Former Na Leo Planning Committee member advocates RFP process for PEG contracts

Subject: RFP for PEG
From: "John Morales" <jonvideoguy@lycos.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:56:22 -1000
To: aaron.fujioka@hawaii.gov
CC: mrecktenwald@dcca.hawaii.gov, "Governor Linda Lingle" <gov@hawaii.gov>

Chief Procurement Officer/State Procurement Office Administrator Fujioka,

Please reject the DCCA's request for exemption from state procurement law request (06-20-J) for the following reasons:

It is time that the DCCA be mandated to follow Hawaii State law regarding the awarding of a 'FREE SPEECH" activity to a private non-profit agency.

I had been a long time Producer of programming on the Big Island's Na Leo O Hawaii PEG access center. DCCA's designation of PEG centers as 'private non-profit' agencies essentially shuts the public out of many important decisions regarding content programming, rules, ownership of copy rights and more importantly FREE SPEECH violations by these DCCA created PEGS.

I had filed a Federal lawsuit ( Pro Se) in early 2004 to address the consistant Free Speech violations by Na Leo O Hawaii and DCCA's duplicity in this manner. I argued that PEG agencies are 'State Actors' I even cited State Office of Information Practices opinion that PEGS are indeed 'State Actors'. They are 'publicly funded, are supposed to provide training and equipment to the public for the production and cable casting of programs FREE OF CENSORSHIP

Na Leo O Hawaii, through its support and duplicity by DCCA, has created its own by laws(without public input) and agency rules that essentially provide them with carte blanche to violate the publics FREE SPEECH rights and control of Program content.

Public access programming is supposed to be free of editorial control and censorship. Yet I have a copy of a letter from Na Leo's Executive Director , in response to a viewer complaint, that this viewer send in more letters collected from other like minded viewers and the Executive Director can take my program off the air. Which they did, citing that I violated 'their rules' on copyright violations.

HOW CAN AN AGENCY THAT DOESNT OWN THE COPYRIGHTS TO MUSIC OR PROGRAM CONTENT BE ALLOWED TO PRACTICE EDITORIAL CONTROL, CENSORSHIP AND CITE THE PRODUCER FOR TRESPASSING WHEN SAME PRODUCER IS ON THE PROPERTY AQUIRING COPIES OF DOCUMENTS, PER O.I.P.(Office of informaiton Act) ACT, FOR EVIDENCE AS PART OF A LAWSUIT??

Na Leo just doesnt like Pesky Producers and members of the Public asking legitimate questions regarding HOW MUCH POWER DCCA HAS GRANTED THEM.

This has got to stop NOW. All Peg agencies should be disbanded and the process begun anew with RFP going out and granted to credible, trustworthy PUBLICLY designated agencies that will allow Hawaii's public to produce programming free of censorship and editorial control.

THE DCCA HAS DONE NOTHING ON THE PUBLICS BEHALF WHEN THESE VIOLATIONS HAVE OCCURED AND HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT TO THEM.

I was on the planning committee for the creation of PEG agencies in Hawaii,and was a member of the Na Leo planning committee on Hawaii Island way back in 1992 when Former DCCA Director Robert Alm appointed me to represent the public. The State hired an outside mainland 'consultant" to help set up the PEG centers for each island.

I ARGUED THEN, AND NOW THAT HAWAII SHOULD NOT CREATE PRIVATE NON PROFITS FOR PEG AGENCIES!. I saw the writing on the wall, but my concerns were not heeded by the rest of the planning committee which included state, county and University of Hawaii Hilo-Kona interests.

The PUBLIC of Public Access Television should be included in this process, and be empowered to create and manage a facility that has the PUBLIC'S interest in mind,and not the greedy, self centered staff, Executive Directors and Board of Directors that dont give a rip about the public.

Mahalo, respectfully

John Morales

CTPA VP Garland provides additional info on "Akaku chairman: This is a state takeover" article

Aloha Iilima,

Thanks for keeping up on access issues in Hawai'i. Here's some corrections to your story " Akaku chairman: This is a state takeover" that will hopefully help you, as you have ben a big help to me.

You wrote:

"An opinion by the state's chief procurement officer issued last month..."

FYI The legal, informal opinion was given by the Attorney General's office and State Procurement officers agreed.

"...found that the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs violated state procurement laws by awarding contracts to Akaku and other public-access providers without going through a competitive request-for-proposals process. It also denied a DCCA request for exemption to the laws."

FYI The Attorney General is also guilty! After 8 years of automatically renewing PEG contracts, in 1997 & 1998 DCCA wrote brand new (weaker) contracts for all the PEGs. Here's 'Olelo's http://hpam.hi.net/olelo/contract/ Note at the very bottom of the contract is the signature of Deputy Attorney General Shari Wong (who has been representing OIP in their suit with 'Olelo, god help us!) approving the "FORM", which according to the Attorney General's office includes the content!

"DCCA Public Information Officer Christine Hirasa said the first PEG contracts were issued in 1990, before the procurement code existed, and continued to be issued in the same way year after year until the chief procurement officer said in October that it was violating the law."

Obviously you were misinformed seeing as all state PEG corporations got new contracts with DCCA in 1997-1998!. Ineptness or intentional? With my long history with DCCA, I know it was intentional, but excused as always as ineptness.

here is my ongoing archive of this whole lousy shibai" http://hpam.hi.net/RFP4PEG/ starting with my Halloween 2001 letter to then DCCA Director Matayoshi asking what was the process for designating a nonprofit to manage a PEG Corporation, "Is DCCA required to post a public notice or Request for Proposal?". I have posted the documents in chronological order showing how it appears that DCCA tried through intentional stealth tactics to cover up the violation. I have one to add to show CATV went the extra mile to hide their violation by posting the required Exemption request on an unidentified-to-the-public bulletin board outside CATV's office, rather than in the newspaper or on their website. The State Procurement office requires an exemption requester to post the notice "in a place accessible to the public", DCCA CATV sought and chose the least!

I also archive all the articles I can find around the state (mostly yours, Thanks!) about the government takeover of Akaku: http://hpam.hi.net/saveaccess/

My website contains the historical documents of PEG in Hawai'i: http://hpam.hi.net/

this agreement http://hpam.hi.net/KHET_HITS/ has been violated ever since it was signed, thus the continued raid by "E" & "G" on PEG funds, while they should have the funds HPTF up to now still gets.

see also http://hpam.hi.net/98bills/sb3136.txt which is analogous to the Akaku legislation, and was started by David Lassner , who I'm almost sure id behind what's happening on Maui, along with Sens. Fukunaga & Ige, all members of HENC!. The result of SB 3136 was that there was such a public outcry, it died. Soon after, 'Olelo's board became heavily weighted with UH, DOE & ex DCCA & DCCA CATV employees, who negotiated an agreement with 'Olelo to voluntarily provide them (the questionably formed HENC) with 25% of 'Olelo's percent of the franchise fees.

Obviously the Public's portion is dwindling at the hands of government, which essentially means less public voices able to use the soapbox intended for them to speak out against government! Take from the underserved to facilitate the already served. Hawai'i has effectively turned the mission of PEG access on its head!

Look at the bylaws and note the only provision in them DCCA refuses to allow the PEGs to amend i the DCCA majority board director appointment power, then ask yourself what "private nonprofit corporation" in their right mind would voluntarily put such a provision in their own bylaws? here's why... http://hpam.hi.net/akaku/

Thanks for the assistance in documenting it! It will be helpful with the inevitable federal lawsuit.

jg

Akaku chairman: This is a state takeover

From the Maui News - Akaku chairman: This is a state takeover

Akaku board chair letter to DCCA seeks declaritory ruling

Dear Mr. Recktenwald,

   Recently, your Department, the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (the 'DCCA') released a document dated, January 23, 2006 ( the 'Document') in which it purports to take action in behalf of the DCCA.

   As Chairman of the Board of Maui County Community Television, Inc., d/b/a Akaku: Maui Community Television (Akaku), I am charged with looking after the welfare of our non-profit corporation and the empowerment of the Maui Nui community's voice through access to media.

   After careful review of the administrative rules adopted by the DCCA and the enabling statute of Haw. Rev. Stat. §  440G, I have been unable to locate a specific rule which grants the DCCA authority to make this decision.

    Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-1(4) defines a rule as 'each agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy, or describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of any agency.'

   As you may be aware,  the Hawai'i Supreme Court in Shoreline Transportation Inc., v. Roberts Tours and Transportation, 70 Haw. 585, 591 (1989), stated: 'Rulemaking is the process by which an agency lays down new prescriptions to govern the future conduct of those subject to its authority; adjudication is the process by which the agency applies either law or policy, or both, to the facts of a particular case.' (citations omitted)

   If this is indeed has been rule making within the understanding of Haw. Rev. Stat.  § 91, please indicate how the DCCA has complied with Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-3(a) including but not limited to the date in which a copy of the proposed rule was filed with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.

   If the DCCA does not consider this document to have been produced by the rule making process, then it must be decision and order of an adjudicatory nature. If it is a contested case matter and not a rule-making matter, Akaku obviously has a vested interest at stake to which the requirements of procedural due process attach. Akaku has not been notified, pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-9.5 of any contested case hearing. Moreover, if this indeed a contested case matter that, for one reason or another, has omitted Akaku's necessary presence, Akaku hereby petitions to intervene in the matter.

   Finally, if this is neither a contested case or an act of rule making, please state the legal basis and authority for the DCCA to engage in this conduct. If this is neither rule making nor a contested case, Akaku hereby petitions and seeks a declaratory ruling of the Director pursuant to §16-301-04 that this action has been made (1) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the DCCA and (2) upon unlawful procedure.

