BGM press releases
Public Demands More Scrutiny, Delay of Proposed
Comcast Deal
Mon., Dec. 06, 2004 /Permalink
Council Poised to Lock City into Bad 12-year Cable
Deal
Sun., Dec. 05, 2004 /Permalink
Board of Estimates, Mayor to Consider Fate of
Baltimore’s Public Access TV
Tue., Oct. 19, 2004 /Permalink
Mayor O’Malley’s Own Cable Experts Say
Better PATV Provisions are Needed, but Comcast is a
Major Contributor
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Amanda Bowers: (410) 371-8218
WHAT: Public Hearing before the Board of Estimates on Proposed Contract with Comcast
WHEN: Wednesday, Oct. 20, 9:00 AM
WHERE: City Hall, 100 N. Holliday St.
BALTIMORE, MD—The Board of Estimates, in which Mayor O’Malley and his appointees hold the majority of the seats, is scheduled to consider the City’s proposed cable franchise agreement Wednesday morning. Under the agreement’s terms, Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company, would not dedicate any operating funds to public access television (PATV). Advocacy groups such as Baltimore Grassroots Media (BGM) and the Mayor’s own cable policy advisors are urging the City to hold out for better terms.
“The hearing will give the Mayor the opportunity to put the needs and interests of his constituents ahead of the interests of a cable giant that happens to contribute to his campaign,” said Amanda Bowers, a BGM spokesperson. “On Wednesday, we will learn who Mayor O’Malley really represents.”
The Sun reported on October 14 that “O’Malley’s administration supports the deal” with Comcast. However, Marilyn Harris-Davis, Executive Director of the Mayor’s Office of Cable & Communications, told The Baltimore Chronicle in September that it would be “a good thing” if the City required Comcast “to give us more money”—though officially the MOCC recommended approving the contract. Also, members of the Mayor’s own cable advisory commission said at their last public meeting that the contract should be rejected because of its inadequate cable access provisions.
The Baltimore Chronicle also reported that the City’s Law Department, acting on behalf of the Mayor’s Office, made no attempt to negotiate for PATV operating funds during the franchise negotiations with Comcast. (See http://baltimorechronicle.com/090904BradCarlton.html.) Yet the cable contracts in many other cities provide for public access operating expenses. Washington DC’s new contract with Comcast dedicates 1% of the local cable revenues specifically for public access operating costs, plus another third of a percent for capital costs. Montgomery County—whose County Executive, Doug Duncan, is Mayor O’Malley’s strongest potential challenger for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination—receives millions of dollars annually for public access operational expenses from the cable company.
“Why isn’t the City trying to build on the recent successful contracts in other cities to make Baltimore the new standard?” asked Mike Shea, a volunteer for public access Channel 5. “Does the Mayor ‘believe’ that the people of Baltimore deserve less from the cable company than the people of DC and other cities?”
O’Malley has received more than $8,000 in campaign contributions from Comcast and its executives. City Council President Sheila Dixon and City Comptroller Joan Pratt, who fill the seats on the Board of Estimates not appointed by the Mayor, have received more than $4,000 and $1,000, respectively, from Comcast and its executives.
One of the Mayor’s appointees to the Board of Estimates, City Solicitor Ralph S. Tyler, told the Sun that “if the bill fails, a federal regulatory board could force the city to adopt a contract that provides even less funding for cable access channels.”
That argument is a “red herring,” according to James Horwood, an attorney with the Spiegel & McDiarmid law firm and one of the nation’s foremost experts in telecommunications laws. “There’s no reason to rush into something that doesn’t seem to be good,” Horwood said. “Certainly if the City has a needs assessment showing community needs that aren’t met, then you shouldn't do worse. You should be able to do better.”
The City did in fact commission a Community Needs Assessment survey, which demonstrated that Baltimore’s cable needs include 10% of the digital bandwidth (unprovided for in the contract) and sustained funding for all three cable access entities, sometimes known as “PEG,” which includes the government cable access and education access. The “P” stands for “people,” or “public access.” Currently, only the government access station has sustained funding. Public access has no funding at all.
Members of the O’Malley administration have publicly stated that a public access operator could raise much of its budget through fundraising. However, according to Dr. Jonathan Shorr, chairman of the Mayor’s own Cable Advisory Commission, no public access station in the country has ever been able to rely on fundraising for more than 15% of their annual budget.
