The Future of AccesSF and the Community Television Corporation

While community access must be defended and saved the top down autocratic management of SFCTC has to go. CEO and his supporters have alienated many many producers and programmers and have harmed community access in San Francisco. There needs to be an elected board of directors of the non-profit instead of handpicked people controlled by Blaney.
Even the City of San Francisco has seen that there needs to be a management change before real support can be built for community access in San Francisco.
CEO Blaney and his staff have also refused to circulate the city report on their lists and to all CTC producers. They want to control the information about the real reasons SF CTC is in crisis.


http://web1.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/dtis/PublicAccessTV/PublicAccessRFIReport.pdf

Summary of Public Access Channel Request for Information/Comments


Introduction

The City and County of San Francisco, California (“City”) oversees the operation of two
public access cable channels, known as “Access SF.” Access SF channels appear
throughout San Francisco on Comcast and Astound Broadband cable television
services, and on AT&T’s U-verse video service.1 Since 1999, these channels have been
operated by San Francisco Community Television Corporation (“SFCTC”) under a Grant
Agreement with the City.

The Access SF channels face at least two major challenges over the next 12 months.
First, the current channel Grant Agreement will terminate on June 30, 2009. Second,
the channels face the loss of operating funding under new state video franchise laws.

Between June 26 and August 12, 2008, the City’s Department of Technology (“DT”)
conducted a comprehensive information gathering process to develop proposed
recommendations to address these challenges. DT completed the following tasks:

• Reviewed the history of Access SF performance metrics to determine
compliance with the grant agreement and identify trends;
• Issued a Request for Information/Comments (“RFI/C”) and distributed it to the
Access SF community, local nonprofit and commercial video/film industry
leaders, educational institutions and other interested parties;
• Conducted an online survey with current and former public access viewers,
producers and training workshop attendees;
• Conducted public meetings on July 14 and August 12, 2008 to solicit comments
from Access SF Producers and the public.

DT has posted this report, as well as all responses to the RFI/C and Online Survey on
the web at http://sfgov.org/publicaccesstv/

Part One of this Report provides a summary of the results of a review of SFCTC’s
compliance with the provisions of its Grant Agreement with the City. Part Two provides
a summary of the online Producer Survey. Attachment I includes letters from Access SF
Producers with concerns about channel policies and operations. Attachment II includes
the formal responses of SFCTC and others to the RFI/C. Attachment III provides a
summary of the comments made during the two public meetings. Attachment IV
includes a “case study” of the Denver, Colorado public access facility, Denver Open
Media, which has developed a successful model to respond to problems similar to those
of San Francisco.

DT’s proposed recommendations will be released under separate cover.


1
Public access channels differ from “public broadcasting” or PBS channels. PBS channels
operate under a non-commercial broadcasting license issued by the Federal Communications
Commission, and are available to viewers as an over-the-air channel, as well as on cable and
most DBS satellite services. Public access channels are available only on cable services.
2
Part One: SFCTC Compliance with Grant Requirements

Since 1999, San Francisco Community Television Corporation (“SFCTC”) has operated
the public access channels under a Grant Agreement (“Grant”) with the City. The Grant
establishes various terms and conditions required to be met by both parties, as well as a
“Grant Plan,” setting minimum operating requirements for administration, outreach,
training, production/facilities/equipment services and programming/playback.

The Grant Plan provides two variations of the scope of services requirements, one for
operating with an annual budget of $678,000, and the second for annual budgets
between $678,000 and $811,000. While SFCTC received funding in excess of $678,000
for a portion of the grant period, the City limits review at this time to these less stringent
benchmarks established for the lesser budget. In addition, the City has limited its review
to the most recent five years of the Grant (2002-2007).

As a preliminary matter, SFCTC deserves acknowledgement for achieving a number of
significant milestones during the Grant term:

• Managed the construction of a $1.7 million public access television production
facility, completed in 2002;
• In partnership with the League of Women Voters of San Francisco, provides
quality, non-partisan media coverage in advance of each local election since
2003;
• Launched an individual membership program in 2003;
• Expanded to oversee a second public access channel in 2007;
• Developed a nonprofit outreach and membership program in 2006;
• Provided production services to nonprofit groups and government agencies to
publicize numerous public interest issues;
• Recognized with numerous awards, including a WAVE award for the in-house
talk show, The San Franciscans.

SFCTC has met or exceeded many of the requirements established in the Grant and the
Grant Plan, with several notable exceptions, described below.

Public Access to Meetings. Section 13.4 of the Grant Agreement provides that SFCTC
shall hold open board meetings in the manner set forth in Sections 12L.4 and 12L.5 of
the City’s Administrative Code. Chapter 12L.4(1) provides, among other things, that
SFCTC must designate and hold at least two meetings each year that are open to all
members of the public, and that during at least one designated pubic meeting the pubic
shall have an opportunity to address the Board of Directors on membership on the board
and to propose candidates for membership on the board.

However, SFCTC’s Board meetings are not entirely open to the public because they are
held in the AccesSF facilities, and certain individuals have been suspended due to
violation of AccesSF rules and are prohibited from entering these facilities. Chapter 12L
contains no exceptions or limitations for individuals who are suspended or otherwise
under sanctions by the nonprofit entity (although anyone who fails to follow the meeting
rules and decorum may be ejected from that particular meeting).

3
Administration Minimum Requirements. SFCTC has failed to meet the following
administrative requirements: 1) developing and conducting revenue-generating activities,
including grant writing, development of underwriting support, and other activities; and 2)
developing and implementing a five year plan designed to provide the equivalent of 15%
of the operating budget from alternative revenue sources to enhance of expand services
by increasing operating budget. Over the past five years, SFCTC has exceeded 10% in
annual alternative revenues only once. In 2006-2007, SFCTC raised only 6% of its
budget in alternate revenue sources ($46,074 of the $820,074 budget).

Alternative Revenues as a Percentage of Total
Annual Revenues
Source: 2002-2007Annual Reports
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
Alternative Revenues 2.19% 3.73% 10.85% 2.38% 5.62%
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07


Moreover, SFCTC provides little documentation of grant or underwriting development in
its Annual Reports, reporting the receipt of only one grant for $12,000 from J-LAB, the
Institute of Interactive Journalism over the past five years.

Outreach Minimum Requirements. SFCTC generally has met the minimum
requirements for outreach. However, declining demand (see below) for AccesSF
training and production services suggests that these outreach efforts have not been
effective.

Training Minimum Requirements. In 2006-2007, SFCTC did not meet the annual
enrollment minimums for field production (40), editing (40) or flash studio (18)
workshops, and only exceeded the studio workshop minimum by two attendees (64).
SFCTC has never achieved its required minimum for flash studio attendance. Training
attendance has been generally declining for the past five years, as demonstrated below:

4
Production Workshop Certifications
Source: SFCTC Annual Reports
0
50
100
150
2002-03 62 66 97 0
2003-04 60 65 76 16
2004-05 58 38 69 15
2005-06 41 19 51 13
2006-07 34 9 66 17
Field
Workshops Edit Workshops
Studio
Workshops
Flash
Workshops

Orientation Workshop
Attendance
Source: SFCTC Annual Reports
0
100
200
300
400
2002-03 367
2003-04 380
2004-05 363
2005-06 243
2006-07 268
Orientations


Production/Facilities/Equipment/Services Minimum Requirements. SFCTC appears to
have met the minimum qualifications for this category. However, according to its Annual
Reports, usage for Edit Systems and Main Studio has declined over the past five years.
See the charts below.




