|
<br />~-r
<br />
<br />THURSDAY
<br />
<br />JULY 5, 1984
<br />
<br />..-
<br />
<br />addressed to City Manager Edmonds) of the proposed programming changes.
<br />Mr. Edmonds' office received the letter on June 4th and members of Council
<br />probably received a copy thereof on June 5th or June 6th. In any event,
<br />the letter was not discussed at Council's June 12th meeting.
<br />
<br />As a result of Martinsville Cablevision's subsequent press release, in-
<br />forming its subscribers of the programming changes to become effective
<br />July 1st, or shortly thereafter, citizens began to react (to these pro-
<br />posed changes) and Council did discuss this matter (fairly thoroughly)
<br />at its June 26th meeting. r;-personally, did not react when I first read
<br />Mr. Anas' May 30th letter; nevertheless, in light of subsequent events, I
<br />have concluded that the delay has not made any real difference, unless it
<br />be that we have developed a "hurried" feeling because of the July 1st
<br />effective date.
<br />
<br />From Council's discussion of this matter at its June 26th meeting and its
<br />informal request that Martinsville Cablevision delay any of its proposed
<br />programming changes for a period of thirty days, we believed that such a
<br />delay would enable us to have time not only to consider further the
<br />changes but also to work more closely with Martinsville Cablevision, to
<br />coordinate our considerations with Henry County, and, of course, to deter-
<br />mine our (the City's) legal position thereon. Martinsville Cablevision,
<br />however, did not see fit to wait thirty days, although it did compromise,
<br />to a degree, by leaving "C-Span" channel untouched.
<br />
<br />As a result of "letters to the Editor", a meeting conducted by private
<br />citizens on this matter July 3rd, and telephone calls, I believe that
<br />Council knows well what you--the subscribers--want, viz., leave it (the
<br />programming) alone, exactly as it was.....it is "o.k." to add to the
<br />service but don't subtract. We realize, too, that there is much concern
<br />on the part of subscribers as to the future of the "basic" programming
<br />service heretofore offered as well as to the apparently temporary decision
<br />to continue "C-Span". We also know that subscribers are frustrated, angry,
<br />incensed and (are) considering various recourse actions, none of which
<br />Martinsville Cablevision would welcome. Because we do know these things,
<br />let us not lose time, today, listening to repetitions of your "wants" and
<br />concerns; rather, because Council may be faced with a serious decision, the
<br />Council needs this time to give the matter its best thinking, in conjunction
<br />with a legal opinion or brief City Attorney Worthy will now present.
<br />(Ci..;t!j IU;to/ZrLe!j WO/l.th!j' ~ W/litien. B/li ef-)
<br />This is to provide in more detail my evaluation of the
<br />legalities involved in the above matter. The proposal of
<br />Martinsville Cablevision, whereby it agreed to carry WTTG
<br />in its basic service, and to carry C-SPAN and WGN in its super
<br />service, although not attached to the franchise ordinance,
<br />was under Section 2 of the franchise incorporated by refer-
<br />ence therein as though it were set forth verbatim therein.
<br />Therefore, the proposal is part of the franchise, and the
<br />proposal and the franchise, when construed together, consti-
<br />tute a contract between Martinsville Cablevision and the
<br />City in which Martinsville Cablevision, in return for the
<br />grant of the franchise to it by the City, agreed to do cer-
<br />tain things, including the carrying of the aforesaid stations.
<br />
|