It's Broke, Fix It!

Testimony of Wendy Arbeit relating to DCCA procurement process for PEGs

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.

"It's Broke, Fix It!"

Do Not Exempt 'Olelo from the State Procurement Law’s RFP process.

An RFP process for the types of services that 'Olelo provides is practicable, advantageous, and essential to the people of the State of Hawaii BECAUSE:

• 'Olelo is an organization that knowledgeable people do not trust, and have not trusted since shortly after its inception. Even specially facilitated producers (those that receive free production services by ‘Olelo staff with no guidelines or open process) are afraid to speak out for fear of the retaliation they have seen used against others. ‘Olelo is highly recognized in the community for providing services well below what is expected -- this is reflected in the steady, high turnover of individual producers and staff. It is widely agreed that it is one of the worst PEG access organizations in the United States even though it has one of the largest budgets. It has resisted all attempts by the community to improve it and make it less dysfunctional, dissolving all client mechanisms for this as soon as it found it could not control them.
• 'Olelo is unsurpassed in delivering discriminatory PEG access that favors government (including education) and large non-profits. It constantly violates its mission statement: "The specific and primary purpose of the corporation is to promote the creation, production and cablecasting of programs by, for and about Hawaii." Not only has it failed to adequately promote the services listed, but it has co-opted many of them for itself, thus reducing services to the clients it was created to serve and becoming an unfair competitor for production projects, equipment, and airtime.
• Since Olelo has set the bar so low, any replacement entity could easily match the knowledge, experience, and skill that Olelo has so dismally exhibited.
• For over a decade, 'Olelo has failed to and, in fact steadfastly, resisted accounting for monies received (and codified this in its bylaws). It has consistently delivered required reports incomplete and late. (Documentation for this and other assertions in this document can be found on hpam.hi.net)
• DCCA-mandated self-sufficiency objectives have never been adequately met by 'Olelo, which apparently has chosen to remain dependent on the public dole.
• 'Olelo's poor track record has resulted in its securing no grants; Its only partnerships are also dependent on what is essentially a tax on cable subscribers.
• 'Olelo has developed long-term and strong partnerships with government (including education) and favored large non-profits in training, facilitation, and grants to the detriment of the individual producers. This organization needs to be replaced by one that will rectify this imbalance. The exact, non-negotiable proportions of its budget going to government, education (HENC and non-HENC), and public projects need to be made clear.
• 'Olelo has been built with a tax mandated by the State Legislature on cable access subscribers. It has expended these public funds in an inefficient and wasteful manner, resisting making the details of these expenditures clear to the public. It has enshrined this absence of transparency in its bylaws and has sued the State to protect that status.
• State-mandated cable franchise fees that support PEG access are overseen (without great diligence, which can be construed as lazy at best and collusion at worst) by the State Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Cable Television Division, which also names the majority of board members. Due to this high level of government involvement, 'Olelo should be required to go through a competitive bid process (RFP) as per state law to insure that the public is getting the highest value of non-discriminatory service for its money -- including responsiveness to its clients and transparency in its management and finances.
• The DCCA's task of designing the requirements and scope of services for the RFP is part of their job: what the public is paying them for. Over the years DCCA directors and the Cable TV Division's administrator have received many suggestions regarding the requirements and scope of services that would adequately serve the public. They have chosen to ignore these and allowed the PEGs to deliver minimal service. It is now time for them to use this input, read the many studies gathering dust, and do their jobs to make it finally possible for the citizens of this state to have media access that is non-discriminatory, balanced among PE and G, transparent, accountable, and fiscally responsible with well-maintained quality equipment and associated training and training media.
• PEG Access services are uniquely local in character for each island community. In order to fully meet community needs these services must be provided with the guidance of members (now lacking) and a board comprised of fairly elected members of the community (also lacking). A state-run RFP process mandating this would rectify the present closed-door dysfunction and favoritism.
• An RFP process for the services that 'Olelo provides is practical and advantageous to the State of Hawaii and its citizens because it would result in far better services for the same amount of money -- assuming that DCCA's CATV prepared the RFP properly and thoroughly (as opposed to the way it did its recent call for a "review" of 'Olelo), and assuming CATV diligently reflected and acted on the results (again opposed to the recent "review").
• An RFP-awarded contract would result in an access organization with increased flexibility in developing new programs to meet new community needs. 'Olelo has been especially recalcitrant in responding to individual clients' desires, complaints, and suggestions. Changes to contract terms and services, though time consuming, will result in a more nimble, responsive, honest, and non-discriminatory access organization so long as these are mandated by the state (now not done by CATV.)
• 'Olelo has repeatedly violated its own bylaws and policies, and has skirted county and state laws for years. It has sued the state in order be released from its obligation to observe the open records law and has resisted observing the open meeting law as well. With appropriate penalty provisions in the RFP these anti-public actions can be eliminated (assuming CATV finally provides the diligent input and oversight now absent).
• In the event that the DCCA is obligated to use an RFP process, national experts in the area of PEG services and knowledgeable, longtime contributing local producers should be consulted to draft its details. These experts must be selected with the full input, participation, and approval of knowledgeable members of the community. Before final approval of the resulting RFP, public hearings must be held and the public's input incorporated.

