costs associated with this committee including staff time involved in researching and dealing with committee requests, SNCAT services and staff time to be present at meetings is approximately $30,000 per year.

[[BARBANO NOTE: CITY STAFF OPPOSED A CABLE COMMITTEE REQUEST THAT THE CITY'S FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD AUDIT THE COST OF ADMINISTERING THE CABLE FRANCHISE. COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIRECTOR STEVEN WRIGHT TOLD THE COMMITTEE AT A REGULARLY SCHEDULED AND TELEVISED MEETING THAT THE PRINCIPAL EXPENSE OF RENO CABLE REGULATION LAY WITH COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CABLE COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE, THE MAIN COMPONENT OF WHICH WAS STAFF TIME.

IF STAFF TIME IS INDEED THE PRINCIPAL ITEM, THAT COST MAY BE ALLOCATED, BUT IT CAN ALSO BE ARGUED AS APPROACHING ZERO IN THAT THE CITY STAFF WOULD RECEIVE THE SAME PAY AND BENEFITS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CABLE COMMITTEE'S EXISTENCE. THE ONLY AVOIDED COSTS WOULD THUS BE THE EXPENSES, ADMITTEDLY A MUCH SMALLER COMPONENT. PERHAPS CITY STAFF WILL NOW ACQUIESCE TO SUPPLY A BREAKDOWN OF HOW THE $30,000 NUMBER WAS COMPILED. THE FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD COULD THUS AT LONG LAST BE APPRISED OF THE COST OF CABLE REGULATION.

THE $30,000 FIGURE REPRESENTS 2.5 PERCENT OF THE RATEPAYER-GENERATED FRANCHISE FEES WHICH THE CITY PROJECTS IT WILL ANNUALLY RECEIVE UNDER THE NEW FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.

"Under the new agreement, the city would receive $2.8 million in grant money from the company for video and broadcast equipment, five free public access channels and a franchise fee of about $1.2 million a year." (Reno Gazette-Journal 4-2-2004)]]

16. Could this board exist without the use of City services?

Not really. The legal relationship between any cable operator and the local franchising authority (the City) is specific and does not include an appointed citizen group in a regulatory capacity. The group couldn't access most of the information they would need to make decisions without staff. Legal and professional staff expertise is paramount although this committee seems to disregard this expertise.

17. Does the function of this Board (sic) require one (or more) members with specific expertise?

It should but none of the current committee members have expertise in cable related issues or the cable industry.

[[BARBANO NOTE: THE LATTER COMMENT IGNORES THE CHAIR'S FOUR DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN ALL FORMS OF MEDIA, INCLUDING EXTENSIVE DEALINGS WITH BOTH NON-PROFIT (HE SERVED ON THE SNCAT FOUNDING BOARD) AND COMMERCIAL CABLE TELEVISION. IT FURTHER IGNORES THE LONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAREER OF CCCC MEMBER NOEL THORNSBERRY. THREE OF THE ORIGINAL SEVEN APPOINTEES, SINCE RESIGNED, ALSO HAD SUBSTANTIAL EXPERIENCE IN THE CABLE/TELEVISION INDUSTRY IN THE AREAS OF TECHNICAL/ADMINISTRATIVE, LAW AND MANAGEMENT. THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS WERE INVALUABLE AND CONTINUE TO RESONATE.]]


Neighborhood Services Driven:


18. Does the board or commission provide a link to neighborhood services?


No.

19. Is its mission now within the scope of Neighborhood Advisory Boards? (sic)

No.

Relationship to City's Goals and Priorities

20. Can citizen and staff resources be better focused on other matters/issues?


City staff could better focus its resources on the actual regulation and monitoring of cable franchises and better use of the cable broadcast technology.

21. Could the board or commission be consolidated or eliminated?

This committee could be eliminated or should at least be given stricter guidelines for how often meetings are held and specifically what they can and can't do. The broad nature of their by-laws has allowed them to "run amuck:. (sic)

22. Should this be a "temporary" ad hoc group?


This committee would better function as an ad hoc group that gets together once a year to review cable operator compliance and hold annual public meetings to receive consumer feedback about cable operators' performance.


-30-

 

[fn: H12/9 Kill CCCC/city of reno/charter/opsn4]

 

     [UPDATE: The City of Reno's Boards and Commissions Review Task Force recommended that the Citizens Cable Compliance Committee be eliminated. The task force agreed with McNeely Administration staff that city employees could do the job and that the committee is unnecessary. At its meeting of 23 Feb. 2005, the Reno City Council voted down the recommendation to kill the cable panel.]

 

SMOKING GUNS

OVERVIEW AND RESPONSES TO TASK FORCE QUESTIONS FROM THE CITIZENS CABLE COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE

FROM THE OCTOBER 10 BARBWIRE IN THE DAILY SPARKS TRIBUNE:


   CHARTING THE FUTURE AT CITY HALL. On lucky Oct. 13 at the new downtown black tower, the Reno City Council will hear a recommendation from its Citizens Cable Compliance Committee, which I chair. Given fast-breaking new technology, a prejudicial new 15-year franchise agreement and Charter Communications' chronic financial troubles, we have advised the city to develop a long range cable backup plan in conjunction with Sparks and Washoe County.

   As I reported on Aug. 1, further complicating matters is Charter's new digital system in Long Beach, Calif. The company recently unveiled technology to bypass any cable regulation by calling everything broadband Internet service.

   City staff, as always, has recommended that the council turn down the citizens committee's very detailed proposal. I need your support. Contact the council, three of whom are seeking re-election, and tell them to give us some insurance against a major new abuse of consumers by our local cable monopoly. If you can't make it to the meeting, you will be able to see reruns through the weekend on SNCAT cable channel 13. Full details and contact info at DecidingFactors.tv.

Complete contact info for mayor, council & key staff

 


Confused by Councilman Dave Aiazzi, the council takes no action

Council slush fund revealed
10-13-2004

OCTOBER 13 RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL OP-ED: CITY NEEDS A BACKUP CABLE PLAN by Andrew Barbano and Barbara Stone

City should get out of TV business
Reno Gazette-Journal Editorial 9-17-2004

Cable Committee wants backup plan
Reno Gazette-Journal 9-16-2004

Charter financial problems continue
Daily Variety 10-8-2004

Back to information about
the August 26, 2004, CCCC meeting

The 2003 legislative fight to change some
of the anti-consumer laws noted above

Charter's potential plan to avoid the meager remains
of regulation and access TV support

Phone firms attempt to be relieved of franchise fee payment
on cable service

USA Today 12-8-2004

Fool me twice, shame on me
Charter tests end-run around regulation
Daily Sparks Tribune 8-1-2004, Comstock Chronicle 8-6-2004

Latest cable TV con jobs
Tol'ja So — Charter closes Reno call center, fires 40

Councilman Aiazzi re-defends April employment ploy

Daily Sparks Tribune 7-25-2004, Comstock Chronicle 7-29-2004

 

 

      Watch this website and Barbwire by Barbano in the Sunday Sparks Tribune and Friday Comstock Chronicle for updates. Click here to request placement on our mailing list.

     Thank you.

Back to Unofficial Citizens Cable Compliance Committee Home Page

 

 

 

Site designed & maintained by Deciding Factors