Citation
Sweat equity in higher education

Material Information

Title:
Sweat equity in higher education the rebirth of Auraria media center
Alternate title:
The rebirth of Auraria media center
Creator:
Strong, Richard A. ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (207 pages) : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Public-private sector cooperation-Colorado ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
Public colleges and universities nationwide are feeling the effects of budgetary constraints. This has become noticeable in electronic arts and electronic media programs, which rely heavily on new equipment to maintain modernity in their curricula. Yet, many schools are teaching on old, outdated equipment, hindering their students’ chances at success in the job market. This thesis explores the specific funding option Auraria Media Center chose in refurbishing their studios: a partnership with the local cable television franchisee. Through interviews with those involved in the discussions and a survey of other schools, this thesis shows the practicality of such a partnership, and can serve as the basis for a “best practices” discussion of accepting money from the private sector for electronic arts and media programs.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.) - University of Colorado Denver.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
General Note:
College of Arts and Media
Statement of Responsibility:
by Richard A. Strong.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
944455763 ( OCLC )
ocn944455763
Classification:
LD1193.A70 2015m S76 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
SWEAT EQUITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE REBIRTH OF AURARIA MEDIA
CENTER
by
RICHARD A. STRONG
B.S., Northern Illinois University, 1987
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Recording Arts
2015


This thesis for the Master of Science degree by
Richard A. Strong
has been approved for the
Recording Arts Program
by
David J. Bondelevitch, Chair
Leslie Gaston-Bird
William Monsour


Strong, Richard A. (M.S., Recording Arts)
Sweat Equity in Higher Education: The Rebirth of Auraria Media Center
Professor David J. Bondelevitch
ABSTRACT
Public colleges and universities nationwide are feeling the effects of budgetary
constraints. This has become exceptionally noticeable in electronic arts and electronic media
programs, which rely heavily on new equipment to maintain modernity in their curricula.
Yet, many schools are teaching on old, outdated gear, hampering their students chances at
success in the job market. This thesis explores the specific funding option Auraria Media
Center chose in refurbishing their studios: a partnership with the local cable television
franchisee. Through interviews with those involved in the discussions and a survey of other
schools, this thesis shows the practicality of such a partnership, and can serve as the basis for
a best practices discussion of accepting money from the private sector for electronic arts
and media programs.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: David J. Bondelevitch
m


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are too many people to thank. But I will try.
Thanks will first go to my wife Audrey Strong for her support and understanding. The past
two years have meant many postponed vacation plans and cancelled golf games while I
worked on a graduate degree. I owe her those and much more.
A very special thanks to my committee chair David J. Bondelevitch for not giving up on me,
even when I gave up on myself. Which was often. And repeatedly. And thanks to Leslie
Gaston for all the radio talks, which made me feel a little more at home.
Many thanks to Kent Courtnage and Matt Keller of Auraria Media Center for including me
in the discussions that established the framework for the agreement with City and County of
Denver Media, and then helping me with the thesis.
Thanks to the entire Recording Arts faculty at University of Colorado, Denver, especially
Pete Buchwald, Lome Bregitzer, Scott Burgess, Sam McGuire and Jeff Merkel. They
recognized I was in a unique place: a teaching professor at Metropolitan State University of
Denver, on the very same campus where I pursued my graduate degree at University of
Colorado Denver. Many hallway conversations later with them, I have gained valued
colleagues and friends, and maybe lost some of the fear of being an impostor at their school.
Some of the fear, but not all.
Many thanks to MSU Student Media Director Steve Haigh, and the staffs at KMET Radio,
the Met Report, and Noticiero TV Met, who all realized my time to advise them had been
somewhat limited by my commitment to a graduate degree. Through it all, they continued a
great job and even won Emmy awards three of them.
Thanks to my students. Next semester, you get me back full time. I promise.
Thanks to Dr. Karen Lollar, the chair of the Communication Arts and Sciences Department
at Metropolitan State University of Denver (and my boss). Throughout my time in graduate
school, she was always supportive. And thanks to Dr. William (Mike) Monsour, who also
helped me keep ahead of the mess and never let me complain too much about what I thought
was always impending doom when, in reality, that was far from the case. There was no
doom, and it was never impending, anyway.
Many thanks to Dr. Kate Liu for not only medical advice, but advice. And lots of it.
Thanks, of course, to my committee as a whole: people whom I could call colleagues even
before my thesis was done.
And thanks to everyone who held my hand. There are many of you. The oddity of being a
professor and a student on the same campus for different (and competing) schools was, at
times, overwhelming, and never more so than when I wrote this thesis.
I am happy to tell you: those days are done. Thanks for helping me get through them.
IV


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER:
I PROLOGUE..............................................1
II INTRODUCTION..........................................3
III THE CAMPUS AM) SCHOOLS................................7
IV AIR ARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER......................12
V THE STUDIOS: STUDIO A.................................16
VI THE STUDIOS: STUDIO B.................................27
VII CABLE TELEVISION AND THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION...............................................29
VIII LITERATURE REVIEW: PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING OF HIGHER
EDUCATION................................................36
IX PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS ON AURARIA CAMPUS........42
X TABOR (THE TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS)...................46
XI THE FUNDING PROCESS AND AURARIA MEDIA CENTER..........57
XII THE WORK BEGINS......................................65
XIII THE LIMITATIONS OF STUDENT MEDIA....................67
XIV EXAMPLES OF PRIVATE-SECTOR INVOLVEMENT IN SIMILAR SCHOOLS 73
XV SURVEYING OTHER SCHOOLS..............................79
XVI AURARIA MEDIA CENTER IMPROVEMENTS AND TEACHING WORKFLOW
98
XVII CONCLUSION.........................................104
XVIII EPILOGUE..........................................113
WORKS CITED.............................................116
APPENDIX................................................129
A: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT........................129
B: EQUIPMENT LISTS....................................139
C: RI P FOR STUDIO REMODELING.........................140
D: 2015 CITY OF DENVER COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTURYLINK CABLE
TELEVISION PROPOSAL AND COMCAST CABLE TELEVISION PROPOSAL... 165
E: PROGRAMMING PROSPECTUS FOR CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER MEDIA
....................................................170
vi


F: BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS...............................194
G: EXAMPLES OF PEG FEES ON CABLE TELEVISION BILLS........198
vi


LIST OF TABLES
Tables:
1: Changes in public versus private funding in higher education.....................37
2: Funding substitution from public funds to private-sector dollars.................37
3: Survey of unfunded capital needs.................................................84
4: Survey of timetable of needs.....................................................85
5: Specific capital improvement needs, 1.............................................86
6: Specific capital improvement needs, 2.............................................87
7: Discussions with school..........................................................88
8: Confidence level in school funding capital needs.................................89
9: Some alternative funding sources.................................................90
10: Other possible funding sources..................................................91
11: Restrictions on funding.........................................................92
12: Our story and experience........................................................93
vii


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1: Iris Technologies Video Commander.....................................19
2: Potomac Instruments Tone Generator....................................19
3: The Garage, University of Southern California (source: www.usc.edu)..74
4: Met Report audio, March 22, 2013.......................................99
5: Met Report audio, March 22, 2013.......................................99
6: Met Report audio, March 22, 2013...................................,,,100
7: Yamaha MG32X console, Studio A........................................101
8: Studio A, May, 2015...................................................195
9: Studio A, July, 2015..................................................196
10: VTR/Playback room, May, 2015.........................................197
11: New VTR/digital routing/playback room, July, 2015....................198
12: Comcast generic bill example with PEG fee............................199
VUl
13: Customer-specific cable bill (personal information redacted)
200


CHAPTERI
PROLOGUE
In 1984, Metropolitan State College of Denver had a choice to make: throw money into
an FM radio station that would have covered most of the city, or invest in a cable television
station that would be carried only on a local cable system.
In 1984, radio was considered an established medium, while the Federal Communications
Commission had only started to consider whether cable television penetration into local TV
markets should be added into a competition standard for determining anti-trust status. And the
FCC wasnt convinced, at that time, that cable penetration statistics were reliable predictors of
market usage. The FCC held that stance until 1990 (Federal Communications Commission,
1990).
In short, radio was accepted nationwide. Cable television was still in its infancy.
Benjamin Boltz was lobbying heavily for the television station. Boltz, a member of
student government, kept pointing to the cost of putting a city-grade FM signal in the educational
band on the air in Denver: at least $150,000 (Davis, 1984). But there was still a need for a
communications medium on campus, Boltz said and out came the idea for a cable television
station. The station, Channel 54, signed on in 1985, and continues to operate from the Auraria
Media Center in the basement of the Auraria Library.
Boltz passed away in 1997 at 37 years old, too young to see what his idea would
eventually become in 2015. And what Channel 54 is becoming is a high-definition, widescreen,
fully digital television station. '
1


Channel 54 is a story that has been more than thirty years in the making. In July, 2015,
the next chapter got started. And as of this writing, it is just beginning.
2


CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION
The schools that comprise Auraria Campus (Metropolitan State University of Denver,
University of Colorado Denver, and Community College of Denver) are within walking distance
to the heart of Denvers downtown. The urban campus designation is a source of pride for all
three schools on campus:
The Auraria Campus in downtown Denver is recognized as a premier urban
campus residing on 150 acres with over four million square feet of building space
The uniqueness of this campus is not just its significance and vibrancy in Denver,
but the fact that it is shared by three distinct academic institutions. Collectively,
the campus has nearly 42,000 students and an additional 5,000 faculty and staff.
The urban setting and prominence of the Auraria Campus continue to define it as
a key driver of the economy in Denver (Auraria Higher Education Center, 2014).
The advantages for students, specifically for ones studying media and the arts, are
obvious: access to all the attractions and opportunities of the eighteenth largest radio broadcast
market in the United States (A.C. Nielsen Company, 2015), and the seventeenth largest
television market (A.C. Nielsen Company, 2014). One light rail station away from campus is the
Denver Center for the Performing Arts, a labyrinth of multiple theatres that features local casts
and nationally touring shows.
But Auraria Campus is aging. Construction of the campus started in the early 1970s as an
ad hoc approach to housing what was then Metropolitan State College, and by the latter part of
the decade, it was the full-time home to all three schools.
The age shows in Aurarias media and arts facilities. While some rooms have been
3


retrofitted with new equipment ranging from audio consoles to live theatre equipment, the last
major work on the television studios has been decades ago.
Auraria Campus is certainly not the only set of schools in the United States with this
particular problem. We will examine funding issues later in this thesis, but some anecdotes will
demonstrate the problems others schools experience.
At the University of North Dakota, the broadcast meteorology department was working
with equipment that could no longer be maintained or serviced, and the cost of replacing the
equipment led to a need for grant money:
We are preparing the next generation of broadcast meteorologists, said Fred
Remer, an atmospheric sciences faculty member and former TV weatherperson
who runs the broadcast program. Tm happy to report that we just acquired a
Baron Omni weather broadcast system, the same kind that is used by the big TV
stations in markets such as the Twin Cities, New York and Los Angeles. The
Baron Omni replaces the previous system, acquired in 2005 and by now
thoroughly outdated, according to Remer. We applied four years in a row for a
student tech fee to fund this $29,000 acquisition, said Remer. We were awarded
that grant this year, Remer said. Basically, Remer explained, it was time to get
updated. The previous system was 9-years old, sluggish and the software was out
of date, he said. So much had changed in this field since we acquired (the older
system) in 2005. (Pedreza, 2015)
Pittsburg State University was unable to upgrade to high-definition television until 2014:
With new high-definition broadcasting equipment, Pitt State will be able to
display HD video footage and replays on the video board inside Kansas Citys
Municipal Stadium. This is something weve never been able to do before, so
its very exciting, said Troy Comeau, director of broadcasting. Comeau said the
equipment will also serve as valuable learning instruments for the students.
Having the new equipment in its repertoire gives the broadcasting program
potential to broadcast HD programming on the universitys TV station, CAPS 13.
We have some more upgrades well need to make to go full HD on CAPS 13,
Comeau said, but this is certainly the first step. Its an exciting time for us.
(Pittsburg State University Press and Media, 2014)
4


And while the economy itself may be bouncing back from the recession of 2008, there is
evidence the economy of higher education is not. Per-pupil spending remains below pre-
recession levels in 47 out of fifty states:
Deep state funding cuts have had major consequences for public colleges and
universities. States (and to a lesser extent localities) provide roughly 53 percent of
the revenue that can be used to support instruction at these schools. When this
funding is cut, colleges and universities look to make up the difference with
higher tuition levels, cuts to educational or other services, or both. (Michael
Mitchell, 2015)
But in 2015, the Auraria Media Center was able to obtain $453,000 for a complete
rebuild of TV studios A and B, and a reworking of Channel 54 to 16:9 1080p high definition.
The money comes from City and County of Denver Media, which is the franchise holder of the
Comcast cable television license in Denver County. The money does come with conditions that
must be fulfilled in order for the possibility of a longer-term, even more financially valuable
economic plan between Auraria Media Center and City and County of Denver Media. This thesis
will explain the ramifications of such an arrangement from both the technical and the ethical
perspectives, as well as the logistics required to carry it out. This thesis will also explain and
analyze the results from a survey (constructed specifically for this thesis) into the capital
improvement needs of other schools that teach electronic media and electronic arts-based
programs, and point some direction toward obtaining funding funding that, in many cases, may
already exist and be there simply for the taking.
5


We will be exploring several separate but related topics in this thesis:
The development of Channel 54 at Auraria Media Center into a station
that came to serve three universities, instead of just one
The development of Studio A, the main television studio for creation of
programming that airs on Channel 54
The future and the upgrades for Studio A and Studio B of Auraria Media
Center on the Auraria Campus
The establishment of a relationship between Auraria Media Center and
City and County of Denver Media, the cable television franchise holder in
Denver County
The funding arrangement between City and County of Denver Media and
Auraria Media Center that is funding the upgrades
The use of PEG funding (public, education and governmental) in
establishing public access channels on cable television systems nationwide
and here locally
The requirements from City and County of Denver Media for Auraria
Media Center in exchange for accepting the funding.
The purpose of this thesis is as follows:
To discover the capital improvement needs for electronic arts and media
programs at public colleges and universities
To look at other methods of funding those needs
To introduce the reader to the concept of asking for PEG funding for those
needs
To introduce the concept of a school becoming a content provider for
the local cable franchise holder
The last having been said, the purpose of this thesis is not to make the reader rush out and
attempt to enact the same scenario as was done for Auraria Media Center on the Auraria
Campus. Some readers may find the requirements from their own local cable franchise holder
too onerous for their school. Some may fear censorship from the franchise holder. Others may
worry about their schools editorial independence overall. But we will show you what, so far, has
worked here.
6


CHAPTER HI
THE CAMPUS AND SCHOOLS
There are three schools on the Auraria Campus in Denver, making it a very unique setting
for higher education. Metropolitan State College was founded there in 1965, later becoming
Metropolitan State College of Denver in 1990, and then Metropolitan State University of Denver
in 2012 (Metropolitan State University of Denver, 2012). It is the oldest of the three schools on
campus, and the largest, with a 2012 enrollment of 23,789 full and part-time students
(Metropolitan State University of Denver, 2013). University of Colorado Denvers history on the
Auraria Campus does not begin until 1970, five years after Metro State opened, but CU Denvers
medical school dates back to 1912, though the medical school has never been housed on the
downtown Auraria Campus (University of Colorado Denver, 2015). The medical school was
eventually combined more formally (though not geographically) with the Auraria Campus in
2004:
In summer 2004, the University of Colorado Board of Regents voted to
combine the Anschutz Medical Campus with its Denver campus. The impetus
was the university's vision of creating a "21st Century" university that facilitated
multidisciplinary learning and research. The Regents believed that a consolidated
university that focused on excellence in urban research and in health sciences
care and research would match well with its original research university in
Boulder and its regional university in Colorado Springs. The consolidation also
would realize significant efficiencies in administrative costs, according to two
task forces that researched consolidation. In 2009, after reviewing the progress of
the consolidation, the Regents voted unanimously to affirm its decision to
consolidate the two campuses under the name University of Colorado Denver.
(University of Colorado Denver, 2015)
7


CU Denvers enrollment stood at 18,001 for 2012 (StartClass, 2015), compared to the
almost 24,000 at MSU Denver.
The third college on the Auraria Campus is Community College of Denver, which
started in storefronts across Denver in 1967, holding its first classes in a renovated auto
showroom close to the Denver Civic Center. By 1975, CCD was geographically spread out to
the point that the Colorado State Legislature approved its move to the Auraria Campus.
Currently, CCD has an enrollment of more than 10,000 students, and is the third largest
community college in the Colorado Community College System (Community College of
Denver, 2015).
All three schools serve different missions. CCDs admission requirements tell all
students they will need to take separate assessment tests in math, reading and English, or submit
a recent set of ACT or SAT scores at or greater than an 18 in English on the ACT, and a 19 in
math. The comparable scores for the SAT are 440 for English and 460 for math (Community
College of Denver, 2015). University of Colorado Denver is much more competitive, requiring
a 93 or higher on the Colorado Commission on Higher Education scale, and a variable scale
based on the students high school grade point average; on UCDs chart, which is multi-layered;
even a high school GPA of 3.6 could make a student a possible candidate for admission,
depending on other factors such as standardized testing and high school curriculum (University
of Colorado Denver, 2015).
The CCHE was created in 2003, and governs admission requirements for all students at
Colorados public four-year colleges or universities, doing so on a school-by-school basis. But
that is far from its only mission:
8


In 1985 the legislature gave the Commission increased authority and specific
directives through the passage of House Bill 1187. Specific responsibilities
include developing long-range plans for an evolving state system of higher
education:
Review and approve degree programs.
Establish the distribution formula for higher education funding;
recommend statewide funding levels to the legislature.
Approve institutional capital construction requests; recommend capital
construction priorities to the legislature.
Develop policies for institutional and facility master plans.
Administer statewide student financial assistance programs through
policy development, program evaluation, and allocation of funds.
Develop and administer a statewide off-campus (extended studies),
community service, and continuing education program.
Determine institutional roles and missions.
Establish statewide enrollment policies and admission standards.
Conduct special studies as appropriate or directed, regarding statewide
education policy, finance, or effective coordination (Colorado
Department of Higher Education, 2015)
Other students at UCD, however face far more stringent admissions requirements. Music
students face a highly selective admissions process that includes not only the standard freshman
criteria, but also a separate set of criteria in the Advanced Measures of Music Audiation test,
which measures student ability in tonal, rhythm, and composite areas (Gordon, 2015). Students
wishing to major in music are not admitted in the spring semester at UCD; they are accepted
only in fall (University of Colorado Denver, 2015).
MSU Denvers admission policy has recently been the topic of news coverage. MSU
was formed as Metro State College with the idea of focusing on alternative admissions: college
students, for example, who were older than traditional freshmen coming directly from high
school, and students who were continuing their education after an absence. In short, MSU
Denvers admissions policies could be compared to a community college, but at a four-year
school.
9


MSU Denvers admissions are, in essence, two-tiered, or bifurcated. Students younger
than 19 are classified as traditional applicants, and must have a CCHE score of 85 or greater,
as well as ACT scores of 18 on the English section and 17 on the math section (Metropolitan
State University of Denver, 2015). But there is a different set of requirements for students who
are 20 and older. Neither the ACT nor the SAT is required, and students in this age group need
only submit a valid GED or evidence of graduation from high school. No other standards are
required of students 20 or older, including a minimum grade point average (Metropolitan State
University of Denver, 2015).
MSU Denvers admissions policies created a stir in the 2015 legislative session of the
Colorado General Assembly, with a proposal to make MSU a moderately selective school
under CCHE guidelines, as opposed to an open admissions school. State Senator Kent
Lambert (R., Colorado Springs) took the stance that MSU Denvers poor performance, which
includes the lowest graduation rate of any four-year college or university under CCHE
guidelines in Colorado, meant that students needed additional coursework within the state
community college system before transferring to MSU. MSU President Stephen Jordan opposed
the bill, arguing that his schools performance was unfairly evaluated compared to other
schools; Jordan pointed to the high number of students who transfer from MSU to another
school, and therefore do not count in MSUs graduation rate. During a hearing at the State
Capitol, Jordan reminded lawmakers that one of his missions when the school became a
university in 2012 was to continue to serve students with lower grades and other kinds of
hardships, even while assuming the university mantle (Robles, 2015).
The bill, if passed, could have cost MSU Denver more than eight million dollars per
year. It did not advance to the full floor of the Senate from a state Senate committee, so MSU
10


Denvers admission policies will remain the same, at least for now.
Tuition varies across all three schools. Auraria Campus is not a residential campus;
students must find off campus housing in the Denver area, although three private dormitories
now exist: Auraria Student Lofts, Campus Village Apartments, and The Regency (University of
Colorado Denver, 2015). MSU Denvers average in-state tuition is $3035.01 per semester
(Metropolitan State University of Denver, 2015), while University of Colorado Denvers per-
semester in-state tuition averages between $4,380.00 and $4,710.00 per semester, depending on
whether the student is in the underclass or upperclass division (University of Colorado Denver,
2015). Community College of Denver prices all classes by credit hour; at an average of $199.00
per credit hour for in-state tuition, a fifteen-credit semester would cost a student $2985.00 per
semester (Community College of Denver, 2015).
Having all three schools on one campus can lead to a total enrollment of more than
45,000 students. Auraria Campus, unlike many similar urban campuses, has its own police
department and health center that can handle some procedures found in larger urban hospitals.
Auraria is almost a city unto itself, and making sure all three schools can work together in the
same buildings is the role of a completely separate oversight group, and often a Herculean task.
11


CHAPTER IV
AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER
The task of coordinating the needs of all three schools, be they student, staff, faculty or
administrative, often falls to the Auraria Higher Education Center, known on campus as
AHEC. AHECs role, however, was never meant to be supervisory; instead, it is advisory in
nature. Still, with a list as large as AHECs responsibilities, it often trends toward a supervisory
role:
The Auraria Higher Education Center oversees the shared services of the Auraria
Campus, including:
Acquisition and Property Management
Classroom Scheduling and Media Support
Commercial Lease and Contract Negotiation/Management
Conference and Event Services
Early Learning Center
Internal Support Services
Business Operations
Financial Management
Human Resources
Information Technology
Maintenance and Operations
Parking and Transportation Services
Performing Arts Center Management
Planning and Development
Police and Security
Procurement Services
Sustainable Campus Program
Tivoli Student Union and related student bond programs
(Auraria Higher Education Center, 2015)
While AHEC has four of its own directors, the voting membership of AHEC consists of
ten people (the Board of Directors), ranging from the heads of all three schools to faculty
members to students (Auraria Higher Education Center, 2015). They set policy; AHECs
four directors carry it out.
12


It is not a perfect system by any means. Stories of disagreements between schools are
legendary; classroom space is often double-scheduled between two schools (including
specialized space such as the television production facilities), and the three schools do
disagree over use of available resources. But by and large, the system can and does work,
with the flare-up from one (or all three) schools.
For the purpose of this thesis, AHEC is critical in its oversight of Studios A and B, the
two television production facilities available to all three schools on campus, especially the
auspices of Auraria Media Center, headed by director Matt Keller and Chief Engineer Kent
Courtnage. MSU Denvers broadcasting department uses them for classes, as does
University of Colorado Denvers Theatre, Film and Video Production department. All
scheduling is handled by the Auraria Media Center staff, and quite often, one school has had
to change times and days of a class to accommodate another schools booking (full
disclosure: I moved my Fall, 2015 TV News Producing class back three hours on Mondays
and Wednesdays to accommodate a UCD class that had been scheduled at the exact same
time as the time I originally wanted. My class still went to full enrollment during finals
week of spring semester, 2015.)
Another user of the studio space is the Met Report and Noticiero TV Met, the Emmy
award-winning English and Spanish newscasts of the Office of Student Media. These two
newscasts are independent of academic curriculum and not required in the MSU Denver
Broadcasting program, and are entirely volunteer. The volunteer staff includes a student
general manager, student news editor, student video supervisor, and other managerial roles.
The staff has ranged from thirty people to fifty.1 Noticiero TV Met airs live every other
1 In the interests of full disclosure, I am the faculty advisor to Met Report, Noticiero TV Met, and KMET Radio.
13


Friday at 10:30 during the fall and spring semester; the Met Report airs live every Friday at
12:30 during fall and spring semesters, and several times during the summer. Both shows air
on Channel 54. Discussions surrounding the Spanish-language newscast include doubling its
airtime to every Friday instead of every other Friday.
Community College of Denver currently holds no classes in the Auraria Media Center
studios, and will only occasionally check out some of the available television production
field gear available to them (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015). UCD
and MSU, however, are very active in teaching classes in the studio spaces, with MSU
offering a minimum of four classes a semester in Studios A and B, and UCD offering as
many as six, contingent on the semester.
Sometimes, however, it is hard to work out the space issues on campus that continue to
plague all three institutions, especially in light of the original AHEC plan for the downtown
multi-use campus that officially opened in 1976:2
The AHEC campus, originally planned for 13,000 full time (equivalent) students,
opened in 1976. With a large amount of acreage on the new campus, the first
generation of academic buildings were developed at three stories or less and
concentrated on the eastern half of the campus. Since the inception of planning
for the campus, there has been recognition that an administrative role is needed
to facilitate collaboration of its host institutions on issues of common concern.
AHEC administrators consult with the senior administration for each of the three
educational institutions in the management of physical resources; planning for
capital funding; attraction and management of private development on campus;
design and operation of buildings and infrastructure; planning for transportation
access to, on, and through the campus; provision of parking; management of the
student center and shared student services; operation of childcare services;
provision of campus recreation; and management of public safety. AHECs goal
is to manage the campus in support of the distinct missions of each individual
academic institution. (studioINSITE, 2007)
9
Metro State and UC Denver had been in place since 1965 and 1970, respectively. CCD was added in 1976,
leading to the full AHEC plan.
14


With a campus plan that accommodated 13,000 FTE students, and a current enrollment
of more than 40,000, it is never a matter of what facilities will become overcrowded at Auraria
Campus. The correct answer is all of them.
The architects original design of the library, built in 1975, was written to provide
permanent housing to both the library and media production facilities:
The building serves as the central Learning Resources Center and Multimedia
production facility for a new college in downtown Denver. The multimedia
facility is located in a partial basement. All library functions are on two floors of
flexible Loft-space (sic). Two open courtyards are placed asymmetrically
within the plan and subdivide the floor into various use areas. (C.F. Murphy
Associates, 1976)
But a later report from 2011 recommended a drastic change in the multimedia area in the
basement of the library:
Located in the partial basement, the Media Center consists of two double-height
video production studios, associated control booths, equipment cages,
classrooms, and transmission systems. The basement classroom spaces would be
potentially suitable for closed-stack collections. Archival collections could also
be considered for location in the basement, although preventive measures against
water infiltration might be required. (Holzman Moss Bottino Architecture, 2011)
Right now, the status of the four basement classrooms that MSU and UCD both use to
teach many of the lecture components of their television and film classes is unclear. Many
options remain for the classrooms; none have yet been officially chosen, though AHEC retains
control over the scheduling of those classrooms for now. The television studios will remain as
television studios.
15


