Blog · Page 9 of 17

PEGPETIA Purpose, Equity and Reasonableness

Testimony to PURA from WPAA-TV: In support of equity in service to our diverse communities about the method of funding for capital expenses associated with CT Community TV

Equity and reasonableness within a system with embedded inequities are challenging and noble goals.

In striving to achieve Goal #6 ‘applicant‐friendly and not unduly burdensome to the applicant and the Department’, the process of 1st in eligibility may have made the program less equitable and reasonable. For the purpose of ‘equity’, many public and private funding processes post a deadline for submissions then rank submissions by criteria such as eligibility, impact, ROI, accountability, lives served and purpose.

The CT Gen Stat § 16-331a and the recent Federal Communication Commission FCC) Order (MB Docket No. 05‐311 Third Order and Report) inform this feedback as well as a few other funding-related CATV Dockets.

What is the purpose of PEGPETIA?

The PEGPETIA program appears to once again be viable. Good News. But does it do what was intended and do it and do it equitably?

It is our understanding from the legislative and regulatory history that PEGPETIA was implemented in part to address capital funding gaps for Community TV caused by the discontinuance of franchise negotiations at the onset of Sec. 16‐331a Regulations. This was a long gap in history to overcome. Now there are PEGPETIA Program Gaps to overcome. Prioritizing a response to gaps in the reopening of the program could address some inequities. For example, allotting more money to P.E.G. in the initial roll‐out would help the targeted entities regain some stability. Unlike the education applicants that are seeking alternative funding sources or a source for ‘new’ initiatives.

A throwback note: During franchise ‘renewals’ local PEG operations were infused with infrastructure support. The focus of these discussions revolved around needs assessments and a determination of “adequate”. Absent re-franchising, many, if not all P.E.G. organizations have not been able to maintain what we at WPAA‐TV refer to as the “tools & stage” to engage media makers, let alone provide state‐of‐the‐art equipment for citizen media makers.

All P.E.G. organizations need some basics systems to maintain efficient operations (i.e. server-based distribution, HD capable cameras, LED Lights and more) before they can seek to achieve the funding program goal of increasing the quantity, quality, and variety of community access programs.

Prior Project Completion | Questioning ‘Not Eligible’

Our prior testimony cited that previously paid emergency expenditures were excluded from eligibility in Docket 08‐07‐31. It was our intention to bring this to the attention of reviewers such that criteria for reimbursement such as “emergencies’ or ‘lapses in the PEGPETIA Program itself’ could potentially be considered eligible ‘if harm’ could be established. The failure of technology cannot always be predicted. A TV station that is black serves no one. The Proposed Guidelines took the opposite approach adding the question [HAS THE PROJECT BEEN COMPLETED AS OF THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION?] FOLLOWED BY [GRANTS WILL NOT BE ISSUED FOR PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED PROJECTS.]
Similarly, this new clarified provision would exclude eligibility of financing for property acquisition. In the next section, we suggest that property acquisition and renovation is a SUBSTANTIAL OMISSION in this program and for CT PEGs no longer eligible to renew franchises.

Capital Cost Funding in PEGPETIA | Facility Acquisition and renovation

While it is not specifically stated, the PEGPETIA process makes funding for building acquisition and or renovation impossible. Yet the significant turnaround in the FCC Third Order expanded the definition of traditional capital expenditures (a.k.a. costs associated with the construction of PEG access facilities). The FCC expansion incorporates as fundable without ‘caps’ that which is typically considered ineligible within PEGPETIA. The absence within the PEGPETIA program of funding for traditional capital expense costs has forced PEG organizations to avoid strategic development of facilities or siphon funds from operational expenses.

MB Docket No. 05‐311 Third Order and Report cites immediately on page 2 that its focus on caps and in‐kind has ‘limited exceptions’, including an exemption for certain capital costs related to public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) channels. [Continuing on p. 6] the FCC states “We find that the Act exempts capital contributions associated with the acquisition or improvement of a PEG facility from this definition and remind LFAs that under the Act they may only require “adequate” PEG access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support. In conclusions … the term “capital cost” …should be given its ordinary meaning, which is a cost incurred in acquiring or improving a capital asset. Furthermore as cited in Section 32 (p 20): … it can apply to contributions for both construction‐related and non‐construction related contributions to PEG access facilities. It is further clarified in Section 33 (p 20) we find that the term “capital costs” is not limited to construction‐related costs; rather, it generally encompasses costs incurred in acquiring or improving capital assets for PEG access facilities.

This turnabout in the Order is clarified in Section 35 (p 21) … not simply for the construction of PEG studios, but also for, among other things, the acquisition of equipment needed to produce PEG access programming. …cable companies have urged the Commission to reaffirm, …, that “capital costs” are limited to costs associated with the construction of PEG
access facilities. … capital costs are distinct from operating costs (or operating expenses), which are generally defined as expenses “incurred in running a business and producing output.”… the Commission has distinguished between costs incurred in the building of PEG facilities, which are capital costs, and costs incurred in using those facilities, which are not.

In summary, the FCC order clearly establishes provisions for funding of construction and/or acquisition of facilities. It is strongly suggested that PEGPETIA be reviewed in this context. It is urged that the Dept. address this omission both retrospectively and strategically. Several organizations in Connecticut have taken on risky strategic venture using operating funds for capital expenditures. A reparation for this exclusion which Federal Law established as central to our existence is suggested even if done so in incremental payments or per square foot allocations.

Eligibility for PEGPETIA | Response to Draft

Retaining a process that aligns closely with the language of the law seems safe. Adding Libraries to eligible entities for ‘education’ portion of funds seems appropriate as they are evolving into technology service centers and have historically been identified to be members of Advisory Councils. It is unclear if the’ mission information’ or’ lack of standing as an organization in good standing with the Connecticut Secretary of State’ would indirectly eliminate the Advisory Councils which was recommended in the initial round of comments

What is the intention of Two-Part Eligibility? Applicant and Project
Do they apply to all applications? Inherent in PEGPETIA is a dichotomy between infrastructure and program projects. The goals of Capital vs. Program Implementations are distinctly different. Nearly every PEGPETIA Application from PEG operations to‐date were infrastructure updates cloaked in program terminology to comply with the original application process. Replacing obsolete equipment is the most common bottom‐line. A few may have expanded capacity but sustainability and efficiency and minimization of failure are the primary objectives for most capital projects. For example, new lights could result in less heat, more efficient use of electricity and less bulb replacement but there could be zero relationships to more or better video outcomes. You need lights for video production. What would be an OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR NEW LIGHTS?

Capital Funds are essentially for outdated equipment & facilities. Some tangential enhanced, expanded, or strengthening of existing services or capacity could happen but this is rare especially when some organizations have equipment that is decades old. Applicants that are not trying to sustain a P.E. or G. operation may be seeking new technologies for new outcomes or services. Herein we suggest that pure infrastructure projects by organizations whose mission is providing PEG are merely PEG Applicants, not Project Applicants. If this Program functions well for a decade we may be able to seek to be more Program | Project orientation.
Question: Will Project Milestones be guidelines for reporting on implementations? The prior process appeared to have preset timelines that may have entities reporting on projects completed months earlier. This can cause some deadline challenges as projects & report deadlines are not aligned.

