15 thoughts on “Action Alert: AN URGENT REQUEST FROM SUPPORTERS OF PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION!”

1. Keith Rollman February 5, 2012 at 9:05 pm

   I already did a core dump on this subject, but I’d like to recap:

   1. Couching this thing as a threat to free speech is the same old red herring they used before. It has also been suggested that Olelo only set up the community media centers to generate “allies” when the state tries to hold it accountable for the millions of dollars in assets it was claiming were no longer public funds.

   2. Olelo is privately held 501 C corporation, whose board makes decisions in closed meetings and does not represent the public interest. The State whose legislature and administration is elected, and must adhere to transparency and the sunshine laws represents the public, and by law is accountable for public funds.

   3. The advertising Olelo produces and airs in order to persuade people into defend its vested interests is probably illegal. By acting like a network, and using public access time and facilities to promote self-serving (and questionable) messaging for the benefit of a single corporation is not what public access was established to do.

   4. Millions of dollars in franchise fees collected by the State accumulated in Olelo bank accounts (instead of being used for PEG functions) and were instead used by Olelo to pay lawyers to prevent the State from exercising it’s legal obligations and block State oversight and administration. This is, in my opinion, another illegal use of public funds.

   5. What’s really under threat is Olelo’s monopoly of the assets and revenue generated from the cable franchise fee, not public access or free speech. Olelo is the one who has set itself up to control who is allowed to speak on public access and what views dominate.

   6. Olelo has starved out and exploited for profit the access supposedly guaranteed to the Educational and Government communications operations. For example it charges the city thousands of dollars to broadcast city council meetings and neighborhood board meetings that the PEG is supposed to provide. This means that many taxpayers have to pay Olelo twice for something that the franchise fee was designed to cover.

   7. Olelo has essentially attempted to usurp the power granted to the State by the Federal Government.

   8. The past head of Olelo has been appointed to head the DCCA, by Governor Abercrombie. This is a colossal conflict of interest and urgently requires legislative oversight in these matters.

   For these reasons, and more, any new law that would break Olelo’s monopoly of PEG operations and stop the illegal conversion of public funds and assets is in the best interests of the taxpaying public.

   Reply ↓
   1. HELL NO to HB 2652 February 6, 2012 at 12:32 am

      Mahalo to Ms. Donna Wong for sharing! I AGREE 100% with the following premises:

      • The hidden agenda here is to silence the public voice as proven by this deceptive committee action.

      • It is financially irresponsible to force each sector to buy the same broadcasting equipment and resources to air their programming.

      • Across the country, when Public, Education and Government (PEG) are separated, the public has lost its voice.

      Olelo Public Access has provided a powerful weapon for the poor grassroots to buck against big well-financed corporations that can afford lobbyists, consultants, PR firms. There is a battle going with Honolulu Rail Transit, Hoopili, Koa Ridge, Envision Laie.

      Some nefarious BIG BOYS are trying to shut down this public access avenue for the small people.

      Take a minute to say HELL NO! to HB 2652

      http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/?measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&?billnumber=2652

      Reply ↓
   2. Curious George February 6, 2012 at 8:29 pm

      I’ve gone through all olelo trainings a while back and from my understanding of the organization i would be surprised if they charged the city money to broadcast programming. They might have created an arrangement for the city to cover production costs of taping meetings, as producing video is not free. I don’t know if the access fee we pay Is supposed to cover these costs out of pocket for them or not. My guess would be not. So paying a production fee seems reasonable to me (unless it was crazy high.) concur on the squealing pigs / teet concept though.

      Reply ↓
2. HELL NO to HB 2652 February 6, 2012 at 12:35 am

   WOW I can’t imagine people who feed off the trough of the Honolulu Rail Transit in the millions of dollars are now worried about “the best interests of the taxpaying public.”

   Reply ↓
3. Keith Rollman February 6, 2012 at 9:01 am

   Was that comment directed at me? If I’ve taken any money from Honolulu Rail Transit it’s news to me. My checks must have been lost in the mail.

   Reply ↓
4. Olelo Update February 6, 2012 at 9:57 am

   I received email:

   ‘Olelo Community Media info@olelo.org
   1:15 AM (8 hours ago)

   Aloha,

   We have recently received news that the House CPC Committee is voting on HB2652 this afternoon, February 6, at 2:15 in Room 325. This bill would require the DCCA to split PEG Access into three parts with three different access centers running them. This would force a waste of resources and decimate the thriving community access we currently have. ‘Olelo and our PEG Access sister organizations are united in STRONG OPPOSITION to this dangerous bill and testified in opposition last week. At that time, the Committee deferred the bill but still scheduled the bill for decision-making today. The committee is no longer accepting testimony, so please call or email the following CPC members and let them know that you would like them to preserve this vital community resource by voting against HB2652:

