The PAC-14 Fiasco – Part V…

… Should Ratepayers and Taxpayers Fund an Organization With No Accountability?

NO! NO! NO! Is that clear enough for everyone?

Does that mean that the public shouldn’t fund PAC-14? Of course not. Since certain people like to accuse Delmarva Dealings and similar venues of only focusing on the negative, our fifth and final installment focuses on positive solutions to solve this problem.

Bring In Some Sunshine

Before either the Salisbury Council or Wicomico County Council should even consider voting on this issue, several things need to occur. The first is to open up the process.

A public meeting should be held in the evening to allow all interested parties the opportunity to hear the proposed plan and to ask questions. ALL parties responsible for this fiasco need to be in attendance. That includes Betty Crockett, Jerry Waldron, John Pick, Louise Smith, Barrie Tilghman, Rick Pollitt, John Cannon, Ted Shea, Mike Goodson, the representative of the Buske Group, and of course Mike Pretl and any member of the “Transitional Task Force” that wants to attend. Of course the meeting should be televised on PAC-14.

My apologies to Louise, Rick, John (Cannon) and Ted. I happen to believe that they are all fairly innocent in this matter. Unfortunately, John Pick named them all in a public meeting and they should be there to both answer questions and defend themselves if one of the other parties tries to lay partial blame on them again.

If any party – particularly Ms. Crockett and Mr. Waldron – aren’t interested in attending, both councils should simply refuse to give further consideration to the matter of a fee increase. It would be in everyone’s best interest if they did attend, because simply holding off on the fee increase doesn’t address several other problems.

Assuming that a meeting is scheduled, these folks need to provide honest answers to honest questions. Such as:

• Why was the board circumvented?

• Who approved PAC-14’s budget for the last couple of years since the board evidently hasn’t?

• Why weren’t both executives and councils made aware of the fact that the board hadn’t approved these budgets? (in a rare moment of weakness I’m going to give Barrie Tilghman the benefit of the doubt on this one)

• Why should money from the taxpayers and Comcast ratepayers go to an organization that is not to be directly accountable to the public through our elected officials?

The dog and pony show needs to be kept to a minimum and the focus should be on answering questions. The ones noted above are just a partial list.

Bring Back the Board

Let’s assume for a moment that both councils and the public seem to be in broad agreement that some off-shoot of this plan (to be discussed below) should be implemented. If for no other reason than legal niceties, the real board of directors needs to be brought back to carry out a few tasks:

• Betty Crockett and Jerry Waldron should be made to resign and two replacements from SU should be appointed.

• A new board chairman needs to be elected. This person should not be from SU since they have an obvious agenda – even if we can’t determine its exact nature. Additionally, it was the SU representatives who seemed so hell bent on going around the real board to implement this takeover.

• The board could then choose to approve a new plan, or not. THEY would then make a recommendation to the “partners”.

Demand Some Accountability

These folks are asking that millions of dollars be given by taxpayers and ratepayers over the next decade. A little accountability to the public shouldn’t be too much to ask. I’m willing to bet that the vision that these folks are willing to admit to isn’t much different from what the rest of us want. The big difference is that the public deserves some accountability.

No Cuban Elections! No self-perpetuating boards. No rump meetings of “members” who pay for the right to vote! As Mr. Pretl should know, the poll tax has been unconstitutional for some time.

Let’s assume for a moment that Pretl’s number of 15 board members stands, as well as his change from three (3) to four (4) “partners”. I would suggest the following board make up:

• 4 members of the public to be appointed by the County Executive and confirmed by the County Council.

• 1 member of the County Council, chosen by its members – Stevie Prettyman currently holds that position.

• 3 members of the public to be appointed by the Salisbury Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.

• 1 member of the City Council, chosen by its members – Debbie Campbell currently holds that position.

• 3 members of the public chosen by Salisbury University.

• 3 members of the public chosen by Wor-Wic Community College.

These persons should be appointed to one year terms with the ability to be re-appointed.

Yes, I know that this may not seem “fair”. However, the county puts up the largest share of cash, followed by Salisbury. At this point we don’t know what role Wor-Wic would play in this new scheme. At least under this method, we can hold our elected officials responsible for the actions of a majority of the board.

Demand Open Government of PAC-14

To the best of my knowledge, PAC-14 would not be subject to the open meetings law. Therefore it needs to be placed in the by-laws that the board would hold themselves to the same standards of the open meetings law:

• All meetings would be open to the public and publicized on PAC-14’s website. An agenda must be made public prior to the meeting as well. I bet that the Wicomico County Council would even let them meet in the council chambers. PAC-14 could even televise the meetings – just as they should every other appointed body that meets in those chambers.

• There would be a required period of public comment and the board should attempt to answer questions – provided that it doesn’t turn into a free-for-all.

• Minutes must be taken, and approved at each meeting.

• The meetings should be recorded. Not a problem if they were televised from the council chambers.

• Any proposed changes to the articles of incorporation or by-laws MUST be approved by both the city and county governments by legislation. If they want to make any changes subject to unanimous approval by the “partners”, that’s OK but a bit impractical.

Make PAC-14 Raise Its Own Money

This new, and hopefully improved, PAC-14 should have to do some fundraising. Both councils should make it a condition of annual funding that a certain percentage of PAC-14’s funds be raised from sources other than the “partners” (meaning the taxpayers) in order for public funding to continue.

I’m not advocating that PAC-14 be shut down if they miss their goal by a few grand. However, there are myriad opportunities to raise money from the public outside of franchise fee revenue and our cable bills.

The Community Foundation is an active participant in PAC-14. They would be a potential source of funds. There are other grant-making institutions. Individuals would be happy to contribute, particularly if they felt some involvement short of actually producing programs. PAC-14’s current program of promoting itself is nice and could be improved. Additionally, televising board meetings may make the public feel more involved and therefore more likely to contribute.

It works for public television and NPR. Why can’t it work here?

KEEP IT LOCAL

It should be mandated that ALL programming be produced locally. I don’t want a local version of LinkTV (a left-wing satellite channel). Preventing re-broadcast of feeds from others sources would help prevent this.

************************

Well, that’s it folks. I hope you found the past week interesting. I appreciate your time and patience.

If you really care what happens to YOUR public access channel, I would suggest calling you county council members as well as your city council members if you live in Salisbury.

PAC-14 is a great institution. It can be better. The proposal currently under way is not the answer. We need to demand a different and more open way!

************************

If you missed any of our previous posts, you can find them here:

Monday – How Will YOUR Money Be Spent?

Tuesday – Who Will Decide HOW This Money Will Be Spent?

Wednesday – Why Are They Meeting In Secret?

Thursday – Why Do They Refuse to Answer Any Questions?

Thanks again.

Sphere: Related Content