PROJECT ELIGIBILITY | COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY ACCESS RULES
The language in Project Eligibility Section 6 of the draft application is confusing and potentially unnecessary. Most applicants are ‘Community Access Provider (CAP)’ so why would compliance with ‘community access provider operating rules and regulations’ aka themselves be part of the application? Please note that this language might unintentionally disqualify Wallingford Government TV (WGTV) from funding per the determination in Docket 08‐04‐09 that WGTV Management exercises editorial control.

WPAA‐TV did urge that prior noncompliance with PEGPETIA and CAP Annual Reporting influence eligibility. This recommendation does appear to be part of the new process based on the description of #6 in Applicant Eligibility. Will this self‐report be verified? Prior Applications and compliance is part of the public record. Would a community that has a non‐compliant education channel be eligible for other tech initiative grants?

AFFECTED GEOGRAPHICAL AREA | Inconsistencies in Decisions
In Docket #10‐03‐02 it was concluded that regardless of the size of the population served the base costs for a Community TV station are equivalent and the per sub rate needed to be adjusted to accommodate community size. It was suggested in testimony that base costs for operations be funded from PEGPETIA regardless of size and that fees remain community-based because of the number of people that need to be served is higher. Obviously, the availability of funds for infrastructure was not available consistently for any organization party to this Docket. The smallest entity No. Branford did not seek PEGPETIA money in the initial years of the program and recently renovated a building it does not own with funds accumulated from per sub adjustments. The largest entity WPAA‐TV was awarded a substantial PEGPETIA Grants in 2‐part with mention of accommodation of sub fee losses to a rate lower than the regulation average.

Suggestions to support mergers to broaden the impact of geographical reach were dismissed. In Docket 98‐01‐05RE01 The Dept. concluded no proration of sub fees were needed due to community size. Lakeville Dockets also raises the question of size and funding allocations. Service area and numbers served have been inconsistently recognized in rulings of the Dept. It is challenging. Therefore, it is suggested that the overall capacity of organizations to full‐fill the mission of PEG be assessed in a related docket to help create a system that more equitable serve the end-users, the citizens. In Sec 16.331a‐2 ‘Number of Community channels required’; each community is said to be eligible for one channel and there is a benchmark for adding channel capacity. It is highly probable that there are geographic regions for which the capacity to add channels have been exceeded and others whose channel capacity for three channels does not meet the max benchmark for one. If channel and CAP area eligibility is inequitable the related funding programs will also be inequitable.

In conclusion, adding Libraries to the eligible for entities seems appropriate. Retaining a process that aligns closely with the language of the law seems safe. Since several communities are financing their building out of operating costs or have done so this specific fund omission is recommended to be fixed both going forward AND retrospectively. There is recent and clear guidance from the FCC that this aspect of funding was intended to be available to P.E.G. operations. It is not available in Connecticut. It can be if this program accounts for it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXHIBIT Expanded Quotes from FCC Order about Facility Capital Costs
MB Docket No. 05‐311 Third Order and Report cites immediately on page 2 that its focus on caps and in‐kind has ‘limited exceptions’, including an exemption for certain capital costs related to public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) channels. Continuing on p. 6 the FCC ..We find that the Act exempts capital contributions associated with the acquisition or improvement of a PEG facility from this definition and reminds LFAs that under the Act they may only require “adequate” PEG access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support.

In conclusion, the following was cited in Section 2 b (p 6): We next conclude that the term “capital cost” in section 622(g)(2)(C) should be given its ordinary meaning, which is a cost incurred in acquiring or improving a capital asset. Applying that interpretation, we conclude that the exclusion for capital costs under section 622(g)(2)(C) could include equipment that satisfies this definition, regardless of whether such equipment is purchased in connection with the construction of a PEG access facility. We then conclude that the record is insufficiently developed for the Commission to determine whether the provision of PEG channel capacity is included within section 622(g)(2)(C)’s exclusion for capital costs.

In conclusion, the following was cited in Section 32 (p 20): concluding that it can apply to contributions for both construction‐related and non‐construction‐related contributions to PEG access facilities. It is further clarified in Section 33 (p 20) we find that the term “capital costs” is not limited to construction‐related costs; rather, it generally encompasses costs incurred in acquiring or improving capital assets for PEG access facilities.
The turnabout is clarified in Section 35 (p 21) Based on the arguments in the record and our further consideration of the statutory text and legislative history we now conclude that the Commission’s earlier statement regarding the definition of “capital costs” was overly narrow. As commenters note, many local governments receive payments from cable operators that are not simply for the construction of PEG studios, but also for, among other things, the acquisition of equipment needed to produce PEG access programming.146 LFAs argue for a broader definition of “capital costs” that would include PEG channel capacity and certain equipment costs associated with PEG access facilities.147 By contrast, cable companies have urged the Commission to reaffirm, based on its previous statement, that “capital costs” are limited to costs associated with the construction of PEG access facilities (and thus do not include channel capacity and equipment such as cameras, or other equipment necessary to run a PEG access facility).148 We also note that capital costs are distinct from operating costs (or operating expenses), which are generally defined as expenses “incurred in running a business and producing output.”154 Reflecting this distinction, the Commission has distinguished between costs incurred in building of PEG facilities, which are capital costs, and costs incurred in using those facilities, which are not.155

Community Media Today, literally, Today?

The landscape of Cable TV is changing constantly. Entertainment services are piggybacking on the cable infrastructure. Consumers are cord‐cutting. There is a growing interest in video content and a vast array of points of distribution. And most recently for Public, Education, and Government TV (P.E.G.), there is a reinterpretation by the FCC of Federal Law that allows for (does not mandate) P.E.G. within local rights-of-way contracting.

What just happened?

Cable companies want to lower their direct costs and simplify their obligations. In the Fall of 2018, a docket about the “implementation of cable act” (stakeholder roles and financial obligations) was put on the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) agenda. A year later after testimony from business, community advocates, cable TV viewers, and legislators an Order was published in the Federal Register. Within it, is a framework of what are allowable fees & services and subsequent roles & responsibilities in the overall funding of Community Media. The intent of the existing decades-old Cable Act was deciphered and tweaked with an accountant’s point-of-view and set forth in lawyer language.

The effective date of the FCC order is Sept. 27th, 2019. The impact takes effective in 2020 as there are 120 days designated to resolve interpretations and administrative changes associated with related change orders that are both cable company and franchise-specific interpretations of the FCC Order.

Notably, throughout the order are phrases like:

Nothing in this proceeding disturbs the Commission’s longstanding view that PEG programming serves an important role in local communities.

