WINTER UPDATE ON
ARCATA, CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC ACCESS GETS
THE BIG FREEZE

Public Exiled From Arcata PEG Channel
by Sydney Munguia

Changes are already underway to redesign the relationships and division of power within the Arcata PEG (public, education, and government access television station) effecting the management, operations, and programming at Channel 12. This is being done without the participation of the Public or Public Access Producers. The City of Arcata and Humboldt State University have already assumed superior positions for access and channel time and are poised to - as they describe it, "reconstitute" the channel. The problem here is the Public’s access to and their channel time allotments on Channel 12 have been delegated to third place within the PEG equation. The Public’s interests and concerns have not and are not being addressed or represented in this process. How did this happen? Operations and programming at Channel 12 had previously been performed by the Arcata Community Access Television as an independent contractor since 1989. Historically, ACAT chugged along on minimal funds and volunteers, while providing production training and producing original programs for viewers. Turnover on ACAT’s board of directors in September 1999 marked the beginning of a noticeably antidemocratic tone. The Public and Public Access Producers experienced resistance and a serious lack of public involvement in what had otherwise been an organization dedicated to public access. Complaints about the new clinch fisted style of ACAT spilled over to the Arcata City Council. On July 19th the City of Arcata simply announced for the first time their intentions to create APEG. However, prior to the City’s announcement, no public meetings occurred for the purpose of discussing and planning APEG or Channel 12’s future. The Public has not been included or invited by ACAT, the City, or HSU to participate in their "reconstitution" process, thus resulting in a skewed ratio for the Public entity on the PEG. The City of Arcata and Humboldt State University (who manages the lion’s share of educational programming) are actively cooperating and deciding Channel 12’s fate. In an article published September 20th in The Lumberjack, HSU announced its involvement and intentions toward Channel 12 as waiting in the wings until, "HSU or another organization will take the task of overseeing the day-to-day operations." During what was described as a "six month" interim period, HSU is recruiting a, "media services intern [to work at the station] three days a week". This arrangement was made between the City and HSU without the Public’s knowledge or any Public participation whatsoever. In addition, the City and HSU are operating under a Memorandum of Understanding which was adopted by ACAT in their June 14th special meeting - no representatives from the City nor HSU attended. These private meetings and agreements between the City and HSU began long before ACAT’s contract was terminated. It’s uncertain when these negotiations between the City and HSU took place or who participated in them. What is certain is that the terms of the M.O.U. are currently being fulfilled. The M.O.U. has a significant impact on channel time allotment and programming by declaring, "Government access time periods shall take priority over those educational and public access". The City and HSU have also agreed that, "Educational requests for specific time periods shall take priority over those of public access." Why did the City, HSU and ACAT agree to diminish Public Access and Public programming to an inferior position in the Channel 12 PEG system? Why did the City, HSU, and ACAT agree to such terms without soliciting and allowing Public input? Evidence the M.O.U. is in force comes from the City’s own program schedule for Channel 12. Programs featuring City Hall meetings now appear more frequently and are repeated more often in prime time. The Bulletin Board advertising the City’s Home Loan Program, Parks & Recreation Classes, and other pet projects of the City, along with public service announcements, is also aired for longer periods of time and aired more often in prime time. Further, programs are being scheduled in such a way as to allow for longer gaps between shows, thereby increasing and extending bulletin board air time. It’s true the bulletin board provides a public service. However, the television industry in general considers bulletin board announcements as "filler". (It fills the air time between scheduled programs.) Most commonly, filler is kept to a minimum, especially in prime time. Perhaps the "reconstitution" process should include establishing some guidelines defining how much of Channel 12’s actual channel time may be devoted to bulletin board - especially in prime time. More specifically, how much filler is acceptable between programs and how much should be comprised of psa’s and City advertising? The fundamental question here is why Public programming has been shuffled to the bottom of the pile where it is competing with psa’s and City ads for time slots? The logic and impetus behind the 1984 Communications Act which created PEG television was to provide an equal voice to the masses who otherwise could not afford to purchase commercial TV time. PEG’s - also known as public access television are the inspiration behind famous parodies like Wayne’s World. They were created to enable expression, encompass free speech, and be free from government and commercial control of all kinds. PEG’s are to share equally one third of the channel time between the three entities: Public, Education, and Government. The treatment of programming is to be fair and unbiased regardless of its source and its content. No one entity, by virtue of its power, its money, its superior position in society is to be treated any differently than other programming contributors. Each entity on the PEG is to divvy up the channel times so each entity receives a fair portion of prime time, early evening hours, afternoon hours, and so on. Under this City-HSU model, Public Access and Public programming are at a severe