| Background |
ISSUE
#1: PEG Oversight |
ISSUE
#2: Governance - PEG Board Appointment Process |
ISSUE
#3: Cable Advisory Committee |
| ISSUE
#4: Funding - Financial Resources |
ISSUE
#5: PEG Channel Resource |
ISSUE
#6: Sustainability |
ISSUE
#7: Greater Community Participation |
| ISSUE
#8: Cooperation and Collaboration Among PEG Organizations |
ISSUE
#9: PEG By-laws |
ISSUE
#10: “Sunshine” law requirements under HRS Chapter 92F (Uniform
Information
Practices Act) and Chapter 92 (Public Agency Meetings and Records)
|
ISSUE
#11: Daily operational procedures – responsibility of each PEG |
| ISSUE
#12: Development of technical standards |
ISSUE
#13: Review of connectivity (PEG Network) currently provided by TWE |
ISSUE
#14: More Civic Affair Programming (CSPAN for Hawaii)
|
ISSUE
#15: Resolution of complaints concerning PEGs |
| ISSUE
#16: Role of PEGs : Production versus Facilitation |
ISSUE
#17: Independent Third Party Reviews |
Issue #18 Strengthen DCCA’s Contract Renewal
Process with the PEGs |
|
DCCA’s
Governance Plan
January
2004
Department
of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ (“DCCA”) Plan
For
Public, Education, and Government (“PEG”) Access
In exchange for the use of valuable public rights-of-way, cable
franchise holders are required to set aside channels for public,
education and government uses (“PEG”). Public access channels are often
the video equivalent of the speaker’s soap box or the electronic
parallel to the printed leaflet. They contribute to an informed
citizenry in many ways, whether through giving a voice to those who
might otherwise not have one, through bringing educational
opportunities to our homes, or by showing our local and state
governments at work.
In the spring of 2003, DCCA decided to reassess the State’s policies on
PEG access, and to create a plan to guide the future development of PEG
access television in Hawaii. To that end, the DCCA developed a
discussion document that identified 16 issues relating to PEG access,
and set forth possible policy options for many of those issues. The
public was invited to comment on the issues identified in the document,
as well as any other issues that they believed should be addressed. In
order to facilitate that process, public comment meetings were held in
Hilo, Kona, Honolulu, Kahului and Lihue.
The response received by the DCCA reflects a strong public interest in
cable access. 187 individuals and entities submitted written comments
in some form. A total of 224 people attended the public comment
meetings, and 100 spoke at the meetings. The public comment meetings
were videotaped, and the meetings in Kahului and Honolulu were
broadcast live over PEG access channels. Public comments are available
for review at DCCA’s offices. Additionally, the written comments are
posted on our website (www.hawaii.gov/dcca/catv).
The public testimony and comments show that PEG access is fulfilling
its mission of providing a forum for free expression for the people of
Hawaii. Across the State, citizens repeatedly told the DCCA about the
opportunities that PEG access had given them to reach their fellow
citizens.
At the same time, the public comment process identified many challenges
and areas for improvement. These included: (1) the fact that conditions
in each county are different, and an approach to PEG access that works
in one county may be unsuccessful in another, (2) the fact that there
are areas throughout the State, including both Oahu and the neighbor
islands, that are underserved by the current PEG access system, (3) a
need for a more participatory governance system for PEGs, both in the
process of selecting board members and in the rules governing how the
PEGs conduct business, (4) a need for DCCA to receive ongoing input
from the community on issues relating to PEG access, and (5) a need for
periodic, independent review of PEG operations.
On November 26, 2003, DCCA issued a Draft of the Plan, and gave the
public the opportunity to provide written comments. The DCCA received
approximately 20 comments regarding the Draft Plan by the requested due
date of 12-10-03. These comments can be viewed online at
www.hawaii.gov/dcca/catv. The DCCA then revised the Draft, and issued
the final version of the Plan.
A PEG access plan can address, but scarcely hope to solve, all of these
problems. Nor can it satisfy everyone. What it can do, however, is
establish processes and policies which will enable the interested
parties themselves to better address them. In other words, the plan is
just a starting point for an ongoing collaborative effort to improve
PEG access television in Hawaii.
Background
The regulation of the cable television (“tv”) industry is based
on federal laws that allow local regulation by a local franchising
authority (“LFA”). The DCCA was designated by the Legislature as the
LFA for the State of Hawaii.