There are many unknowns especially in CT

Connecticut is unlike most implementations of the 1984 Federal Cable Act across the nation. CT transitioned to state oversight in 1995. This act codified P.E.G operations as available in every community. What did cable companies negotiate for in 1995? In subsequent laws that applied additional assessments on the industry what were the wins and loses? Unraveling the implications of the current order is complex. Language in 2008 cable docket industry responses [ PURA Docket 07-10-11] foreshadow remarks like “illegal” by “bad actors” in FCC Commissioner remarks. * Therefore, it is critical to understand both sides: What value cable companies got in past negotiations when the financial arrangements in Connecticut changed from local communities negotiating directly with cable companies for up to 5% Gross Receipts per franchise area; and, is community media deployed effectively with allocated monies and mix of channel capacity?

There are several data sources that need to be identified, isolated and analyzed to thoroughly understand the implications of the FCC order. Some data is not publicly accessible such as cable subscriber data reported by companies as proprietary. Other data like revenue allocations may not be discreet enough. Pass-thru totals to nonprofits are buried in Annual Report Budgets as grant items. Some reports are not filed. There are a variety of financial add-ons that may be identified as subject to the cap such as the cable/video tax credit paid into the Public Utility Control fund for the operation of PURA & OCC (CGS 16-49), advisory council stipends and more.

Complicated since birth: Ideals and Value

Innovation was fostering new ways to connect the nation (1934). There was and remains a need for public safety and the presumption of a federal role herein. Concurrent with innovations in telecommunications, grew nonpartisan advocacy for free speech with a ‘build it and they will come’ or ‘if we had the tools we could represent ourselves’ drum beat. Holders of points-of-view that were not centric wanted an equitable platform for dissemination of ideas and enterprises like cable TV needed access to public rights of way.

Since the inception of the FCC, the Act enabling its creation has been updated periodically. The FCC interprets the law. There remains divergent opinion in the interpretation of mandates, allowable, costs and capacity.

Moving the needle on civic engagement

The bedrock vision of this experiment in democracy is rooted in “the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences” circa 1969. This right was scaffolding for what communities implemented differently with cable company negotiations and local needs assessments.

Some constants are: “Citizens of diverse values and views have equitable access to tools & stage for noncommercial purposes”. Content is of local or individual interest. The audience is likely to be ‘narrow‘. Access to tools & stage enables creativity, fosters learning, and supports community engagement and a belief that when community dialogue becomes actionable the results are often a more vibrant, healthier community.

Clear Outcome on the Citizen’s Role: It is Twofold

What is required is a community of ‘content makers’ and ‘underwriters’. As long as citizens are willing to maintain and operate facilities for content creation cable companies are obligated to underwrite the infrastructure (i.e. capital investment). A camera is bought with money from the cable company. How to use it and where to keep it is handled by the local community (underwritten) and any citizen can use it to make cable TV content (user).

The refreshed interpretation by the FCC is very directly tied to the bravado of early advocates that wanted no interference in what they wanted to say and full control of resources they would have paid for by the cable companies. I am not sure if it was naivety or a concession but the reality is sustaining these discreet roles for citizens’ empowerment needs an infrastructure. Between 1984 and today needs assessments and franchise agreements included provisions for the underwriting of operations and training costs with cable fees to effectively use the capital investments. A community media industry evolved to keep abreast of tools, provide training and evolve mechanisms to support a diverse community of voices.

Narrowcasting: Who produces, who listens?

To be continued…

* Proceedings begin approx. 2 hrs 26 minutes on FCC Hearing Video

What shows are on Community TV?

People often ask, “What kind of content is shown on Community TV?” The answer is, “Whatever walks in the door.” So, what does walk in the door?

People walk in. And truth be told, it is frequently people with agendas. Fortunately, agendas are as diverse as our community. Sometimes they come with a DVD or flash drive in hand. Others are searching for the American Dream, themselves, a safe place, or affirmation.

Big ideas ABOUND

Some of the big idea folks have egos that have difficulty getting through the door. Most often their ideas are about self-promotion. There are always ways to turn what people want to say something about themselves into something non-commercial. 99% of the time these folks eat up an hour or two of my time, then vanish. Noncommercial is our gold standard.

A 7-year old came in, to his mind, ready to make a feature film. He had attended an event at the station. He was inspired. I gave him the same amount of project idea review time as any other random inquiry. I expect him back. I encouraged him to make a 3-minute-stop-action movie someday instead of the feature film he envisioned.

‘My life story can inspire others’ is a common theme. Often these folks are still in the midst of intense introspection. I try to give them the time they need to feel empowered. Sometimes a show name and graphic is created, a camera borrowed, a ‘producer’ folder set aside for their assets. In these conversations, my connections to the social service providers in the community can have value. Rarely do these shows get made but the want-to-be producers are always grateful.

Those with a connection to something bigger than themselves often get further along. Within this group, there is lots of wishful or even magical thinking. 99% of the time ‘turning their ideas into TV’ begins to sound too much like ‘work’. Sometimes these inquiries get diverted to other Make TV options. Some become guest on an existing show or participant in the ‘mission-scaffolding’ shows. They are right making TV is a commitment that extends way beyond the idea.

The mission | The Scaffolding

To serve under-served voices and encourage citizen advocacy is our mission. Herein we endeavor to create platforms for conversation and engagement. We have two programs designed to meet the needs of these seekers. For the curious or those committed to one topic, there is the show CommUnity Conversations (CuC). CuC is ideal for organizations with staff that can share the organization mission and a few stories about services provides. CuC works best for people excited about a topic. Individuals may be wrestling with an idea or supportive of, or curious about anything. The format is limited to two people in conversation. It is most authentic when the two people are strangers to each other. These folks are ‘contributors’. Contributors get the editorial rights of ‘producers’ but have no requirement to learn the technology.

Those who drop in searching for community or with concerns about our word are directed to the conversation show: HumanKind Both Finding a Middle Path (HKB). HKB is our most mission-centric shoe. On one Sunday afternoon a month, people are welcome to stop in and chat with strangers. The conversation can be observed or participated in. At this time the conversation facilitator is a Muslim Chaplain. Up to five people converse about whatever is on their heart.

MAKE TV | Citizen Producers

Those firmly committed to producing an ongoing show with a regular time interval are can become producers. They must create show assets and observe other production before we commit to a schedule with them. We train prospective producers through an observation process. They then decide if they just want a simple have a push-2-play production or a fully produced show.

In push-2-play we provide one video production support person. These shows have predefined assets developed during the planning phase. Assets include an open, close and lower 3rds. Producers can provide images or roll-in video by episode.

Fully produced content requires a commitment of 10 hours per episode. Like push-2-play, the show gets one video production support person. There is always the option to develop a crew that is trained to use all the tools. These productions get four views of the studio experience for post-production editing.

MAKE TV | Citizen CREW

Folks are encouraged to be volunteer producers or occasional contributors. We have not successfully groomed members of our community to be volunteers to help others with production. Our ‘one video production support person’ making near minimum wage for their contributions are actually pretty close to being volunteers and sometimes they are unpaid. Here I will just say – we have the opportunity for growth as an organization and a concept of Community TV as envisioned by the early advocates of this media.

