Meditations on mediation

Well, not much to share. I reported to the Woodbridge BOS tonight, but my update took place in Executive Session;

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN
MARCH 14, 2007
DRAFT MOTIONS

At 8:35 p.m. the Board VOTED UNANIMOUSLY (Sabshin – Stein) to move into Executive Session Pursuant to Section 1-200(6)(b) litigation: Denise Capone vs. Town of Woodbridge, and DPUC Mediation – Town Specific Television Channel. Invited to attend: Ms. McCreven, Chair, Government Access Television Commission; Messrs. Genovese, Hellauer, Perito, and Mrs. Shaw. At 8:45 p.m. the Board returned to the regular meeting. No motions were made or votes taken in Executive Session.

More when I'm next at liberty to discuss...

Double up on your double speak, right here folks!

An odd message has landed in my inbox (even the salutation seems a bit off-kilter):

Dear First Selectman Sheehy and Sheila,

Late yesterday, the DPUC denied Sound View's January 31, 2007 request for an extension of time to February 28, 2007 for Sound View and Woodbridge to conclude a government access schedule policy. The DPUC Alternative Dispute Resolution department will be contacting Woodbridge and Sound View and hold the hearing at the DPUC.

I believe Woodbridge and Sound View can accomplish a mutually acceptable Agreement by February 28, and we are ready to address this at this time.

Thank you.

Thomas Castelot
President

Hhhmmm... Doesn't paragraph two seem to directly contradict paragraph one?

Or is it just me?

Has the romance gone sour so soon? The DPUC's 'Dear John' letter to Sound View

It looks like we are headed full-speed now into mediation. The relevant paragraph from the DPUC's near-Valentine message denying Sound View's request for an extension of the January 31st deadline for a scheduling agreement with towns:

A member of the Department staff will contact the affected parties to schedule an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) session at the Department’s New Britain offices. Prior to the first ADR session, the Department may direct the parties to respond to a limited number of information requests to facilitate the negotiations and mediation.

I will update here to let everyone know when Woodbridge hears from the DPUC. I assume we will be contacted, but want to be sure we are included in this ADR process, since our negotiation has hit a brick wall -- imho!

But does the DPUC know this?

Testifying for HB-5297

As many of our readers already know, State Representative Paul Davis (H-117) and State Senator Joe Crisco (S-17) have introduced a bill to the legislature to clarify the role of each municipality to determine PEG channel content. The text of their bill, HB-5297, reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That the general statutes be amended to allow municipalities to determine whether they will be served by a regional or town-specific approach to government-access television.

I've just added to our handy GovTV Document Collection the testimony of Ed Sheehy, Woodbridge First Selectmen who wholeheartedly endorses the bill.

What say you? Send a copy of your testimony to our bloggers and we will post it in our collection for all the world to see. Come on, join the fun and have your say!

The quick take away

Read the post below for greater detail, but the quick take away from the Sound View response is that they are offering us just about half the hours we proposed.

Instead of accepting our bid for 22 hours each of seven days (for a total of 154 hours per week) for town specific content here in Woodbridge, Sound View is suggesting we settle for 78 hours.

Let's keep in mind that since its inception in 2001, WGATV has been operated by the Town to provide exclusively town specific content a total of 168 hours each week.

That's a big loss of hours for WGATV and the people of Woodbridge.

Talk about the quick take away!

The Sound View Response

It was a cold and blustery day in Woodbridge, when suddenly an email landed in my Inbox. It's contents read thusly;

Dear First Selectman Sheehy,

The hard copy of the following attachments were mailed to you today. You will find Sound View's response to the Woodbridge Agreement dated February 7, 2007.

Thank you.

Tom Castelot
President

OK, so I was actually CCed on this message (along with Laurence our trusty Woodbridge CAC representative, and Dale the Sound View attorney). That's not exactly the same as receiving this blustery correspondence firsthand. But now, as I downloaded the attached files and waited for them to open on my screen, I paused to think, think, think.

And what to my wondering eyes should appear? Well, dear reader, you will have to access the Handy GovTV Document Collection to see for your self; first the Sound View Coverletter, then, when you are adequately prepared and have properly steeled yourself, the Sound View Counter Proposal. (Yes, go ahead and look now -- you can come back to this post when you are done reading the documents.)

OK. So. Our Proposal for a 22/7 town specific/regional split has been met with, essentially, a Counter Proposal that starts out offering 24/3 then quickly slides down hill from there to offer 1/4 a day of town specific on Thursdays and 0 hours for the remaining 3 days (which might otherwise be known as 0/3).

It seems we are far apart at the opening of our negotiation.

More soon!

Woodbridge Selectmen act on Scheduling Agreement

At the Special Meeting of the Woodbridge Board of Selectmen last night, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Proposal put together by our Commission. Check out the recording below for details.



The document (available as approved in our handy GovTV Document Collection) was sent to Sound View today, along with a cover letter from the Office of the First Selectman.

As soon as we hear any word back, I will update here...