P.E.G. Commission

AUGUST 9, 1995 6: 00 CITY HALL MANISTEE COUNTY E COMISSION G. P. MINUTES THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRPERSON ANGELA MORIN, ATTENDING WERE KATHY FENSTERMACHER, TOM KAMINSKI, WILLIAM SHALES AND NANCY LE MIRE. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 21st MEETING WERE READ, MR. KAMINSKI MOVED TO ACCEPT, SECONDED BY MR. SHALES. THE MOTION CARRIED, MINUTES APPROVED. UNDER OLD BUSINESS MS. FENSTERMACHER READ THE THIRD DRAFT OF THE MANISTEE PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY. IT WAS DECIDED THAT AFTER THE CITY ATTORNEY CONFERS ON THE'' LIABILITY AND PROGRAM OWNERSHIPA" AND COPYRIGHT!' IT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL IN SEPTEMBER. MR. SHALES RECIEVED A MEMORANDUM FROM JOHN PESTLE RE: UNDER NEW BUSINESS THREAT TO FRANCHISING, DATED JULY 27, 1995. A COPY OF STATE LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM WILL BE SENT WITH EACH OF THIS MINUTES TO BE THIS THREE PAGE STUDIED AND REVIEWED AT THE NEXT MEETING. MR. SHALES MOVED TO ADJOURN, IT WAS SECONDED BY MR. IiAMINSKI. OF THE P. G. E MEETING WILL BE HELD AT 6: 00 M. ON P. THE NEXT MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, AT CITY HALL NANCY LEMIRE SEC. wx'  Ci#tord E.SaIko* Sunset Productions 390 Second Street Manistet, MI 49660 July 31, 1995 Manistee P. G. E Ccmmission 70 NNaple Street Manistee, MI 49660 RE: CONFLAfNT Dear P. G. E Commission; flrst wouid fike to congragulate the commiss(dn on the hard work you hava put fnto Manistee's Channel 2. Regarding the issue ot tha program which i had submitted br broadcast (Museum of Scfence and Industry)which was met with spparont oppoaitian created by Infoprod, inc. ( Mr.Nark E commisston dtd not take severo enough iniracttons against Infoprod, Carlson), I feel the P. G. inc. I trust that this fssue wfl be re- consldered and appropriate action wll be takan against Infoprod, lnc. as Ms.Morin took hsr time to verlfy ths shuation and found no wrong doing on our part. Mr.Mark Carison) appointed The second Issue and probably importarit is that intoprod, inc. ( by the City of Manistee as ths iMrim opsralor of Manislee's Channei 2 and acting on behaN of ihe City of Manistee is In ckar Wolation ot FCC RuIMg on notiflcation ot an atttack af a person and or group on a cabkcast.According to tfie FCC ruing and ths FCC Fact Shssts datsd Marah!June 1994 and this ruing stil in affect, I quote; If the attack was of a personal nature,the person is sMitlsd to use ths cabb system to rsspond to the attack. The ruk appies when 'an attack is made upon the honesty, character, iMegrity, or Ike personai qualties of an IdentiAed person or group' during origlnation cabkcasting concerning issues of pubic importancs.A cabk system must gfve the tolowing to the person or group attacked withing one week: notificatlon and ideMiflcation of the cabbcast; a script or tape of the attack; and an oHer of a roasonabk oppoRunity to respond over the cabb faciAtiss ' You wil note that withln thls ruing it states; Cabk system'.Because the cabb system by a franchise agresmeM assigned Channel 2 to the Clht of Manistee the Ciry andlor their designate (inioprod, inc.) becomes the caMroltng partles of Channsl 2 and they (City of Manistee andlor infoprod, Ine.) has ths obigation to this ruing. By revtew of the attacks made,you vril cleaHy see that my and Sunset Productions honesry, character, and integrItyvas certainly attacked. You w1N also note that Mr.Marlc Carison (tnfoprod, Inc.)did nM nortlly me ot the attacks in the appropriate manner described abmre, and therefore is in violation of this FCC ruing. I have notiAed the FCC of thls vioNat(on,and they have instructed ms to Ak this compiaiM vvith the bcai franchisse (City of Manistse ! P. G. E commission).Pending outcome of yiour action on thts matter by the P. G.E commission a review wil be made to sea if 1lurther action ts wamaMed to be forwarded to ths FCC. 1 would Yke to re- state once agaln, i have no aminosiry and !or t1- vdls agalnst Mr.Mark Garison and / or infoprod, lnc. howsvsr whsn ths opsrator ia in violation ft must be brougM to your attention and deaM vvith according to the violations. E commission and Channei 2 i feei no one has ths rigM io use the Cky of Manistse , the P. G. tor any personal vendetta whlch I think the