• Clearly delineate the percentage of funding to go to each category: P, E, G (no more stealth raiding of the Public-sector’s funds by double-dipping by Education through such means as satellite centers at schools and colleges or by Government through PEG productions relating to legislation or elections, for example.)
• Compliance with all open records and sunshine laws
• strict compliance with first-come, nondiscriminatory access
• public membership in PEGs with fair and open elections of board members
• detailed annual reports with penalties for late or non-compliant reports
• penalties for bylaws and operating policy violations
• prohibition of PEGs from doing their own productions
• require all grants and facilitations to be awarded in an open manner
• require a full annual management and financial audit by a third party not designated by the PEG and made available to all
• encourage flexibility in the use of other kinds of media
• encourage responsiveness to the needs of the individual speaker (as opposed to organizations)
• make it clear that the mission of the PEGs is to provide a “soapbox” for those who do not have access to commercial media; it is NOT to build community

Testimony in support of DCCA abiding by state procurement law

Aloha,

Since our last email, some of you have asked for more information about
the upcoming DCCA Public Comment Meeting regarding PEG Access services
and a possible RFP process.  We welcome all perspectives on these issues
and we encourage you to attend the Public Comment Meeting this
Wednesday, February 22 to testify in person or to submit your written
testimony by this Friday, February 24 to cabletv@dcca.hawaii.gov. 

We are providing the following information to help explain and clarify
some of the issues created by the proposed RFP suggestion. 

An Exemption to the Procurement Process
'Olelo does not believe that PEG (i.e. community) access is a
commodity that should be bought, sold or put up for bid. It involves
community building, partnering with governmental and educational
entities, statewide collaboration to leverage limited resources with
other community access organizations, and nurturing local programming
and a long-term commitment to the community. 'Olelo encourages the
DCCA to request an Exemption from the procurement process for all of
Hawai'i's access organizations.  

Risk to Current Services
To 'win' an RFP, a new operator will essentially have to provide a
plan that is substantially different from existing providers. All
current 'Olelo services, such as Satellite Community Media Centers,
that are enjoyed and appreciated by the community and our clients will
be at risk. In addition, training, production services and
airtime/playback may be more limited and restricted or, at minimum,
different than the services currently provided.

Lack of Qualified Pool of Operators
Hawaii currently enjoys a relatively stable environment of community
access providers.  DCCA's regular performance evaluation of these
operators has ensured a consistent progression of services delivered on
all islands. An RFP process will invite participation from a pool of
untested and unqualified providers. Respondents can include individuals
with narrow-focused objectives, business entities with limited community
focus, providers from the mainland without local roots, or
newly-established providers with little community access experience.
'Olelo is the only provider that has any consistent length of
experience and track record of delivering the range of services and
managing significant resources currently available to the communities of
O'ahu.

