Keeping the Public
Out of Public
Access
Hawaiian Style
(Hawaii's Public Access Television Corporations Speak Out Against
Democracy--A
Case Study) - by Ed Coll
You'd think that access corporations, the folks that run
public access
television here in Hawaii would be fierce defenders of democracy. After
all, the intent of the 1984 Cable Rights Act was to provide individual
citizens access to electronic free speech. Public access television was
intended to be an electronic mainstreet where opinions and ideas on
which
a viable democracy is based flow freely. You'd think access
corporations
would be all for democracy, but you'd be mistaken. Hawaii's access
corporations;
'Olelo (Oahu), Akaku (Maui), Na Leo 'O Hawaii (Hawaii), and Ho'ike
(Kauai)
have all testified before the Senate Committee on Communications and
Public
Utilities in opposition to having their boards democratically elected
by
the cable subscribers who fund them.
![]()
Public Access Today
All the access corporations claim nonprofit 501 (c) 3 status yet these
organizations appear to be political subdivisions of the state with a
board
consisting of political and cable company appointees. The Governor
appoints
the director of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA).
The director of DCCA appoints a majority of the board members. The
remaining
board members are appointed by the cable companies. These access
corporations
have no membership. The access corporations are funded by assessing the
cable companies up to 5% of their annual gross revenues. All the cable
companies in Hawaii have passed the entire cost of funding public
access
onto the cable subscriber. So it is the cable subscriber who funds the
access corporations, but subscribers have no vote in electing the board
members who control the resources, policies, procedures, and spend the
cable subscriber's money. When (not if) the DCCA
decides to let the cable company off the hook for the pass through of
these
subscriber fees, all access center facilities, equipment and funds
shall
be turned over to the state, so in reality, the access centers are
owned
by the state. As witnessed by 'Olelo's (and possibly other center's) "Self
Sufficiency Plan", the board(s) decided that without state
supported
franchise fees they would have to "close its doors" six months after
the
funds were discontinued.
![]()
Don't Let that Sunshine In
With such hierarchical top down control by the State of Hawaii in the
appointment
of access corporation board members, one would think the State Sunshine
Law would allow for public oversight. According to a preliminary
opinion
by the State Office of Information Practices (OIP) the level of State
involvement
does not rise to the level of an "agency" nor do access corporations
perform
a governmental function, and finally they do not receive any financial
assistance from the State government. Conclusion, access corporations
are
not covered by State Sunshine Laws. Although the State assesses a
percentage
of the cable companies gross revenues which the cable companies pass
onto
the cable subscriber to fund the access corporations, none of that
money
passes through the State's general fund, and therefore is not
considered
"government financing". A clever way to circumvent Sunshine, legally
extract
money from cable subscribers, and deny them any meaningful
participation
in the process. Hawaii's access corporations are fond of referring to
themselves
as "the people's television", but open the doors and where are the
people?
Taxation without representation? The OIP opinion was requested by the
access
corporations Acacia (Maui) and Ho'ike (Kauai) when members of the
public
tried to use the Sunshine Law to obtain information about their
activities.
![]()
We Can't Control the Content but we Can Delay Your Access
If access corporations were sincerely interested in providing the
public
access to television, they could set up and turn on a camera,
microphone,
and video tape recorder and let people speak their mind. Perhaps not
the
most exciting and dynamic form of television, but it would provide the
basic access envisioned by the framers of the 1984 Cable Rights Act.
Instead
the eager public access producer is met with a barrage of intimidating
forms, and training programs that lasts weeks and even months in the
case
of 'Olelo (Oahu). After completing a highly subjective, non-performance
based, and poorly planned certification process the access producer
must
schedule production and post production equipment often months in
advance.
After the program is produced the access producer must schedule the
program
for cablecast which means more intimidating forms and more delay. It
could
easily take a year or longer for a beginning access producer to see
their
first program reach an audience.
These access corporation rules,
procedures, training,
forms, scheduling, and delays effectively discourage all but the most
dedicated
access producer, and in effect is a regime designed to disenfranchise
the
majority of the subscribers who fund the corporations. The result is
far
less than 1/100th of the eligible producers are being served by any
access
corporation in Hawaii, which seems to be by design so they can say "we
tried" and then more vigorously facilitate "already served", adequately
funded, nonprofit and state agencies.
![]()
Whereas and be it Further Resolved
The title of SR 65 and SCR 77 introduced by Senator Carol Fukunaga
chair
of the Communications & Public Utilities committee was called
"URGING
THE NON-PROFIT PUBLIC ACCESS CORPORATIONS TO ALLOW MORE PARTICIPATION
BY
THE CABLE SUBSCRIBERS WHO FUND THEM". Basically the resolution would
allow
cable subscribers to elect the board members by majority vote through a
ballot process at each corporation's annual meeting. Sounds like the
democratic
thing to do. Anyone have a problem with that? Yep. Guess Who?
Submitted testimony of:
-
Na Leo 'O Hawaii: "The board of Na Leo 'O Hawaii, Inc
does not support
Senate Concurrent Resolution 77."
-
Ho'ike: "Ho'ike: Kaua'i Community Television, Inc.
does not support
this resolution."
-
Akaku: "Akaku: Maui Community Television does not
support SCR 77."
-
'Olelo: "Speaking Against Senate Concurrent Resolution
77"
![]()
The Illusion of Participation
Why did every access corporation in the State of Hawaii stand united
against
what appears on its face to be a democratic process? Because access
corporation
boards are suffering under the illusion that they already provide for
public
participation.
Submitted testimony of:
-
Na Leo 'O Hawaii: "The public has ample opportunity to
make its
views known and considered by the board."
-
Ho'ike: "Our Board of Directors is currently appointed
through an
island wide nomination process."
