Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Discussion - CCTV and Its Future
Discussion - CCTV and Its Future
3)
Policy
This
note
has
been
prepared
by
David
Allen;
he
is
responsible
for
its
editorial
content.
Exhaustive
input
has
been
sought
from
all
participants
in
the
meeting,
to
ensure
faithful
reporting.
Further,
the
draft
has
been
forwarded
to
the
about-‐a-‐
dozen
members
of
the
CCTV
board
to
insure
complete
fact-‐checking.
To
be
clear,
the
author
is
the
sole
person
responsible
for
its
content;
the
document
does
not
speak
even
informally
for
any
entity.
The
ensuing
policy
discussion
benefited
from
robust
dialogue
between
two
opposed
views
for
a
path
forward,
as
was
argued
by
the
two
listening
to
the
historical
narrative.
Some
documentation
related
to
the
matter
overall
is
linked
at
the
conclusion.
1)
THE
PICTURE
THAT
EMERGED
The
leadership
of
CCTV
bring
lifetimes
of
experience
directly
focused
on
the
mission
of
CCTV.
And
vision
for
its
future.
And
concern,
and
effort,
to
get
it
there.
Both
Neville
Webb
and
Sid
Levin
began
in
community
television,
in
other
words
they
began
in
organizations
such
as
CCTV
–
and
more
importantly,
care
about
it
and
its
future
vitality.
Each
now
with
about
30
years
experience,
each
has
risen
to
quite
responsible
positions
in
work
that
goes
to
the
heart
of
CCTV
operations
–
video
production.
They
bring
now
seasoned,
frankly
remarkable
capability
for
the
necessary
leadership.
One
heads
a
department,
at
one
of
the
top
investment
firms
nationally,
Boston-‐
based;
the
department
among
others
is
responsible
for
video
production.
The
other
is
co-‐founder
of
an
award-‐winning
media
production
company
serving
both
broadcast
and
Fortune
100
clients.
They
made
a
point
of
assembling
an
equally
stellar
CCTV
board,
for
instance
including
the
producer
of
Chronicle.
They
are
in
touch
in
detail,
necessarily
by
their
vocations,
with
the
technology
and
business
models
on
this
turf.
Which
also
is
evolving
rapidly.
From
this,
they
see
where
the
future
of
CCTV
may
need
to
go
as
the
cableco
monopolist
Comcast
comes
under
increasing
pressure.
Perhaps
to
the
point
where
payments
from
Comcast
shrink,
even
significantly.
And
as,
for
instance,
video
shifts
to
streaming,
onto
a
phone
and
a
tablet.
What
did
they
get
for
their
troubles?
Three
years
of
harassment
and
distraction
by
town
officials
who
insisted
on
taking
over
the
operation
–
but
could
give
no
clear
reason
for
wanting
to
do
so.
Except,
it
seems
possible
the
Town
Manager
has
his
eye
on
the
kitty
of
cash
now
at
CCTV
and
incoming.
For
instance,
and
as
reported
in
the
Concord
Journal,
we
noted
the
Town
Manager’s
current
difficulty
to
find
enough
town
budget
even
for
upcoming
town
salary
increases.
For
now,
this
possibility
is
speculation.
Rather
than
bring
to
CCTV
the
remarkable
opportunity
their
leadership
offered
–
instead
the
two
had
to
spend
their
time
struggling
with
the
town
administration.
For
instance,
one
Board
member
they
had
recruited
stepped
away,
apparently
in
frustration.
Or,
a
contract
renewal
offered
earlier,
2015,
was
‘punitive.’
As
to
whether
nonperformance?
There
were
two
complaints
over
the
period,
both
dealt
with
and
resolved
promptly.
Within
the
terms
of
the
contract
with
the
town.
Not
only
was
there
appropriate
performance,
had
the
CCTV
team
been
given
its
head
as
any
sensible
appreciation
of
the
situation
would
immediately
have
done,
the
present
and
future
blossoming
of
CCTV
could
have
gone
forward.
For
instance,
one
idea
would
have
seen
engagement
with
the
town
citizens,
on
a
weekly
basis,
in
Concord
center.