CHAPTER V
THE STUDIOS: STUDIO A
Auraria Media Center, housed in the basement of Auraria Library, is the home to TV
studios A and B. Studio A is a full-service live television studio with a switchable connection to
Channel 54 on a graphic user interface panel. Studio B, which can be taken to live on-air status,
is more often used for teaching classes that do not require live television, as well as set building
and lighting instruction. But Studio B is used for MSU Denvers Television Production and
Advanced Television Production classes, which do not generate a live television show. UCD
currently does not use Studio B.
MSU Denver offers sixteen broadcasting classes per year in spring and fall and two in
summer. Of those, five need to be held in the Auraria Media Center television studios (Furrer,
2015). UCD offers 21 video and film classes in spring and fall, five of which need studio space
(University of Colorado Denver, 2015). With ten classes per year at a minimum being
scheduled in two television studios, conflicts can (and do) occur. Auraria Media Center has
maintained a strict first come, first served policy, but MSU Denver is in constant need of
Studio A due to its live television instruction, as opposed to studio television/film set use, as is
taught by UCD. The popular opinion of Studio B is that it is simply a backup, and too unwieldy
and too small to be of much use in teaching live television.
Studio A is the first choice, and always the first to be requested for classes. The Met
Report and Noticiero TV Met are permanently scheduled into Studio A every Friday from 8 am
until 2 pm; as schools, MSU and UCD do not offer many classes that meet on Fridays, so a
conflict on that day is avoided. Still, this leaves four days a week to accommodate
approximately five classes from both UCD and MSU that need the television studios. And all
16


instructors will first request Studio A. And that does not leave much scheduling leeway to work
with.
The setup of Studio A is analogous to a television station from the 1990s through the
advent of digital playback. For many years, Met Report and Noticiero TV Met played back
tapes for their newscasts on DVC Pro and Betacam SP, although the staffs generated stories
with digital field cameras. This meant shooting to a digital file and editing with a non-linear
editor (e.g. Avid, Final Cut Pro or Adobe Premier), but then, putting the story back on a
playback tape (either Betacam SP or DVC Pro) in real time. Not only do you have the
disadvantages of manually cueing video tapes, you save no time in the digital realm, with a
good part of the workflow being forced into a real time workflow, which costs time.
Some of that was ameliorated earlier this year with the addition of a Ki-Pro video
playback system, allowing Met Report and Noticiero TV Met to play back clips for their news
shows digitally, and saving time by merely duplicating the edited video file to the Ki-Pro drive,
rather than dubbing it in real time to tape. As of this writing (May 14, 2015), however, that is
the only digital advance that has been made, with many more to come in June (Courtnage, Chief
Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015).
And most of the equipment in Studio A goes back to the 1990s:
We have an analog switcher that was installed back in the 1990s 1999,1 think.
The Sony digital routing system was installed in 1997. So all these patch panels
correspond to those two routers, and its been a parallel routing situation ever
since that time. We have cross conversion here that converts analog to digital
back and forth so we can route between the two. (Courtnage, Chief Engineer,
Auraria Media Center, 2015)
17


While that may help with redundancy, it does not help with maintenance of the
equipment, not to mention the inefficiency of cross-conversion to begin with: an analog to
digital conversion that results in a digital to analog conversion for airing on Channel 54.
What also creates problems is the sheer amount of equipment that is no longer
supported, often made by companies that have long been out of business. But you can find a lot
of that equipment still in Studio A:
Theres some very interesting gear in here still in use. The Video Commander3
made by Iris Technologies, a company thats no longer in business, but this was
a pretty unique device in its time. Its very intuitive; you click your source, you
click your destination, you click done, and it makes the route. This came out
right around 2000, and is also an automation system. You can do program
macros, you can have serial and IR triggers occur, so at one time, this ran dozens
of VCRs and DVD machines for playing back on the campus channels. But it
hasnt had company support from the manufacturer in about seven years. You
can no longer get parts for it, and were just grateful it still works. (Courtnage,
Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015)
Certainly innovative, and old website promotional literature from the company indicates
their products were used at ABC Television Networks, ESPN, and more (MFG Pages, 2015).
But their chief developer posted on his own resume that he left the company in 2010, and it
folded shortly after that (Bereit, 2015).
If Auraria Media Center were to need replacement hardware for the Video Commander,
at least theres a listing on eBay (eBay, 2015):
3
The Video Commander was a GUI-based screen that was essentially a big routing panel.
18


£ Safari File Edit View History Bookmarks Window Help
00 Iris Technologies PX160QB Video Commander | eBay
1< j[5ifai 1 + la www.ebay.com tm/frt<-T^.*hnol'_ .-Xic::: deo-f >mander-/252923502065
CD is; Apple iCIoud Facebook Twitter Wikipedia Yahoo News7 Popular '
eBay and PayPal will be separate companies soon. We've updated the eBay and PayPal User Agreements and Privacy Notices. Learn more
Hi! Sign In or register I Daily Deals I Gift Cards 1 Sell | Help & Contact
eb y
< Beck to home page 1 Listed in category: Cameras & Photo > Video Production & Eottlog > Editing & Post-Production
m Q t f1 m 100% St Thu 6:36 PM Q i=
6 I 1101
_________________________________________ru
X
My eBay JL "^3
All Categories * Search Advanced
Iris Technologies PX1600B Video Commander
Item condition: Used
Price: US $59.95
Buy It Now
o Add to watch list
* Add to collection
Located in United States
Shipping: $17.90 Expedited Shipping I See details
Kern location: Stanton, CaEFomi*. United State*
Ship* to: United States and many other countries | See detail*
Delivery: Estimated between Sat. May. 1
Payments: PayPal VISA
Credit Carda processed by PayPal
PayPal CREDIT
l and Wed. May. 20 Q
I D D Q I Add to watch list
Seller information
componentcentralinc (2462 A)
99.6% Positive feedback
Rated
+ Follow this seller
Visit store: fi? componentcentralinc
See other items
ebay

(Figure 1: Iris Technologies Video Commander)
The age in Studio A extends farther than just the Video Commander video router. For
graphics, a Harris Inca Title One inscriber is still in use:
It was installed in 2006. Its predecessor was the old Chyron Maxine. The Maxine
was quite a machine; it was actually bulletproof, or pretty close. It would take all
kinds of abuse, which is what you wanted in a broadcast facility. Unfortunately,
it was not user friendly. In fact, one of our instructors, Kevin Campbell, actually
wrote a manual for the Chyron machine4 that was very helpful. But the Harris
that replaced it is also no longer supported by the manufacturer, and if this drive
goes, the machine itself is gone. We had two of them, and one is deceased now.
(Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015)
4 Former Metro State College broadcast coordinator Kevin Campbell hired me to teach radio in 2006.
19


Notably, the malfunction and complete breakdown of the older Harris Inca Title One has
left Auraria Media Center completely unable to generate chyrons, fonts, full-screen graphics or
any on-screen graphics in Studio B, and there has been no budget to replace the graphics
generator. The solution has been to move the functioning Harris from Studio A to B as needed.
Television stations also generate color bars and a 1 kHz tone as test material. Studio As
tone generator is analog. It has a rotary dial to control frequency, and was made by Potomac
Instruments:
(Figure 2: Potomac Instruments Tone Generator)
While these are still for sale (Potomac Instruments, Inc., 2015), most stations have long
since converted to digital tone generators for measurement.
Courtnage is more than happy with the recent edition of digital video playback in A,
replacing the Betacam SP and DVC Pro. No moving parts, he says. And since the installation
of the Ki-Pro digital video system, Courtnage says only UCD has used the Betacam SP deck
occasionally for playback. One of their instructors has Betacam tapes he will play for the class
sometimes, he says (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015). Met Report and
Noticiero TV Met made the conversion to digital playback of all show elements and recording
20


the show digitally In January, 2015. Since then, no broadcast elements from the MSU Denver
Office of Student Media have been on tape. They have all been played back from a hard drive.
Courtnage has repaired the Betacam SP deck many times. Several times, the playback
tape was so damaged by that deck before the Met Report live broadcast that it had to be entirely
re-dubbed, in real time, once Courtnage repaired the deck. Alignment of the heads inside the
deck was a constant problem. The DVC Pro deck is perhaps more dependable, but it is digital
tape, and those who have tried to cue up a digital videotape to the proper playback point know
the problems that can cause: missing several frames of playback because the heads engage
much differently than on an analog deck with helical scan, such as a Betacam SP deck.5
Courtnage says Studio A will keep the two videotape decks, but they will no longer be
part of daily operations. We may still need them for archive, or for emergencies, but they will
be moved far down the room several racks out of the way of the day-to-day equipment, he says
(Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015).
For true videotape history buffs, there is still a 3/4-inch UMatic in the equipment rack.
Still works, Courtnage says. And theres also a very nice JVC VHS, too. We were still using
that up to a few years ago (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015).
In the control room, the switcher is an analog Sony DVS-7200A. You cant get parts
for it anymore, Courtnage says. 1 bought another console unit just like this one on eBay for
spare parts. Unfortunately, the parts I really needed had gone bad on the spare. I did use it to
replace a few switches, so that was helpful, he says (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media
Center, 2015).
Courtnage shops for a lot of equipment on eBay. EBay has been a blessing for a lot of
5 I witnessed both instances several times.
21


these pieces of gear, because that really is the only place you can get parts. Which is a little
scary when you think about it (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015).
Beyond the switcher in Studio A is quite a bit of unused audio gear. Minidisc, DAT,
eight track digital recorder, and even an audio cassette deck. Students like to turn on the cassette
deck just for fun, Courtnage says. The audio console itself is a 24-channel Soundcraft that
Courtnage says has been running steady for about seventeen years. The Soundcraft is entirely
analog, but will be replaced by a Yamaha that Courtnage describes as kind of a hybrid, with an
analog interface but digital processing inside. Each channel has its own compressor built into it
(Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015).
Audio from Studio A is mono, summed to a mono feed before it even begins the
conversion process from analog to digital and back again. And Courtnage is known for
mentioning plenty of issues with audio levels in student work. There will be a compressor in
every channel in the new Yamaha audio mixers in Studios A and B. That should really help a
lot (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015).6
The current TelePrompTer is a separate and dedicated workstation that sits behind the
audio console, leaving the TelePrompTer operator completely isolated from the rest of the
control room. Courtnage says the new prompting system will be much nicer, and will be built
into a console, so the operator will feel more like theyre a part of the rest of the crew in here
(Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015). The current TelePrompTer system is
a Flip-Q, which is still available, but the features built into the Flip-Q are far less than the
scripting software employed by the MSU Denver Office of Student Media, which uses
Rundown Creator for all shows. Flip-Q, for example, will not keep aggregate track of total run
6 In fairness, I have conducted audio seminars for my students and Met Report staff members many times. I agree
with Kent that audio levels are a consistent problem in student video work.
22


time in a live show, which is critical in television news. In Rundown Creator, it is already built
in. Notably, the Flip-Q software runs on a PC that uses the vastly out-of-date Windows XP as
its operating system. The same operating system can be found on the PC that runs the Harris
Inca Inscriber software.
An entirely separate set of problems arises from aspect ratio control. Channel 54 is
academy frame 4:3, and most non-linear editors and field cameras are now 16:9. The Metro
State Broadcast Network airs many shows on 54, focusing on much of MSU Denvers sports
teams: many womens and mens basketball, womens softball and mens baseball games are all
aired on Channel 54. The Office of Student Media uses Canon XA-25 video cameras that are
high-definition and 16:9. This creates producing and workflow problems for Eric Lansing, the
director of the Metro State Broadcast Network:
Having standard definition, while its something to have, well, when I give my
show to Altitude7 its still in four by three. When we shoot in the studio, its shot
in four by three. So, when we shoot in studio, does it make us look like any less
of a TV show? Maybe a little bit. But thats what we have to deal with here, until
we can have sixteen by nine cameras everywhere. And thats going to be
fantastic. When I shoot outside of the studio, doing standups and whatnot, its all
sixteen by nine. But in the studio, its all four by three. I put a screen behind it
when were shooting in studio, but when we shoot the highlights of the games,
thats all in sixteen by nine. And when youre talking about rendering time, it can
turn into 23 minutes of work for maybe a five-minute segment. (Lansing, 2015)
If this is painting too depressing a picture of Studio A, it is still worth noting that many
careers started there. Carl Bilek, the executive director of news gathering at KMGH-TV in
Denver, is a Metro State College graduate, and has these memories of majoring in broadcasting:
When I was a student at Metropolitan State College (now Metropolitan State
University of Denver) in 1988, the studio was very basic. There was a control
room with a basic switcher and there were two studio cameras. We did not have
the ability to playback videotape. Keep in mind, our editing education involved
H
Altitude Network in Denver, a cable network, currently airs shows and games from MSBN.
23


using razor blades and tape to physically splice together audio tape. It was a far
cry from todays non-linear editing systems! One of our class projects for
directing and studio production involved placing images on two music stands,
framing them with the studio cameras, and switching back and forth between the
images in sync with music playing from the audio board. In my case, I chose
black and white photos from Hollywoods golden age of movie musicals and set
them to the song Broadway Melody. This was my first exposure to a live
studio experience, and even though it was extremely basic, it did indeed provide
an opportunity to feel some of the stress that goes into not wanting to hit the
wrong button on the switcher and the anxiety of making sure the cameras were
framed correctly throughout the process. Our second production assignment was
similar in that we added a live announcer doing a voice over. In my case, I
created a mock station public service campaign featuring a kids coloring
contest in which viewers sent in drawings and one is selected as a winner. It
was called The Art of Disney. I created four entries showcasing the artwork
of three children. Because I only had music stands with which to work, I
created a main title image as well as a closing image. I positioned all of the
images on cardstock in exactly the same place so that when we dissolved from
one camera to the other, it appeared as though they were seamlessly changing in
sequence. Now that I look back on it, it was fairly clever, but again, it was not
conducive to actually learning newscast production. Having said that, I dont
begrudge my experience at Metro at all; I enjoyed my time there and it
positioned me to move forward in my career, despite the programs shortcomings
at the time. (Bilek, 2015)
Bilek is far from the only broadcaster who went on from Metro State to succeed in the
business. Robert Dominguez, the current production manager for ABCs Good Morning
America, graduated from Metro in 2004 with a degree in communications, and several years of
experience with the Met Report. Dominguez, a Denver native, has come back to MSU every
year8 and talk to the current Met Report staff at least one day out of the year, if not once a
semester. I had to work my tail off back there in VTR to make sure all the tapes played
correctly, he told the students on his last visit. But we always made a good show and made it
work, no matter how old the equipment was. You have to work with what you have, and you
can always learn something, he said (Dominguez, 2014). After some years as a production
I first met Robert several years ago via Hassan Shah, a former student of mine who now works for E! Networks
in Los Angeles.
24


assistant on such shows as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and other reality TV shows,
Dominguez made the move to Good Morning America.
Last December, he also took some time to talk about his experience at Metro State and
how it related to his job with the MSU Denver Alumni Office:
Dominguez credits MSU Denver for much of his success. I remember the day
one of my professors put it to me bluntly and told me that what I wanted to
accomplish in TV wasnt going to happen in Denver. I needed to think big, as in
New York or Los Angeles, and that would require me to make the jump. So in
his senior year he blanketed production studios and networks with resumes for
any entry-level job he could find. Eventually producers from the TV hit, Queer
Eye for the Straight Guy, called and that was the break he needed. I appreciate
that conversation to this day, it encouraged me to open my mind to larger
opportunities, he says. But networking is key too, and it begins in the
classroom. Many of my internship and career leads were from classmates.
Dominguezs advice for today's students: Acknowledge the good days and learn
from the bad ones thats how you grow. And dont compare your career path
to others around you. Youll go insane. Acknowledge their strife and
accomplishments, but understand over the course of a lifetime its all a fluid
situation and everyone is on their own journey. (MSU Denver, 2015)
Two industry veterans in high-profile broadcasting positions, both with experience on at
least some of the same (albeit old) equipment. And in both cases, the equipment was old when
they both attended Metro State. While it truly is time for a sea change in Studio As equipment
and workflow, at least what it had could do the job well enough to do what a university program
is meant to do: gain employment for graduates.
But some students find themselves frustrated. Josh Cozart, the general manager of Met
Report and Noticiero TV Met for 2015 and 2016, has also interned at KCNC-TV, the CBS-
owned and operated station in Denver. He is also interning during the summer of 2015 in the
meteorology department at KWCH-TV in Wichita, Kansas. He says this about Studio A: my
first thought is that it might not be teaching me as well as what I need for going into the
business. As for the remodeling and new equipment, he does have some concerns about the
25


entire studio being new and wholly different for the very first newscast of the fall semester of
2015:
As GM going into the new semester with everything being completely different
than what we are used to is most definitely something that Im pretty concerned
about, but I know in the long run it will make things way more efficient for us
and better our product overall. But maybe this should have happened five, ten
years ago, when everything in the television business did switch over to digital. I
will miss (the old equipment) a little bit, because I felt like just at the end of the
semester, I was comfortable with how everything works. But Im excited to see
what all the new stuff can do and learning all that. (Cozart, 2015)
The last major renovation of Studio A was in 1997. Since then, gear has been added and
removed piecemeal from the studio. Some has been migrated to Studio B for use there, while
other equipment has failed completely. This leaves Studio B in perhaps an even tougher
position than Studio A.
26


CHAPTER VI
THE STUDIOS: STUDIO B
Studio B is one that takes up two floors, with the control booth on the first floor of
Auraria Media Center, and the set area down below in the basement, as opposed to Studio A,
which is housed in toto on the ground floor. Also unlike Studio A, Studio B was built to be self-
contained, and tape-based playback was eliminated years ago in B (unlike A), in favor of DVD,
mini-DV, and other digital playback methods.
Studio B is also not directly connected to Channel 54. While pre-recorded programs
recorded in Studio B do air on 54, Studio B is not used in a live broadcast capacity. It is truly a
closed production facility.
The control room in Studio B is much more compact than Studio A. And a decade ago,
it was cluttered:
When I first got here in 2005, there was a big shelf up on the wall with the
monitors in a row, and a bunch of monitors near the console with an old
aqua-colored countertop and several old VHS machines, using the classic
Grass Valley 110 switcher. Studio B still has the windows looking out on
the studio. Old school, but I still like it.
(Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015)
Courtnage worked to make the studio much more digital than Studio A from the outset.
Early on, it was just VHS record/playback, and then we moved to DVD record/playback, and
we had mini-DV for quite a while. And for the first time, with the renovations, Studio B will
be connected to the main router next door to Studio A. This will give Studio B the capability of
generating live broadcast on Channel 54.
27


The video switcher in Studio B is an EchoLab switcher. While the company closed in
2010 (Zaller, 2010), the design itself is not, as BlackMagic Design very quickly bought the
assets of EchoLab (Blackmagic Design, 2010).
The audio console is a Ramsa that came from EchoStar corporate studios in Littleton as a
donation. Its served us well in this situation, Courtnage said. It will be replaced by one of the
new Yamaha mixers. Studio B can generate stereo audio, but for anything played back on
Channel 54, it is be summed to mono, which will also change with the remodeling, as Channel
54 will be able to broadcast in stereo.
Studio B has remained, for many years, essentially an island, and not connectable to the
workings of Studio A or Channel 54. It wont be anymore. There will be less isolation and it
will be part of the main router system. And, of course, it will have the same recording format
(as Studio A), and there will be a Ross Switcher in here which is much more similar to the big
one coming to Studio A, and the CRTs will be replaced by LCD monitors, though Im not sure
what cameras will be in here yet, Courtnage says. And he says he may use the cameras from
Studio A, which will be replaced by Hitachi cameras.
28


CHAPTER VII
CABLE TELEVISION AND THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Much of the programming generated in Studios A and B is expressly intended for airing
on Channel 54 in its current setup. Both the Office of Student Media at MSU Denver and the
Metro State Broadcast Network have television shows that either originate live from Studio A
or are produced specifically for airing on that channel, both from the field and in the studio, or a
combination of the two. University of Colorado Denvers TVFP department draws on both in-
studio shoots and field shoots to add programming to Channel 54.
While the popular misconception may be that the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) is not involved in cable ownership or programming, the FCC is, in reality, very involved,
and it is portions of the FCC requirements of local cable operators that led directly to the
genesis of this project and this thesis.
It starts with ownership. Most consumers are familiar with their cable provider,
immediately calling up such names as Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, and many more. But the
key word is provider. Under current FCC law, the local municipality or the state is actually
the primary owner of the cable franchise:
The 1992 Cable Act codified, and the Commission has adopted, a
regulatory plan allowing local and/or state authorities to select a cable
franchisee and to regulate in any areas that the Commission did not
preempt. Local franchising authorities have adopted laws and/or
regulations in areas such as subscriber service requirements, public access
requirements and franchise renewal standards. Under the 1992 Cable Act,
local franchising authorities have specific responsibility for regulating the
rates for basic cable service and equipment.
(Federal Communications Commission, 2015)
What can become convoluted is how the FCC developed the law up to that point. Cable
television has, in reality, been around since the late 1940s, developed so that viewers in far-
29


flung communities with no self-generating UHF or VHF stations could receive retransmissions
of broadcast signals from larger markets. Originally developed by Robert Tarlton, the first such
service was able to re-broadcast over-the-air stations in Philadelphia to television set retailers in
Lansford, Pennsylvania, well outside the reach of over-the-air TV signals from Philadelphia
(Broadband Cable Association of Pennsylvania, 2004). And the TV set retailers paid a fee to
Tarlton for the service perhaps an early indication of the later economics of cable television.
But by 1950, only seventy such systems were needed in the United States; higher power
permissions for TV transmission from the FCC led to at least acceptable coverage of most
communities in the United States that could receive service from the VHF9 band of TV stations,
which had greater range than the UHF10 stations (Federal Communications Commission, 2007).
Between 1950 and the 1980s, cable television really didnt exist as a medium
independent of broadcast television. But by December, 2011, there were more than 5,300 cable
systems serving more than 60 million subscribers (Federal Communications Commission,
2015). And the FCC also notes that most subscribers receive in excess of 100 channels.
Public service to the community has long been a stated goal of the FCC, no matter the
medium. In 1946, the FCC took many broadcasters to task in something called the Blue Book,
which was published to codify FCC programming guidelines forjudging the performance of the
radio or TV station when it came time for the FCC to renew that stations license (Riley, 2012).
The original FCC Blue Book had four programming requirements for broadcasters:
Broadcast experimental programs not sponsored by advertisers
Promote local live programs
Devote programs to the discussion of local public issues
Eliminate excessive advertising
9 VHF stations occupied the channel assignments 2 through 13 on old rotary-dial televisions.
10 UHF stations occupied the channel assignments 14 through 83 on old rotary-dial televisions.
30


The Blue Book was not well received by broadcasters. In fact, the National Association
of Broadcasters judged it a mortal enemy FCC Chairman Clifford Durr said he was called a
stooge for communists by the NAB president (Riley, 2012). Broadcasting Magazine accused
the FCC of trying to make broadcasting in the United States look and sound like the BBC
(Newman, 2004). Broadcasting Magazine editorialized against the Blue Book for eighteen
consecutive weeks; NBC President Niles Trammel gathered the editorials and published them in
a red-covered booklet that wound up being called the Red Book.
The Blue Book never carried any legal weight, but it did sensitize broadcasters as to
what the FCC could require at license renewal time. In 2015, the FCC does have highly codified
requirements for not only radio and television station owners, but also cable operators and even
satellite radio. The regulations apply to the technical areas of broadcast, such as power and
interference, as well as content. Sirius/XM, for example, must carry local content nationally if it
is to carry local content at all:
Early this month, in a seemingly innocuous move, XM Radio offered 15
new satellite radio channels featuring local programmingtraffic updates
and weather reports. But because FCC rules require XM (and its rival,
Sirius) to exclusively provide national programming, each of these local
for example, can learn about a foggy night on the coast of Florida or the
traffic en route to O'Hare, just by flipping the dial. The launch of the new
channels has kicked off a highly charged debate about whether the local
content is legal. Traditional broadcasters claim it's not, because the
programming targets particular regions. XM and Sirius (which plans
similar channels) claim it is, because the programming airs nationwide. So
far, the FCC seems to be siding with XM, but the regulatory scuffle points
up the pickle that satellite radio is currently in: In order to get permission
to exist, XM and Sirius had to swear off local content. But in order to
survive, they need to find a legal way to deliver it to subscribers.
(Hazlett, 2004)
31


The FCC may not be as active on programming issues as it is on technical ones, but it is
still active. Radio and television stations must maintain public files that can be inspected by
anyone who walks into a radio station, and those files must list such items as all paid political
announcements and public service programming. The language in the FCC statute has changed
little from the language used by its predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, from 1926 to
1934:
In exchange for obtaining a valuable license to operate a broadcast station
using the public airwaves, each radio and television licensee is required by
law to operate its station in the public interest, convenience and
necessity. This means that it must air programming that is responsive to
the needs and problems of its local community of license.
(Federal Communications Commission, 2008)
The requirements change drastically in the cable television arena. The FCC involves
itself more in the regulation of who holds the franchise for a cable system much more than
actual content on the cable system itself:
Before commencing operation, a cable system operator must send the
following information to the Secretary of the Commission for each
community to be served:
(1) The legal name of the operator, the entity identification or
social security number, and whether the operator is an individual,
private association, partnership or corporation. If the operator is a
partnership, the legal name of the partner responsible for
communications with the Commission;
(2) The assumed name (if any) used for doing business in the
community;
(3) The mailing address, including zip code, and the telephone
number to which all communications are to be directed;
(4) The date the system provided services to 50 or more
subscribers;
(5) The name of the community or area served and the county in
which it is located;
(6) The television broadcast signals to be carried;
(7) A certification that the applicant is not subject to a denial of
federal benefits pursuant to Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act of 1988, 21U.S.C., 853a, or, in the case of a non-individual
32


applicant (for instance, a corporation, partnership, or other
unincorporated association), that no party to the application is
subject to a denial of federal benefits pursuant to that section; and
(8) For a cable system (or an employment unit) with six or more
full-time employees, a statement of the proposed community unit's
equal employment opportunity program, unless such program has
previously been filed for the community unit or is not required to
be filed based on an anticipated number if fewer than six full-time
employees.
A registration statement must be signed by an authorized
representative of the cable television company. The Commission
issues a public notice setting forth the details of each registration
statement as it is received. The cable television operator is not
required to serve the registration statement on any party and may
begin operation immediately upon filing the registration
statement. However, commencement of operation is entirely at the
risk of the system operator. If violations of the rules are
subsequently discovered, appropriate regulatory sanctions,
of a cease and/or desist order, may be employed.
(Federal Communications Commission, 2015)
Regulation of cable television systems comes mostly from the franchise holder, not the
FCC itself. While the FCC does require filing of the channels to be carried on each cable
system, it is left to the local operator as to where those channels will be placed on the system.
The original Blue Book from the FCC may have started the discussion about public
service requirements, and those discussions continue today on a more local level with cable
television franchisees, each one of which may have different requirements for cable operators in
their jurisdiction:
A variety of laws and regulations for cable television exist at the state and
local level. Some states, such as Massachusetts, regulate cable television
on a comprehensive basis through a state commission or advisory board
established for the sole purpose of cable television regulation. In Alaska,
Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the
agencies are state public utility commissions. In Hawaii, regulation of
cable television is the responsibility of the Department of Commerce and
Consumer Affairs. In other areas of the country, cable is regulated by
local governments such as a city cable commission, city council, town
council, or a board of supervisors. These regulatory entities are called
33