disadvantage. Research of successful public access channels around the nation indicates the majority of them work collectively, yet allow government entities to manage government programming, educational institutions and committees to manage educational programming, and the public manages all public programming. This branching of power ensures no one entity may interfere with or exert an unfair advantage over another entity’s programming. When one of the PEG entities dominates another, censorship and selective programming results. Censorship concerns have been at the forefront for Public Access Producers since the City attempted to exert control over programming as early as January 1998. Then City Manager Keith Breskin insisted a documentary titled Pepper Spray - What’s the Deal? be taken off the air. It was an expose’ critical of the Humboldt County Sheriff’s use of pepper spray on nonviolent protesters who staged a sit-in against the forestry practices of Maxxam Corporation. Breskin pressured Channel 12 operators to dump the show because it depicted KIEM TV as providing sympathetic news coverage to law enforcement and KIEM’s attorney was steamed, and the City’s own retirement fund was invested in Maxxam. Breskin’s 1998 censorship efforts failed when Producer’s stood their ground insisting the program was eligible to air on public access. Channel 12 - Arcata’s PEG became APEG after the City agreed unanimously to allow ACAT’s contract to expire on July 31st. Interestingly, both Government and Public programming are now under the direct control of the City. Producers are concerned about City Hall having first and final say over the operations of Public access programming - even temporarily. These concerns extend to HSU, an institution even more powerful, wealthy, and less accountable to the people, as they position themselves to take control of Channel 12’s "day to day operations". Incidentally, the editor-in-chief of HSU’s The Lumberjack, James Tressler did not contact or interview a single Public Access Producer for his September article featuring the new APEG. The City was optimistic with their announcement of APEG, but were slow to provide necessary information about APEG. Initially, the City was not addressing questions from Producers about the services and policies of APEG particularly those concerning program scheduling. This lag in providing information and scheduling glitches prompted Producers to appeal to the City Council. "I would certainly like to feel more comfortable that we’re airing new tapes when they come in - and in the appropriate amount of time.", Jim Test replied to Public Access Producers on August 16th. Test is one of the few City Councilmembers expressing any concern over scheduling fairness at APEG. At the August 16th meeting, Sydney Munguia appealed to the City Council to allow, "the Public to have some input on what APEG’s polices and services are." Mayor Connie Stewart responded with her long running stance ignoring Public concerns and Public Access Producer’s requests for inclusion in the redesign of Channel 12. "I don’t want to be having these discussions...I don’t want to invite an ACAT [APEG] discussion at the City Council level. I think the citizens are sick of it. I’m sick of it." pouted Stewart. Censorship immediately became an issue under the new APEG management. Formal complaints regarding APEG’s failure to schedule new programs were delivered later in August to City Manager’s Assistant, John Smith from several Public Access Producers. Smith has been delegated by the City to manage the affairs of APEG. Problems arose when new shows were not being scheduled or were being aired only once amidst a sea of reruns. It was especially difficult getting shows exposing the activities of ACAT and the City over the past year on the air. The first time the Munguia’s submitted ACAT Out of Focus: Banishment... it was not scheduled. When they inquired about getting the show on the air, the tape was damaged when someone at the City previewed it in inferior equipment before it aired. As we all know, previewing tapes and weeding them out because someone doesn’t like the content is inappropriate for public access channels. In a letter to Smith, David Giarrizzo asked why his show was not being scheduled and emphasized, "This scheduling decision makes no sense...It wouldn’t be so wrong if the majority of these [rerun] tapes weren’t outdated out of the area productions." Giarrizzo’s program was finally rescheduled to air more than six weeks after it’s one and only airing on August 24th. It wasn’t until Doug Munguia raised the issue of APEG censorship on September 5th at the Democracy & Corporations Committee meeting (with Smith attending) that some action was finally taken. Munguia asked, "Why the City failed to schedule Ralph Nader at HSU 1999 Part One?" The following Friday, Munguia received a phone call from City Clerk Rob Amerman stating, "Ralph Nader...Part One would be scheduled to air on Channel 12 three times in the coming week." Adequate information and scheduling fairness is essential to smooth PEG operation. In recent weeks, the City has been more responsive and cooperative in providing Producers with necessary information and the scheduling of original local programs is improving. In a letter to Charles Douglas dated September 20th Smith explained APEG is, "Endeavoring to follow the basic ground rules for the use of public access that were adopted and used by ACAT in the last few months of their being responsible for operations." And on September 27th Smith detailed, "The deadline for submitting programs for the weekly APEG schedule is Wednesday at noon, and the scheduling committee is currently scheduling programs 3 weeks ahead." Smith continues to withold information regarding the composition and mandate of this "scheduling committee". The City of Arcata hired Dan Hauser to serve as City Manager beginning October 1st. Hauser is likely still familiarizing himself with the job. However, the tone at City Hall regarding APEG these days is more up beat and may be due to changes initiated by Hauser. In a comment to Charles Douglas on October 17th during an interview