Is MCTV worth saving? Part I:  MCTV privatizes the public record

Editorial posted by Barry Parr on Mar 20, 2008 at 04:54 pm in  Government   Media
28 comments • Click to email this story

I know that sometimes Coastsider can be earnest enough to gag a Smurf. Take the ownership of public records, for example.

I’ve been wrestling with MCTV over the right to publish newsworthy clips from their cablecasts for a couple of years. Through property taxes and cable fees, you and I pay for their palatial offices in Comcast’s El Granada equipment closet, executive director’s $45,000 [Correction: $60,970] annual salary for 25 hours of work a week [PDF of MCTV’s 2005 IRS filing], token payments for their dedicated camera crew, equipment, and even the actual, physical videotapes they use to record the public meetings of our elected bodies.

But MCTV will tell you that they own the contents of those tapes and will not allow anyone to redistribute them. This would be a shocking theft of public property if MCTV’s crime weren’t so penny ante—like stealing pencils from the library.

Last week, Supervisor Rich Gordon weighed in on the controversy [PDF] [Click here for a PDF of MCTV’s county charter] I’ve been bugging him about it for a while, so I only have myself to blame. Sensing that he was unprepared to declare all the recordings to be public property, I asked that the county at least assert its ownership of the tapes it paid for directly—those of Midcoast Community Council meetings.  However, I was extremely disappointed that Supervisor Gordon declined. He was willing to say that boards could negotiate ownership with MCTV—but they have every reason not to.

As I told Supervisor Gordon, MCTV’s policy panders to the worst instincts of our elected officials by promising to bury their newsworthy and controversial acts in hours of tedium.  Darin Boville looked into how the rest of the county handles this, and learned that no San Mateo city that streams their meetings allows a private party to own its copyrights. MCTV’s policy is so weirdly at odds with their mission and the whole point of taping public meetings that you have to wonder about their motives. Fortunately, the Montara Water and Sanitary District and the Coastside Fire Protection District are more committed to openness than MCTV gives them credit for.

What does all this mean? If you want a copy of last week’s Midcoast Community Council meeting, you can pay MCTV $50, roughly four times what you’d pay for a copy of ”Citizen Kane“.

MCTV’s executive director Constance Malach has made a lot of noise about MCTV’s nonprofit status, continually referring to Coastsider and Montara Fog “commercial” sites. This is a red herring, because (1) MCTV makes more money from its commercial activities than Coastsider and Montara Fog combined, and (2) MCTV has not answered questions about whether it would permit noncommercial sites to redistribute these public meetings.

MCTV is a private organization—in all senses of the word. Their board is self-selected [CORRECTION: elected by a small number of members], and their meetings take place behind closed doors. MCTV has not answered my questions about what material they will accept for cablecast, how they are organized, the names of their directors, or even their price for DVD’s. 

I also asked MCTV whether it would cablecast Coastside board meetings that were created by the boards themselves. I received the following reply from Ms. Malach.

MCTV will not accept public meeting videos from third parties for regularly scheduled meetings of local agencies.  There are a large number of reasons for this that we can review with you at an appropriate time in the future.  We are aware of the sentence in the Gordon letter that you have referred to.  Upon seeing the letter, we discussed the matter with the County and we believe they now better understand the rationale behind our policy.  Our understanding is that Supervisor Gordon’s letter was not intended to ask us to change our policy, and we are not changing it.

I asked Ms. Malach to set a time, as she promised, when she could explain her reasoning. She replied, “You have my answer.” MCTV is stonewalling, because they are not accountable to the public.

I’ve tried reasoning with MCTV. I’ve tried taking my concerns to the boards themselves. And I’ve tried to talking to the Board of Supervisors. I’m convinced that the only solution is the reform of MCTV itself, but it may not be worth the trouble. More on that later.

Comments

Comment 1 by June  on  Mar 20  at  7:51pm  •  All my comments • 

How about settling this with an old-fashioned duel at sunset—between Barry Parr and Connie Mallach—standing at opposite ends of the new indoor mall at Princeton-by-the-Sea?

