PAC-14 – The Prettyman Proposal

After lunch yesterday afternoon the Wicomico County Council finally got around to the reason I bothered to show up – a discussion of PAC-14.  The conversation started off with a brief discussion of a proposal for a 4-4-1 board structure (4 members appointed by the county, 4 by Salisbury, and one joint appointment).  The conversations then moved to a “compromise” of having 3 members appointed by the county, 3 by the city and 3 by the “community” (or “membership).

One problem with the 3-3-3 structure was when to allow the “membership” to have board seats.  Should it be right away?  Should it be after they reached a certain number of members?  Should it be after the “membership” showed the ability to raise a certain amount of funds to aid in the operation of PAC-14?  There didn’t seem to be a real consensus as to when that should occur.

At this point Councilwoman Stevie Prettyman (R-2) spoke up.  She wanted to offer a different solution for people to think about:

Set a PEG fee and let that provide the funding for PAC-14.  Government could then get totally out of PAC-14.

She was clear that she wasn’t advocating for any particular solution, but that the council should at least think about it.

Admittedly, this was not the solution that I was looking for.  I happened to be more in agreement with a form of the 3-3-3 proposal.  However, Prettyman’s proposal is not only intriguing – it has merit.

It would work something like this:

1. The county (and hopefully the city of Salisbury) would allow Comcast to charge a PEG (Public, Education, Government) fee that would be added to the monthly bills of Comcast subscribers.  This fee would be something like $0.75 or $0.85 per month.
2. That money would go directly from Comcast to PAC-14.
3. PAC-14 would enter into a memorandum of understanding (a contract) with the county and city governments to broadcast county and city council meetings.
4. From there on out, PAC-14 would have to be self-sustaining.  There would be no promise of additional grants from the county or city governments.
5. Government would no longer appoint members to the board.

As I stated earlier, this was not the solution that I was looking for.  However, Mrs. Prettyman’s idea addresses almost every objection that I had to the “Pretl Plan” and its variations (such as the position of the Daily Times); my biggest objection being a lack of accountability when the taxpayers’ dollars are being spent.

If a majority of the county council agrees to adopt such a plan this should be a win-win for all parties:

• There will be no payment of taxpayers’ dollars.

• Government won’t be taking any role in the governing of PAC-14.  Admittedly this is a red herring, but the proponents of the “Pretl Plan” have made their stand almost exclusively on this issue (or some variation)

• Comcast ratepayers will have the option of either paying the nominal fee or not.  As Councilman Joe Holloway pointed out yesterday, those that don’t want to pay the $0.75 or $0.85 have other options available to them – DirecTV, DISH, or over-the-air broadcasts.  Currently, many residents are indirectly subsidizing PAC-14 through the county and/or Salisbury governments yet are unable to access PAC-14 because they do not have Comcast service.

The only person who should be screaming murder over this proposal is Mike Goodson of PAC-14.  He’s been proposing a PEG fee IN ADDITION TO taxpayer subsidies.  Of course, Goodson’s proposal of a multi-million dollar “community media center” is a pipe dream.

Proponents of the “community board” model (whether the “Pretl Plan” or a variant of the 3-3-3 model) shouldn’t have any objections IF they are being honest brokers.  They claim that moving PAC-14 away from government will allow them to raise money.  Fine… DO IT!  Prettyman’s proposal does that.  Opposition to Prettyman’s proposal merely adds credence to the argument that they are interested in taking taxpayers’ money with NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

As with all things, the devil is in the details.  We’ll have to see if the majority of the Wicomico County Council (and hopefully the Salisbury City Council) are serious about solving these problems.  If they are, it is important that a contract between PAC-14 and the government(s) is drawn that protects both Comcast ratepayers AND the public at large.  No additional PEG fee increases should be permitted without the approval of the respective governments.  The current channel (and any additional channels) should remain the property of the franchisor (the city and county) and are only being given to the stewardship of the PAC-14 board.

Kudos to Mrs. Prettyman for coming up with an interesting idea that is worthy of continued study and debate.

Sphere: Related Content