at the Eureka Inn, Hauser stressed his commitment to public access television, "I would like to see guaranteed community use for all, not promoting a single agenda.", Hauser said. Both Smith and Hauser have a daunting task here, because like the current ACAT board, the majority of the current City Council is not interested in allowing the Public to have any input in the changes taking place at Channel 12. A public shut-out is both antidemocratic and impractical. Why deny yourself the valuable insight and experience Public Access Producers and the Public at large could provide? At this point, Smith has resolved many of the scheduling concerns of Public Access Producers. Yet, there remains a real need for solid information, consistency, and public participation in the process. In addition, Producers are skeptical of APEG’s unquestioning adoption of the recently ratified ACAT rules and polices. ACAT drafted these rules with the help of Victor Schaub (a former Arcata City councilmember and former Arcata City attorney) for the purpose of limiting membership rights and excluding the majority of individuals already and potentially involved in public access. Schaub’s rewrite of ACAT’s rules were ratified hastily just two weeks prior to the cancellation of their contract by a board of 5 out of 9 comprised of individuals lacking experience in public access, management, and television production. (Yes, ACAT continues to have 4 vacancies on their board.) Since his election on September 14th 1999, ACAT president Roland Yartzoff has imposed arbitrary limits on Public input and has yet to address any of the concerns the Public has raised in the few meetings held addressing these new rules. If HSU is the favored heir of the PEG, what kind of rules and policies will they adopt and how much public input will they allow when they are designed? It’s curious that the now defunct ACAT still gets benefits from the City, eventhough the City no longer has a contract with them and ACAT is no longer fulfilling its mission to provide video training and programming. Video training courses are provided by the City. Programming is mostly provided by independent producers. The City provides ACAT with a meeting location and with APEG cameras to video tape ACAT meetings - despite the fact these tapes are never aired on Channel 12. A treasurer’s report issued by ACAT for the month of July listed "reimbursements" as their only income. The City no longer pays ACAT the pass-through funds. A $100 monthly payment to ACAT was listed as the only income - compensation from an APEG Producer responsible for the replacement value of a stolen camera. Given the confusion about the ownership of public access equipment, it’s questionable whether ACAT should be demanding such a payment. Without a valid contract, viable means of support, or resources to fulfill their mission, what role is ACAT and its 5 remaining board members Roland Yartzoff, Michael Stowell, Joan Tempas, Jody Hurlburt, and Mel Hunt currently playing in this redesign of Channel 12? As APEG, the City has consumed the video cameras, editing and cablecast equipment formerly owned and used by the Public. This equipment was purchased with pass-through monies intended to fund Public Access Programming. Noticeably, the equipment itself bears large labels that say, "APEG" and is used freely by City staff. ACAT’s treasurer Mel Hunt has not reported receiving any compensation from the City or anyone for this equipment. Not surprisingly, the ACAT board of directors continues to refuse to answer the Public’s questions regarding the status of this equipment as late as October 20th. APEG clearly has access to and is regularly using ACAT’s video tape library to schedule programming. The status of this video tape library containing well over 1,400 titles is extremely important. More than 90% of the titles in the library are encumbered with a "shared copyright". Copyrights are shared equally between ACAT and the Producer who created the show. This "shared copyright" means ACAT cannot sell, trade, loan or give away the video tapes within the library (even to the City) without the express permission of the Producers involved. No Producers have been contacted by ACAT or the City requesting their permission to allow APEG to use or consume the video tape library. October 17th, ACAT announced a special meeting scheduled for October 21st at 10:00am in the Arcata Library Conference Room - on the agenda, "Policy regarding videotape archive." No further details have been released. The ownership, disposition, and destiny of the video tape library is a sensitive issue among Public Access Producers. Producer’s not only share copyrights, but they paid for the video tape library and have an artistic interest as well. The efforts and work of Producers created the video tape library. At the very least, the City and ACAT are not giving Producers the respect they deserve when it comes to making decisions regarding the library. The transfer of assets between ACAT and the City is vague. However, it’s evident these same assets are being delivered to the City. This is in direct contradiction to ACAT’s own Articles of Incorporation which state: "On dissolution or winding up of the corporation, its assets remaining after payment of, or provision for payment of, all debts and liabilities of this corporation, shall be distributed to a nonprofit fund, foundation, or corporation which is organized and operated exclusively for charitable and educational purposes meeting the requirements of Section 214 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code..." According to this provision, the City of Arcata does not qualify for ACAT’s assets. ACAT is still registered as an active nonprofit public benefit corporation with the California Secretary of State. To date, the ACAT corporation continues to conduct business and has not dissolved. Why has ACAT allowed the City to take these assets without compensation or explanation and once again without Public inclusion? Why is ACAT refusing to answer legitimate questions about the disposition of these assets? What is the fate of public access equipment, the video tape