General Findings

     1.   There are three major players in the  cable television
public, educational, and government (PEG) access area:  (1) the
State, through the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs
(DCCA), which requires the cable companies to provide and fund
PEG access; (2) the private for-profit cable companies, which
provide the access; and (3) the private nonprofit access
organizations, which provide the programming broadcast on the PEG
channels.  The federal government has only a minor role, in that
Congress permits franchising authorities (in Hawai'i, the State)
to require PEG access as a condition of granting the cable
company franchises.

     2.   Most jurisdictions delegate the management of public
access centers to a third party, usually a nonprofit "access
organization," in order to avoid First Amendment problems and
liability problems.  Although the access organization acts as a
buffer, insulating the government from liability, its ability to
do so is lessened as government involvement is increased.  In
Hawai'i, the State has an unusually high degree of involvement
with its access organizations.

     3.   Neither the federal law nor the state law explicitly
state what type of programming is intended under the public
access rubric.  One expert in the field has stated that beyond a
general agreement that there should be adequate channel capacity,
technically viewable tape, and equipment and facilities to
support the users, there are no guidelines in terms of content or
otherwise.  PEG access is often described as the video equivalent
of the speaker's soapbox or an electronic parallel to the printed
leaflet.

     4.   The legislative history of the federal law indicates
that there are two beneficiaries of PEG access: the individual
speaker, who is given a forum for his or her ideas, and the
community, who receives access to a diversity of viewpoints.
There are two types of access available to a speaker: access to
technology, which allows the speaker to create his or her own
video vision and air it, and access to the medium, which permits
someone with no training to have his or her views aired, without
the need to know how to operate any equipment.  At present, all
four access organizations offer the first option of production
training, but only 'Olelo and Akaku have the second option, which
is often termed an "Open Mike" show, in which speakers can have
their opinions taped and aired.  Both Ho'ike and Na Leo state
that their staff and budget are too tight to allow for this type
of program.  However, this type of program appears to be an
important component of public access for those who do not have
the time, money, or ability to produce their own shows.

     5.   While the neighbor islands' training takes about five
weeks, 'Olelo's takes a total of six months: one thirteen week
technical course and another thirteen week producer course.

     6.   There is some debate throughout the country on whether
access organizations should act merely as facilitators, supplying
training, equipment, and facilities through which individuals can
produce their own shows, or as production units, in which the
access organization provides the production crew while the user
just supplies the content.  In Hawaii, with the exception of
political debates, access organizations follow the facilitator
model.

     7.   At present, when selecting board members, access
organization boards nominate a suggested slate of members, which
is advisory only.  The slate is transmitted to the DCCA, which
has independent control on whom to appoint, and which in the past
has appointed members who were not nominated by the access
organization.  The DCCA appoints a majority of the board members
of each organization; the cable companies on each island appoint
the rest.  Considerable controversy exists on this method,
especially with the level of state involvement with the board
appointment process. 

     8.   The access organizations prefer an appointed board
format and oppose an elected board on the ground that the latter
is prone to "stacking" by producers who would seek the position
to further their own interests.

     9.   Criticism has been directed at the board selection
process by producers who contend that this method does not
guarantee representation by cable subscribers or producers, is
not democratic, removes choice of board members from the
community that knows them best, involves the State too closely
with the organization, and poses a conflict of interest through
cable company appointment of board members.

     10.  The Bureau looked at other models throughout the nation
and found boards of all types: elected boards, appointed boards,
self-appointed boards, and hybrid boards with both elected and
appointed members.  Very few of the access organizations
contacted have boards selected by the votes of all the cable
subscribers, although some create memberships that include cable
subscribers who have demonstrated interest in PEG access, and
permit these memberships to vote for board members.  There
appears to be no consensus as to the best board format.  

     One serious problem was brought to the Bureau's attention
concerning elected boards.  In some instances, elected producer
members took over the board and stifled it through micro-
management and self-serving decisions, to the point where the
elected members had to be either eliminated or significantly
reduced in number.