record wi1 ekarly show and indieate that these iM- fiings do noi come from myself or anya»sssociated with Sunset Productions. Thank you very much for your time in this mattsr. Sincsre Ciff rd Sskos  VARNUM, RIDDERING, SCHMIDT & HOWLETTL.p AUG 3 1993 A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W BRIDGEWATER PLACE POST OFFICE BOX 352 • GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49501•0352 TELEPHONE 616 / 336•6000 • FAX 616 / 336•7000 ROBERT D.KUIlARIIJ BRUCE G.HUD60N W1WAM 1.LACVRFNCE UI FtFREY W.BESVVICK THOMAS J.AUGSPIJRGFA Coimal JAAffS N. DeBOFlt,JR. W41]AM K.VANT HOF RICHARD A.KAY BRUCE GOODMAN GREGORY M.PNAIFR FLQABETH JOY PDSSFl MICHAEL X. HIDAI.GO wW. M 1.tiN, tr, uDAY,la HIWtY F. SNELL WtAY J.TfREY JOSEPH 1.VOGAN SUSAN M.WYNGAARDFN JM E& VR IHOMAS G.KYROS EU6ENE ALCFMA PEfflt ARMSiRONG BItU(f A.BARNHART FRIC J.SCFQJEIDfWP7D KAPLIJ S.IONES 10AN SC1ilFEF ALFRID L SQiU& ffAFl.JR. TFAAANC.F R BACON ROBFRT l.aEVELD FPAMC A.SYISMA 7FRFSA S.DSCKEI SIEPHEN P.AFENOOULIS SCO'IT A.HUfffNOA PAMFU 1•MFA PETFR VISSFAMAN VANA KTfr). AIX D.SACE JFFFHEY R.HUGHFS ROBf1tT A.HQJqUCKS UCHARD J.McKe-INA MARY G BONNFdU H.MYMOND ANDREWS ARL E yFR gm( JF}tREY L SCHAD 0. IQIARD W. BVTLFR.IR DAVID E KHOREY MIQIAFI F. KQ.LY JON M.BYLS.fA KARFN SMITH KIENBAUM pN F. DeWI7T 7HOAIAS G.DFA1LRiG E P.BURNS IAWRFN(.' MlCHAFl G.WOOLDRIDCE LEEN P.FOCJITMAN KA7} JO6EPH B.tPVAN MICNIIlE ENGLDt jOFW G CaRLYtE 10FQJ W. PESTLE MATtHEW D.ZIMMFRMAN 77A107tiY 1.TORTIGA IEFFREY 1.tRASFR FDWARD J.MeNFII.Y lAMs R. ǹvan DONAID L) OHWSON ROBFAT P. OOOPFR WR11AM E ROFW PFRRW RYNDFRS JAMES R.STADIFA MARK Ai. DAVLS DANIFl G M(% 110IX FRANK G.WNTkN JOFPI PATIUCX WHTfE MARK S.AtUND itlQiARD R. SYMONS llNDA L OLDFORD Of C- l GARY P. SICWNFR NYAL 0.DffMS QiARIFS M.DFN'fON TDA07tiY E EACIE FIItY S CAAMPTON JF} ANTFIONY R. ODMDFN K1FW L WIERENGO.IR. THOMAS T.HUPF RICHARD A.HOOKFA PAUL M.KARA DAVID A.ilFffbi MAURF}21 POTIFA BEVFRLY HC% ADAY F. WIWAM HUTCHINSON TIMOrtHY J.GURTIIi RANDALLW. qU1CfA 1FFFltEY D.SMITH DONAtD P.LAWIFSS VICIa S.YOUNG tNC G FlFE7HAM R STUART HOFFlUS OFW E MoGARRY PETER A.SMR IAWRENM SMITH N. MIQUFL S.MeELWFP ANDREVJ 1. KOK RICHARD B.EVANS GORDON B.BOOZk1t DIRK HOFFlUS MARK G HANISCH THOMAS C Q. MTON CBORGE d DAVIS PATRICK A.MIIM.10. MNDALL J.GR0D9DYK H.mWARD PAUL 1.TkRRY MORAN MARILYN A.IANKFFA MARK L COLLQiS JAOQUEI.WE D.SCY1TT FRIC J.GUFRIIJ ROHFAT C RIRT'FRS.1R 7HOMA51.MUIDFR THOMAS L LOCIQiART PNATHAN W.ANDFRSON N.SiEVQJSON 1QJNE7'TE lll SIEVEN 1. MORRQJ AIA0.C DANFAUN 7HOMAS J.BARNES ROBFRT L INAMOND CJUtl. 0061FAHOUSE DAVID E PRES7dJ KEYRi ABRAHAM RYNBRANOT MARY ANN ROBB MEMORANDUM TO: Michigan Communities FROM: John Pestle RE: Staxe Legislative Threat to Franchising DATE: July 27, 1995 Proposed telephone legislation in Lansing is a significant threat to local franchising. This memo briefly describes the problem and what you should be doing. Back rg d: ou ~ n_Michigan's current Telecommunications Act (so- called Public Act 179) expires at the end of this year. For this reason, House and Senate committees have been worldng hard on replacement legislation. Speaking generally, the replacement legislation would fiirther deregulate telephone companies, encourage the rapid spread of new telecommunications services, and the like. Procedures and Timins: In an unusual move, the Michigan House and Michigan Senate committees held joint hearings throughout the late winter and spring on various issues and policies which the new legislation will address. They have now directed their staffs to draft legislation which will be ready for introduction this fall. The intent is that once the legislation is introduced that it move quickly with minimal amendments so that it can be in place by year end (when the current act expires). Normally when a bill is introduced there are hearings (and sufficient time) for the public to provide meaningful input,after which it is rewritten. Here,the main hearings were GRAND RAPIDS • LANSING • KAlAMA200 • CRAND HAVFN • DETROIT  VARNUM, RIDDERING, SCHMIDT & HOWLETT LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W deliberately held first so that based on the input received there the committees would draft a bill which would be enacted quickly, with little further change or amendment. Local Franchising: At this point, all indications are