[Peace-discuss] Fw: [Discuss] Essential mtg on future of public broadband in CU: Tues 7pm in Champaign Council chambers
"E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森"
ewj at pigsqq.org
Tue Jul 30 00:33:28 UTC 2013
zomfg.
This owner could have Obama-like authority.
The monopolies provided to semi-private public utilities
are always a risk for abuse.
On 07/30/13 5:54, David Green wrote:
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> *From:* Danielle Chynoweth <chyn at ojctech.com>
> *To:* "imc-makerspace at lists.chambana.net"
> <imc-makerspace at lists.chambana.net>;
> "discuss-communitycourtwatch at lists.chambana.net"
> <discuss-communitycourtwatch at lists.chambana.net>; Closed list for
> IMC Board of Directors Discussion
> <imc-boardofdirectors at lists.chambana.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2013 1:54 PM
> *Subject:* [Discuss] Essential mtg on future of public broadband
> in CU: Tues 7pm in Champaign Council chambers
>
> The two city councils are meeting jointly Tues 7pm in Champaign
> council chambers to discuss a proposal to give the assets of UC2B
> to a private, non-profit 501(c)4 organization.
>
> I question strongly why we would hand over $33 million dollars in
> public assets to a private entity. According the documents, which
> I have reviewed in detail, this new owner will be able to alter
> its own bylaws, eject troublesome directors, meet in private with
> little cause, meet and make decisions in remote locations, and
> even take action in writing without a meeting or any public
> oversight. If the group decides to dissolve, there is no provision
> that the assets would revert to public ownership or give the
> public right of first refusal.
>
> Tuesday is the best time to give input. They will meet and review
> an Intergovernmental agreement and bylaws at 7pm and public input
> is at 8pm.
>
> Final votes on this are next week Aug 5 7pm in Urbana Aug 6 7pm in
> Champaign.
>
> Below is a draft of my letter to the councils, written
> representing myself not UCIMC, that might give some additional
> background and ways forward.
>
> You may view the proposed intergovernmental agreement and bylaws
> <http://archive.ci.champaign.il.us/archive/dsweb/Get/Document-12564/SS%202013-037.pdf>.
>
> - Danielle
>
>
> LETTER TO COUNCILS ON UC2B
> Good evening. My name is Danielle Chynoweth and I live at 412 W.
> Illinois St. in Urbana.
> I have been advocating for universal access in Champaign Urbana
> for 15 years and advise the FTC and FCC on media policy. In
> addition to co-owning Pixo, an IT business in Urbana, I serve on
> the board of the Independent Media Center, an active anchor on the
> UC2B network. We have worked towards digital inclusion for 13
> years and engineered an open source wireless mesh network used
> internationally. I served on Urbana City Council from 2001 to 2008
> during which I, along with Peter Resnick, spearheaded the
> Broadband Access Committee of the the Cable & Telecommunications
> Commission - the committee that shepherded the BTOP grant.
> I want to commend everyone for your hard work to develop a next
> generation network that has the potential to be an economic and
> educational game changer in our community. Few in this community
> yet realize what UC2B can make possible for us.
> I understand we are under a tight deadline to determine the holder
> of UC2B assets. I have read the intergovernmental agreement and
> bylaws in detail and have specific recommendations that will help
> us avoid unintended consequences and ensure the network continues
> to grow in the public interest. We, the taxpayers, committed $33
> million to this network with this provision: that it would operate
> in the public interest.
> I support the creation of a non-profit entity to govern and
> operate the network. A 501©4 is a flexible vehicle to support growth.
> That said, I question strongly why we would hand over $33 million
> dollars in public assets to a private entity. Especially one that
> can write its own bylaws, eject troublesome directors, meet in
> private with little cause, meet and make decisions in remote
> locations, and even take action in writing without a meeting or
> any public oversight. Worse yet, if the group decides to dissolve,
> there is no provision that the assets would revert to public
> ownership or give the public right of first refusal.
> I am concerned that if we hand over this asset, we lose our
> ability to use municipal bonds to grow the network. Fiber networks
> that seek to be universal often need an investor or bonds to build
> out. Courting investors means we lose control, bonds retain public
> control and make benefits, such as surplus, public.
> Here are some proposed changes:
> *Ownership*
> - Create the 501©4 to govern the network but retain public
> ownership of it while providing UC2B a long term lease.
> - Public ownership is the right direction. If for some reason you
> decide to transfer the assets, at the very least make sure the
> ownership of the network transfers back to the cities upon
> dissolution of UC2B. Give the cities right of first refusal in any
> sale.
> - Sale of the network to a for profit entity should require a
> public referendum to ensure the board is good stewards with public
> funds.
> *Appointments and removals*
> - The cities and university should retain appointment authority of
> the board. The board should not have the option of changing the
> way the board is constituted at this point. Although I can see the
> benefits of gaining some independence in the future, I think this
> is a process and should only be done if there is more transparency
> and accountability built in.
> - UC2B currently has two community representatives, albeit they
> are non voting. Under the bylaws, this is not guaranteed. Having
> board positions for users or representatives from anchor
> institutions on the board will make it stronger and more informed.
> - If you choose not to stipulate room for community
> representatives, I suggest the bylaws create a standing committee
> of network users who are subscribers or affiliated with anchor
> institutions.
> - Remove 4.6 in the bylaws which allows "a Director to be removed
> *for any reason for cause* by an affirmative vote of not less than
> two-thirds (2/3) of the Directors then entitled to vote; provided,
> however that such affirmative vote must include at least one (1)
> Director appointed by each of the Appointing Entities." and later
> says "For this purpose, cause shall include b*ut not be limited
> to* malfeasance, unethical or unprofessional behavior, breach of a
> duty to the Corporation and/or conduct which prevents or makes it
> difficult for the Board to conduct business." This seems to be
> unusual language that allows Directors to remove other Directors
> for subjective reasons like making "it difficult" for the Board to
> conduct business. I think the appointing entities should have this
> power, not the board itself. The board has the power of majority
> vote which should be sufficient. I see no reason why to include
> this strange stipulation that can have the effect of silencing
> important, minority points of view.
> *Public meetings and notices*
> - As written, the board can go into closed session for any reason
> deemed in the interest of the network with majority vote. I
> suggest closing the meetings require 2/3 vote as long as the
> "yeses" include one vote from each appointing entity.
> - Notices of meetings should be public always. Directors shall
> (not may) report periodically to the councils, and meetings must
> be held in Champaign Urbana.
> - Section 5.12 on Action by Written Consent states: "Any action
> required or permitted to be taken at any meeting of the Board of
> Directors or any committee thereof may be taken *without a
> meeting*, if all members of the Board of Directors or of such
> committee, as the case may be, at the time in office, consent
> thereto in writing and the writing or writings are filed with the
> minutes of the proceedings of the Board of Directors or of such
> committee." This should not be allowed by is circumvents the
> public meetings clause above. The board can take action without
> any meeting or accountability to the public.
> As we work through governance issues, I want to remind us that the
> most important thing we could be doing right now is ensuring the
> network is functional and viable. Just like a business, poor
> customer service or public perception can set back our ability to
> grow. I recommend bringing in operations consultants - such as
> Hiawatha Broadband Communications in Minnesota which has a strong
> reputation in this regard.
> This is a vulnerable time in the creation of the network and we
> should not lose confidence in ourselves at this moment. This is
> not a time to act hastily and out of fear. It is a time for
> leadership, vision, and careful steps that continue to ensure the
> network can be viable and grow in the public interest.
> Thank you for your attention to these matters.
> Danielle
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss-communitycourtwatch
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130730/39d0399a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list