Not only does the proposed contract leave public access without operating funds, it allows the Mayor’s Office sole discretion for the dispersal of capital funds to all three PEG entities. Under the current agreement, the Mayor’s office directs all PEG money to the government access station (which has a $1.1 million annual budget) and zero dollars to public access, despite the money it receives for PEG from its Baltimore Harbor cable contract with Flight Systems and the leasing of another cable access channel.
The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 allows a local government to deny renewal of a cable franchise if the cable company does not “meet the future cable-related community needs and interests, taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests.”
Baltimore Grassroots Media believes that the proposed contract does not meet this standard and calls on the City to reject it because it:
does not allocate specific funding for public access TV
allocates an insufficient amount of capital funds for all of P,E, and G
provides no money for operating expenses
leaves cable subscribers to bear the cost of PEG rather than Comcast of Baltimore
reduces the number of PEG channels
would not be renegotiated for 12 years, too long a period in an era of rapid technology changes
Comcast can afford to do better for the people of Baltimore. Comcast of Baltimore has earned $270 million in gross revenue from cable services alone since July 2001. The company has made over $100 million during that time through its use of Baltimore’s public easements, and should be obligated to provide Baltimore’s communities full, yearly renewable PATV funding.
Public access television allows any citizen to exercise their free speech rights through access to channels devoted specifically for that purpose. It provides training and jobs for people interested in communications and technology fields, and it provides a healthy outlet for our youth to express themselves and learn valuable skills.
“Mayor O’Malley often says that the Baltimore is the ‘Greatest City in America,’ said Bowers. “Doesn’t the best city deserve the best public access resources opportunities for its constituents? We will find out Wednesday whether the Mayor thinks so.”
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Amanda Bowers: (410) 371-8218
WHAT: Public Hearing before the Board of Estimates on Proposed Contract with Comcast
WHEN: Wednesday, Oct. 20, 9:00 AM
WHERE: City Hall, 100 N. Holliday St.
BALTIMORE, MD—The Board of Estimates, in which Mayor O’Malley and his appointees hold the majority of the seats, is scheduled to consider the City’s proposed cable franchise agreement Wednesday morning. Under the agreement’s terms, Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company, would not dedicate any operating funds to public access television (PATV). Advocacy groups such as Baltimore Grassroots Media (BGM) and the Mayor’s own cable policy advisors are urging the City to hold out for better terms.
“The hearing will give the Mayor the opportunity to put the needs and interests of his constituents ahead of the interests of a cable giant that happens to contribute to his campaign,” said Amanda Bowers, a BGM spokesperson. “On Wednesday, we will learn who Mayor O’Malley really represents.”
The Sun reported on October 14 that “O’Malley’s administration supports the deal” with Comcast. However, Marilyn Harris-Davis, Executive Director of the Mayor’s Office of Cable & Communications, told The Baltimore Chronicle in September that it would be “a good thing” if the City required Comcast “to give us more money”—though officially the MOCC recommended approving the contract. Also, members of the Mayor’s own cable advisory commission said at their last public meeting that the contract should be rejected because of its inadequate cable access provisions.
The Baltimore Chronicle also reported that the City’s Law Department, acting on behalf of the Mayor’s Office, made no attempt to negotiate for PATV operating funds during the franchise negotiations with Comcast. (See http://baltimorechronicle.com/090904BradCarlton.html.) Yet the cable contracts in many other cities provide for public access operating expenses. Washington DC’s new contract with Comcast dedicates 1% of the local cable revenues specifically for public access operating costs, plus another third of a percent for capital costs. Montgomery County—whose County Executive, Doug Duncan, is Mayor O’Malley’s strongest potential challenger for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination—receives millions of dollars annually for public access operational expenses from the cable company.
“Why isn’t the City trying to build on the recent successful contracts in other cities to make Baltimore the new standard?” asked Mike Shea, a volunteer for public access Channel 5. “Does the Mayor ‘believe’ that the people of Baltimore deserve less from the cable company than the people of DC and other cities?”
O’Malley has received more than $8,000 in campaign contributions from Comcast and its executives. City Council President Sheila Dixon and City Comptroller Joan Pratt, who fill the seats on the Board of Estimates not appointed by the Mayor, have received more than $4,000 and $1,000, respectively, from Comcast and its executives.
One of the Mayor’s appointees to the Board of Estimates, City Solicitor Ralph S. Tyler, told the Sun that “if the bill fails, a federal regulatory board could force the city to adopt a contract that provides even less funding for cable access channels.”