   CPC Chair Robert N. Herkes 586-8400

   Vice Chair: Ryan I. Yamane 586-6150

   Members:

   Tom Brower 586-8520

   Angus L.K. McKelvey 586-6160

   Rida T.R. Cabanilla 586-6080

   Joseph M. Souki 586-9444

   Mele Carroll 586-6790

   Clift Tsuji 586-8480

   Denny Coffman 586-9605

   Corinne W.L. Ching 586-9415

   Ken Ito 586-8470

   Barbara C. Marumoto 586-6310

   Gilbert S.C. Keith-Agaran 586-6210

   Cynthia Thielen 586-6480

   Sylvia Luke 586-8530

   Mahalo for your ongoing support!

   Reply ↓
5. Olelo Update February 6, 2012 at 10:13 am

   FYI:

   I just called Robert N. Herkes 586-8400 Office:

   Me: Hello, I would like to register a NO vote for the Olelo Bill, Bill 2652

   Office Man: Well, you can do that when we have our committee meeting next week.

   Me: But there is a decision making meeting today. Can I register a NO with you guys?

   Office Man: Ok. Thank you.

   No Name or phone number asked?

   Is this how it works?
   ————————————————-
   Vice Chair: Ryan I. Yamane 586-6150

   Me: Good Morning, I want to register a No Vote for the Olelo, HB 2652.

   Office Man: Ok. What’s your name? I’ll pass it on to him.

   ———————————————-
   Tom Brower 586-8520 VOICEMAIL

   and I’m running out of time . . .

   Reply ↓
6. Keith Rollman February 6, 2012 at 10:38 am

   Nothing squeals louder than the little piggy being pulled off the government teat.

   Reply ↓
   1. Be CIVIL February 7, 2012 at 9:31 am

      The funding for Public Access does not come from the government teat per se.

      Anyone who knows the history of how public access media came about for the public will know.

      Reply ↓
      1. Keith Rollman February 7, 2012 at 3:36 pm

         The feds allowed the cable franchise granting authority to assess a surcharge on cable subscribers to create local public access capabilities and support PBS. This was compensation to the public for the granting of the use of public rights of way, and access for the cable system. The local franchise granting authority (in our case the state) can then contract and fund an operational entity to produce and air programing, do it itself, divide the money anyway it wants between the P-E-G entities or just pocket the money.

         The feds gave the authority to the state to collect this public fund as compensation for the public’s property. It is by every definition public money.

         Over the years, Olelo, the operational contractor, has accumulated the money and assets, enriched itself, lawyered-up and now is basically telling the State and Public to lump it. To add insult to injury, when confronted, Olelo protests that it is the guardian of the public’s free speech and wraps itself in the flag…a cynical PR stunt.

         That’s how it all came about.

         Reply ↓
7. cwd February 6, 2012 at 8:42 pm

   Decision-making has been deferred until next Monday – time not yet set.

   Took my first `Olelo training class more than 20 years ago.

   Am planning to go back for digital upgrades.

   The City – and the state – does pay for government coverages. Years ago, the hourly wages for the production people was pretty much the same as what was paid at the commercial stations – BUT – the work was not continuous throughout the entire year.

   The current contracts are available through DAGS.

   Reply ↓
8. Kolea February 7, 2012 at 10:05 am

   At Joe Souki’s request, decisionmaking on the bill has been deferred, as CWD reports, until next week.

   Here is my understanding of the backstory. Herkes introduced the bill by request (even if the bill lacks the telltale “BR.”) The behind the scenes “script” was for him to pass out the bill, only to have it be killed in Finance.

   They had not factored in the outrage such a bill would provoke from public access users. Most of the time, few people are paying attention. In the committee hearing, several committee members indicated their opposition to the bill, an unusual step, but likely a result of the public pressure. Had the public NOT been so forceful in their opposition, most of those “No” votes probably would have voted “WR” or remained silent, knowing the bill would likely die further down the line.

   Rep Herkes himself, the nominal author of the bill, expressed disagreement with most of the bill.

   Having said this, I recommend public access supporters to keep up the pressure. Submit LATE testimony against the bill. This will drive home the point that public access has strong, and sometimes angry, support in the community.

   Reply ↓
   1. Be CIVIL February 7, 2012 at 2:37 pm

      Yes, we have to watch out for our public interest because we cannot depend on the legislators to do it.

      Reply ↓
      1. Be CIVIL February 7, 2012 at 2:39 pm

         Take a minute to say HELL NO! to HB 2652

         http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/?measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&?billnumber=2652

         Reply ↓
         1. Be CIVIL February 8, 2012 at 1:56 pm

            Sorry – they no longer accept testimony.

            Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.