PEG access was initiated through the collaboration of the DCCA, the
cable tv operators, and the four Counties. A PEG access organization
was established in each County as a private, non-profit 501(C)(3)
corporation to serve the unique requirements of that County. The
following are the PEG corporations:
Hawaii Na Leo ‘O Hawaii, Inc. (“Na Leo”)
Kauai Hoike - Kauai Community
Television, Inc. (“Hoike”)
Maui Akaku - Maui County Community
Television, Inc. (“Akaku”)
Oahu ‘Olelo - The Corporation for
Community Television (“’Olelo”)
Each of these access organizations is funded by fees which are
collected by the cable operator from its subscribers. Federal law
states that an LFA can assess up to 5% of the cable tv operator’s gross
revenues for purposes of these franchise fees. The recipients of these
fees include the four PEG access organizations, the DCCA and the Hawaii
Public Television Foundation (“HPTF”). The HPTF is better known to many
as KHET Public Television or PBS Hawaii.
The current distribution of franchise fees collected in each County is:
3%
To the PEG access organization for the specific County where fees are
collected
1%
To the
Hawaii Public Television
Foundation (
Public Television – PBS)
.64% To the DCCA to
support the administration of the program
Note: DCCA receives 1%
of standard service revenues, not gross revenues.
1% of standard service
revenues are approximately .64% of gross revenues.
In addition to operating funds collected from cable subscribers, the
cable operator also makes capital fund payments to the PEGs for the
purchase of items including equipment, furniture, and fixtures. These
payments are not a part of the franchise fee cap of 5%, and are not
directly assessed to subscribers on their invoices. The capital fund
payment amounts are the result of negotiations that involve the DCCA
and cable operator with input from the PEGs. At certain designated
dates within the franchise period, the PEGs are requested to work with
the cable operator to develop a capital payment plan that is then
submitted to the DCCA for consideration.
The PEG access organizations also receive channel capacity on the cable
tv operators’ systems. All four PEGs have been authorized the use of
five (5) channels. Additional channels can be requested by the PEGs,
with supporting documentation. These requests will be reviewed by the
DCCA which will then enter into discussions with the cable operator.
Based on the results of this review process, DCCA will then make a
decision on the request for additional channel(s). The review criteria
include items such as current use of channels in production, percentage
of first time versus re-run programming, channel utilization by local
producers, and other factors related to channel demand.
Note: On Oahu, ‘Olelo has entered into a contract with the Hawaii
Educational Network Consortium (“HENC”) to be its Education Program
Manager. HENC is a consortium comprised of representatives from
accredited educational institutions within Hawaii including public and
private lower and higher education schools such as the University of
Hawaii, Department of Education, and Hawaii Association of Independent
Schools. ‘Olelo allocates twenty-five percent (25%) of its revenues
from franchise fees to HENC to fund educational programs and services
that are primarily cablecast on two of ‘Olelo channels.
ISSUE #1:
PEG Oversight
Currently, the State of Hawaii through the DCCA regulates the cable
television industry in Hawaii. Among other things, DCCA performs basic
service tier rate regulation, reviews franchise applications / renewals
/ transfers, facilitates resolution of customer
service complaints, appoints members of PEG boards, negotiates
operating agreements with PEGs, and oversees the expansion and
functional improvements of the Institutional Network (“INET”). The DCCA
also participates in matters indirectly related to cable television,
suc h as advocating the interests of Hawaii consumers with regard to
Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”). The DBS industry is regulated on
the federal level by the FCC and is not regulated on the State or local
level.
It should be noted that Hawaii is one of a very few States that has
franchising authority at the State level. On the mainland, regulation
of the cable industry most often resides at the city, county, or
municipal level. In certain states, a cable operator may interface with
scores of LFAs.
A key threshold question is whether, and to what extent, the State
should be responsible for PEG access matters and cable tv regulation.
DCCA’s PEG Oversight Plan – At the
Option of Each County
There is a significant diversity between the Counties in the
needs, priorities, and challenges faced by their respective PEG
entities. Currently, DCCA is responsible for the oversight of all those
entities, and has entered into contracts with each of them.
Under the Plan, the State will provide each County with the option to
oversee PEG access in that County.
If the County accepts:
All matters relating to PEG oversight within the County will be
delegated to the county by the DCCA, including but not limited to the
determination of how to select board members of the PEG entity, and
what requirements to place on the PEG entity for
“sunshine” in its operations.
The current system of funding will remain in place, i.e., 3% of the
cable operator’s gross revenues collected in each County will be used
for PEG purposes in that County. These fees are currently paid by the
cable operator directly to the PEG organization in each County.
DCCA will provide the County with funding ($30,000.00/yr. ) to assist
in the administration and management of PEG access in that county.