"local franchising authorities." In addition, most states have one or more
state laws specifically applicable to cable television, dealing most
commonly with such subjects as franchising, theft of service, pole
attachments, rate regulation and taxation.
(Federal Communications Commission, 2015)
In Denver, City and County of Denver Media is the franchise holder for Comcast cable.
Denver County is one of nine counties in what is called the Metro Denver region (Metro
Denver Economic Development Corporation, 2015). Each and every one of them may have
different cable regulations county by county, or even city by city within each county.
City and County of Denver Medias webpage lists several public service channels:
Channel 8 and Channel 58 are managed and programmed by Denver Media Services, an arm of
City and County of Denver Media. Channel 22 is the educational access channel through
Denver Public Schools. Channel 54 is designated by City and County of Denver Media as for
Auraria Campus only:
Channel 54 originates from the Auraria Campus in downtown Denver.
Focused on higher education, it serves as a communication service for
three institutions. The Community College of Denver, Metropolitan State
University of Denver and University of Colorado Denver all share this
urban location. Programming includes academic learning, local history,
informational postings and student productions. Channel 54 features a
weekly student production called the Met Report. This news and
entertainment broadcast offers both English and Spanish editions.
(City of Denver, 2015)
In the 1990s, cities in the Denver metropolitan area banded together to form an
organization that can collectively negotiate many terms with local cable companies, primarily
Comcast. Those communities didnt officially band together as a non-profit corporation until
2012, when they called themselves the Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance
(Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance, 2015). While the group does not negotiate
blanket agreements with a cable system, it does work to help the individual cities bargain their
34


final franchise agreements with the cable operator. While cable television rates may be the most
important to the public, there are many other areas including public service programming and
the content of that programming that can and will be part of the discussions between a cable
service provider and the community of license that acts as the franchisee.
35


CHAPTER VIII
LITERATURE REVIEW: PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING OF HIGHER EDUCATION
So far, the discussion in this thesis has centered on the technical advancements and
opportunities that will be gained with the addition of $453,000 from City and County of Denver
Media, the franchisee for cable television in all of Denver County. But what has not been
mentioned is the influx of money from the private sector in higher education overall.
This thesis is not here to re-litigate the issue, because private sector money is in higher
education, and will remain there. It will not go away. But the existing academic literature on the
issue can be examined as to whether money from private businesses creates an inherent conflict
with the mission of higher education, or whether such monies should be welcomed with open
arms.
Is ours the only campus that who has obtained private money for educational
improvements, specifically capital expenditures? Certainly not. The literature shows a wide
array of private money filtering into higher education for many different purposes. Ergo, this
review of the literature will look toward the basic questions of private-sector funding in public
education, which has been explored thoroughly. Any literature specifically mentioning arts and
media education funding will also be included, but it is a much smaller body of work. There are
no shortage of good, scholarly articles extolling the benefits of adding private monies to higher
education. But there is also a growing chorus of concern about a growing reliance on private-
sector dollars. Vincent Carpentier in 2012 published a thorough study of the issue, with some
startling findings. First of note is the changes in public and private funding percentages over
time in higher education (Carpentier, 2012):
36


(Table 1: Changes in public versus private funding in higher education)
----Fees USA ...Fees UK Fees France
----Public funding USA ---------Public funding UK Public funding France
The growth in private funding from 1945 to 1973 is notable, and Carpentier uses his
figures to show not additional funding, but funding substitution. In other words, the private-
sector money is replacing public-sector monies in his study. And that is shown in another of
Carpentiers tables:
(Table 2: Funding substitution from public funds to private-sector dollars)
Enrolment
Public funding
Private funding
Total funding
1973-2009
1945-1973
1921-1945
Funding per student
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
37


The line indicating public funding of US higher education starts declining in
approximately 1972, and has declined a full ten percentage points by the end of the graph, with
only moderate fluctuations therein. If we are to believe Carpentier, then private money is now
replacing public funding of higher education, a trend he does not entirely like:
The main lesson from the comparison and contrast of the UK, the USA
and France is that, in a context of austerity, the increase of fees combined
with the emergence of other private resources does not necessarily mean
additional income. As a result, there is a risk that cost-sharing becomes a
public-to-private substitution of funding and provision. Moreover, the
2008 crisis reminds us that there is balance to be struck between the
diversification of income and the risk of volatility associated with some
private resources. (Carpentier, 2012, p. 386)
Another excellent article on the topic was written by G. Thomas Sav of Wright State
University in Dayton, Ohio:
Based on this research, government free riding appears to be alive and
well and implies that private fund raising in public higher education
partially crowds out state government funding at the rate of 43% on the
dollar. That is based on an aggregate of some 1,200 colleges and
universities in 2006. The present finding of crowding out decline is by
itself significant for the revenue implications of successful private fund
raising on the part of public colleges and universities. (Sav, 2010, p. 298)
Supporters of private monies in higher education dont disagree with the replacement
theory of dollars. But they do argue that the overall good still outweighs the potential negatives:
The PPP model has been used to improve road systems, hospitals, security
services, and of course, educational systems around the world with great
success. While considered somewhat controversial by some because of the
perception that they will increase the involvement of government in
the private sector, PPPs are not new. On the contrary, these arrangements
have existed since the Roman Empire. They persist because they are
mutually beneficial for government and the private sector. America's
corporations have resources and tools available to invest in our next
generation of innovative leaders. (McPhail, 2011, p. 80)
38


Still, for every critic of the flow of private sector money into higher education, there
seems to be a success story. They date back years:
We all remember the major financial cutbacks our campuses suffered
during the severe recession of the 1980s and early 1990s. Those were
difficult times, but now we are moving forward. In the past 14 months,
legislators and Gov. Foster have set aside millions of new dollars for
higher education to finance deferred maintenance, new construction,
faculty pay raises, distance learning, university budgets, libraries,
equipment and far-reaching scholarship programs. Last month, the Board
of Regents, through the Regents Support Fund, distributed more than
$14 million to 24 Louisiana universities and colleges, many in the New
Orleans area, to underwrite 171 new endowed professorships and 19 new
endowed chairs for eminent scholars. This is a new record. Another major
purpose is to build stronger ties between the private sector and higher
education. Private contributions are critical to the well-being of our
colleges and universities. (Callais, 1997).
Many are much more recent:
In a very real sense, increased collaboration between industry and higher
education has brought the creative engine of the knowledge economy to
rest on the shoulders of academic researchers. The rise in real-world
research and education in colleges and universities has generated exciting
opportunities with the potential to shift higher educations culture for
example, by embracing the opportunity for faculty to move back and forth
between industry and Academia (sic) (Klawe, 2015).
There is ample evidence for both sides of the argument. Perhaps more germane is an
overview of American higher education and the patterns of funding. John Thelins article on
success and excess in higher education since 1960 puts it aptly; he cites the paradox of
prosperity with the dysfunctions of success:
As for the matter of over-expansion and unbridled spending, I think that
big science is Exhibit A as a source of problems and reconsideration in
the 21st century. The original rationale was that, of course, a physics
department will be competitive for large federal research grants and will
pay for itself. In fact, competition for federal research grants is sufficiently
competitive that physics departments at some aspiring research
universities do not do well in attracting sufficient grants and external
39


funding. A rough estimate is that there are about 120 universities
committed to advanced science research and serious pursuit of
federal research grants. This is testimony to the paradox of success in that
since World War II there has been a re-shuffle and intense competition
among established research programs and a host of relative newcomers. At
the home campus big science is hailed as a potential source of added
resources. The sobering reality is that investment in infrastructure, staff,
research support and annual salaries for highly paid science professors and
research assistants are not easy to recoup from external grants.
(Thelin, 2013, p. Ill)
The business of private money in higher education is now just that big business. While
it is easy to say private funding of higher education would not be necessary if higher education
had the funding it needed from public sources a source that, over time, has shrunk nationally
(Carpentier, 2012), and is only starting to recover from the recession that began in 2008. The
publication Inside Higher Ed calls it a checkered recovery:
Thirty-nine states report increasing spending in 2015, with
increases from 0.1 percent in Maine to 21.1 percent in Illinois, though that
money does not go to educational operations, according to the report.
Ten states registered declines, ranging from -0.4 percent in Delaware to -2
percent in West Virginia. Funding remained unchanged in North Dakota.
While half the states are spending more than they were in the 2010 budget 4
cycle, the other half, of course, are not. Its a tenuous increase, said Jim
Palmer, an Illinois State education professor who wrote the report. Its
kind of a checkered situation and we expect that checkered situation to
continue in some states. Counting federal stimulus dollars from the
first years of the Obama administration, nationwide state spending on
higher education is up only 3.4 percent since 2010. Many states used that
federal cash to avoid sharp or sharper cuts. Much of the nationwide
average gain come from a handful of the most populous states
California, Florida and Illinois. Take away those three states, and spending
in the other 47 states increased by an average of just under 3 percent since
the 2014 budget cycle. (Rivard, 2015)
Here in Colorado, the increased spending has not taken the states higher education
budget up to levels seen before this decade:
40


Even states that have recently put a chunk of cash into higher education
are not above their recession-era spending levels. For instance, Colorado
increased spending by nearly 15 percent in 2015 over 2014, but is still
spending 6 percent less than it did in 2010. New Hampshire, Michigan,
South Carolina all had significant increases in 2015 but are still below
2010 spending. (Rivard, 2015)
And some states still face perilous cuts or almost did. Wisconsin Governor Scott
Walker floated the idea of a $300 million dollar cut for the 2015-2017 fiscal year budget, but
that states legislature has cut that amount to $250 million dollars, and may consider lowering it
even more. (Kerstcher, 2015) (Associated Press, 2015). Arizona, however, did enact the deepest
cuts to higher education in the country, cutting $99 million dollars from higher education
statewide in that states last budget (Goldberg, 2015). Critics have said the cutback talk in both
states was politically motivated, driven by conservative opposition to a perceived liberal bias in
higher education (Goldberg, 2015). But no matter how one views such news, they are steep
cutbacks to higher education budgets that have, in most cases, already been drastically scaled
back. If the answer to those cutbacks is inviting and accepting more money from the private
sector, the educational cost of doing so must be kept in mind.
41


CHAPTER IX
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS ON AURARIA CAMPUS
There is no shortage of private-sector dollars currently in use at Auraria Campus; a
partnership between City and County of Denver Media and Auraria Media Center would merely
be the latest in a long line of existing arrangements.
University of Colorado Denvers biggest such partnership is the Anschutz Medical
Campus in Aurora, Denvers biggest suburb and the bordering city to the east. It was formerly
the Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, which closed in 1999. Originally, the facility took
advantage of Denvers altitude to become the prime location for treatment of the victims of
chemical weapons in Europe during World War I. especially those with pulmonary problems.
Later, it became the main treatment center for tuberculosis victims in the United States. In
World War II, Fitzsimons was used to treat casualties and became the Armys best medical
training center (Military.com, 2015).
But the closure recommendations of BRAC in the 1990s (the Base Realignment and
Closure Commission) spelled the end of Fitzsimons. While city of Aurora officials fought hard
against closing Fitzsimons, since it was the citys biggest employer, they lost that battle
(Gilmore, 2005).
Unlike other military facilities, Fitzsimons was not shuttered long. Matrix Design
Group quickly put together plans and program management for a bioscience research park
anchored by the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, the only medical school in the
state (Matrix Design Group, 2015).
The Anschutz family, whose patriarch Phil Anschutz is ranked by Forbes as the 104th
richest person in the world thus far in 2015 (Forbes, 2015), donated $91 million dollars toward
42


the construction of the campus, and not only has naming rights on the overall campus, but has
individual naming rights on the Anschutz Inpatient Pavilion, the Anschutz Outpatient and
Cancer Pavilions, and the Anschutz Centers for Advanced Medicine. A report from CU Denver
says the universitys involvement generates $3.33 billion dollars in economic benefits to the
states economy, including $1.43 billion in direct spending and another $1.90 billion with
indirect impacts in secondary markets (University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical
Campus, 2014).
And there are many other public-private partnerships at CU Denver. The College of
Architecture and Planning has partnered with Denver Public Schools to create a program called
Learning Landscapes, which the university says has transformed more than eighty neglected
public elementary schoolyards into more usable park space (University of Colorado Denver,
2015). The National Center for Media Forensics, a graduate program within CU Denvers
Music and Entertainment Industry Studies program, has partnered with the Lakewood Police11
to help analyze clues left at crime scenes. And the University of Colorado Denver Business
School touts its Global Energy Management program, which partners with governmental bodies
and the energy industry to offer an eighteen-month, 36-credit hour program that leads to a
Master of Science in Global Energy Management (University of Colorado Denver, 2015). The
business school also is home to the J.P Morgan Center for Commodities Education and
Research, and the Jake Jabs Center for Entrepreneurship.12
At MSU Denver, President Steven Jordan says he was told to pursue public-private
partnerships when he was hired:
11 Lakewood is a western suburb of Denver.
12
Jake Jabs is the owner of American Furniture Warehouse, a chain of furniture stores in Colorado and Arizona.
43


When I was appointed in 2005, the board of trustees made it clear that it
wanted to pursue a more entrepreneurial direction. There was a sweet
spot for MSU Denver between two-year colleges that granted degrees
focused primarily on workforce development and four-year research
institutions. That sweet spot was where we wanted MSU Denver to be,
offering theory and practice for career-oriented students. When the
economic downturn hit, such goals took on additional urgency and one
more was added: find new sources of funding. (Jordan, 2013)
One of the largest partnerships with the private sector at MSU Denver is the SpringHill
Suites Marriott, next to Auraria Campus. Marriott, the owner of SpringHill Suites, describes it
as an innovative learning laboratory for the next generation of hoteliers:
On-site at the SpringHill Suites Denver Downtown, the Hospitality
Learning Center at Metropolitan State University of Denver offers the
unique opportunity to work in a learning laboratory. Providing hands-on
mentoring, training, and support, our staff of seasoned experts collaborates
with dedicated students as they gain real-world experience in their field.
Together with Metropolitan State University of Denver, SpringHill Suites
Denver Downtown is guiding these high-achieving students to successful
careers as some of the countrys most innovative and creative hoteliers in
the industry. When you stay at the SpringHill Suites Denver Downtown,
youre not only choosing a stellar downtown hotel, youre helping to train
future leaders of the hospitality industry. A portion of the proceeds for
every stay goes towards a scholarship fund for students of the Hospitality
Learning Center. (Marriott, 2015)
The agreement between Marriott and MSU called for the university to raise $12 million
dollars, and for Marriott to give back part of the hotel profits, an arrangement that has been in
place now for five years (Jordan, 2013).
This led to larger talks at MSU Denver about including a franchising program in
academics. Denver is one of Americas major hubs for franchising, yet it has no university-
level training ground for franchise-owning entrepreneurs (Jordan, 2013). While the desire was
there, the franchising program did not prove successful. MSU Denver closed the doors on its
entrepreneurial incubator facility early in 2015. Part of the new Student Success Building, the
44


facility is now used as conference space.
A much more successful public-private partnership and another of MSU Denvers
larger ones came in the form of new athletic fields for softball, baseball, track, tennis and
soccer. The Regency Athletic Complex at MSU Denver is a classic example of selling naming
rights to a sports facility; The Regency Student Housing Community, one of the private
dormitories that serve the Auraria Campus, contributed a million dollars for the naming rights.
MSU Denver contributed $19 million. The total cost was $23.6 million dollars, leaving about $4
million to come from outside resources (Vacarelli, 2015).
Community College of Denver (CCD), for its part, has an ongoing relationship with the
Regional Transportation District as part of a program called WIN, or Workforce Initiative
Now:
Unprecedented challenges in recruiting, training, and retaining a sustainable
workforce confront the transportation industry in Denver with the FasTracks
expansion projecta comprehensive plan to build 122 miles of new commuter
rail and light rail, 18 miles of bus rapid transit, 21,000 new parking spaces at
light rail and bus stations, and to enhance existing city bus service in Denver. In
partnership with local training and resource programs and the public workforce
system, WIN advances participants skills to prepare for trade, office, design,
and administrative positions on local infrastructure projects like FasTracks.
(Community College of Denver, 2015)
While this is a current list of the public-private partnerships on Auraria Campus, all
three schools are always adding a new array of arrangements with the private sector. As MSU
Denvers President, Stephen Jordan, said, many were created to attract new funding sources in
the wake of a recession that crippled state support of higher education and something
everyone in education in Colorado has to deal with: a law called TABOR, or the Taxpayers
Bill of Rights.
45


CHAPTER X
TABOR (THE TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS)
If you are reading this from outside the state of Colorado, we need to introduce you to
the methodology of funding higher education in our state. All states have different methods and
formulas for higher education funding, but Colorados method is both unique and very
restrictive.
In 1992, Colorado voters approved an amendment to the state constitution called
TABOR, which is the acronym for the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. It limits the annual growth in
state revenues to sum of the rate of inflation and the percentage change in the states population.
Ergo, if the inflation rate was two percent last year, but population statewide dropped one
percent, the state of Colorado would only be permitted to collect one percent additional budget
revenues the next year (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2013). There is, however, a
back door of sorts in the Amendment in that state officials can go to voters asking for more
money in a referendum vote (State of Colorado, 2015).
In Colorado, TABOR was the brainchild and cause celebre of Douglas Bruce, a
Republican statehouse member from Colorado Springs:
You may recall that I wrote the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR)
Amendment, a state constitutional amendment approved in 1992. 68% of
El Paso County voters supported TABOR. At that years GOP state
assembly, TABOR was endorsed by 71% of delegates. In 1991, TABOR
passed in Colorado Springs with 61% approval. (Bruce, 2015)
As TABOR became law, local governments felt the effects of a declining revenue pool.
The University of Colorado-Colorado Springs published an in-depth study on the effects of
TABOR at the level of municipal government:
46


Results show that TABOR has indeed restrained the growth of spending
and taxes by municipal governments. For a typical municipality, operating
expenditures had been increasing in per capita real purchasing power by
an average of about seven per cent a year prior to 1985, and by almost four
percent annually between 1985 and 1992. Since the passage of TABOR,
these expenditures have decreased slightly. Despite municipal election
successes, Gallagher and TABOR each had a significant restraining
impact on spending and revenue growth for a typical Colorado
municipality. (Brown, 2001)
Even in the mid to late-1990s, some municipal governments tried to figure out ways
around TABOR to avoid a revenue squeeze, and a nickname arose from the process: de-
Brucing, a reference to TABOR Amendment author Doug Bruce:
For example, Denver has neither sought nor obtained a tax increase or an
exemption, although it has received approval for seven debt issues and
failed to get four others approved. Colorado Springs has received voter
approval only for some limited exemptions, a small sales tax increase, and
one bond issue. Aurora voters denied an exemption, but did get approve a
small tax increase for police and jail purposes, along with three of nine
proposed debt issues. Lakewood voters granted one limited exemption and
debt issue, but voted down a much larger debt and tax increase proposal.
Pueblo has received approval for some limited exemptions, one small,
specific purpose sales tax increase and two bond issues. Of the large Front
Range cities, only Fort Collins has had a general TABOR exemption
approved (in 1999), although it defeated an earlier debt increase
proposal. (Brown, 2001)
State spending under TABOR, overall, declined by about three percent between 1992
and 2013. Though the amount of money increased, the baseline measurements of inflation rate
and population growth in TABOR meant that, when compared to state residents personal
incomes, overall state spending dropped from 6.7 percent to 3.9 percent of a taxpayers income:
Colorado has largely stayed away from the fiscal cliff that states like
California went over. That, in and of itself, is cause for celebrating
TABOR," says Jon Caldara, president of the libertarian-conservative
Independence Institute. "It has required more transparency of government,
and that is worth celebrating. And most importantly, it has angered every
politician and 'taking' group because now they have to lobby all of us
instead of just taking out a few legislators to dinner to get what they
want.(Hoover, 2013)
47


Opponents of TABOR, then and now, not only call the restrictions a fiscal vise, they feel
TABOR removes democracy from the process of governing:
Wade Buchanan, president of the liberal Bell Policy Center, says
Colorado's unique experiment has failed. "It promised power to the
people, but it gave us more of a Rube Goldberg mechanism for funding
public structures and systems," Buchanan says, referring to the cartoonist's
whimsical drawings of imaginary and complex machines. "You've got a
legislature that is supposed to make spending decisions and the people,
who are supposed to make revenue decisions. You don't really have a way
of effectively rationalizing the two of those processes. (Hoover, 2013)
Still, TABOR has not been followed to the letter of the law since its enactment in 1992.
In 2005, then-Governor Bill Owens, a Republican, helped craft a five-year reprieve from
TABORs mandates (Bell Policy Center, 2003). It was called Referendum C, and the relaxation
of TABOR limitations applied only to general funding for public K-12 education, higher
education, health care and transportation. Voters approved the measure in November, 2005. A
separate measure, Referendum D, was defeated during that same election. Referendum D would
have covered police and firefighter pension funds, improvements to school buildings in K-12
and higher education, and a separate bond issue for road repairs (Bell Policy Center, 2003).
The budget effect from the reprieve was immediate. Colorado suddenly had $5.7 billion
more in state coffers. Voter sentiment approving the TABOR rollback may have been driven by
hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts state lawmakers were forced to make during the
recession of 2001 2003 (Bell Policy Center, 2003).
It should be noted that the 2005 Referendum C did not raise tax rates. Instead, it simply
lifted the limitations of TABOR tying state budget growth to the amount of inflation plus the
percentage growth in population. Taxpayers did not pay more during the reprieve; instead, the
state government was freed from the constraints of having to do something else with the
48


additional revenue, be it investing the money or refunding it directly to taxpayers (State of
Colorado, 2015).
While it is true that TABOR refunds have totaled $2 billion dollars to taxpayers since
the amendments approval, experts argue those refunds have come at a far larger cost. As a
direct result of TABOR, the education watchdog group Colorado Succeeds has continually
cast dire warnings:
In spite of the creation of the College Opportunity Fund and the passage of
Referendum C, funding for Colorados universities and colleges will remain in
critical condition for years to come. The picture is bleak. Governing boards have
little or no control of tuition revenue because the General Assembly and the
Governor retain the authority to regulate tuition. State funding continues to be
caught in the web of multiple overlapping and conflicting fiscal limitations and
mandates that will stall any attempts to provide help. Attempts to address this
systemic gridlock can only take effect with voter approval. Ballots are already
crowded, the financial dilemma is complexrequiring changes to several
constitutional provisions and statutes and the so-called single-subject
provision of Colorados constitution prevents a package of solutions from being
presented because ballot issues can contain only one subject. Higher education
funding is caught in a trap and, unless profound changes are made, there is no
way out. (Taylor, 2006)
The College Opportunity Fund referenced in the above section is somewhat unique.
Other states have something similar, but the College Opportunity Fund in Colorado comes with
no income guidelines and no requirement to attend full time; instead, it merely requires in-state
residency and undergraduate status. According to College in Colorado, a student taking fifteen
credit hours at a two or four-year public school in Colorado would receive $2,250 total for the
year to apply toward undergraduate tuition (College in Colorado, 2013). The legislature created
COF in 2004.
Still, by many estimates, Colorado ranks extremely low in the nation when it comes to
direct funding of higher education. The state has twelve four-year public institutions, thirteen
49


community colleges and two local district colleges. A study from Colorado Succeeds once
placed this state second to last, only above Vermont, which does not have the necessary
population base to be a good statistical example of spending trends in higher education:
As a share of the state budget, higher education has dropped from 14.6
percent in fiscal year 1997 to 10.1 percent in fiscal year 2007. In fiscal
year 2006, Colorado sank to a ranking of 49th in per capita state tax
appropriations for higher education operations, down from a ranking of
34th in 1996. Colorado ranked 48th in state appropriations per $1,000 of
personal income in fiscal year 2006 compared to a ranking of 36th in
fiscal year 1996. Colorado placed 47th in its percentage change in higher
education funding between fiscal years 1996 and 2006. Between fiscal
years 2002 and 2005, state appropriations for higher education governing
boards declined by nearly 21 percent; at the same time
enrollments jumped by 14 percent. (Taylor, 2006)
Proponents of TABORs spending controls, however, have long decried the statements
and statistics from Colorado Succeeds and many other education watchdog groups. Instead
they point to statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau that put Colorado as high as 36th in the
nation in spending on higher education (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
A script obtained by this author that provided talking points for PowerPoint
presentations on the perilous state of higher education funding in Colorado included such
directions for presenting the issue to the audience as follows:
Shifting financial burden: If youve paid a tuition bill recently, Im sure
youre familiar with the term sticker shock. Our students and families
now shoulder two-thirds of the cost of college as state funding for higher
education has fallen. The state used to cover two-thirds of the cost of a
college education while students covered one-third through tuition. That
ratio has flipped, with students covering two-thirds of the cost of higher
education in this state.
We are not alone in facing these challenges. Colorados challenges in
these areas reflect those facing our nation. This doesnt make our situation
any easier.
Personalize the presentation Pick a personal anecdote for one of the
four points. Examples might include your or a friends difficulty in hiring,
a childs winding road through college, a student who represents the
50


completion gap or a family struggling to meet college costs.
(Colorado Commission on Higher Education, 2013)
The PowerPoint presentation from CCHE very quickly delved into the issue of tuition
increases to offset TABORs mandates. By slide eight, the presenter had these talking points:
Another challenge we face is the dramatically shifting financial burden
of college costs. We sometimes refer to this slide as the smiley-frowny
face slide because the state and students have essentially flipped roles.
The frowny face, by the way, belongs to students and their families.
Thats because, in 2000, students were paying a third of college costs -
in 2013, theyre paying two-thirds. In 2000, the state was picking up
nearly 70 percent of the costs of college. Now that figure is 32 percent.
Why the dramatic change? One big factor is declining state funding for
higher education.
Today, the state puts $162 million less into higher education than it did
in 2008. Thats about $1,500 less per student.
Now we did see an increase this year, of $30 million, and we thank Gov
Hickenlooper for that. Thats the first increase in state higher education
funding in three years. But that only took us back to our funding level in
2009.
In fact, Colorado ranked 49th in state higher education funding in the
most recent year 2011 studied by the State Higher Education.
Executive Officers (Colorado Commission on Higher Education, 2013)
And the increase in tuition and fees at Colorados public two and four-year universities
is astounding. The CCHEs report on tuition and fee increases over five years in the fiscal year
2012-2013 report on undergraduate tuition and fees shows across the board double-digit
increases. The highest, over a five-year span between fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and fiscal
years 2012-2013 was University of Northern Colorado in Greeley, at 68 percent. The lowest for
four-year schools was still a 26.3 percent increase at University of Colorado Colorado Springs
(UCCS). Metropolitan State University of Denver raised its tuition 65.6 percent over that five-
year period. University of Colorado Denvers tuition went up 45.5 percent, and the Colorado
51