   Sincerely yours,


   JAY APRIL
   Chairman
   Akaku: Maui Community Television

cc: Nate Smith

DCCA Letter to PEGs re cutting funds for 2006

Read the letter at http://hpam.hi.net/RFP4PEG/012306%20DCCA%20to%20PEG%27s%20re%202006%20PEG%20Payments.pdf

THE RISE AND FALL OF COMMUNITY ACCESS TELEVISION IN MAUI COUNTY

Note: This document has been reformatted to be web accessible. Find the original Word document see http://hpam.hi.net/saveaccess/THE_RISE_N_FALL.doc

THE RISE AND FALL
OF COMMUNITY ACCESS TELEVISION
IN MAUI COUNTY

A TIMELINE OF EVENT

Prepared by
Jay April ,Chairman,
Akaku: Maui Community Television, Inc.
for the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
CABLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)
State of Hawaii
January 19, 2005

INTRODUCTION

On February 5, 2005, Governor Lingle issued a proclamation praising Akaku: Maui Community Television as one of the best public access television stations in the nation and acknowledged Maui's non-profit Director of the Year, Sean McLaughlin, as an innovator in the field.

Since that time, Akaku has been under siege by known individuals with special interests who have financed a sophisticated campaign on behalf of members of our state educational establishment and their political allies to gain outright control of this valuable community resource. This siege of Akaku has lasted for more than a year and by the spring of 2005, with the help of some Akaku Board officers, resulted in a hostile takeover of the organization aided in no small measure by the actions of the DCCA cable division.

The political maneuvers of special interests at the legislature were extremely effective resulting in proposed legislation that would split the Maui PEG funding into thirds,

an idea that is contrary to "best practice" anywhere in the United States. It is a practice denounced by the Alliance for Community Media (a national PEG Access trade association) a high profile 1997 report commissioned by the DCCA, and a1995 State of Hawaii Legislative study.

At the crux of the dispute is a thoroughly discredited, forced agreement whereby state educational institutions succeeded in raiding nearly 50% of Akaku's 2005 budget and millions more in perpetuity without any accountability or performance review using the false claim that they were providing "education access" services. This diversion of public funds to state agencies contradicts long standing PEG access policy espoused repeatedly by the DCCA itself.

The Akaku Board moved to correct this situation in late August by closely following its bylaws. A majority of Board members took proper and legal steps to return Board governance to open decision-making, transparency and the rule of law. In so doing they also initiated a fair and impartial investigation into misconduct by board members and third parties.

Instead of applauding the current Board's efforts and assisting in a fair rehabilitation of

this free speech venue, or at least investigating the serious allegations relating to the dispute, the DCCA has refused to recognize the current Board majority and has helped to precipitate a true crisis in the delivery of community communications media. It is ironic that the sector most adversely affected is education access programming and training for all the people and educational institutions of Maui Nui.

This comprehensive TIMELINE OF EVENTS will illuminate many of the issues regarding Akaku's present crisis and brings to the fore the larger issue of the proper role of the state in regulating Public, Education and Government access in the public interest.

AKAKU SUMMARY AND TIMELINE OF EVENTS

1972-1979 - Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires Public, Educational, Government (PEG) Access channel(s) on most all but the smallest U.S. cable systems. Local franchise authorities are by town, city or county. Four states regulate cable on a statewide basis - NY, CT, RI, and HI. The State of Hawai'i's regulatory framework is administered through the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) and it's cable television division.

1984 - Congress passes Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 whereby franchising authorities were permitted, but not mandated, to require franchisees (i.e. cable companies) to require PEG Access. Franchise authorities can require not more than 5% of gross cable franchise revenue to be assessed for this or any other purpose.

1984 &ndash Maui Community College (MCC) / Department of Education (DOE) begins programming a dedicated institutional education channel, with programs mostly from Oahu and other sources with little or no access by public, government or non UH/DOE educational providers.

1993 - PEG Access organizations are set up on four islands. These PEG Access organizations are intended to be independent. They are not intended to be state or government agencies and they are not affiliated with the cable companies.

The situation with PEG Access on Maui is different from the other islands. Akaku is unique in that, while it serves as a clearinghouse and transmission site for P, E, and G access, it is set up as a public access (only) corporation and produces G programming through its contract with the county of Maui. Akaku, MCC, DOE and the county administration form an unofficial advisory consortium. This informal arrangement creates conflicts of interest, governance and budgeting difficulties. Consortium meetings are confidential and closed to the public. PEG resources are fractured and budget requests unwieldy, resulting in what a state study called, " inappropriate" DCCA involvement as well as unnecessary duplication of facilities among the four entities.

November 1995 &ndash State Legislative Reference Bureau issues report : In 1995, Senate Resolution No.65 directed the Legislative Reference Bureau to study the nonprofit public, education and government cable access organizations in Hawaii. The Bureau issued Report No.4 entitled: Public, Education, and Government Cable Television Access in Hawai'i: Unscrambling the Signals.

In Chapter 2, under the heading, The Access Organizations, the report states:

These access organizations are intended to be independent, they are not intended to be state agencies" and that," the neighbor island access organizations have been operating on a comparative shoestring due to their much smaller subscriber bases...the disparity of resources is marked"

The report questions the legal status of Maui's informal access consortium and recommends that the state consider Akaku as the central responsible entity for all PEG access in Maui County.

The report also questions DCCA franchise fee allocations and criticizes DCCA for allocating approximately 1% of franchise fee revenue to Hawaii Public Television Authority (HPBA). The report states," While the federal act is silent as to the uses of the franchise fee, paying a portion to HPBA (Hawaii Public Broadcasting Authority) is problematic, especially since the rationale for these payments was removed in January of 1995 when the educational component of HPBA, administration of the HITS program, was transferred to the University of Hawaii."

The report goes on to say, "Thus the propriety of continuing to fund HPBA should again be examined by the DCCA, as the funding acts as a barrier to increased funding for public access. This is an issue of great importance to the access organizations, as it appears that the maximum operational funding that can be required from the cable companies is five percent of gross revenues. With three percent of revenues already going to access, one percent going to DCCA, and another percent going to HPBA, there is no room for growth in the allocations for the access organizations."

NOTE: DCCA continues this practice to this day allocating about $1.6 million per year to Hawaii Public Television without requiring any accountability for these public funds or audits of how they are spent. It should be noted that due to this allocation to Hawaii Public Television, the annual loss of revenue to the Maui PEG entity is in excess of $200,000 per year. It should be further noted that no other franchise jurisdiction in the United States allocates cable franchise fee monies to public television.

The report states that " Akaku has over 150 individual access producers, and over 200 non-profit, GOVERNMENT AND EDUCATIONAL groups that have used Akaku's services in the past 19 months" Training programs are robust and equipment is available to any certified user on a first, come, first served, non-discriminatory basis. The report makes no mention of any local programming or training provided by MCC/DOE but does state that MCC/DOE have been given funds for facility and equipment including a television studio at Maui High School for DOE use. There is no reference to any MCC or locally originated education programming other than that provided by Akaku, separate from MCC/DOE.

The Budget section of the report refers to the four entities: MCC, DOE, Akaku and County Government, all requesting limited funds with not enough to go around. It cites frequent conflicts of interests, the inappropriateness of DCCA involvement in the budget process, and calls into question the legality of the Consortium. It criticizes the fracturing of PEG access among the different entities, highlights the unnecessary duplication of facilities, and mentions the comparatively low number of programs generated through the Maui DOE.

The report also refers to the inability of MCC to fulfill its access obligations on outer islands:

Another issue that has arisen is that lack of public access on the islands of Molokai and Lanai. MCC proposed to provide public access on these islands as it has learning centers already established there and has been receiving funds to do so since 1993. In September 1995, an outreach coordinator was hired by MCC for public access provision on Lana'i and Molokai but no equipment or training has been provided."

And in the area of Board Membership:

When asked whether the method of selecting the board should be changed to include the votes of users, subscribers, or both, in the area, Akaku replied in the negative. It was concerned that a membership driven board PEG access board would risk acquiring self serving board members who may not act in the best interests of the organization or the public"

June 1997 - DCCA commissions report: Disputes over PEG Resources, Splitting the Baby is NOT the solution, recommending specifically that DCCA, " Resolve the PEG structure in Maui County" and " use its authority to deter raids on PEGS by other state agencies"

November 1997 &ndash DCCA acts to dissolve Maui PEG access consortium .

Dysfunctional" consortium is dissolved with all assets, operational and decision-making responsibility transferred to non-profit Maui Community Television Corporation a.k.a. Akaku, and it's Board of Directors. There are no written contracts indicating that MCC and/or DOE are owed monies or assets as a result of the state clean up of the unwieldy and "possibly illegal" governance of the Maui PEG entity.

January 1998 - DCCA enters into sole agreement with Akaku to provide all PEG services for Maui County. Akaku signs six-month agreement with MCC/DOE

June 1998 - Akaku signs twenty-four month agreements with MCC/DOE

November 1997 - July 2003 MCC/DOE receive approximately 14% per year in entitlement funding and some capital funding from Akaku although contractual reporting requirements on the part of MCC/DOE to Akaku and DCCA are spotty. No performance reviews or audits of these state educational agencies are conducted. Problems with MCC/DOE reporting requirements are noted in Akaku annual audit reports prepared by outside accountants.

January 1999 - Akaku: Maui Community Television staff and producers chosen by Maui News among people who made a difference in Maui Countyin 1998.

June 1999 - Akaku Chair, Glenn Yamasaki requests information relating to MCC reporting.