That
would
have
made
CCTV
‘live’
for
the
town,
put
2
it
front
and
center,
as
a
portal
to
the
rest
of
what
CCTV
might
bring.
Sadly,
that
was
not
to
be,
after
the
struggle
with
the
town
administration
sucked
up
the
bandwidth.
There
was
a
request
that
CCTV
cover
a
FinCom
meeting.
The
crew
went
to
cover
the
meeting,
but
the
chair
of
the
FinCom
refused
to
allow
them
to
do
so.
While
town
officials
blamed
CCTV
falsely,
the
officials
should
instead
have
had
an
earnest
discussion
with
the
FinCom
chair.
Public
meeting
law
is
clear
on
the
right
to
record.
When
there
was
a
complaint
about
audio,
CCTV
did
serious
work
to
propose
a
fix
–
which
was
then
blocked
by
the
town
administration!
Also,
the
CCTV
board
might
have
further
discussion
with
its
Executive
Director
about
initiatives
and
executing
them.
The
actual
mechanism
for
a
town
takeover?
The
town
administration
has
refused
to
renew
the
current
contract
with
CCTV.
In
fact
the
town
administration
pressed
the
board
to
terminate
the
contract
early.
The
board
refused.
The
current
contract
ends
September
30
2018.
(Formally,
Concord
receives
money
from
Comcast
and
then
contracts
with
CCTV.)
The
above
is
the
narrative
from
the
two
officers
of
CCTV,
as
heard
by
the
two
listening,
presented
editorially
here
by
this
note’s
author.
As
is,
also,
the
following.
Harassment
by
the
town?
Let’s
turn
to
the
second
section:
2)
STARTING
IN
2015
TOWN
OFFICIALS
INITIATED
AN
ADVERSARIAL
RELATIONSHIP
WITH
THE
CCTV
BOD
As
new
contract
discussions
began
in
2015,
the
Town
Manager’s
dealings
with
the
CCTV
board
drastically
changed
from
collaborative
in
nature
to
adversarial.
Accusations
regarding
service
issues
were
presented
for
the
first
time
as
reason
to
seek
out
RFP’s
from
other
service
providers
or
submit
to
a
new
contract.
Those
discussions
quickly
devolved
into
accusatory
implications
about
the
board
motives
regarding
funds.
On
multiple
occasions
the
BoD
was
told
that
the
town
“had
to
be
protected
from
potentially
nefarious
behavior
by
the
board.”
“The
board
might
abscond
to
the
Cayman
Islands
with
CCTV
money.”
That
was
petty
–
but,
sadly,
completely
unacceptable
–
unprofessional
behavior.
These
patent
attempts
at
bullying
are
unacceptable
in
anyone,
and
most
especially
in
a
town
official
entrusted
to
work
in
the
citizens’
stead.
There
was
other
inexcusable
behavior,
far
from
petty.
3
This
of
course
is
a
volunteer
board.
No
one
is
paid
for
his/her
time.
The
town
in
effect
forced
the
CCTV
treasurer,
Chuck
Palmer,
every
pay
period
physically
to
come
down
to
the
Town
House
and
beg
for
a
check,
to
meet
the
payroll.
The
Town
Manager
never
returned
emails
to
the
President.
The
Town
Manager
promised
funding
for
legal
input
to
a
winding-‐down
process.
But
then
refused
actually
to
make
the
funds
available
until
after
the
shop
closed
up
–
when
the
money
would
be
useless.
3)
POLICY
David
Allen,
listening
to
the
narrative,
was
clear
that
it
is
time
for
political
action
to
raise
the
Select
Board’s
consciousness
on
the
matter
and
reverse
the
drive
to
take
over.
(Karlen
Reed
indicates
that
she does
not
concur
in
this
report’s
assertions
or
conclusions.
However,
she
has
not
offered
any
notice
of
areas
she
feels
need
attention,
despite
being
asked
twice
to
do
so.
Nor,
any
detail
as
to
an
item
reported
that
she
feels
may
be
inaccurate.)
David
Allen’s
view
summarizes
as
follows.
Fourth
Estate
considerations
dictate
that
broadcast
sources
in
the
community
be
strictly
independent.