Community College System, which governs tuition at Community College of Denver, raised its
tuition 39.2 percent (Colorado Commission on Higher Education, 2013).
Some of the increases may have been a pent-up reaction to years of TABOR controls: in
2010, the Colorado General Assembly passed Senate Bill 10-003, Concerning Higher
Education Flexibility to Improve the Financial Position of State Institutions of Higher
Education (Concerning Higher Education Flexibility to Improve the Financial Position of State
Institutions of Higher Education, 2010).
For two of the years in the 2013 Tuition and Fees Report from the CCHE, public
colleges and universities were capped under TABOR. But for the last three years, the schools
operated under Senate Bill 10-003, which allowed for a maximum tuition increase of nine
percent for undergraduate students between fiscal years 2011-2012 all the way to fiscal years
2015-2016 (Colorado Commission on Higher Education, 2013). Simply put, after the five-year
reprieve for higher education ends, TABOR controls may well be back in force.
Perhaps in advance of the end of the five-year window, the Colorado General Assembly
got to work just this last legislative session on changes in funding for higher education in the
state. It came in the form of House Bill 14-1319 (Concerning the Creation of an Outcomes-
Based Funding Model for Higher Education, and, in Connection Therewith, Making and
Reducing Appropriations, 2014). One of the sponsors of the bill, House Speaker Mark
Ferrandino, focused on the individual college or universitys efforts to not only attract students,
but to retain them and focus on their matriculation as an incentive for Colorados higher
education schools:
Similar to other states, the new model prescribed by HB 1319 creates
outcome-based incentives to institutions for delivering more degrees and
certificates. It also supports the Colorado Opportunity Fund stipend, the
funding that follows the student, and has factors that recognize the unique
52


attributes of our diverse institutions. Importantly, there are added
incentives for institutions to provide extra support for low-income and
underrepresented minority students. Unlike other states, the new Colorado
funding model will apply to virtually all operating funds appropriated by
the General Assembly and will be supported by real-time, student-level
data that can be updated every year. (Ferrandino, 2015)
Ferrandino admits that some schools will lose money under the new formula, but he also
notes that all schools affected by the new law approved of it:
I am especially pleased that the Colorado Commission on Higher
Education endorsed the new funding methodology that was unanimously
recommended by the robust HB 1319 process structure and is
unanimously supported by all affected institutions. Of course, dividing the
pie in a brand new way means that some institutions benefit more than
others. This is what the General Assembly expected. (Ferrandino, 2015)
For those who have never been proponents of TABOR, there is perhaps some irony in
the outcome. In 2011, TABOR Amendment author Douglas Bruce, who had retired from public
office, was convicted of tax evasion in Colorado:
State prosecutors convinced a Denver jury that Douglas Bruce used a
small-government charity he founded to hide millions of dollars from the
state taxman, pocketing interest and using the funds to further his political
agenda. After four hours of deliberation, jurors Wednesday convicted
Bruce on four counts, the most serious of which carries a penalty of up to
six years in prison and $500,000 in fines. (Fender, 2011)
His final punishment was much less: Bruce served 180 days in jail, and was sentenced to
an additional six years probation, but was not fined. Prosecutors contend he had hidden $2
million dollars in income into a political 501(c)(3) corporation he founded called ACT, or
Active Citizens Together, a non-profit charity that was part of the driving force behind
TABOR (Fender, 2012). For his part, Bruce claims the charges were nothing more than political
motivation for his small-government, anti-tax stances: "All I did is give away my salary to an
IRS-approved charity," Bruce said outside the jail. "I did so publicly. That is not a crime, and
53


the IRS agreed it wasn't a crime. It will come out eventually (Mitchell, 2012).
It is now 2015, and no more of Bruces side of the story has come out, but an appeal is
pending. There has been still more legal trouble for Bruce: he was charged in April, 2015 with
assault for an altercation at the Denver County Courthouse:
Bruce is accused of assaulting Dede Laugesen executive director of
Colorado Springs Government Watch and wife of Gazette opinion
page editor Wayne Laugesen while she followed Bruce and
Colorado Springs City Councilwoman Helen Collins out of the
Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse. Dede Laugesen was recording video on
her cellphone and asking Collins about the closure of a Kansas
City, Mo., apartment building owned by the councilwoman when she
said Bruce grabbed her phone and threatened to hit her with it before
shoving it back into her hand. "His bully-like behavior was totally
unwarranted. And I had not even spoken to Douglas Bruce that day,"
Laugesen said Tuesday. "So for him to strike out at me in such a way
was very unexpected." Bruce is seen placing his hand over the
cellphone camera lens and saying "Show the rent money, idiot. Show
the rent money," before the video ends. (Hobbs, 2015)
A disposition in that case is pending. And so, it would seem, is a disposition of the
appeals against the TABOR Amendment, as opponents of the law challenge its
constitutionality:
A federal appeals court on Friday said it would allow a lawsuit
challenging the constitutionality of Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of
Rights to go forward. The decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals marks a milestone in a legal fight over how Colorado
conducts its most important functions. For more than two years,
Attorney General John Suthers has argued that plaintiffs in the lawsuit
did not have the right to sue. The lawsuit, filed by more than two
dozen individuals, argues that by taking away lawmakers' ability to
tax, TABOR violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee that every state
have a republican form of government. (Lee, 2014)
One final note about TABORs progenitor: when he was released from jail, Bruce
actually said very little about TABOR to reporters. Instead, he threatened lawsuits against the
jails staff, complained about the food, and complained that he spent four days in solitary
54


confinement (Mitchell, 2012). Douglas Bruce had become a far different man from the state
representative who drastically, and perhaps permanently, changed state budgets in Colorado.
And there is also a final note about the legal status of TABOR. The United States
Supreme Court, in its session that ended in June, 2015, sent a case debating the very
constitutionality of TABOR back to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. While the
law stays on the books in Colorado, its long-term prospects are less clear.
The suit, originally filed by two state lawmakers in 2011 seeking to overturn TABOR,
will now go back to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the
earlier decision (Matthews, 2015).
The issue is one of legal standing. The high courts ruling confirming the rights of
Arizona voters to create an independent redistricting panel to avoid accusations of partisan,
political gerrymandering or political district boundary lines is part of the Supreme Courts
ruling on the TABOR case (Liptak, 2015). At issue in Colorado: whether or not TABORs
opponents have standing to sue. At issue in Arizona: whether or not the Legislature had
standing to sue, for which the Supreme Court found they did not.
Who won and who lost with the high court ruling? The reaction is mixed. The Supreme
Court sort of kicked the can down the road when it returned the case to the 10th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Denver, said Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, one of several outside
groups that filed briefs last year in support of TABOR (Matthews, 2015). It isn't a black-and-
white win, but it is encouraging from our perspective, said Michael Feeley, one member of a
team of attorneys representing the TABOR opponents. (Matthews, 2015).
No matter the next ruling from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, both sides do expect it
to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court again, and the earliest that could happen is 2016. And
55


the third-largest newspaper in the Colorado (as listed by Audit Bureau of Circulation figures)
editorialized that it is past time for something to be done about TABOR:
The real effect of the measure has been to diminish Colorado schools and
roads. Despite having one of the healthiest economies in the country, the
state cant afford to properly maintain or build new roads, run schools or
keep colleges competitive and affordable. The insult to injury of TABOR
is back: Colorado must now refund hundreds of millions of dollars in
taxes to state residents, despite the widespread public needs. This week,
buried in a flurry of epic Supreme Court rulings, the high court also
forced the local 10th Circuit Court of appeals to take another look at a
lawsuit filed by state legislators in regards to TABOR. The argument is
that the state government charges lawmakers with taxation as
representatives of a republic, and TABOR illegally prohibits that. We
agree. If a lawmaker wants to spend more than taxpayers want, out the
lawmaker. Instead, Colorado voters have created a system that doesnt
allow them to steer the government along a winding and treacherous
economic road. Its long been a disaster in the making. After more than 20
years of TABOR, Colorados ranking among taxation has changed little.
What has changed is that money desperately needed for state programs
hasnt been raised, so the growing debt is not the state budget, but in the
states roads, schools and colleges (The Aurora Sentinel, 2015).
Whether or not TABOR is constitutionally acceptable is, in reality, far from being
decided, and the political debate far from over.
56


CHAPTER XI
THE FUNDING PROCESS AND AURARIA MEDIA CENTER
No one, least of all the staff of Auraria Media Center, has been under the illusion that
the analog playback systems of Studio A, Studio B and Channel 54 could continue indefinitely.
Maintenance alone becomes a huge cost, and parts for older analog television gear are rapidly
becoming unavailable (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015).
But until three years ago, a funding mechanism for any improvements was not available.
Auraria Media Center is maintained by student fees emanating from classes from all the schools
that use the facility, as well as a separate budget from AHEC. None of the schools on campus
nor AHEC had any additional money for a drastic renovation of the facility.
Matt Keller and Kent Courtnage say they were contacted by the then-director of City
and County of Denver Media in 2011 about a plan for improving the facility. And what they
were told surprised them:
They said you guys are next in line for this upgrade money we have.
And we said what upgrade money? And what they said was they were
doing ascertainments for generation of high-definition television, and we
didnt have the back end to generate it. So thats kind of how all it started,
and thats probably the big driver. (Keller, 2015).
It was the first that the Auraria Media Center staff had heard of the potential for outside
funding to rebuild the Center, and it started with the City and County of Denver Media coming
in to the Center to assess the upgrade needs. They brought in somebody; they walked
throughout the entire facility, came up with a, a list between their people and our chief engineer,
Kent Courtnage. And it was a big list, it was well over a million dollars in upgrades (Keller,
2015).
57


A million dollars in upgrades was perhaps not feasible, but it could be perceived as an
indicator of how much attention the facility needed. And at the time, the FCC had accepted
proposals that would make ATSC digital television the standard in American TV; stations could
choose between one channel of HDTV programming, four to six channels of SDTV at various
times of the day, or a mixture of standard definition and high definition. That would later
change to a complete approval by the FCC of digital television instead of older National
Television Standards Council specifications in 2009. All of this, as many local television
stations were still broadcasting news in the old 4:3 aspect ratio, even as broadcasters chose
HDTV in the 16:9 aspect ratio (August Grant, 2010). Channel 54 was, until July of 2015,
producing all programming in 4:3.
But the process was not smooth for City and County of Denver Media and Auraria
Media Center. When they really started looking at the dollar amount and everything that was
involved, it was right at the same time as the director was transitioning out of the job and new
people were coming into the job, namely interims. And so, it stalled. And we went back a
couple times, back and forth with one director. And he ended up leaving before we got a final
answer, even though it sounded at the time like it was all looking very good (Keller, 2015).
But even though the discussions stalled, they were far from over:
And it went into the hands of the new people, the new interim people, they
hired some people and that's where it stalled for a while. Then they
decided hell, right, we want to get up to speed. Daryl's (the former
director) no longer here. We don't want to talk about the past, let's talk
about the future, let's do a new walk-through and see exactly what your
needs are. And then that's when they came back to us, and started talking
about what are your actual needs? Let's take a look at this list
again. (Keller, 2015)13
13
The full list, as well as the specific contract language, constitutes the entire Appendix A of this thesis.
58


The key issue became content; what content could Auraria Campus provide for City and
County of Denver Media? But this issue became more complex with the fact that Auraria Media
Center could not require any of the three schools on campus to provide content; yet, at the same
time, Auraria Media Center generated no content of its own. We created an MOU
(memorandum of understanding) that went to all three schools, which was separate from
anything that Denver Media needed or required. But, at the same time, the MOU really
galvanized the schools support for this effort (Keller, 2015). While the memorandum of
understanding between Auraria Media Center and the three schools specifically states that the
schools are not required to provide any programming, Keller believes the improvements to
Auraria Media Center itself could generate programming for Channel 54 that comes from
outside the current contributors: MSU Denvers Office of Student Media and CU Denvers
Theatre, Film and Video Production Department: it can be any groups on campus, and not just
media classes or technical broadcast classes. We hope all different entities on campus take an
interest in providing content. Concerts at the King Center. Maybe other campus events (Keller,
2015).
City and County of Denver Media is requiring, as part of the agreement, twenty hours of
programming per month from Auraria Media Center.14 My first reaction was, wow. We dont
have any programming (Keller, 2015). AHEC and the Auraria Media Center staff did not
believe that they could grow twenty hours of content on a monthly basis. And that meant that
Auraria Media Center would be forced to go to the schools to fill the programming hole.15
14 It is still to be determined whether some of that programming can be repeated throughout the month.
15 The first such meeting between Media Center staff and representatives from CU Denver and MSU Denver
happened in summer of 2014.1 was there for that meeting, and all subsequent discussions. Others in attendance
included Eric Lansing from Metro State Broadcast Network, David Liban from CU Denvers TVFP Department,
and Jim Furrer from MSU Denvers Broadcasting Department.
59


The big difference between the first round of negotiations with the first director who left
and the second round, Keller says, was accountability, especially accountability from Auraria
Media Center for the money that would be spent. The new administrator (for City and County
of Denver Media said no, hey, you cant just be writing checks with no strings attached. And so
the second agreement came back with new, really strong provisions (Keller, 2015).
Those provisions also include areas where the money cannot be spent. According to the
intergovernmental agreement between Denver Media and AHEC, new personnel cannot be
hired with this money, nor can physical facilities such as buildings or infrastructure be rebuilt.
The money must go toward program generation and technology that facilitates program
generation. Also, City and County of Denver Media was demanding interns to be supplied by
AHEC. It was an educational process. Truly an education (Keller, 2015).
The amount of money, at this point, is still undecided, as well. It went from a million to
$150,000 at one point. And I said youre dealing with institutions with very strong wills here,
and they will start asking why are the negotiations taking so long? And I remember writing one
email where I had to explain there really arent AHEC interns, but there are interns from the
schools, and I can introduce you to the Experiental Learning Center (CU Denver) and The
Internship Office (MSU Denver). But we really dont have any AHEC interns (Keller, 2015).
Explaining the dynamic of Auraria Campus as a facility with three schools proved
successful in the end. And then the light goes on again, and they really started to get it
(Keller, 2015). And that is when the final dollar amount came into the discussion: $453,000.
That amount leaves Auraria Media Center some flexibility, as well. Weve been able to
go out to bid and take care of the process. And with that dollar amount we will still have extra
money for other gear (Keller, 2015).
60


There was still one very problematic part of the agreement: if City and County of
Denver Media did not like the programming it was receiving from Auraria Media Center, for
any reason, it could demand Auraria Media Center pay back the $453,000. We stamped
rejected on that and told them we were really, really sorry, and we didnt mean to waste your
time, but you wasted a bunch of ours, too (Keller, 2015). That provision went back and forth,
and City and County of Denver Media relented. No matter what, Auraria Media Center would
keep the equipment.
This left one issue: whether Denver Media would air the programming. They can pull
the plug on it, but its written in the agreement that they cant just do it willy-nilly. And if they
dont air the programming we provide, we have still complied with our end of the agreement
(Keller, 2015).
As mentioned previously, the funding already existed. It was not a new charge on cable
bills; in fact, the charge to consumers has been there, in many instances and many communities,
for thirty years. Under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, which added a section on
Cable Communications to the original Communications Act of 1934, local cable franchisees
could charge what became known as a PEG fee on a consumers cable bill, with the fee
intended to directly support the creation of public service channels and programming
development and production on those channels. PEG stands for public, education and
governmental. (Comcast, 2015). The goal of the Cable Communications Policy Act was to
strike a delicate regulatory balance between the FCC, local governments, and marketplace
competition where, in the past, each of these entities had vied for dominance. The Cable Act
was to be the solution to the ongoing problem of who, or what, should exercise the most power
over local cable operations (Wenmouth Williams, 1987).
61


And the Act came at a critical time in the development of cable television, as cities were
demanding state-of-the-art wiring systems, and cable operators were trying to wring as many
customers as cheaply as they could out of densely-populated urban areas. And the animus
showed in court filings, especially in Cox Cablevision versus Marquette, Michigan, and
Warners promises to many communities of the best technology possible technology that
Warner simply did not have the ability to offer (Wenmouth Williams, 1987). Congress hoped
the Act would be seen as one that balanced the newfound popularity of cable television, placing
power for running cable operations in the hands of a local operator, and out of the purview of a
nationalized FCC, while granting great powers in rate deregulation to the cable industry itself
(To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide a national policy regarding cable
television, 1984).
The PEG fee that developed in the negotiations leading up to the passage of the 1984
Act had the express purpose of providing any combination of television production equipment,
training and airtime on a local cable system to enable members of the public, accredited
educational institutions, and government to produce their own shows and televise them to a
mass audience (Center For Media and Democracy, 2015). One man who wrote a letter to
Burlington (Vermont) Telecom asked the cable franchisee about the fee, and received this
response:
Thanks for bringing up the question of franchise fees and PEG access
fees. Thanks to the contributions of cable subscribers via the PEG access
franchise fees, Channel 17 and 42 other local community television channels
provide training, equipment and airtime to people across the state of Vermont. In
many communities these channels are the way that folks can find out about local
government or school actions, exercise their free speech rights and see their
neighbors on TV. Locally, we air the neighborhood NPA meetings, Burlington
City Council, a regular call-in "Live at 5:25" program with politicians and
citizens, community events and more. (Center For Media and Democracy, 2015)
62


The decision as to whether to require a PEG fee is solely up to the local cable licensing
authority.
But the future of PEG channels, in some cases, is murky. The environment is being
roiled by public policy and budgetary changes at the federal, state and local levels and by
technological changes in cable networks, stated a 2011 report to Congress on the issue of
public access programming:
Driven by technological changes, some cable operators have begun to
offer PEG channels in a fashion that may reduce consumer access to, and
the quality of, those channels, and may raise consumer costs to obtain
PEG channels. As traditional cable providers are migrating from analog to
digital transmission of programming, some subscribers must obtain set-top
boxes to receive PEG programming. AT&Ts U-verse service uses a
different platform for PEG channels than for commercial channels. It is
more difficult for subscribers, especially the visually impaired, to access
the PEG channels, and PEG programming cannot be recorded on a DVR,
leading some to claim the service does not meet requirements in franchise
agreements or in the Communications Act. AT&T responds that it meets
all requirements and it is inappropriate to require it to deploy its network
inefficiently to meet rules developed for traditional cable architecture,
(Goldfarb, 2011)
Franchisees control where channels are assigned on the cable system, so it is true that at
some point, Auraria Media Center could lose Channel 54, and City and County of Denver
Media could reassign the programming to many different channels.
There is, however, another confirmed deal for a different cable operator in the Denver
MSA (market service area) to carry programming from Auraria Campus. CenturyLink is
starting their own cable company, called Prism, and they want us to be able to provide content
for them, as well. They actually got that started up sometime in June, and we will provide them
what we can (Keller, 2015). Right now, CenturyLinks Prism service is available in only
seventeen cities nationwide, including Denver, but the company hopes it can challenge
63


Comcast, which is often the lone cable provider in many markets in many other cities soon
(Rogoway, 2015), by carrying cable TV over a fiber-optic network (CenturyLink, 2015).
Perhaps interestingly enough, PEG fees in Denver between Comcast and CenturyLink
are exactly the same: $1.05 per customer account per month. Also, a report from the City and
County of Denver says many of the other requirements for CenturyLink in Denver are almost
identical to the requirements for Comcast (Martinez, 2015). In addition, that same report may
indicate that Channel 54 is here to stay at Auraria Media Center, as both Comcast and
CenturyLink want to carry eight public service channels each, which is the current number
Comcast carries; Comcast also may choose to add one more public service channel for a total of
nine.
The $453,000 from City and County of Denver Media is also, perhaps, just a start. The
initial agreement is for two years, and then we have to go in front of the committee, Keller
said. And he also says thats where proof of compliance with the agreement becomes important:
If there is more money, and it sounds like there will be, and the committee says why should
we give them even more money? What have they been doing? Have they done this, and this and
this? And well have been doing it for two years (Keller, 2015).
The negotiations between City and County of Denver Media took years, as well. They
were sometimes tinged with acrimony, and often resulted in stalemates. But Keller says he
never gave up, and at the last meeting, he says City and County of Denver Media personnel said
the following: what else do you guys need?
Keller says that comment came as a true surprise, and a pleasant one.
64


CHAPTER XII
THE WORK BEGINS
The week after finals week of the spring semester, 2015, Auraria Media Center closed.
For the next few weeks, the outside contractor 5280 Broadcast would occupy the space,
rewiring and reworking all of the television facilities.16 This meant that for the first summer in
many summers, both The Met Report and Noticiero TV Met would be unable to broadcast
summer shows, of which each did one per month in June, July and August. Instead, both news
shows chose to present individual stories online throughout the summer at
www.mymetmedia.com.
5280 Broadcast personnel worked in the studios five days a week, starting at 7:30 AM,
and finishing between 4:00 and 5:00 pm. Previous projects they have undertaken in the Denver
area include a rebuilding of NBC/Universals facility when NBC announced the move of their
network sports operations from Los Angeles to Denver in 2013:
5280 Broadcast was given a 60-day timeline to demo an existing standard
definition production studio and control room and retrofit them into a fully
functional live HD production facility for a 24/7 cable network
specializing in international athletics events. The project included the
installation of new cameras, switcher, graphics systems, prompters,
servers, 11 video editing bays, two Pro Tools audio suites, audio control
room, and a voice over booth. The scope of work also included several
upgrades and enhancements to the existing facility routing, intercom, and
Avid ISIS systems. (5280 Broadcast, 2015)
The firm also rebuilt the PAC-12 sports networks digital distribution facility in San
Francisco, as well as a redesign and installation of Rocky Mountain PBS facilities in Denver
with a new consolidated master control system for three stations (KRMA, KRMJ and KTSC-
16 A fully detailed list of 5280 Broadcasts duties can be found in Appendix C, which is the request for proposal
distributed for bids by Auraria Media Center.
65


DT.) But Danny Rowland of 5280 Broadcast was quick to emphasize the groups experience
with smaller stations and operations, as well:
It wasnt bad. Ive seen way worse. We do a lot of small stations and we
have seen a lot of things that were messier than they were when we
walked in here. For us, conversion is always the biggest thing, because all
the new gear is hi-def (definition). Thats the easy part, actually:
converting the signals to the destinations we need to go to. But you have
to make sure the signal always looks good; in the end, its always about
signal integrity. (Rowland, 2015)
The time requirements within the RFP for the work to be done were a matter of weeks,
necessitating some long days in the studios. But Rowland says that didnt faze him or his crew:
We do it quite often. As long as your planning stages are effective well,
its all just effective planning. You have to plan for this stuff. And we
really didnt have any big issues, nothing major, anyway, and our
workload got a little lighter on a couple of issues. That really helped. Once
we test everything and commission the gear thats new, we should be
good. (Rowland, 2015)
Auraria Media Center scheduled training starting July 20, 2015 for everyone who uses
the studios: CU Denver faculty, MSU Denver faculty, CCD faculty, and MSU Denvers Office
of Student Media, as well as other departments who have video production needs. I think it
would be cool if we could get some programming from departments other than the places we
usually get it, says Matt Keller. (Keller, 2015). Maybe other departments want to come
together and do their own TV show. While all the programming still needs approval from City
and County of Denver Media, such a scenario might help Keller and AMC with the requirement
of twenty hours of programming per month on Channel 54.
66


CHAPTER Xm
THE LIMITATIONS OF STUDENT MEDIA
If we are walking into a gray area with needing City and County of Denver Media to
approve programming from Auraria Media Center, it is best to first stop and examine the
somewhat tenuous state of First Amendment rights and the producers of student media:
journalists, musicians, broadcasters, filmmakers, and more, all of whom generate a publishable
product for their college or university, and one that is often supported by advertising dollars.17
Often, their product is under the microscope from their own school. Sometimes, it is
suppressed before it can reach an audience. Two legal cases can be examined that essentially
tell the story of students and the First Amendment: Hazelwood School District us. Kuhlmeier,
484 U.S. 620 (1988), and Kincaid vs. Gibson, 236 F ,3d 342 (6th Circuit 2001).
The Hazelwood case came first, and involved a high-school advanced journalism class.
Students in that class wrote and edited the school newspaper, called The Spectrum, for the
school district near St. Louis. In the last issue for the academic year, two stories concerning
divorce and teenage pregnancy were set to be published stories in which the subjects
interviewed were kept anonymous, and their names were changed to protect their privacy
(Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, 1988). The schools principal deemed the two
articles inappropriate subject matter, and further decided that the father in the article about
divorce should be given an opportunity to comment.
In practice, the principal had spiked both stories, since there was no time to re-write
the material in time for the press deadline, and pages were eliminated wholesale from the last
issue. The student journalists sued in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri and
17 MSU Denvers Office of Student Media posted an $84,000 profit in 2014.
67


won. But in the end, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-3 that the students First Amendment
rights were not violated, since the school district sponsored the newspaper, and was the
organization to be held accountable for publication. The Courts ruling limited the First
Amendment by narrowly defining the role of The Spectrum to that of a limited forum in which
journalism students wrote articles.
In the Hazelwood case, the legal concept of sponsorship was established for student
media, and never had been part of the law concerning student media before then. This is an
important legal concept in the sense that any high school, college or university can claim
sponsorship for what any member of a student medium creates, and deny publication based on
that concept alone.
The second case was far less controversial in terms of subject matter. In Kincaid, the
dispute was all about how the 1997 yearbook looked at Kentucky State University in Frankfort.
University Vice President for Student Affairs Betty Gibson simply thought the yearbook looked
bad, and decided to withhold it from distribution. Several students sued, and lost when District
Judge Joseph Hood rejected the case (Kincaid vs. Gibson, 2001). Hood cited, at length, the
Hazelwood case in his decision, which alarmed college and university press advocates; it was
the first time a ruling in a high-school level media case had been applied to student media in
higher education. The students filed with the Appellate Court, and were again denied by a three-
judge panel. But a full en banc seating of the Appellate Court (all the judges) later ruled 10-3 in
favor of the students in 2001. The university debated an appeal to the Supreme Court, but chose
not to do so. The 1997 yearbooks were eventually distributed in 2001 to the students who
could be found.
68