June Morrall

Comment 2 by Barry Parr  on  Mar 20  at  11:39pm  •  All my comments • 

I’d prefer to settle it with a conversation and a little compromise, which I tried repeatedly, but Connie won’t even talk to me.

Comment 3 by Vince Williams  on  Mar 21  at  8:59am  •  All my comments • 

MCTV is a relic of decades of government regulation. Over the years MCTV has presented themselves to the Fire Board as a bureaucracy with no accountability other than their internal rules which appeared to change at the whim of Ms Malach. They needed to train and certify camera operators on 1970 vintage equipment. They can’t have an unauthorized camera operator violating some regulation of politically correct camera operation. Their one trained camera person is over booked. There are too many local government meetings to cover. Oh you want a video tape of a meeting, well we’ll need to rummage around in the file cabinet here and maybe we can make you a copy for a fee for you personal use, that is. When we get around to duplicating the tape for you, you need to understand that even though you paid for the duplication and the citizens of the County and Comcast customers paid for the actual recording of the public meeting, do anything we don’t approve with what is essentially OUR tape and OUR lawyers will be all over you.

Now, MCTV has recast themselves as the premiere non-profit on the Coastside anointed by the County Board of Supervisors(BOS) as the official videographers and web streamers of public Coastside meetings(well not yet, maybe in April, stay tuned, folks). If Supervisor Gordon wants to throw Comcast customers fees and County funds away trying to reinvigorate his regulatory step child, why should any of us get heartburn about it, after everything else the County has done to the Coastside?

Some local government entities got in early on the Comcast and predecessor cable TV corporations franchise deals and were subsidized by the BOS and SOME WERE NOT. For those that were not, like CFPD, they are required to pay near full cost and MCTV’s overhead for the honor of having their meetings broadcast . The Coastside Special Districts are empowered to find the best deal for their citizens, ratepayers and taxpayers. These local government entities are under no obligation to work with MCTV, especially when they were cut out of the original franchise subsidies. Those local government entities can take Supervisor’s Gordon’s endorsement of MCTV, however they want.

Internet technology has changed the options for our local government agencies and the way local news is distributed to the residents of the Coastside. Just look at Coastsider, MontaraFog, The HMB Review and The San Mateo County Times. Over the past year, MCTV had the option to participate in those changes. All MCTV had to do, was to be reasonable on the copyright issue on public meetings they recorded and accept videos others recorded with disclaimers and there could have been no duplication of effort in broadcasting and web casting local government meetings and the residents of the Coastside could have viewed the meeting on the internet or Comcast. Instead MCTV chose to apply a 1970’s era cable TV monopoly franchise mindset. The likely result, MCTV will do what they have done for the past decades, have uncatalogued tapes sitting in file cabinets that no other entity can touch and an expensive cost structure. But, who knows, they might actually learn something over time about the internet, via subsidizes from the BOS and Comcast customers.

Competition involves duplication of effort, but ultimately the best solution. We will see how MCTV performs for CCWD in web streaming. We will see how MontaraFog performs for CFPD. We can now see how MWSD performs with a combination of MCTV Comcast rebroadcast and a static camera compressed and hosted on MontarFog. May the best solution win.

Comment 4 by Larry Rosenstein  on  Mar 21  at  6:24pm  •  All my comments • 

I’ve watched a couple of the meeting where agencies have discussed this issue. It is interesting to see the MCTV execs split hairs about what can and cannot be done with the recordings. For example, that there are no restrictions on how many copies the agency can make as long as they don’t go to a for-profit business. (Exactly who is supposed to enforce this?)

In my view, it’s a matter of MCTV doing all it can to protect a dying business model. As in the music and movies industries, the internet, along with high quality video equipment, makes an organization like MCTV less relevant than it was a few years ago. (It was interesting to see that many of the agency directors do not have cable service.)