September 2000 -Auditor for Akaku notes, " lack of timely complete reporting by MCC and DOE"

February 2001 -Annual Audit of Akaku reports inadequate financial and program reporting by UH and DOE under educational access agreement.

March 2001 - UH(MCC) makes demand for 33% of funding from Akaku as "entitlement" despite historic problem of little or no accounting for funds or programming.

April 2001 - DCCA Cable Administrator, Clyde Sonobe, tells Maui County cable telecommunications briefing at State Capitol that DCCA does not require access organizations serving rural communities, such as Akaku: Maui Community TV, to directly fund the University of Hawaii, nor the Department of Education.

September 2001 - Auditor for Akaku again notes "lack of timely complete reporting by MCC and DOE"

Summer 2002 - Akaku CEO, Sean McLaughlin meets with Everett Dowling and gets a warning that Dowling would divert Akaku's funds and channels to County and to MCC control and shut down Akaku if he could. Meeting is reported to Akaku Board Chair Lynne Woods (who reported that she discussed it with ML&P CEO, Gary Gifford) and to executive committee. ***

April 2003 - Everett Dowling conversation with Sean McLaughlin is reported in Honolulu Weekly although Dowling is not named. Cover story is entitled, Rotten Deal, alleging that the DCCA cut secret deals with state monopoly cable company, AOL/Time Warner and imperiled the future of public access in Hawaii.

June 2003 - Senator Kalani English letter to Paul Costello VP, UH External Affairs, Akaku CEO, Sean McLaughlin and DCCA Director, Mark Recktenwald affirming state policy and agreement that additional funds sought for UH-Maui should be, " pursued in cooperation and collaboration with Akaku, not at Akaku's expense."

June 2003 - Akaku Programming Committee Report, "Funding the Future" recommendations unanimously adopted by Akaku Board of Directors (including members Myles Inokuma and Sharron Courter.) Board voted unanimously to restrict funding to MCC/DOE until contractual accountability issues required by DCCA could be met in full.

Recommendations included the following:

As a matter of policy, Akaku no longer provides operating funds for state agencies including MCC and DOE unless a complete cost benefit analysis can be provided to; accepted and approved by a 2/3 majority of the Akaku Board with all fiscal and operational management under the auspices of Akaku.

Summer/Fall 2003 - DCCA conducts statewide review of PEG Access and drafts report - UH and DOE submit testimony and comments on the report. Akaku replies to testimony and comments.

January 2004 - DCCA presents State PEG plan document to legislature . One aspect of the plan calls for PEG's to develop strategy for self-sufficiency. Another aspect allows option for counties to assume supervision of PEG's in exchange for $30,000 annual payment from DCCA

February 5, 2004 - At February 25, 2003 Akaku Board of Director's Meeting, the Akaku 2003 Fiscal Year Audit Report includes a management letter by the auditor that he has reviewed all contracts and determined there is no basis for the ongoing claim that MCC is owed money by Akaku and that the MCC claim is not considered a liability for Akaku.. Sharron Courter requested a motion to accept FY 2003 Audit Report as submitted

January 2004 - March 2004 - Makena Video Contest winners and merit finalists' videotapes appear on Akaku channels 52 and 54 and sell out two performances at Maui Arts and Cultural Center. Initiated by a private citizen, the popular contest attracts scores of video entries about the Makena region. Some entries highlight development issues. Everett Dowling and Charles Jencks are developers with substantial financial interest in Makena area development and when County Council defers final vote on Dowling's project, many observers credit public access airing of the Makena video contest as a factor in that decision.

November 2004 - Clyde Sakamoto requests meeting with Maui Mayor Alan Arakawa and Akaku CEO Sean McLaughlin to address MCC funding claims. DCCA Director Mark Recktenwald and Cable Administrator, Clyde Sonobe attend as do DOE representatives and Akaku board members, Myles Inokuma and Jay April. This is a non-public meeting and no minutes are taken. Mayor announces intention to form task force to look at the problem. Sakamoto asserts that he will not participate in any task force until

McLaughlin pays MCC $100,000. No task force is ever formed. ***

January 2005 - Akaku BOD directs Executive Committee to purchase building at 333 Dairy Road to help satisfy DCCA self sufficiency directive provided that all due diligence is complete. At board meeting, Sean McLaughlin publicly announces Charlie Jencks and Everett Dowling verbal threats to Akaku.

January 2005 - Everett Dowling placed on Akaku Finance Committee by Finance Chair, Sharron Courter without Board knowledge and approval as required by Akaku bylaws. Finance Committee meets with Board Chairman, Myles Inokuma, Sharron Courter and Secretary, Sarajean Tokunaga in attendance. Dowling states his views that Akaku needs to cut back services and channels and divert funding to county and state

Immediately following Finance Committee meeting, Akaku Board Chair, Myles Inokuma informs Akaku CEO, Sean McLaughlin that Dowling has threatened a barrage of legal actions against Akaku. The next day, Inokuma informs McLaughlin that legal threats would be removed if McLaughlin were removed as Akaku CEO, which Inokuma does not agree to do. ***

January 2005 -Everett Dowling arranges for SB 959 and HB784 to be introduced into the Hawaii State Legislature. "Everett's Bills" drafted by his attorney, Sandra Wong would split the funding of Akaku into thirds - 1/3 to Education, 1/3 to Government and 1/3 to Akaku, reducing Akaku's funding by 2/3.

NOTE: It is noteworthy that Akaku has historically provided unrestricted access to users from all three programming service areas: public, government, and all forms of formal and informal education. It also should be noted that the P, E, and G divisions are programming categories - not funding areas. There is no " best practice" anywhere in the nation where these categories are funded in thirds. As a matter of fact, examination of the record in the State of Hawaii reveals that every major report and study commissioned by the legislature and the DCCA, advises precisely against this funding mechanism.

February 5, 2005 - Governor Linda Lingle issues a Proclamation praising Akaku as one of the best public access television stations in the nation and acknowledges Maui's non-profit Director of the Year, Sean McLaughlin as an innovator in the field

February 2005 - Inokuma makes verbal statements to Vice Chair that he has met with Clyde Sakamoto and Everett Dowling to " work something out with education" He reports that he has been "threatened with lawsuits" during these meetings, and that he was told that if Sean McLaughlin were fired, "the problem would go away", and, if Akaku consents to giving 1/3 ownership and revenue of the new building purchase to MCC/DOE, Mr. Dowling will provide an endowment of $100,000 or more to help Akaku. ***

February 14, 2005 - Akaku Board Chair, Myles Inokuma testifies before the Hawaii State Legislature and submits vigorous and robust testimony on Akaku letterhead strongly in favor of Akaku and AGAINST " Everett's Bills." MCC and DOE representatives including Clyde Sakamoto and Sadao Yanagi testify in favor of the bills, as do developers, Everett Dowling and Charles Jencks.

February 18 2005 -Akaku Board Chair, Myles Inokuma and Treasurer, Sharron Courter conduct clandestine, ex-parte " negotiations" of " Draft 8" of an "Education Agreement" with Everett Dowling's attorney, Sandra Wong, Clyde Sakamoto and Flo Wiger of MCC, Ken Nomura, Oscar Matsui and Sadao Yanagi of DOE without Akaku counsel present and without Board authority and approval. In this one of several known meetings, Inokuma and Courter , according to Wong, agree to help keep the bills alive in the legislature.

February 22, 2005 - At Akaku Board meeting, Inokuma distributes" Draft 8" of "Educational Agreement" to Akaku BOD for comment at next meeting. Board member, Steve Edwards questions Board officer conduct and due diligence in purchase of building.

February 22, 2005 - Board member, Steve Edwards sends letter of resignation citing irresponsible board management and stating his belief that the Board does not practice fiduciary responsibility. In subsequent conversations, Mr. Edwards directed his comments in severe criticism of Ms. Courter and Inokuma with respect to their dealings with First Hawaiian Bank and the building purchase. He questioned the fact that the loan for the purchase had never been put out to bid and stated that he was able to secure better terms with American Savings Bank. When Akaku Treasurer, Sharron Courter was informed of this by Mr. Edwards, she reportedly entered into a tirade and hung up the phone leading Mr. Edwards to conclude that," Sharron Courter is a dangerous woman."

February 25, 2005 - Inokuma submits new and substantially different testimony before the legislature from that submitted on behalf of the Board on February 14, 2005. Inokuma submits this substantially different testimony on HB 784 (Everett's Bills) before the House Committee on Finance without Board knowledge or approval. Inokuma's written testimony IN FAVOR of the anti Akaku legislation is nearly exact as to form and content as the testimony of MCC/DOE representatives Sakamoto and Yanagi. Inokuma's testimony does not reflect Akaku Board policy and is extremely damaging to Akaku.

February 2005 - March 2005 - Chamber of Commerce head, Lynne Woods, and Chamber Board members, Charlie Jencks, Everett Dowling, MCC representatives and others submit testimony IN FAVOR of "Everett's Bills." DOE's, Sadao Yanagi represents to the legislature that Akaku leadership has approved an " educational agreement." and submits a misleading draft agreement to committee. The League of Woman Voters, Hawaii Society of Professional Journalists and the national PEG nonprofit trade group, Alliance for Community Media are among those testifying against the bills. Sharron Courter and Myles Inokuma continue to lobby on behalf of the MCC/DOE/Dowling position.

February - March 2005 -Board meeting minutes reveal that Akaku officers, Inokuma, Courter, and Tokunaga continue to champion the same unsubstantiated position of Sakamoto/Dowling/DOE which is that MCC/DOE are entitled to up to a million dollars of Akaku reserve funds being used to purchase the building. Clyde Sakamoto also testifies for the record, regarding the question of shared liability, that any agreements need to be justified to the Board of Regents and the Board of Education.

