working with young people could not get into bayback because maybe they were -- they wasn't ready. to drop the grits and bacon for crapes and/or rang juice. like some of my -- and orange juice. like some of my people have done. that's the contradictions, not that it's not doing well for it but i'm advocating for the uner city youth that need and have good, good items of social change but because of their trainers they are not getting the full attention and access to the technology, the media, and the money. this program does that. i made that happen. from hunter's point, through the mission district youth that are failing school are artists that produce programs for not only

san francisco but throughout ports of california. supervisor campos: thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi, supervisors. good morning. my name is tracy, director of immediate alliance. i have spoken to you before on this issue and i will once again. let's start with some numbers. the operating budget for access san francisco the last couple of years was $895,000. bayback is receiving an annual subsidy from you of $190,000. in addition they receive $700,000 from the department of technology for capital extenses -- capital expenses they have requested. if we do the math, $it equals $900,000. you are being asked to release $295,000 more in additional money so they can keep the doors opened. that's $1.2 million annual

budget to keep the doors opened. for that you have less open hours. no evenings. and weekends whatsoever. you have less local programming on the air. you have higher cost. memberships for individuals and you have less training classes. just so you understand that. for $1.2 million. why would someone have trouble keeping the doors opened with $1.2 million? i think you have to look at having spent more than a couple hundred thousand dollars tearing down a facility you already had. moving across-town, and rebuilding it back up. that's where much of your $700,000 has been spent. that's not the best track record in the world. i want to reiterate that there is a complaint from your own sunshine task force that was upheld. that's important. i want to reiterate i have been waiting for one year to go talk to bayback's board of directors about the concerns that i have

regarding public access services. the first opportunity for me to do so will be august 23, 2010. i had that as one year after the contract was signed. 12 months to give public input to the board of directors of a nonprofit that says they are accountable. that doesn't make sense to me. you have your own producers, their own producers coming here saying, hold their feet to the fire. i just heard that. i think maybe we need to hold their feet to the fire. and i think the way that we do that is by saying, you need to do a little better than you have been doing before we drop good money after the $900,000 we have already spent this year. i would ask you not to approve the settlement. i don't think public access services in san francisco are where they need to be. thanks. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good morning. i'm archbishop richardson. i've been doing access for about 15 years and i'm basically supporting that the funds be approved from comcast to come in because the first amendment right is involved. we have a lot of problems but there are more problems that are about to occur in washington. there is a bill going through congress right now to actually have money go to the state for broadcasting, no longer coming to the cities. what this bill will do is basically cut more funding away from public access. so, in other words, if this bill passes the house, congress and signed. the funding will no longer come to san francisco. it will go to sacramento. and what's going to happen? it's going to be less money. so that means that poor people

that have access to cable won't be able to watch it because they can't afford to pay. . $60, $70, $80, $90 and food comes first. what we have to do here in sentences go is we cannot dwell on our own issues. -- what we have to do here in san francisco is the cannot dwell on our own issues. we are one of the leaders in this nation on public access. it is important to set this record straight and get it done. we have focused on a first amendment rights. as a city and as a community, we need to get more involved as producers, and have access to

whatever information is needed. that of course must be done. but we must keep an eye on washington -- keep a close eye on d.c. if, for some reason, we are having problems running public access, they are going to take it away. if they take it away, we lose a big battle of access producers being able to show their own work of art. so i am for comcast giving up the money. we have many problems in san francisco, but we do not need to lose our public access tv station. we should keep it going. if they are out of compliance, they need to get checked and

balanced. there need to be some more producers on these committees that can come back to you with the message. chairperson campos: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is howard. it has come to my attention that members of the borders of -- of the board of supervisors have seen a stumbling block in the media alliance. as the media alliance treasurer, i want to thank you for your deference to this fine organization. however, in my opinion you have been misled by the testimony of the executive director of our organization in putting forth her personal opinions as those

of the organization. before i get to that, i want to say i also serve on the san francisco commons community advisory board. i have been a producer of weekly shows on san francisco cable access since the beginning of 2006. i would rather spend my time telling you the reasons that i feel the bay event deserves our thanks and congratulations. but there are many reasons i feel compelled to deal with a more negative issue, not the least of which is my regard -- excuse me. because of my unique position of serving on both boards and my years of involvement with both communities, i feel it is incumbent on me to refute the claims and testimony on which you have been relying.