5
Edit Equipment Usage
Source: SFCTC Annual Reports
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
2002-03 1792 8381
2003-04 1995 5412
2004-05 1604 4240
2005-06 1208 3321
2006-07 789 1497
Reservations Hours

Main Studio Usage
Source: SFCTC Annual Reports
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2002-03 412 2845
2003-04 483 1479
2004-05 343 921
2005-06 283 736
2006-07 265 935
Reservations Hours

6
Flash Studio Usage
Source: SFCTC Annual Reports
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2002-03
2003-04 94 397
2004-05 196 458
2005-06 161 383
2006-07 178 540
Reservations Hours

*No Flash Studio usage reported in 2002-03

Field Camera Reservations
Source: SFCTC Annual Reports
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2002-03 421
2003-04 651
2004-05 336
2005-06 392
2006-07 524
Reservations
Field Camera Hours
Source: SFCTC Annual Reports
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
2002-03 27180
2003-04 24726
2004-05 19273
2005-06 23128
2006-07 35756
Hours


7
Programming/Playback Minimum Requirements. SFCTC has generally met the
minimum qualifications for this category. Again, however, demand for most services has
declined in recent years. In particular, original programming, producer attendance at
meetings and volunteer participation has declined significantly:

Producers and Programming
Source: SFCTC Annual Reports
0
100
200
300
400
2002-03 332 220 40
2003-04 328 200 40
2004-05 336 210 50
2005-06 338 111 68
2006-07 176 139 55
Attend Prod Meeting Series Specials

Programming and Volunteers
Source: SFCTC Annual Reports
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
20002-03 4800 2230
2003-04 4800 2780
2004-05 5000
2005-06 2356 2500
2006-07 2274 1700
Original Programming Hours Volunteer Hours

*No volunteer hours reported in 2004-05
8


Demographics and Diversity. SFCTC conducts a demographic survey of its clients each
year. The results for the past two years indicate that over half of SFCTC’s clients
surveyed are between the ages of 26-44, and two-thirds earn under $45,000 per year:

Age Range
Source: SFCTC Annual Reports
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
2005-06 0.00% 6.41% 23.08% 33.33% 19.23% 10.90% 7.05%
2006-07 0.00% 9.58% 28.43% 28.12% 18.85% 8.95% 6.07%
< 18 18-25 26-34 35-44 45-54 55-65 > 65

Income
Source: SFCTC Annual Reports
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
2005-06 18.48% 3.26% 13.04% 14.13% 21.74% 29.35%
2006-07 16.32% 7.89% 7.89% 15.26% 19.47% 33.16%
> $10,000 $10 - $15 - $20 - $30 - < $45,000


When the ethnicity of surveyed users is compared to San Francisco’s overall population,
SFCTC is lagging in participation by some ethnic groups, particularly Asian and Latino
ethnic groups. Also, SFCTC clientele is overwhelmingly English-speaking. Non-English
speaking populations are nearly non-existent.

9
Ethnicity Compared with 2000 San Francisco Census
Source: SFCTC Annual Reports
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
2000 Census 43.60% 30.70% 14.10% 7.60% 4.10% 0.30%
2005-06 46.86% 8.37% 7.95% 26.78% 9.21% 0.84%
2006-07 49.25% 9.14% 8.77% 23.51% 8.58% 0.75%
White Asian Latino Black Other Native

Primary Language
Source: SFCTC Annual Reports
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Language Spoken at
Home*
59.71% 18.53% 14.13% 7.62%
2005-06 90.21% 0.00% 4.20% 5.59%
2006-07 88.18% 0.68% 4.39% 6.76%
English Asian Spanish Other

*Source: University of Michigan “CensusScope,” http://www.censusscope.org/index.html

Notably, in 2006-2007, over 85% of SFCTC’s clients are not cable television
subscribers, indicating that those who bear the cost of funding the channels (though
cable fees) do not widely use the facilities.

10
Cable Households
Source: SFCTC Annual Reports
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
2005-06 41.52% 58.48%
2006-07 13.50% 86.50%
Yes No


Correspondence from Producers. DT has received several letters and other
communications from Producers with concerns about the operations and governance of
the facility. Several recent letters are included in Attachment I as samples of this
feedback.
11
Part Two: Summary of Public Access Producer Survey Results

The Department of Technology (DT) developed an online survey to collect data about
service use, viewing preferences, and needs and interests from public access producers,
training participants and viewers. The survey includes responses collected between June
26 and August 13, 2008. We sent out two notices about the survey to the AccesSF email
list of approximately 2,800 email addresses. A total of 91 valid responses were collected
during the time period, including 37 respondents who categorized themselves as
Producers.

Survey Respondents
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Respondents 37 10 17 21 6
Program
Producer
Attended
Traning
Workshop(s)
Employee or
Volunteer
Regular or
Occasional
Viewer
No
Experience
with Access


We filtered all responses by Program Producer, to identify any trends specific to that
subset of respondent.

Frequency of Use. We asked how often, over the past year, Producers (1) reserved
production facilities; (2) completed a training workshop; and (3) provided a video for
airing. Seventeen Producers indicated that they reserved production facilities at least
monthly, and 24 Producers provided a video for airing at least monthly. Twenty-Eight
Respondents completed a training workshop at least 1-5 times in the last year. Seven
Producers did not reserve production facilities and five did not take training.

12
Producers: Frequency of Use
0
5
10
15
20
25
Reserved Production Facilities 10 7 5 4 7
Completed a Training Workshop 1 3 1 23 5
Provided a Video for Airing 12 12 2 6 2
Weekly Monthly 6-11 Times 1-5 Times None


Usage and Value of Services. We asked two questions designed to estimate the overall
usage and value of eight services provided by AccesSF: Training, Main Studio, Airing
Programs, Volunteers, Edit Equipment, Field Cameras, Multi-Purpose Room and Flash
Studio.

Among all respondents, Training achieved the highest scores in both usage and value,
followed by Airing Programs, Main Studio and Edit Equipment (Volunteering scored
higher in usage but lower in value).

Among producers, Airing Programs scored highest in usage, followed by Training and
Edit Equipment. Those three services also were statically tied for highest value among
producers. Field Cameras, Multi-Purpose Room and Flash Studio all scored lower in
both usage and value among all groups.
13
Use of Services
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
All Respondents 75.4% 64.9% 63.2% 57.9% 47.4% 36.8% 29.8% 19.3%
Producers 75.8% 66.7% 84.8% 60.6% 69.7% 45.5% 36.4% 21.2%
Took a
Training
Main
Studio
Submitted
Program
Volunteer
Production
Edit
Equipment
Field
Cameras
Multi-
Purpose
Flash
Studio

Value of Services
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
All Respondents 9.2 8.6 9.2 8.1 8.9 8.1 7.2 7.03
Producers 9.0 8.3 9.1 8.3 9.2 8.0 7.6 7.67
Training
Workshops
Main Studio
& Control
Room
Airing
Programs on
the Channel
Volunteer as
Production
Staff
Edit
Equipment
Field
Cameras
Multi-
Purpose
Room
Flash Studio



Viewing Preferences.
1. How often Public Access is Viewed. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of
respondents indicated that they viewed AccesSF at least weekly. Fourteen
respondents are unable to view the channels because they do not subscribe to
cable services.

14
Frequency of Viewing Public Access
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Response Count 31 22 14 8 2
I watch it every
day.
I watch it once a
week.
I do not
subscribe to
cable, so it's not
I rarely watch it
(less than once
or twice a
I never watch it.


2. Video Distribution Channels. We asked respondents how they watched
television. Surprisingly, a slight majority of respondents indicated that they
watched video over the Internet than via cable service. This majority was more
pronounced among producers. Slightly over one-third of respondents and one-
fourth of producers indicated that they watched cable Video on Demand
programming.
How I Watch TV
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
All Respondents 81.0% 77.2% 62.0% 36.7% 24.1% 1.3%
Producers 80.0% 71.4% 65.7% 25.7% 22.9% 2.9%
Internet
(Itunes, Cable
Over the Air
Broadcastin
Video on
Demand Satellite
I Never
Watch


3. Producers: Value of Alternative Sources. We asked Producers to rank alternative
video distribution channels. Internet Video alternatives scored highest in this
category, followed by Cable Video on Demand.

15
Producers: Alternative Services
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Response Average 4.81 4.61 4.19 3.53
Internet Video
(Such as
Cable Video on
Demand Video Blogging Social Networking


4. How Viewing Choices are Made. We asked respondents how they find programs
when watching television. The majority indicated that they found programs by
“channel surfing.”

