Keeping the Public Out of Public Access
Hawaiian Style 

(Hawaii's Public Access Television Corporations Speak Out Against Democracy--A Case Study) - by Ed Coll

You'd think that access corporations, the folks that run public access television here in Hawaii would be fierce defenders of democracy. After all, the intent of the 1984 Cable Rights Act was to provide individual citizens access to electronic free speech. Public access television was intended to be an electronic mainstreet where opinions and ideas on which a viable democracy is based flow freely. You'd think access corporations would be all for democracy, but you'd be mistaken. Hawaii's access corporations; 'Olelo (Oahu), Akaku (Maui), Na Leo 'O Hawaii (Hawaii), and Ho'ike (Kauai) have all testified before the Senate Committee on Communications and Public Utilities in opposition to having their boards democratically elected by the cable subscribers who fund them.

Public Access Today

All the access corporations claim nonprofit 501 (c) 3 status yet these organizations appear to be political subdivisions of the state with a board consisting of political and cable company appointees. The Governor appoints the director of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA). The director of DCCA appoints a majority of the board members. The remaining board members are appointed by the cable companies. These access corporations have no membership. The access corporations are funded by assessing the cable companies up to 5% of their annual gross revenues. All the cable companies in Hawaii have passed the entire cost of funding public access onto the cable subscriber. So it is the cable subscriber who funds the access corporations, but subscribers have no vote in electing the board members who control the resources, policies, procedures, and spend the cable subscriber's money. When (not if) the DCCA decides to let the cable company off the hook for the pass through of these subscriber fees, all access center faciities, equipment and funds shall be turned over to the state, so in reality, the access centers are owned by the state. As witnessed by 'Olelo's (and possibly other center's) "Self Sufficiency Plan", the board(s) decided that without state supported franchise fees they would have to "close its doors" six months after the funds were discontinued.

Don't Let that Sunshine In

With such hierarchical top down control by the State of Hawaii in the appointment of access corporation board members, one would think the State Sunshine Law would allow for public oversight. According to a preliminary opinion by the State Office of Information Practices (OIP) the level of State involvement does not rise to the level of an "agency" nor do access corporations perform a governmental function, and finally they do not receive any financial assistance from the State government. Conclusion, access corporations are not covered by State Sunshine Laws. Although the State assesses a percentage of the cable companies gross revenues which the cable companies pass onto the cable subscriber to fund the access corporations, none of that money passes through the State's general fund, and therefore is not considered "government financing". A clever way to circumvent Sunshine, legally extract money from cable subscribers, and deny them any meaningful participation in the process. Hawaii's access corporations are fond of referring to themselves as "the people's television", but open the doors and where are the people? Taxation without representation? The OIP opinion was requested by the access corporations Akakua (Maui) and Ho'ike (Kauai) when members of the public tried to use the Sunshine Law to obtain information about their activities.

We Can't Control the Content but we Can Delay Your Access

If access corporations were sincerely interested in providing the public access to television, they could set up and turn on a camera, microphone, and video tape recorder and let people speak their mind. Perhaps not the most exciting and dynamic form of television, but it would provide the basic access envisioned by the framers of the 1984 Cable Rights Act. Instead the eager public access producer is met with a barrage of intimidating forms, and training programs that lasts weeks and even months in the case of 'Olelo (Oahu). After completing a highly subjective, non-performance based, and poorly planned certification process the access producer must schedule production and post production equipment often months in advance. After the program is produced the access producer must schedule the program for cablecast which means more intimidating forms and more delay. It could easily take a year or longer for a beginning access producer to see their first program reach an audience.

These access corporation rules, procedures, training, forms, scheduling, and delays effectively discourage all but the most dedicated access producer, and in effect is a regime designed to disenfranchise the majority of the subscribers who fund the corporations. The result is far less than 1/100th of the eligible producers are being served by any access corporation in Hawaii, which seems to be by design so they can say "we tried" and then more vigorously facilitate "already served", adequately funded, nonprofit and state agencies.

Whereas and be it Further Resolved

The title of SR 65 and SCR 77 introduced by Senator Carol Fukunaga chair of the Communications & Public Utilities committee was called "URGING THE NON-PROFIT PUBLIC ACCESS CORPORATIONS TO ALLOW MORE PARTICIPATION BY THE CABLE SUBSCRIBERS WHO FUND THEM". Basically the resolution would allow cable subscribers to elect the board members by majority vote through a ballot process at each corporation's annual meeting. Sounds like the democratic thing to do. Anyone have a problem with that? Yep. Guess Who?

Submitted testimony of:

  • Na Leo 'O Hawaii: "The board of Na Leo 'O Hawaii, Inc does not support Senate Concurrent Resolution 77." 
  • Ho'ike: "Ho'ike: Kaua'i Community Television, Inc. does not support this resolution." 
  • Akaku: "Akaku: Maui Community Television does not support SCR 77." 
  • 'Olelo: "Speaking Against Senate Concurrent Resolution 77" 

The Illusion of Participation

Why did every access corporation in the State of Hawaii stand united against what appears on its face to be a democratic process? Because access corporation boards are suffering under the illusion that they already provide for public participation.