Stability and Sustainability
Serving the community requires the flexibility to address short-, mid-
and long-term objectives. If community access is subject to frequent
contract bidding, it will be likely that long-term objectives will be
sacrificed in place of short-term victories to maintain the contract.
This is inconsistent with the long-term sustainability focus in the
DCCA's 2004 PEG Access Plan for Hawaii.  This also impacts the ability
of the community access provider to develop long-term relationships and
commitments to communities.

Accountability
'Olelo's request for an exemption to the RFP process must not be
misconstrued as a lack of accountability. On the contrary, there is
already adequate oversight from government and community stakeholders on
the performance of any community access system in Hawaii. The current
system works and does not need to be unnecessarily tampered with. An RFP
process does not add more accountability but, in fact, will disrupt
continuous and reliable service.

'Olelo Community Television Has a Proven 16-Year Track Record
Over the past 16 years, 'Olelo has enjoyed stable management that is
better than the average non-profit organization and has expanded
services and programming to reflect the increasing diversity of voices
in our island community.  No other community access provider in the
country has the kind of experience 'Olelo has in managing a
significant number of satellite Community Media Centers.  Additionally,
'Olelo is one of very few community access providers that have had the
stewardship responsibility for the sizable equipment inventory and
financial resources available on O'ahu.   Our committed, highly
trained staff has a combined total of more than 250 years of community
access experience and has worked hard to earn your trust.

The addition of our sixth channel is the latest evidence of
'Olelo's ability to assess community needs and deliver the
capacity to meet those needs. In the last five years alone, 'Olelo has
developed ground-breaking programs to promote media literacy and social
issues among our youth (e.g.,Youth Xchange video competition) and
address voter apathy (e.g., Vote! 2002 & 2004) in our state while
providing consistent service to our independent producers and
volunteers.

'Olelo's success has been built on the understanding of community
needs and how community access can make a difference. These
relationships with a variety of community groups, youth groups, schools,
non-profits and government institutions were established over the years
and all this inherent social and community equity will be lost with a
new provider.

The DCCA has stated that even if the RFP process were to bring about a
change in management, that community access would continue to be
provided to all communities (public, educational and governmental). 
However there is NO guarantee what services would be offered, if current
services would be maintained, and to what level of quality and
commitment.  

How You Can Help
'Olelo Community Television has always supported the voice of the
people through community access.  Now we need you to voice your support
for 'Olelo.  We urge you to speak out now.  If you have benefited from
the types and quality of services you have received and want them to
continue, please testify in person at the Public Comment Meeting this
Wednesday, February 22, or provide written testimony by this Friday,
February 24, to: cabletv@dcca.hawaii.gov.  Your support is greatly
appreciated.

If you would like to know the airdates and times for the Public Comment
Meetings held on Maui, Molokai and shortly on O'ahu, and for
additional information about the DCCA Public Comment Meeting, sample
testimony for Akaku Molokai, and a map and parking information to the
DCCA building, please visit our website:
http://www.olelo.org/news/dcca06/dcca06mtg.html 

Again, we sincerely appreciate your interest in community access,

Gerry Silva
COO, 'Olelo Community Television


                                    

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sparky Rodrigues" <srodrigues@olelo.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:19 AM
Subject: Urgent need to protect and defend PEG TV. I need your help.

                                    

Hawaii Access Model - Pushing the public speaker to the back of the access bus

"From CTPA's perspective government actors (including education) have pushed the public speaker to the back of the access bus as predicted in a variety of DCCA commissioned reports which evidently are gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. CTPA has exhumed these document to discovered a history of what our members have experienced first hand. DCCA has created a PEG model which has institutionalized discrimination against the public speaker."

Read the Hawaii Community Producers Association's (CTPA) in depth report Hawaii Access Model - Pushing the public speaker to the back of the access bus, and listen to CTPA President's oral testimony at the DCCA Public Comment meeting on Feb 8, 2005 Kauai Hawaii

Akaku chairman: This is a state takeover

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

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 ha