February-March 2005 - Everett Dowling is still a member of the Akaku Finance Committee. Witnesses and public testimony before the Akaku Board of Directors by Mr. Clyde Sakamoto, reveal that Dowling/Sakamoto have been given proprietary financial and operational information about Akaku by Treasurer, Sharron Courter in direct violation of Section 12 of Akaku bylaws.

February - March 2005 - Two ex-parte, non posted, secret Executive Board meetings are held at Kahului IHOP where Inokuma, Courter and Tokunaga attempt to persuade Vice Chair, Jay April to go along with the terms of the so called" educational agreement" drafted by Dowling attorney, Sandra Wong and to convince Mr. April of the need to " get rid" of Akaku CEO, Sean McLaughlin. A second meeting is attended by Inokuma, Courter, Tokunaga, April, former treasurer Lloyd Kimura and former mayor, Kimo Apana. Apana announces attempts to broker a deal with MCC Chancellor, Clyde Sakamoto regarding the agreement" and asserts that Sakamoto has told him he would use the money from Akaku to pay for police and fire training. ***

March 2005 - At the end of a Finance Committee meeting held on March 2, 2005, Dowling orders Inokuma and Courter to get the " agreement" approved at next Board meeting. ***

March 2005 - Vice Chair April notifies the Akaku Board of Directors via email of possible conflicts of interest, malfeasance, by law violations and wrongdoing on the part of Executive Committee members, Inokuma and Courter and demands Dowling's immediate dismissal from the Finance Committee.

In exchange for a retraction of the most serious accusations, which Vice Chair does by email to Board members, Inokuma and Courter agree to kick Dowling off Finance Committee. Inokuma and Courter allow Dowling to remain on Finance Committee until August of 2005.***

March 2005 - Akaku President/CEO, Sean McLaughlin informs Akaku counsel,Chair Inokuma and Treasurer Courter and others of Sandra Wong (Dowling's attorney) testimony before the legislature against Akaku building purchase and recommends separating the building purchase issue from the education agreement issue and recommends taking immediate action to conclude building purchase.

March 2005 -Presented with analysis by Board members who are expert in the real estate business and by Akaku's President and CEO, strongly in favor of the Board recommended purchase, and in view of the fact that Akaku's Dairy Road purchase is projected to make a profit in year one (even with a 2/3 reduction in franchise fee funds) Treasurer, Sharron Courter and Chair, Myles Inokuma continue to unilaterally claim that there must be an education agreement in place before they will conclude the building purchase. (This is the same position of Dowling, DOE, MCC, and Tokunaga) Courter submits confusing and inaccurate figures to staff and Board, delays building deal and the original February 1, 2005, loan commitment letter from First Hawaiian Bank expires.

March 2005 - Public testimony at three televised Akaku BOD meetings run overwhelmingly against the Wong/Inokuma/Courter/MCC/DOE/Dowling forged agreement and the anti-Akaku legislation still alive in the Hawaii State Legislature. Several compromise agreements are drafted in open sessions of Board. These drafts are in writing and are subjected to full Board participation and approval.

March 28, 2005 At the Akaku BOD meeting the Akaku Board directs Chair Inokuma to tender an offer to Education partners MCC and DOE to accept a March 28, 2005 draft agreement with the understanding that Akaku attorneys would draft this final agreement and bring it back in its final form to the entire board for a super majority vote. This March 28, 2005 draft agreement is modeled upon the HENC (Hawaii Educational Network Consortium) agreement currently in effect in Honolulu between UH-DOE and Olelo, Oahu's PEG entity. The March 28, 2005 Akaku draft education agreement incorporates a two year term, provides an annual allocation of 25% of franchise fee revenue to MCC, DOE and Maui's private and charter schools. It designates two voting seats for education, and contains several accountability and evaluation provisions. When Myles Inokuma was asked in open session what would happen if education does not accept the March 28 draft agreement offered to MCC/DOE by Akaku, Inokuma replies that, " they (MCC/DOE/Dowling) would offer a counter proposal."

April 2-3 - Dowling attorney, Sandra Wong meets with MCC/DOE representatives to reject Akaku March 28, 2005 draft and just as Inokuma has predicted, Wong sends education counter proposal agreement to Inokuma.

March 31, 2005 Former Akaku Board Chair and Chamber of Commerce head, Lynne Woods, makes serious allegations against Akaku and it's CEO, Sean McLaughlin in public testimony before the legislature. She is accompanied by Akaku Treasurer and Chamber of Commerce colleague, Sharron Courter. Wood's testimony contradictsher own comments praising McLaughlin, in a letter sent January 7, 2005,under Chamber of Commerce letterhead nominating him for a prestigious leadership award.

Late March 2005 - Sharron Courter has several meetings with First Hawaiian Bank loan officer, Mitchell Nishimoto. Original loan commitment letter from FHB is allowed to expire resulting in new terms, which incur additional costs and liabilities for Akaku and provide more potential profit for FHB.

April 4, 2005 - New building loan conditions from First Hawaiian Bank arrive from Nishimoto by facsimile letter just hours before the start of the April 4, 2005, Akaku Board of Directors meeting. Dated April 1, on page one, and April 4, on page two, the terms of this new loan commitment letter link the Akaku building purchase with a negotiated education settlement. Taken completely by surprise at the commencement of the April 4 meeting, this is the first Board members hear of the new condition and are told by Inokuma, Courter,Wiger and Yanagi that a counter proposal agreement with education, carried with them and drafted by Dowling's attorney, Sandra Wong, must be reached that day or the building purchase could not proceed.

Members are also told that failure to reach an agreement that day would expose the Akaku BOD to more than $60,000 in additional costs and make members liable for a lawsuit from the building sellers that could be in excess of $200,000. During the meeting Akaku Treasurer, Sharron Courter stated for the record that she did not have a calculator to determine the actual financial impact of this educational agreement on Akaku.

Furthermore, this counter proposal educational agreement drafted by Everett Dowling's attorney, Sandra Wong (the Wong Agreement) was never reviewed by the Akaku Board, CEO or Akaku Counsel prior to this meeting. It is an agreement MCC and DOE ex -officio members, Flo Wiger and Sadao Yanagi claimed they had authority to negotiate on the spot contrary to their customary practice of deferring all decisions regarding previous drafts to their superiors. This" Wong Agreement" proposed a term in perpetuity without accountability provisions. It handed over to state education agencies $132,000 in up front cash, 33% of franchise fee revenue in years one through three and 25% of revenue thereafter AND it provided four voting " education" seats. (This resulted in a payout to MCC/DOE by Akaku in excess of $400,000 in May of 2005 authorized by Inokuma and Courter)

NOTE: Upon careful analysis, the Wong Agreement does not guarantee one dollar of funding or one minute of EDUCATIONAL ACCESS training or programming for MCC and DOE constituents or for any students and teachers of Maui Nui in perpetuity.

A vote for or against the agreement was linked to a pending real estate deal. Board members were told by Inokuma and Courter that if they (the Board) did not produce a vote in the affirmative for the Wong Agreement, the building purchase would not be concluded that day and it would put the corporation and Board members personally at risk. Videotapes of the meeting reveal members voting under duress and four members will testify to that fact. Board members voted at the end of the evening 10-3 in favor of the Wong Agreement with the stated understanding that the Chair would have Akaku attorneys draft the final document.

NOTE: There was no reason for the Board not to expect, as was his customary practice with every other draft agreement, that Chair Inokuma would bring the deal back to the entire Board in written form for final approval. Given the magnitude and financial impact of this decision, Inokuma could have easily scheduled a special meeting for this purpose before the building closing. He did not. Four Directors who voted for the Wong Agreement on April 4 were later to repudiate the written final agreement once they discovered that Inokuma and Wong had made material changes not authorized or agreed upon by the Board.

April 5, 2005 - Everett Dowling sends congratulations to Sharron Courter, Myles Inokuma, Sarajean Tokunaga and Paul Horikawa regarding reaching an agreement with education. Dowling requests Courter to have Akaku CEO, McLaughlin provide additional proprietary financial information to him with respect to government funding. In an email to the above mentioned parties, Mr. Dowling states: " In preparing for next week's finance committee meeting I realized that Sean has not provided the expenses associated with the contract between Akaku and the County of Maui that we requested on March 2^nd. It would be helpful to have this information a few days prior to our April 14^th meeting" It is unclear whether an April 14 meeting actually took place.

April 2005 - Oscar Mitsui of DOE sends a note to DCCA Director, Mark Recktenwald asking assistance on how to "terminate" an unidentified male individual associated with Akaku who is "asking too many questions"

April 4-7 2005 - Inokuma and Dowling attorney, Sandra Wong, make substantive revisions and changes to the wording of the "Education Agreement" which calls for among other things, education appointments to the BOD in violation of Akaku by-laws.

The agreement is then passed by Akaku attorneys whose recommended language is not included in the final draft. On or about April 7, 2005, Inokuma executes the agreement with his signature alone. Akaku bylaws require two signatures. The final written " education agreement" prepared by Sandra Wong and signed by Inokuma is not provided to the Akaku board for review. Inokuma then writes a letter to DCCA Director, Mark Recktenwald requesting the appointments of Flo Wiger and Sadao Yanagi and later, Lynne Woods and Charlie Jencks as voting members of the Akaku Board. This action appears to be in violation of Akaku bylaws since a required bylaw amendment has not been passed by a 2/3 majority of the Akaku Board to allow appointments in this manner. Inokuma and Courter refuse to hold any meetings until building purchase closes on April 19, 2005 with new" loan conditions" intact.