How I Find TV Programs
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Response Percent 69.1% 37.0% 32.1% 24.7% 22.2% 19.8% 2.5%
Channel
surfing
Internet TV
listings
Interactive
program
I watch
programs
Newspape
r TV
I only
watch
I don't
watch


Open Ended Responses. We asked three open ended questions designed to elicit thoughts
and ideas for improvements that could be made to existing services, alternatives for
continuing channel operations, and any additional comments. Responses were generally
supportive of continuing/expanding current services and opposed to scale-back of
operations. A sampling of responses is included below (All responses are available on
our web site: http://sfgov.org/publicaccesstv).

“Please identify any other communications tools or innovations that may be
employed to help reduce the cost of public access in San Francisco.”

16
- Make the station commercial and offer to sell advertising spots

- Why reduce the cost? Why not think about how it can best be used by the
community and as a tool. Continuation of public access is essential as a
communication tool and there shouldn't be any alternatives to it rather there
should be additions, like creating a real nonprofit with video blogs, that would
involve social networking, cable on demand, internet video, it could be a real
communication tool that links nonprofits of the city of San Francisco with Access
SF in a very productive way.

- Outsource production services at competitive commercial rates. Initiate a
"paperless" operation. Administrative offices share space with another non-profit
organization, the open property can be rented at a competitive rate for "internet"
production with multiple, hourly rated production modules for internet production.

- A greater investment by the City of San Francisco; i.e. the local government
and/or any local organization whose job it is to celebrate the diversity and
lifestyles SF has to offer should get involved in helping to fund Access SF on an
ongoing basis. This support could be in the form of an annual
fundraiser/gala/benefit, or it could be each of these organizations raising ongoing
awareness and support by placing a donation button on their sites which in turn
will directly fund the station.

“Describe in detail any changes or improvements that would make Access SF
programming more appealing to viewers.”

- If people knew it existed, they would watch more. More community involvement
from neighborhood and nonprofit or NGO's would be a good start.

- I would love it if public access was able to partner with others in the public media
community and improve the quality of its programming. I think better/more
outreach would encourage more community involvement.

- Community outreach to non-English speaking community groups.

- Create block programming on specific nights that are grouped by theme and
interest then marketed in ways that build audience awareness. More
programming by and about nonprofits. More programming that is based in the
neighborhoods or in partnership with neighborhoods. More programming that is
distance learning based. More coverage of local merchants. Develop an
interactive community bulletin board that is real time and web based. Community
coverage of local events not covered by mainstream TV.

“Please provide any other comments and suggestions for improving Access SF
services.”

- Pay the staff more money, because they are the heartbeat and brains of that
operation. If that company cannot offer competitive and live-able wages for its full
time staff then it is useless, and should be shut down. Make the management or
17
the directors enforce the rules. Staff is to underpaid to deal with enforcing rules
on a clientele that consists mostly of the mentally ill, and the disenfranchised.
Enable that operation provide video productions services(Remote and studio) to
all of the public, or charge money to use the studios, to earn the money to pay for
the staff.

- The use and access of equipment might be opened up to people who aren't just
committed long-time producers of the shows or the staff's friends, but any San
Francisco resident who wants to submit a tape or content. Right now it seems
there is a huge process one must go through to borrow equipment that very few
people have access to, which doesn't seem very "public". Instead of having a
couple of very expensive cameras that no one can borrow, why not invest in
some low-end but decent video equipment and computer editing suites with
computers for editing and make it available to folks to make their shows, music
videos and movies. It could be a workshop with support and critiques from peers,
and regular screening events. Events help bring in the community.

- Develop workforce partnerships with targeted agencies that can use the
television station as a training resource for youth and adults, especially during
daytime hours when the facility is available. Develop higher education
partnerships with community colleges and universities that result in station
programming. Develop partnerships that promote citizen journalism. Develop
the station's website in the direction of Local Youtube style portal for content that
is already online and can be aggregated in ways that build audience, foster
partnerships, etc. Develop business & technology partnerships that use the
station as a platform for community use of new technologies. Develop a sales
force that can sustain a paid underwriting/advertising model for nonprofits and
local businesses that gives them affordable "air time" on public access channels
as well as on the station's website.

- This place is an amazing group of kind and knowledgeable people who are giving
the gift of media to so many people who otherwise would truly have no or little
access to it. It supports so many different aspects of our community, it's really a
jewel. The best way to improve services would be to give it more $, and perhaps
investigate the leadership of Zane Blaney, who appears to not have the support
of much of the staff or producers. I personally have very little experience with
him, but the complaints I've heard are pretty consistent and harsh. Perhaps with
new leadership, especially in development, Access SF would thrive and these
issues of funding not as pressing...

Head honcho and self proclaimed San Francisco Community Access "CEO" Zane Blaney who has run roughshod over dozens of producers and programmers at the SF local community access station is now angry at the SF City Report that challenges his management methods. He and his hand picket appointed board have had illegal hearings to suspend producers and he has personally threatened producers and programmers who challenge the way the station operates. As a direct result of his autocratic style and corporate management orientation, the number of producers and programmers has actually declined despite the importance and need of this station.
Rather than resigning so the community access station can rebuild and fight for more support, Blaney would rather see the station shut down. His attitude is "my way" or "no way".
Instead of honestly looking at the city report as an objective accounting of where community access is Blaney must attack it saying it has "morphed into a superficial and incomplete evaluation". This from a CEO who has slandered producers and programmers and blames the staff for his own incompetence.
He has terrorized staff members by yelling and screaming and intimidation and he has the gall to talk about an incomplete report. One web site from a former staffer who was the target of his venom is still available at:
http://www.theloneliberal.info/ReformAccessSF/index.html which was set up by Michael Faklis.
Those who want to protect and defend community access need to call on the the SF CTC Board to remove Blaney as an obstacle to the protection of community access. They should also write to the Board of Supervisors that there should be no further funding of Community Access until the board removes CEO Blaney.
The statement that so enraged Blaney is as follows:
"
- This place is an amazing group of kind and knowledgeable people who are giving
the gift of media to so many people who otherwise would truly have no or little
access to it. It supports so many different aspects of our community, it's really a
jewel. The best way to improve services would be to give it more $, and perhaps
investigate the leadership of Zane Blaney, who appears to not have the support
of much of the staff or producers. I personally have very little experience with
him, but the complaints I've heard are pretty consistent and harsh. Perhaps with
new leadership, especially in development, Access SF would thrive and these
issues of funding not as pressing... "



zane [at] accessf.org

Subject: [AccessSF-Discussion] Future of Public Access Report

Date: November 5, 2008 11:05:56 AM PST

To: AccessSF-Discussion [at] yahoogroups.com

As you know, the City's Department of Technology (DT) has been
working through a process to contemplate the future of public access
in San Francisco. The department has nearly completed it's RFI/C
process, to be followed by an RFP process. Some of you may be aware
DT recently posted a Summary Report on the RFI/C process at it's website at:
http://sfgov.org/site/publicaccess_index.asp

What was presumably supposed to be a report on the RFI process
somehow morphed into a superficial and incomplete evaluation of
Access San Francisco. We find the DT Summary Report to be flawed in
many important ways, and we will be submitting a comprehensive
response to the report in the upcoming weeks. One of the biggest
concerns is that the report is positioned in a way to justify
significant budget cuts in favor of a dumbed down version of public
access similar to the Denver Open Media model
http://denveropenmedia.org/memberlevels which means fewer services,
huge costs to producers and viewer programmed channels.