Help Me Tell Our Vision Story

We just experienced our first intentional fundraising for the direct work of WPAA-TV. The lessons learned include:

Donors who know us and had the means were generous. Several gave from limited means because they know us. The mystery is that several who have been helped made no gesture of support. Did they not understand the messaging that we may disappear if the timeline of the debt is not met, or do they still just not comprehend what we do? They did not even congratulate us on our winning ‘Best in the USA.’ Is this a reflection on us, social media, or our messaging? Where do we go from here? Your input is needed.

1) Tell a story about the future – if we stay funded.

What would happen if our vision of the future is realized – if we accomplished your mission, achieved your goals, and solved the problems we set out to solve. What would it look like? How would you feel? How would others feel?

2) Tell a story about the future – if FCC Rule-Making defunding us becomes a reality.

With evocative and descriptive language, describe the future when our doors close. What would be lost? Who would suffer? What would happen? What is in the picture without us in it?

StreetshotZ SocialActionArt

SocialActionArt is art used to make a difference by what it shows and or how it is used. The photos of people in a street life let you look into the eyes of someone you would likely pass on the street.

On Sunday afternoon March 31, friends and family of local photographer Charles Buzinsky and WPAA-TV gathered for a reception from 3 to 5 PM to welcome the permanent photography exhibit StreetshotZ to the WPAA-TV gallery at 28 South Orchard Street.

Beginning in April members of the community are encouraged to visit WPAA-TV, 28 South Orchard Street, anytime between 11 AM and 7 PM weekdays to see the new exhibit. The public is invited to meet the WPAA-TV gallery artists on Sunday April 28 at an open house from 3 to 5 PM.

The exhibit is free. Refreshments will be served. Visitor donations of non-perishable food items for Masters Manna are always welcome.

#GiveGreat2019 Help | Thanks to 88 friends

UPD: $3,000 raised

WPAA-TV Owns 28 So Orchard St — $38,000 in Building Debt remains

The property title for 28 So Orchard St was released on March 7, 2019 to Wallingford Public Access Association (WPAA-TV). In 2009, for a purchase price of $215,000, the nonprofit WPAA-TV entered into a 12-year purchase agreement with the late Paul McNally. With volunteers completing adaptive use renovations, the value of the property has doubled within 10 years. However, WPAA-TV still has an outstanding loan of $38,000 that must be paid off by March 2020.

The source of the monies used to buy and renovate the property is cable fees designated for operations. At this juncture, we are asking members of the community to support us during the GreatGive® to help retire the remaining debt.

The Great Give® is an annual 36-hour giving event that matches charitable organizations with donors in a fun and engaging way hosted by the Community Foundation of Greater New Haven. This online giving can be done at www.thegreatgive.org WPAATV Portal on May 1st and 2^nd.

You Can Help us Say Good-bye to Building Debt

In December 2018 the original mortgage of our building at 28 So. Orchard St. was retired. However, an aggressive and risky refinance plan requiring pay-off by March 2020 remains. 1,500 small donations of $25 during #GreatGive2019 will eradicate this debt.

Why Now?

At a national level in late 2018, Community TV’s existence became threatened by regulatory changes under consideration by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This situation caused our Board of Directors to revisit their 2017-19 Strategic Plan. It was decided to 1) enter a moderately risky credit line arrangement that would cut overall building costs by $7,000 and 2) reach out to the community for small donations in May with a capital campaign goal of $35,000.

THE BACK STORY

The Home of Free Speech

A cow barn in 1924, this property is now a welcoming public space providing a 24/7 service to the community. Since its purchase in December 2009 for $215,000 it has been totally renovated and adapted by volunteers. It is a fully ADA compliant, energy efficient public space with a Black Box TV studio, several media edit suites, a community room, office and a gallery. The former hay loft is now a versatile performance and media space called studioW. The building’s exterior boasts a mural by ARCY, an internationally recognized large scale mural artist. The driveway was paved by a local woman-owned company. We are local in all that we do.

Time and Talent

We are proud to be able to ask for your support from a position of strength thanks to the core volunteers and supporters who helped us with their time and talent between 2010 and 2013. Building ownership by Community TV organizations is rare and unheard of for stations like ours with an annual budget under $100,000.

Beyond Time and Talent

As a rule, we almost always ask for time and talent. But this year we are seeking a $25 donation during the #GreatGive2019 to maximize the potential of local gifts with bonus opportunities within that campaign.

Ensuring a Good Outcome

It is unfortunate that the new future for Community TV is being decided by the FCC. If the threat to three decades of funding turns out to be 100% annihilation of our primary funding source, we are determined to regroup and still provide media services to our community. If it becomes only a dent to our income, the building pay-off which reduces operating costs 25% will keep us stable. If it turns out to be a stress inducing distraction only, we shall regroup stronger, improving upon what we already do.

Your Gift

Thank you for being part of WPAA-TV with a gift that uplifts all voices with a home of free speech, right here in Wallingford.

Note: As this Great Opportunity Description is being crafted the future of Community TV is being decided by the FCC. In 2018 the FCC opened Docket MB Docket No. 05-311 to review the last 26 years of regulatory guidance on implementing Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 – Amended 1992. The reinterpretation of accounting procedures appears to potentially favor the cable providers and could zero out funding or significantly dent funding of Community TV Nationwide.

Community TV Funding: at-risk

Regulatory changes that chip away at basic safeguards are part of the ethos. Community TV is not immune. However, with so many variations in service models both in Connecticut and throughout the nation, it is hard to predict how this multi-layered and significant ‘accounting method proposal’ might become a give back of public rights obligations that currently fund Community TV in Connecticut and elsewhere.

WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS HAPPENING

FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking MB Docket No. 05-311 as regards Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 has the potential to defund a prospectively close Community TV Stations across the nation. In some communities outside of CT the classification of funds as “capital costs” per the strict interpretation of federal regulations has caused facility closure due to their inability to fund operations.

TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON HEARINGS TO-DATE
• That cable-related, in-kind contributions required by LFAs (Local Franchising Authority) from cable operators as a condition or requirement of a franchise agreement should be treated as “franchise fees” subject to the statutory five percent franchise fee cap set forth in Section 622 of the Act, with one limited exception (A change in Accounting practices that is intended to offset fees now paid for air & polls rights of way.)
• That ‘capital costs’ for public, educational, and government channels required by the franchise are the only cable-related, in-kind contribution excluded from the statutory five percent franchise fee cap (This is handled differently in states like CT that have state-wide franchise oversight. These dollars currently go to the General Fund of State. In 1995 an additional pass-thru fee was added to cable bills. This fee costs Wallingford Subscribers of Comcast and Frontier $8.31 annually. WPAA-TV gets $6.65 per subscriber. Based on 2019 trending our projected income is approximately $82,000 annually, 2010 levels.)
• That the mixed-use network ruling should be applied to prohibit LFAs from using their video franchising authority to regulate non-cable services offered over cable systems (Gives cable companies insulation from fee payment for non-TV use of polls-air rights; thereby, defunding Community TV concurrent with innovations in distribution and changes in viewer behavior i.e. cord cutting, internet viewing only)

The impact in CT is certainly unclear and highly unpredictable. Unlike Massachusetts and R.I., Connecticut may have a firewall with its 1995 statewide franchise legislation. However, industry filings intend to circumvent state authority based on filed statements like:

State and local governments cannot avoid the limitations established by Congress by asserting some state or local (or general federal taxing) authority outside the Act and that cable companies should be prohibited from waiving restrictions in local franchising negotiations.