     11.  Election of board members by membership groups is
regarded as the most democratic form of board selection: they
keep the organization close to its constituency, they create the
greatest "arms' length" between government and PEG access, and
can be a source of funds and political support.  However,
membership groups are more cumbersome and more costly, can lead
to the stacking of the board by self-interest members, and have
more of a problem ensuring that a balance of members exist and
include necessary expertise.  Quorum requirements must be
carefully balanced to ensure that action can be taken but that a
small group cannot take over.  

     Non-membership groups are generally more efficient and less
costly to operate.  Choice of board members can be fine-tuned to
bring on needed expertise or to represent specific groups.  There
is usually more continuity with appointed boards.  The drawbacks
are that the groups run the risk of becoming self-serving and
losing contact with their constituencies, and other methods of
community involvement must be developed. 

     12.  The cable company appointees to the access organization
boards were disapproved of by almost all the access organizations
contacted; they perceived a real conflict of interest between the
desires of cable companies and the role of access organizations.


Findings Concerning the Access Organizations

     1.   'Olelo, the access organization for O'ahu, is one of
the largest access organizations in the nation, receiving three
percent of the gross revenues of the cable companies on O'ahu for
operating expenses, which for 1995 amounted to over $2.6 million.
'Olelo owns its own 38,000 square foot building in Mapunapuna.

     2.   The basic 'Olelo training is a lengthy process,
consisting of one thirteen week technician class and another
thirteen week producer class.  Training feedback indicates that
for many trainees, the training attempts to convey too much
information in too short a time.  Less than a quarter of the
trainees complete the course and actually work on public access
programming.  The reason cited most often by trainees for not
producing programming is lack of time, but an 'Olelo survey also
revealed that the primary goal for just over half of all trainees
is to gain practical career skills, not to produce public access
programming.  'Olelo has recognized the problems associated with
its training and was in the process of reinventing its training
program at the time this study was prepared.

     3.   While it has been alleged that 'Olelo diverts more
assets to support the education (E) and government (G) than the
public (P) access, in reality the vast majority of facility time
and equipment usage goes to P users.  In terms of budget, 'Olelo
spends over half its operating budget on P access, about 30
percent on E, and 13 percent on G.

     4.   'Olelo allocates funds between the P, E, and G elements
based on priorities established by its board in its strategic
planning process.  The current priorities place public access
first, education second, and government third.  Within each
division, decisions on allocation to the different elements --
production, overhead, staff -- are made through the business
plan, which is created with public, committee, and staff input
and feedback.

     5.   'Olelo has various mechanisms available for public
input.  Despite these, tension exists between the staff at 'Olelo
and some of the independent producers who feel that their
concerns are being deliberately ignored.  

     6.   'Olelo did not report any problems with abuse of G
access by government officials.

     7.   Ho'ike, the access organization for the county of
Kaua'i, is the smallest access organization in the State, with an
annual operating budget of approximately $150,000.  Ho'ike only
receives two percent of the gross revenues from its cable
companies, although this figure is supposed to rise to three
percent in 1996, which will be received on December 31, 1996.
Ho'ike rents a nine hundred square foot building and does not
have a studio.

     8.   Ho'ike offers a five week training course that has
received enthusiastic evaluation by trainees.  The program covers
field production only and does not include studio production as
Ho'ike lacks the funds for a studio.

     9.   Ho'ike makes its equipment available on a first-come,
first-served basis, although to ensure equitable access, a
maximum number of requests per producer is established.  Ho'ike
has a standardized priority list in the event of a conflict.

     10.  Ho'ike's allocations between its P, E, and G components
are made by its board based on recommendations by the finance
committee.  Ho'ike employees devote more of their time to P than
they do to the E or G access.

     11.  The Ho'ike board president personally supports the
current process of appointed board members as he feels that
through this mechanism a representative board can be obtained.
Ho'ike has three standing committees, and any citizen can request
to be placed on any of the committees as a voting member.

