With councilors watching, ex-cable advisory members air frustration over Spectrum negotiations

WORCESTER — A day after it was reported several members of the Cable TV Advisory Committee resigned to protest City Manager Eric D. Batista’s announcement that the city would begin the renewal process with cable provider Spectrum, city councilors said Tuesday they hoped the city could work to mend fences.

Batista said Tuesday the city is in the very early stages of renewal talks with Spectrum. A lawyer hired to advise the city recommended letting the process play out, the manager said.

The City Council does not get to vote on any cable contract the city administration reaches, but the city must hold a public hearing on any deals reached.

More: Worcester cable TV board leaders resign in protest of Batista's Spectrum negotiations

City Solicitor Michael Traynor defended his legal argument for not allowing a petition filed by committee members to appear on Tuesday's City Council agenda.

In March, the advisory committee voted unanimously not to renew the city's cable contract with Spectrum, citing the company’s failure to meet numerous conditions in the expiring 10-year deal.

In a May 1 blog post , Batista wrote that the city would still undergo a renewal process with Spectrum.

Batista wrote that Spectrum doesn’t have exclusive rights in Worcester and another company could come in to provide cable services. However, that company would need to make the investment to purchase Spectrum’s existing cable network or build its own at a time when consumers are moving away from cable.

In addition, the manager claimed that denying Spectrum’s license would result in protracted legal proceedings and that residents would be left with no cable provider even if the city won in court. Batista wrote there would be no funding for cable services and PEG channels.

Members of the advisory committee strongly disagreed with Batista's blogpost and said Batista did not communicate his decision to them directly before publishing the blog. They felt the blog dismissed the years of work and resources they allocated to the process.

The Telegram & Gazette confirmed Monday that three members had resigned: John Keough, Stephen Quist and Phillip Lwasa.

Quist said Tuesday that member Sergio Bacelis also resigned, but he has not heard from the last of the five-member committee, William Nay.

While their petition was denied, Quist and Keough used a communication from Traynor on the Tuesday agenda outlining the cable license renewal process to address City Council.

"As a former member of the Cable Advisory Board, we represented close to 24,000 subscribers, 24,000 residents, 24,000 voters," Quist said. "We were the voice of the unheard. We were the voice of these subscribers that demanded change."

"We spent years diving into this information. We hired two different consultants for the first time ever in relation to cable. We hired an outside attorney," Keough said. "We spent tens of thousands of dollars for you to tell us through a blogpost that you were going to reject our stuff."

Even if the city loses cable due to moving toward nonrenewal, Keough said that could be OK because cable technology is obsolete. Batista could be a bold leader who envisions a city that moves past cable, Keough added.

Tuesday, Batista said there was misinformation about contract negotiations including the city negotiating with Spectrum on internet service or phone coverage. The city is negotiating only the cable contract, he said.

The manager added the ownership of utility poles in the city was misconstrued. He said National Grid and Verizon own the poles, not the city, and Spectrum rents them.

Batista stressed that he listens to feedback from residents and committee members. He said that he is familiar with Spectrum's issues as a Worcester resident himself and believed it was disrespectful to insinuate he disregarded residents.

"As city manager, I take everything into consideration and everything into consideration means the advice and recommendations from committees, also the advice and counsel from the city solicitor, the consultants and years of people's experiences doing this work," Batista said. "I don't just make a decision just to make a decision."

Batista also said he was the first city manager to ever allow the advisory committee to join the negotiating team for the cable contract.

In his communication to the City Council, Traynor wrote that it would be untenable to deny renewal of the contract before negotiating. However, the city reserves the right to deny renewal if Spectrum fails to meet the city's future cable-related needs.

The city solicitor wrote that the two parties are forging a working document ahead of substantive discussions.

Quist said Spectrum has violated its contract.

"Repeatedly Spectrum has violated their word, their contract, to the citizens and the subscribers of the city. And yet, we're willing to turn around and absolutely ignore a committee's findings to go plowing ahead with negotiations," Quist said.

Keough and Quist maintained the city denied their free speech rights by excluding the petition.

An email to Keough from City Clerk Nikolin Vangjeli laid out Traynor's interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos. Traynor found that an advisory committee appointed by a city manager cannot petition the City Council over a decision made by the city manager that is contrary to the advisory committee’s position.

Traynor’s interpretation equates advisory committee members with public employees and excludes their statements from citizens' First Amendment rights to free speech.

Quist and Keough said during public comment that committee members are volunteers who received no paycheck and that the decision excludes volunteers from the speech restriction in the ruling.

Traynor said Tuesday that volunteers who serve the city count as employees under conflict of interest law. It applies similarly in the case of the cable advisory committee.

"Employees, even unpaid employees, do not have the right under our form of government to jump over the city manager, who's their appointing authority and petition the City Council to change the manager's mind," Traynor said.

The administration and committee members also differed in their interpretations of the cable contract.

Traynor's communication also claims the ascertainment period of the renewal process, the period of reviewing past performance and assessing future needs, does not have a statutory time frame for completion. Keough said the city must declare nonrenewal 90 days before the end of the contract.

Keough said Traynor's communication mischaracterized the advisory committee's recommendation. They did not ask for the city to revoke Spectrum's cable license, but to go for nonrenewal. Keough said nonrenewal would be a federal process that would grant the city leverage.

Gerard Lederer, a lawyer and specialist in telecommunications and cable law hired by the advisory committee, said Tuesday the ascertainment period would not end until a renewal is signed or denied. If a renewal is denied, parties would then move to litigation, he said.

Lederer said if a cable franchise contract expires, federal law has found the existing franchise has to be honored until a renewal or denial. The city entered a yearlong extension of the contract to the state so they can negotiate with Spectrum, he added

On the state of the renewal process, Lederer said the city has only just begun to review Spectrum's response to the city's initial document.

"The idea that somehow negotiations have been taking place, that's actually not accurate," Lederer said.

Spectrum has been amenable to some of the city's proposed changes so far, Lederer said.

The attorney said it is premature to say whether the city should renew the contract, but he said the city would need to have a detailed legal analysis for denying the contract.

The city did catch a former Spectrum representative incorrectly saying there was no senior cable discount in the contract and Spectrum agreed to make amends to those who were denied a discount, Lederer said.

Lederer praised the advisory committee, saying they have done yeoman's work in committing to the process.

"I'm not sure that I've ever seen a cable commission that's as committed to the process as what you have in Worcester," Lederer said.

Mayor Joseph M. Petty said he wanted to resolve the issues between the advisory committee members and the administration, saying he believed both had common goals even if there were communication issues.

"The real issue is how this committee has felt, at the end of the day, and how do we repair that," Petty said.

District 5 City Councilor Etel Haxhiaj requested the city extend an offer to the committee members who resigned so they could return to their roles.

After the Tuesday discussion, Quist said he remains disappointed with the city administration. He said Batista and Traynor's response amounted to "playing semantics with language."

Quist said during public comment that he would never volunteer for the city again and he remained resolute following the council's discussion.

"I spent 45 years in the city volunteering; I've never been treated with such disrespect. I have no intention of ever serving within the city again," Quist said.

While he was still annoyed by the process, Batista announced his thoughts on renewal, Keough said, adding that hearing Lederer tell the council Spectrum admitted to giving false information about senior discounts and his general praise vindicated the committee's work.

Keough said he hopes the committee can find a way to come back and be a part of negotiations.

"We want to do this work. We're committed to it," Keough said.

Both Keough and Quist said former committee members would discuss the future of the advisory committee.

This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: With councilors watching, ex-cable advisory members air frustration over Spectrum negotiations