`Olelo: The Corporation for Community Television
Minutes of the Board of Director's Meeting

Wednesday, April 26, 2000
`Olelo Classroom
1122 Mapunapuna Street
Honolulu, HI 96819

In attendance:

Staff:

II. Public Comment

Brian Lee commended the administration for having financial reports available for the public to review. He commented that access to information in advance allows for meaningful input, as opposed to some of the more general information available in the past. He went on to commend staff for getting new little cameras. He felt these would help people who had been reluctant to check out the big heavy cameras and tripods. Brian noted his concern about the focus group. Specifically, he asked why the focus was on non-profit groups and corporations, and why no viewer group was interviewed. He also shared his concern about determination regarding whose productions get facilitated. He commented that no one will argue about [working with] United Way or Boys Scouts, but wondered what would happen if the Hemlock Society or a client wants to get the same level of facilitation. He added the need to be careful that facilitation isn't discriminatory or provided in manner contrary to `Olelo's mission to give people equal opportunity.

Jeff Garland also shared his thanks for the hand outs. He added they made him feel a little bit more informed of the process. He asked if the mission statement included in the Strategic Plan was being proposed to replace the current statement. He went on to say the word "promote" in front of the lifelong learning through the creation, production and cablecasting of programs... is a concern of everybody. He added that there's been a lot of facilitated programming with no accounting of how much this programming has cost. He stated it would be nice to see the cost of these programs and that it'd be good to include clients in the productions. Jeff was concerned about the cost of the interactive media center. He felt the $500,000 budget was an arbitrary figure. He offered to suggest regarding the relocation of offices. He further stated it seems like a big waste of money. He suggested a pilot project first to see if it works.

Lillian Hong noted that the it takes a long time for the suggestion box to be cleared out, sometimes up to two months. She went on to say that she's very concerned about recent staff turnover. She's made inquiries about staff and has been told that these issues are confidential. She would like more information about staffing changes.

Jim Brewer introduced himself as an elected member of ASAC, and clarified that he was speaking as an `Olelo user and not on behalf of the committee. Jim submitted his comments/suggestions in writing. (See attached.)

Susan Doyle thanked the speakers as well as those who took the time to attend the meeting. She added that the board takes public comment seriously and feels its an important part of the process of doing the best job possible.

`Olelo's responses to questions not addressed during the board meeting are located on our web page.

III. Approval of December 7, 1999 Minutes

The board unanimously approved the minutes of the December 7, 1999 Board of Directors Meeting.

IV. Reports

President's Report:

1999 Year Review - Lurline McGregor circulated a written report and went on to go over some of the highlights. As part of the 1999 Year in Review, she pointed out that as of May 1999 use of fallow time was discontinued. Locally produced programming was up 10% over 1998; and repeat hours were down 18% for all channels. Last year there were 3,291 programs completed using our facilities, 449 producers that used Olelo's services, and 105 presenters who submitted 958 programs. By the end of the year the Post Plus service was up and operating. To date, we've cut 50 programs on it. Forty client producers have been trained on the equipment. She added that the goal is to expand use of the non-linear system. Over a hundred "coming up next" promos have been produced on the equipment. Lurline went on to announce that Olelo programming is once again being listed in MidWeek, and the Sunday T.V. supplement. As a result, `Olelo is no longer publishing its own T.V. guide, however we are keeping our web page updated.

Programming Update - Lurline commented that there was not further news regarding `Olelo having aired Final Exit other than what was written in her report.

Year 2000 Business Plan - Lurline reported that `Olelo is planning to provide video streaming programming starting this July. Initially, it will be tested as a demonstration project, which will allow us to develop policy and procedure for the service, including how many channels and which programs will be featured. Hopefully, by the end of the year, we'll be fully operational. She also reported the development of two new programs. Giving Aloha is done in our studio and features non-profit agencies. The last segment was done totally by volunteers, which was the intent of the program. More non-profits and celebrity hosts are showing interest in participating in the program. The second program is LiveLine, which we've asked an outside producer to develop and design as an advanced studio training program. A community advisory committee was created to provide direction on LiveLine topics. Instead of being just a debate format, LiveLine will attempt to come up with solutions for issues. LiveLine is a live program that will air one live on the last Sunday of every month.