-
Akaku: "Our current board was composed after a careful
evaluation
of criteria needed by the organization in order to serve the
public."
-
'Olelo: (In addition to open board meetings and open
forums) "Olelo
has also formed policy advisory committees, including the Educational
Policy
Advisory Committee, Community Policy Advisory Committee, and the
Government
Users Group."
Despite the self congratulatory back patting Hawaii's access
corporations
give themselves for being so open to public input, the irrefutable
facts
are this input is only "advisory" and the Director of DCCA and the
Cable
companies appoint the board based on board recommendations.
Surprisingly
there is a high incidence of current board members recommending
themselves
for future board appointment. Open meetings, advisory committees, and
island
wide nominations create an illusion of participation but the substance
of real decision making power is beyond the people and reserved for
those
who appoint the board.
![]()
Democracy Would Destroy Public Access
Not only do Hawaii's access corporations feel they are doing a fine job
in fostering public participation, they also feel a democratically
elected
board is a bad idea.
Submitted testimony of:
-
'Olelo: "Any move toward a membership organization
with general
elections for board members would be detrimental to the future of PEG
access.
A membership election process will create special interest
groups...".
-
Ho'ike: "Ho'ike supports the position taken by 'Olelo:
The Corporation
for Community Television's position on this resolution."
-
Na Leo 'O Hawaii: "Na Leo 'O Hawai'i Inc. supports the
position
of 'Olelo: The Corporation for Community Television. particularly as it
addresses the issue that agendas that special interest might have could
adversely effect the future of PEG access."
-
Akaku: "We are concerned that a membership driven
access organization
would risk 'stacking', or placement of Board members by the public for
self serving interests , which may not necessarily serve the best
interest
of the organization or the public."
Isn't democracy a messy affair? Give people the right to vote and the
next
thing you know they are forming "special interest groups" to further
their
own self interest. What access corporations see as a problem with
democracy
I view as its essence. Evidently the access corporations feel the
democratic
processes upon which our country is based would be detrimental to
public
access. It seems Hawaii's access corporations don't believe in
participatory
democracy. They don't even believe in representational democracy. They
don't believe in democracy period. The access corporations would
probably
consider it irresponsible to suggest that cable company and politically
appointed board members might have their own agenda and be serving
their
own special interest. I consider it the height of arrogance for access
corporations to assume that only they and not the public are capable of
rising above self interest, but in their Orwellian world view I guess
some
people are more equal than others and are entitled to have their hands
on the levers of power.
![]()
The High Cost and Low Participation of the Democratic Process
Submitted testimony of:
-
'Olelo: "We know of only two of over 1,000 access
centers in the
United States that have established a member driven election process by
cable subscribers: Montgomery Community Television in Maryland and
Access
Sacramento in California. Only one percent participation was
experienced
for both Montgomery, with a subscriber base of 190,000, and Access
Sacramento,
with a subscriber base of 225,000." "A single bulk-mail notification to
O'ahu cable subscribers would cost $17,000 in postage alone."
-
Ho'ike: "Of the two access centers that tried to adopt
a member-driven
election process, they experienced only a one (1) percent
participation."
"... help us avoid a costly and ineffective member-driven election
process."
-
Akaku: "I personally have had direct interaction with
a mainland
PEG access center that is membership driven. It has allegedly at times
been dangerously self-serving to certain board members."
Does it cost too much and is the turnout too small to give subscribers
the vote? Only two access corporations have a membership driven
election
process? I don't think so. Citizens Television, Inc. an access
corporation
in New Haven, Connecticut has a membership driven election process to
elect
board members. I guess `Olelo didn't look very hard for successful
examples.
Perhaps it's not in their best interest to do so. They certainly didn't
look at station KQED of San Francisco, California. KQED founded in 1954
is one of public television's flagship stations. In 1992 faced with
severe
budget cuts they adopted "... a subscriber elected board, which it felt
was central to KQED's approach to its fiscal crisis." Another flagship
public television station WQED in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania may follow
suit
if their members who formed "The QED Accountability Project" have
anything
to say about it.
Hawaii's access corporations attempt to portray the
membership-driven
election process as a failed experiment when in fact the public access
and public television stations who have membership elected boards are
leaders
in affording meaningful public participation. Even if only one percent
of Olelo's 250,000 subscribers did show up to vote at the annual board
meeting you'd need a pretty big room to hold 2500 people. Pardon my
analysis,
but 2500 voters seems more democratic that allowing the Director of
DCCA
and the cable companies to appoint the board.
`Olelo need not spend $17,000 in postage.
I've got a real money saving idea. Access corporations could use the
public
access channels they control to inform people about the annual meeting
and the big vote. They could even let potential board members use the
channel
to run for the board.
![]()
It's an Alice In Wonderland World
Hawaii's cable subscribers are slowly waking up to a real life
Orwellian
nightmare reminiscent of the novel "Fahrenheit 5 41" where the fire
department
went around setting fires instead of putting them out. Hawaii's access
corporations with a mandate to provide electronic free speech to the
public
are unified in their opposition to democratic processes. Forming a
cabal
led by the 4-million-dollar
plus
a year subscriber subsidized access corporation 'Olelo, Hawaii's access
corporations are vigorously united in support of the status quo.
Their real mandate? Could the mandate be to maintain
non-democratic,
authoritarian, politically appointed boards? Their testimony to the
Senate
Communications and Public Utilities Committee speaks volumes about why
public access corporations are denying the public access. It should be
obvious to the most casual observer that the more democratic public
access
television becomes the better it will serve the people that fund it.
(c) copyright 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, by Ed Coll
Permission granted to reproduce and distribute at will in original
form for non-profit purposes.
Uploading ....