Connecticut Senate Bill SB00286

Connecticut 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/25/16
• Refer: 2/25/16
• Report Pass: 3/17/16

Caption

An Act Concerning The Public, Education And Governmental Programming And Educational Technology Investment Account (pegpetia) Grant Program And Municipally Operated Education And Government Access Channels.

Impact

The proposed amendments will significantly impact existing frameworks governing community access programming. SB00286 mandates that third-party nonprofit community access providers consent to municipal requests for operational access to educational and government channels within three business days. If they fail to do so, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority has the authority to revoke their service agreements and to seek new providers. This adjustment is intended to empower municipalities and enhance local community engagement through accessible programming.

Summary

SB00286 establishes a framework for the Public, Educational and Governmental Programming and Educational Technology Investment Account (PEGPETIA) grant program and governing municipally operated education and government access channels. The bill proposes an appropriation of $4.2 million from the General Fund to support these initiatives for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. Its objective is to facilitate operational support for educational access channels on local levels, ensuring they can provide essential programming to their communities.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB00286 appears to be supportive among those advocating for local control and better educational access for citizens. Proponents argue that the bill will enhance community programming and ensure that public access channels operate effectively to serve the needs of local residents. However, there may be underlying concerns from existing service providers about the implications of rapid consent rules, potentially fearing that this could disrupt their operations.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise around the expectation of consent within a limited timeframe and the ramifications of service agreements being revoked on such grounds. Critics of the proposed changes could argue that this tight timeframe may place undue pressure on providers while creating uncertainty about continuity of programming, especially in municipalities where such services are critical for educational resources and community engagement.