6/18 SF Community Access Meeting: A Vision For San Francisco Community Access

I'll go if Steve Zeltzer and his wife, Kozmi, don't attend this meeting. These 2 are trying to set the clock back thirty years on public access tv.

Just say "no" to these Hijackers!

Zane Blaney who is the CEO of Community Television Access has driven off dozens of producers and his hand picked board of directors who are unelected by the users or the members of CTC have rubber stamped his "lottery" and illegal banning of CTC producers such as Idell Wilson and others. In fact the only two independent people on the board David Miles and union official Bill Fiore were both driven off the board because they disagreed with Blaney's agenda.
The failure of Blaney to get more support from the community and his waste of city money (why does a community access station need a Assistant CEO) have led to the view that there needs to be a change of management. There are less producers now than when TCI and Viacom were running Community Access. That says what kind of station they are running.

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.

Dear Access Producers,

The best thing that could happen with public access television in San Francisco is for the funding to be cut. That would force the SFCTC to relinquish its control of the channel. That would be the only way the channel would have any chance of existing beyond 2009. The fact of the matter is the SFCTC took a vibrant, active, successful public access channel like CityVisions and drove it into the ground not unlike George Bush and our great nation. As long as the SFCTC is driving this bus, there will never be any hope of public access television growing into a vibrant, valuable, and sought after media alternative.

You should all begin a letter writing campaign to all the media and shine light on the situation at Access San Francisco. Tell the world how CityVisions has deteriorated into what is Access SF. Tell them how the SFCTC was supposed to make things so much better with upgrades and new studios. Are things better? Is there anyone out there that even remembers? Have all the older producers gone of been forced out? Is there anyone willing to speak out anymore? You don't have to lose the station. Go to http://www.cora.org/2008NewsContacts.htm and find some media people you can tell your story to.

Skatin' Place, the only show to win a WAVE award in 2006 and I believe the last show from Access SF to win the award at all is STILL going strong in the cyber world. We show videos from the 2008 the Skate Against Violence Campaign http://www.cora.org/SFtoLA2008.htm , The Black Rock Roller Disco at Burning Man http://www.cora.org/Burning%20Man%20Video.html where we won an award for "Best Theme Camp" http://www.cora.org/2008BMAWARD.htm and the Sunday Streets Campaign where we close the Embarcadero to traffic for you to come play in the streets http://www.sundaystreetssf.com We are still producing award winning community based television and I believe it can still be integrated with public access if there were a channel that thought that kind of community interaction was a priority.

It's "shit or get off the pot" time for you and everyone interested in seeing public access television in San Francisco survive. I recently formed a 501c4 nonprofit corporation. I have my determination letter from the IRS hanging on my wall right now. I am willing to explore the possibilities of creating a new nonprofit that would replace the SFCTC in running the public access channel in San Francisco. I would push for a plan that would move the facility to a location where the City can waive the rental costs. I believe the SFCTC is paying about $15.000. a month to be at the Market St location. That drops $180,000 from the annual budget right there. I would get rid of any high priced, low output people that are not necessary to run the channel. I would seek out volunteers and interns from local broadcasting schools and provide entry level opportunities for people to learn television from the ground floor. I would work with companies and the digital TV industry to sponsor our efforts and let them teach us new concepts, new technologies and progress the concept of public access.

What do you want to do? You can sit back and wait. I'm not.
PLEASE REPLY

Keep Rollin',

D. Miles Jr.
The GoidFather of Skating
http://www.cora.org