there are two important points that i wish you to consider. first and foremost, i want you to be aware that miss rosenberg's statements on this matter do not reflect a formal position of the alliance board. in spite of my call for a vote at the beginning of the year, we debated the matter before the board and others expressed opinions, but no vote was taken due to pressing fiscal matters we were addressing and the fears by some members that the issue would become divisive at a bad time. media alliance has been a longtime supporter of access as of -- access sf. it was ms. rosenberg's decision to move her media news to the berkeley cable access studio at the beginning of the year. this is logistically sensible, as media alliance is an oakland based organization and she is an

east bay residents. but i do not understand how she can claim to represent cable access producers with whom she has severed ties. in light of these considerations, asked the rules committee and board of supervisors to reassess the weight they have given to her prior testimony, which i am willing to certify as incomplete, uninformed, and riddled with inaccuracies, which amounted to address on a point by point basis, if you would give me the time to do so. chairperson campos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is ken johnson. i have been involved with cable television public access since its beginning. i have been involved with a lot of groups throughout the city, and the main reason -- what we

were trying to accomplish with public access was to put up studios throughout the city where they have had in this. that is the connection where you can televise your programming from a head in. there are 11 throughout the city. that used to cost -- the cost of equipment prohibited that in the past. but now video cameras are down to three or 400 cameras -- three or $400. you can buy a good camera for less than $1,000. to open up these different facilities throughout the city, you would get more youngsters involved, more communities involved. right now, you have one facility. what i am saying is give them the funds with a stipulation

that they would open up community access facilities throughout the city, like the flash studios. i know supervisor ross has seen a flash studio. have you other supervisors seen a flash studio and know what that is? chairperson campos: this is a time for public comment. we do not interact. it is for us to listen to what you have to say. >> what i am saying is i have been teaching a class with brothers of change. i have some of my students here who can speak to the importance of media. having won facility is good, but it should be more open to the public. if you had studios to wrap the city, where these head ins are at, you could get more youngsters off the street.

television production is really -- it helped change my life. if i did not get involved with the television, there is no telling what might have happened with me. what i am saying is give bay back the money, with stipulation that they would provide money for community centers to open up satellite facilities. i talked with mr. -- i am not a good speaker. i talked with mr. frazier and the department. chairperson campos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is jen gilliman.

i am the director of media strategies and managed the commons program at bay bak. we have had quite a year. it has been a challenge merging these two communities and trying to start of the programs at market street, undergoing a transition, getting things up and started, and trying to welcome more people into public access. that has been our goal. i hope you will look at the cover sheet and that entire report, which chronicles an entire year of good faith efforts on our part to be more inclusive with public access, to bring more people in, to use the resources the best we can, to deal with this $170,000 to pay my staff members, one of whom is funded through the stimulus jobs now program through the end of september.

without these $375,000 we will probably have to let them go. to tell you a little bit about the day-to-day operations of what goes on at the station, which provide free field gear to all of the producers, which is cameras, lights, tripods, microphones -- anything they need to do production in the field. we provide a main studio space with white grid and microphones they can use. we have a flash studio -- with light grid and microphones they can use. we have people editing in the edit suites. when we do not have edit suites available, we put them into a computer lab. we teach them to use e-mail so we can communicate with them more effectively. we host community meetings and public events. every month, we do some sort of networking and community event. we do orientations by

appointments. all they need to do is call us and make an appointment. we give them a tour of the facility and tell them how they can begin to produce programs. we provide training at a very low cost. each is about $20 to $60. we implemented a low-income membership program for $10 a year. people have access to everything i described. my staff members are working really, really hard to get all of that done. i really want to increase the membership, increase access, and gradually build these programs over time. we are working with the city pretty extensively on broadband adoption and trying to make use of the comcast fiber network that exists. we used a lot of our capital money to equip cultural centers so we can do training there, bring more access into the community, put field here there, and help them produce live shows

from their theaters. chairperson campos: thank you, but we do have a question. supervisor mar: with the shoestring budget you are trying to operate -- tracy rosenfeld give us some numbers saying you got a $700,000 grant from the department of technology. is that separate from the 170,000 you're laying out for us? the second question is why did it take a year before a meeting was allowed with video alliance, which i think is a representative group of many local and small media producers. why did it take so long? explain a little bit more of your numbers to counter what she said. >> $170,000 a year is our operating budget. that grant comes from the department of technology just for operating expenses. because of the statewide franchise agreement, which partly requires that capital and operating are separate from the

franchise fees of $2.10 million total to the city of san francisco from comcast are split between p&g. those can only be used for capital expenses. we request but would like to spend those capital funds on. when she refers to a potential of $695,000 a year for capital, that only can be used for hardware, rent, physical objects like servers and equipment to equip the station. that is part of what we want to spend on some of these other sites as well. $170,000 has to cover everything operational, which is all the staff time, utilities, supplies, percentages of other time billed as actual expenses -- tech support -- our utilities -- everything it takes to operate the station, provide training, and all of that.