The case law governing student media is neither deep nor wide, and to date, few other
student media cases have come to the courts. But university censorship of student media is a
topic often discussed, if not hotly debated. In 1987, the Northern Star student newspaper at
Northern Illinois University and WNIU-FM, a National Public Radio affiliate owned by the
university, both filed Freedom of Information requests seeking records on university
administrators unpaid parking tickets after a reporter found a handful of tickets in the
administration building parking lot with administrators names on them.18 The university
claimed it had no such records, and after further review, the FOIA requests were dropped at the
behest of NIU administration.
There are other instances of university censorship of student media. In 2006, an
administrator at Governors State University in Chicago demanded an article critical of her
tenure be pulled from the student publication The Fire. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
chose to use the Hazelwood standard in deciding this case (Foundation for Individual Rights in
Education, 2006). The College of San Mateos student newspaper, the San Matean. didnt print
an issue for the entire fall semester of 2012, three years after an editorial by the paper
questioned the intentions of faculty and staff content reviews prior to publication (Garza, 2012).
All journalism classes at the school were cancelled; neither the program nor the paper ever
resumed.
Still, what many people close to student media report anecdotally is not so much
outright censorship as it is pressure: pressure to not publish a certain story or air a certain piece
of audio or video. A 2015 survey conducted by the Center for Scholastic Journalism at Kent
State University states: of 464 student journalists and 51 advisors answering survey questions
1 o
I was that reporter.
69


about censorship, 25 percent of students and 17 percent of advisors said school officials had told
them to not publish or air certain material.
In addition, 7 percent of advisers said school officials had
threatened their position as adviser or their job at the school based
on content decisions their students had made. Student and adviser
respondents both indicated self-censorship was an issue they
confronted. Twelve percent of students and 13 percent of advisers
said their staff had decided not to publish something based on the
belief that school officials would censor it.
(Student Press Law Center, 2015)
In the instance of broadcast media in higher education, where student voices are heard
and student music often airs, the schools governing body or the university itself will hold any
and all broadcast licenses for the stations on campus, which makes them ultimately responsible
for not only media law (e.g., slander and libel), but FCC laws. In the late 1970s, the FCC
actually revoked the license of a student station at the University of Pennsylvania, at which
students were alleged to have used drugs and alcohol on the air and broadcast profanities
(Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, 1979). But in that ruling, the FCC noted that most
university-owned stations had operated with no (or very few) problems for many years, and the
Commission did not wish to interfere with the operations of those stations. But the FCC noted
that the abdication of University of Pennsylvania officials in the WPXN incident was total, and
cannot be tolerated.
The FCC later issued a stronger ruling in favor of student-operated radio and television
stations ten years later in a case involving the radio station at the University of California at
Santa Barbara. The station found itself in the midst of an obscenity investigation in 1987
(Student Press Law Center, 1987), for airing a song containing what the university believed was
indecent language. The FCC declined to investigate further, but accepted the schools policy
that university officials could control or punish students for playing content that violated FCC
70


rules. But even if school officials found the content offensive or indecent, they could not punish
staff members of the radio station so long as the content did not violate FCC language
guidelines.
But according to the Student Press Law Center, no court has ever directly addressed the
question of where the upper boundaries (of censorship) might lie (Student Press Law Center,
2015).
The bottom line is that administrative oversight if it goes too far
will almost certainly weaken the forum status of the station and, by
extension, the First Amendment protections available to students wishing
to exercise editorial control at the station.
(Student Press Law Center, 2015)
To date, no other cases have come before the courts or the FCC in an effort to balance
the wishes of a university administration against a student-operated newspaper, radio station or
television station. The SPLC says a judicial doctrine known as the Muir Doctrine actually puts
more of the onus on the university for choosing to not air or publish the material, but only for
the broadcast field. While the print side of student media is still mostly under the purview of the
case law from Hazelwood and Kincaid, the case Muir us. Alabama Educational Television
Commission (688 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1982), cert, denied 1983), upheld the authority of two
state-owned television stations to not air a controversial program (Muir vs. Alabama
Educational Foundation, 1982). But the Appellate Courts judgment in that case sets a standard
from a different case that can be used to help protect the ability of students to air what they
wish, within FCC guidelines:
Standard First Amendment doctrine condemns content control
by governmental bodies where the government sponsors and financially
supports certain facilities through the use of which others are allowed to
communicate and to exercise their own right of expression.
(Bazaar vs. Fortune, 1973).
71


In the Bazaar case, University of Mississippi administrators disapproved of the content
in a student-run literary magazine, but the court ruled they did not have the authority to censor
the magazine even though the university provided financial support and sponsorship. Though
the 1973 Bazaar case was later differentiated (if not overturned in toto) by the later Hazelwood
case, the ruling from Bazaar and the courts decision and writings from Muir still stand as
accepted law when discussing student broadcasting at stations owned by universities.
Student broadcasting (and, ergo, electronic media) may well enjoy greater creative
freedom than student printed media. While that is an apparent dichotomy in the law, no new
cases have come forward to settle the matter. For now, the tenuous setting between student-
generated content and the university media in which is appears will seemingly continue.
72


CHAPTER XIV
EXAMPLES OF PRIVATE-SECTOR INVOLVEMENT IN SIMILAR SCHOOLS
As mentioned previously, the academic literature is far from awash with examples of
schools that have used private-sector monies to fund capital improvements in electronic arts and
electronic media programs. In fact, a search through the academic databases at www.auraria.edu
in October, 2014, turned up no examples of peer-reviewed material on the subject. But there is
one very notable example of a four-year university using private-sector funding to essentially
power an all-new program, and it is one that has generated headlines.
Boldly proclaiming the degree is in disruption, the website for the Iovine-Young
Academy at the University of Southern California boasts the right environment for the next
level of learning (University of Southern California, 2015). The full name of the school is the
USC Jimmy Iovine and Andre Young Academy for Arts, Technology and the Business of
Innovation, and its progenitors come with highly pedigreed resumes. Jimmy Iovine is the
former chairman of Universal Music Groups Interscope/Geffen/A&M records unit. Andre
Young is perhaps better known by his popular music name: Dr. Dre, a founder of the southern
California rap group N.W.A, and a co-founder, along with Iovine, of Beats Electronics, the
makers of the popular Beats headphone line (University of Southern California, 2015).
Together, they gave $70 million dollars to USC to start the Academy in 2013, but with a
curriculum far different than a traditional electronic arts or media school, with the goal of
creating a degree that blends business, marketing, product development, design and liberal
arts (Wortham, 2013).
73


If the next start-up that becomes Facebook happens to be one of our kids,
thats what we are looking for, said Mr. Iovine, an energetic 60-year-old
dressed in his trademark uniform of T-shirt and fitted jeans, faded baseball
hat and blue-tinted eyeglasses. Like many celebrities, Mr. Iovine and Dr.
Dre have been seduced by the siren call of the tech world, which has lured
celebrities like Justin Bieber, Tyra Banks and Leonardo DiCaprio to
finance a start-up or develop their own idea. They have had more success
than most with Beats, a private company that they say makes $1 billion in
sales annually. (Wortham, 2013)
USC officials have declined to say how many students applied, nor the admissions
criteria, but the inaugural 2015 class was 31 total students.19 The classroom space is also far
different than a traditional college setting: students meet in something called The Garage,
shown below:
ACAI
!<1WW
/
(Figure 3: "The Garage," University of Southern California)
19 Posters to the site College Confidential claimed more than 320 people applied to be part of the inaugural class.
The site is an informal chat-based website, and, as such, cannot be formally cited. But the number can be footnoted
for context.
74


A look through the curriculum required in the bachelors degree program reveals a
hodgepodge of classes, ranging from Microsoft Excel for business management to mobile
application development to communications classes (University of Southern California, 2015).
Five classes address audio production, two address motion graphics, and seemingly no courses
focus exclusively on video production. Critics of the school say the curriculum lacks cohesion:
The USCJIAYAATBI, where every lecture is a TED Talk. Now the
notion of taking components of, say, computer science, design, and
marketing degrees isn't the worst idea if you want to create a
Media Employee in A Boxit's worked well at NYU's multi-disciplinary
ITP program, famous in Silicon Alley for spawning Foursquare. This
could be ITP Westa decent mix of book leamin' and vocational
preparation with quick feeder access to the new Californian economy. But
the more you read on USC's Snow Fall press release, the less you'll
understand what this program actually consists of, or what it's really meant
to accomplish. It's a melange of jargon and wide-eyed entrepreneurial
thumbs-up-isms. (Biddle, 2013)
Erica Muhl, the executive director of the Iovine and Young Academy (and the Dean of
the Roski School of Art and Design), declined to reply to several emails and voicemails seeking
more information about the Academy. But Muhl found herself in a controversy earlier in 2015,
after an entire first-year class of seven students in the MFA program in the Roski School
announced they were quitting:
We have no idea what MFA faculty wed be working with for the coming year,
we have no idea what the curriculum would be, other than it will be different
from what it was when we enrolled and is currently being implemented by
administrators outside our field of study, and finally, we have no idea whether
wed graduate with twice the amount of debt we thought we would graduate
with. (Stromberg, 2015)
The mention of money at the end of that statement references a meeting in which the
students say they were told that once-guaranteed teaching assistant slots would now be open for
competition, covering the entire second-year tuition of $38,400 along with a $10,000 stipend
75


(Simpson, 2015). Did the money for those slots, instead, go to the Iovine-Young Academy?
Muhl would not say and refused to speak to the media, instead choosing to release the following
statement:
The USC Roski MFA program remains one of the most generously funded
programs in the country. These students would have received a financial
package worth at least 90 percent of tuition costs in scholarships and
TAships. The school honored all the terms in the students offer letters.
Changes are made to the curriculum on an ongoing basis. Minor changes
were made to the MFA curriculum prior to the students' arrival in fall
2014, mainly involving one elective in the summer of 2015. Studio visits
and study tours remain part of the curriculum as the students requested. I
have met with the students at length and hope for an opportunity to
continue engaging them in a full and open conversation. (Simpson, 2015)
To date, there have been no updates provided on that purported full and open
conversation. The first class from the Iovine/Young Academy will not graduate until 2019.
There are, however, other schools that bear the names of some of the greats in electronic
arts, music and media: schools that are more established, with their track records and
reputations easily examined from existing literature. The Clive Davis Institute of Recorded
Music at New York University supports the record label 194 Recordings, and started in 2003
(New York University, 2015). Course offerings range from classes in punk rock to Motown to
entrepreneurship in the music industry, and 128 credits are required for the schools Bachelor of
Fine Arts degree.20 The program was launched by Davis with a five-million dollar donation in
2003, celebrated its tenth anniversary in 2013, and its website promises more details on
successful alumni under a coming soon section.
20
A full list of the curriculum can be seen at http://clivedavisinst.tisch.nvu.edu/obiect/remucurriculum.html. It
contains 135 rotating courses.
76


The ReMu school, as it colloquially calls itself, also makes the claim to being the first
of its kind in the U.S. But it, too, has its critics:
One of the biggest misconceptions about NYUs Clive Davis Department
of Recorded Music is that its students, while learning how to make it in
the music business, will be plucked out of obscurity by Davis himself. For
the last four years, the programs first graduating class had expected the
legendary hitmaker would make an appearance beyond his remarks at
freshman orientation and at graduation ceremonies. If not during classes or
recording sessions, then at the very least, they hoped, hed show up during
the Capstone project panel, a three-day event beginning May 2nd. Over
the final three days of school, the students pitch their business plans and
play their albums during the Capstone to a panel of experts. None of them
is Davis himself. On the Sunday after the panels, the students gather in an
auditorium, where prizes like Best Production or Best Song are
announced. And less serious awards like Best Hair and Best Dressed. One
citation, the Tom Schecter Rock Star award of the year, obviously goes to
Schecter. On the back of every certificate is the face of Clive Davis and a
slogan: Congratulations, now youre going to be famous.
(Ashman, 2007).
Clive Davis may have established naming rights for himself at New York University
with a five-million dollar endowment, but he is not seemingly involved in the curriculum that
bears his name.
An older school is the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State
University, established as the Division of Journalism in 1949, and named for the veteran CBS
news anchor in 1984 with his approval (Arizona State University, 2015). Unlike the Davis
School at NYU, the Cronkite School offers graduate degrees. But the Cronkite School is
consistently up against journalism schools with perceived higher pedigrees: Syracuse,
Northwestern, University of Missouri at Columbia (colloquially called the Mizzou Mafia by
its own graduates), and University of Southern California. The Cronkite School stresses its
lower tuition compared to the other schools, (Clarke, 2014), as well as its opportunities for
students to gain professional experience:
77


At Cronkite, there are nearly unlimited extracurricular opportunities for a
wannabe reporter. From The State Press, to the Walter Cronkite Sports
Network, to the countless other student media organizations that give
students real life journalism experience, theres no excuse to not be
involved with something if youre a Cronkite student. Judging by the hefty
number of Hearst journalism awards, those who are involved reap the
benefits. However, the hidden gems of Cronkite are its bureaus from coast
to coast, which give upperclassmen opportunities to develop their
journalistic niche. For those interested in the political side of journalism,
Cronkite gives you a chance to go to the political hub of this country
Cronkites Washington, D.C. bureau operates out of ASUs Washington
Center to give political journalists the opportunity to report on national
political issues with relevance to the state of Arizona. These reporters
work in conjunction with professionals in the industry as well as Cronkite
NewsWatch back home. If you're a sports journo worried about USC's
location advantage, Cronkite has its own sports bureau in Los Angeles,
located at ASUs California Center, which allows sportswriters and
broadcasters to spend a semester covering sports in the media mecca that
is L.A. (Clarke, 2014)
The only connection between Cronkite himself and the school is his name. No money
changed hands for a legend in broadcast journalism to be featured as the name on a school.
While the name obviously implies marketing for the school, College Magazine has ranked the
Walter Cronkite School of Journalism consistently within the top ten journalism schools in the
country (Tetzloff, 2014).
While Davis connection with NYU and the new inclusion of Andre Young and Jimmy
Iovine at USC will also provide a marketing draw for new students, as well as some budgetary
support, there are perhaps some things private-sector influence cannot buy in academics.
Credibility may be on that list.
78


CHAPTER XV
SURVEYING OTHER SCHOOLS
Our story and experience may have already helped you, but this project needed to take
on a survey of its own to find out just how much such an arrangement would be palatable, or
even possible, for other schools that teach electronic arts and electronic media production.
Survey research began in December, 2014, with the assembly of a list of names and
email addresses for college and university faculty involved in electronic arts and electronic
media curricula. Such a survey straddled several instructional lines, and included the following:
Audio production programs
Video production programs
Broadcast journalism programs
Electronic music programs
Interactive and new media journalism programs
Broadcasting programs (TV and radio programs that did not focus on
journalism)
Film schools
Caveats that needed to be put into the survey quickly became apparent when the
database approached 900 names, finally reaching 977. Test emails were sent, and emails that
bounced back were taken out of the list immediately. Curriculums at different schools were
examined to see if many of the recipients of the survey were already in the same department,
which would have led to a duplication of answers, but perhaps not a new answer to the survey
questions.
This took some time. At some colleges and universities, film and video are in the same
department. At others, music production schools are entwined with video curriculum. At some
schools, journalism and broadcasting are in separate departments, while at other schools, they
79


have been merged under one roof. There is no standard for what electronic arts and/or electronic
media curricula are in the same department, or different ones. Individual webpages of course
offerings had to be examined to determine if one email address would represent someone who
potentially represented several different tracks of courses, and ergo, an answer that would
unfairly skew results.
For-profit colleges were not included in the survey for some simple reasons: their budget
structures and funding systems are vastly different from public colleges and universities, even to
the point that for-profit institutions do not have to follow as many facets of Title IX law that
their counterparts in the public sector do. If a private school receives no federal funding, that
school is exempt from Title IX; while almost all for-profit schools receive some federal funding
through student financial aid programs, some for-profit schools have discussed operating their
own financial aid program via the private sector (Theobald, 2014). In short, the rules between
the two are different, and a common ground must be established. That common ground for the
purpose of this thesis is the two-year or four-year publicly-funded college or university.
While it may seem farfetched that any school would decline federal financial aid, there
are schools that have declined all such federal funding to avoid Title IX, including federal
financial aid for students. They have instead focused on local private banks for student loans
and scholarships. The most notable example is a college at the root of a U.S. Supreme Court
Case: Grove City College in Pennsylvania established a loan program with PNC Bank in Grove
City, Pennsylvania, and still declines all forms of federal financial aid to this day (Grove City
College vs. Bell, 1984), although Congress attempted to overturn that case with the Civil Rights
Restoration Act of 1987.21
21
The list of colleges that receive no federal funding is growing. The U.S. Department of Education has recently
granted exemptions to three Christian schools in a case involving transgender students (Kingkade, 2014).
80


In addition, Matt Keller of Auraria Media Center expressed some concern that survey
recipients in the Denver television market area could use the survey to seek the same money
Auraria Campus is receiving, perhaps lowering the amount we would receive in future years.
The concern, however, only eliminated one school: University of Denver, as the University of
Colorado Boulder is on a different cable system than the city of Denver uses; ergo, any funding
CU Boulder could obtain in relation to PEG channels would be the result of a different cable
franchisee and a different agreement.22
The survey totaled nine questions, as follows:
1) Do you have unfunded capital improvement needs in your electronic media or electronic
arts programs? This was a yes or no answer.
2) How immediate are those needs? Choices here were right now, a year, five years,
and further afield, with only one answer available to each recipient.
3) Can you describe all of those needs? This was a long list of multiple choices in the
survey, as follows:
Audio recording facilities
TV studio space/soundstage facilities
Lighting
Audio editing and production
Video editing and production
3D animation, such as Maya or 3D Max
Audio production software
Video production software
Live audio broadcast (e.g., radio)
Live video broadcast
Film cameras/film recording
Film post-production
22
Keller and I discussed this, and realized that with only one school in the DMA that could compete for the
money, the objectivity of this survey would not be compromised by excluding DU from the survey.
81


Video post-production
Other (please specify)
For question 3, survey recipients were allowed to choose as many answers as they
wished.
4) Have you discussed those funding needs with your university? Again, a yes or no
answer here.
5) If there has been a response to the discussion in question four, how confident are you
that your university can provide the needed funds? Choices here were very confident,
somewhat confident, and not confident at all.
6) Have you considered any of the following funding sources? Here, respondents could
choose from multiple options: state-based general funding, state-based special capital
improvement funding, tuition-based general funds, tuition-based special assessment or
student referendum funds, and private sector funds. They could also list other ideas
they had.
7) On a scale of one to ten, would funding from the private sector be acceptable to fund
infrastructure needs, even if that funding came with conditions and restrictions on its
use? The survey scale went from one to ten, with each respondent able to choose only
one answer.
8) Would our story and experience help you? This was also a yes or no question.
9) Question nine solicited any and all comments from the survey respondents. They were
told they could remain completely anonymous if they chose.
The final list for emailing the survey via www.survevmonkev.com totaled exactly 500
recipients after non-functioning and duplicate emails were removed, and some further email
addresses were removed via cross-checking curriculum websites for various departments.
The survey was sent twice via www.survevmonkev.com. once on April 21, 2015 and
again on June 29, 2015. A total of 35 people responded. The survey was kept completely
anonymous due to its subject matter; respondents could have too easily feared reprisals from
their own schools had their names and positions become known; even with a completely
anonymous survey, participation may have been hindered by that fear of reprisal. In fact, in the
comments, some respondents asked for anonymity but gave some details about their positions,
82


allowing their comments to be used but not their names or titles. One person identified herself;
all other commenters remained anonymous. In addition, the survey was sent once during spring
semester and once during the summer. Sending it earlier in a sixteen-week semester may have
generated more responses. But the responses were uniform, and very consistent, across all the
recipients who took part in the survey.
The first responses came in mere minutes after the survey went out the first time in April
of 2015, and the same happened when the survey was sent again in June of 2015. In each case,
after two days, survey responses quickly died out.
The responses to each question are examined in detail below:
83


QUESTION 1
(Table 3: Survey of unfunded capital needs)
Thesis Survey
Q1 Do you have unfunded capital
improvement needs in your electronic
media or electronic arts programs?
Answered: 35 Skipped: 0
'V
Yes
Answer Choices Responses
Yes 91.43% 32
No 8.57% 3
Total 35
This answer was overwhelming evidence of the concerns about funding capital
improvement needs in electronic media and electronic arts programs, with 91 percent of
respondents saying they needed money for equipment and infrastructure improvement. Only
three respondents indicated they had no needs at all.
84


QUESTION 2
(Table 4: Survey of timetable of needs)
Thesis Survey
Q2 How immediate are those needs?
Answered: 33 Skipped: 2
Farther afield ^
Five years
A year ~ "
Right now
Responses
63.64%
18.18%
Five years
Farther afield
Total
15.15%
3.03%
Answer Choices
Right now
A year
21
5
1
33
Again, an overwhelming majority responded they are dealing with capital improvement
needs right now. Far fewer respondents believed they could wait for a year or five years, and
only one respondent believed a wait of more than five years was acceptable.
85


QUESTION 3
(Table 5: Specific capital improvement needs)
Thesis Survey
Q3 Can you describe those needs? Please
check all that apply.
Answered: 33 Skipped: 2
Audio
reeorcFng...
TV studio
spa ee/e o unds _.
Lighting
Audio editing
and product!...
Video editing
and product!...
30 animation
(e.g.. Maya
Audio
production...
Video
production...
Audio field
recording
Video field
recording
Live audio
broadcast.-

Live video
broadcast...
Film
camarasireco
Film editing
studios
Film poet
production
Video post
production
Other {please
specify)
0% 10% 20%
30% 40%
50%
60%
70% 60%
90% 100%
86


QUESTION 3 CONTINUED
(Table 6: Specific capital improvement needs)
Thesis Survey
Audio recording faoilbes 54.55% 18
TV studio spac&'soundstages1 production studos 66.67% 22
Lighting 63.64% 21
Audio editing and production (e.g., production booths) 54.55% 18
Video editing and production (e.g., Avid suites) 57.58% 19
30 animation (e.g.. Maya or 30 Man) 36.36% 12
Audio production software 36.30% 1Q
Video production software 38.36% 13
Audio Held recording 27.27% 9
Video Held recording 36.36% 12
Live audio broadcast (radio) 21.21% 7
Live video broadcast (television) 39.39% 13
Fim camera a/recording 27.27% 9
Fim editing studios 24.24% 8
Fim post production 27.27% 9
Video post production 46.48% 16
Other (please specify) 18.18% 6
Total Respondents: 33
The answers to question three indicated the depth of need the respondents had, and
while all respondents felt they needed something, most felt as if they needed many capital
improvements. Television studio space, soundstages and live television production facilities
topped the list, followed closely by video editing and production (the example given in the
survey was Avid editing suites.) More than half of the recipients said they needed better audio
production facilities overall, not counting the digital audio workstation software that was
addressed in a different question.
87


QUESTION 4
(Table 7: Discussions with school)
Thesis Survey
Q4 Have you discussed those funding
needs with your university?
Answered: 33 Skipped: 2
v Yes
Answer Choices Responses
Yes 96.97% 32
No 3.03% 1
Total 33
This question also indicates the need for funding in capital improvements for electronic
arts and electronic media programs. Only one respondent had not gone to his or her school
asking for funding to update equipment used in the curriculum.
88


QUESTION 5
(Table 8: Confidence level in school funding capital needs)
Thesis Survey
Q5 If there has been a response to the
discussions in question 4, how confident
are you that your university can provide the
needed funds?
Answered: 32 Skipped: 3
f Very confident
Not confident at
all
fi
i
T
Somewhat confident
Very confident
Somewhat confident
Not confident at all
Total
There is a definite recalcitrance among respondents to this survey, and perhaps fear, that
their college or university either cannot or is not interested in meeting the capital needs of their
electronic arts and electronic media programs. Only three respondents believed their school
would be able to fund capital improvement needs, while a full 46 percent expressed no
confidence in their schools ability or desire to do so. This survey did not distinguish between
the schools that did not have the money and the schools that simply would not provide the
money; again, survey respondents needed to feel as much at ease as they could when answering.
Responses
9.38%
43.75%
46.88%
3
14
15
32
89


QUESTION 6
This was another question that provided for the possibility of multiple, and even open-
ended answers. A simple survey could not cover all the possibilities, and in many cases,
respondents had some of their own ideas:
(Table 9: Some alternative funding sources)
Thesis Surv ey
Q6 Have you considered any of the
following funding sources?
Answered: 25 Skipped: 10
State-based
general funding
State-based
special capl...
Tuition-based
general funds
Tuition-based
"special...
Private sector
funds
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices
State-based general funding
State-based special capital improvement funding
Tuition-based general funds
Tuition-based 'speciat assessment" or student referendum* funds
Private sector funds
Total Respondents: 25
Responses
20.00% 5
12.00% 3
36.00% 9
24.00% 6
52.00% 13
90


(Table 10: Other possible funding sources)
i
> Responses (9) J
iI Categorize as...
Showing 9 responses
h Text Analysis I % My Categories (0)
Filter Dy Category
[Search responses
[Aj
q charging a fee to students enrolled in classes that use technology
6/30/2015 9:38 AM View respondents answers Categorize as., t
As a private Christian university interested in maintaining full editorial control of its properties, we have
few funding options
6/29/2015 10:56 PM View respondent's answers Categorize as...
: bond issue
1_,
6/29/2015 4:41 PM View respondent's answers Categorize as... *
Not for profit foundations & grants
6/29/2015 1:31 PM View respondent's answers Categorize as... *
£ Our state looks at any fee as a tuition increase. We are capped by percentage by the state as to how
much we can raise, so that is off the table.
6/29/2015 10:12 AM View respondents answers Categorize as...
Q We have a commitment for renovation of our multicamera facility from a private contributor.
4/22/2015 5:49 AM View respondents answers Categorize as... *
n none of the above are viable
Perkins funding
4/21/2015 8:59 AM View respondent's answers Categorize as... *
Alum gifts
4/21/2015 8:53 AM View respondent's answers Categorize as...
I

