Last week, I received a copy of the DPUC’s draft decision on Docket 08-06-03, the DPUC Investigation of the Sound View Community Media, Inc. (SVCM). The draft decision ‘finds that Sound View Community Media, Inc. (SVCM) is capable of continuing as the community access provider in the Cablevision of Southern Connecticut L.P. (Cablevision) service area with modifications to its funding and Board of Director meeting policy.’

This is despite the fact that, according to their draft decision, ‘The Advisory Council claims it has no relationship with SVCM and any relationship that exists is considered adversarial… The Advisory Council also criticizes SVCM for removing a non-voting Advisory Council-specific seat from its Board of Directors and for attending only two Advisory Council meetings…The Advisory Council believes that SVCM has no intention of forging relationships with the various towns in the Cablevision service area that wish to maintain town-specific Educational and Governmental oriented programming’.

My understanding of the following DPUC Draft Decision is that SVCM is currently the community access provider in the Cablevision of Southern Connecticut L.P. (Cablevision). It covers six municipalites, Fairfield, Milford, Orange, Woodbridge, Bridgeport and Stratford. Of these six town, only one, Fairfield, reports 'a cordial and reasonable relationship with SVCM'. The report says Milford 'does not desire a relationship with SVCM'. Orange 'expressed the opinion that SVCM cannot be trusted to honor a business relationship'. Woodbridge 'believes its relationship with SVCM is strained and unproductive with no communications except for Board of Director (BOD) meetings and Department matters... Woodbridge is particularly concerned with SVCM’s exclusion of its representative from portions of its BOD meetings on two separate occasions' Bridgeport and Stratford did not express any opinion. In other words, three of the six towns do not approve of SVCM, two didn't respond, and only one approves, and yet the DPUC believes that SVCM.

So, what is this really all about? Cablevision collects $100,000 per year from its subscribers to cover costs of Public, Educational, and Government Access channel coverage in the area. This money then goes to SVCM. Is the money that SVCM received being properly spent? Is it going to the towns producing the content? Is their sufficient accountability and transparency?

It seems as if the towns and the advisory committee do not believe so, but that the DPUC does not care. Indeed, according to the draft decision by the DPUC, their hearing into the matter was a closed hearing. It appears as if what started the review was a letter from State Sen. Joe Crisco asking that the DPUC ‘review SVCM’s conduct in barring a Woodbridge ex-officio member from one of its quarterly meetings.’

Instead, the DPUC found ‘little or no evidence was presented against SVCM’s public access operations.’ Apparently, the DPUC does not consider transparency or accountability to the public as a significant factor. Perhaps it is time to start holding the DPUC accountable.

As we look at what has happened in other parts of business and government without adequate transparency and accountability, we must seriously question the DPUC draft decision. This is further compounded by concerns about the collapse of local newspapers and the increased need for strong public, educational and government access channels.

This is a draft decision, and people are encouraged to contact the DPUC to comment on the draft decision. We need to significantly increase the transparency and accountability of all media and government agencies.