A majority of commissioners (three of the four) on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fully embrace the agenda of aggressively using federal power to diminish local communities abilities to obtain fair compensation for the private commercial use of rights-of-way and other public property by communications companies.

Why is there a proposed change in rules?

The real impetus to the cable industry’s pursuit of changes through FCC rulings is to ‘not allow’ current payment obligations within regulations to follow ‘newer’ media distribution methods. While video content viewing is on the rise the viewing platform is more likely to be Internet-based. With subscriber modifying viewing habits inclusive of unbundling TV-Internet-Phone and cord cutting; per capita revenues specific to cable TV are in decline. Declassification of cable TV distributed via Internet Protocol was successfully done by AT&T in CT in 2007; however, regulatory provisions for payment of rights of way fees remained. The current FCC docket intends to modify in-kind accounting practices to minimize cable company ‘contribution’ exposure.

WPAA-TV subscriber fee data shows that 2018 is the 1st year since 2010 that cable TV revenue declined. From our 2012 to 2017 data it would appear that competition kept cable subscribers committed to television viewing. However, 2019 is trending toward 2010 levels.

How WPAATV is funded — WPAA-TV Annual Subscriber Fees in dollars by year and cable provider.

As presented in cable association filings [ 1 ] [ 2 ] all cable/video providers (feels a bit anti-trust like) seek to ‘value’ Cable TV Channels designated as PEG and apply that value to their rights-of-way obligations. The provider seeks to assess the channel’s ‘market value’ for in-kind off-set of ‘contribution’ obligations. The terms ‘franchise fee’ and ‘contributions’ mean different things within different communities.

How would the market value be assessed and by whom?

In 2016 WPAA-TV asked the Comcast Branford Franchise Advisory Council to review channel capacity in our area for cost-benefit, collaborative-based strategic planning. The impetus was to determine if a reduction in channel capacity by town potentially merging E & G or P & E channels could yield an increase in the sub fee that the cable companies would not pass along to subscribers. The local cable advisory council refused to put it on the agenda. As a consequence, there is no recent conversation in the public record about valuing a channel.

A regional channel was returned to AT&T in 2002. The Channel 21 give back happened during the AT&T to Comcast Franchise Transfer DPUC Docket 02-03-10. Our area got only 6 cents increase in the per subscriber fee ($5.06). In this negotiation, the company had the incentive to value a channel low. That is currently not the case. It could be argued now that a Local Access SD Channel required to be in the basic tier for all subscribers has more value than an HD Channel. Who is to say? Right now the valuing is proposed to be done by those benefiting by valuing high, so high that local communities might have to pay for channels.

All Community TV is not created or operated equally

Every community in CT has some form of Community TV with subscribers contributing from $4.82 to $11.04 annually for this community resource. The towns from Madison to Wallingford (Comcast Branford Franchise area) each have three channels per town for a total of twenty-one channels. Each community has operating budgets under $100,000. The service area of New Haven, Hamden, West Haven has a total of three channels and an operating budget of $775,000. Some communities have a large centralized public access channel serving several communities. These organizations may provide grants to municipalities for government & educational access. Some cable companies have staff providing oversight & training for use of company-owned facilities.

And then there are communities like Groton and Wallingford. These two communities diverge from all patterns of operations and funding. They use substantial tax dollars to fund Government and Education Access TV.

Note: A community the size of Wallingford in Massachusetts is likely to have three channels (PEG) supported by operating budgets of $250,000 to $775.000. Each town negotiates its own contract with the cable company.

More than one fund, A State Budget, and regulation

In CT Cable TV providers fund 1) General Fund (Tax on the gross receipts of all video providers ) 2) Pass-thru a fee assessed on subscribers to Community TV ranging from $4.82 to $11.04 annually and 3) Tech Grant Program (PEGPETIA Public Act 07-253) also levied on Satellite TV providers.

The pass-thru is the source of Community TV operational funding. It is not directly in the discussions nation-wide about accounting change because it is not assessed nation-wide. The General Fund dollars are the funds the language of FCC Docket targets. It is the same amount as the ‘contribution’ cited for the accounting change in the docket.

Since 2015, during CT Budget time, amendments have been used to sweep the Tech Grant Program dollars into the General Fund to help with the state budget crisis. When available as grants, this is the source of capital improvements fund for Community TV. Because of recent budget sweeps of PEGPETIA operators of PEGs speculate that there will be a ripple effect; and subsequent reduction in operation funding with any FCC rule change. With the diversity of channel capacity in CT it is hard to speculate more specifically.

It will not be the status quo; it will be worse:

In my opinion, fear of funding loss keeps innovative and responsive change from happening. CT regulations and management of Community TV is archaic and does not yield the best outcome for the investment required of cable company’s under the real need to value the rights of way they use. There is also a real need to determine what a community media resource should reasonably be expected to do now that our original functions might be done better, on different platforms.

There are some very dedicated community members who have worked within the margins of unrealistic budgets providing innovative services. There are people in this fringe industry fighting to keep their jobs. Everyday potential for better is lost in the competition for the eyeballs from our community rather than sparks of discovery in the creators and viewers with life connecting and make-a-difference content.

Could WPAA-TV survive significant funding changes?

That will be left for another post.
______________________________________________________

Sources: Filings related to the docket and the US Conference of Mayors and and 42 years as a citizen media advocate in Connecticut.

US Conference of Mayor’s Letter to all Municipalities Sept. 2018

The FCC’s aggressive new posture – as set forth in three separate actions – is a clarion call to all mayors and cities that local governments’ property rights are now on the chopping block at the FCC. On 9.10.18 The Conference issued a statement conveying the Conference’s strong opposition to these recent FCC actions.

Background on FCC’s Recent Actions

Approved Aug 2018 – https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-111A1.pdf – Order prohibiting cities, other local governments and states from imposing “moratoria” that might delay companies from accessing local rights-of-way and local property to deploy wireless and wireline facilities. New York City and a collection of other cities, including Los Angeles and Boston, have both petitioned the agency to reconsider this Order.

Adopted September 26. The second action – https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-353962A1.pdf – broadly and dramatically preempts local government authority to manage and receive fair compensation for installation of small cells and other related facilities in the right-of-way and on city-owned infrastructure; limiting what companies pay your city to use your rights-of-way and public property and place controls on what you can require of companies seeking to use local property for small cell deployments.