     12.  Ho'ike appears to have had no problem with potential
abuse of G access by government officials.

     13.  There is a small but vocal group of producers on Kaua'i
who are highly critical of Ho'ike for not having an elected
board; for having cable company-appointed directors; for training
residents as television producers instead of providing a forum on
which residents can speak; for competing with local independent
producers by contracting with nonprofit organizations and helping
to prepare their programs; and for some of the actions of the
general manager, whom they claim has violated some of Ho'ike's
procedures.  These producers would like to see the board
democratically elected from the group of all cable subscribers.

     14.  Akaku, the access organization for Maui county, is
unique in Hawai'i as, while it serves as the clearinghouse for P,
E, and G, it assists only in producing P access on the island of
Maui.  E access is handled by Maui Community College (MCC) and
the department of education (DOE) on Maui, and G access is
handled by the Maui county council and office of the mayor.  MCC
is also supposed to handle P access on Moloka'i and Lana'i, but
as of the date this report was prepared, P access was not
available on these islands.

     15.  Akaku has an annual operating budget of approximately
$185,000 and rents a 1345 square foot office, which includes a
small studio.  

     16.  Akaku certified 132 people between February 1994 and
July 1995.  The basic access class is a five week course.
Equipment is available on a first-come, first-served basis to any
certified user.  The only equipment that is restricted is the
multi-camera studio equipment when used outside of Akaku's
studio, due to risk of wear and tear.

     17.  Budgeting is supposed to be handled by a consortium of
Akaku, MCC, the local DOE office, and the county government, but
this year the individual members could not agree on a unified
budget, so separate budgets were submitted to the DCCA, which
then had the task of making allocations.

     18.  Each member of the consortium tends to act
individually, which has led to duplicative efforts, such as
multiple studio facilities.  While an overall PEG access plan for
Maui was proposed, it was never finalized and no deadlines or
guidelines were given for its implementation.

     19.  Akaku wants to keep the current board appointment
process, as it is concerned that a membership-driven board would
risk acquiring self-serving board members/producers who may act
in their own self-interest and not for the public benefit.  Akaku
has a number of mechanisms for public input into its decision-
making.

     20.  Akaku has experienced no significant problems with
abuse of the G access by government officials.

     21.  Na Leo 'O Hawai'i was the last of the access
organizations to begin providing services.  It has two offices,
one in Kona and one in Hilo, with a total annual operating budget
of approximately $350,000.  It receives between two and three
percent of the gross revenues from the Big Island cable
companies, depending on the company.  It rents two facilities, an
eight hundred square foot office in Hilo and a nine hundred sixty
square foot office in Kona.  Neither of these sites has a studio. 

     22.  Training at the Hilo Na Leo site started in April 1995;
training had not yet begun at the Kona site at the time this
report was prepared.  Much pent-up demand for public access
training exists on the Big Island.   At the time this report was
prepared, training is offered monthly at the Hilo site only and
consists of sixteen hours of class. 

     23.  Equipment is made available on a first-come, first-
served basis, although Na Leo also lists priority of users.

     24.  Na Leo does not specifically allocate funds for the
individual P, E, and G components; most of the funds are expended
to cover the costs of staff.

     25.  Na Leo has proposed but then tabled the concept of
charging producers $5 for each piece of equipment loaned out,
plus a $100 refundable deposit to cover loss or damage to the
equipment.  No other access organization contacted in the course
of preparation of this study has such a requirement.

     26.  Na Leo objects to an elected board format on the
grounds that it would be too costly; would discourage people
running for the board; would very probably result in a board of
special interest groups, which would lead to chaos and stalemate;
and would not guarantee diversity on the board.  

     27.  Na Leo has no effective way for a member of the public
to have significant input into its deliberations.  It has no
advisory committees, and offers extremely limited opportunities
for public input at its board meetings.   It has been reluctant
to share its minutes with the public.