That argument is a “red herring,” according to James Horwood, an attorney with the Spiegel & McDiarmid law firm and one of the nation’s foremost experts in telecommunications laws. “There’s no reason to rush into something that doesn’t seem to be good,” Horwood said. “Certainly if the City has a needs assessment showing community needs that aren’t met, then you shouldn't do worse. You should be able to do better.”
The City did in fact commission a Community Needs Assessment survey, which demonstrated that Baltimore’s cable needs include 10% of the digital bandwidth (unprovided for in the contract) and sustained funding for all three cable access entities, sometimes known as “PEG,” which includes the government cable access and education access. The “P” stands for “people,” or “public access.” Currently, only the government access station has sustained funding. Public access has no funding at all.
Members of the O’Malley administration have publicly stated that a public access operator could raise much of its budget through fundraising. However, according to Dr. Jonathan Shorr, chairman of the Mayor’s own Cable Advisory Commission, no public access station in the country has ever been able to rely on fundraising for more than 15% of their annual budget.
Not only does the proposed contract leave public access without operating funds, it allows the Mayor’s Office sole discretion for the dispersal of capital funds to all three PEG entities. Under the current agreement, the Mayor’s office directs all PEG money to the government access station (which has a $1.1 million annual budget) and zero dollars to public access, despite the money it receives for PEG from its Baltimore Harbor cable contract with Flight Systems and the leasing of another cable access channel.
The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 allows a local government to deny renewal of a cable franchise if the cable company does not “meet the future cable-related community needs and interests, taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests.”
Baltimore Grassroots Media believes that the proposed contract does not meet this standard and calls on the City to reject it because it:
does not allocate specific funding for public access TV
allocates an insufficient amount of capital funds for all of P,E, and G
provides no money for operating expenses
leaves cable subscribers to bear the cost of PEG rather than Comcast of Baltimore
reduces the number of PEG channels
would not be renegotiated for 12 years, too long a period in an era of rapid technology changes
Comcast can afford to do better for the people of Baltimore. Comcast of Baltimore has earned $270 million in gross revenue from cable services alone since July 2001. The company has made over $100 million during that time through its use of Baltimore’s public easements, and should be obligated to provide Baltimore’s communities full, yearly renewable PATV funding.
Public access television allows any citizen to exercise their free speech rights through access to channels devoted specifically for that purpose. It provides training and jobs for people interested in communications and technology fields, and it provides a healthy outlet for our youth to express themselves and learn valuable skills.
“Mayor O’Malley often says that the Baltimore is the ‘Greatest City in America,’ said Bowers. “Doesn’t the best city deserve the best public access resources opportunities for its constituents? We will find out Wednesday whether the Mayor thinks so.”
Public Access TV Advocates Call on City Council
Members Dixon, Curran, Harris, and Mitchell to Recuse
Themselves from Cable Franchise Vote
Mon., Aug. 23, 2004 /Permalink
News Release: August
23, 2004
For more information contact:
Amanda Bowers: (410) 371-8218
These Four Council Members’ Financial Ties to Comcast Appear to Show Conflicts of Interest, Advocates Say
BALTIMORE, MD—City Council President Sheila Dixon and Council Members Robert Curran, Keiffer Mitchell, Jr., and Kenneth Harris should stand aside from voting on the City’s proposed franchise agreement with Comcast because of their financialties to the cable giant, according to members of Baltimore Grassroots Media (BGM), a citywide coalition of concerned citizens, public access volunteers, and producers.
Using data from the current election cycle on file at the State Board of Elections, BGM determined that Dixon, Curran, and Mitchell each received substantial campaign contributions from Comcast for their current reelection campaigns. These same three Council members accepted gifts from Comcast in the form of sporting events tickets worth approximately $100 to $200, according to a report by Doug Donovan of The Sun. Additionally, City Council member Kenneth Harris works for Comcast as the company’s director of business services and received a $250 contribution on July 17, 2003 from Comcast Sr. VP Barbara Gehrig.
“Comcast doesn’t give campaign contributions and sports tickets to City Council members out of the goodness of its heart,” said Amanda Bowers, BGM’s spokesperson. “It does so with a clear intent to influence the legislative process for its benefit, at the expense of the public interest.”
The Baltimore Ethics Code requires elected officials to “disqualify himself or herself” in any matter involving “a business entity which is a creditor or obligee of the elected official... with respect to a thing of economic value” [City Charter, Article 8 § 4-2 (a)]. The Code also makes it clear that City officials are to “guard against undue influence” and stand aside from matters where there is even an “appearance” of a conflict of interest [Article 8 § 1-2 (d)].