The third action related to Community TV – https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-353963A1.pdf – is a proposed new rule that would change the more than 30+ year-old rules applicable to local cable franchise agreements. If adopted, the rule would dramatically reduce the cable franchise fees and other public benefits that most cities receive in their current cable franchise agreements.

Each of these actions represents a radical new interpretation of federal law that would undermine longstanding local rules and practices underpinning decades of public-private partnerships in deploying communications infrastructure.

In these actions, the FCC, as an unelected and largely unaccountable independent federal regulatory agency, is directly attacking the core authority of cities and other local governments (and even state governments). The FCC’s actions are deliberate and systematic, with the clear goal of granting a favored industry preferential access to state and local government property, both threatening and diminishing legitimate and traditional authorities of cities, counties and states to manage and receive fair compensation for their public property on behalf of their taxpayers.

While the FCC has always coveted local property and railed about local practices here and there to respond to the advocacy and interests of large communications companies, what is different in these actions is the unprecedented scale and ferocity of the FCC’s proposed intrusion into local government authority and fiscal affairs.

Would the world be different?

If I had retired this week at age 65, would the world look different? A reflection by Volunteer Executive Director Susan Adele Huizenga

A Different World – Most Definitely!

So much of our lives is the returning of seasons, with subtle, incremental, by the playbook changes. To be able to take measure of our decisions with some clarity, and to make mental note of the people whom we would not have met, the transformations in a building or neighborhood that would not have come to pass, the understanding that would have been different, is satisfying and possible in a make-a-difference lifestyle. Yes, absolutely the world would be different if I had waited to retire this week at age 65. And yes, much of the difference in me and my community is in the stories of those who walked through the doors of my home and WPAA-TV since 2011.

A few more ‘corporate’ years would have enabled me to amass a comfort level amount of discretionary income. Instead, I short-circuited retirement savings and retired from a paycheck to my self-funded poverty level stipend in order to volunteer full-time. I continued to live with “Mr. Huizenga TV” in a house too big for two that has sheltered many in need of transitional housing.

… with mixed emotions that I am announcing Susan’s official retirement … most recognized for her passion and expertise … superior customer service for our members and her unique style and incredible knowledge and dedication will be greatly missed. Susan has worked hard all of her career and has now earned the opportunity to enjoy more time with her family and community service projects.

I would not be part of WPAA-TV now if I did not make the commitment in 2009 to see the building And the vision of WPAA renovated. The most probable scenario for me: returning to New Haven. The most likely scenario for WPAA: being absorbed into Connecticut Community TV, and remaining at 128 Center St. with a few programs a month in production, looking like every prior year since 1995.

By the time I moved into Wallingford, I had a repertoire of seasonal, long-term community service projects that I was ready to leave on a memory shelf. To be a volunteer in Wallingford would consist of buying potted plants from the firemen, or adopting a road to clean on Earth Day, or writing checks to programs where I used to live for the housing and food insecure. Instead, on my radar was rejuvenating, finding my footing, and most of all, balance. Relocation provided some anonymity and room for a much-needed remake of my actions Not my values.

Even after being co-opted to engage in the resuscitation of Community TV in Wallingford, I performed the essential, nobody wanted tasks, i.e., regulatory reports, grant writing, meeting minutes, and bylaw amendments. Nothing with real accountability or visibility. I never joined the board. Noticing the absence of democracy-oriented producers, I co-opted my son, Houston, to host a conversation show as OnTheParadeGround Productions, branded with a laptop sitting on the grass on the town’s Parade Ground. I started to discover a few of Wallingford’s civic-minded with this project and also learned how much video editing had advanced since 2004.

The building transformation literally was consuming for all the volunteers from the moment of purchase in December 2009 until the studio upgrade in 2015. It was wishful thinking to imagine that I could nudge the organization’s vision with so many tasks to accomplish. Midstream, in 2013, the organization was again at a crossroad. It was then that I agreed to become un-paid staff under contract as a full-time ‘volunteer’ Executive Director. Under this arrangement, the doors of WPAA-TV, now calling itself a media center, would be open daily for the first time.

The shows, internships, job opportunities for youth and differently-abled, the service expansions into art, theater, and film – hundreds, maybe even thousands, of stories of changed lives would have never happened without day-time hours and full-time staff. By 2017, my bosses, the governance team, included a few millennials educated in video production, in addition to the blue collars that made the building renovation possible. This diverse and inclusive board firmly declared WPAA-TV as More Than TV: in other words more than the tools & stage for TV creation. In 2018, WPAA-TV was solidly the tools & stage for much more with #collaborations, a gallery and theater, and civic groups using our “community building.” Adoption of the phrase itself is one of my favorite stories.

Tracing Back to My ‘Social’ Work Story

This week I had the pleasure of meeting a social work graduate student at a Middlesex County Candidates Forum focused on housing. We chatted about how we each became aware of policy, how social systems are interconnected, and how better awareness of policy changed our perspective on ‘social’ work. I told her I was in the first Bachelor of Social Work Program at Southern Connecticut State University. I did not tell her that I was given insightful advice: “You take the work home. You might want to consider a different career.” My dad was wise.

I shared my favorite bus story with her. We both knew the link between employment and housing security is transportation. I repeated my story to an elected official, also in attendance, and also in election mode. He heard it from his lens of corporate private partnership. That is not how I was trying to tell it. As we parted I said: “If you win, keep coming to these gatherings to hear people’s stories.”

I was hired by the new nonprofit new Blue Cross Blue Shield of CT (BCBSCT) in 1980 to work on manual systems. The corporate merger of Blue Cross of CT and Connecticut Medical Services (CMS|BS) was six months away from a major systems integration two years in the making. No one had yet done workflow analysis or forms design. A consultant, a few frontline managers grateful for the help, and I began the mission-critical work. Our workflow costs savings outcomes with work simplification designs were phenomenal. More than 100 times my salary was to be saved annually. However, my team’s outcomes were rolled into the larger system project outcomes as if they were part of the original plan. They were not. Workflow changes were an afterthought and non-automated work simplification, a bonus Many layers here: pay equity, headhunters, how to listen and to whom, and teamwork.

I had no idea my career would become decades of merger work. I also did not know I had been hired at 20% below pay-grade until years later when a corporate-wide pay level adjustment was mandated It was a nonprofit after all. Even with the title Methods Analyst, I saw myself as a people’s advocate. I merely had a new focus: improving healthcare systems. I had just served two years in VISTA in criminal justice on a poverty-level stipend. I took public transportation. I enjoyed it. Still do.

The Bus Story

It was in the news that there would be a bus from downtown New Haven for city residents working at BCBSCT in North Haven. City leaders were concerned that without transportation the relocation of CMS jobs could disenfranchise many workers. Together with corporate representatives, a commitment was hammered out to provide transportation for city residents to the North Haven campus. The company contracted a private transportation provider that became my way to get to work. Therefore I applied for an analyst job at the newly merged nonprofit.