Rather than dueling, you could try to find someone that specialized in 501(c)3 nonprofits to go over MCTVs public info and see if there is anything that could be the basis of a complaint to the IRS. I don’t think the IRS requires that minutes of board meeting be made public, but the organization has to make copies of its original application and annual Form 990s. (BTW, the names of the directors are listed on the organization’s Form 990.) Although it might seem hopeless, I have first-hand experience that a letter with a legitimate complaint can result in a visit from the IRS.

For example, $44K seems like a lot to pay the head of a non-profit that only has revenue of $112K. (Even if 75% of that is claimed to be part of their program services.) The IRS has rules about excessive compensation (search for IRS section 4958) and requires that non-profit boards do some due diligence to avoid excise taxes.

Comment 5 by Deb Wong  on  Mar 27  at  10:04am  •  All my comments • 

MCTV offers next-to-nothing for local viewers. All we see are old re-runs of videos made in the 80s & 90s…over & over & over again - or poorly-made videos of public meetings with bad sound & lighting. If it were off the air, who would notice its absence?

One might think that Ms. Malach would welcome new videos, fresh material, viewers contributions (as there are with many local stations around the country that we have seen). But I guess if MCTV works for her “as-is”, she has no motivation to change the status quo.

Comment 6 by Barry Parr  on  Mar 27  at  11:31am  •  All my comments • 

I know a number of people, including myself, who went to MCTV with programming ideas that they were personally excited about, only to be discouraged, ignored, or simply turned down flat.

Yesterday, I submitted a couple of questions to MCTV about what proposals they have received in the last year and how many resulted in programming. I’ll let you know what they tell me.

Comment 7 by J Morrall  on  Mar 27  at  12:04pm  •  All my comments • 

Me, too, I’ve discussed ideas with MCTV, only to be disappointed…but how do I know that if someone else takes over, I, or anyone would be treated any differently? How would the process differ? There would still be a process in place.

I’m referring to Coastside docs and creative projects. Wouldn’t I—or anyone other writer-artist-film maker—be better off going it alone— without having to submit to answering endless questions and going through any kind of artistic-deadening process?

June

Comment 8 by Barry Parr  on  Mar 27  at  1:19pm  •  All my comments • 

At minimum there should be an open process for proposing and evaluating programming ideas. We should know what ideas have been brought to MCTV and what happened to them.

More importantly, MCTV should set the barriers to access really low. Give people the opportunity to fail, rather than imposing a filtering process.

MCTV’s management and board come from a very limited segment of the community and we should not have to satisfy their taste and judgement to get access to this community resource. No reasonably coherent person with a proposal should be turned away.

MCTV should be treated more as an open mike, and less as a museum of its own better days.

Comment 9 by J Morrall  on  Mar 27  at  1:47pm  •  All my comments • 

In theory, this sounds wonderful. Let anyone with a cohesive proposal “go for it.”

But, isn’t it just human nature for any kind of group with power to ultimately close ranks? To feel threatened and become bureaucratic?

June

Comment 10 by Deb Wong  on  Mar 27  at  2:05pm  •  All my comments • 

Perhaps I’m naive, but I always thought that Community Television should reflect the diversity and varied interests of its community. The only way for that to happen is for station owners/managers to offer a viable forum for the locals - irrespective of the personal tastes or opinions of said management.

Public Access can be a good thing, if handled properly. Years ago, my daughter’s (award winning) film short “Daydream Believer” was shown on Redwood City’s public access station, which got the attention of KQED, where she was interviewed and had her film shown, as well.

A station has more credibility with not only its own community but with others too, when there is varied input of programming. I hate to sound negative, but MCTV has become somewhat of a joke, and even worse, BORING. It doesn’t have to be.

I do appreciate some of the programming that has been shown on Channel 6, but after the first several viewings, I longed for something FRESH, and maybe different.

Have Jeff Clark do something like “The Surf Report”, in a fun and interesting way. Have locals who have a little knowledge of their vocations give short lessons, etc. The possibilities are limitless. I want a video of the painter who paints Old Paint, the Lemos Horse - painting the horse! Well, it isn’t for everyone - but have a little something for everyone. That way, if a local businesses are represented, they can advertise the station at their business - it can help everyone.