Focus Group Results - Five groups were included in the focus group. Two were made up of educators, one was made up of corporate communications officers, one was comprised of non-profit representatives and the last was made up of infrequent `Olelo viewers. Overall, we found that many were not very aware of the channels. Participants commented on the need to have regularly scheduled programming in order to gain steady viewers. This is a challenge for community access, since the nature of access leads to irregular programming schedules. It's impossible to compete with broadcast standards or to structure ourselves to have weekly shows because we're volunteer run by community producers. We are addressing the public awareness issue through our Strategic Plan and through our promotions efforts we are trying to make people aware of both our services and channels. The focus groups reinforced to us that public awareness and programming schedules continue to be problems. Lurline also mentioned that she sent copies of the results from the two educational groups to HENC. The teacher surveys indicated a lack of awareness and use of the channels for educational purposes.

Hawaii Educational Network Consortium (HENC) Update - Lurline reported that HENC's annual reports were deficient in that they contained contradictory programming statistics and were not in compliance with the forms provided in the agreement. After HENC declined to change their report, Lurline sent them a copy of a five page draft letter requesting that they reconsider their position regarding corrections in their report. As a result, a meeting was called yesterday (4/25) with DCCA and HENC representatives. HENC agreed to correct their numbers, at the same time expressing reservations about the thoroughness of our review of their report. They indicated our review should not extend beyond accepting their reported programming hours. Lurline noted that if `Olelo's responsibility to the HENC agreement is to provide oversight, then we are at an impasse. She requested that the board appoint a committee to review the matter and present recommendations at our next board meeting.

Robert Mougeot asked if HENC understood our fiscal responsibility for the monies that we released to them. Lurline responded that she felt they should have such an understanding based on what's on the contents of the contract.

Susan Doyle asked for further discussion and for a motion to be made.

Rochelle moved that a board committee be created to explore options for the HENC relationship. The motion was seconded and the board unanimously agreed.

Susan Doyle acknowledged the difficulties associated with the situation and that much effort has been invested in finding a way to manage the educational component of PEG access. She added that there is a need to give careful consideration to how to best proceed.

Robert Mougeot asked for a review of how we've tried to resolve the issue.

Lurline reported that we've asked them to improve the quality of their reporting noting that the board has directed to make sure their reports are acceptable in terms of how they are using the money and making sure that the purposes are being fulfilled. At a board meeting last year, we agreed to wait and see if the January HENC report would correct the deficiencies previously cited. They were not. Lurline met with Marlon, to discuss the situation. Based on responses to date, they remain resistant to complying with our requests. She added that they feel we are trying to micro-manage them and that we should basically give them the funds and trust that they are doing what they are supposed to do.

Lurline added that she raised concerns about internal inconsistencies and a lack of substantive narrative content.

Rochelle Gregson commented that it might be a good idea to have a meeting that brings all the history and documents together. This would be useful in exploring the contract and expectations more closely.

Susan Doyle agreed and called the question whether we should convene a committee to review the HENC contract and relationship. All board members unanimously agreed.

Gary Honda suggested HENC should be notified that this contract is being reviewed by the programming committee.

Susan Doyle requested the committee report back to the board with its recommendation.

Education Center Proposal - Lurline continued her report by providing background on the concept of an interactive media center. Last year, staff began exploring media literacy and awareness ideas, especially targeting youth, as a means of building community. Angela Angel proposed the concept of the interactive learning environment at `Olelo, which prompted a staff visit to the Children's Discovery Center, which is designed for children to learn through interactive activities. As part of a staff retreat, the concept came up again. Staff said if they could build a media center from scratch, they would build a center where community members would walk in and immediately be surrounded by exhibits and information that would inform them about public access and show them how they could participate. After discussing the concept with Alan Tang, the project started to build momentum and take shape quickly. Lurline pointed out the request for full funding in this year's capital budget, recognizing that several steps must first be accomplished before final approval. The first step is for Alan to present the concept to the board. Pending final board approval public input will be sought via meetings and other venues to gather additional perspectives.