Mr. Inokuma cancels the next two regularly scheduled board meetings until June 2005. Education representatives execute agreement on April 11, invalidating the oft -stated Inokuma claim that there was no time to bring the agreement back to the Akaku Board for final approval. This claim is further invalidated by the fact that the bank loan for the building closing was not finalized until April 19, the day of the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Akaku Board, a meeting that was cancelled by Inokuma.

April 2005 - Vice Chair, Jay April requests that Chair Inokuma place several items on agenda for the scheduled April 19, 2005 Board Meeting. Items include the discussion and approval of the written final " education agreement." All requests are denied by Chair in apparent violation of bylaws allowing any director to place items on the agenda. Inokuma cancels meeting.

April 15, 2005 - Akaku Treasurer appears at Akaku offices and demands on behalf of education," immediate" payment of $132,000 to MCC. She requests check be dated April 15, despite the fact that there are insufficient funds deposited in the appropriate accounts. She relates that, " a demand has been made to Myles (Inokuma) this afternoon for the money". Courter threatens possibility of education lawsuit and berates staff with charges of " insubordination." Courter unilaterally suspends Akaku CEO approved travel budget without required Board consultation and approval.

April 21, 2005 - Chair continues to deny Board access to attorneys . After months of repeated requests through the Chair and direct appeals to Akaku attorneys, Sherry Broder and Chris Conybeare to allow for Vice Chair and Board member consultation with Akaku attorneys specifically regarding aforementioned actions of Board officers and other critical issues before the Board, Vice Chair receives email from Akaku attorney, Sherry Broder stating that absent instructions from a majority of Board members, she will continue to communicate solely through the Chair.

April - May 2005 -Inokuma cancels Board meetings, denies Board member and Vice Chair access to Akaku attorneys, and denies Board member requests to place discussion and approval of agreement on Board agenda in apparent violation of bylaws. Chair refuses to provide copies of final agreement to members and cancels next two scheduled Board meetings until mid June 2005

May 3, 2005 - Board member, Boy Kanae resigns.

May 4, 2005 -Three Directors, as provided for in Akaku bylaws call special Board Meeting. Seven Akaku Board members meet, declare quorum, disqualify members improperly appointed by the DCCA, and repudiate the so called " education agreement" declaring it null and void.

May 16, 2005 - Via telephone, email and letter, DCCA Director, Mark Recktenwald was notified and advised by Vice Chair, Jay April that at the May 4 Board meeting, the so called education agreement was declared null and void. The Director was also advised that there were: 1. Possible violations and wrongdoing by Board Officers; 2. No Accountability for Funds, 3. Chair may be negligent in responsibility, 4. Board denied access to legal counsel, and, 5. Board Appointments may have violated bylaws.

May 2005 - Akaku Treasurer, Sharon Courter demands additional payments for education from CEO Sean McLaughlin, and directs checks be cut for education (more than $400,000) Courter reportedly orders draw down from portion of capital account in violation of Akaku accounting practices.

June 1, 2005 - Akaku attorney, Sherry Broder issues letter to Inokuma, which states, in essence that: " absent an abuse of discretion" it is her preliminary opinion that the actions of the Chair regarding the education agreement were proper and that by virtue of signing documents regarding the building purchase, Board members were consenting to the agreement. Ms. Broder indicates that she has not reviewed all materials and she does not comment upon the fact that the agreement contains only one signature, not two as required by Akaku bylaws.

June 8, 2005 - Recktenwald responds to May 16, 2005 letter from Vice Chair. He states in his letter that these issues are internal Akaku matters for the Board to resolve and that his appointments would stand based on information provided to him by Akaku Chair, Myles Inokuma. The same day he sends a letter to Maui developer, Charlie Jencks appointing him to the Akaku Board.

July 2005 - Former Maui County Planning Director, Charlie Jencks instructs Maui Mayor, Arakawa to order Maui County Film Commissioner and Akaku Board member, Benita Brazier vote to fire Sean McLaughlin at upcoming Board meeting. Mayor refuses to honor this request.

July 2005 - At the July 13,2005 meeting of the Akaku Board of Directors, improperly appointed members are allowed to be seated by the Chair. (including" education appointee", Charlie Jencks having had little no known previous dealings with Akaku except to testify against Akaku in the legislature and, according to Sean McLaughlin, to request certain programs be taken off the air)) A motion to terminate Sean McLaughlin is put forward by Sharron Courter and seconded by Jencks.The Akaku Board (with" education appointees" Woods, Yanagi and Jencks participating) votes to fire Akaku President and CEO, Sean McLaughlin without cause.

July 2005 - At the July 13, 2005 meeting of the Akaku Board of Directors, in response to questioning by Board member, Nancy Potter regarding Board actions necessary to validate the so-called education agreement, Akaku attorney, Sherry Broder clearly states, " I think you have to amend your bylaws."

July 2005 - COO, Iris Cober is installed as interim CEO without Board approval and granted an unauthorized $20,000 salary increase by Inokuma, Courter and Woods without Board review or approval.

July 18, 2005 - At meeting of Akaku staff convened by Personnel Chair, Lynne Woods, staff requests resignation of Myles Inokuma from Board of Directors

July 25,2005 - Letter from Hugh Jones of the Attorney General's office states that four Akaku Board appointments by DCCA Director Recktenwald are consistent with the education agreement but inconsistent with Akaku bylaws. Mr. Jones also states that the April 7 agreement with education is improperly executed according to Akaku bylaws questioning validity of education agreement.

July 26, 2005 - Akaku Treasurer, Sharron Courter provides second signature on education agreement without board knowledge or approval

August 18,2005 - Finance Committee meeting chaired by Sharron Courter with Myles Inokuma, Mitchell Nishimoto and Sarajean Tokunaga in attendance is immediately adjourned by Courter when members of the public attempt to videotape meeting.

August 18, 2005 -After Finance Committee meeting is adjourned, Chair Inokuma allegedly assaults Board member Degray Vanderbilt in front of Akaku studio at 333 Dairy Road. There are videotapes of the incident and several witnesses. Police are called and a police report is filed.

August 26, 2005 - The Akaku Board of Directors meets and - following protocol established in Akaku bylaws regarding Roberts Rules of Order -Vice Chair, Jay April and a legal majority of Board members assume command of Board governance and state for the record that they have returned the Akaku Board of Directors to the rule of law. The Board relieves Inokuma of his duties as Chair pending an investigation of misconduct and for numerous by-law violations. The Board relieves Sharron Courter, from exercising her duties as Treasurer and removes her as Chair of the Finance Committee pending an investigation of by-law violations and other wrongdoing. Sarajean Tokunaga is relieved of her duties as Chair of the Nominating Committee for failure to follow by- laws. Lynne Woods is removed as Chair of the Personnel Committee for supporting the firing of Sean McLaughlin by allowing non-members to vote. The Board declares Charlie Jencks, and Sadao Yanagi non-members of the Board since their appointments by Mark Recktenwald, Director of DCCA, were in violation of Akaku by-laws. The Board terminates the services of Akaku attorneys, Sherry Broder and Chris Conybeare, hires Lance Collins as Parliamentarian and Board Attorney, appoints Tess Cartwright as Acting Secretary, sets the total number of Directors to twelve, and reinstates Sean McLaughlin as President and CEO of Akaku: Maui Community Television.

August 31, 2005 - DCCA Director Recktenwald objects to actions of Akaku Board and critical statements attributed to him questioning Board actions are reported in the press. The Director sends a letter to Board members requesting a secret meeting. Director " strongly objects" to Board actions, states his support for educational agreement (the Wong agreement) with state education agencies, (MCC and DOE) and raises possibility of " unilateral" action on the part of DCCA. Governor's representative, George Kaya intervenes. A meeting is set up on Maui with Vice Chair, Jay April, Akaku attorney, Lance Collins, DCCA Director Recktenwald, and his staff attorney, Lauren Wong.

September 2, 2005 - August 26, 2005 Board of Directors meeting is continued. Board directs Acting Chair, Jay April to form Investigative Committee.

August - September 2005 - Board members, Lynne Woods and Jeff Knight resign

September 12, 2005 at 1PM -Director Recktenwald and DCCA attorney, Lauren Wong meet with Vice Chair and Acting Chair, Jay April and Board Attorney, Lance Collins. Collins tells Recktenwald that, based on the record, Inokuma may have committed criminal acts that could be actionable with respect to the " educational agreement". Attorney Collins reminded the Director that Akaku by-laws regarding DCCA appointments are governing law and that the appointments suggested by Inokuma were not valid because the Akaku Board had not amended it's bylaws as required. .

Director Recktenwald, was also informed that there may have been improper business dealings at the First Hawaiian Bank between Akaku Treasurer, Sharron Courter and First Hawaiian Bank officer, Mitchell Nishimoto regarding an unconditional loan commitment letter regarding the Akaku building purchase that was allowed to lapse by Ms. Courter. After several visits to the bank by Ms. Courter in late March, a new loan commitment letter from First Hawaiian Bank was issued with new conditions attached. This letter appeared at Akaku by facsimile On April 4, 2005, hours before the Akaku Board meeting. This new letter required a negotiated agreement with education as a special condition of the building loan. The Director was informed that a full and thorough investigation of these bank dealings was both necessary and appropriate.

Vice Chair and Acting Chair, April and Attorney Collins questioned the role of DCCA staff in negotiations with Inokuma,Courter, MCC/DOE and Dowling's attorney, Sandra Wong; and fair outcomes and hypothetical scenarios regarding education funding were discussed. Director Recktenwald, offered assistance in obtaining a mediator for both sides to work out their differences and this point in the discussion, Director Recktenwald made the offer that DCCA would pay for mediation. Mr. April and Mr. Collins responded that they felt it would not be proper to mediate matters until the Board's investigation of misconduct by members was complete. They asked the Director for two things: 1.Not to interfere with Board governance, and; 2. Support the Board's effort to return to the rule of law by sending a letter to First Hawaiian Bank recognizing new signatories to our accounts at least until the results of the investigation of misconduct by board members are complete. The Director refused these requests and said he was still assessing his options.