These funds will come from the cable subscribers’ fees that are
currently collected to support the administration
of DCCA’s cable program.
The current contract between the DCCA and the County’s PEG access
organization will be voided once a new contract is executed between the
PEG access organization and the County, as well as between the County
and DCCA. Specific terms of the contracts between the County and DCCA,
as well as between the PEG access organization and the County, will be
negotiated by the parties. Issues such as the length of the contracts
will be addressed during those negotiations. The County will be
required to indemnify the State for any liability associated with the
County’s oversight of the PEG entity, and to require the PEG to
cooperate with periodic audits (see issue 17 below).
If the County declines:
DCCA will continue to oversee the operation of the PEG entity located
in that county.
ISSUE #2:
Governance - PEG Board Appointment Process
Currently, members of the PEG board of directors are appointed by the
Director of the DCCA and by the cable operator for each County. The
number of board members for each PEG entity differs, reflecting the
unique needs and wishes of each board.
County
|
PEG Entity |
DCCA Appointed |
Operator Appointed
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
Hawaii
|
Na Leo |
11
|
1
|
12 |
Honolulu
|
‘Olelo |
6
|
3
|
9 |
Kauai
|
Hoike |
7
|
2 |
9
|
Maui
|
Akaku |
14 |
1 |
15 |
The DCCA has acknowledged the autonomy and decision making authority of
each PEG board of directors, and accordingly has not involved itself in
the daily operational and financial management of the access
organization. Each PEG board is responsible for all financial and
operational management matters, including issues such as the uses of
financial and equipment resources, and the resolution of complaints
from its producers and interested persons. The DCCA and each PEG
organization have a contract currently in force that is automatically
renewed annually unless terminated or modified.
As board vacancies occur, each PEG access organization initiates a
nomination process that includes public notice of the vacancy, review
of applications received, selection of nominee, and presentation of
recommended nominee to the DCCA or cable operator for appointment to
the board. The DCCA and the cable operator have the discretion to
accept or reject the recommendation. DCCA and the cable operator also
have the authority to remove directors once they are appointed.
A recent opinion by the Office of Information Practices (“OIP”) stated
that the DCCA’s board appointment authority was a factor in OIP’s
opinion that PEGs were an agency for Uniform Information Practices Act
(“UIPA”) purposes. Some observers believe that this opinion has
jeopardized the private, non-profit status of PEG access organizations
and have argued vigorously for the board appointment process to be
amended by removing the DCCA’s appointment authority.
The issue of governance, specifically the appointment of board
directors, has been a much debated topic over the past few years. One
argument in favor of continued DCCA involvement concerns the funding of
the PEGs. Franchise fees are the result of Decisions and Orders issued
by the DCCA to the cable operator. The cable operator is ordered by the
DCCA to calculate, collect, and distribute funds from cable subscribers
for PEG purposes. The DCCA has historically believed that it needs to
exercise oversight of the expenditure of these funds. The current board
appointment process provides the DCCA with some amount of oversight,
both through the selection of directors and through the power of
removing directors. Proponents of change argue that the DCCA retains
adequate ove rsight through the annual reporting and contract renewal
process. They believe that the DCCA has adequate oversight by the fact
that the contract can be renegotiated or not renewed.
One issue that became apparent through the public comment proceedings
is that there is a significant sense of alienation on the part of some
users of PEG access. These users feel that they do not have a real
voice in the governance of the PEG entities. Their frustration is
reflected, among other things, in a number of complaints made against
the PEG entities.
It is the conclusion of DCCA that the present system provides a degree
of oversight and accountability which is appropriate and necessary.
However, the system should be modified to provide for a greater
diversity of views on the boards of the PEGs.
DCCA’s Governance Plan:
If the County accepts the opportunity to oversee the PEG entity,
then it shall be up to the County to determine the appropriate
selection process for board members in that County.
If a County declines the opportunity to oversee the PEG entity, then
the current system of PEG governance will remain in effect, with one
change. One of the positions on each PEG board that is currently
selected by the director of DCCA will be selected by an open election
run by each PEG entity.
Voters in these elections will be limited to: (1) anyone who is
currently certified as a producer at the PEG entity, (2) anyone who has
submitted a tape for broadcast by the PEG entity during the past 24
months, and (3) anyone who has completed a certification training
program offered by the PEG entity. Examples of such certification
training, using Olelo as an example, would include: Producer, Van,
Studio, Mini-Cam, Linear Editing, Field Lighting, Field Tech, Final Cut
Pro, I-Movie2, and Airpack.