Submitted testimony of:

  • Na Leo 'O Hawaii: "The public has ample opportunity to make its views known and considered by the board." 
  • Ho'ike: "Our Board of Directors is currently appointed through an island wide nomination process." 
  • Akaku: "Our current board was composed after a careful evaluation of criteria needed by the organization in order to serve the public." 
  • 'Olelo: (In addition to open board meetings and open forums) "Olelo has also formed policy advisory committees, including the Educational Policy Advisory Committee, Community Policy Advisory Committee, and the Government Users Group." 
Despite the self congratulatory back patting Hawaii's access corporations give themselves for being so open to public input, the irrefutable facts are this input is only "advisory" and the Director of DCCA and the Cable companies appoint the board based on board recommendations. Surprisingly there is a high incidence of current board members recommending themselves for future board appointment. Open meetings, advisory committees, and island wide nominations create an illusion of participation but the substance of real decision making power is beyond the people and reserved for those who appoint the board.

Democracy Would Destroy Public Access

Not only do Hawaii's access corporations feel they are doing a fine job in fostering public participation, they also feel a democratically elected board is a bad idea.

Submitted testimony of:

  • 'Olelo: "Any move toward a membership organization with general elections for board members would be detrimental to the future of PEG access. A membership election process will create special interest groups...". 
  • Ho'ike: "Ho'ike supports the position taken by 'Olelo: The Corporation for Community Television's position on this resolution." 
  • Na Leo 'O Hawaii: "Na Leo 'O Hawai'i Inc. supports the position of 'Olelo: The Corporation for Community Television. particularly as it addresses the issue that agendas that special interest might have could adversely effect the future of PEG access." 
  • Akaku: "We are concerned that a membership driven access organization would risk 'stacking', or placement of Board members by the public for self serving interests , which may not necessarily serve the best interest of the organization or the public." 
Isn't democracy a messy affair? Give people the right to vote and the next thing you know they are forming "special interest groups" to further their own self interest. What access corporations see as a problem with democracy I view as its essence. Evidently the access corporations feel the democratic processes upon which our country is based would be detrimental to public access. It seems Hawaii's access corporations don't believe in participatory democracy. They don't even believe in representational democracy. They don't believe in democracy period. The access corporations would probably consider it irresponsible to suggest that cable company and politically appointed board members might have their own agenda and be serving their own special interest. I consider it the height of arrogance for access corporations to assume that only they and not the public are capable of rising above self interest, but in their Orwellian world view I guess some people are more equal than others and are entitled to have their hands on the levers of power.

The High Cost and Low Participation of the Democratic Process

Submitted testimony of:
  • 'Olelo: "We know of only two of over 1,000 access centers in the United States that have established a member driven election process by cable subscribers: Montgomery Community Television in Maryland and Access Sacramento in California. Only one percent participation was experienced for both Montgomery, with a subscriber base of 190,000, and Access Sacramento, with a subscriber base of 225,000." "A single bulk-mail notification to O'ahu cable subscribers would cost $17,000 in postage alone." 
  • Ho'ike: "Of the two access centers that tried to adopt a member-driven election process, they experienced only a one (1) percent participation." "... help us avoid a costly and ineffective member-driven election process." 
  • Akaku: "I personally have had direct interaction with a mainland PEG access center that is membership driven. It has allegedly at times been dangerously self-serving to certain board members." 
Does it cost too much and is the turnout too small to give subscribers the vote? Only two access corporations have a membership driven election process? I don't think so. Citizens Television, Inc. an access corporation in New Haven, Connecticut has a membership driven election process to elect board members. I guess O'lelo didn't look very hard for successful examples. Perhaps it's not in their best interest to do so. They certainly didn't look at station KQED of San Francisco, California. KQED founded in 1954 is one of public television's flagship stations. In 1992 faced with severe budget cuts they adopted "... a subscriber elected board, which it felt was central to KQED's approach to its fiscal crisis." Another flagship public television station WQED in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania may follow suit if their members who formed "The QED Accountability Project" have anything to say about it.

Hawaii"s access corporations attempt to portray the membership-driven election process as a failed experiment when in fact the public access and public television stations who have membership elected boards are leaders in affording meaningful public participation. Even if only one percent of O'lelo's 250,000 subscribers did show up to vote at the annual board meeting you'd need a pretty big room to hold 2500 people. Pardon my analysis, but 2500 voters seems more democratic that allowing the Director of DCCA and the cable companies to appoint the board.

O'lelo need not spend $17,000 in postage. (In their 2000 Income Tax return it shows they spent $154,000.00 on "Publications"). on I've got a real money saving idea. Access corporations could use the public access channels they control to inform people about the annual meeting and the big vote. They could even let potential board members use the channel to run for the board.

It's an Alice In Wonderland World

Hawaii's cable subscribers are slowly waking up to a real life Orwellian nightmare reminiscent of the novel "Fahrenheit 5 41" where the fire department went around setting fires instead of putting them out. Hawaii's access corporations with a mandate to provide electronic free speech to the public are unified in their opposition to democratic processes. Forming a cabal led by the 4-million-dollar plus a year subscriber subsidized access corporation 'Olelo, Hawaii's access corporations are vigorously united in support of the status quo.

Their real mandate? Could the mandate be to maintain non-democratic, authoritarian, politically appointed boards? Their testimony to the Senate Communications and Public Utilities Committee speaks volumes about why public access corporations are denying the public access. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that the more democratic public access television becomes the better it will serve the people that fund it.

(c) copyright 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, by Ed Coll
Permission granted to reproduce and distribute at will in original form for non-profit purposes.