September 12, 2005 4PM A letter from First Hawaiian Bank (FHB) Attorney, Craig K. Shikuma, was received by Akaku counsel, Lance Collins indicating that all Akaku accounts at FHB had been frozen and that FHB intended to seek declaratory relief action no sooner than September 19,2005 to resolve a dispute between the "Inokuma Group" ( Inokuma, Courter, Tokunaga, Jencks, Yanagi, Wiger) and the " April Group" ( April, Nikhilananda, Vanderbilt, Potter, Brazier, Cartwright). The FHB letter contained the statement that: " the DCCA has also confirmed that it is also investigating the dispute between the Inokuma Group and the April Group" The bank letter went on to say that, " At this time, FHB is inclined to continue to allow checks under $5,000 .00 and the payroll withdrawal to continue under Ms. Cober's signature, pending further direction from the court. FHB reserves the right to change its position without notice on those withdrawals in the future."

September 13, 2005 - Vice Chair, April calls Director, Recktenwald to inform him of

Bank letter and to inquire if, in fact, a DCCA investigation of Akaku is underway. When reached by telephone the following day, Director Recktenwald stated that there is no investigation and the Department was still assessing its options.

September 13, 2005 Vice Chair, April contacts Governor's Maui representative, George Kaya to inform him of these developments. Mr. April told Mr. Kaya that he shared Director Recktenwald's concern that cable access franchise fee funds be spent in a prudent and proper manner - not on unnecessary lawsuits. Mr. April asked Mr. Kaya to again ask the DCCA to support the Akaku Board in writing at least until the Board's investigation of members was complete. A letter from DCCA to FHB in support of Akaku's new signatories to its accounts would allow the non-profit to avoid spending critical funds on defending itself in litigation.

September 14, 2005 DCCA Director, Mark Recktenwald sent a letter co-signed by DCCA attorney, Lauren Wong, to the First Hawaiian Bank and to Akaku denying the statement made in the FHB letter that a dispute is under investigation by the DCCA. Recktenwald and Wong confirm that there is no investigation of Akaku at this time.

September 15,2005 - DCCA Director, Recktenwald informs Vice Chair, April that the DCCA will not take a position with regard to which group of Akaku directors are legitimately in control of the organization and, ".DCCA is not prepared to make any findings with regard to the legitimacy of the actions taken at the August 26 and subsequent board meetings"

September 2005 - Akaku sues FHB for a summary judgment on signatories . asking the court to affirm all new signatories on Akaku accounts. Even though all required documentation for new signatories on accounts are proper and valid, the court does not grant the Akaku Board a summary judgment and allows the" interveners" (Inokuma Group) represented by McCorriston, Miller Mukai, MacKinnon into the suit. As the Intervener attorneys attempt to cloud the issues, the bank stalemate continues. Although payroll and mortgage payments to FHB are being met, accounts remain frozen and only Interim CEO, Iris Cober is allowed write checks not in excess of $5,000.

September 2005 DCCA directs Oceanic Time Warner to stop collecting annual fees from subscribers because DCCA claims it has accumulated enough funds to administer cable regulation. This reduction for a one-year period amounts to approximately $1.5 million. DCCA Director, Recktenwald claims that under state law, DCCA cannot use these monies to fund PEG access services. (Decision & Order 323)

September 19, 2005 - Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Hugh Jones sends email to Acting Chair and Vice Chair, Jay April that states the following:

"Please be advised that I have completed in inquiry into the initial allegations that the Chairperson of the Akaku board signed an education agreement with the DOE and MCC without approval of the board. My inquiry revealed that the Akaku board approved the general contours of the education agreement at its April 4, 2005 meeting and although the contract was signed only by the Board Chair, it was later counter-signed by another officer of Akaku as required by the bylaws. While it would have been a good practice for the board to review the agreement before execution, I could find no provision of the bylaws or chapter 414D, Hawaii Revised Statutes that required the board to expressly review and approve the language of the contract."

NOTE: It is important to note that this email is not a legal opinion. It is not conclusive nor does it address the many issues regarding the education agreement, i.e: the manner of it's drafting, its relationship to the building purchase, interference and conflicts of interests by third parties, numerous other bylaw violations, etc.

September 26, 2005 - Attorney, Charlie Fox, Attorney, Bonnie McFadden and former Representative, Sol Kahoohalahala agree to serve on Akaku Investigative Committee. Initial meeting takes place on September 26 with Charlie Fox in attendance. Committee work is delayed for more than two months due to personal tragedy in the families of two members and serious illness.

October 13,2005 - MCC Media Center Coordinator, Mike Albert testifies before State Cable Advisory Committee. (CAC) in Honolulu. assisted by Dowling attorney, Sandra Wong, Albert accuses several Akaku Boards of Directors of " malfeasance" and makes many inaccurate and misleading statements. ( Please see written Testimony of Akaku counsel, Lance D. Collins before the CAC on January 19,2005 refuting the points made in Mr. Albert's testimony of October 13, 2005))

October - November 2005 - Without the knowledge, permission or sanction of the Akaku Board, Myles Inokuma sends a letter to DCCA Director, Mark Recktenwald requesting that Mike Albert be appointed to the Akaku Board to replace Lynne Woods as an education appointee. The date of this letter is unclear since there was no notification or record of this placed in Akaku files. The DCCA defers, pending the outcome of hoped for mediation between the parties.

October 28, 2005 - At the Annual Akaku Board of Directors Meeting, with all twelve board members including " interveners" Inokuma, Wiger, Courter and Tokunaga participating in the vote, the Akaku BOD conducts it's Annual Election and the following officers are duly and properly elected by majority vote:

Jay April, Chair
Degray Vanderbilt, Vice Chair
Danny Agsalog, Treasurer
Benita Brazier, Secretary

November 2005 - January 2006

The DCCA, to date, has refused to recognize the official results of the Akaku Board election. The effect of this lack of support from DCCA has provided an opportunity for First Hawaiian Bank and the" interveners" to cloud the issues regarding board governance and allows the bank to continue to restrict Akaku's funds. The restrictions placed upon the station's funds make it more difficult for Akaku to purchase capital equipment, hire needed staff, and deny the non profit the basic right to manage its own money in the best interest of its public, education and government access constituency.

The DCCA has attempted to appear to take no position on issues regarding " internal board matters" - yet, the Department's statements regarding board governance and its strong support for the Wong educational agreement appear to be far from neutral. All communications from DCCA to the Akaku Board appear to support a substantial payment to " education partners" from Akaku funds under the terms of the repudiated educational agreement.

By not supporting the lawful actions of the Akaku Board of Directors, and by not following Akaku bylaws in the Board appointment process, the DCCA has denied functionality to Akaku and appears not to be acting in the best interests of PEG access.

NOTE: The so -called " education agreement" which DCCA apparently supports in its entirety, calls for an annual allotment of 25% - 33% of Akaku PEG funds, in perpetuity without any accountability or performance review. This arrangement and the position of the current DCCA administration seem to contradict the conclusions of a 1997 DCCA commissioned report which recommended that DCCA: " use its authority to deter raids on PEGS by other state agencies". MCC and DOE has already received more than $400,000 from Akaku franchise fee payments in 2005 and will be demanding another $270,000 or so by the end of February 2006.

These funds have not been audited and there is no requirement in place for these state agencies to account for them.

On November 16, The Second Circuit Court, under Judge Cordoza refused to grant theinterveners" an injunction preventing the election of officers during the October 28 annual Akaku Board meeting. By finding no " irreparable harm" the judge allowed the elections to stand. However, for reasons that are unclear, the same court also refused to grant Akaku's request for a reconsideration of its summary judgment even after Akaku's annual election of officers had taken place. By not granting summary judgment, the court is allowing the dispute on who is signatory to Akaku accounts to continue unresolved.

The court has requested both sides to enter into mediation and both sides have agreed to do so. At the November 28, Special Meeting of the Akaku Board, members, including interveners ,Wiger, Tokunaga, Inokuma and Courter voted unanimously to mediate.

In December, the Akaku Investigative Committee began work independently reviewing documents.

Letters dated November 10, December 2, and December 16, 2005 from DCCA Cable Television Administrator, Clyde Sonobe and Director, Mark Recktenwald indicate that DCCA has refused to recognize the elected Akaku Board and will not pay for mediation. DCCA appears to set a deadline for resolution of all issues by the end of 2005 and continues to express its concern that substantial payments (more than $260,000) are due to DCCA sister agencies, MCC and DOE at the end of January 2006.

Mediation is now scheduled for January 31, 2006. Although a stay of court proceedings has been obtained until that time while Akaku counsel is out of the country, it appears that attorneys for the interveners have not honored the terms of the stay by initiating legal actions against Akaku staff and Investigative Committee members.

The DCCA has offered its own plan for mediation and has made the curious statement that, " The Department may need to address the issue of funding for education by mid-January 2006 since Time Warner requires some lead time to plan the disbursement of access operating fees."

The DCCA also refers to a statement attributed to Maui DOE Superintendent, Kenneth Nomura expressing Education's position that there are no issues to negotiate.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The majority of the Akaku Board of Directors remains dedicated to our mission of empowering the community's voice through access to media. It is our intention to safeguard that sacred trust now and into the future. The Cable Advisory Committee can help by joining us in making the following seven recommendations to DCCA.