Alan Tang's Presentation - Alan introduced himself and described the project concept. He described the interactive media center as an education and learning center. The center will be for use by new and existing clients and will convey the philosophy of public access by informing the participants about `Olelo, the services and the facilities. The center will also create a better understanding of the power of television, and will work to remove the fear of producing a program by giving first-timers actual hands on experience in a safe environment.

The three primary groups who will benefit from this concept are existing clients, schools and community groups or non-profit organizations.

Current users will be able to advance their production skills through the center. They can also use the center as a volunteer recruiting tool. Schools can use this as a teaching opportunity to engage youth in television and production. It would also allow them to showcase educator or student achievements. Showcasing is possible because when they participate in the center's tour, they will actually produce a short 13- minute program which can air on `Olelo. Non-profit organizations will also learn about production and be able to make a short program highlighting their organization. Alan suggested that if `Olelo reached only three percent of all three audiences combined, the center would be busy every week of the year.

After first consulting with staff, Alan met with a media literacy instructor as well as experts in construction, promotions and architecture. As a result the center proposal includes the following:

- A tour will introduce production concepts.

- Participants will learn about `Olelo and the public access process.

- Participants will learn how to put together a television program.

- Participants will learn how to direct a production, conduct an interview and edit.

Some physical renovations are anticipated, although the current proposal was designed to require minimal construction. Three areas have been targeted for improvements, including the expansion of the main lobby/reception area to include a space to stage the tours, the Lokahi Room will be converted into a exhibition/screening hall, and the entrance of the building would be renovated to create a comfortable rest area for meals or breaks. Artist renderings were shown.

1. How large of a group can be accommodated?

1. How long will the tour take?

1. What impact will this center have on staff and what are the ongoing operating costs associated with the project?

1. How would this project impact the current usage of the center? Would it detract from the ability of current producers to do what they have to such as to direct and cut their program, etc?

1. For the cost of $500,000, scheduling just two tours a week doesn't make sense. Are we targeting 20 tours a week? At that point wouldn't there be operational impact?

1. If we got up to about 20 tours a week, there would be operational impact. One to two tours a week will generate quite a number of programs, and with that will come new viewers as well. At this point, it's hard to say whether we can generate 20 tours. We need further feedback, as we have not explored the top capacity of the service. Even five tours a week wouldn't significantly impact the regular operation, as long as we keep it one a day.

1. What other options were explored in getting people educated about public access television? For example, using existing media centers or outreach mobiles or some other approach? Was this the only option that was explored?

1. I was approached to develop this plan, and didn't explore the other possibilities.

1. More detail on the costs is required. The architect has done a good job in guiding us. We can definitely work within the $500,000 budget. We need to price things to make sure that we can stay within the budget. We need to do further explorations with the intended markets, the non-profit groups, the schools, and the clients to get feedback in order to shape the content of the tour more precisely to their needs. I think, initially we just want to assess whether this project will be welcome, whether we will be meeting any needs. Once we're beyond this stage, then we need to identify specifically what those needs are and how we can address that and we need to get more details to the process.

1. Theoretically, each tour should result in a 13 minute production piece?

1. If it catches on the way we hope, yes it would.

1. Does the design allow for self-guided tours as well as guided tours?

1. Yes. You can basically walk up to a display to find out more about and it. The only thing you'd miss is the formal welcome/presentation. We could also organize a tour made up of individuals who request one. Because the tour involves producing a program, which is hard to produce individually, you'll have to be a part of larger group to do that.

1. The facilities and or equipment is available for anybody to come in and use on the time between tours?

1. Yes.

1. Not really. The focus is to provide a formal/organized educational opportunity. We would encourage people from Kahuku and Waianae to come in and go through the tour and get an idea and then out in those areas to make use the satellite centers. Primarily, we're trying to generate interest, understanding and participation in public access.

Susan Doyle thanked Alan Tang for his presentation and for addressing the board's questions.

Marilyn Yoza confirmed that the board is to make a motion to move forward and pursue getting additional information by taking it out into community, and not making a motion to commit at this point.

