Ventura County Grand Jury • 1998-1999

Cable TV Public Access & Televising of Public Meetings

9 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings 8 findings

F1
Figure 1 depicts all Cable TV franchises in the County of Ventura (County) and the current availability of public access. The County controls only franchises in the unincorporated areas. Incorporated areas are covered by individual city-granted franchises. One of the complications in establishing these franchises is frequently a franchise covers a city and its immediately surrounding area with the identical service. This requires two franchise agreements, one with the city and one with the County. The County has attempted to coordinate these franchises for ease of management.
F2
The only County franchises that charge for public access are the GTE Americast services. The charge is 19 cents per month per subscriber and was established by calculating the $250,000 cost (see paragraph 4 below) to equip the Board of Supervisors’ hearing room and spreading it over the seven-year franchise agreement period. (It should be noted that Ventura County is unique in that in many areas of the County the GTE service is competitive with other services and that subscribers have a choice of providers.) At face value, charging only GTE customers appears to be unfair, but the intent is to modify each franchise agreement as it comes up for renewal to include this charge, assuming that the televising of public meetings is approved.
F3
There is little enthusiasm for televising Board of Supervisors meet- ings. Perhaps this is, in part, because of concerns about public grandstanding and similar actions by individual board members.
F4
An estimate of $250,000 was prepared by a consultant to equip the Board’s meeting room for this service. Admittedly this is a “Cadillac” approach. The County is seeking a less costly alterna- tive solution. However, they are mindful of the Board’s desire, if not insistence, that the quality must be first rate to deter criticism.
F5
Regarding the issue of televising live vs video taping for delayed showing, it is felt that the latter approach is the most feasible one. Networking all cable services throughout the county, while techni- cally possible is difficult. Blocking the full Board’s meeting time on all services would be nearly impossible. In addition, since the Board meets during normal business hours, video taping would permit viewing the meetings at night for working people. 4
F6
It should be noted that this service is available only on cable and not via over the air transmission or via satellites.
F7
Staff was asked if radio coverage had been considered. The reply was that it was not thought to be a good idea because following such meetings is very difficult and there is not an equivalent public access radio service readily available.
F8
The staff presented this issue to the Board on September 22 to seek Board direction. The matter will be brought back at a later date. Conclusions The Public Works Department is doing a reasonable job of managing its franchises. Staff is very knowledgeable of Federal law require- ments and is also taking advantage of cities’ experience in the nego- tiations. It is not clear however, that all communities have legally required public access service. It is the Grand Jury’s opinion that the Board of Supervisors has not shown leadership in determining whether or not they should televise their meetings. This could change next month when they reconsider the issue at one of their meetings.

Recommendations 3