Zane Blaney, Executive Director
San Francisco Community Television Corporation
dba Access San Francisco
Astound Cable Channels 29 & 30
AT&T Channel 99
Comcast Cable Channels 29 & 76
Access World - http://www.accessf.org
1720 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-575-4943 - Direct
415-575-4945 - FAX
zane [at] accessf.org

Without Access There Is No Access

Still the same senior, disabled San Franciscan who volunteers and is a producer at AccesSF and annoyed by the nameless few who gripe, protest and interrupt the station and staff for no good reason other than to cause trouble for the vast majority of we producers willing to abide by the rules. I think its cowardly and meaningless for people to write letters claiming all sorts of untruths and not sign those letters, what are they AFRAID of? If these are more of the same old claptrap from one disgruntled producer and a couple of rabble rousers, please ignore them and come meet me at the station when I'm producing my show.
Thanks,
Stu

Apparently Stu is unable to read the report by the city of San Francisco. It states that many producers and programmers are fed up with the autocratic CEO Zane Blaney and that the board should investigate his role and look into his removal. Zane Blaney and Community Access are not joined at the hip. You can have community access Stu without Zane Blaney.
Here is the story of how Zane and the board treated another staff member at Community Access.

http://www.theloneliberal.info/ReformAccessSF/index.html

Home | Maillist


There is no conflict supporting Access SF and public access television in San Francisco,
while fighting to expose the abuse and mismanagement of Zane Blaney and the SFCTC.


If you enjoy how Access SF is managed, or if through your rose-colored glasses, you prefer to stay in the dark, then the Reform Access SF web site is not for you. Perhaps you were looking for the official Access SF web site. A word of warning though, because if you bother to read the official Access SF web site and attempt to reconcile those statements to your own sense of reality, you may still need to come back here to make sense of it all.

Some people have suggested that I should not be exposing these issues about the mismanagement of Access SF, since it provides a road map for Zane Blaney to correct the problems, and therefore detracts from the legal cases being made to reform Access SF. Zane's track record of taking actions against anyone suggesting a difference of opinion speaks for itself. I doubt Zane will feel compelled to make any real reforms. Doing so would reinforce the credibility of the arguments I've been making, as well as acknowledging I've been right all along. Any reforms resulting from my efforts are welcome, but as long as Zane remains in place, don't hold your breath.

Official Access SF Has Been Purged!

On Wednesday, February 22, 2006, I discovered that the entire official Access SF web site had been purged. Read more about this at Reform Access SF - Access SF Web Site has been Purged.




Please bookmark this page,
then click on the Reform Access SF logo to continue to the home page.

Questions/Comments?

Please report any problems with this WEB page to The Lone Liberal .
Last updated: .

http://www.theloneliberal.info/ReformAccessSF/home.html


There is no conflict supporting Access SF and public access television in San Francisco,
while fighting to expose the abuse and mismanagement of Zane Blaney and the SFCTC.

Disclaimer:

This site may not necessarily represent any official position of SFCTC, Access SF, or Zane Blaney. After all, I was terminated on Tuesday, January 10, 2006, and things change. What is official policy at a place where one person exercises the authority to change rules, policies, procedures, mandates, edicts, without notice, and routinely misrepresents the truth? If you want to know what official policy is, ask the Board of Directors and then when it doesn't fit your experiences or sense of reality, then you can ask them about that too.

Please remember that most staff have the best interests of the producers at heart. They are under the thumb of Zane's tyranny. If they speak up, they will receive the same treatment I have received. The best they can do is to be somewhat lax with Zane's mandates and risk showing favoritism to their friends while hoping Zane doesn't catch wind of it. Please don't give them any grief they may not deserve, however we are all entitled to fair and equitable treatment, and the policies and procedures must be enforced fairly and equitably.

I find that I occasional use "we" when I should be using "Access SF staff". I am going through a metamorphosis as I come to terms that I am no longer associated with Access SF, and have in-fact been banned from the facility for speaking out. I will be correcting thee grammatical errors over time as I come across them. Feel free to point these errors out to me.

As I write and edit this site, I find were even I suggest that so-and-so-staff-member did this or that. I recognize it's the same mode of thinking that some others felt when miss-placing blame on me. I'm striving to clean that up, and place any blame where I truly believe it belongs. Feel free to point these errors out to me.

Disclosure:

Reform Access SF is a personal project of mine, Michael Faklis, a.k.a., The Lone Liberal. After a couple years volunteering on producer and staff projects at Access SF, Zane Blaney offered me the job of Operations Manager. I asked to be first hired as a Production Facilitator so I could learn the other aspects of the station's operations. Almost immediately I was subjected to discrimination and violation of numerous labor codes. I reported these to Zane Blaney, and he neglected to correct the problems. In fact, Zane Blaney threatened me with termination due to insubordination if I did not follow his directives and enforce his written and verbal rules, policies, procedures, and edicts. I began to see a pattern where people would complain about my enforcement, whiles other staff, including Zane Blaney would ignore the rules or grant waivers, all while I was obligated to enforce these to the letter of the rules, or face termination. Zane Blaney would discipline me because people were getting mad at me, for nothing other than enforcing the rules that Zane Blaney forced me to enforce or be subject to termination. Through out my employment, I followed the rules and obeyed Zane Blaney's directives. My concerns were expressed privately in face-to-face meetings and in writing to Zane Blaney, or when solicited in staff meetings. I finally appealed to the SFCTC Board of Directors to help resolve these grievances. Zane Blaney immediately terminated me for appealing to the SFCTC Board of Directors for help. There was no notice, conditions, or severance agreement associated with my termination. I am now free to attempt to clear my name, and to be a whistle-blower to expose Zane Blaney's miss-management of Access SF.

Remember that there are other ex-employees and ex-members of the SFCTC Board of Directors that have been forced out by Zane Blaney, for no other reason other than they advocated some reforms that Zane opposed.. We need to hear their stories as well.

Background:

Access SF is San Francisco's public access television station (cable channel 29). It is operated for the residents of San Francisco by the San Francisco Community Television Corporation (SFCTC), a non-profit corporation, under a contract with the City and County of San Francisco. Zane Blaney is the executive director of SFCTC. The SFCTC Board of Directors has oversight authority. SFCTC and Access SF is funded primarily by the residents of San Francisco, through the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I will attempt to distinguish between;

Access SF, the public access television station, belonging to the residents of San Francisco, and operated by SFCTC.
SFCTC, the San Francisco Community Television Corporation, the non-profit corporation currently running Access SF, under a contract with the City and County of San Francisco.
Zane Blaney, the SFCTC / Access SF Executive Director, who (on paper) has that position at the pleasure of the SFCTC Board of Directors.
The SFCTC Board of Directors, a diverse group of business leaders and even some producers who are (on paper) responsible for oversight of the operations and management of SFCTC, as well as Access SF, but in practise sit on the board at the pleasure of Zane Blaney and are subservient to him.
Mission:

I plan to document my experiences at Access SF to bring to light abuses and miss-management at Access SF, in hope to force reform of Access SF. I believe public access television in San Francisco is here for the benefit of the residents of San Francisco and to provide a opportunity for San Francisco residents to learn and a forum to express themselves through television media.

I believe the SFCTC Board of Directors are in need of major reforms. They seem to be hand-picked and subservient to the Executive Director,Zane Blaney. They refuse to exercise their oversight responsibility. They enableZane Blaney to manage the way he does.

I believe Zane Blaney, the SFCTC Executive Director, has got to go. He runs that place as a tyrant, he abuses his employees, he holds producers in destain, and he will not tolerate other thoughts or views, even when expressed privately in a constructive manner.

Topics for Discussion:

As you will see, many of these topics are not written yet. as I write them and post them to this site, I will also send them to my Reform Access SF Mail List. This is a secured Internet email list, and I encourage anyone to subscribe. Please email me, The Lone Liberal , if you have ideas of other topics for discussion, or just want to correct my spelling and grammer errors.