It is worthwhile to examine some of the answers in the other section in table 10. A
private Christian university foresaw problems maintaining full editorial control, yet attracting
outside funding (answer 2). One school was targeting not-for-profit grants and foundations
(answer 4), but did not specify if those groups would also have conditions on how the money
could be used.
Private contributors and alumni also factor in to possible funding sources (answers 6 and
9). One school is looking at a bond issue (answer 3), and one replied none of the above are
91


viable, (answer 7), but did not specify if any funding source would be viable to that school.
This goes toward showing that the options may not be limited to just private-sector funds, but
beyond alumni groups and private gifts, the options do dwindle.
Answer 8 mentions Perkins funding, which is a federal student loan program that is
separate from other loan programs:
The purpose of Perkins is to provide individuals with the academic and
technical skills needed to succeed in a knowledge- and skills-based
economy. Perkins supports career and technical education that prepares its
students both for postsecondary education and the careers of their choice.
Federal resources help ensure that career and technical programs are
academically rigorous and up-to-date with the needs of business and
industry. The federal contribution to career and technical education, about
$1.3 billion annually, supports innovation and expands access to quality
programs. State and local funding supports the career and technical
education infrastructure and pays teachers' salaries and other operating
expenses. Federal funds provide the principal source for innovation and
program improvement, and help to drive state support through a
"maintenance-of-effort" provision in the federal law.
(Association for Career & Technical Education, 2015)
92


Full Text

PAGE 1

SWEAT EQUITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE REBIRTH OF AURARIA MEDIA CENTER by RICHARD A. STRONG B.S., Northern Illinois University, 1987 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Recording Arts 2015

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Master of Science degree by Richard A. Strong has been approved for the Recording Arts Program by David J. Bondelevitch, Chair Leslie Gaston Bird William Monso ur August 3, 2015 ii

PAGE 3

Strong, Richard A. (M.S., Recording Arts) Sweat Equity i n Higher Education: The Rebirth of Auraria Media Center P rofessor David J. Bondelevitch ABSTRACT Public colleges and universities nationwide are feeling the effects of budge tary constraints. This has become exceptionally noticeable in electronic arts and electronic media programs, which rely heavily on new equipment to maintain modernity in their curricula. Yet, many schools are teaching on old, outdated gear, hampering their students chances at success in the job market. This thesis explores the specific funding option Auraria Media Center chose in refurbishing their studios: a partnership with the local cable television franchisee. Through interviews with those involved in the discussions and a survey of other schools, this thesis shows the practicality of such a partnership, and can serve as the basis for a best practices discussion of accepting money from the private sector for electronic arts and media programs. The f orm and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. A pproved: David J. Bondelevitch iii

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are too many people to thank. But I will try. Thanks will first go to my wife Audrey Strong for her support and understanding. The past two years have meant many postponed vacation plans and cancelled golf games while I worked on a graduate degree. I owe her those and much more. A very special thanks to my committee chair David J. Bondelevitch for not giving up on me, even when I gave up on myself. Which was often. And repeatedly. And thanks to Leslie Gaston for all the radio talks, which made me feel a little more at home. M any thanks to Kent Courtnage and Matt Keller of Auraria Media Center for including me in the discus sions that established the framework for the agreement with City and County of Denver Media, and then helping me with the thesis. Thanks to the entire Recording Arts faculty at University of Colorado, Denver, especially Pete Buchwald, Lorne Bregitzer, Sco tt Burgess, Sam McGuire and Jeff Merkel. They recognized I was in a unique place: a teaching professor at Metropolitan State University of Denver, on the very same campus where I pursued my graduate degree at Univer sity of Colorado Denver. Many hallway conversations later with them, I have gained valued colleagues and friends, and maybe lost some of the fear of being an impostor at their school. Some of the fear but not all. Many thanks to MSU Student Media Director Steve Haigh, and the staffs at KMET Radio, the Met Report, and Noticiero TV Met, who all realized my time to advise them had been somewhat limited by my commitment to a graduate degree. Through it all, they continued a great job and even won Emmy awards three of them. Thanks to my students. Next semester, you get me back full time I promise. Thanks to Dr. Karen Lollar, the chair of the Communication Arts and Sciences Department at Metropolitan State University of Denver (and my boss) Throughout my time in graduate school, she was always su pportive And thanks to Dr. William (Mike) Monsour, who also helped me keep ahead of the mess and never let me complain too much about what I thought was always impending doom when, in reality, that was far from the case. There was no doom, and it was never impending, anyway. Many thanks to Dr. Kate Liu for not only medical advice, but advice. And lots of it. Thanks, of course, to my committee as a whole: people whom I could call colleagues even before my thesis was done. And thanks to everyone who held my hand. There are many of you. The oddity of being a professor and a student on the same campus for different (and competing) schools was, at times, overwhelming, and never more so than when I wrote this thesis. I am happy to tell you: those days a re done. Thanks for helping me get through them. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER: I PROLOGUE ........................................................................................................................ 1 II INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3 III THE CAMPUS AND SCHOOLS ..................................................................................... 7 IV AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER ............................................................. 12 V THE STU DIOS: STUDIO A ............................................................................................ 16 VI THE STUDIOS: STUDIO B ......................................................................................... 27 VII CABLE TELEVISION AND THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ...................................................................................................................... 29 VIII LITERATURE REVIEW: PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING OF HIGHER EDUCATION ......................................................................................................................... 36 IX PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS ON AURARIA CAMPUS ................................ 42 X TABOR (THE TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS) ........................................................... 46 XI THE FUNDING PROCESS AND AURARIA MEDIA CENTER ................................ 57 XII THE WORK BEGINS ................................................................................................... 65 XIII THE LIMITATIONS OF STUDENT MEDIA ........................................................... 67 XIV EXAMPLES OF PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVE MENT IN SIMILAR SCHOOLS 73 XV SURVEYING OTHER SCHOOLS .............................................................................. 79 XVI AURARIA MEDIA CENTER IMPROVEMENTS AND TEACHING WORKFLOW ................................................................................................................................................ 98 XVII CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 104 XVIII EPILOGUE .............................................................................................................. 113 WORKS CITED ................................................................................................................... 116 APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................... 129 A: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT .............................................................. 129 B: EQUIPMENT LISTS ................................................................................................ 139 C: RFP FOR STUDIO REMODELING .......................................................................... 140 D: 2015 CITY OF DENVER COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTURYLINK CABLE TELEVISION PROPOSAL AND COMCAST CABLE TELEVISION PROPOSAL ... 165 E: PROGRAMMING PROSPECTUS FOR CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER MEDIA .......................................................................................................................................... 170 vi

PAGE 6

F: BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS .............................................................................. 194 G: EXAMPLES OF PEG FEES ON CABLE TELEVISION BILLS ............................. 198 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Tables: 1: Changes in public ver sus private funding in higher education .......................................... 37 2: Funding substitution from public funds to private sector dollars ...37 3: Survey of unfunded capital needs ...84 4: Survey of timetable of ne eds .. 5: Specific capital improvement needs, 1...86 6: Specific capital improvement needs, 2...87 7: Discussions with school...... 8: Confidence level in school funding capital needs.. 9: Some alternative funding sources...90 10: Other possible funding sources..... 11: Restrictions on funding..... 12: Our story and experience.. vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Iris Technologies Video Commander 2: Potomac Instruments Tone Generator 3: The Garage, University of Southern California (source: www.usc.edu)............74 4: Met Report audio, March 22, 2013.99 5: Met Report audio, March 22, 2013.99 6: Met Report audio, March 22, 2013,,,100 7: Yamaha MG32X console, Studio A..101 8: Studio A, May, 2015.195 9: Studio A, July, 2015..196 10: VTR/Playback room, May, 2015 11: New VTR/digital routing/playback room, July, 2015.198 12: Comcast generic bill example with PEG fee.. 13: Customer specific cable bill (personal information redacted) viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER I PROLOGUE In 1984, Metropolitan State College of Denver had a choice to make: throw money into an FM radio station that would have covered most of the city, or invest in a cable television station that would be carried only on a local cable system. In 1984, radio was considered an established medium, while the Federal Com munications Commission had only started to consider whether cable television penetration into local TV markets should be added into a competition standard for determining anti trust status And the FCC wasnt convinced, at that time, that cable penetration statistics were reliable predictors of market usage. The FCC held that stance until 1990 (Federal Communications Commission, 1990) In short, radio was accepted nationwide Cable television was still in its infancy. Benjam in Boltz was lobbying heavily for the television station. Boltz, a member of student government, kept pointing to the cost of putting a city grade FM signal in the educational band on the air in Denver: at least $150,000 (Davis, 1984) But there was still a need for a communications medium on campus Boltz said and out came the idea for a cable television station. The station, Channel 54, signed on in 1985, and continues to operate from the Auraria Media Center in the basement of the Auraria Library. Boltz passed away in 1997 at 37 years old, too young to see what his idea would eventually become in 2015. And what Channel 54 is becoming is a highdefinition, widescreen, fully digital television station. ` 1

PAGE 10

Channel 54 is a story that has been more than thirty years in the making. In July, 2015, the next chapter got started. And as of this writing, it is just beginning. 2

PAGE 11

CHAPTER II INTRODUCTION The schools that comprise Auraria Campus (Metropolitan State University of Denver, University of Colorado Denver, and Community College of Denver) are within walking distance to the heart of Denvers downtown. The urban campus designation is a source of pride for all three schools on campus: The Auraria Campus in downtown Denver i s recognized as a premier urban campus residing on 150 acres with over four million square feet of building space. The uniqueness of this campus is not just its significance and vibrancy in Denver, but the fact that it is shared by three distinct academic institutions. Collectively, the campus has nearly 42,000 students and an additional 5,000 faculty and staff The urban setting and prominence of the Auraria Campus continue to define it as a key driver of the economy in Denver (A uraria Higher Education Center, 2014) The advantages for students, specifically for ones studying media and the arts, are obvious: access to all the attractions and opportunities of the eighteenth largest radio broadcast market in the United States (A.C. Nielsen Company, 2015) and the seventeenth largest television market (A.C. Nielsen Company, 2014) One light rail station away from campus is the Denver Center for the Performing Arts, a labyri nth of multiple theatres that features local casts and nationally touring shows. But Auraria Campus is aging. Construction of the campus started in the early 1970s as an ad hoc approach to housing what was then Metropolitan State College, and by the latt er part of the decade, it was the full time home to all three schools. The age shows in Aurarias media and arts facilities. While some rooms have been 3

PAGE 12

retrofitted with new equipment ranging from audio consoles to live theatre equipment, the last major w ork on the television studios has been decades ago. Auraria Campus is certainly not the only set of schools in the United States with this particular problem. We will examine funding issues later in this thesis, but some anecdotes will demonstrate the pr oblems others schools experience. At the University of North Dakota, the broadcast meteorology department was working with equipment that could no longer be maintained or serviced, and the cost of replacing the equipment led to a need for grant money: We are preparing the next generation of broadcast meteorologists, said Fred Remer an atmospheric sciences faculty member and former TV weatherperson who runs the broadcast program. Im happy to report that we just acquired a Baron Omni weather broadcast system, the same kind that is used by the big TV stations in markets such as the Twin Cities, New York and Los Angeles. The Baron Omni replaces the previous system, acquired in 2005 and by now thoroughly outdated, according to Remer. We applied four years in a row for a student tech fee to fund this $29,000 acquisition, said Remer. We were awarded that grant this year, Re mer said. Basically, Remer explained, it was time to get updated. The previous system was 9 years old, sluggish and the software was out of date, he said. So much had changed in this field since we acquired (the older system) in 2005. (Pedreza, 2015) Pittsburg State University was unable to upgrade to highdefinition television until 2014: With new highdefinition broadcasting equipment, Pitt State will be able to display HD video footage and replays on the video board in side Kansas Citys Municipal Stadium. This is something weve never been able to do before, so its very exciting, said Troy Comeau, director of broadcasting. Comeau said the equipment will also serve as valuable learning instruments for the students. Ha ving the new equipment in its repertoire gives the broadcasting program potential to broadcast HD programming on the universitys TV station, CAPS 13. We have some more upgrades well need to make to go full HD on CAPS 13, Comeau said, but this is cert ainly the first step. Its an exciting time for us (Pittsburg State University Press and Media, 2014) 4

PAGE 13

And while the economy itself may be bouncing back from the recession of 2008, there is evidence the economy of higher ed ucation is not Per pupil spending remains below pre recession levels in 47 out of fifty states: Deep state funding cuts have had major consequences for public colleges and universities. States (and to a lesser extent localities) provide roughly 53 percent of the revenue that can be used to support instruction at these schools. When this funding is cut, colleges and universities look to make up the difference with higher tuition levels, cuts to educational or other services, or both. (Michael Mitchell, 2015) But in 2015, the Auraria Media Center was able to obtain $453,000 for a complete rebuild of TV studios A and B, and a reworking of Channel 54 to 16:9 1080p high definition. The money comes from City and County of Denver Me dia, which is the franchise holder of the Comcast cable television license in Denver County. The money does come with conditions that must be fulfilled in order for the possibility of a longer term, even more financially valuable economic plan between Aura ria Media Center and City and County of Denver Media. This thesis will explain the ramifications of such an arrangement from both the technical and the ethical perspectives, as well as the logistics required to carry it out. This thesis will also explain a nd analyze the results from a survey (constructed specifically for this thesis) into the capital improvement needs of other schools that teach electronic media and electronic arts based programs, and point some direction toward obtaining funding funding that, in many cases, may already exist and be there simply for the taking. 5

PAGE 14

We will be exploring several separate but related topics in this thesis: The development of Channel 54 at Auraria Media Center into a station that came to serve three universi ties, instead of just one The development of Studio A, the main television studio for creation of programming that airs on Channel 54 The future and the upgrades for Studio A and Studio B of Auraria Media Center on the Auraria Campus The establishment of a relationship between Auraria Media Center and City and County of Denver Media, the cable television franchise holder in Denver County The funding arrangement between City and County of Denver Media and Auraria Media Center that is funding the upgrades Th e use of PEG funding (public, education and governmental) in establishing public access channels on cable television systems nationwide and here locally The requirements from City and County of Denver Media for Auraria Media Center in exchange for acceptin g the funding. The purpose of this thesis is as follows: To discover the capital improvement needs for electronic arts and media programs at public colleges and universities To look at other methods of funding those needs To introduce the reader to the concept of asking for PEG funding for those needs To introduce the concept of a school becoming a content provider for the local cable franchise holder The last having been said, the purpose of this thesis is not to make the reader rush out and attempt to enact the same scenario as was done for Auraria Media Center on the Auraria Campus. Some readers may find the requirements from their own local cable franchise holder too onerous for their school. Some may fear censorship from the franchise holder. Othe rs may worry about their schools editorial independence overall. But we will show you what, so far, has worked here. 6

PAGE 15

CHAPTER III THE CAMPUS AND SCHOOLS There are three schools on the Auraria Campus in Denver, making it a very unique setting for highe r education. Metropolitan State College was founded there in 1965, later becoming Metropolitan State College of Denver in 1990, and then Metropolitan State University of Denver in 2012 (Metropolitan State University of Denver, 2012) It is the oldest of the three schools on campus, and the largest, with a 2012 enrollment of 23,789 full and part time students (Metropolitan State University of Denver, 2013) University of Colorado Denvers history on t he Auraria Campus does not begin until 1970, five years after Metro State opened, but CU Denvers medical school dates back to 1912, though the medical school has never been housed on the downtown Auraria Campus (University of Co lorado Denver, 2015) The medical school was eventually combined more formally (though not geographically) with the Auraria Campus in 2004: In summer 2004, the University of C olorado Board of Regents voted to combine the Anschutz Medical Campus with its Denver campus. The impetus was the university's vision of creating a "21st Century" university that facilitated multidisciplinary learning and research. The Regents believed that a consolidated university that focused on excellence in urban research and i n health sciences care and research would match well with its original research university in Boulder and its regional university in Colorado Springs. The consolidation also would realize significant efficiencies in administrative costs, according to two t ask forces that researched consolidation. In 2009, after reviewing the progress of the consolidation, the Regents voted unanimously to affirm its decision to consolidate the two campuses under the name University of Colorado Denver (University of Colorado Denver, 2015) 7

PAGE 16

CU Denvers enrollment stood at 18,001 for 2012 (StartClass, 2015) compared to the almost 24,000 at MSU Denver. The third college on the Auraria Campus is Community College o f Denver, which started in storefronts across Denver in 1967, holding its first classes in a renovated auto showroom close to the Denver Civic Center. By 1975, CCD was geographically spread out to the point that the Colorado State Legislature approved its move to the Auraria Campus. Currently, CCD has an enrollment of more than 10,000 students, and is the third largest community college in the Colorado Community College System (Community College of Denver, 2015) All three sch ools serve different missions. CCDs admission requirements tell all students they will need to take separate assessment tests in math, reading and English, or submit a recent set of ACT or SAT scores at or greater than an 18 in English on the ACT, and a 19 in math. The comparable scores for the SAT are 440 for English and 460 for math (Community College of Denver, 2015) University of Colorado Denver is much more competitive, requiring a 93 or higher on the Colorado Commission on Higher Education scale and a variable scale based on the students high school grade point average; on UCD s chart, which is multilayered; even a high school GPA of 3.6 could make a student a possible candidate for admission, depending on other fac tors such as standardized testing and high school curriculum (University of Colorado Denver, 2015) The CCHE was created in 2003, and governs admission requirements for all students at Colorados public four year colleges or universities, doing so on a school by school basis. But that is far from its only mission: 8

PAGE 17

In 1985 the legislature gave the Commission increased authority and specific directives through the passage of House Bill 1187. Specific responsibilities include developing long range plans for an evolving state system of higher education: Review and approve degree programs. Establish the distribution formula for higher education funding; recommend statewide funding levels to the legislature. Approve institutional capital construction requests; recommend capital construction priorities to the legislature. Develop policies for institutional and facility master plans. Administer statewide student financial assistance programs through policy development, program evalua tion, and allocation of funds. Develop and administer a statewide off campus (extended studies), community service, and continuing education program. Determine institutional roles and missions. Establish statewide enrollment policies and admission standard s. Conduct special studies as appropriate or directed, regarding statewide education policy, finance, or effective coordination (Colorado Department of Higher Education, 2015) Other students at UCD, however face far more strin gent admissions requirements. Music students face a highly selective admissions process that includes not only the standard freshman criteria, but also a separate set of criteria in the Advanced Measures of Music Audiation test, which measures student abil ity in tonal, rhythm, and composite areas (Gordon, 2015) Students wishing to major in music are not admitted in the spring semester at UCD; they are accepted only in fall (University of Colorado Denver, 2015) MSU Denvers admission policy has recently been the topic of news coverage. MSU was formed as Metro State College with the idea of focusing on alternative admissions: college students, for example, who were older than traditional freshmen coming directly from high school, and students who were continuing their education after an absence. In short, MSU Denvers admissions policies could be compared to a community college, but at a four year school. 9

PAGE 18

MSU Denvers admissions are in essence, tw o tiered, or bifurcated. Students younger than 19 are classified as traditional applicants, and must have a CCHE score of 85 or greater, as well as ACT scores of 18 on the English section and 17 on the math section (Metropolita n State University of Denver, 2015) But there is a different set of requirements for students who are 20 and older. Neither the ACT nor the SAT is required, and students in this age group need only submit a valid GED or evidence of graduation from high school. No other standards are required of students 20 or older, including a minimum grade point average (Metropolitan State University of Denver, 2015) MSU Denvers admissions policies created a stir in the 2015 legislative session of the Colorado General Assembly, with a proposal to make MSU a moderately selective school under CCHE guidelines, as opposed to an open admissions school. State Senator Kent Lambert (R., Colorado Springs) took the stance that MSU Denvers poor performance, which includes the lowest graduation rate of any four year college or university under CCHE guidelines in Colorado, meant that students needed additional coursework within the state community college system before transferring to MSU. MSU Pre sident Stephen Jordan opposed the bill, arguing that his schools performance was unfairly evaluated compared to other schools; Jordan pointed to the high number of students who transfer from MSU to another school, and therefore do not count in MSUs graduation rate. During a hearing at the State Capitol, Jordan reminded lawmakers that one of his missions when the school became a university in 2012 was to continue to serve students with lower grades and other kinds of hardships, even while assuming the uni versity mantle (Robles, 2015) The bill, if passed, could have cost MSU Denver more than eight mi llion dollars per year. It did not advance to the full floor of the Senate from a state Senate committee, so MSU 10

PAGE 19

Denvers admissi on policies will remain the same, at least for now. Tuition varies across all three schools. Auraria Campus is not a residential campus; students must find off campus housing in the Denver area, although three private dormitories now exist: Auraria Student Lofts, Campus Village Apartments, and The Regency (University of Colorado Denver, 2015) MSU Denvers average in state tuition is $3035.01 per semester (Metropolitan State University of Denver, 2015) while University of Colorado Denvers per semester in state tuition averages between $4,380.00 and $4,710.00 per semester, depending on whether the student is in the underclass or upperclass division (University of Col orado Denver, 2015) Community College of Denver prices all classes by credit hour; at an average of $199.00 per credit hour for instate tuition, a fifteen credit semester would cost a student $2985.00 per semester (Community College of Denver, 2015) Having all three schools on one campus can lead to a total enrollment of more than 45,000 students. Auraria Campus, unlike many similar urban campuses, has its own police department and health center that can handle some procedures found in larger urban hospitals. Auraria is almost a city unto itself, and making sure all three schools can work together in the same buildings is the role of a compl etely separate oversight group, and often a Herculean task. 11

PAGE 20

CHAPTER IV AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER The task of coordinating the needs of all three schools, be they student, staff, faculty or administrative, often falls to the Auraria Higher Education Center, known on campus as AHEC. AHECs role, however, was never meant t o be supervisory; instead, it is advisory in nature. Still, with a list as large as AHECs responsibilities, it often trends toward a supervisory role: The Auraria Higher Education Center oversees the shared services of the Auraria Campus, including: Acqu isition and Property Management Classroom Scheduling and Media Support Commercial Lease and Contract Negotiation/Management Conference and Event Services Early Learning Center Internal Support Services Business Operations Financial Management Human Resourc es Information Technology Maintenance and Operations Parking and Transportation Services Performing Arts Center Management Planning and Development Police and Security Procurement Services Sustainable Campus Program Tivoli Student Union and related student bond programs (Auraria Higher Education Center, 2015) While AHEC has four of its own directors, the voting membership of AHEC consists of ten people (the Board of Directors), ranging from the heads of all three schools to faculty members to students (Auraria Higher Education Center, 2015) They set policy; AHECs four directors carry it out. 12

PAGE 21

It i s not a perfect system by any means. Stories of disagreements between schools are legendary; classroom space is often double scheduled between two schools (including specialized space such as the television production facilities), and the three schools do disagree over use of available resources. But by and large, the system can and does work, wi th the flare up from one (or all three) schools For the purpose of this thesis, AHEC is critical in its oversight of Studios A and B, the two television production facilities available to all three schools on campus, especially the auspices of Auraria Media Center, headed by director Matt Keller and Chief Engineer Kent Courtnage. MSU Denvers broadcasting department uses them for classes, as does University of Colorado Denvers Theatre, Film and Video Production department. All scheduling is handled by the Auraria Media Center staff, and quite often, one school has had to change times and days of a class to accommodate another schools booking (full disclosure: I moved my F all, 2015 TV News Producing class back three hours on Mondays and Wednesdays to ac commodate a UCD class that had been scheduled at the exact same time as the time I originally wanted. My class still went to full enrollment during finals week of spring semester, 2015.) Another user of the studio space is the Met Report and Noticiero TV Met, the Emmy award winning English and Spanish newscasts of the Office of Student Media. These two newscasts are independent of academic curriculum and not required in the MSU Denver Broadcasting program, and are entirely volunteer. The volunteer staff i ncludes a student general manager, student news editor, student video supervisor, and other managerial roles. The staff has ranged from thirty people to fifty .1 Noticiero TV Met airs live every other 1 In the interests of full disclosure, I am the faculty advisor to Met Report, Noticiero TV Met, and KMET Radio. 13

PAGE 22

Friday at 10:30 during the fall and spring semester; the Met Report airs live every Friday at 12:30 during fall and spring semesters, and several times during the summer. Both shows air on Channel 54. Discussions surrounding the Spanishlanguage newscast include doubling its airtime to every Friday instead of e very other Friday. Community College of Denver currently holds no classes in the Auraria Media Center studios, and will only occasionally check out some of the available television production field gear available to them (Court nage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) UCD and MSU, however, are very active in teaching classes in the studio spaces, with MSU offering a minimum of four classes a semester in Studios A and B, and UCD offering as many as six, contingent on t he semester. S ometimes, however, it is hard to work out the space issues on campus that continue to plague all three institutions, especially in light of the original AHEC plan for the downtown multiuse campus that officially opened in 1976:2 The AHEC c ampus, originally planned for 13,000 full time (equivalent) students, opened in 1976. With a large amount of acreage on the new campus, the first generation of academic buildings were developed at three stories or less and concentrated on the eastern half of the campus. Since the inception of planning for the campus, there has been recognition that an administrative role is needed to facilitate collaboration of its host institutions on issues of common concern. AHEC administrators consult with the senior ad ministration for each of the three educational institutions in the management of physical resources; planning for capital funding; attraction and management of private development on campus; design and operation of buildings and infrastructure; planning fo r transportation access to, on, and through the campus; provision of parking; management of the student center and shared student services; operation of childcare services; provision of campus recreation; and management of public safety. AHECs goal is t o manage the campus in support of the distinct missions of each individual academic institution (studioINSITE, 2007) 2 Metro State an d UC Denver had been in place since 1965 and 1970, respectively. CCD was added in 1976, leading to the full AHEC plan. 14

PAGE 23

With a campus plan that accommodated 13,000 FTE students, and a current enrollment of more than 40,000, i t is never a matter of what facilities will become overcrowded at Auraria Campus. The correct answer is all of them. The architects original design of the library, built in 1975, was written to provide permanent housing to both the library and media production facilities: The building serves as the central Learning Resources Center and Multimedia production facility for a new college in downtown Denver. The multimedia facility is located in a partial basement. All library functions are on two floors of f lexible Loftspace (sic). Two open cou rtyards are placed asymmetricall y within the plan and subdivide the floor into various use areas (C.F. Murphy Associates, 1976) But a later report from 2011 recommended a drastic ch ange in the multimedia area in the basement of the library: Located in the partial basement, the Media Center consists of two double height video production studios, associated control booths, equipment cages, classrooms, and transmission systems. The bas ement classroom spaces would be potentially suitable for closedstack collections. Archival collections could also be considered for location in the basement, although preventive measures against water infiltration might be required (Holzman Moss Bottino Architecture, 2011) Right now, the status of the four basement classrooms that MSU and UCD both use to teach many of the lecture components of their television and film classes is unclear. Many options remain for the classrooms; none have yet been officially chosen, though AHEC retains control over the scheduling of those classrooms for now. The television studios will remain as televisio n studios. 15