Candidates for election to the PEG board must meet the same
qualifications as the voters. In addition, they cannot be a PEG
employee or an immediate family member of a PEG employee.
The election process will be conducted by the PEG organization. The
process shall be run in a manner that is fair, open, and impartial. In
order to ensure that those objectives are met, the PEG organizations
may wish to utilize the services of an independent organization such as
the League of Women Voters to assist in the election process.
Currently, there are positions on each of the PEG entity boards which
will need to be filled on June 30, 2004, and which are scheduled to be
selected by the Director of DCCA. Under DCCA’s plan, the first of those
positions on each board will be selected using this election process.
The PEGs shall be required to amend their bylaws subject to approval of
DCCA to establish the election process prior to that time.
ISSUE #3:
Cable Advisory Committee
The Cable Advisory Committee (“CAC”) was intended to advise the
Director and cable operators, upon request, on cable television related
matters. This committee was established by statute, but has not been
active since 1990. It appears that the prior Administration believed
that the CAC had been established to provide guidance during the
formative years of cable regulation, and that it had outlived that role.
Under current law, the committee is comprised of five (5) members who
are appointed by the Governor and serve without pay but are entitled to
reimbursement of necessary expenses. The committee last met before
1990, and the last member’s term expired in 1996. No replacement
members have been named since then.
There is a need for DCCA to receive ongoing input from the community on
cable matters generally, and specifically on issues relating to PEG
access. Accordingly, the DCCA will recommend to the Governor that she
appoint new members to the committee. Current law does not specify
residency or other requirements for membership. However, the DCCA will
recommend to the Governor that representatives from each of the four
Counties be appointed, along with an at- large appointment. The DCCA
will further recommend that the Governor seek input from the mayor of
each County regarding
possible appointees from that County.
ISSUE #4:
Funding - Financial Resources
Franchise fee assessments are consistent statewide, except for an
agreed upon limitation that is in place for ‘Olelo on Oahu. ‘Olelo is
subject to a $3.7M cap that may increase annually based on the Consumer
Price Index (“CPI”). This calculated cap amount is compared against the
actual 3% calculation, and the lower amount is remitted to ‘Olelo. As
stated previously, the distribution of franchise fees collected are as
follows:
1) 3% of gross revenues to the PEG
access organization for the specific County where
fees are collected;
2) 1% of gross revenues to the Hawaii Public Television Foundation
(Public Television –
PBS); and
3) 1% of standard service revenues to the DCCA
Note: This is equal to approximately 0.64% of
gross revenues
Due to the differences in population as well as differences in cable
services purchased by subscribers, franchise fees vary widely among the
four Counties. Under current DCCA policy, the fees collected in each
County remain in that County. The fees collected for each PEG access
organization in 2002 were:
Hawaii $547,243.00
Kauai
$270,569.00
Maui
$608,510.00
Oahu
$3,387,288.00
Franchise fees for PEG access collected in a particular County
currently remain there for the benefit of its residents. There has been
much debate regarding the issue of redistribution of franchise fees
regardless of their source. Many members of the public
support the current system, under which fees remain in the County in
which they are collected. Others suggest that there should be some
mechanism to redistribute franchise fees so that neighbor islands
receive a larger percentage of the statewide total. They suggest that
absent such redistribution, some areas of the neighbor islands are not
able to receive even a minimal “baseline” of PEG access services.
In any event, it is clear that there are a number of areas which are
underserved by the current system. These include islands such as
Molokai and Lanai, rural areas on the neighbor islands such as Hana,
and portions of Oahu such as the windward side. It is also clear that
some of the recent successes in PEG access have occurred when PEG
access services are brought into communities where there is a strong
need and support for them, such as Waianae and Palolo on Oahu.
In order to support additional funding for these services without
increasing the amounts assessed to cable subscribers, DCCA will
reallocate funds that are currently being collected to support its
administration of cable regulation in Hawaii. In the past, up to
$500,000/yr. of those funds have been appropriated to support the INET.
Since the INET is largely deployed, expenditures at that level are
unlikely to be needed in the future. Accordingly, DCCA will seek to
reallocate a portion of the amount currently collected to support cable
administration, and make these additional funds available for PEG
purposes as described in the process below. The result will be an
increase in funds available for PEG purposes, without an increase in
cable subscribers’ overall bills.
DCCA’s
Funding Plan : Additional funding to support cable access in
underserved areas
DCCA will implement a three (3) year pilot program that will provide
additional funding to meet the cable access needs of currently
underserved areas. Such funding could be used to support additional
access centers or for other programs which will enhance services in
those areas.