Comment 11 by J Morrall  on  Mar 27  at  2:30pm  •  All my comments • 

To me what DW is suggesting sounds like the kind of TV programming found on San Francisco stations—but then this is suburbia, now, isn’t it?

I think I’ll just return to my little laptop.

Aloha,

June

Comment 12 by Barry Parr  on  Mar 27  at  3:56pm  •  All my comments • 

Certainly, the bureaucratic imperative is self-protection. However, there are ways to deal with that problem. MCTV has to be pushed in the direction of openness, inclusion, and access.

I agree that nothing we can do will produce a flood of creativity from our little bedroom community. But I’d certainly like to see MCTV encouraging, rather than discouraging, people trying out their ideas.

Now that most of us have cameras and video editing equipment, a model based on the scarcity and cost of equipment, as well as the need for extensive training, has outlived its purpose.

Comment 13 by J Morrall  on  Mar 27  at  4:18pm  •  All my comments • 

And many Coastsiders have satellite now giving them zillions of choices. Can MCTV be accessed from satellite? I don’t think so.

MCTV was founded during the cable era and there was an audience then for the shows, most of which were produced by a small “clique.”

Seems to me that will happen no matter who takes over, another small clique making shows. If the programming is too amateur, nobody will watch. If it’s too professional, there will be jealousy and people will be left out.

Some things just lag behind, and, as others have said in this space, technology is the ultimate decider.

I wish I were original or futurist enough to suggest something that would truly be a hit—and identify the Coastside as a trend-setter.

June Morrall

Comment 14 by Carl May  on  Mar 27  at  5:52pm  •  All my comments • 

Barry,

Maybe not the video and production skills (though I’m not so sure about that with the number of local filmmakers around), but there is a lot of creativity going on in our area. Visual and performing arts, writers, scientists, innovative businesses, and so on. Many of these people stay below the local radar, claiming their fame beyond the coastside. It’s fascinating to discover the creatives who live and work here, sometimes in one’s own neighborhood.

The human history and parade of characters of which June Morrall and others write provide a stream of stories that could go on for years if offered as vignettes.

Not everything has been ground into artificial, boring, uniform, suburban/urban nothingness—yet. Many people would love interesting coverage of local topics that did NOT include politics, government, damage to the environment, and development, which is not to say coverage of those topics could not be much better on MCTV.

Maybe the equipment and production skills are not available for good local programming. I don’t know about that. And I don’t know about costs or funding. But there is no lack of subject matter on the coastside from Montara through the South Coast to support two or three innovative half-hour programs each week for years to come.

June mentions “San Francisco stations.” I don’t know which ones she means, but in our house we are fans of a couple of locally produced PBS programs. One of these is SPARK, which covers, typically, three Bay Area artists or art groups in each weekly half-hour program. We get a kick out of learning about some of the people we know from the art fairs and discover art venues and performing artists that we want to see.

Carl May

Comment 15 by J Morrall  on  Mar 27  at  6:12pm  •  All my comments • 

Even MCTV produced shows about local artists—it’s just that it was a clique that had the fun—a small group [some with their own fancy equipment so they didn’t even use MCTV’s)—excluding many.

I’m sure this happens even at Spark. That’s the way it is.

The lovely thing about the Internet is that artists who may, for example, be, let’s say obnoxious in close, personal situations, can get their stuff on Youtube. It’s judged by the people who elect to watch the stuff.

To get their stuff produced, nobody has to hear their voice, read their proposal, or look at them. In many ways, it is absolutely perfect because it gives everyone the opportunity if they have the energy.

Has anyone done a survey on how many people actually watch MCTV? For some folks, who can only afford cable, it could be a main form of entertainment.

June

Comment 16 by Deb Wong  on  Mar 27  at  6:13pm  •  All my comments • 

I think that Carl has a point. There are many talented and creative people in our community, who could contribute to our local station. We als have our own “characters” - and I mean that in the best way.