Response to Warning Letter dated October 7, 2005, where Zane disciplined me for people getting angry at me for enforcing his directives.
Notice of Termination from Access SF, where I attempt to clear my name.
Notice of Suspension from Access SF, where Zane (falsely) accuses me of theft.
More Shows Slated for Cancellation, where I attempt to warn producers that they have the responsibly to keep their shows on the air.
Access SF Mobile Access Studio - Not for Producers Use
Non-Linear Editing - Avid Workstation, why producers are not allowed to use this workstation donated for their use.
Why isn't "Open Mic" Open to the Public?
Why I've had nightmares since December 10th.
My Christmas Wish List from 2004, a jovial restatement of proposed changes.
Technical Difficulties on Sunday, January 08, 2006, Problems with DVCAM and MiniDV playback, or was it something else all together?
Problems with Digital Playback
Zane Trying to Control Who My Friends Are, how Zane tried to control who I socialize with outside of the office.
Why do none of the SFCTC Board of Directors disagree with Zane?
My Plan to Open Access SF Facilities on Mondays
Why are Only Selected PSAs are Being Run?
Alliance for Community Media National Conference, who went, who didn't?
Problems with VHS/SVHS Playback.
Why are League of Women Voters Preempting Producer Programming?
Are Timeslot Lotteries Fair?
Public Testimony to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on 2006 January 24, asking for oversight review.
Is SFCTC's "Development Effort" effort worth the effort and costs?
What will SFCTC do with a Second Public Access Channel?
Is Anyone Better Than Zane Blaney?
SFCTC should Report Problems with Playback.
Why the Program Schedule is Not Timely.
What's Wrong with the SFCTC?
Zane's Email from January 25, 2006, translated from what he said to what he means.
Slanderous False Accusation of Sexual Harassment is being made to discredit me.
What happened to Community Announcements and the Interstitial Program Schedule?
Why You Can't Buy Blank Tapes at Access SF.
Why Zane Communicates with Producers only when he needs to show support for funding.
What Happened to the Audio Workshops?
Can Zane justify his Equipment Upgrades wish-list?
Problems with SFCTC-Sanctioned Mail Lists - Lack of free speech.
The Access SF Web Site has been Purged!
Why do producers need to repair damaged equipment out of their own pockets, when SFCTC is obligated to fully insure and maintain all equipment?
Why are Access SF resources being sold to commercial interests?
Why isn't Access SF programming streamed on the Internet?
Why are producers and volunteers not allowed Internet access at the station?
Why did nobody know when the SFCTC grant with the city was up for renewal in June 2005?
Why is SFCTC spending so much of our public funds on rent, when Access SF could have been located at (near) no-cost city facilities?
Resources:

Reform Access SF Mail List Information
San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance
Access SF Policies and Procedures
SFCTC Bylaws
SFCTC Budget
SFCTC Financial Statement
SFCTC Grant Agreement with the City and Country of San Francisco (expired June 2005)
and Resolution 02-07
Access SF Staff Contact Information
SFCTC Contact Information
San Francisco Cable Franchise Agreement
San Francisco Board of Supervisors Contact Information
Suspected SFCTC Violations:

There are some suspected violations, not accusations of any violations. All members of the San Francisco public access community are asked to read the Access SF Policies and Procedures, the SFCTC Bylaws, and theSFCTC Grant Agreement with the City and Country of San Francisco and exercise their rights under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance to see if there is any basis to any suspicions you may have. Let me know what you find.

Selling facility and staff time for commercial purposes, violation of Rules and Procedures.
Board members serving more than 3 years, in violation of the SFCTC Bylaws.
Failure of the Board of Directors to exercise due oversight of the Executive Director, in violation of the SFCTC Bylaws.
Conflict of Interest with a DTIS manager to providing computer services, in violation of the city grant agreement
Lack of insurance on field equipment, in violation of city grant agreement.
Evidence of Default (false statements, lack of insurance), as per city grant agreement.
Failure to give notice of vacancies on the SFCTC Board of Directors, as per city grant agreement.
Employment discrimination, as per city grant agreement.
Discharge employee for complaining to the city in regard to compliance of MCO, as per city grant agreement.
Failure to implement an effective promotion plan for public access services and programming, as per city grant agreement.
Conducting fund-raising activities that jeopardizes the Grantee's non-profit status, as per the city grant agreement.
Failure to distribute a quarterly newsletter as per the terms of the city grant agreement.
Failure to meet goals of being open to the public 6 days a week, as per city grant agreement.
On multiple occasions, failed to offer editing and production services the minimal required hours per month, as per the city grant agreement.
Failure to cablecast a a minimum of 100 hours of original programming per month, as per the city grant agreement.
Knowingly allowing non-residents to produce programming, as per the city grant agreement.
Failure to distribute program schedules as per the terms of the city grant agreement.
Failure to report hours of original and rerun programming each month as per the terms of the city grant agreement.
Failure to develop Public Service Announcements as per the terms of the city grant agreement.
Failure to hold a media literacy classes as per the terms of the city grant agreement.
Failure to hold advanced editing classes as per the terms of the city grant agreement.
Failure to hold advanced training/masters classes as per the terms of the city grant agreement.
Failure to train the public in the use of the mobile access studio, as per the terms of the city grant agreement.
Failure to increase the number of field equipment packages as per the terms of the city grant agreement.
Failure to staff full-time engineer to maintain equipment, as per the terms of the city grant agreement.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors should exercise thier obligation for oversight and hold hearings on SFCTC's mismanagement of Access SF.

Links to other "Reform Access SF" minded resources:

This site reflects my personal thoughts. Others may have a desire to reform Access SF, although their ways, means, or ultimate goals may differ somewhat from my own. Please send me links to any such site, and I will link to it here:

SF Producers Email List
CommunityAccessTV.com
Skatin' Place - The (SFCTC) Board Has Gone Mad, a memoir from an ex-board member.
Petaluma Community Access crisis raises disturbing questions, about Marc Smolowitz's history in public access television.

Questions/Comments?

Please report any problems with this WEB page to The Lone Liberal .
Last updated: .

The only reason I subscribe to Comcast is for the C-SPAN channels. UCTV and the AccesSF channels. They are all educational. We must have them.

This is another report of how a well known popular community access producer was driven out of San Francisco community access.This is another example why CEO Zane Blaney has to go.

The Board Has Gone Mad/A Report On SF Community Access Board and CEO Zane Blaney
http://www.skatinplace.com/CTCBoardDemise.html

SKATIN' PLACE

THE BOARD HAS GONE MAD


Here is an article from the San Francisco Bay Guardian - "Battle of the Network Stars"
Here is the response to the article from John Higgins, SFCTC Vice President

Here is a letter published in the Guardian by Steve Zeltzer, PPNSF

Hear how whacky the Board is in this vote to review the time slot selection process

David G. Miles Jr.
phone 415-752-1967
e-mail D [at] cora.org
web page http://www.cora.org
Oct. 28, 2002

The purpose of this letter is to document the bylaw violations that have taken place in regards to my experiences as a member of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Community Television Corporation.

I came to know about public access television in 1980. A man known as "Dangerous George" noticed me with my volunteer group, the Golden Gate Park Skate Patrol. He saw that we were a positive group of young volunteers succeeding in providing a safe, fun situation in Golden Gate Park on Sundays when thousands of skaters, bicyclists and other park users enjoyed the closed roadway. At his request, I brought some of the Skate Patrol members down to the Dangerous George Show at what was then Channel 25, where we were interviewed and shown live on cable TV.

I was very impress with the whole experience. In the next few years I would go into numerous TV studios doing interviews and public service announcements as a part of promoting Bay Area skating. We would also do remote live news and taped segments for all the major news programs and several local TV shows.

I purchased my first video camera in 1984 and a better one in 1988. I was introduced to computer video editing in 1994. I put together several clips of "old school" skating Everyone who saw it wanted copies of the clips. That's when I thought I could produce a public access show. I went to Channel 25 and found that it was now Channel 53. I applied for a show, followed the guidelines and received a timeslot at 6:00 P.M. on Thursday evenings.

For nearly 7 years, I produced my show, "Skatin' Place". The show featured inline skate competitions, races and skate demos. Political issues involving Golden Gate Park and its relationship between park users and park institutions were often explored on the show. The Midnight Rollers Friday Night Skate, which is now a worldwide event and the Skate Against Hate & Violence from S.F. to L.A. were fascinating subjects. Skatin' Place won several awards including 2 Cable Access Awards and was nomination for a Bay Area Cable Excellence Award. Eventually we moved our timeslot to 8:30 on Monday nights and in 1999 we began broadcasting live from the studio on the second Monday of every month.

