|
|
McCreven, who has attended the SVCM board meetings regularly, said, "I was surprised. I was there in an official capacity."
Ed Sheehy, the first selectman of Woodbridge who appointed McCreven to the ex-officio position, said, "I think it was inappropriate. She represents the interests of Woodbridge."
SVCM, the nonprofit, third-party provider designated as the community access provider for area 2, manages the PEG channels - the public, educational and government access channels. Rep. David McCluskey of West Hartford, who testified before the General Assembly Energy and Technology Committee on March 7 on Bill 5814, An Act Concerning Community Access Television, , said, "This is the public's window to their government ... All people should have access to their government."
To support PEG programming, cable subscribers are assessed a fee that is earmarked for services "within its franchise area," as per Connecticut state statute 16-331 (a)(b). In area 2, SVCM receives those subscribers' fees. The annual revenue for SVCM is over $600,000.
Decisions on how those funds are spent and what actions are taken by SVCM are determined by the SVCM board. According to testimony at the March 7 hearing of the Energy and Technology Committee of the General Assembly, those members of the board are selected by the president of SVCM, Tom Castelot.
Castelot denied that, saying, "There is a board-member nominating committee."
McCreven was concerned about the motives of the SVCM board in excluding her. SVCM bylaws state that ex-officio directors from area 2-interested parties can attend SVCM board meetings. As an ex-officio director, therefore, McCreven is permitted to attend meetings but has no voting rights.
Previously, the board meetings had been open to ex-officio directors. McCreven said that in the fall of 2007, however, a motion was presented at the quarterly board meeting to amend the bylaws of SVCM to exclude the ex-officio directors. That motion stated that "ex-officio directors often have conflicts of interest with the Board of Directors of the Corporation."
After objections were raised, however, that motion was tabled.
As the designee of the first selectman of Woodbridge, McCreven expressed concern about the procedures at SVCM. Barring ex-officio directors from the board meetings would result in blocking input from the towns that SVCM is supposed to be serving. McCreven said, "The ex-officio plays a role in helping to shape programming that is useful to the community."
The items listed on the agenda for the private part of the SVCM meeting were of vital interest to Woodbridge, as well as other towns and SVCM. Some of the subjects to be covered included an update on area 2 program initiatives and an update on Bill 5814.
Castelot explained that the above items were discussed in executive session, which is only open to voting members of the board. When asked how the discussion of Bill 5814 could qualify as an executive session topic, Castelot responded, "Sound View has a vital interest in that bill."
Under the Connecticut Freedom of Information law, only specific issues can be discussed under executive session: pending legal matters, security matters, personnel matters, or real estate matters. Castelot maintained, "We do not fall under the FOI laws. You don't have anything there, my friend."
Fred Fawcett, a member of the SVCM board and a resident of Orange, explained that the items listed for discussion were considered under executive session at the direction of Castelot.
Another SVCM board member, Michael Freimuth, corroborated that a number of items were discussed during the executive session. Although some issues that were discussed concerned legal contracts, Freimuth said that discussions concerning Bill 5814 did not.
Despite Castelot's claim about the application of FOI law, SVCM's status under FOI is not certain. The FOI Commission spokesman, Tom Hennick, said it was unclear if SVCM fell under the FOI law.
The FOI law applies to a number of entities, including those that perform governmental functions and those that are created by the government. Since SVCM controls government access TV and was given its function by the DPUC, a state agency, it may indeed have to comply with the CT FOI law.
Woodbridge town officials are conferring over what actions to take. McCreven said that the town is going to explore its options and determine what rules might apply, such as the FOI law.
Questions about SVCM from the legislature
The role of the SVCM board of directors and their fiscal responsibility concerning area 2 subscribers' fees came into question at the DPUC franchise hearing in 2006 and the March 7 Energy and Technology Committee hearing.
To begin with, in 2006 during review by the DPUC of SVCM's budget, the DPUC noted that SVCM had a reserve fund of over $200,000, an amount the DPUC called "excessive."
Additionally, SVCM budgeted $50,000 of area 2 subscribers' fees toward legal costs for area 9, which includes 10 towns in southwestern Connecticut. This action created some concerns, since the state statute stipulates that SVCM is directed to use its resources for "its own franchise area." Based on that, SVCM's resources should be applied to area 2, not area 9.
The Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said "I am troubled by them spending money outside their franchise area."
Kim Fawcett, a member of the committee and a representative of Fairfield, said, "The six towns (in area 2) feel that if they pay a fee ... that fund(ing) is going to be used for PEG programming."
When asked how the legal funding decision was made, Castelot said the fees were "designated by the board" for legal fees for area 2 and area 9.
Steve Fontana, the co-chairman of the committee, questioned Castelot about the amount of funds designated for SVCM's attorney, Wyland Dale Clift. Fontana asked Castelot why attorney fees, purported to be $100,000 or 1/6th of the entire budget, were spent on legal costs rather than PEG programming. Fontana said, "For roughly the amount of money that you have had to pay him (Clift) to represent you ... in area 9 that money ($100,000) has gone to public access. You have chosen to spend these subscribers' fees to pay Mr. Clift."
Fawcett said that a number of individuals had expressed concerns that Clift's salary was "extraordinarily lucrative."
Castelot and Clift denied that Clift's salary was that high. Castelot guessed that the legal fees were probably $80,000.
Fawcett mentioned concerns about Castelot's salary, as well. According to Fawcett, officials in other areas who perform the same function as Castelot are paid "$30,000 to $50,000 less a year" than Castelot's annual $95,000 salary.
Castelot, stating that area 2 has the second highest subscriber base in the state, responded, "My salary is controlled by the Corporation."