     28.  A group of independent producers, Na Maka 'O Hilo, have
raised concerns about the proposed $100 deposit and the lack of
opportunity for public input, especially as, at the time this
report was made, no one on the board had either been certified by
Na Leo or had had other public access production experience.  Na
Maka indicated that the lack of experienced input on a number of
issues had led to choices that were not in the users' best
interests.

     29.  Na Leo did not indicate the need for additional
controls to prevent abuse of G access by government officials.


Conclusions of Relevance to the State

     1.   Speaking generally, it appears that the access
organizations are providing a diversity of viewpoints, and this
seems to be the type of programming intended by federal and state
law.

     2.   It appears, with two exceptions, that the access
organizations are providing the type of access intended by
federal and state law.  Ideally, the access organizations should
provide both training in video production and "Open Mike" types
of shows that permit speakers to present their opinions without
having to be trained in the technology.  At present, all four
organizations offer production training, but only 'Olelo and
Akaku offer this type of Open Mike show.  Ho'ike and Na Leo do
not.  Ho'ike's shoestring budget is cited by that organization as
the reason they do not have an Open Mike show, and the general Na
Leo program was just starting.  These organizations should
establish Open Mike programs as soon as time and budget permit. 

     3.   It is not within the State's direct power to decide
whether to change the board structure of the access organizations
to include the votes of cable subscribers, as the access
organizations are private nonprofit organizations.  The only act
the State can directly perform relating to the board would be to
have the DCCA withdraw from the board selection process, which
would cause the access organizations to have to restructure their
boards.  The Bureau finds that there is an unusually high degree
of state control and involvement with the access organizations.
Given that the greater the amount of state involvement the more
possible it becomes to run into First Amendment problems and to
open the State to liability, the DCCA may want to reevaluate its
close involvement with the access organizations and decide
whether it is now appropriate for the state government to give up
that role.

     If that were to happen, the Bureau would not recommend to
the access organizations that they elect board members using the
votes of all their cable subscribers, as it appears that, taken
as a whole, cable subscribers are relatively indifferent to the
structure of an access organization board.  If the access
organization wanted to have one or more elected members, the
Bureau would recommend that they create a voting membership of
cable subscribers who have demonstrated an interest in access
and/or their users who have demonstrated a current interest in
public access, similar to some of the Mainland access
organizations cited in the previous chapter.

     4.   The demand for training and personnel is not being met
on any of the islands except for Kaua'i, which has a relatively
small wait list of about thirty.  All of the others have much
larger wait lists that will last for months.  Na Leo has not even
started training in Kona yet.  Given the limited Akaku budget,
Akaku seems to be making a diligent effort to fulfill the needs
of its constituents.  However, the total lack of training and
facilities on Moloka'i and Lana'i, which are supposed to be
provided through Maui Community College, should be rectified
immediately.  Na Leo seems to be moving at a slow pace, which may
be partly the fault of its budget and its relative newness.  
     The basic 'Olelo training program is overly long; there
should be a way to offer a short basic course along the same
lines as the neighbor island courses.  The time commitment as it
is seems daunting and the course work for a substantial minority
was too complex.  'Olelo has a long wait list and a long training
period.  It is to be hoped that its revamped training, which was
not finalized at the time this report was completed, will provide
shorter, more basic courses to help decrease the backlog.

     5.   None of the access organizations cited any significant
problems with abuse of governmental access.  All have guidelines
in place to help prevent such abuse.  No additional guidelines
appear to be necessary at this time.

     6.   To the extent that diverting the cable franchise fee to
the Hawaii Public Broadcasting Authority (HPBA) puts a cap on
access organization spending, the Legislature may want to
reevaluate such diversion in the future.  HPBA has its own
revolving fund into which appropriations may be placed, while the
access organizations, being private nonprofit groups, do not have
that option.  At this point in time, though, 'Olelo seems
adequately funded, and there is still room to provide more funds
to the neighbor islands without breaching the five percent cap.