Criteria for the program will be developed by DCCA in consultation with
the cable advisory committee. It is anticipated that the cable advisory
committee will also assist in reviewing applications and making funding
recommendations to the Director of DCCA. Additional funding will be
available to only the four (4) PEG access organizations.
ISSUE #5:
PEG Channel Resource
Currently, all PEGs have access to five (5) channels on the cable
operator’s cable systems in each County.
The availability of consistent channel capacity has allowed statewide
cablecasting capabilities for the State Legislature, University of
Hawaii, and the Department of Education. By designating 2 channels for
“E” purposes, both the UH and DOE are now
able to develop and implement instructional curriculum that can be
utilized by campuses on all islands. They are also able to take
advantage of teaching resources residing on a particular island to
reach students statewide. This results in leveraging not only
personnel resources for statewide benefit, but also consistency in
curriculum. For example, a calculus instructor on Maui will be able to
reach students on all islands, increasing quality of curriculum. On
Oahu, ‘Olelo has reached an agreement with the
Hawaii Educational Networking Consortium (“HENC”) to manage and program
‘Olelo’s two (2) “E” channels dedicated to the UH and DOE. HENC is
composed of members representing the UH, DOE, East West Center (“EWC”),
and the Hawaii Association of Independent Schools (“HAIS”).
A significant milestone was reached in August 2003, when all PEG access
organizations, the UH, and DOE reached an agreement to implement
consistent channel numbering for “E” channels statewide. UH programming
can be viewed on channel 55 statewide, while DOE programming can be
viewed on channel 56 statewide.
Statewide broadcast capability from the State Legislature has recently
been improved by having broadcast feeds sent directly to the UH for
statewide carriage on UH’s HITS microwave network. This will result in
more efficient transmission of live legislative
broadcasts to the neighbor islands. In addition to broadcasts from the
State Legislature, each PEG access organization has the resources to
implement live broadcasts from their respective City/County councils
and executive branch. At this time, not all PEGs have elected to
implement live County government broadcasts.
PEGs can request additional channel capacity beyond the current
allocation of five (5) channels. Requests for additional channel(s)
must be accompanied with documented justification including, but not
limited to, the following information: statistical data illustrating
the use of existing channels, types of programming being cablecast on
each channel, statistics on channel programming that is first run
versus re-run, percentage of first run programming versus re-run
programming, and percentage of time used for “bulletin board”.
ISSUE #6:
Sustainability
The issue of sustainability can be summarized by this question: “What
would happen to each PEG organization if funding from franchise fees
suddenly decreased significantly or disappeared completely?”
The question was first posed by the DCCA a few years ago as a
discussion mechanism. The major item that prompted DCCA’s request for
plans of self sufficiency was the evolution of technologies that
compete with cable tv. At first, wireless cable companies were the
primary competition but lacked the market share to significantly impact
the cable operators. Currently, there is a technology that may present
true competition to cable tv, without cable’s regulatory requirements:
DBS. The DBS industry is currently represented by two major vendors,
DirecTV and Echostar (Dish Network). If these service providers
continue to gain market share, at the expense of cable tv companies,
revenues to all beneficiaries of franchise fees will decrease. In
addition to competitive technologies, there is also the potential of an
evolving cable tv industry. If cable tv companies provided their
services through the use of new or innovative technologies, such as
Wireless Fidelity (“WI-FI”), would they still be held to requirements
such as franchise fees? The development of new delivery systems and
technologies will be a significant consideration in future regulatory
policy.
The second item that affects sustainability relates to regulatory
issues facing telecommunications / entertainment companies and the
services they provide. For example, the FCC has recently determined
that cable modem service (e.g. Oceanic’s Roadrunner) is an information
service, not a cable service. Many jurisdictions, including the State,
have questioned this opinion, which currently is being reviewed by the
FCC and also being litigated in federal court. The cable modem issue
illustrates the
uncertainty in this area, i.e., that services currently assessed with
franchise fees may not be assessed in the future. This uncertainty
relating to designation of type of service and the applicability of
franchise fees also holds true for services being developed and not yet
deployed. There is no certainty in how the FCC will identify a new
service, whether as an information service or a cable service.
Again, the DCCA initially posed this question to the PEGs as a
discussion mechanism on the effects that evolving technologies and
regulatory issues may have on their revenues. Although the DCCA has not
required any specific actions on the part of the PEGs regarding this
matter, a plan was requested from each PEG that included actions that
would be initiated in case revenues from cable operators were severely
restricted. DCCA encourages the PEGs to identify and pursue additional
funding from other sources, such as through grants that are consistent
with the overall PEG mission.