Around 1998, I had heard of a group of producers that were trying to organize and make things better at the station. I didn't know the details, but the SFCTC wanted to be the organization to run the channel. I didn't see anything wrong with this, but when I attended the first producers' meeting, I found that there were some producers who felt that Zane Blaney and the SFCTC was not to be trusted and should not be allowed to run the public access channel in San Francisco. I approached Mr. Blaney about some of the issues and decided to disregard the negatives and give him and the CTC the benefit of the doubt. I then worked to convince the producers to drop their animosity towards the CTC and to join in with them at the Telecommunications Commission meeting so that the CTC could get the contract to run the channel.

Evidently, Zane Blaney and Ellison Horne was impressed with my leadership skills. They approached me about becoming a member of the SFCTC Board of Directors. I would be the producer representative on the Board. In our discussion, I told them both that I would not be a "yes" man but I would do my best to do the right thing and work for the best interest of the channel. In March or 1999, I was elected to a three year term on the Board and became a member of the Program Committee, which makes up the Policies and Procedures for the access channel.

In the beginning things were running smoothly. I had never served on a board before. I didn't understand a lot of the details, but I managed to keep up with most subjects and much like the other board members, I trusted the expertise and experience of Mr. Blaney and his staff to guide the board members to make the right decisions.

Over time I began to notice that this process was not necessarily a good one. When we were discussing the move and buildout of the new facility, Mr. Blaney simply told the board members what the issues were and how we as a board should act. If there were any questions or suggestions that differed from what was proposed, Mr. Blaney or a member of his staff would steer the discussion back to what was originally proposed. The clearest example of this is the fact that we were all told of the impending deficit we were to be facing in the future before we made the move into the new facility. Why didn't we explore finding a suitable location in a city-owned building where the rent could be $1.00 per year as opposed to the $12,000.00 per month (I believe) at the Market St. Location? I thought that anyone with common sense should see something wrong with this line of thinking, but just like the rest of them, I stayed in line and didn't rock the boat.

I also felt there were questions that should have been asked about how the contracts with the companies doing work for the SFCTC were handled. I did not observe the kind of competitive biding practiced where the bids were presented to the Board and the Board would make a decision. We as Board members were "presented" what the staff would tell us was the best contractor based on their expertise. It may had made it easier to get the contract process moving, but I believe it's fairness is still to be questioned .

I believe the real trouble started with the introduction of "Overarching Philosophies". Upon it's creation, the Program Committee was to create new Policies and Procedures for the access channel. The overarching philosophies were the guidelines we were to use to develop the policies and procedures for the channel. They were presented to us as "guidelines", but the test of time has proven that this was to be the policies put forth by the Board. This is where the concept of the "lottery" was introduced. It is also the point where I as a Board Member began to ask questions about the procedures we as a Board were operating under and why these changes were so necessary.

For months and months the Program Committee wrangled with these overarching philosophies in regards to the development of the Policies and Procedures of the channel. Some of the meetings were contentious. I felt that the new policies regarding program time slots and local vs imported programming could virtually destroy access experience for most of the producers currently on the channel. There would be the implementation of a "lottery" to determine when a show comes on the air. Every 6 months a lottery is held that could give that show a new time or day on the schedule. This means that weekly shows will change timeslots every 6 months. It means that creating and maintaining an audience for your show will become impossible. It also means that we could have programming from New York, Los Angeles and other cities dominate the channel thus locking out local San Francisco producers.

As a Board member, I fought these proposals. Many producers felt this was a method to get rid of the long-term producers on the channel who question the motives of the SFCTC Board.

On or about May 9, 2001, the Board felt it necessary to hold a special meeting inviting the producers on the channel and the general public to explain their actions. I sat on that panel as a member of the Program Committee and witnessed the unanimous opposition to the lottery and other issues being proposed. I felt that the bottom line for those in attendance was trust. As we were ending out comments as members of the Board, I ended the discussion by urging the attendees to trust the Board in out sincere efforts to do the right thing for them and for the channel.

I believe it is the actions taken by the Board that has fueled a continual uproar at Channel 29 that continues to rage to this day. Some of these actions clearly violate the SFCTC Bylaws. Violations of the SFCTC Bylaws have not seemed to have any meaning as attempts to rectify them have went nowhere.

Through the spring, summer and fall the program committee wrestled with the issues. My sister died in July, We all experienced Sept. 11 and I skated from SF to LA in the Skate Against Hate and Violence in Oct. On Nov. 20, 2001, The Program Committee met to begin finalizing some of the policies including time slot selection, local vs imported programming and more. The agenda was sent out on Nov. 19 via E-mail. We had made progress, but we didn't finish in the time allotted. The committee voted to adjourn and agreed to continue the discussion at a special Program Committee meeting to be held on Dec. 4, 2001 where we would finalize these issues and bring them up at the next full Board meeting for a vote.

In between these two meetings was a full Board meeting on Nov. 27, 2001. Two of the Board members who both sit on the Program Committee, Bill Fiori and Ray Balbaron were absent. John Higgins, the SFCTC Vice President and the head of the Program Committee decided on his own to bring the issue to a vote dispite the proper procedures that were taken at Program Committee meeting on Nov. 20. I protested this action of prematurely bringing this issue to a vote and challenged the legality of this action, but the Board members ignored my pleas and voted 9 to 1. to accept Mr. Higgins' version of the proposed policies. I was the only dessenting vote.

I truly feel that this was an improper vote that was being manipulated by John Higgins, SFCTC Board Vice President with the blessing of Zane Blaney, SFCTC CEO, Ellison Horne, SFCTC President along with the regular staff attendants Jan Levine, Tom Barkett and Aaron Vink. The proposal did not include a motion put forth by long term Board Member Bill Fiori that was voted on and passed by the Program Committee in or about Sept., 2001. This motion granted producers with 5 years or more on the channel a 1 year amnesty from the time slot selection process. I believe these actions prove that there really are no rules in the SFCTC.

After this "hijacking of the process" I sent out an e-mail message to the producers who were on the SFProducers e-mail list to explain to them my opinions of the situation. I made an anaology that compared the Board to the Taliban. It follows

Dear Access Producers,

At last night's board meeting of the SFCTC, the board voted and adopted plans to institute the lottery concept. It is not called a lottery, but it looks, walks, and quacks like a lottery, therefore...

I have heard MANY concerns about this and I fought to the end to try to get the board members to understand that this is NOT a positive move. I might as well had been talking to the Taliban. I was the ONLY vote against the lottery. I think that just like our lives changed forever after Sept. 11, our experience in Public Access has changed forever as well.

It is my opinion that the actions taken by this board has made it painfully clear that local San Francisco producers' issues are now the least inportant priority to the SFCTC. That is not so hard to understand when you look at how some of the producers have presented their interests. Nevertheless, I feel access producers interest MUST be represented and NOT from a position of weakness.

This is "shit or get off the pot" time. I want to have a meeting of access producers before the Christmas holiday. I want to go into 2002 with a clear understanding of where we are as a group. I want you to have a clear understanding of what the actions taken by the board mean to us as producers.

Today I am looking for a location and date for the meeting. Please respond to this message if you are interested in attendind a 2 hour meeting to discuss these issues. This is NOT to be a "bitch session". This is NOT to be a PPN meeting. This meeting is NOT sponsored by the SFCTC. Every producer is invited including board members, SFCTC staff and anyone else with input to bring to the table..

I know that some of my fellow board members and some staff will be upset with me for organizing this meeting, but it MUST be done. Please respond if you are interested. You can call me at 415-752-1967 anytime.

Keep Rollin',

D., Miles Jr.
Board Member, SFCTC
Producer, "Skatin' Place"
President, California Outdoor Rollerskating Association.

This message was sent specifically to access producers on their list serve, but SFCTC staff sent the message and many others to board members. I feel this was meant to inflame them and set the stage for a diciplinary hearing that was held on Feb. 5, 2002.