1. DCCA Director, Mark Recktenwald should immediately send a letter to First Hawaiian Bank, Judge Cordoza of the Second Circuit Court and the "Interveners" recognizing the valid results of the October 28, 2005 Akaku Board of Directors Annual elections.

2. The DCCA should request a complete and thorough independent investigation of the disputed "Education Agreement" between Akaku; Maui Community Television and it's "E-Partners"; including the events leading up to the negotiation, drafting and execution of Akaku Board officers, DOE and MCC. The investigation should include the role of DCCA in the process.

3. The DCCA should arrange for a complete and thorough independent investigation of events alleged in this Timeline of Events and other matters if requested to do so by the findings of the Akaku Investigative Committee.

4. The DCCA should immediately call for an independent, third party audit of all education access funds allocated by Akaku to MCC and DOE for a period of five years.

5. The DCCA should immediately convene a public forum of Akaku Board members, all educational providers in Maui County and interested members of the public to define, articulate and recommend a fair, equitable and fully accountable Education Access plan and funding methodology for Maui County.

6.. The DCCA should immediately begin collecting 5% of cable franchise fee revenue

allowed by Federal law and use it's authority to ensure that the entire amount is allocated to fund PEG access with special emphasis on funding community access in rural or underserved areas.

7. The DCCA should immediately request an independent audit of its Cable Television Division.

Some of the larger issues that Akaku would like to see addressed with maximum local community involvement and debate are as follows:

1. EDUCATION ACCESS. What is it? Is Education Access defined as students, teachers, and education providers from formal and informal institutions gaining access to the production tools and programming channels provided to educate all of us? OR Is Education Access, as UH-MCC and DOE claim, a means by which two otherwise state funded institutions use funds and dedicated channels to access their publics or augment existing academic programs designed for those who are enrolled in their respective institutions? What are the benefits to the community of a PEG integrated services approach, in current use by Akaku, verses other models that can be identified.

2. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FUNDS AND PERFORMANCE

We would like to propose a requirement that there be full accountability for funds that meet a locally agreed upon Education Access criteria. All funds allocated to state institutions ,organizations or organizations should be subject to independently verified audits. Access to training , equipment, skills and channel space should be made available to all educational institutions resulting in a notable increase in quality on air locally originated programming.

3. STATE ALLOCATION OF FRANCHISE FEES

We would like to see the DCCA collect the entire 5% franchise fee allowed by Federal law and allocate the majority of that money to support the four island PEG's in the public interest with particular emphasis placed upon rural island communities.

4. STATE TELECOMMUNICATION REFORM

The track record of the cable division of the DCCA raises many questions about the regulation of statewide cable monopoly, Time Warner, and the state's ability to maximize and leverage complex 21^st century telecommunications public benefit issues. The performance of the Department has created a climate whereby long standing conflicts such as the issue of whether the PEG's are subject to State Procurement Code, or governance and funding issues like those being experienced on Maui, are allowed to fester for nearly a decade. Apart from the CAC, the DCCA is not subject to any meaningful consumer or legislative oversight and the Cable Division, to our knowledge has never been audited. We would like to see an audit of the Cable Division and we would like the State of Hawaii to become a national model for the regulation of cable and all telecommunications in the best interest of all of its citizens.

Hawaii Consumers Object to Maui Community College as DCCA's public meeting site on PEG issues

Subject: Re: Statewide meetings regarding RFPs for PEGs
From: Sean McLaughlin <sean808@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:12:00 -1000
To: DCCA Director Mark Recktenwald <mrecktenwald@dcca.hawaii.gov>
CC: Aaron Fujioka <aaron.fujioka@hawaii.gov>, hugh.r.jones@hawaii.gov, ethics@hawaiiethics.org, Board <board@akaku.org>

Director Recktenwald et al. -

By this e-mail, Hawaii Consumers hereby object to the announced location of DCCA's public hearing on February 15, 2006 at Maui Community College (MCC) regarding controversial matters in which MCC, Everett Dowling and officers of the Maui Chamber of Commerce are currently involved.

As you are aware, a comprehensive independent audit of MCC's use of cable TV resources for "educational access" that are derived from DCCA regulation of Time Warner (and other cable operators) has been requested. And MCC is a party with private commercial interests (Dowling B.I.G.) in litigation against Akaku that is currently subject of formal mediation.

A documented lack of accountability by MCC that is noted in independent audit reports on file with DCCA, coupled with false and misleading representations made by MCC to State legislative and administrative hearings over the past year are all highly questionable activities involving the current management of MCC that should be investigated for possible violations of State and Federal law.

So long as MCC has a direct beneficiary interest, however illegitimate it may be, DCCA should not schedule public hearings about the future of cable access TV for Hawaii in a venue controlled by MCC. Based on DCCA's previous hearing at that location, the public is treated as unwelcome intruders and MCC staff and students are given preferential and discriminatory consideration.

There is an appearance of corruption in DCCA's choice of a venue that is controlled by a party currently litigating against DCCA's appointed Board officers of Akaku: Maui Community TV. Akaku is the PEG provider created by DCCA and contracted for more than a decade by the State of Hawaii.

Please reconsider this bad idea and reschedule your public hearings on Maui, Molokai and Lanai in venues that are not controlled by interested parties with questionable self-dealing motivations.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Aloha,

Sean McLaughlin
Hawaii Consumers
e: sean808@earthlink.net
t: 808-447-9610

Statewide meetings regarding RFPs for PEGs

Aloha Mark,

  For the record:

  I was shocked to see that DCCA has set up its meeting on Maui at Maui Community College, especially in light of what has been happening on Maui for the past year.. The appearance already is that you sympathize with MCC regarding PEG matters and have given them, as the lead in the "E" sector, an advantage to potentially acquire more unaccountable funds from franchise fees. You do so in spite of the HENC agreement saying that no HENC members will go after any cable franchise fees not otherwise committed to them.

"HENC and its representatives shall not initiate any activity intended to or that will result in HENC or its members receiving additional funding from cable franchise fees not otherwise committed to Hawaii educational institutions or other purposes, outside of the funds provided in this Agreement."

  Your CATV administrator and HENC advisory council member Clyde Sonobe appears to not have looked hard enough for a more neutral facility for the Maui meeting. Instead it appears he has intentionally given an unfair advantage to the "E" sector over "P".

    I do hope DCCA is not involved in assisting Everett Dowling in setting up a nonprofit to bid on and receive Maui PEG franchise money.

    I also noted in DCCA's Press Release regarding the statewide meetings that the examples given are relatively the same as 'Olelo & DCCA have continually used in their studies and assessments which are designed to make the corporations already in place look good, as well as DCCA for creating them. Putting forth examples that are intended to have coached speakers address the present takes focus off what the future should/could be. It also provides a platform for sheople to read their PEG provided scripts, as witnessed at the PEG Plan hearing. Lack of competition has hurt Hawai'i citizens in that the lack has essentially removed the will of the current corporation to improve or even keep up with "cutting edge" media creation and distribution, thus the public still has the minimum tools to distribute their message provided in a discriminatory manner. One only has to look at the numerous other PEG access corporations in the country that provide more access for less than 20% of the funds spent on Oahu to see how far behind DCCA has allowed state PEGs to lag.

   The Community Television Producers Association of Hawai'i (CTPA) believes there should never be an exemption given to DCCA from HRS 103D regarding PEG Access nonprofit corporation contracts with the state. The bid process should be mandated to be "open bids" so the people can see how their money is proposed to be spent so they can comment throughout the process. Competition breeds innovation and excellence. Automatically renewing PEG contracts annually removes any incentive for improvement.

Sincerely,

Jeff Garland

Hawaii PEGs funding withheld

More bad news today for community media in Hawaii -

Correspondence with Time Warner released today reveals that Hawaii's State cable regulator (with ties to Time Warner) is withholding half the cable franchise funds from Hawaii PEG operators serving five counties on six islands. Affected PEGs are 'Olelo: Community TV, Akaku: Maui Community TV, Na Leo O Hawaii and Ho'ike: Kauai Community TV.

After assaults by private land developer Everett Dowling and State "education" bureaucrats, Maui and Kalawao Counties which are served by Akaku: Maui Community TV, were singled out for special additional reductions totaling seventy-five percent of cable franchise funds withheld and another eight percent given directly to State "education" agencies.

The attached letter to the editor was sent last week to Maui News and printed today, predicting today's action by the State.

http://mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=16320

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: letter to editor
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:11:28 -1000
From: Sean McLaughlin <sean808@earthlink.net>
Organization: community+media
To: Editor <editor@mauinews.com>

State pulling the plug on Akaku?

Dear Editor -

State cable regulators at DCCA are talking with Time Warner about diverting public funds intended for Akaku: Maui Community TV. Under current State contracts payment of nearly one million dollars of cable access fees by Time Warner to Akaku is due January 31, 2006.

Private commercial interests who are "Building Imbalance" with State bureaucrats want the Maui funds diverted. Local community members who support free speech and open media access for all are backing Akaku.

Watch closely Maui Nui - you are almost speechless.

Truly,

Sean McLaughlin
e: sean808@earthlink.net
t: 808-447-9610 (O'ahu)
c: 808-283-3174 (Maui)

State Regulator Pulling Plug on Cable Access?

HAWAI’I CONSUMERS
Research + Advocacy + Media

Contact: Sean McLaughlin
E-mail: sean808@earthlink.net
Tel: 808-447-9610 (O’ahu)
Cel: 808-283-3174 (Maui)

For Immediate Release

January 21, 2006

State Regulator Pulling Plug on Cable Access?