that the new legislation will be adverse to local franchising. This is for a combination of reasons, including ( 1) a misunderstanding of the legitimate municipai role in franchising; (2)lack of understanding that Michigan's Constitution reserves franchising solely to municipalities, with little or no role for the sta.te (due to problems a century ago when the state attempted to get into the franchising business); ( 3)heavy lobbying against local franchising by telephone-type companies; (4)a desire to encourage the quick spread of new telecommunications services so as to enhance Michigan's economic growth; and (5)lack of input from or contacts by municipalities with the key legislators involved in these matters. Typical comments which have been heard from legislators and their staffs are to the effect that "We don't see any need for local franchising it just slows down the spread of new services";" If a franchise is needed, it should be a simple one-page matter granted in a matter of days."Fxamples of that have municipalities granted franchises are countered by anecdotes of " x"city or y"township being slow to grant franchises or making unreasonable " demands. Testimony by two mayors that communities do not stand in the way of any significant desire from their residents for new telecommunications services fell on skeptical ears. What Will Likely Happen: The new telephone companies that dislike local franchising have been lobbying the legislature hard against franchises for years. Their arguments aga,inst franchising sit well with the current antigovernment and antiregulatory mood in Lansing. What is likely to happen is that the new legislation will restrict local franchising for new telephone companies. Whether the bill may attempt to eliminate franchising altogether or limit franchise provisions (e. prohibiting francluse fees) is unclear. g., Legislarion ImproperjNot Needed: Attempts to restrict or eliminate local franchising are improper. The Michigan Constitution reserves franchising solely to municipalities. It does this specifically to prevent the state from getting into the franchising business due to the severe problems created by the state when it attempted to this a century ago. Franctiisingls essential to preserve municipal control over streets and highways. This is essential for public safety. Franchises also ensure that all residents are served; that insurance, indemnity and other provisions protects municipalities and their residents; that there is compensation for use of public property; and provide other similar protections. 2-  UARNtJM, RIDDERING, SCHMIDT & HOWLETT LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W What You Should Do: There are several things which municipalities should do. Among them are the following: 1) Write or call the Miclugan Municipal League or Michigan Townships Association and ask them to continue their efforts against this legislation. In particular, ask them to continue to educate state officials and be prepared for the bills when they are introduced. 2) If your city or township has a lobbyist in Lansing, contact him or her to see if they will be available to work on this legislation. Of major concem is the fact that the telephone companies and other business interests involved in this legislation have already tied up most of the major lobbying firms in Lansing. We can give you some suggestions if your normal lobbyist is unavailable. 3) Speak with your legislator about these issues. Key legislators include the following: From the Senate Technology and Energy Committee - Senators Dunasldss, Schuette, Bouchard, Berryman, and Byrum. From the House Public Utilities Committee - Representatives Dobb, Ryan, Galloway, Middaugh, Whyman, Stallworth, DeMars, Debronski, and Olshove. 4) The testimony of two mayors before the legislature this spring sets forth the reasons for local franchising and why the legislature cannot and should not restrict it. If you would like a copy, call my secretary, Kathy Langeland, at 616)336-6000 F.. xt. 5743. 5) Be prepared for a significant effort this fall once a bill has been introduced. Conclusion: The purpose of this memo is to alert you to the current situation and what will likely occur this fall. If you need further information, please contact John Pestle at (616)366- 6000. 3-