It turns out that I was the only salaried person on this bus. When the bus was late, others were docked for late arrival to work. I brought this to the attention of Human Resources as an injustice. Employees arrived at the bus stop on time, but they had no control over the bus’s arrival. I was told with your attitude you will be lucky to last two years here: the emphasis was, “As a salaried employee you should be grateful for the bus-ride benefit.”

Ultimately, I prevailed. It helped that I had built strong relationships with the Legal Dept. in my merger work. I suggested a public transportation route modification as a way to improve worker satisfaction, increase productivity, and keep the company’s commitment to the city. It was a win-win for all, which now included public transit. The CT Dept. of Transportation rerouted a public bus and corporate subsidized the monthly bus passes. My role in the change was never made public. However, within the community where it counted, the people on the bus, it was no secret. I remember telling my dad this advocacy bus story. He replied, “It appears you take your life’s work to the job.”

Work Must Be More Than a Paycheck

For me, retirement from for-profit corporate work was not about a vacation lifestyle to come. My retirement decision had several layers of social complexity. One moral complexity was that decades of mergers had swallowed up nonprofit BCBSCT into one of the largest for-profit health insurance companies in the nation.

The timing of my decision was interwoven with a business need to redesign a critical interstate system for which I was both institutional knowledge and a daily ‘finger in the dike.’ The project was my dread, my leverage, and truthfully my proof-of-excellence to myself. But, I would be less available for community service of any kind for almost two years if I committed to this high-stakes aggressive merger project. But, the idea of choosing my own systems team was compelling. This was 2009. The work landscape was unsettled. There was another round of layoffs for which I obviously was not a candidate, off-shore team negotiations, and jobs I felt I could save in my departure strategy. Merger work most often meant people losing jobs. Every merger had taken away a part of me because I got to know the people whose lives were uprooted.

My dad, for whom I was then the caregiver advocated, “Give the company the finger!” I reassured him my decision would be about all the people: him and me, my co-workers, frontline teams, and the insured in several states. When I declined his furtive advice to leave them owning it, I was trying not to calculate the people of Wallingford in my claim of “all the people.” Quite frankly, I did not want to care about them. I was wounded by the sucker punches and tired of, in my opinion, self-serving users of frail community resources since 2005. I reminded him that they never really own it when a vacuum is created. It is the day-to-day laborers that take the hit, or as was the case with WPAA, the volunteers who committed to the ideals.

A few weeks of intense job-strategy termination, or not, conversations with my direct management and their management ensued. I did take from dad’s playbook. I threatened to leave 18 months sooner than I ultimately did. Ironically, or as I have come to call it serendipitously, during this very time another in-town Wallingford building came up for sale. My next steps in life choices became more complicated. I felt I could no longer ignore the people of Wallingford in the forming of my decision although most had no idea who I was.

A Collective Crisis of Confidence Story

The future of WPAA was fragile in 2009. At best it would be more of the same with less, or just, less. The volunteers with whom I served as their Cable Advisor were challenged by an impending 60% rent increase (not a typo) for the 128 Center St. location, a changing cable TV landscape, volunteer burn-out or flame-out depending on one’s perspective, a very public ‘failed’ attempt to own a community building on the Parade Ground and losing the funding adjustment for the 60/40 sunset docket (PURA #10-03-02).

I personally was conflicted. The politics of aspiring leaders, the naysayers of the attempted acquisition of the historic Constable Roger S. Austin House at 41 So Main St., exhausted me. Regrettably, the property was not listed in the local papers archival registry culled from the Wallingford Preservation Trust records. The subsequent threat to WPAA funding (PURA #99-10-05), as orchestrated by the Mayor, remained unchallenged by local town leaders.

It was another episode of me against the town’s legal team because I handled these types of matters. This was around in the arena that I won. The decision asserted that WPAA was eligible for all subscriber fees because WGTV was not compliant with the basic provisions of community access TV The Mayor asserted too much control overuse and content.

I was not sure if I were up for what another Community Building Project would require of me. In my opinion, for WPAA to be viable there were 20 years of lost potential as a community entity to overcome; thus the metaphorical project name. Only two people in town truly understood the bedrock on which Community TV was founded. One, to this day, must be publicly mute. There was more than a building to renovate and reinvigorate.

Never-the-less, I scheduled a Community Building Project Committee Meeting to see if there were any life left in that team for a go at a different property. The team was weakened when the architect, painter, and landscape designer decided to drop out. The attorney, tech, and my husband were willing to give it another go. A walk-through was scheduled with the realtor to see 28 So Orchard St., a cow barn in 1924 masquerading as an in-town business location 260 steps from the then-current Center St. location.

Important Rooms Story

The first and foremost adaptive renovation of 28 So Orchard in order for it to be a public space, required a major plumbing solution as the first floor is below ground level. I still tell all touring visitors, the most important room in the building is not the TV studio, it is the First Floor Rest Room. Without an innovative plumbing solution, there would not have been a building purchase.

There were other substantial infrastructure upgrades: a stable dry floor, structural walls, secure access, ADA compliance, emergency exits, and electric service. The list went on and on just to be a ‘legally’ habitable building. And there were process hurdles: plans, permits, and commission hearings.

And the design and installation of the TV production and distribution systems could not be an afterthought. My dreams began to be about those two huge projects consuming my waking hours. But progress was steady; the serendipity in finding people and assets to create the new TV space was invigorating despite my lack of sleep I encourage you to stop by and take a tour to hear the serendipity stories room by room.

Several skilled blue-collar workers contributed time and talent over a few years to create today’s WPAA-TV and Community Media Center. None had an interest in the services provided, nor the ideals represented. They did it as buddies of the real Huizenga behind the community building, my husband, Curt. The WPAA-TV board was not unanimous in the decision to buy. Some believed the naysayers, others became naysayers themselves. The biggest decision in the organization’s history was made with a one-vote majority. The disgruntled began calling WPAA “Huizenga TV.”

The Loan Gift Story

It is unclear why this happened. At zero-hour in the property negotiations, the property owner who agreed to hold the mortgage decided the conditions needed to change. He now wanted a substantial down payment, the interest rate was one percent too low and he would not pay the in arrears property taxes. More hurdles. WPAA needed to secure additional financing and the clock was ticking as a closing date had been set with a penalty if delayed. All overtures to consider being a benefactor or supporter were dismissed by both the property owner and the realtor. Yes, conspiracy theories did surface in my mind. I was exhausted.

Seeking financial assistance, our real estate lawyer generously reached out to in-town movers & shakers. There was one offer. It was outrageous. We declined. We needed to remain open at the current location while building at another, all within an annual operating budget of $80,000. We needed a gift, not exploitation.

On a cold November morning, as I was preparing to leave for my day job, my dad came into my kitchen and said, “Why have you not asked me for help? I can loan WPAA money. Why not! I like it. It can work for me. On a loan, I can do better than a bank CD. I think it should be interest only in the first year, too. Yep. I have been listening to your phone calls. I think 5% is a good deal. You should give my offer consideration.”