Below is a list of contributions that Comcast has given to the reelection campaigns of Dixon, Curran, and Mitchell.
To City Council President Sheila Dixon:
$2,000 received from Comcast on 7/31/03
$500 received from Comcast’s Mid-Atlantic President Stephen Burch on 5/7/03
$1,000 received from Comcast VP/General Manager Kenneth Crooks on 6/18/03
$1,000 received from Comcast Sr. Vice-President Barbara Gehrig, also on 6/18/03
————
$4,500 minimum total received from Comcast and its executives (current cycle only)
To City Councilman Robert Curran:
$250 received from Comcast on 8/26/03
$250 received from Comcast VP/GM Crooks on 8/15/03
$250 received from Comcast Sr. VPGehrig on 7/18/03
———
$750 minimum total received from Comcast and its executives (current cycle only)
To City Councilman Keiffer Mitchell, Jr.:
$250 received from Comcast on 8/22/03
$500 received from Comcast VP/GM Crooks on 11/6/03
———
$750 minimum total received from Comcast and its executives (current cycle only)
Council members Helen Holton, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Edward Reisinger, and Bernard “Jack” Young received lesser amounts from executives at Comcast, though not from the company itself, during the current election cycle. However, BGM finds Dixon, Curran, and Mitchell’s pattern of accepting multiple contributions and gifts from Comcast and its executives to be far more serious.
Members of the the Mayor’s Office, which negotiated the franchise agreement with Comcast, and of the Board of Estimates, which grants final approval for the agreement, have also benefited from Comcast’s money. Comptroller Joan Pratt’s campaign received $1,000 from Comcast (8/1/03), and an additional $250 from Comcast Sr. VPBarbara Gehrig (6/18/03). Gehrig has also given to Mayor Martin O’Malley’s reelection campaign a total of $3,000, in addition to the $4,000 he received from Comcast Mid-Atlantic President Burch (5/14/03). Comcast is also a major contributor to Mayor O’Malley’s BELIEVE campaign. Moreover, at least two former members of O’Malley’s adminIstration accepted gifts from the company, according to The Sun.
City Council member Kwame Abayomi said there is “too loose a line” between what is considered ethical and unethical behavior for Council members. Regarding the gifts members of Council and the Mayor’s Office received from Comcast, Abayomi said, “Some of the perks are at the line or cross it.” BGM calls on all all members of City Council and the Board of Estimates, as well as officials in the Mayor’s Office, to publicly reveal any contributions or gifts from the current election cycle that they have received from Comcast but not yet disclosed.
Baltimore Grassroots Media’s members are united in their advocacy of an adequately-funded, democratically-controlled, well-run, and widely-utilized public access station for Baltimore. By that standard, according to Bowers, “the public access provisions in the proposed franchise agreement, as negotiated between Comcast and the Mayor’s Office and subject to City Council’s approval, are wholly unacceptable and could not be more favorable to Comcast.”
Comcast, the world’s largest cable operator, earned $262 million in net profits in the last quarter alone and currently boasts an operating cash flow of $7.5 billion. Under the proposed franchise agreement, Comcast would pass along the capital costs for cable access through an increase in subscribers’ cable bills. The company itself has no obligation to fund public access in exchange for its control over Baltimore’s cable market. Its proposed agreement with the City does not earmark any funds for public access staff nor ongoing operating expenses; reduces the number of cable access channels granted under the previous agreement from 12 to 8; and would not be subject to renegotiation for another 12 years.
###
For more information contact:
Amanda Bowers: (410) 371-8218
These Four Council Members’ Financial Ties to Comcast Appear to Show Conflicts of Interest, Advocates Say
BALTIMORE, MD—City Council President Sheila Dixon and Council Members Robert Curran, Keiffer Mitchell, Jr., and Kenneth Harris should stand aside from voting on the City’s proposed franchise agreement with Comcast because of their financialties to the cable giant, according to members of Baltimore Grassroots Media (BGM), a citywide coalition of concerned citizens, public access volunteers, and producers.
Using data from the current election cycle on file at the State Board of Elections, BGM determined that Dixon, Curran, and Mitchell each received substantial campaign contributions from Comcast for their current reelection campaigns. These same three Council members accepted gifts from Comcast in the form of sporting events tickets worth approximately $100 to $200, according to a report by Doug Donovan of The Sun. Additionally, City Council member Kenneth Harris works for Comcast as the company’s director of business services and received a $250 contribution on July 17, 2003 from Comcast Sr. VP Barbara Gehrig.