On Feb 5, An Executive session meeting of the SFCTC Board was held. The meeting was videotaped by myself and by Tom Barkett of SFCTC staff. New Board member Lisa Lowery was appointed parlimentarian. She didn't quite understand Roberts Rules of Order, so she was given a book to conduct THIS meeting.

Things moved slowly but cordial up until Mr. Higgins, who had laid the ground rules for how the meeting would be run, who moderated the meeting and who chose the parlimtarian, allowed himself to close part of the meeting. The SFCTC Bylaws clearly states I have a right to an open meeting if I am the subject of that meeting. In protest to this action, I closed my books, got my things and left the meeting.

According to Article lX Sec. 3 under "Exceptions" pt. 1 of the bylaws of the SFCTC, I had a right to have an open meeting. I also believe that the intent of SEC. 3 was violated as it involves setting up a meeting to be held at a later date. I believe that proper notice was not followed as prescribed in Article lX Sec. 3. There has never been an explaination on the reason for the meeting, the public announcement of the meeting along with the vote taken by the members of the Board to create the meeting. In other words, what were the charges?

I base my opinion on the following taken from the SFCTC Bylaws:

ARTICLE IX
SECTION 3 EXECUTIVE MEETINGS

The Board may hold an executive meeting closed to the public upon an affirmative vote, taken at an open meeting, of two -thirds (2/3) of the members present, provided the affirmative vote constitutes a majority of the members of the Board. A meeting closed to the public shall be limited to matters exempted below. The reasons for holding such a meeting shall be publically announced and a vote of each member on the question of holding a meeting closed to the public shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the meeting;

EXCEPTIONS

The Board may hold a meeting closed to the public for one or more of the following purposes:
1. to consider the hiring, evaluation, dismissal, or discipline of an officer or employee

or charges brought against the officer or employee. where consideration of matters

affecting privacy will be involved, provided that if the individual concerned requests an open meeting, an open meeting shall be held;

2. to deliberate concerning the authority of persons designated by the Board to conduct labor negotiations or to negotiate the acquisition of property, or during the conduct of such negotiations;

3. to consult with the Board's attorney on questions and issues pertaining
to the Board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities;

4. to investigate proceedings regarding criminal misconduct;

5. to review proprietary information provided to the Board on the condition that
the information not be disclosed publicly.

6. to meet in Committees and Subcommittees of the Board, provided that less than a
majority of Directors to which the Corporation is entitled is not present at the meeting.

In no instance shall the Board make a decision in an executive meeting on matters not directly related to the purposes specified in the above action. No chance meeting or electronic communication shall be used to circumvent the spirit of the requirements of this part to make a decision or to deliberate a decision.

On or about Feb. 20, I received a letter supposedly written by Ellison Horne explaining that I had been reprimanded for my actions considered to be counter to the SFCTC Bylaws. These actions of which he speaks were not explained in the letter. The reprimand was to take the form of a probation related to my duties as a member of the Board. Until March 31, 2002. I was not allowed to sit at the table as a board member ever since that Feb 5 Special meeting.

Around Sept 5, 2002 when I arrived back in San Francisco after the Burning Man Celebration in the Black Rock Desert, I got a letter from the CTC telling me that I was no longer a Board member.

