-
"MCTV consulting lawyer over contract"
By SCOTT BROOKS, New Hampshire Union Leader Staff, July 14, 2009
MANCHESTER – Manchester Community Television is consulting an attorney and could sue the city for breach of contract, School Superintendent Tom Brennan said last night.
MCTV Executive Director Grace Sullivan confirmed she has been in touch with the Manchester law firm of Cronin & Bisson. However, she said, "We haven't talked about suing. We've just been talking about options."
Mayor Frank Guinta conceded the city is "not currently living up to the spirit" of its contract with MCTV, which entitles the local TV network to substantially more money than it received in this year's city budget.
The mayor said he wants MCTV to make sacrifices.
"To be honest with you," Guinta said, "the city, as people I think understand, needs as much of this revenue as possible for other services."
School board members have previously instructed Brennan to abstain from negotiations over MCTV's payment. Yesterday, Committeeman Art Beaudry directed the superintendent to investigate the possibility of severing ties between the district and MCTV.
"I don't understand, really, why the school district has any involvement with MCTV," Beaudry said.
MCTV airs government and educational programming on Channels 16 and 22. It is administered by the Manchester School District.
Aldermen this year cut funding to both MCTV and Manchester Community Access Media, which airs on Channel 23. City Finance Officer Bill Sanders has said the networks are due a combined $869,000. Aldermen appropriated just $500,000.
"All I know is that they have a contract," Committeeman At-Large Kathleen Kelley said, "so why wouldn't they fight for what their contract is?" "They're part of the city," Guinta responded. "That's the point."
Brennan took responsibility for authorizing MCTV to seek legal counsel.
-
READERS' COMMENTS:
Richard, Manchester - I need to correct you. The city does not subsidize MCTV and MCAM, Comcast does through the P.E.G. fee on your cable bill. Many communities in NH specify in their contracts with their cable provider that 100% of the P.E.G. fee be only used for P.E.G. television channels. Manchester is greedy. Its contract with Comcast says that it gets a piece of the P.E.G. fee for its general fund. In the current city budget the Board of Mayor and Aldermen are trying to increase its share of the P.E.G. fee by violating the contracts with MCTV and MCAM.
If Manchester's cable contract had stipulated that 100% of the P.E.G. fee be only used for its P.E.G. television channels then MCTV and MCAM would not be in the funding crisis that they currently find themselves in and they would not have to turn to the city for funding.
Your issue is with the Mayor and Aldermen. 100% of the money collected from the P.E.G. fee that Manchester Comcast customers pay should be dedicated to Manchester's P.E.G. television channels (MCTV and MCAM) and nothing else.
- David R, Manchester
MCTV provides an important service by carrying the aldermanic and school board meetings.
MCAM is just a festival of cranks, religious zealots, and free-lance nuts. These people should have private podcasts and not ask the city to subsidize their antics. Of course, that would mean Joe Briggs might not get his nice little consulting fees from MCAM, would it?
- Richard, Manchester
I don't mind the channels but however would like them to show up on time to video stuff, graduations and such and it would be ever so helpful if they would record it correctly. They showed up 40 minutes late to a promotion ceremony and you can't hear any of the voices due to the poor quality of sound equiptment they have.
- Jenn, Manchester, NH
MCAM is a 'bus' model where each producer pays a percentage of the subsidized fee, with the subsidy being the cable franchise fee. Comcast bills subscribers a 5% franchise fee, the city collects $1.4M, then budgets about $575 to mctv, and $275 to mcam. This year's alderman budget axed that to 366/133.
- Joe Briggs, Manchester NH
To answer JSF of Manchester....yes, MCAM producers pay a yearly fee to broadcast their variety of programming on Channel 23 all year long. I've been a paying member since public access was start apart of the MCTV banner before it split out to MCAM. They are also encouraged to seek sponsers, do fundraisers, etc. MCAM is very involved in constantly trying to raise funds to survive the economy.
I've never understood the government and education channels of MCTV and why there has to be 2. There is hardly enough new, interesting programming out of the MCTV camp to require 2 channels. Government & Education used to share Channel 16, along with public access, then it became Channels 16, 22, and 23. What MCTV and the city should consider doing to save money is to re-consolidate the channels back into one. Do I really need to see the same meetings and plays 30 times in a month? Or could you accomplish more keeping a fairly newer schedule without the 30 replays? 1 or 2 is usually sufficiant enough.
- Bill, Manchester
I watch this channel all the time because I like to know what's going on in my city.
- Joanne, Manchester
More info is needed in this article such as funding needed for each channel seperately. Also, do producers on MCAM pay anything for their partisan policical discussion type shows?
I see the value in MCTV, from a city funding standpoint, for the broadcast of board meetings and civic activities such as parades, monument deidications, school sports, etc. However, on the MCAM side, there is a large amount of very partisian opinion type broadcasting that I believe should be paid for entirely by the producer.
- JSF, Manch
I think that the TV stations you are referring to are a waste of money to start. The kids are suffering with lack of tools they need for school. I asked several people i know if they ever watch these channels all said only flipping through channels. Change the contract or don't renew. The next one its a waste of money the $369,000 could save some valuable teachers who got pink slipped that our children need to learn.
- KAV, Manchester
At the last aldermanic meeting Betsy DeVries brought this up and I guess was one of the few alderman who saw this coming and it looks like the Mayors response to her to make a last minute phone call the following day didn't take care of the problem & smooth it over like he thought it would.
- Cecil, Manchester
----------
"City reconsiders contracts with public access TV"
By GARRY RAYNO, New Hampshire Union Leader Staff, December 5, 2009
MANCHESTER – City taxpayers could benefit if the Board of Mayor and Aldermen decide to change the contracts with the city's two public access television stations, MCTV and MCAM.
The city's current agreement with Comcast calls for the city to receive 5 percent of the cable television company's gross revenues from city subscribers, according to Deputy City Solicitor Thomas Arnold.
Under the federal cable act, federal or state agencies cannot mandate how the money is spent although many cities and towns use it to support public, educational and governmental (PEG) channels, or regulating cable service.
Arnold said the money goes into Manchester's general fund and the city pays some of it to the public access stations under their contracts with the city.
He noted the remainder of the money stays in the city's general fund, which is used to pay city expenses. If funding for the stations is reduced, more money would remain in the general fund, which would require less money from taxes to pay for city services.
A typical Comcast bill lists the monthly franchise fee and the PEG access fee under the heading "Taxes, Surcharges & Fees" on the second page. The total tax and fee charge is on the first page under the heading "New Charges Summary."
According to the federal code for cable collections, any reduction in franchise fees must be passed on to subscribers. For Manchester cable subscribers to benefit, the city's agreement with Comcast would need to change to reflect a lower percentage of gross revenues.
Aldermen agreed earlier this week to increase funding for MCTV with the city facing a possible lawsuit over reduced payments. Several aldermen want to renegotiate the contracts with the stations.
----------
No comments:
Post a Comment