library, and other assets if and when HSU assumes control of Channel 12? Financial concerns continue to plague the ACAT-APEG-HSU "reconstitution" effort. Questions began in January 1998 regarding the City’s role as caretaker of the Public Access pass-though funds. The City of Arcata continues to collect pass-through funds paid by Arcata Cox Cable subscribers for the purpose of funding Public Access equipment and programming on Channel 12. The City of Arcata would not then nor will they today account for how they’re spending these funds under APEG. The City of Arcata withheld financial information from the Buske Group consultant hired by the City last year to assess Channel 12’s needs. In an October 14, 1999 memorandum from the Arcata Finance Department the City admitted, "However, because of the way the City uses interfund transfers to transfer funds from the PEG Access fund for expenditures in a General Fund activity (#77), it is very difficult to specifically identify the exact expenditures for which the funding was used." Other requests for such records have also failed. Where are the records to show how this money was spent and why were the pass-through funds dumped into the general fund? At the very least, this indicates the City’s bookkeeping system was seriously flawed. It’s common knowledge Channel 12’s equipment is what the Buske report called, "antiquated". Most of the equipment was purchased when the station opened 12 years ago. Pass-through funds did purchase a couple of cameras and tripods over the years, but little else. In 1992 a videonic’s mixer and panasonic video camera were purchased with a grant from Humboldt Area Foundation. From September 1997 to June 2000, former City Manager Keith Breskin never purchased any equipment for Public Access, eventhough the City Council approved $1,614 worth of equipment in July 1998. According to a City memo dated 9-3-98, the City received on average $11,446 per year in pass-though funds in the years between 1990-1997. If not public access equipment, then what were they spending the pass-though funds on year after year? What is the City spending the Public Access pass-though funds on now under APEG - are they still going into the general fund? Failing to disclose public records has always been a red flag that something is amiss and this is no exception. What assurance does the Public have that the City of Arcata and HSU will finance the Public Access portion of the PEG any more responsibly in the future? According to The Lumberjack, "the city of Arcata, concerned citizens and educators" want everyone to put the "past behind" us. Whenever hearing forget the past rhetoric, I’m reminded of George Santayana who said, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." In this case, the past is littered with financial improprieties and violations of membership rights, copyrights, property rights, civil rights, constitutional rights. Also, on two separate occasions, a producer was physically assaulted by Yartzoff and an ACAT board member was physically assaulted by Stowell on City property in recent months. It should be noted that ACAT nor the City took any action against the individuals committing these assaults. Change is healthy and it’s appropriate to move on. However, part of this moving on process must include addressing the concerns of Public Access Producers and the Public - followed by some long overdue house cleaning. At the very least, financial records must be made public, new bookkeeping methods are needed, and a new way of doing business is needed immediately. Then the citizens can get on with the business of really operating a PEG Channel and developing new policies, new funding, and acquiring new equipment to ensure future success. "Reconstitution" is defined as, "To form again; bring back to its original form or consistency", in The World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary. To re-form Arcata’s PEG, to bring back its consistency indeed requires not the denial of its past, but rather a process that embraces change, honesty, creativity, and a commitment to equality. "Reconstitution" requires Governmental and Educational entities on the PEG to shift gears toward egalitarianism by first discontinuing their dominion over the operations of and channel time on our PEG. Government and Education must stop private negotiations inwhich they grant themselves more power, more priority, more financial advantage just because they can at the expense of the Public. Public Access Producers and the Public must be included in the upcoming franchise contract negotiations between the City and Cox Cable, and all other agreements between the City, HSU, and others in the development of any Channel 12 policies and especially the disposition of all public access equipment and the video tape library. In order for Arcata’s PEG to work for everyone as it’s intended, the Public must be on an even keel with both Governmental and Educational entities. The Arcata community cannot afford to lose Public Access or have its interests and programming demoted to some last place position. It’s precisely because of the abuses of the past that any power structure imposed or proposed for Channel 12, be highly scrutinized and subjected to Public oversight and approval - especially when these proposals are emanating from the City and HSU. Most importantly, if Arcata’s PEG is to truly embody the Free Speech concepts which inspired it, The People must have an equal voice.

Sydney Munguia (aka Sydney Wolf) is a writer, producer, and designer. Originally from Virginia, Munguia has lived in northern California for 23 years. She graduated from Humboldt State University in 1987. Munguia has been involved in public access television locally and nationally since 1995 and has produced 25 television shows including the documentary Speaking Out on the Waterfront. She is the Editor & Publisher of ZOOM: Producers Journal and is a member of the National Writers Union, the Public Access Awareness Association, and the California First Amendment Coalition. Munguia welcomes your comments, quibbles, and anecdotes at: zoom@reninet.com -or- PO Box Bayside CA 95524.