should i answer the second point as well? i am still not certain what tracy's reasoning was for not continuing her programming with us. she was definitely invited to do so. i have done advocacy with her at the state and national level. i do not understand where she is coming at bay back with not only antagonism but a series of unclear or factually incorrect information she is trying to disseminate to the community. i think barry in the department of technology can back up our numbers. my report is the actual facts and numbers. supervisor mar: thank you for the information. i know mr. arcada addressed the sunshine taskforce ruling in favor of people that you are not being transparent and

accessible. >> it is coming from nick pascarello, who spoke earlier. he sent several letters via fax demanding we communicate with him via certified post to his post office box. he claimed we stand his id, which we never did. when we took over the station, we inherited seven filing cabinets that were completely full of photocopies of people's drivers' licenses, dating back to the early 1990's. the previous operator required everyone, every time the submitted a show, to prove their sentences go residents by photocopying their ideas. we shredded all of those documents. we still require people provide a proof of residence to receive these services. but mr. paxcarello is not even a member of bay back.

his id is not in our database. we do not have anything from him except his post office box and his name. when he went to the sunshine taskforce, he was submitting a complaint that he did not receive documents he had requested from us. the sunshine board told him he is supposed to request those departments -- those documents to the department of technology. he failed to do so and went to the sunshine board with a subsequent complaints about the same issue. it is stuff we have to deal with, and pay a lawyer to deal with. chairperson campos: anything else? >> and no, unless there is another question. chairperson campos: is there another member of the public? i have a card from mr. dixon. you can go as well, sir. you can go ahead.

>> my name is gilbert francis. i have recently become affiliated with bay back. over three months, in that course of time, i have been amazed at what goes on in making films. i have always been to movies, but i have never even thought about making one. these people are very, as far as i am concerned, hard working. it did not cost even the minimum amount it would have cost to do this on my own. the staff has been wonderful, and i am not just putting people on the back. i have learned quite a bit about the industry. we have a cub in the san francisco fillmore district which is called the san francisco domino club.

supervisor mirkarimi has come to our domino tournament. anyway, we were able to broadcast that event on channel 29. it was very successful. a lot of people saw it and were enthusiastic about it. we want to do it again on labor day. i am really appreciative of the time and effort that has been taken by these people at bay back. thank you for your time. chairperson campos: thank you, sir. mr. dixon? >> i am a student of mr. johnson's media class. i wanted to say it has been a wonderful experience so far.

they have taught us about how to work the camera and things like that. we are people who do not get this type of experience every day, you know what i am saying? the interview on channel 7 -- it has been a great experience so far. i just hope it continues. chairperson campos: is there any other member of the public who would like to speak? please come forward. >> i am one of the producers the access station. some of the member said that it is very important to keep the community access going. however, my question is what is the blueprint for the bay back when they apply for the contract? they are quite aware that the

operational budget was $175,000. however, that capsule of money was not limited within what the city would pay, the capital expenses needed. it is about $1 million to build a station on market street. it was probably a location which was not anybody coming. the city would pay for it. that is where i want to know the dismantled station -- it did not cost anything for them to continue to operate it. however, the dismantled and moved all the equipment to their own building. they get $5,000 of grant money from the city every month. they are at their own space.

it took almost one year, and the main studio is not open yet. the flat studio is open. most of the equipment there was moved from the old studio. i thought it was almost ready to operate. now, i am informed by other members who attended the mass meeting. they said that because of the lack of money they cannot operate. but in that blueprint, they dismantled all the studio, that beautiful studio, and moved to this building. given the $5,000 extra to keep the space for community access, or shared with bay back, i do not know how they are using the

community access studio. it still is not operating because they do not have enough money to hire somebody else. what was the plan to move the studio over there if we cannot use it? that was my question. the complaint about money, but that money they use to continue to operate the studio could be paid by the city outside of the budget. chairperson campos: is there any other member of the public would like to speak? simenon, public comment is closed. before we go into closed session, supervisor m irkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: i want to refresh people's memories as to why this item is before us. it was approximately two years ago where public access, the

public portion, in particular among the grouping of peg funding was slated to become an endangered species. that was quite frankly because our ability to negotiate the franchise agreement in san francisco was completely hijacked by state law, known as divca, and the federal law as well. the digital and video content act inhibited our ability to broker the kind of generation of revenue we have been used to for so many years before. when that happened, we scrambled fast to make sure that programmatic funding would still be in fused so that we would not see any loss of public access here in san francisco.

in that endeavor, we learned quite a bit about the current operation, as we had come to know in its and pieces on the studio. what a costly endeavor that happened to be based on old budgets. we also heard that department of technology was essentially wanting to modify public access to the point where i was extremely concerned, as many of you, colleagues, as both of you were coming into elected office, that the city was pulling out in its support. public access barely gets any general funding. they do not get the level of funding one would think from the general fund. the distinction that needs to be made clear is what isqu