HomeMy WebLinkAboutAB-185~s~p~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
~ `~_
~` ~ ADMINfSTRATiON CENTER
d' 25 cOUNTY CENTER DRi1/E, SUITE 2Q0 - ORa111LLE, CALIFORNIA 955
"••+ Ti*t.EPHQNE: (530) 538-7631
March 21, 2013
The Honorable Roger Hernandez
Member, California State Assembly
P. O. Box 942849
State Capitol, Roam 4146
Sacramento, CA 94249-004$
RE: Assembly Bill I.SS (Hernandez} - OPPOSE
Dear Assembly Member Hernandez:
sil_L cONNELLY
f+irst~I~~~
LARRY WAHL
Second I}isfict
MAUREEN KIRK
Third Dlstr€ct
STEVE LAMBERT
Faurtfi DIs[rict
DOUG TEETER
Fifth District
z ~ zors
a~ovluF. Gau~o~~
On behalf of the Butte County Boards of Supervisors, I am writing in OPPOSITION of
Assembly Bi11185, which puts a mandate on counties to televise open and public meetings of its
legislative body and any of its advisory committees; authorizes the use of cable franchise fees for
this purpose, and directs, if franchise fees are available, to use the fees to provide live streaming
of these meeting on the Internet. While Butte County supports wholeheartedly transparency in
government and has taken steps to ensure that some public meetings are available over cable and
the Internet, we feel this bill goes too far. Butte County's key concerns are as follows:
• Purpose of franchise fees -Local agencies receive cable franchise fees in exchange for
the use ofpublicrights-of--way for the delivery of cable and video services provided
within the jurisdictions. The fees are discretionary in nature and are primarily used by
Iocal jurisdictions to fund local priorities and such as public safety. Prioritizing televising
and/or live streaming of public meetings over other critical local services makes no sense
and does not meet local priorities.
• A conscious decision was ~aaade by the Legislature under DIVCA -When considering
the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA), the Legislature approved
it with the full knowledge that statewide needs and requirements for public, educational,
and governmental (PEG} channels would not meet heal demands. AB 185 wants heal
agencies to fund a new policy direction by felting financial responsibility for filling a gap
left by DIVCA.
• Unreasonable mandate -Televising all open and public meetings, even in the smallest
of counties, is unreasonable. Butte Counfiy, alone, would have to determine whether it is
"financially feasible", whatever that might mean, to televise andfor stream meetings for
over 30 committees and advisory bodies. AB 185 imposes another costly mandate upon
local governments.
~ ~~ a ~~
VVe appreciate your intent with AB 185, but do not feel you have found the right balance
between transparency, respecting local priorities, and realistically available funding. At thus
bane, and for the reasons stated in this letter, we must oppose your AB 1$5.
Sincerely, ff --
~~ L~t7'
Bill Connelly, Chair
Butte Co//unty Board of Supervisors
cc: t/iVlembers of the Assembly Local Government Committee
p,,fThe Honorable Brian Dahle, IViember of California State Assembly
'The Honorable Dan Lague, Member of Galifornia State Assembly
~,T~e Honorable Tim Nielsen, Member of California. State Senate
P,Members, Board of Supervisors
,,CRC
'c
ul Yoder, Strategic Local Government Solutions
2