[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 00:54:51 UTC 2013
Rural Hamilton County, IL, a fairly backward backwoods place
by just about any yardstick one chooses, has fibre-optic cable
running everywhere. They had no electrical power until 1947 and
no telephone service until the early 1960's. The electrical power
is provided by an REA Co-op and is cheap and effective. The
telephone service for the rural areas is also a local cooperative
run by a local board populated mostly by local farmer-types.
The local telephone co-op ran fibre-optic lines for high speed internet
everywhere some
10 years ago. Interestingly internet is an important service
for agriculture.
They give the patrons of the co-op a dividend payment
every year that is proportional to the amount of years past service that
they used. It can amount to several hundred dollars per year.
Champaign-Urbana would be well-advised to consider such a model,
but there seems to be too much money at stake in C-U for the
vampires and the maggots to not get in on the money pie.
Ameren stock is considered to be a sound investment since they
regularly reap benefits from the people they have in absolute
captivity.
On 07/30/13 8:33, "E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森" wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130730/75be17b7/attachment.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list