I have a busy and productive life so I don't really have time to read every word of bull shit that anonymous cowards are spewing out every day and every hour. I will tell you though that I am fed up with Steve Seltzer and his whining stories based on lies. Furhtermore, I have NO RESPECT for people who post anonymous attacks. These people are called "back-stabbers" in every language, and for a good reason. If you can't stand by your words then keep them to yourself and stop polluting the air with your stink! Anonumous attacks stink because in most cases their authors are self-serving cowardly liars.
I have known Zane Blaney for many years. I have produced numerous TV series over the past 6 years, and I think I know Zane Blaney pretty well by now. My experience with him has been overwhelmingly positive, in fact, not once have I had even a minor problem with Zane. If I ever had an issue with anything, big or small, Zane has ALWAYS gone out of his way to resolve it and to make sure that everyone involved understood the problem. Zane Blaney is a man of high integrity and strong values, as well as actions that reflect his values. I can't think of a way he could do his job better than he does it.
I will list just a few facts out of many to illustrate why I stand by him and why I have so much respect for him.
When I first started at Public Access I made a documentary about Burke school, a very prestigious private school that screwed our neighborhood. I put it on the air and the principal of Burke called the station outraged demanding he remove my documentary from the air. Zane refused to remove it. He told them he was not going to remove it. May be it was his job to tell them that, but he certainly did the right thing and showed that he really does stand for free speech no matter what the political implications.
Just recently I started producing a nude Tv show http://www.MyNakedTruth.TV and it turned out that the guidelines at the station do not allow nudity till 1 AM. I told Zane that I was unhappy with these guidelines. Zane explained to me the whole process of how changes can be made to the guidelines and since then has been working very diligently on helping me change the guidelines. He also told me that he doesn't care how many complaints he gets, that what matters is for my show to fall within the guidelines and since it's constitutionally protected he is happy to air it and happy to help make positive changes that allow for broader spectrum of free speech and self-expression.
Zane has been supportive in many other ways, even when it comes to small things. I came to the station once to dropp off my tapes and the station was closed too early. Zane personally emailed and called me back. He talked to everyone involved and made sure that this doesn't happen any more.
These are just a few examples, I don't have time to write it all.
As far as MICHAEL FAKLIS goes, all the whining about him and how mistreated he is will only work on people who don't know him. I was subjected to SEXUAL HARASSMENT by Michael Faklis when I was pregnant. It is disgusting enough to be subjected to that, being pregnant adds a whole new level of abuse where the mother feels that the baby that is in her womb is also getting sexually violated. There are extensive studies out there that show the correlation between the pregnant mother's emotions and its impact on the embio. So I really don't appreciate that. On top of it Michael Faklis was extremely rude and oppressive when he was put in charge of time slot drawing meetings. I was literally considering quitting Public Access altogether if I had to go to another meeting conducted by him. Maichael managed to humiliate almost every single person who was at that meeting. On our way out producers were talking about getting together to get Michael kicked out of that positioin. I did tell Zane about it. Next time I went to the time slot meeting it was conducted by someone else who was very nice. I also gave Zane a suggestioin on improving the way the meeting is run and Zane implemented my suggestion.
I have heard other producers say they respect Zane. Kevin Lee Hammond who does the "Stop the New World Order" live TV show told me that Kim (front desk person) didn't let his guests in when he had his live show. Kevin was outraged, I would be too. Kevin told me that Zane had a meeting with him and another producer (producer of "Deep Politics") regarding this issue. Zane made sure that Kevin understood the policies, and Kevin felt a lot better, by the end of the meeting he had all this respect for Zane. Kevin is not an easily intimidated guy, so whatever happened at that meeting was about Zane showing respect to producers and outreaching to them to resolve their issues.
Frankly, Zane didn't have to get involved at all. Neither did he have to get involved in numerous other issues that I experienced that I am not going to detail here. He could have just done nothing, and no one would even expect him to get involved. But he did because he cares. He is a genuine person, he really is.
I have yet to hear a legitimate complaint about Zane. I have heard a few people make a negative and vague remark against Zane. When I asked them what exactly they were talking about they were unable to articulate it. And I sincerely wanted to know what was going on. I always like to hear both sides of the story. But I have yet to hear any legitimate facts to support that Zane is doing anything wrong. I also asked those people who complained about Zane and were unable to articulate why, I asked them: "Is this coming from Steve Seltzer?" There would be an uncomfortalble silence and then the person would admit that yes, they heard it from Steve Seltzer, in most cases that's what I heard.
And now a few words about Steve Seltzer. Steve Seltzer has been at Public Access for many many years, I believe, 20 years or even longer. For the longest time he managed to keep the same time slot for his airtime and he also booked the studio every time for his show. He had the best available airtime and he was determined to keep it forever. He was able to keep it that way for many years, even though it was against the policies if the station to let one producer dominate the airwaves and the studio like that. Finally when Zane Blaney came into the picture Zane impemented the time slot drawing system in order to accomodate the growing number of producers. The time slot drawing meeting is based on a lottery. Producer comes in and draws a random number, and then according to that number he gets to pick a time slot for his/her show. It is done once every 6 months, once every season. If you don't get what you want you can come back a month later and get a better time slot. I have never heard anyone except Steve complain a bout this system (and I have been to many of these meetings). This system is not just convenient and fair, it is genious. I also produce for Berkeley Public Acccess and at that facility they are now running out of good time slots and it's becoming a big problem. I went to the board of directors meeting in Berkeley and proposed that they adopt the time slot drawing system used in San Francisco. They were very supoprtive and in the near future we expect to see it implemented in Berkeley. The reason why Steve Seltzer is still losing his sleep over it is that he is no longer able to dominate the airwaves and the studio time. He now has to SHARE. And this is pissing him off so bad that now many years later he is still losing his mind inventing new ideas of how to sabotage Public Access and how to drag Zane Blaney through the mud in yet another way. In reality there is no grass roots movement behind Steve Seltzer. hahahahaha!!!
Just a few weeks ago Zane posted a message on the SF Access news group list urging producers to help save Public Access. Steve Seltzer responded with a letter of ridicule trying to make Zane look like a liar or a fool. He said somehting about some African city and how their budget is the size of the PAccess budget (I don't want to get lost in details but his email was rather entertaining and looked like it came out of an insane asylymn). Other producers started responding to Steve's comments, and they weren't on his side. Then I posted my comments where I said among other things :"Steve's anti-Access activism makes me wonder who he really represents." I do wonder sometimes whether he has been recruited to be an agent-provocatuer. That would explain why he is so passionate about making SF Access look so bad right at the time when we have our last chance to survive and when we need all the support we can get so badly. After Steve's remarks were met without supoprt and after I hinted that he might be a government agent all of a sudden Steve Seltzer turned around 180 degrees and became very very active trying to save Public Access. He invited all the producers to come and do a TV show with him, a 2 hour Tv show to express how they want to save Public Access. I was at the studio that night for a class, by coincidence. I was curioius how many people came to his show and I was told that it was one person. Wow! Steve Seltzer is a grass roots hero! He really makes people think that there is a huge grass roots movement behind him at the station. Well, I would say that anyone who had spent over 20 years at the station would have done better than that. He is lucky that one person didn't miss the bus and made it to Steve's show that night. Otherwise Steve would have been talking to himself the whole 2 hours. The reality is that Steve Seltzer really is talking to himself. I have no evidence to support my suspicioin but I personally feel that the anonymous emails are Steve's work, as well as the stupid article in the Guardian. Obviously, Steve Seltzer has a lot of free time on his hands and a lot of hate. And that's what is so damaging, his blind hate and his desire to destroy anything and anyone who stands in the way of his ego gratification. I have heard from numerous producers that Steve is not a great guy to put it in mild language. I myself had a bad experience with him too a few years back when he promised to help me host my videos. I made plans to meet him. I talked to him on the phone a couple hours before we were supopsed to meet. He said he was coming, but then he stood me up and never apologized nor explained what happened. I forgot all about that, and just recently I realized that it was the same person that is harassing Zane and the station now. To make the long story short, Steve is not a grass roots hero, he has no support from the producers whatsoever. Most producers that I tlaked to are tired of him and his bull shit.
I once went to a Board of Supervisors meeting in San Francisco where Steve brought a group of people to speak out against Zane and in defense of Michael Faklis who had just gotten fired from Public Access. I was amazed at the people Steve brought with him. I asked them questions and they seemed like they were from another planet. They were unable to articulate why they were there, who they were and why they were so unhappy with Zane as to go to the Board of Supervisors. Their testimonies were pretty bogus too, there really wasn't much substance there. I found out later that Steve Seltzer has been known to bring not only his wife, his friends and family to these meetings but also other people who were not producers and had nothing to do with the station. I talked to Steve Seltzer in the hallway that day and he said to me: "Aren't you sick of going to these time slot drawing meetings?" I told him I wasn't sick at all of going to those meetings. Obviously those time slot meetings are really taking a toll on Steve, poor thing. If only he could have his old time slot back and his studio time at the best hour of the week, then he would leave Zane alone. Steve's message is clear. He wants his time slot back (plus studio time at the same hours) and he wants it forever. If he doesn't get it he will destroy Public Access and everything that it stands for. It's either Public Access with Steve in charge or no Public Access at all, according to Steve. Well, we have other alternatives. I don't want to be a producer at a station that favors seniority and where old producers hog all the good airtime and the new producers are welcome to play their show on Sundays at 5 AM. I invest a lot of time and energy into my show and I want to be treated as an equal at the station. That's how Zane Blaney treats people. That's what Steve Seltzer can't get over. Get over it, Steve!

I apologize for misspelling Steve Zeltzer's name. I am from Russia and speak 4 languages fluently besides having studied a total of 8 languages (I am not fluent in the other 4). I get confused between those languages sometimes.
I also want to add that I have heard that Steve Zeltzer not only brings irrelevant people to the Board of Supervisors meetings but that he also outright lies to the Supervisors. Since Steve has lied to me before I am not putting it past him. I asked Zane Blaney if he has considered suing Steve for slander. He says he has considered it. I stronly encourage and will continue encouraging Zane to sue Steve Zeltzer. Liars need to be stopped!

Why can't mister anonymous sign his name whats he hiding?

I mean besides who he is.

If he's really speaking truth to power why is he being backstabbing (writing negative comments across the internet behind the back of the person that the comments are directed at) and why is he hiding his identity.

Is it Steve Zeltzer.

He's the grass roots army of ONE trying to shut public access down because he so fucking selfish.

Boh Ho he lost his precious time slot.

I think the last post by mister anonymous speaks volumes.

The grand finale post. You know the POINT of the whole thing.

Da Dum...

"the time slot selection process"

Steve Zeltzer found ONE other person in existence who agrees with him about the time slot selection process!!!!

AND that person used to be a board member.

"I was the ONLY vote against the lottery."

So their are count them 2 whole real people against the new more fair time slot selection process.

I understand that it is important for mentally insane people(Steve Zeltzer) to be able to produce and air shows on cable access.

However when they start to hinder, disrupt or otherwise compromise the functionality of public access they should simply be banned.

Now the only realy legitimate argument against the new time slot drawing process is.

"local programmers building an audience with regular slots"

But actually this isn't really a legitamite concern. The way the new process works you get to pick your new time slot a month before you old slot expires. Which gives you A WHOLE MONTH to inform your loyal audience of the time slot change. That's right you can keep all your loyal viewers.

A senority based prime time monopoly is unneccesary for audience retention.

And if your loyal viewers are so important to you. Create a website. Display a link to it in your show and tell people on your website when your show will appear on cable. You can also get free streaming from youtube and post all your old episodes on your website so that any one who is interested can see every thing you've produce all in one convienent place.

This is what I observed while hanging out at Access SF.
Volunteers screaming at staff. Namely the very qualified Transgender person working there. I saw her get screamed at by a Mr. Robertson who is only a volunteer. I can't imagine how she feels?
Steve Zeltzer getting red in the face over a bulletin board. Screaming bloody murder "this Station sucks"
Producers who appear to be drunk or on drugs. I personally smelled marijuana, and alcohol on the breath of a few producers in the building.
Producers walking around bashing the staff and the Executive Director in a loud and obnoxious manner.
Producers holding loud cellphone conversations while staff is working.
Producers and volunteers who cannot operate a VCR, even after they have been shown how to do it...
Oh yeah and let me mention that crazy New World order guy: Why in the hell is he allowed to practice his karate chops and kicks in that place? He is scary.
Oh yeah and there is this guy who does some show about politics. I think his name is Julien or something like that; But anyhow he has tried to pick me up on several occasions. If I see him there I likely will walk out....
Point of this post:
Someone needs to help the employees or staff at San Francisco's public access station. They need it....