Democracy
depends
fundamentally
that
broadcast
organs
be
free
to
tell
truth
to
power.
Even
the
structural
possibility
to
be
muffled
by
a
government
boss
carries
ominous
overtones,
certainly
redolent
of
chilling
historical
memes.
The
CCTV
Board
itself
rejected
the
takeover
unanimously,
in
part
on
Fourth
Estate
grounds.
Unfortunately,
there
were
reports
of
town
administration
sources
falsely
saying
there
was
agreement
all
around.
Of
course
not
only
the
board
but
the
staff
have
been
thoroughly
demoralized
by
this
onslaught.
With
the
board
deciding
in
recent
times
to
shift
its
focus
to
doing
what
it
can
to
protect
the
staff.
Beyond
Fourth
Estate,
the
opportunity
that
has
been
squandered
is
shameful.
The
volunteer
effort,
committed,
strong,
dedicated
and
upstanding,
from
some
of
the
most
qualified
folks
imaginable,
should
and
can
be
resurrected.
CCTV
has
been
a
vibrant
resource
in
Concord
and
Carlisle.
With
the
industry
in
flux,
dedicated
leaders
who
are
intimately
familiar
is
simply
essential.
Such
leaders
who
are
among
the
best
individuals
available,
willing
and
committed,
is
a
godsend.
If
we
judge
by
“what
is
for
the
good
of
Concord,”
here
we
see
it.
A
raid
on
the
treasury
of
the
organization,
by
contrast
–
as
may
be
underway
–
would
be
a
grim
and
laughable
caricature
of
anything
that
might
be
paraded
as
good
government.
4
The
discussion
also
considered
some
policy
questions.
CAN
AN
INDEPENDENT
NOT-‐FOR-‐PROFIT
BE
ACCOUNTABLE?
There
are
manifest
living
examples
of
rock-‐solid
cases.
The
organization
of
the
League
of
Women
Voters
is
a
staunch
model
for
instance.
Examples
practically
litter
the
landscape,
the
Sierra
Club,
the
Nature
Conservancy,
and
so
forth.
Structural
models
for
sound
accountability
abound.
CCTV
has
even
been
audited
already.
THE
NETWORK
INFRASTRUCTURE,
CONCORD
BROADBAND,
IS
CONTROLLED
BY
THE
TOWN.
WHY
NOT
CCTV?
The
ISO
seven-‐layer
network
model
starkly
distinguishes
physical
media
at
level
1
and
content
at
level
7,
among
others
for
policy
implications.
With
net
neutrality
for
physical
media
such
as
Concord
Broadband’s
fiber
a
paramount
consideration,
the
available
choice
between
demonstrated
malfeasance
by
private
network
actors
as
against
control
at
the
ballot
box
seems
clear.
Content
at
level
7
–
the
work,
in
other
words,
of
CCTV
–
is
the
opposite
case.
With
the
point
instantiated
by
Fourth
Estate
dictates.
PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
The
“Town”
is
not
its
administrative
staff,
nor
even
its
Select
Board.
The
Town
is
its
citizens.
They
look
to
the
Select
Board
they
elect
to
effect
their
will.
In
this
case
that
puts
the
focus
on
word
going
unmistakably
to
the
Select
Board,
in
no
uncertain
terms.
The
SB
are
responsible
for
their
sole
employee,
the
Town
Manager,
in
this
case
for
the
sound
choice
about
CCTV.
SOME
RELATED
DOCUMENTATION
For
convenience,
a
couple
documents
have
been
made
accessible
online
• Letter
from
the
CCTV
BOD
to
the
Concord
Select
Board,
May
2,
2017
• Note
regarding
wind-‐up
legal
costs,
July
17
2017
Reportage
and
a
letter
in,
respectively,
the
Concord
Journal
and
the
Carlisle
Mosquito
• Talks
continue
over
Concord
control
of
CCTV
–
Concord
Journal,
March
21
2017
• Concord
not
to
renew
contract
with
CCTV
–
Concord
Journal,
October
3
2017
• CCTV
board
members
respond
–
Carlisle
Mosquito,
October
11
2017
5