Susan Doyle responded that staff is bringing the idea to the board. It's not been fully developed, but staff wants an indication whether the concept is an acceptable thing to commit further resources toward. I believe it's part of the budget that has been proposed in the packet. The board is being asked to approve moving this concept forward.

Rochelle Gregson moved to continue to pursue the conceptual development of the interactive media center for the main facility. Marilyn Yoza seconded the motion and the board unanimously approved the motion.

Strategic Planning Committee Report:

Joseph Lapilio confirmed that his committee is looking at updating the mission statement, as seen in the strategic planning framework. The plan is meant to be an evolving long term document. We expect a lot of changes to occur on this. The purpose of doing the strategic plan at the board level, is to point the ship in a direction and give staff some guidance. `Olelo's vision is stated and the strategy has been outlined. The outcomes that we develop in the strategic planning committee were based on public comment we heard at the Waianae center Board meeting as well as other comments that came in. We want to encourage services and programs about community, content that's of value and interest to the community, and individual support and volunteer participation in `Olelo activities. The plan also defines increased diversity of voices on `Olelo channels. We have some examples on how that can be measured, but the next step is really to take this to staff to start looking at how as an organization they want to identify particular indicators from these outcomes. A set of value statements or operating principles still need to be developed, which relates to Jim Brewer's earlier comments about defining the spirit and basic principles of public access. We also need to develop indicators and specific activities that match not only the mission and the vision but the operating principles. So, the next step, if this is approved, is to move it on to staff with some board participation.

Robert Mougeot asked for details on the process of putting the framework together.

Joseph Lapilio replied that it actually started at the Waianae Media Center Board meeting last November when we first put out the draft `Olelo strategy for comment. It was also posted on the web site and in the newsletter. Written and verbal comments were solicited. The Strategic Planning committee developed the draft framework over the past few months and has since spent time reviewing it and discussing it with staff to understand what the implications would be and what the next steps are. Susan was a great help in providing some of the materials that the YWCA uses in their strategic planning, including outcomes and indicators. Joseph thanked the committee for the great job they did putting this together.

Marilyn Yoza asked if the operating principles are separate from the strategic plan.

Rochelle Gregson responded that the issue Marilyn raised is one of two that still needs to be addressed--the concept and the delivery of that concept. The Mission-Vision points us in the direction that we want to go. The strategies move us toward our goal. So, we've got the plan but we don't have really the strategic process developed that helps turn this into a living document. The Strategic Planning Committee needs to talk about this and the development of operating principles.

Linda Colburn moved to accept the proposed strategic plan framework as presented with the understanding that it will continue to evolve, subject to the development of a strategic process. Gary Honda seconded, and the board unanimously accepted the motion.

Program Committee Report:

Gary Honda provided background on the Access Services Advisory Committee (ASAC) For two years the Program Committee has been working with ASAC to come to some substantial agreements on the structure of the committee itself. They now meet monthly instead of quarterly. Gary invited board members to attend if they were interested. Meetings are held the third Wednesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. The committee relies heavily on Julius Ah Sam and Steve Knox who have been members since the committee's inception, and who have provided background and continuity. The committee now sets agendas for their meetings which wasn't done earlier because the committee was focused on defining its role. Meeting minutes are now posted on the web. Staff regularly attends meetings to provide updates. The format of how the committee reports has been discussed. They are leaning toward developing a list of accomplishments, along with action items, current work, and projects that warrant discussing. An ASAC suggestion form is available for people to fill out.

Tape Grant Program - Last year, the board set aside $50,000 to be used to increase new productions. After lengthy discussion, the ASAC committee developed a proposal for a tape grant program and that one free tape be issued per month, per producer or presenter, when a premier production or a brand new show is turned in. (A 30-minute tape for a 30-minute show and one-hour tape and for one-hour or longer show.) ASAC feels that this will help to increase production. The program will run for three months or until a $25,000 limit is reached--whichever occurs first--to test the viability of this grant. ASAC will evaluate the program before further action is recommended. ASAC discussed awarding grants, but felt that this tape grant program would encourage completion of projects in progress.