However, since I am a more recent resident of the Half Moon Bay area, having moved here just 8 years ago, perhaps I am not as aware about the politics of the power behind the media on the coast(I grew up in Pacifica, where we had our own politics).

It is easy to become discouraged when one keeps being turned down by a small group who hold the keys, so to speak. I just think that if we keep expecting mediocrity, that is just what we will get.

I see nothing wrong in having visions of something better, considering the possibility that we can produce stimulating, informative, exciting, entertaining programs that our locals have produced.

Meanwhile, MCTV’s call letters should be changed to “ZZZZ”, to reflect its current programing.

Comment 17 by Deb Wong  on  Mar 27  at  6:19pm  •  All my comments • 

Reading June’s comment, I agree that the internet is a lovely place to exhibit your artwork, movies, etc. I have been doing just that since 1999 (put the name “Deb Wong” in the search engines - over half will be my sites). This doesn’t mean that we can’t have BOTH, though - right? As June also said, cable may be some people’s only form of entertainment. Not everyone has or is into computers. Small towns don’t have to equate to small minds or expectations.

Comment 18 by J Morrall  on  Mar 27  at  6:28pm  •  All my comments • 

Yes, have both (MCTV or the equivalent & Internet or whatever.) DW”s got the solution.

It’s great to have choices.

June

Comment 19 by J Morrall  on  Mar 27  at  6:29pm  •  All my comments • 

Oh—but wait. Do I have to “pay” for MCTV or the equivalent if I am not using it or don’t believe in it?

June

Comment 20 by Carl May  on  Mar 27  at  6:44pm  •  All my comments • 

The problem with the big Internet “sharing” sites is that they are egalitarian. That makes for impossible “programming” for the general public because one must slog endlessly through amateurish junk to discover a few good pieces. Some like the prospecting. Most of us are quickly turned off. So, other than a few unusual ones that catch on and are widely publicized, most video pieces posted on YouTube are too poorly done to be of interest or are intended for a circle of friends. The same can be said of the big photography sites like Flickr.

The kind of coastside local programming I’d like to see on TV would have to be well-produced to get an audience. This means good scripts, good camera work and sound, good editing, and all the rest. Production values/quality much better than the streaming video one sees on the Internet. Something that would do right by the subject matter rather than irritate most people viewing it. Or, thanks to electronic gadgets, is poor visual and aural quality so much a part of life for anyone under 40 that none care?

Comment 21 by Leonard Woren  on  Mar 27  at  6:54pm  •  All my comments • 

MCTV is a community access station. MCTV should run anything that is submitted to them which won’t get them in legal trouble for running it. (Think SNL’s “Wayne’s World.”) Instead, everything which doesn’t meet Connie’s “standards” is summarily rejected. The rule that MCTV only runs stuff made on their equipment by their paid staff is arbitrary and capricious, and ignored when it suits Connie to ignore it.

Fundamentally, there’s nothing wrong with MCTV which can’t be cured by replacing the management and maybe much of the board of directors. The problem is how can that be done when the board meetings are closed and secret, no agendas or minutes are published, the candidates for board are hand-picked, the people who vote are selected via some secret process, etc. Altogether a scenario which would make certain long-dead Russian dictators proud.

Contrast the above to what I’ve been told about Pacifica’s public access channel — they run things as if they were subject to the Brown Act, even though they aren’t legally required to do so. (The Brown Act is California’s open meeting law, requiring everything done by government to be done out in the open, subject to public scrutiny.) By the way, there’s a provision in the Brown Act which does in fact require MCTV to comply with it due to MCTV receiving government money to operate. (The franchise fee is a tax that the City and the County collect and then choose to give some part of it to MCTV, therefore it’s government money.)

Comment 22 by J Morrall  on  Mar 27  at  7:09pm  •  All my comments • 

But dear Carl,

Who is going to decide:

“The kind of coastside local programming I’d like to see on TV would have to be well-produced to get an audience. This means good scripts, good camera work and sound, good editing, and all the rest.”