     7.   The DCCA, through its renegotiations of the franchise
agreements with the cable companies, should ensure that the
neighbor island access organizations receive, now and in the
future, no less than three percent of the cable companies gross
receipts, up from the two percent that they had been receiving
from some franchises.  While this issue is not an explicit part
of the study, it became evident during the research for this
study that Ho'ike in particular was underfunded for the work it
was doing and the interest expressed by the public.  Akaku has
more funds but the Maui county area encompasses three islands,
two of which have received virtually no PEG access.  Na Leo has
taken a lot of time to initiate operations, and the pent-up
demand for public access on the Big Island seems very strong.

     The DCCA has indicated that funding for PEG access through
the cable companies' franchise fees should not be viewed as
permanent, and "strongly encourages" short- and long-term
alternative funding strategies.  The extent to which this is
feasible is not clear, given the non-commercial nature of PEG
access and the extent to which P access in particular is geared
to small discrete groups, rather than large, cohesive audiences.
Until a realistic determination of the reasonable probability of
successful outside funding sources is made, cutting the amounts
that the neighbor island access organizations are receiving could
jeopardize their programs.

     8.   The DCCA needs to assist Maui county by helping it to
complete its PEG plan, including a timetable for public access
for Moloka'i and Lana'i.  The DCCA may also want to reconsider
its decision to allow the P, E, and G elements to be handled
separately, especially as the consortium seems to have broken
down this year in the budget area.

     9.   The DCCA should support the access organizations if
they choose to change their board structure so as to make the
cable company appointments non-voting.


Conclusions Concerning the Access Organizations

     1.   There is a certain amount of friction between the
'Olelo staff and certain independent producers on issues ranging
from the minute to the pressing.  Many of the complaints centered
around 'Olelo's lack of responsiveness.  This complaint is not
new; it surfaced in the 'Olelo 1993 Draft Plan as well.  Without
making any judgment on the validity of these issues, it seems
clear that 'Olelo needs to improve communications between itself
and its producers.

     2.   Ho'ike has been the most active and most progressive of
the access organizations.  It instituted interactive video
bulletin boards in the State, combining it with job vacancies to
create a valuable community resource; established a teen program
to serve young adults who otherwise would not have been able to
participate due to their youth; became an Aloha United Way and
Combined Federal Campaign agency to generate additional funds,
and is exploring the possibility of captioning its programs.
Unfortunately, it has had to do so on a shoestring budget that
has precluded options such as a studio and an Open Mike program.
Additional funding for Ho'ike is needed for it to be able to
continue and to provide necessary programming such as an Open
Mike show.

     3.   The Maui set-up, with five organizations handling the
three elements, does not appear to be a success.  The consortium
was unable even to produce a joint budget this year and there is
duplication of facilities.  Due to lack of a timetable, Lana'i
and Moloka'i still lack public access.  The consortium's quasi-
official status has raised problems for Akaku and for the Maui
county government.  The members of the consortium should
reevaluate their situation.

     4.   Na Leo should be more open to producer input and should
work with Jones Spacelink to have its programs listed in the
television pullout guide in the newspaper rather than rely on a
generic listing.  Specific listings will increase viewer interest
in the channel and make them aware of the programs available.

     5.   Na Leo should not continue its efforts to charge a $5
equipment fee and a $100 equipment rental deposit.

     6.   Na Leo should institute at least one advisory committee
that includes interested producers to obtain relevant and timely
input on decisions affecting the access organization.

     7.   Na Leo should institute an Open Mike program as soon as
its budget permits.

     8.   Both the "access center as facilitator" and the "access
center as producer" are valid expressions of public access.  At
present, except for political debates, in which some of the
access centers help to produce, the access centers act strictly
as facilitators, in part because of criticism by producers who
are seeking to obtain payment for the same type of work.
 
     9.   'Olelo, with its large budget, should consider acting
as a producer of PEG television, rather than just as a
facilitator.  The neighbor island centers should also consider
that option as their budgets permit.

     10.  The board of each access organizations should
reevaluate the propriety of having cable company appointments.