If a County takes over responsibility for PEG access, then it will be
up to the County to determine its policy on this issue.
ISSUE #7:
Greater Community Participation
One of the primary goals of all PEG access organizations today is the
extension of their services to all areas of their communities. This
involves addressing the issue of physical access to the existing PEG
facility i.e., how to provide services to residents who may not have
easy access to resources either because of geography or other factors.
The DCCA gives each PEG access organization discretion to select
appropriate means to attain these goals. The following are services
currently being provided by some or all of the PEGs:
Remote Access
Centers: Currently, some of the PEGs are considering or have
implemented remote facilities to address the concern of accessibility
to PEG resources. For example on Oahu, ‘Olelo has implemented remote
sites in Kahuku, Waianae, and Palolo. Although these are not fully
equivalent to ‘Olelo’s main facility in Honolulu, they do provide
easier access to PEG services for residents.
Mobile Facilities:
Equipping a mobile van with production capabilities is also being
considered to address the needs of more remote geographic areas. This
option provides tremendous opportunities for greater outreach.
Alternate Sites:
It has been suggested that the PEGs explore working relationships with
existing institutions that could extend the reach of their services.
This could include collocating with an existing non-profit corporation
whose operations could be
complimentary. By creating such alliances, the public will gain added
access to PEG services while the PEGs will benefit by incurring lower
outreach costs due to collocation agreements.
Facilitated
Production: PEGs currently provide the public with the option of
creating programming without becoming a certified producer. Such easy
access services include staff supported “open mic” sessions as well as
volunteer supported facilitated productions. These types of assisted
services greatly expand and enhance the impact of PEG resources
to their communities.
Equipment and
Staffing: Regardless of the alternatives implemented, whether
remote, mobile or collocated, the effectiveness of these options will
be determined by the ir ability to deliver acceptable service levels to
the end-user. Certain minimum equipment requirements have to be
addressed including cameras, editing equipment and consistent
programming formats, such as DVD, etc. More important to the success of
this outreach initiative is the support provided by the PEG access
organization that would accompany these possible alternatives. It is
critical to the success of this effort that client/user support is
readily available to assist wherever these alternatives are implemented.
The DCCA supports and encourages the outreach and extension of services
undertaken by the PEGs, and will continue to do so in the future.
If a County takes over responsibility for PEG access, then it will be
up to the County to determine its policy on this issue.
ISSUE #8:
Cooperation and Collaboration Among PEG Organizations
The DCCA strongly encourages the PEG entities to collaborate and
cooperate in order to maximize the resources available to each. By
working cooperatively, the PEGs will hopefully reduce redundant,
resource consuming activities. Resources can be leveraged and
efficiencies maximized in this type of environment. The following are
areas the DCCA believes resources may be leveraged:
Equipment Resources:
PEGs should implement a policy of notification when equipment is
planned to be retired. This will provide the opportunity for another
PEG to request the equipment instead of it being discarded or donated.
A documented process needs to be implemented in order for there to be
mutual agreement and understanding on the operational logistics. This
will ensure an open and fair process. In addition to retired equipment,
cooperative purchasing and sharing of equipment is encouraged. This may
reduce overall costs for unique pieces of equipment that may be more
practically purchased by all four PEGs with an understanding regarding
their shared use.
Personnel Resources:
The DCCA encourages PEGs to share technical / support resources. This
may simply be regularly scheduled “roundtables” where staff from each
PEG meets to share ideas, experiences, etc. Or it can be structured
instructional sessions where a trained resource presents information on
a certain topic. These sessions will not only increase the expertise
available in each PEG access center, but it will also further enhance
the sense of community among the PEGs themselves.
Programming
Resources: The DCCA supports the current agreement between the
PEGs to share programming developed in their respective communities
when it is appropriate. As issues of common interest develop, the
exchange of viewpoints between the islands becomes more appropriate and
relevant. The use and leveraging of common technologies is encouraged
to expedite this exchange of viewpoints and ideas.
ISSUE #9:
PEG By-laws
Although the by- laws of the PEG organizations are similar in nature
and content, there are some differences which reflect the unique
requirements and needs of each access entity. For example, the number
of board members varies due to the requirements of each board. Certain
boards prefer a greater number of members, and have increased their
board size, while others have retained the same number since the
original formation of the organization. The DCCA is sensitive to the
unique requirements of each PEG access organization and will work with
them to address their specific requirements, while still
maintaining an appropriate level of consistency.