I almost laughed as I cried. He was so sincere. He obviously had given this idea measured consideration. He was right. His offer would be good for WPAA. I also had no idea he had any money. If you knew him you would understand.

The loan offer needed another WPAA board vote. Again, it was not unanimous. The “Huizenga TV” moniker became even more brazenly tossed about. Rumors of my profiteering began. I pretended to be an ostrich.

It turns out my dad was a true fan of the station. He watched nightly. He loved the Classic Arts Showcase TV. It played for six hours beginning at midnight. There was too little local content to fill a 24 x 7 schedule. It truly was to my surprise that my dad became the gift that made it possible to purchase 28 So Orchard. He passed away unexpectedly in November 2010, a year after the purchase. Honoring dad’s memory, my son and sisters and brothers who inherited the loan to WPAA-TV, waived all interest extending his gift further. Free money So much for profiteering. Different if I had waited to retire this week at age 65. And yes much of the difference in me and my community is about who has walked through the doors of WPAA-TV.

Postscript: 12.31.2019

The one goal in the strategic goal dashboard that seemed unattainable happened. On 12.31.2019 the first mortgage was paid off. Yes, but it was refinancing with a temporary 0% credit line. This will yield a $7,000 overall savings. We plan to ask the community to rally to retire our “building debt” during #GreatGive2019. The wistful full bring this full circle is to have our 1st ever video annual report impress the Hometown Judges and much as it did the volunteers and their annual celebration.

Postscript: 5.01.2019

WE WON BEST in THE US for our size as determined by a panel of our peers. Does it matter?

Be the Community Story

Stories Need to be Shared

The life of an organization such as Wallingford Public Access Association (WPAA), intersects with and touches lives in unpredictable ways. Often, outcomes are not readily quantified for donors, but when they are shared with them in a story, the outcomes and results may be clarified, and perhaps stir us to laughter or bring us to tears. Stories inspire us to remain connected to the mission of the organization. Connecting through stories cultivates something bigger than each of our individual reasons for joining in. There is little doubt that whether one is either giving some benefit to or receiving some benefit from the organization, when telling or listening to its stories, lives are changed.

Stories are Meant to be Told

As a growing organization with a working Board of Directors, our cycles have been as unpredictable as our services: Whatever walks in the door. We have not yet developed the brass tacks of planning the Board Meeting Agenda based on the cycles of work. However, organizational maturity is getting us closer to constructing a governance platform; that feels promising.

But more important than the structures we construct to govern are the reasons we decide to join in to begin with. As a community media organization that enables storytelling and informed conversation, we have come to realize that stories in our meetings are as vital as in our work.

Stories Enhance Meetings

At our last board meeting, I told many stories including a founder’s story, collaboration and journey stories. There was much laughter and even a moment when I nearly came to tears. Then as a team, everyone contributed in a discussion of the policy gaps and envisioned a revised TV distribution schedule that these stories identified a need for. We affirmed being on the ‘same page’ throughout. In two hours, much work was accomplished and new understandings achieved. A young prospective board member recapped as follows:

I think you guys are definitely moving in the right direction. I am hopeful to be appointed to the board.

It is gratifying to know that more intersections are being formed and starting to root for growth in our community.

Stories Influence Us

Another revealing comment was emphatically announced with some concern:

Board members and volunteers seem to pass through here; when they leave, they do not come back.

This may not be a bad thing. Each of us becomes a volunteer for different reasons. Having personal goals to achieve can either support or conflict with the mission of the organization. Making room for both the personal and organizational goals is a challenge.

Often there are unexpected, serendipitous contributions that might never have been foreseen in strategic goals or targeted in individual aspirations. Successful leveraging of personal goals for the greater mission is my job as Executive Director. I know I have succeeded when the outcome will make a good story.

Stories Change Lives

Ironically, the Wallingford Public Access Association, Inc. (WPAA) originated from community discord. From the stories I hear, the original incorporators were not extremely passionate about free speech, transparency in government, inclusion, or the free exchange of ideas. Yet, collectively their interest in technology, media arts, supporting their church’s outreach, a desire for a supplemental retirement income, or the need to be part of a group, directed the passions of early cable TV activists. The groundwork of activists across the nation and availability of cable fees provided roots for WPAA to contribute to the life-changing stories of our community and to transform it into WPAA-TV and Community Media Center.

Stories Inspire Us

It is quite appropriate that as a community we memorialize Russ Styles,

founding member and original station manager of WPAA where he served on the Board of Directors as treasurer for many years, as well as on the Cable Advisory Council for South Central Connecticut.

Russ Styles shared many stories about videotaping parades, tangled cables, new innovations in cameras, acquiring building keys to have access to equipment at night, his love of free meals and his fun retirement job. It was Russ who invited me to participate here in Wallingford. As a result of his stories, I wished to become part of the advancement of WPAA as it embraced the visions of original cable advocates.

Eventually, his personal goals did not remain aligned with the evolution of WPAA. In remembering Russ’s contributions, I can only wink, chuckle and remind myself to say:

Be careful what you wish for.

Stories Connect Us

I encourage more of you to come as you are able. Come to fulfill both an individual aspiration and the mission of WPAA-TV and Community Media Center. Come to connect with us, to contribute and share in being that unexpected and serendipitous part of our community story.

Better, But …

We can be better. But “Great Again?” They may be slanderous words.

When were our doors open so often, our schedule of programs so diverse, our rooms so filled with civic and creative use? Never. Our performance on nearly every possible ranking continues to trend upward sometimes doubling prior periods. Tell me exactly what is the greatness you mud-slingers cling to? Are those the moments you were made to feel like the world center, that you were the raison d’etre for this community resource to exist?

The harassers continue to surface and make slanderous claims. I won’t allow it to pull me down. We can do better. The better we need has nothing to do with the taunts of those who disenfranchised themselves. The better we need is happening one encounter at a time. One new understanding, one proud moment, one hope-giving story at a time. The better comes from moving forward in spite of those who demean and accuse and are clueless as to what it takes to be a nonprofit with a building. Being better means to maintain policies, to adhere to regulations, and to comply with and enable free speech.

Truth is, we are not supported like our peers in other communities whose public, education and government aspects of Community TV are connected by more than a designation. Truth is our potential is limited by the perception of value. Our value is now tangled in the chaos of a changing landscape.

When the first job holder declares, “I am a photographer!” clueless as to what a camera could do just one year ago
When the decade-old editing system does not have “auto-save”
When the room that once held racks of tape decks now has 20 TB of server storage that no longer seems to be big enough
When the … and the list goes on

The past few weeks, filled with days that felt longer than usual, included a plethora of disheartening messages. Then, the truth breaks through. The thank-yous, the hugs, the genuine appreciation. Comments such as:

I can’t say that enough. Volunteering at WPAA-TV and learning from you has helped me tremendously.