PAGE 24

CHAPTER V THE STUDIOS: STUDIO A Auraria Media Center, housed in the base ment of Auraria Library, is the home to TV studios A and B. Studio A is a fullservice live television studio with a switchable connection to Channel 54 on a graphic user interface panel. Studio B, which can be taken to live onair status, is more often us ed for teaching classes that do not require live television, as well as set building and lighting instruction. But Studio B is used for MSU Denvers Television Production and Advanced Television Production classes, which do not generate a live television s how. UCD currently does not use Studio B. MSU Denver offers sixteen broadcasting classes per year in spring and fall and two in summer. Of those, five need to be held in the Auraria Media Center television studios (Furrer, 2015) UCD offers 21 video and film classes in spring and fall, five of which need studio space (University of Colorado Denver, 2015) With ten classes per year at a minimum being scheduled in two television studios, conflicts can (and do) occur. Auraria Media Center has maintained a strict first come, first served policy, but MSU Denver is in constant need of Studio A due to its live television instruction, as opposed to studio television/film set use, as is taught by UCD. The popular opinion of Studio B is that it is simply a backup, and too unwieldy and too small to be of much use in teaching live television. Studio A is the first choice, and always the first to be requested for classes. The Met Report and Noticiero TV Met are permanently scheduled into Studio A every Friday from 8 am until 2 pm; as schools, MSU and UCD do not offer many classes that meet on Fridays, so a conflict on that day is avoided. Still, this leaves four days a week to accommodate approximately five clas ses from both UCD and MSU that need the television studios. And all 16

PAGE 25

instructors will first request Studio A And that does not leave much scheduling leeway to work with. The setup of Studio A is analogous to a television station from the 1990s through the advent of digital playback. For many years, Met Report and Noticiero TV Met played back tapes for their newscasts on DVC Pro and Betacam SP, although the staffs generated stories with digital field cameras. This meant shooting to a digital file and editing with a nonlinear editor (e.g. Avid, Final Cut Pro or Adobe Premier), but then, putting the story back on a playback tape (either Betacam SP or DVC Pro) in real time. Not only do you have the disadvantages of manual ly cuei ng video tapes, you save no tim e in the digital realm, with a good part of the workflow being forc ed into a real time workflow, which costs time. Some of that was ameliorated earlier this year with the addition of a KiPro video playback system, allowing Met Report and Noticiero TV M et to play back clips for their news shows digitally, and saving time by merely duplicating the edited video file to the Ki Pro drive, rather than dubbing it in real time to tape. As of this writing (May 14, 2015), however, that is the only digital advance that has been made, with many more to come in June (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) And most of the equipment in Studio A goes back to the 1990s: We have an analog switcher that was installed back in the 1990s 1999, I think. The Sony digital routing system was installed in 1997. So all these patch panels correspond to those two routers, and its been a parallel routing situation ever since that time. We have cross conversion here that converts analog to digital back and forth so we can route between the two. (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) 17

PAGE 26

While that may help with redundancy, it does not help with mainte nance of the equipment, not to ment ion the inefficiency of cross conversion to begin with: an analog to digital conversion that results in a digital to analog conversion for airing on Channel 54. What also creates problems is the sheer amount of equipment that is no longer supported, ofte n made by companies that have long been out of business. But you can find a lot of that equipment still in Studio A : Theres some very interesting gear in here st ill in use. The Video Commander3 made by Iris Technologies, a company thats no longer in bus iness, but this was a pretty unique device in its time. Its very intuitive; you click your source, you click your destination, you click done, and it makes the route This came out right around 2000, and is also an automation system. You can do program ma cros, you can have serial and IR triggers occur, so at one time, this ran dozens of VCRs and DVD machines for playing back on the campus channels. But it hasnt had company support from the manufacturer in about seven years. You can no longer get parts fo r it, and were just grateful it still works (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) Certainly innovative, and old website promotional literature from the company indicates their products were used at ABC Tel evision Networks, ESPN, and more (MFG Pages, 2015) But their chief developer posted on his own resume that he left the company in 2010, and it folded shortly after that (Bereit, 2015) If Auraria Media Center were to need replacement hardware for the Video Commander, at least theres a listing on eBay (eBay, 2015) : 3 The Video Commander was a GUI based screen that was essentially a big routing panel. 18

PAGE 27

(Figure 1 : Iris Technologies Video Commander ) The age in Studio A extends farther than just the Video Commander video router. For graphics, a Harris Inca Title One inscriber is still in use: It was installed in 2006. Its predecessor was the old Chyron Maxine. The Maxine was quite a machine; it was actually bulletproof or prett y close. It would take all kinds of abuse, which is what you wanted in a broadcast facility. Unfortunately, it was not user friendly. In fact, one of our instructors, Kevin Campbell, actually wrote a manual for the Chyron machine4 that was very helpful. But the Harris that replaced it is also no longer supported by the manufacturer, and if this drive goes, the machine itself is gone. We had two of them, and one is deceased now. (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) 4 Former Metro State College broadcast coordinator Kevin Campbell hired me to teach radio in 2006. 19

PAGE 28

Notably, the malfunction and complete breakdown of the older Harris Inca Title One has left Auraria Media Center completely unable to generate chyrons, fonts, full screen graphics or any on screen graphics in S tudio B, and there has been no budg et to replace the graphics generator. The solution has been to move the functioning Harris from Studio A to B as needed. Television stations also generate color bars and a 1 kHz tone as test material. Studio A s tone generator is analog. It has a rota ry dial to control frequency, and was made by Potomac Instruments: (Figure 2 : Potomac Instruments Tone Generator) While these are still for sale (Potomac Instruments, Inc. 2015) most stations have long since converted to digital tone generators for m easurement. Courtnage is more than happy with the recent edition of digital video playback in A, replacing the Betacam SP and DVC Pro. No moving parts, he says. And since the i nstallation of the Ki Pro digital video system, Courtnage says only UCD has used the Betacam SP deck occasionally for playback. One of their instructors has Betacam tapes he will play for the class sometimes, he says (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) Met Report and Noticiero TV Met made the conversion to digital playback of all show elements and recording 20

PAGE 29

the show digitally In January, 2015. Since then, no broadcast elements from the MSU Denver Office of Student Media have been on tape. They have all been played back from a hard drive. Courtnage has repair ed the Betacam SP deck many times. Several times, the playback tape was so damaged by that deck before the Met Report live broadcast that it had to be entirely re dubbed, in real time, once Courtnage repaired the deck. Alignment of the heads inside the deck was a constant problem. The DVC Pro deck is perhaps more dependable, but it is digital tape, and those who have tried to cue up a digital videotape to the proper pla yback point know the problems that can cause: missing several frames of playback because the heads engage much differently than on a n analog deck with helical scan, such as a Betacam SP deck.5 Courtnage says Studio A will keep the two videotape decks, but they will no longer be part of daily operations. We may still need them for archive, or for emergencies, but they will be moved far down the room several racks out of the way of the day to day equipment, he says (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) For true videotape history buffs, there is still a inch UMatic in the equipment rack. Still works, Courtnage says. And theres also a very nice JVC VHS, too. We were still using that up to a few years ago (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) In the control room, the switcher is an analog Sony DVS 7200A. You cant get parts for it anymore, Courtnage says. I bought another console unit just like this one on eBay for spare parts. Unfortunately, the parts I really needed had gone bad on the spare. I did use it to replace a few switches, so that was helpful, he says (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) Co urtnage shops for a lot of equipment on eBay. EBay has been a blessing for a lot of 5 I witnessed both instances several times. 21

PAGE 30

these pieces of gear, because that really is the only place you can get parts. Which is a little scary when you think about it (Courtnage, Chie f Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) Beyond the switcher in Studio A is quite a bit of unused audio gear. Minidisc, DAT, eight track digital recorder, and even an audio cassette deck. Students like to turn on the cassette deck just for fun, Cour tnage says. The audio console itself is a 24channel Soundcraft that Courtnage says has been running steady for about seventeen years. The Soundcraft is entirely analog, but will be replaced by a Yamaha that Courtnage describes as kind of a hybrid, with an analog interface but digital processing inside. Each channel has its own compressor built into it (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) Audio from Studio A is mono, summed to a mono feed before it eve n begins the conversion process from analog to digital and back again. And Courtnage is known for mentioning plenty of issues with audio levels in student work. There will be a compressor in every channel in the new Yamaha audio mixers in Studios A and B That should really help a lot (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) .6 The current TelePrompTer is a separate and dedicated workstation that sits behind the audio console, leaving the TelePrompTer operator completely isolated from the rest of the control room. Courtnage says the new prompting system will be much nicer, and will be built into a console, so the operator will feel more like theyre a part of the rest of the crew in here (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) The current TelePrompTer system is a Flip Q, which is still available, but the features built into the Flip Q are far less than the scripting software employed by the MSU Denver Office of Stu dent Media, which uses Rundown Creator for all shows. FlipQ, for example, will not keep aggregate track of total run 6 In fairness, I have conducted audio seminars for my students and Met Report staff members many times. I agree with Kent that audio levels are a consistent problem in student video work. 22

PAGE 31

time in a live show, which is critical in television news. In Rundown Creator, it i s already built in. Notably, the FlipQ software runs o n a PC that uses the vastly out of date Windows XP as its operating system. The same operating system can be found on the PC that runs the Harris Inca Inscriber software. An entirely separate set of problems arises from aspect ratio control. Channel 54 i s academy frame 4:3, and most nonlinear editors and field cameras are now 16:9. The Metro State Broadcast Network airs many shows on 54, focusing on much of MSU Denvers sports teams: many womens and mens basketball, womens softball and mens baseball games are all aired on Channel 54. The Office of Student Media uses Canon XA 25 video cameras that are high definition and 16:9. This creates producing and workflow problems for Eric Lansing, the director of the Metro State Broadcast Network: Having standa rd definition, while its something to have, well, when I give my show to Altitude7 its still in four by three. When we shoot in the studio, its shot in four by three. So, when we shoot in studio, does it make us look like any less of a TV show? Maybe a little bit. But thats what we have to deal with here, until we can have sixteen by nine cameras everywhere. And thats going to be fantastic. When I shoot outside of the studio, doing standups and whatnot, its all sixteen by nine. But in the studio, its all four by three. I put a screen behind it when were shooting in studio, but when we shoot the highlights of the games, thats all in sixteen by nine. And when youre talking about rendering time, it can turn into 23 minutes of work for maybe a five min ute segment (Lansing, 2015) If this is painting too depressing a picture of Studio A it is still worth noting that many careers started there. Carl Bilek, the executive director of news gathering at KMGH TV in Denver, is a Metro State College graduate, and has these memories of majoring in broadcasting: When I was a student at Metropolitan State College (now Metropolitan State University of Denver) in 1988, the studio was very basic. There was a control room with a basic s witcher and there were two studio cameras. We did not have the ability to playback videotape. Keep in mind, our editing education involved 7 Altitude Network in Denver, a cable network, currently airs shows and games from MSBN. 23

PAGE 32

using razor blades and tape to physically splice together audio tape. It was a far cry from todays nonlinear edi ting systems! One of our class projects for directing and studio production involved placing images on two music stands, framing them with the studio cameras, and switching back and forth between the images in sync with music playing from the audio board. In my case, I chose black and white photos from Hollywoods golden age of movie musicals and set them to the song Broadway Melody. This was my first exposure to a live studio experience, and even though it was extremely basic, it did indeed provide a n opportunity to feel some of the stress that goes into not wanting to hit the wrong button on the switcher and the anxiety of making sure the cameras were framed correctly throughout the process. Our second production assignment was similar in that we ad ded a live announcer doing a voice over. In my case, I created a mock station public service campaign featuring a kids coloring contest in which viewers sent in drawings and one is selected as a winner. It was called The Art of Disney. I created fou r entries showcasing the artwork of three children. Because I only had music stands with which to work, I created a main title image as well as a closing image. I positioned all of the images on cardstock in exactly the same place so that when we dis solved from one camera to the other, it appeared as though they were seamlessly changing in sequence. Now that I look back on it, it was fairly clever, but again, it was not conducive to actually learning newscast production. Having said that, I dont beg rudge my experience at Metro at all; I enjoyed my time there and it positioned me to move forward in my career, despite the programs shortcomings at the time (Bilek, 2015) Bilek is far from the only broadcaster who went on f rom Metro State to succeed in the business. Robert Dominguez, the current production manager for ABCs Good Morning America, graduated from Metro in 2004 with a degree in communications, and several years of experience with the Met Report. Dominguez, a D enver native, has come back to MSU every year8 and talk to the current Met Report staff at least one day out of the year, if not once a semester. I had to work my tail off back there in VTR to make sure all the tapes played correctly, he told the student s on his last visit. But we always made a good show and made it work, no matter how old the equipment was. You have to work with what you have, and you can always learn something, he said (Dominguez, 2014) After some years a s a production 8 I first met Robert several years ago via Hassan Shah, a former student of mine who now works for E! Networks in Los Angeles. 24

PAGE 33

assistant on such shows as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and other reality TV shows, Dominguez made the move to Good Morning America. Last December, he also took some time to talk about his experience at Metro State and how it related to his job with the MSU Denver Alumni Office: Dominguez credits MSU Denver for much of his success. I remember the day one of my professors put it to me bluntly and told me that what I wanted to accomplish in TV wasnt going to happen in Denver. I neede d to think big, as in New York or Los Angeles, and that would require me to make the jump. So in his senior year he blanketed production studios and networks with resumes for any entry level job he could find. Eventually producers from the TV hit, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, called and that was the break he needed. I appreciate that conversation to this day, it encouraged me to open my mind to larger opportunities, he says. But networking is key too, and it begins in the classroom. Many of my inte rnship and career leads were from classmates. Dominguezs advice for today's students: Acknowledge the good days and learn from the bad ones thats how you grow. And dont compare your career path to others around you. Youll go insane. Acknowledge the ir strife and accomplishments, but understand over the course of a lifetime its all a fluid situation and everyone is on their own journey . (MSU Denver, 2015) Two industry veterans in highprofile broadcasting positions, both with experie nce on at least some of the same (albeit old) equipment. And in both cases, the equipment was old when they both attended Metro State. While it truly is time for a sea change in Studio A s equipment and workflow, at least what it had could do the job well enough to do what a university program is meant to do : gain employment for graduates. But some students find themselves frustrated. Josh Cozart, the general manager of Met Report and Noticiero TV Met for 2015 and 2016, has also interned at KCNC TV, the CBS owned and operated station in Denver. He is also interning during the summer of 2015 in the meteorology department at KWCH TV in Wichita, Kansas. He says this about Studio A : my first thought is that it might not be teaching me as well a s what I need for going into the business. As for the remodeling and new equipment, he does have some concerns about the 25

PAGE 34

entire studio being new and wholly different for the very fi rst newscast of the fall semester of 2015: As GM going into the new semes ter with everything being completely different than what we are used to is most definitely something that Im pretty concerned about, but I know in the long run it will make things way more efficient for us and better our product overall. But maybe this should have happened five, ten years ago, when everything in the television business did switch over to digital. I will miss (the old equipment) a little bit, because I felt like just at the end of the semester, I was comfortable with how everything works. B ut Im excited to see what all the new stuff can do and learning all that (Cozart, 2015) The last major renovation of Studio A was in 1997. Since then, gear has been added and removed piecemeal from the studio. Some has been migrated to Studio B for use there, while other equipment has failed completely. This leaves Studio B in perhaps an even tougher position than Studio A. 26

PAGE 35

CHAPTER VI THE STUDIOS: STUDIO B Studio B is one that takes up two floors, with the control booth on the first floor of Auraria Media Center, and the set area down below in the basement, as opposed to Studio A, which is housed in toto on the ground floor. Also unlike Studio A, Studio B was built to be self contained, and tape based playback was eliminated years ago in B (unlike A) in favor of DVD, miniDV, and other digital playback methods. Studio B is also not directly connected to Channel 54. While pre recorded programs recorded in Studio B do air on 54, Studio B is not used in a live broadcast capacity. It is truly a closed production facility. The control room in Studio B is much more compact than Studio A. And a decade ago, it was cluttered: When I first got here in 2005, there was a big shelf up on the wall with the monitors in a row, and a bunch of monitors near the console with an old aqua colored countertop and several old VHS machines, using the classic Grass Valley 110 switcher. Studio B still has the windows looking out on the studio. Old school, but I still like it. (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) Courtnage worked to make the studio much more digital than Studio A from the outset. Early on, it was just VHS record/playback, and then we moved to DVD record/ playback, and we had mini DV for quite a while. And for the first time, with the renovations, Studio B will be connected to the main router next door to Studio A. This will give Studio B the capability of generating live broadcast on Channel 54. 27

PAGE 36

The vi deo switcher in Studio B is an EchoLab switcher. While the company closed in 2010 (Zaller, 2010) the design itself is not as BlackMagic Design very qu ickly bought the assets of EchoL ab (Blackmagic D esign, 2010) The audio console is a Ramsa that came from Echostar corporate studios in Littleton as a donation. Its served us well in this situation, Courtnage said. It will be replaced by one of the new Yamaha mixers. Studio B can generate stereo audio, but for anything played back on Channel 54, it is be summed to mono, which will also change with the remodeling, as Channel 54 will be able to broadcast in stereo. Studio B has remained, for many years, essentially an island, and not connectable to the workings of Studio A or Channel 54. It wont be anymore. There will be less isolation and it will be part of the main router system. And, of course, it will have the same recording format (as Studio A), and there will be a Ross Switcher in here whi ch is much more similar to the big one coming to Studio A, and the CRTs will be replaced by LCD monitors, though Im not sure wh at cameras will be in here yet, Courtnage says. And he says he may use the cameras from Studio A, which will be replaced by Hi tachi cameras. 28

PAGE 37

CHAPTER VII CABLE TELEVISION AND THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Much of the programming generated in Studios A and B is expressly intended for airing on Channel 54 in its current setup. Both the Office of Student Media at MSU Denver and the Metro State Broadcast Network have television shows that either originate live from Studio A or are produced specifically for airing on that channel both from the field and in the studio, or a combination of the two. University of Color ado Denvers TVFP department draws on both instudio shoots and field shoots to add programming to Channel 54. While the popular misconception may be that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is not involved in cable ownership or programming, the FCC is, in reality, very involved, and it is portions of the FCC requirements of local cable operators that led directly to the genesis of this project and this thesis. It starts with ownership. Most consumers are familiar with their cable provider, imme diately calling up such names as Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, and many more. But the key word is provider. Under current FCC law, the local municipality or the state is actually the primary owner of the cable franchise: The 1992 Cable Act codified, and the Commission has adopted, a regulatory plan allowing local and/or state authorities to select a cable franchisee and to regulate in any areas that the Commission did not preempt. Local franchising authorities have adopted laws and/or re gulations in areas such as subscriber service requirements, public access requirements and franchise renewal standards. Under the 1992 Cable Act, local franchising authorities have specific responsibility for regulating the rates for ba sic cable s ervice and equipment. (Federal Communications Commission, 2015) What can become convoluted is how the FCC developed the law up to that point. Cable television has, in reality, been around since the late 1940s, developed so that viewers in far 29

PAGE 38

flung communities with no self generating UHF or VHF stations could receive retransmissions of broadcast signals from larger markets. Originally developed by Robert Tarlton, the first such service was able to rebroadcast over the air stations in Philadelphia to television set retailers in Lansford, Pennsylvania, well outside the reach of over the air TV signals from Philadelphia (Broadband Cable Association of Pennsylvania, 2004) And the TV set retailers p aid a fee to Tarlton for the service perhaps an early indication of the later economics of cable television. But by 1950, only seventy such systems were needed in the United States; higher power permissions for TV transmission from the FCC led to at leas t acceptable coverage of most communities in the United States that could receive service from the VHF 9 band of TV stations, which had greater range than the UHF 10 stations (Federal Communications Commission, 2007) Between 1 950 and the 1980s, cable television really didnt exist as a medium inde pendent of broadcast television. But by December, 2011, there were more than 5,300 cable systems serving more than 60 million subscribers (Federal Communica tions Commission, 2015) And the FCC also notes that most subscribers receive in excess of 100 channels. Public service to the community has long been a stated goal of the FCC, no matter the medium. In 1946, the FCC took many broadcasters to task in something called the Blue Book, which was published to codify FCC programming guidelines for judging the performance of the radio or TV station when it came time for the FCC to renew that stations license (Riley, 2012) The or iginal FCC Blue Book had four programming requirements for broadcasters: Broadcast experimental programs not sponsored by advertisers Promote local live programs Devote programs to the discussion of local public issues Eliminate excessive advertising 9 VHF stations occupied the channel assignments 2 through 13 on old rotary dial televisions. 10 UHF stations occupied the chann el assignments 14 through 83 on old rotary dial televisions. 30

PAGE 39

Th e Blue Book was not well received by broadcasters. In fact, the National Association of Broadcasters judged it a mortal enemy FCC Chairman Clifford Durr said he was called a stooge for communists by the NAB president (Riley, 2012) Broadcasting Magazine accused the FCC of trying to make broadcasting in the United States look and sound like the BBC (Newman, 2004) Broadcasting Magazine editorialized against the Blue Book for eighteen consecutive w eeks; NBC President Niles Trammel gathered the editorials and published them in a red covered booklet that wound up being called the Red Book. The Blue Book never carried any legal weight, but it did sensitize broadcasters as to what the FCC could requ ire at license renewal time. In 2015, the FCC does have highly codified requirements for not only radio and television station owners, but also cable operators and even satellite radio. The regulations apply to the technical areas of broadcast, such as pow er and interference, as well as content. Sirius/XM, for example, must carry local content nationally if it is to carry local content at all: Early this month, in a seemingly innocuous move, XM Radio offered 15 new satellite radio channels featuring l ocal programming traffic updates and weather reports. But because FCC rules require XM (and its rival, Sirius) to exclusively provide national programming, each of these local for example, can learn about a foggy night on the coast of Florida or t he traffic en route to O'Hare, just by flipping the dial. The launch of the new channels has kicked off a highly charged debate about whether the local content is legal. Traditional broadcasters claim it's not, because the programming targets particular regions. XM and Sirius (which plans similar channels) claim it is, because the programming airs nationwide. So far, the FCC seems to be siding with XM, but the regulatory scuffle points up the pickle that satellite radio is currently in: In order to get permission to exist, XM and Sirius had to swear off local content. But in order to survive, they need to find a legal way to deliver it to subscribers (Hazlett, 2004) 31

PAGE 40

The FCC may not be as active o n programming issues as it is on technical ones, but it is still active. Radio and television stations must maintain public files that can be inspected by anyone who walks into a radio station, and those files must list such items as all paid political ann ouncements and public service programming. The language in the FCC statute has changed little from the language used by its predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, from 1926 to 1934: In exchange for obtaining a valuable license to operate a broadcast station using the public airwaves, each radio and television licensee is required by law to operate its station in the public interest, convenience and necessity. This means that it must air programming that is responsive to the needs and pr oblems of its local community of license (Federal Communications Commission, 2008) The requirements change drastically in the cable television arena. The FCC involves itself more in the regulation of who holds the franchis e for a cable system much more than actual content on the cable system itself: Before commencing operation, a cable system operator must send the fo llowing information to the Secretary of the Commission for each community to be served: (1) The legal name of the operator, the entity identification or social security number, and whether the operator is an individual, private association, partnership or corporation. If the operator is a partnership, the legal name of the partner responsible for communications with the Commission; (2) The assumed name (if any) used for doing business in the community; (3) The mailing address including zip code, and the telephone number to which all communications are to be directed; (4) The date the system provided s ervices to 50 or more subscribers; (5) The name of the community or area served and the county in which it is located; (6) The television broadcast signals to be carried; (7) A certification that the applicant is not subject to a denial o f federal benefits pursuant to Section 5301 of the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1988, 21U.S.C., 853a, or, in the case of a nonindividual 32

PAGE 41

applicant (for instance, a corporation, partnership, or other unincorporated association), that no party to the application is subject to a denial of federal benefits pursuant to that section; and (8) For a cable system (or an employment unit) with six or more full time employees, a statement of the proposed community unit's equal employment opportunity program, unless such program has previously been filed for the community unit or is not required to be filed based on an anticipated number if few er than six full time employees. A registration statement must be signed by an authoriz ed representative of the cable television company. The Commission issues a public notice setting forth the details of each registration statement as it is received. The cable television operator is not required to serve the registration s tatement on any party and may begin operation immediately upon filing the registration statement. However, commencement of operation is entirely at the risk of the system operator. If violations of the rules are subsequently discovered, a ppropriate regulatory sanctions, of a cease and/o r desist order, may be employed (Federal Communications Commission, 2015) Regulation of cable television systems comes mostly from the franchise holder, not the FCC i tself. While the FCC does require filing of the channels to be carried on each cable system, it is left to the local operator as to where those channels will be placed on the system. T he original Blue Book from the FCC may have started the discussion abo ut public service requirements, and those discussions continue today on a more local level with cable television franchisees, each one of which may have different requirements for cable operators in their jurisdiction: A variety of laws and regulations for cable television exist at the state and local level. Some states, such as Massachusetts, regulate cable television on a comprehensive basis through a state commission or advisory board established for the sole purpose of cable television regul ation. In Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the agencies are state public utility commissions. In Hawaii, regulation of cable television is the responsibility of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affa irs. In other areas of the country, cable is regulated by local governments such as a city cable commission, city council, town council, or a board of supervisors. These regulatory entities are called 33

PAGE 42

"local franchising authorities." In addition, most states have one or more state laws specifically applicable to cable television, dealing most commonly with such subjects as franchising, theft of service, pole attachments, rate regulation and taxation (Fed eral Communications Commission, 2015) In Denver, City and County of Denver Media is the franchise holder for Comcast cable. Denver County is one of nine counties in what is called the Metro Denver region (Metro Denver Econ omic Development Corporation, 2015) Each and every one of them may have different cable regulations county by county, or even city by city within each county. City and County of Denver Medias webpage lists se veral public service channels: Channel 8 a nd C hannel 58 are managed and programmed by Denver Media Services, an arm of City and County of Denver Media. Channel 22 is the educational access channel through Denver Public Schools. Channel 54 is designated by City and County of Denver Media as for Aur aria Campus only: C hannel 54 originates from the Auraria Campus in downtown Denver. Focused on higher education, it serves as a communication service for three institutions. The Community College of Denver, Metropolitan State University of Denv er and University of Colorado Denver all share this urban location. Programming includes academic learning, local history, informational postings and student productions. Channel 54 features a weekly student production called the Met Report. Thi s news and entertainment broadcast offers both English and Spanish editions (City of Denver, 2015) In the 1990s, cities in the Denver metropolitan area banded together to form an organization that can collectively negotiate many terms with local cable companies, primarily Comcast. Those communities didnt officially band together as a non profit corporation until 2012, when they called themselves the Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance (Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance, 2015) While the group does not negotiate blanket agreements with a cable sys tem, it does work to help the individual cities bargain their 34