The DCCA expects each PEG access organization to comply with their by-
laws to remove the potential for complaints and inconsistent
operations. Specifically, the DCCA is concerned with the process by
which its board meetings are conducted and strongly encourages the
adoption and implementation of procedural rules, such as Roberts Rules
of Order. Adoption and adherence to such rules will facilitate more
productive, fair, and efficient meetings.
If a County exercises the option to oversee the PEG entity, then it
will be up to the County to determine the administration and management
of the PEG bylaw process.
If the County declines that option, then DCCA will continue its current
policy of attempting to accommodate the unique requirements of each
entity, while maintaining a degree of uniformity among the four
entities. The DCCA will monitor each PEG access organization’s
management of and adherence to its by- laws. The PEG’s management of
and adherence to its by- laws will be considered during the annual
contract renewal process for each PEG organization.
ISSUE #10:
“Sunshine” law requirements under HRS Chapter 92F (Uniform
Information
Practices Act) and Chapter 92 (Public Agency Meetings and Records)
All PEGs have stated that they comply with HRS chapter 92F, the UIPA.
The Office of Information Practices (“OIP”) determined in an opinion
dated September 6, 2002 that Hoike and ‘Olelo are subject to and must
abide by the UIPA. In a letter dated April 30, 2003, the OIP also
determined that Na Leo ‘O Hawaii is also subject to and must abide by
the UIPA.
The PEGs vary in their approach to the issues addressed by HRS chapter
92 regarding Public Agency Meetings and Records. For example, some PEGs
have adopted policies regarding the procedure for conducting public
meetings which appear to be more restrictive than the requirements of
HRS chapter 92. Some community members and users of PEG access services
have expressed concern about what they perceive as a lack of openness
at the PEGs.
The DCCA understands that compliance with HRS chapters 92F and 92 can
pose a financial and staff burden on the PEGs. However, DCCA believes
that openness and accountability
are crucial. Accordingly, for those
PEG entities that remain under DCCA’s oversight, DCCA will require that
they adopt bylaws and policies which comply with the requirements of
HRS chapters 92F and 92. The DCCA will monitor each PEG access
organization’s compliance with those requirements. The PEG
organization’s compliance with those requirements will be considered
during the annual contract renewal process for each PEG organization.
For those PEG entities in counties that elect to oversee the PEG
function, it will be up to the County to determine the policy on these
issues that it deems appropriate.
ISSUE #11:
Daily operational procedures – responsibility of each PEG
Although the DCCA recognizes the unique needs of all four PEG access
organizations, it strongly encourages the implementation of written
operational guidelines that address certain significant issues. The
existence of written guidelines on these issues helps
facilitate transparency and consistent application of the policies of
each PEG. For example, the daily operational procedures for all PEGs
should include reasonable hours of operation. Other issues that should
be addressed in written policies include:
- Frequency of scheduling for first
time programming vs re-runs;
- Sign-out and use of equipment;
- Content disclaimer; and
- Rules governing political or campaign programming.
ISSUE #12:
Development of technical standards
The DCCA encourages PEGs to work cooperatively to develop consistent
technical standards. These could include a common tape playback format,
producer certification requirements, and equipment use certification.
The creation of such technical standards will result in the following
benefits:
- Similarly trained staff;
- Cross support between organizations ;
- Additional resources during disasters and emergencies; and
- Potential purchasing benefits such as volume procurement.
ISSUE #13:
Review of connectivity (PEG Network) currently provided by TWE
The DCCA is currently working with Oceanic Time Warner Cable to review
the interconnections that make up the PEG Network in all Counties. The
PEG Network is the means by which all PEG programming is sent to and
received by the cable operator’s headend facility in each County. Once
the PEG programming is received at the cable operator’s facility, it is
then inserted into the channel program lineup and distributed to
subscribers along with other programming.
The following interconnections comprise the PEG Network:
- PEG
access organization to the cable operator’s headend facility;
- UH and DOE to PEG organization, or
directly to cable operator’s headend facility; and
- County government to PEG
organization, or directly to cable operator’s headend facility.
In most of the counties, the programming from the UH, DOE and
government are consolidated at the PEG facility then sent on to the
cable operator’s facility. Although this has been historically done,
the DCCA will consider other options acknowledging that there may be
costs that would need to be addressed by the requesting entities.
ISSUE #14:
More Civic Affair Programming (CSPAN for Hawaii)
Some members of the community have identified a need for more civic
affairs programming including State and County legislative, executive
and judicial proceedings, as well as community based activities such as
neighborhood board meetings.
