2014_0616_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 29 PUBLIC DOCUMENT-TRADE SECRET DATA HAS BEEN EXCISED Proposal for Formal Franchise Renewal December 20, 2013 never watched or watched less than monthly channels 18, 19, and 20.71 These results further render the RFRP's demands unreasonable and unlawful under the Federal Cable Act. E. The rnember cities and their elected governments must have the final say on Comcast's renewal proposal. By submitting this application in response to the RFRP and other documents sent by NSCC staff in July 2012, Comcast does not necessarily acquiesce to the authority of the NSCC or its various appointed "designees" to perform functions legally entrusted or retained by the member cities. NSCC Resolution 2013-04 purports to delegate member-city authority from the NSCC to the Renewal Committee, the Executive Committee, any staff members, the law firm Bradley & Guzzetta, The Buske Group, CBG, and any of these entities' staff inembers. The resolution stated that all these various individuals would "be deemed and considered Commission designees imbued with the powers, authority and responsibilities set forth herein." This resolution appears to attempt transfer of all power vested in LFAs by the Cable Act to several unknown, unelected, and removed individuals. Neither state law nor the Cable Act, nor the LFA's original joint-powers agreements, support this kind of purported transfer.72 The Franchise Renewal Committee's Resolution 2013-01 § 1 also resolves that the Staff Report, Buske's Needs Assessment Report and Telephone Survey Report, CBG's Technical Review Report, and Front Range Consulting's Financial Review Report "constitute the cable-related needs and interests, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Member Cities and their communities, and are hereby adopted in their entirety." Comcast objects to the extent that the committee resolution was an invalid exercise of the committee's authority, and to the extent that outside consultants' reports can constitute 71. Ex. 4 at 16-17. 72. Minnesota courts have long held that municipal bodies cannot delegate functions or powers involving the exercise of judgment and discretion to subcommittees or individuals. See, e.g., Jewell Belting Co. v. Village of Bertha, 91 Minn. 9(Minn. 1903) (powers requiring the exercise of judgment and discretion cannot be delegated and must be performed by the municipal body itself); Mpls. Gaslight Co. v. Cit� of Mpls., 36 Minn. 159 (Minn. 1886) (power conferred on city council required exercise of judgment and discretion and could not be delegated); Darling v. City of St. Paul,19 Minn. 389, 392 (Minn. 1872) (same).