|
Wiki Help NW-AR.COM |
CityQuarterbackCallsEndRunCityQuarterbackCallsEndRun; Fumbles Franchise; Flags Down; Officials Huddle If the City's franchise negotiations with Cox Cable were a Razorback game, we would be in triple overtime and the announcers would be looking for the referee's signals. (Sorry folks, we can't seem to kick the football metaphor. More details coming up at www.telecomwatch.us , when play resumes) Instant Replay: In last month's play from scrimmage(BoardMinutesSeptember30), the Telecom Board instructed City CAO Earnest to prepare a revised City Council resolution and Cox franchise agreement -- as they had conditionally amended and approved, However, the Council resolution and franchise agreement then prepared for the Council by Earnest in early October (SeeBootletResolutionandFranchise) omits those key amended items, raising flags downfield. Key unanswered questions were: Will the Telecom Board recommendations go to the Council? And who will send them and when? Have any separate agreements been made with Cox, outside the Franchise? By whom and when? In September, the Board voted 3-to-2 to approve an amended franchise agreement. However, back in August, they had been thrown for a loss and had rejected a similar agreement proposed by Earnest and the Cox representatives. (See MinutesAugust19TelecomBoard). In earlier play, the August version of the contract was "plagiarized" (Earnest's words at the June Board meeting) from the Ft.Smith franchise, rather than drawing from the City's playbook taken from 8 tedious years of franchise renewal negotiations. Surprisingly, the CAO presented only a a slightly revised agreement in September, which the Board approved conditionally -- but their amendments were supposed to be added before going to the Council. It's not clear whether the later fumble occurred in a City huddle or on the field, but the patchwork resolution now prepared for the Council simply dismisses the City's previous negotiations and disregards amendments recommended by the Board. The file sent to the City Attorney by Cox was prepared by Cox, according to the information on the file used. (See Properties on the drop-down menu of: CoxdocumentSentToCityAttorneyOctober04)(If you're into the football metaphor, it's the negotiation equivalent of a desperation "Hail Mary", bootleg, and double-reverse play. The community negotiators need a healthy Matt Jones.) Slow Motion Analysis: Telecomwatch made formal a FOIA request (FOIARequestEarnestOct7) to CAO Earnest on Oct. 7, but received only a jumble of papers in response. (If you have a fast modem, click on http://nw-ar.com/pmwiki/uploads/TelecomWatch/FOIAAmberOct19pdf6mb.pdf) to view the 6 mb of those unsorted and un-referenced materials that were scanned "as-is" from the CAO's office. We're still trying to read through the imaged mix of unsorted documents and incoherent email messages, along with un-indexed or omitted attachments, which cannot be searched electronically. We are awaiting more appropriate digital responses the week of October 25. Playbook Changes -- $40,000 Sleeper: The City also discovered in early October that the current (1989) City franchise (FranchiseFundsFound)has a stipulation for $40,000 to be reimbursed by the cable provider to cover costs of lawyers, consultants, and studies that are required for renewal negotiations. However, our FOIA request to the Accounting office indicates that none of these funds has beenused to pay for such services over the past 15 years, thus they remain available to the City. The City Attorney's office, which had not entered in the negotiation process since the CAO took over in 2001, is now reviewing the legal aspects of how these funds might still be used. (If the proposed bare-bones resolution is passed, however, it seems that the City would likely lose the $40,000, along with most of the contested franchise terms sought by the Telecom Board.) Telecomwatch August-September Alert: Of the major agreement provisions that remained on negotiation table in August, little was changed in the new revised September30Proposal or in the October "bootlegged" version, or in the version delivered after the October 28 Board meeting. (See earlier rejected proposed franchise agreement at July2004CoxFranchise.)' Attorney Mac Norton and CAO Earnest had reported a "laundry list still on table" at an earlier Telecom Board March meeting. However,the joint August 19 review by Telecom Board and Telecom Task Force versions apparently left most of their list still be on table. The items suggested for return to the table included: I-Net (Information Network),Terms of contract, Channel slam budget, Capital improvement funds Program listing, Percentage of digital capacity available to City,Tree and shrub trimming, Restoration of public ways, Extended terms, Transfer of franchise. Minutes of the August 19 meeting are at:MinutesAugust19TelecomBoard. (See "Standby Alert below, and EarlierNegotiations, for the current (1995) Franchise (CoxFranchiseAgreement1995), which was due for termination in 2000. You'll find additional information about the RedlinedRejection -- the earlier version rejected by Cox -- as well as a complete file (Attach:NeedsAndInterests1999.zip) of the original Needs And Interests study. Also, see Summer 2004 Updates below and if you're really a wonk on franchise services, take a look at RecentFranchiseRenewals, which outlines provisions of franchises in other cities. Watchmaster Footnote: The City's hired Attorney Mac Norton and CAO Hugh Earnest reported no further formal response to questions raised earlier by the Board and City in the City's January inquiry. However, Earnest had assured the Board that Cox would attend the April Board meeting, and that he expected "intense" negotiations with Cox in May and June. Norton carefully outlined the City's limited options in dealing with the cable company, and in response to Board questions, he indicated that Cox's "attitude" might be considered in weighing renewal of their franchise. Norton added that the Board might want to consider the "cumulative" effects of Cox's lack of responsiveness to the City's inquiries. Following extensive discussion, Board Member Nance was asked to explore the feasibility of other broadband options for exploration by the City, with a report back to the Board in April. BACKGROUND: Cox Cable dumped a 108-page report and curt letter back to the City in response to the City's NoticeOfConcern regarding Cox's recent rate and programming changes - a reply that was labeled "disappointing" and "uncooperative" by members of the Telecommunications Board at its Feb. 19 meeting. (See CoxNonResponse cover letter to CAO Hugh Earnest.) Watchmaster note: The Board had little time to review the unresponsive Cox cover letter and report, but requested that Attorney Mac Norton, who has extensive experience in telecommunications law and negotiations, be asked to attend the March Board meeting. The Board has suggested that Norton review the Cox documents and outline future steps that might be taken by the city as a follow-up to the City's NoticeOfConcern.
We don't pretend to know the legal ins and outs, but from the City's perspective, the practical purpose of an audit would be to get a glimpse of how Cox is doing business in Fayetteville and across NWA.... not just a challenge to the programming and rates. The NoticeOfConcern clearly spells out the major issues. Cox has 90 or so franchises in all of Arkansas, and in nearly every community and county in NWA. But Cox figures everything on a regional scale already, so Fayetteville data is buried in with the other subscribers in several counties. (Fayetteville’s subscribers, as well as in other communities --about 67,000 plus subscribers total -- are a demographic product to market, rather than individual communities to serve. See also RatesYoYoing, WhatIsYourMarchBill, and WhatisYourFebruaryBill?.) |