The goal is to provide statewide distribution of civic / public affairs
television programming as a means to encourage democratic participation
and public interest through cablecasting. This endeavor will require
the commitment and cooperation of many organizations including
coordination of their resources.
There are many alternative approaches to accomplish these objectives,
such as the expansion and enhancement of “G” programming currently
provided by each of the four PEG access organizations. Another option
which has been suggested is the creation of a separate, independent
non-profit entity which would produce and distribute public affairs
programming in Hawaii, similar to what CSPAN does on a national level.
This non-profit would be responsible for managing the creation and
distribution of public affairs programming on a statewide basis.
The idea of a CSPAN for Hawaii has potential, but many significant
issues need to be addressed. These include funding, the provision of
channel capacity, and the extent to which such an entity would
duplicate services that are (or could be) provided by the PEG access
organizations. Before the CSPAN idea can move forward, there must be a
dialog on these issues between the affected parties, including
proponents of the CSPAN idea, the cable operator, government agencies,
and the PEG entities.
ISSUE #15:
Resolution of complaints concerning PEGs
The DCCA recognizes the private, non-profit status of the PEG
organizations, and accordingly relies on the PEG’s board of directors,
officers and employees to be responsible for overall client
satisfaction, including the satisfactory resolution of complaints
received regarding its operations and management.
However, situations have arisen where the DCCA’s involvement is
required to assist in the resolution of inquiries and complaints
received from PEG producers or other constituents. In these instances,
the DCCA will attempt to facilitate a reasonable solution
/ compromise that address the concerns raised while also respecting the
policy and decision making of the PEG’s board of directors. To
accomplish this objective, DCCA will relay complaints to the PEGs and
request a copy of the responses to those complaints to determine
whether additional follow up is needed. The appropriate resolution of
complaints by the PEGs is a factor taken into account by the DCCA in
evaluating the performance of each PEG.
If a County declines the option to oversee the PEG function, DCCA will
continue with its current policies regarding resolution of complaints
concerning PEG access organizations. The DCCA will monitor each PEG
access organization’s responsiveness to complaints. The PEG
organization’s responsiveness to complaints will be considered during
the annual contract renewal process for each PEG organization.
If a County exercises the option, then it will be up to the County to
determine its policy on this issue.
ISSUE #16:
Role of PEGs : Production versus Facilitation
As the needs of their clients have evolved, PEG access organizations
have reviewed and assessed how they can continue to serve their unique
communities. In addition to their mission of training, developing
production skills, and providing a forum for exchange of ideas, PEG
access organizations have also been involved in activities that some
have deemed non-traditional. Examples include: (1) responding to local
government RFPs for video and captioning services which results in
competition with private organizations, and (2) the development of
programming utilizing the organization’s resources, which could result
in decreased availability of equipment or other resources (such as air
time) to the public users of these access facilities. The development
of such programming is sometimes referred to as “community building”.
The DCCA has given the PEGs discretion to determine whether, and to
what extent, they should engage in such activities. The DCCA will
continue to allow the PEGs discretion in this area.
If a County accepts oversight of the PEG, it will be up to that County
to determine the appropriate policy for its PEG organization.
ISSUE #17:
Independent Third Party Reviews
Each PEG entity is required to submit annual reports to DCCA including
financial statements, operational plan and budget, equipment inventory,
and a year–end activity report.
However, some members of the public have suggested that the PEGs should
periodically be subjected to the more detailed evaluation that an
independent third party review would provide. DCCA agrees with this
suggestion, and will implement a program to provide for the PEGs to be
reviewed periodically by an independent third party. Such a review
could include issues such as whether the PEGs are complying with the
terms of their contracts with DCCA (or the County) and that the funds
they receive are used for their intended purposes. DCCA expects that
one PEG would be reviewed each year, so that each PEG
would be reviewed every four years.
Even if a county exercises the option to oversee the PEG entity, DCCA
would retain the right to have reviews performed on that PEG. Reviews
will be initially conducted for all PEG organizations. Scheduling of
future reviews and the frequency of such reviews will be determined
upon completion of initial reviews of all the PEGs. The selection of
the independent third party will be made by the DCCA, not the PEG
organizations. DCCA believes that the state must retain the ability to
require such reviews in order to ensure that cable subscribers’ monies
are being used appropriately.
Issue #18
Strengthen DCCA’s Contract Renewal Process with the PEGs
DCCA will require each PEG organization to provide additional
information about programming, training, and complaint resolution in
their annual reports. In addition, the contract renewal dates for all
PEG organizations will be modified to occur after their annual reports
are due. This will provide DCCA with additional information to use in
reviewing the PEG organization’s performance.