“Comcast doesn’t give campaign contributions and sports tickets to City Council members out of the goodness of its heart,” said Amanda Bowers, BGM’s spokesperson. “It does so with a clear intent to influence the legislative process for its benefit, at the expense of the public interest.”
The Baltimore Ethics Code requires elected officials to “disqualify himself or herself” in any matter involving “a business entity which is a creditor or obligee of the elected official... with respect to a thing of economic value” [City Charter, Article 8 § 4-2 (a)]. The Code also makes it clear that City officials are to “guard against undue influence” and stand aside from matters where there is even an “appearance” of a conflict of interest [Article 8 § 1-2 (d)].
Below is a list of contributions that Comcast has given to the reelection campaigns of Dixon, Curran, and Mitchell.
To City Council President Sheila Dixon:
$2,000 received from Comcast on 7/31/03
$500 received from Comcast’s Mid-Atlantic President Stephen Burch on 5/7/03
$1,000 received from Comcast VP/General Manager Kenneth Crooks on 6/18/03
$1,000 received from Comcast Sr. Vice-President Barbara Gehrig, also on 6/18/03
————
$4,500 minimum total received from Comcast and its executives (current cycle only)
To City Councilman Robert Curran:
$250 received from Comcast on 8/26/03
$250 received from Comcast VP/GM Crooks on 8/15/03
$250 received from Comcast Sr. VPGehrig on 7/18/03
———
$750 minimum total received from Comcast and its executives (current cycle only)
To City Councilman Keiffer Mitchell, Jr.:
$250 received from Comcast on 8/22/03
$500 received from Comcast VP/GM Crooks on 11/6/03
———
$750 minimum total received from Comcast and its executives (current cycle only)
Council members Helen Holton, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Edward Reisinger, and Bernard “Jack” Young received lesser amounts from executives at Comcast, though not from the company itself, during the current election cycle. However, BGM finds Dixon, Curran, and Mitchell’s pattern of accepting multiple contributions and gifts from Comcast and its executives to be far more serious.
Members of the the Mayor’s Office, which negotiated the franchise agreement with Comcast, and of the Board of Estimates, which grants final approval for the agreement, have also benefited from Comcast’s money. Comptroller Joan Pratt’s campaign received $1,000 from Comcast (8/1/03), and an additional $250 from Comcast Sr. VPBarbara Gehrig (6/18/03). Gehrig has also given to Mayor Martin O’Malley’s reelection campaign a total of $3,000, in addition to the $4,000 he received from Comcast Mid-Atlantic President Burch (5/14/03). Comcast is also a major contributor to Mayor O’Malley’s BELIEVE campaign. Moreover, at least two former members of O’Malley’s adminIstration accepted gifts from the company, according to The Sun.
City Council member Kwame Abayomi said there is “too loose a line” between what is considered ethical and unethical behavior for Council members. Regarding the gifts members of Council and the Mayor’s Office received from Comcast, Abayomi said, “Some of the perks are at the line or cross it.” BGM calls on all all members of City Council and the Board of Estimates, as well as officials in the Mayor’s Office, to publicly reveal any contributions or gifts from the current election cycle that they have received from Comcast but not yet disclosed.
Baltimore Grassroots Media’s members are united in their advocacy of an adequately-funded, democratically-controlled, well-run, and widely-utilized public access station for Baltimore. By that standard, according to Bowers, “the public access provisions in the proposed franchise agreement, as negotiated between Comcast and the Mayor’s Office and subject to City Council’s approval, are wholly unacceptable and could not be more favorable to Comcast.”
Comcast, the world’s largest cable operator, earned $262 million in net profits in the last quarter alone and currently boasts an operating cash flow of $7.5 billion. Under the proposed franchise agreement, Comcast would pass along the capital costs for cable access through an increase in subscribers’ cable bills. The company itself has no obligation to fund public access in exchange for its control over Baltimore’s cable market. Its proposed agreement with the City does not earmark any funds for public access staff nor ongoing operating expenses; reduces the number of cable access channels granted under the previous agreement from 12 to 8; and would not be subject to renegotiation for another 12 years.
###
Baltimore Grassroots Media Calls for New Cable
Contract to Guarantee Funding for Public Access TV
and for More Time for Public Input
Tue., Mar. 30, 2004 /Permalink