The other item ASAC wanted to recommend to the board was to have public comment moved to the beginning of the board meeting so people can make their comments and leave if necessary.

Marilyn Yoza asked what criteria will be used to determine if the program is successful.

Gary Honda responded that it will be based on the number of people that take advantage of the program, including new and old producers that produce new shows. Staff will keep track of the use. At the end of three months we will know whether we have achieved our goal.

Robert Mougeot wanted to confirm that this program will increase productions.

Gary Honda responded affirmatively, although he noted that there is a lot more involved in finishing a program, including editing.

Robert Mougeot went on to inquire what the specific relation was between giving a person a tape and new production.

Gary Honda answered that the free tape should motivate people to produce a new program, since you can't get a tape by turning in an old or repeat program.

Susan Doyle expressed appreciation for the committee's efforts and asked for the question to be called of accepting the committee's recommendation to support a tape grant program and to move the public comment portion of the board meetings up to the beginning of the agenda.

Gary Honda made the motion. Rochelle Gregson seconded, and the board unanimously accepted the motion.

Finance Committee Report:

Dee Darby explained that the first motion relates to `Olelo's investment policies. Specifically, the purpose is to shorten the duration of investments. Our current policy limits investments to cash type items. The proposal is to establish shortened durations, but not at any loss of money. If we hold funds for the full length of time, it's okay because there aren't a lot of them. However, if we have the opportunity to sell them and not lose money, we should have the option to do that.

Robert Mougeot moved to accept the revised investment policy statement for First Hawaiian Bank. This was seconded by Marilyn Yoza, and the board unanimously accepted the motion.

Revised 2000 Operating Budget - Dee Darby continued by reporting that `Olelo received it's annual allocation of fees from Oceanic Cable in January. Last year, we based our year 2000 budget based on an estimation of what franchise fees would be and have revised the budget to reflect the actual fees. Dee referred board members to their packets which included budget details and noted some changes in payroll expenses to accommodate new positions of Volunteer Services Manager, Outreach Coordinator, and additional Media Resource Technicians. She also noted that the budget had been reviewed by the Finance Committee.

Dee Darby moved to accept the revised 2000 Operating Budget. It was seconded by Joseph Lapilio, and the board unanimously accepted the motion.

2000 Capital Budget - Dee Darby explained that the budget did include the provisional $500,000 discussed earlier for the for the Interactive Media Center. She added that it's understood that this is subject to a long list of steps and further Board approval.

Dee Darby moved to approve the year 2000 Capital Budget of $1,351,866 inclusive of the $500,000. This motion was seconded by Robert Mougeot, and the board unanimously approved the motion.

Nominating Committee Report:

Linda Colburn explained that the nominating committee was formed last December to identify candidates for nomination to DCCA, to fill the `Olelo Board vacancy for Robbie Alm. The committee (Gary Honda, Robbie Alm, and Linda) met in early January to identify desirable candidate characteristics to best complement the existing strengths of the board. The committee also looked at sector representation. The three candidates recommended by the committee are Joan Husted of the Hawaii State Teachers Association, Janis Reischman of the Hawaii Community Foundation, and retired Judge Patrick Yim. All three candidates have been contacted, and all have agreed to have their names sent forward. They understand that the DCCA will make the ultimate selection.

Robert Mougeot asked is we were filling more than one slot and commented on the high quality of the three candidates.

Susan Doyle confirmed that there is only one slot open at this time and she thanked Linda for her leadership.

Linda moved that the list of three candidates be forward to the DCCA for consideration. The motion was seconded and the board unanimously approved the motion.

Linda Colburn added that the committee received two self nominations and will send those applications to DCCA as well.

Slate of Officers - Linda Colburn also reported the slate of officers nominations for the year:

Chair, Susan Doyle

Vice Chair, Joseph Lapilio

Secretary, Linda Colburn

Treasurer, Dee Darby

Linda moved to accept the slate, it was seconded and the board unanimously approved the motion.

IV Old Business

No old business to report.

Susan Doyle adjourned the board meeting at 7:45 p.m.