If it were not for the Internet, I would have no place for my writing. When I worked for newspapers, they dictated what they wanted. Now, for the first time, I can write what I want—as millions of others can, too.

This is true freedom of expression.

And, if somebody doesn’t want to read it, they click away—just as they can switch away from a boring, ancient program on MCTV.

The streaming of political meetings on, say, Coastsider, might also allow viewers to respond immediately, as we are now, via email—that can be read by other interested citizens as well as elected politicians.

June

Comment 23 by J Morrall  on  Mar 27  at  7:24pm  •  All my comments • 

As long as MCTV is not accountable to the market, meaning that their financial existence depends on government funding, they will never really maintain high artistic standards.

They will never produce quality material and they won’t care.

The marketplace of ideas and talent is the only place that matters.

And Leonard Woren is so accurate when he says MCTV “makes long-dead Russian dictators proud.”

The logical extension of Leonard’s thought is that you cannot have a quality product produced by public ownership.

June Morrall

Comment 24 by J Morrall  on  Mar 28  at  8:47am  •  All my comments • 

What happened?

Where is everybody?

June

Comment 25 by Deb Wong  on  Mar 28  at  10:20am  •  All my comments • 

Hi June,

Carl May has a point about the quality of production values, etc. Though content is most often a matter of taste - and therefore more difficult to ascertain as to what offerings are “view-worthy” - meaning that you have to have good sound, picture, etc. for someone to sit there & watch.

I have a lot of videos uploaded to my YouTube (Debwong), but only some reach into the thousands in viewings. YouTube is not perfect, either. I finally sprung for my own program to create my own flash videos, as YouTube not only censors some material, but has a requirement about the length of the video posted.

I will say that YouTube’s META tags are great, as they bring those who are interested in your material to you. Put what you want in the search engine, and you have a selection of what interests you. Also, viewers select the videos that have the best quality & content - thus the rating system on YouTube.

I like the idea extended to our local television station - PUBLIC Access - but I also know how bureaucracies work. Given that MCTV is government funded (at least in part), and has to adhere to some standards, red tape might follow. If we have the patience, however, videos with quality production values and interest to our community are achievable, in my view.

Comment 26 by Barry Parr  on  Mar 28  at  3:22pm  •  All my comments • 

Darin Boville has just posted a piece on the MCTV dispute from his perspective. Darin’s work on Montara Fog is a good example of the kind of creativity we have here on the Coastside. In addition to lots of meeting videos, he has been producing some excellent video “editorials” from various folks.

Darin’s work in taping local meetings has also lit a fire under MCTV’s Web efforts.

Darin’s piece is on the home page, or you can see it here:

http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/opinionunderstandingthehistoryofthemctv_dispute/20080328/

Comment 27 by Leonard Woren  on  Apr 07  at  8:14pm  •  All my comments • 

MCTV has come up with a new way to be annoying. It’s not bad enough that they insist on claiming copyright to meetings that they are paid to record (a claim that they have no moral right to), now they’ve placed an irritating MCTV logo in the lower corner, just like the big guys who don’t care about the viewers.

On a side note, since MCTV got automated playback equipment a while ago, why is it that playback now almost always starts either 3 minutes early or 3 minutes late, but virtually never on time?

MCTV’s web site schedule page is non-functional more often than not, and they expect us to believe that they have the in-house expertise to manage all of the material if they ever get around to putting it up on their web site. (The schedule page doesn’t work because they’re hosting part of it on their own cable Internet connection, in direct violation of Comcast’s Terms of Service.)

Comment 28 by Ken Johnson  on  Apr 07  at  9:00pm  •  All my comments • 

Leonard,

Seems the only thing working on their web site is ‘history’ - there is a message there.

Wasn’t 1 April the date they were supposed to have their video up on the site?

Ken Johnson


Add your own comment

Please Register and Log in to post a comment.

 

Get your story or comment on Coastsider. If you're a member, log in to submit a story. Not a member? Please register to submit a story.