DCCA considers plan to withhold public funds from community TV providers

Honolulu, Hawaii - Governor Lingle's newly reactivated Cable Advisory Committee (“CAC”) met this week (January 19, 2006) in Honolulu and heard updates on recent and pending State actions relating to regulation of Hawaii’s sole franchised cable TV operator, Time Warner - CAC information is online at

http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/catv/cable_advisory_committee/

Agenda item III.C. for the CAC was "PEG Contracts – Public comment meetings regarding Request for Proposals (RFP) under the State Procurement Code." DCCA announced some troubling news - the State Procurement Office recently denied a requested exemption for DCCA that would have allowed DCCA to continue protracted contract negotiations with the four County-based community access TV (PEG) providers.

Closed-door negotiations between DCCA and the PEG providers serving each County have been ongoing for more than two years. Through a series of temporary extensions combined with a one hundred thousand dollar ($100,000.) publicly funded audit, DCCA has increased control and tightened the State’s grip on community access media organizations that are nominally independent.

DCCA Director Recktenwald announced this week that he is considering withholding half of the cable franchise fee payments from community access providers statewide - 'Olelo serves only O'ahu, Akaku: Maui Community TV serves Maui Nui, Na Leo O Hawaii on the Big Island, and Ho'ike: Kauai Community TV for the Garden Island.

Such a decision by DCCA could withhold or divert millions of dollars of scheduled public service payments by Time Warner. The rationale offered for such a precipitous move is to more rapidly address DCCA’s current violation of State procurement law, which has been ongoing for some years. DCCA may be required to conduct an "RFP" process immediately and in that case, current extensions of the PEG contracts to June 30, 2006 could be allowed to expire, creating the opportunity for new contracts to be let by DCCA with the remainder of cable franchise funds for the second half of the calendar year 2006.

In comments at the CAC meeting, 'Olelo's CEO Keali'i Lopez requested immediate notification if DCCA would withhold half of the scheduled annual cable franchise fee payments and noted that DCCA had requested and accepted annual budgets from the community access TV (PEG) providers that anticipated receipt of the entire annual payment on January 31, 2006.

Access media and free speech advocates can feel the State's leash tightening and are once again calling for a first ever audit of the DCCA’s Cable TV Division to address public concerns about the State’s close relations with Time Warner.

DCCA hearings have been scheduled on four islands – notice is online at http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/catv/main/press_releases/public_comment_meetings.pdf/view

Wednesdays in February: 1st in Hilo, 8th in Lihue, 15th in Kahului, 22nd in Honolulu.

Under the current regime, DCCA's director appoints the PEG access TV board members and oversees their operations through the State’s controversial appointed CATV division head Clyde Sonobe. By law (HRS Chapt. 440G), Governor Lingle appoints CAC members subject to State Senate approval, but the CAC only "advises" the DCCA director and cable operators "at their request."

Hawaii Consumers, a local advocacy organization points out that crucial consumer protection and public interest concerns are ignored by DCCA even while cable access providers statewide are under increasing State control. Hawaii’s consumers know that cable’s monopoly prices and services are effectively unregulated. Consumer protection for cable TV and cable modem customers is woefully inadequate.

According to Hawaii Consumers’ spokesman Sean McLaughlin, "At increasing risk are the essential principles of local media regulation which are designed to protect localism, competition and diversity. Hawaii cable regulation lacks transparent oversight and local accountability not only for community access TV, but also for consumer protection, public safety, non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and other best practices for proper local regulation of cable, telecom and broadband media - these are key public interest policy considerations of concern to Hawaii Consumers."

For more information contact Hawaii Consumers, P.O. Box 179375, Honolulu, HI 96817, c/o Sean McLaughlin, e: sean808@earthlink.net, t: 808-447-9610 (Honolulu) and 808-283-3174 (Maui).

# # #

DCCA - NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT MEETINGS - STATEWIDE PUBLIC. EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT (“PEG”) ACCESS SERVICES

Note: CTPA VP Jeff Garland printed, scanned, OCR'd, spell checked, and then reformat into HTML for greater accessibility (and commenters can now cut and paste questions they address). The DCCA "official" (PDF) document is located at URL: http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/catv/main/press_releases/public_comment_meetings.pdf/download

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT MEETINGS

STATEWIDE PUBLIC. EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT (“PEG”) ACCESS SERVICES

East Hawaii — Hilo
DATE: Wednesday, February 1, 2006
TIME: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
LOCATION: State Office Building-Hilo
Conference Rooms A, B, C
75 Aupuni Street

Kahului, Maui
DATE: Wednesday, February 15, 2006
TIME: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
LOCATION: Maui Community College
Ka'a'ike Building, Room 105 B/C/D
310 West Kaahumanu Avenue

Lihue, Kauai
DATE: Wednesday, February 8, 2006
TIME: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
LOCATION: State Office Building
2nd Floor, Rooms A, B, C
3060 Eiwa Street

Honolulu, Oahu
DATE: Wednesday, February 22, 2006
TIME: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
LOCATION: King Kalakaua Building-DCCA
Queen Lili’uokalani Conference Rm
335 Merchant Street

Purpose:

The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs ("DCCA") Cable Television Division (“CATV”) I. seeking to obtain the public's general input and comments on issues relating to public access television services, whether the department should seek an exemption from the requirement that those services be procured through a competitive bid process and, if not, what requirements the department should include in any request for proposal.

1. Please comment on the services that are provided by the Public, Education, and Government (“PEG’) organization in your respective county: Akaku (Maui), Ho’ike (Kauai), Na Leo (Hawaii) and ‘Olelo (Oahu). Examples would include but not be limited to the following:

A. Do their hours of operation satisfy your needs?
B. The availability and quality of their equipment?
C. The quality of training provided.
D. How knowledgeable is their staff?
B. Overall quality of services provided to their clients.

2. If a Request for Proposal (RFP”), which is a competitive bid process, for PEG services was

issued by the DCCA, what requirements do you think should be included? Please comment on these as well as other items that should be considered. Examples would indclude but not be limited to the following:

-1-

A. Operational Management and Administration

1. Operation of Access Channels
2. Provision and Care of Facilities and Equipment
3. Programming policies and practices
4. Provide additional Media Services
5. Training for equipment utilization
6. Support Services
7. Train and Organize Producers/Volunteers
8. Outreach, Ascertainment and Promotion
9. Customer Service and Complaints
10. Operating Policies and Procedures
11. Reporting Requirements
12. Strategic and Operational Planning
13. Facilitated Production

B. Financial Management

1. Budgeting
2. Financial Statements and Auditing
3. Policies and Procedures, Training Manual
4. Insurance
5. Reporting requirements
6. Funding

All interested persons will be afforded the opportunity to submit their comments, both orally and in writing, at the time of the public comment meetings. Whether interested persons wish to present oral testimony or not, all testimony should be written and submitted to the CATV Division via the following:

* Email to cabletv@dcca.hawaii.gov
* Fax: (808) 586-2825
* U.S. Mail to: Cable Television Division

Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs
P.O. Box 541
Honolulu, Hawaii 96809
Deadline to submit written comments to DCCA is Friday, February 24.2006
Copies of this notice may be obtained at:

* DCCA’s website at http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/catv/main/press_releases/ (Internet access is available at State Public Libraries)

* DCCA’s office:

Cable Television Division
335 Merchant Street, Room 101
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

-2-

Individuals who require special needs accommodations may request assistance by writing or contacting Ms. Patti Kodama at the address above or at (808) 588-2620 at least seven (7) working days prior to the scheduled public comment meeting.

The inconvenience of having a new (digtal converter) box installed.

Aloha Director Recktenwald,

In Decision and Order 326, how did DCCA come to the following conclusion:

"The Department believes that relatively few viewers would take advantage of the offer (of a free digital converter box), because of the inconvenience of having a new box installed." (emphasis added in parenthesis above)

According to Oceanic Time Warner one merely has to either pick up a converter at their local OTW center and screw on two cables, or OTW will deliver & install it for $28.00, which I'm sure DCCA could have had waived for the intended purpose were they truly acting in the Public's best interest. Every analog cable subscriber I have spoken with said the minor inconvenience would not deter them from acquiring the benefit, especially in light of the major annual cost savings. Access to the converter would also allow non digital subscribers to access 'Olelo's program "Candidates Debates" and local newscasts Oceanic provides on their on demand "iControl" channel(s).

I would like to be able to view the documents DCCA utilized to come to their incorrect conclusion "that relatively few viewers would take advantage of the offer".

I will find this information most informative, especially in light of ex Oceanic employee and 'Olelo CEO Keali'i Lopez's report to 'Olelo's Board of Directors on December 8, 2005:

"Sixth Channel Request: Keali`i Lopez updated the Board on ‘Ōlelo's request for a sixth channel from the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA). In June, when Time Warner Oceanic Cable Television appealed the DCCA’s decision to give ‘Ōlelo a sixth channel, DCCA asked Time Warner Oceanic Cable Television and ‘Ōlelo to negotiate an alternative. However at this time (12/08/05), it does not appear that an agreement is likely. The DCCA will likely issue a “finding of fact”, which means that the DCCA may ask for feedback from the general public and will make its decision based on the feedback received. " (emphasis added)

Sincerely,

jg

DCCA Decision and Order 326

Read D&O 326 at the following link. . .

http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/catv/decisions_orders/files/326.pdf

News Flash - Time Warner does Hawai'i - PEG gets a new channel!

Fascinating narrative is provided in State of Hawaii's Decision and Order by the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) that has temporarily dedicated a new PEG access channel, the sixth analog TV channel for Honolulu to be operated by community access provider 'Olelo: Community Television. According to 'Olel