PAGE 43

final franchise agreements with the cable operator. While cable t elevision rates may be the most important to the public, there are many other areas including public service programming and the content of that programming that can and w ill be part of the discussions between a cable service provider and the community of license that acts as the franchisee. 35

PAGE 44

CHAPTER VII I LITERATURE REVIEW: PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING OF HIGHER EDUCATION So far, the discussion in this thesis has centered on the technical advancements and opportunities that will be gained with the addition of $453,000 from City and County of Denver Media, the franchisee for cable television in all of Denver County. But what has not been mentioned is the influx of money from the priv ate sector in higher education overall. This thesis is not here to relitigate the issue, because private sector money is in higher education, and will remain there. It will not go away. But the existing academic literature on the issue can be examined as to whether money from private businesses creates an inherent conflict with the mission of higher education, or whether such monies should be welcomed with open arms. Is ours the only campus that who has obtained private money for educational improvements, specifically capital expenditures? Certainly not. The lite rature shows a wide array of private money filtering into higher education for many different purposes. Ergo, this review of the literature will look toward the basic questions of private sector funding in public education, which has been explored thoroughly. Any literature specifically mentioning arts and media education funding will also be included, but it is a much smaller body of work. There are no shortage of good, scholarly articles extolling the benefits of adding private monies to higher education. But there is also a growing chorus of concern about a growing reliance on private sector dollars. Vincent Carpentier in 2012 published a thorough study of the issue, with some startling findings. First of note is the changes in public and private funding percentages over time in higher education (Carpentier, 2012) : 36

PAGE 45

(Table 1 : Changes in public versus private funding in higher education) The growth in private funding from 1945 to 1973 is notable, and Ca rpentier uses his figures to show not additional funding, but funding substitution. In other words, the private sector money is replacing public sector monies in his study. And that is shown in another of Carpentiers tables : (Table 2: Funding substitutio n from public funds to private sector dollars) 37

PAGE 46

The line indicating public funding of US higher education starts declining in approximately 1972, and has declined a full ten percentage points by the end of the graph, with only moderate fluctuations therein. If we are to believe Carpentier, then private money is now replacing public funding of higher education, a trend he does not entirely like: The main lesson from the comparison and contrast of the UK, the USA and France is that, in a context of austerity, the increase of fees combined with the emergence of other private resources does not necessarily mean additional income. As a result, there is a risk that cost sharing becomes a public to private substitution of funding and provision. Moreover, the 2008 crisis reminds us that there is balance to be struck between the diversification of income and the risk of volatility associated with some private resources (Carpentier, 2012, p. 386) Another excellent article on the topic was written by G. Thomas Sav of Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio: Based on this research, government free riding appears to be alive and well and implies that private fund raising in public higher education partially crowds out state government funding at the rate of 43% on the dollar. That is based on an aggregate of some 1,200 colleges and universities in 2006. The present finding of crowding out decline is by itself significant for the revenue implications of successful private fund raising on the part of public colleges and universities (Sav, 2010, p. 298) Supporters of private monies in higher education dont disagree with the replacement theory of dollars. But they do argue that the overall good still outweighs the potential negatives: The PPP model has been used to improve road systems, hospitals, security services, and of course, educational systems around the world with great success. Whil e considered somewhat controversial by some because of the perception that they will increase the involvement of government in the private sector, PPPs are not new. On the contrary, these arrangements have existed since the Roman Empire. They persi st because they are mutually beneficial for government and the private sector. America's corporations have resources and tools available to invest in our next generation of innovative leaders (McPhail, 2011, p. 80) 38

PAGE 47

Still, for every critic of the flow of private sector money into higher education, there seems to be a success story. They date back years : We all remember the major financial cutbacks our campuses suffered during the severe recession of the 1 980s and early 1990s. Those were difficult times, but now we are moving forward. In the past 14 months, legislators and Gov. Foster have set aside millions of new dollars for higher education to finance deferred maintenance, new construction, f aculty pay raises, distance learning, university budgets, libraries, equipment and far reaching scholarship programs. Last month, the Board of Regents, through the Regents Support Fund, distributed more than $14 million to 24 Louisiana universiti es and colleges, many in the New Orleans area, to underwrite 171 new endowed professorships and 19 new endowed chairs for eminent scholars. This is a new record. Another major purpose is to build stronger ties between the private sector and higher education. Private contributions are critical to the wellbeing of our colleges and universities (Callais, 1997) Many are much more recent: In a very real sense, increased collaboration between industry and highe r education has brought the creative engine of the knowledge economy to rest on the shoulders of academic researchers. The rise in real world research and education in colleges and universities has generated exciting opportunities with the potential to shift higher educations culture for example, by embracing the opportunity for faculty to move back and forth between industry and A cademia (sic) (Klawe, 2015) There is ample evidence for both sides of t he argument. Perhaps more germane is an overview of American higher education and the patterns of funding. John Thelins article on success and excess in higher education since 1960 puts it aptly; he cites the paradox of prosperity with the dysfunctions of success: As for the matter of over expansion and unbridled spending, I think that big science is Exhibit A as a source of problems and reconsideration in the 21st century. The original rationale was that, of course, a physics department will be competitive for large federal research grants and will pay for itself. In fact, competition for federal research grants is sufficiently competitive that physics departments at some aspiring research universities do not do well in attracting sufficient grants and external 39

PAGE 48

funding. A rough estimate is that there are about 120 universities committed to advanced science research and serious pursuit of federal research grants. This is testimony to the paradox of success in that si nce World War II there has been a reshuffle and intense c ompetition among established research programs and a host of relative newcomers. At the home campus big science is hailed as a potential source of added resources. The sobering reality is that investment in infrastructure, staff, research support and annual salaries for highly paid science professors and research assistants are not easy to recoup from external grants (Thelin, 2013, p. 111) The business of private money in higher education is now just that big business. While i t is easy to say private funding of higher education would not be necessary if higher education had the funding it needed from public sources a source that, over time, has shrunk nationally (Carpentier, 2012) and is only starting to recover from the recession that began in 2008. The publication Inside Higher Ed calls it a checkered recovery: Thirty nine states report increasing spendin g in 2015, with increases from 0.1 percent in Maine to 21.1 percent in Illinois, though that money does not go to educational operations, according to the report. Ten states registered declines, ranging from 0.4 percent in Delaware to 2 per cent in West Virginia. Funding remained unchanged in North Dakota. While half the states are spending more than they were in the 2010 budget 4 cycle, the other half, of course, are not. Its a tenuous increase, said Jim Palmer, an Illinois State education professor who wrote the report. Its kind of a checkered situation and we expect that checkered situation to continue in some states. Counting federal stimulus dollars from the first years of the Obama administration, nationwide state spending on higher education is up only 3.4 percent since 2010. Many states used that federal cash to avoid sharp or sharper cuts. Much of the nationwide average gain come from a handful of the most populous states California, Florida and I llinois. Take away those three states, and spending in the other 47 states increased by an average of just under 3 percent since the 2014 budget cycle (Rivard, 2015) Here in Colorado, the increased spending has not take n the states higher education budget up to levels seen before this decade: 40

PAGE 49

Even states that have recently put a chunk of cash into higher education are not above their recession era spending levels. For instance, Colorado increased spending by nearly 15 percent in 2015 over 2014, but is still spending 6 percent less than it did in 2010. New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina all had significant increases in 2015 but are still below 2010 spending (Rivard, 2015) And some states still face perilous cuts or almost did. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker floated the idea of a $300 million dollar cut for the 20152017 fiscal year budget, but that states legislature has cut that amount to $250 million dollars, a nd may consider lowering it even more. (Kerstcher, 2015) (Associated Press, 2015) Arizona, however, did enact the deepest cuts to higher education in the country, cutting $99 million dollars from higher education statewide in that states last budget (Goldberg, 2015) Critics have said the cutback talk in both states was politically motivated, driven by conservative opposition to a perceived liberal bias in higher educa tion (Goldberg, 2015) But no matter how one views such news, they are steep cutbacks to higher education budgets that have, in most cases, already been drastically scaled back. If the answer to those cutbacks is inviting and accepting more money from the private sector, the educational cost of doing so must be kept in mind. 41

PAGE 50

CHAPTER IX PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS ON AURARIA CAMPUS There is no shortage of private sector dollars currently in use at Auraria Campus; a partners hip between City and County of Denver Media and Auraria Media Center would merely be the latest in a long line of existing arrangements. University of Colorado Denvers biggest such partnership is the Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Denvers biggest s uburb and the bordering city to the east It was formerly the Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, which closed in 1999. Originally, the facility took advantage of Denvers altitude to become the prime location for treatment of the victims of chemical weapons i n Europe during World War I. especially those with pulmonary problems. Later, it became the main treatment center for tuberculosis victims in the United States. In World War II, Fitzsimons was used to treat casualties and became the Armys best medical tra ining center (Military.com, 2015) But the closure recommendations of BRAC in t he 1990s (the Base Realignment and Closure Commission) spelled the end of Fitzsimons While city of Aurora officials fought hard against closing F itzsimons, since it was the citys biggest employer, they lost that battle (Gilmore, 2005) Unlike other military facilities, Fitzsimons was not shuttered long. Matrix Design Group quickly put together plans and program mana gement for a bioscience research park anchored by the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, the only medical school in the state (Matrix Design Group, 2015) The Anschutz family, whose patriarch Phil Anschutz is ranked by Forbes as the 104th richest person in the world thus far in 2015 (Forbes, 2015) donated $91 million dollars toward 42

PAGE 51

the construction of the campus, and not only has naming rights on the overall campus, but has individual naming rights on the Anschutz Inpatient Pavilion, the Anschutz Outpatient and Cancer Pavilions, and the Anschutz Centers for Advanced Medicine. A report from CU Denver says the universitys involvement generates $3.33 billion dollars in economic benefits t o the states economy, including $1.43 billion in direct spending and another $1.90 billion with indirect impacts in secondary markets (University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, 2014) And there are many other public private partnerships at CU Denver. The College of Architecture and Planning has partnered with Denver Public Schools to create a program called Learning Landscapes, which the university says has transformed more than eighty neglected public eleme ntary schoolyards into more usable park space (University of Colorado Denver, 2015) The National Center for Media Forensics, a graduate program within CU Denvers Music and Entertainment Industry Studies program, has partne red with the Lakewood Police11 to help analyze clues left at crime scenes. And the University of Colorado Denver Business School touts its Global Energy Management program, which partners with governmental bodies and the energy industry to offer an eighteen month, 36credit hour program that leads to a Master of Science in Global Energy Management (University of Colorado Denver, 2015) The business school a lso is home to the J.P Morgan Center for Commodities Education and Research, and the Jake Jabs Center for Entrepreneurship.12 At MSU Denver, President Steven Jordan says he was told to pursue public private partnerships when he was hired: 11 Lakewood is a western suburb of Denver. 12 Jake Jabs is the owner of American Furniture Warehouse, a chain of furniture stores in Colorado and Arizona. 43

PAGE 52

When I was appointed in 2005, the board of trustees made it clear that it wanted t o pursue a more entrepreneurial direction. There was a sweet spot for MSU Denver between two year colleges that granted degrees focused primarily on workforce development and four year research institutions. That sweet spot was where we wanted M SU Denver to be, offering theory and practice for career oriented students. When the economic downturn hit, such goals took on additional urgency and one more was added: find new sources of funding (Jordan, 2013) O ne of the largest partnerships with the private sector at MSU Denver is the SpringHill Suites Marriott, next to Auraria Campus. Marriott, the owner of SpringHill Suites, describes it as an innovative learning laboratory for the next generation of hotelier s: On site at the SpringHill Suites Denver Downtown, the Hospitality Learning Center at Metropolitan State University of Denver offers the unique opportunity to work in a learning laboratory. Providing hands on mentoring, training, and support our staff of seasoned experts collaborates with dedicated students as they gain real world experience in their field. Together with Metropolitan State University of Denver, SpringHill Suites Denver Downtown is guiding these highachieving student s to successful careers as some of the countrys most innovative and creative hoteliers in the industry. When you stay at the SpringHill Suites Denver Downtown, youre not only choosing a stellar downtown hotel, youre helping to train future l eaders of the hospitality industry. A portion of the proceeds for every stay goes towards a scholarship fund for students of the Hospitality Learning Center (Marriott, 2015) The agreement between Marriott and MSU call ed for the university to raise $12 million dollars, and for Marriott to give back part of the hotel profits, an arrangement that has been in place now for five years (Jordan, 2013) This led to larger talks at MSU Denver about including a franchising program in academics. Denver is one of Americas major hubs for franchising, yet it has no university level training ground for franchise owning entrepreneurs (Jordan, 2013) While the desire was the re, the franchising program did not prove successful. MSU Denver closed the doors on its entrepreneurial incubator facility early in 2015. Part of the new Student Success Building, the 44

PAGE 53

facility is now used as conference space. A much more successful publ ic private partnership and another of MSU Denvers larger ones came in the form of new athletic fields for softball, baseball, track, tennis and soccer. The Regency Athletic Complex at MSU Denver is a classic example of selling naming rights to a sport s facility; The Regency Student Housing Community, one of the private dormitories that serve the Auraria Campus, contributed a million dollars for the naming rights. MSU Denver contributed $19 million. The total cost was $23.6 million dollars, leaving about $4 million to come from outside resources (Vacarelli, 2015) Community College of Denver (CCD) for its part, has an ongoing relationship with the Regional Transportation District as part of a program called WIN, or Wor kforce Initiative Now: Unprecedented challenges in recruiting, training, and retaining a s ustainable workforce confront the transportation industry in Denver with the FasTracks expansion project a comprehensive plan to build 122 miles of new commuter rail and light rail, 18 miles of bus rapid transit, 21,000 new parking spaces at light rail and bus stations, and to enhance existing city bus service in Denver. In partnership with local training and resource programs and the public workforce system, WIN advances participants skills to prepare for trade, office, design, and administrative positions on local infrastructure projects like FasTracks (Community College of Denver, 2015) While this is a current list of the public pri vate partnerships on Auraria Campus, all three schools are always adding a new array of arrangements with the private sector. As MSU Denvers President, Stephen Jordan, said, many were created to attract new funding sources in the wake of a recession that crippled state support of higher education and something everyone in education in Colorado has to deal with: a law called TABOR, or the Taxpayers Bill of Rights. 45

PAGE 54

CH APTER X TABOR (THE TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS) If you are reading this from outside the state of Colorado, we need to introduce you to the methodology of funding higher education in our state. All states have different methods and formulas for higher education funding, but Colorados method is both unique and very restrictive. In 1992, Col orado voters approved an amendment to the state constitution called TABOR, which is the acronym for the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. It limits the annual growth in state revenues to sum of the rate of inflation and the percentage change in the states populati on. Ergo, if the inflation rate was two percent last year, but population statewide dropped one percent, the state of Colorado would only be permitted to collect one percent additional budget revenues the next year (Center on Bud get and Policy Priorities, 2013) There is, however, a back door of sorts in the Amendment in that state officials can go to voters asking for more money in a referendum vote (State of Colorado, 2015) In Colorado, TABOR was the brainchild and cause celebre of Douglas Bruce, a Republican stateh ouse member from Colorado Springs : You may recall that I wrote the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) Amendment, a state constitutional amendment approved in 1992. 68% of El Paso County voters supported TABOR. At that years GOP state assembly, TABOR was endorsed by 71% of delegates. In 1991, TABOR passed in Colorado Springs with 61% approval (Bruce, 2015) As TABOR became law, local gover nments felt the effects of a declining revenue pool. The University of ColoradoColorado Springs published an indepth study on the effects of TABOR at the level of municipal government: 46

PAGE 55

Results show that TABOR has indeed restrained the growth of spending and taxes by municipal governments. For a typical municipality, operating expenditures had been increasing in per capita real purchasing power by an average of about seven per cent a year prior to 1985, and by almost four percent annually bet ween 1985 and 1992. Since the passage of TABOR, these expenditures have decreased slightly. Despite municipal election successes, Gallagher and TABOR each had a significant restraining impact on spending and revenue growth for a typical Colorado municipality (Brown, 2001) Even in the mid to late 1990s, some municipal governments tried to figure out ways around TABOR to avoid a revenue squeeze, and a nickname arose from the process: de Brucing, a reference to TA BOR Amendment author Doug Bruce: For example, Denver has neither sought nor obtained a tax increase or an exemption, although it has received approval for seven debt issues and failed to get four others approved. Colorado Springs has received vote r approval only for some limited exemptions, a small sales tax increase, and one bond issue. Aurora voters denied an exemption, but did get approve a small tax increase for police and jail purposes, along with three of nine proposed debt issues Lakewood voters g ranted one limited exemption and debt issue, but voted down a much larger debt and tax increase proposal. Pueblo has received approval for some limited exemptions, one small, specific purpose sales tax increase and two bond issue s. Of the large Front Range cities, only Fort Collins has had a general TABOR exemption approved (in 1999), although it defeated an earlier debt increase proposal (Brown, 2001) State spending under TABOR, overall, declined by about three percent between 1992 and 2013. Though the amount of money increased, the baseline measurements of inflation rate and population growth in TABOR meant that, when compared to state residents personal incomes, overall state spending dropped from 6.7 percent to 3.9 percent of a taxpayers income: Colorado has largely stayed away from the fiscal cliff that states like California went over. That, in and of itself, is cause for celebrating TABOR," says Jon Caldara, president of t he libertarian conservative Independence Institute. "It has required more transparency of government, and that is worth celebrating. And most importantly, it has angered every politician and 'taking' group because now they have to lobby all of us instead of just taking out a few legislators to dinner to get what they want .(Hoover, 2013) 47

PAGE 56

Opponents of TABOR, then and now, not only call the restrictions a fiscal vise, they feel TABOR removes democracy from the proc ess of governing: Wade Buchanan, president of the liberal Bell Policy Center, says Colorado's unique experiment has failed. "It promised power to the people, but it gave us more of a Rube Goldberg mechanism for funding public structures and sy stems," Buchanan says, referring to the cartoonist's whimsical drawings of imaginary and complex machines. "You've got a legislature that is supposed to make spending decisions and the people, who are supposed to make revenue decisions. You don't r eally have a way of effectively rationalizing the two of those processes . (Hoover, 2013) Still, TABOR has not been followed to the letter of the law since its enactment in 1992. In 2005, thenGovernor Bill Owens, a Republ ican, helped craft a fiveyear reprieve from TABORs mandates (Bell Policy Center, 2003) It was called Referendum C, and the relaxation of TABOR limitations applied only to general funding for public K 12 education, higher educ ation, health care and transportation. Voters approved the measure in November, 2005. A separate measure, Referendum D, was defeated during that same election. Referendum D would have covered police and firefighter pension funds, improvements to school bui ldings in K 12 and higher education, and a separate bond issue for road repairs (Bell Policy Center, 2003) The budget effect from the reprieve was immediate. Colorado suddenly had $5.7 billion more in state coffers. Voter sen timent approving the TABOR rollback may have been driven by hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts state lawmakers were forced to make during the recession of 2001 2003 (Bell Policy Center, 2003) It should be noted that the 2005 Referendum C did not raise tax rates. Instead, it simply lifted the limitations of TABOR tying state budget growth to the amount of inflation plus the percentage growth in population. Taxpayers did not pay more during the reprieve; instead, the stat e government was freed from the constraints of having to do something else with the 48

PAGE 57

additional revenue, be it investing the money or refunding it directly to taxpayers (State of Colorado, 2015) While it is true that TABOR r efunds have totaled $2 billion dollars to taxpayers since the amendments approval, experts argue those refunds have come at a far larger cost. As a direct result of TABOR, the education watchdog group Colorado Succeeds has continually cast dire warnings : In spite of the creation of the College Opportunity Fund and the passage of Referendum C, funding for Colorados universities and colleges will remain in critical condition for years to come. The picture is bleak. Governing boards have little or no co ntrol of tuition revenue because the General Assembly and the Governor retain the authority to regulate tuition. State funding continues to be caught in the web of multiple overlapping and conflicting fiscal limitations and mandates that will stall any attempts to provide help. Attempts to address this systemic gridlock can only take effect with voter approval. Ballots are already crowded, the financial dilemma is complex requiring changes to several constitutional provisions and statutes -and the soc alled single subject provision of Colorados constitution prevents a package of solutions from being presented because ballot issues can contain only one subject. Higher education funding is caught in a trap and, unless profound changes are made, there is no way out. (Taylor, 2006) The College Opportunity Fund referenced in the above section is somewhat unique. Other states have something similar, but the College Opportunity Fund in Colorado comes with no income guidelines a nd no requirement to attend full time; instead, it merely requires in state residency and undergraduate status. According to College in Colorado, a student taking fifteen credit hours at a two or four year public school in Colorado would receive $2,250 tot al for the year to apply toward undergraduate tuition (College in Colorado, 2013) The legislature created COF in 2004. Still, by many estimates, Colorado ranks extremely low in the nation when it comes to direct funding of higher education. The state has twelve four year public institutions, thirteen 49

PAGE 58

community colleges and two local district colleges. A study from Colorado Succeeds once placed this state second to last, only above Vermont, which does not have the necessar y population base to be a good st atistical example of spending trends in higher education: As a share of the state budget, higher education has dropped from 14.6 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 10.1 percent in fiscal year 2007. In fiscal year 2006, Colorado sank to a ranking of 49th in per capita state tax appropriations for higher education operations, down from a ranking of 34th in 1996. Colorado ranked 48th in state appropriations per $1,000 of personal income in fiscal year 2006 compared to a ranking of 36th in fiscal year 1996. Colorado placed 47th in its percentage change in higher education funding between fiscal years 1996 and 2006. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, state appropriations for higher education governing boards declined by nearly 21 percent; at the same time e nrollments jumped by 14 percent (Taylor, 2006) Proponents of TABORs spending controls, however, have long decried the statements and statistics from Colorado Succ eeds and many other education watchdog groups. Instead they point to statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau that put Colorado as high as 36th in the nation in spending on higher education (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006) A script obtained by this author that provided talking points for PowerPoint presentations on the perilous state of higher education funding in Colorado included such directions for presenting the issue to the audience as follows: Shifting financial burden: If youve paid a tuition bill recently, Im sure youre familiar with the term sticker shock. Our students and families now shoulder two thirds of the cost of college as state funding for higher education has fallen. The state used to cover two thi rds of the cost of a college education while students covered one third through tuition. That ratio has flipped, with students covering two thirds of the cost of higher education in this state. We are not alone in facing these challenges. Col orados challenges in these areas reflect those facing our nation. This doesnt make our situation any easier. Personalize the presentation Pick a personal anecdote for one of the four points. Examples might include your or a friends diffic ulty in hiring, a childs winding road through college, a student who represents the 50

PAGE 59

completion gap or a family struggling to meet college costs (Colorado Commission on Higher Education, 2013) The PowerPoint presentation from CCHE very quickly delved into the issue of tuition increases to offset TABORs mandates. By slide eight, the presenter had these talking points: Another challenge we face is the dramatically shifting financial burden of college costs. We sometimes refer to this slide as the smiley frowny face slide because the state and students have essentially flipped roles. The frowny face, by the way, belongs to students and their families. Thats because, in 2000, students were paying a third of college costs in 2013, theyre paying twothirds. In 2000, the state was picking up nearly 70 percent of the costs of college. Now that figure is 32 percent. Why the dramatic change? One big factor is declining state funding for higher education. Today, the state puts $162 million less into higher education than it did in 2008. Thats about $1,500 less per student. Now we did see an increase this year, of $30 million, and we thank Gov. Hickenlooper for that. That s the first increase in state higher education funding in three years. But that only took us back to our funding level in 2009. In fact, Colorado ranked 49th in state higher education funding in the most recent year 2011 studied by the St ate Higher Education. Executive Officers (Colorado Commission on Higher Education, 2013) And the increase in tuition and fees at Colorados public two and four year universities is astounding. The CCHEs report on tuition and fee increases over five years in the fiscal year 20122013 report on undergraduate tuition and fees shows across the board double digit increases The highest, over a five year span between fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and fiscal years 20122013 was Uni versity of Northern Colorado in Greeley, at 68 percent. The lowest for four year schools was still a 26.3 percent increase at University of Colorado Colorado Springs (UCCS). Metropolitan State University of Denver raised its tuition 65.6 percent over tha t five year period. University of Colorado Denvers tuition went up 45.5 percent, and the Colorado 51

PAGE 60

Community College System, which governs tuition at Community College of Denver, raised its tuition 39.2 percent (Colorado Commiss ion on Higher Education, 2013) Some of the increases may have been a pent up reaction to years of TABOR controls: in 2010, the Colorado General Assembly passed Senate Bill 10003, Concerning Higher Education Flexibility to Improve the Financial Position of State I nstitutions of Higher Education (Concerning Higher Education Flexibility to Improve the Financial Position of State Institutions of Higher Education, 2010) For two of the years in the 2013 Tuition and Fees Re port from the CCHE, public colleges and universities were capped under TABOR. But for the last three years, the schools operated under Senate Bill 10 003, which allowed for a maximum tuition increase of nine percent for undergraduate students between fisc al years 20112012 all the way to fiscal years 20152016 (Colorado Commission on Higher Education, 2013) Simply put, after the five year reprieve for higher education ends, TABOR controls may well be back in force. Perhaps in advance of the end of the five year window, the Colorado General Assembly got to work just this last legislative session on changes in funding for higher education in the state. It came in the form of House Bill 14 1319 (Conc erning the Creation of an Outcomes Based Funding Model for Higher Education, and, in Connection Therewith, Making and Reducing Appropriations, 2014) One of the sponsors of the bill, House Speaker Mark Ferrandino, focused on the individual college or uni versitys efforts to not only attract students, but to retain them and focus on their matriculation as an incentive for Colorados higher education schools: Similar to other states, the new model prescribed by HB 1319 creates outcome based incentives to institutions for delivering more degrees and certificates. It also supports the Col orado Opportunity Fund stipend, the funding that follows the student, and has factors that recognize the unique 52

PAGE 61

attributes of our diverse institutions. Importan tly, there are added incentives for institutions to provide extra support for low income and underrepresented minority students. Unlike other states, the new Colorado funding model will apply to virtually all operating funds appropriated by th e General Assembly and will be supported by real time, student level data that can be updated every year (Ferrandino, 2015) Ferrandino admits that some schools will lose money under the new formula, but he also notes tha t all schools affected by the new law approved of it: I am especially pleased that the Colorado Commission on Higher Education endorsed the new funding methodology that was unanimously recommended by the robust HB 1319 process structure and is unanimously supported by all affected institutions. Of course, dividing the pie in a brand new way means that some institutions benefit more than others. This is what the General Assembly expected (Ferrandino, 2015) For those who have never been proponents of TABOR, there is perhaps some irony in the outcome. In 2011, TABOR Amendment author Douglas Bruce, who had retired from public office, was convicted of tax evasion in Colorado: State prosecutors convinced a Denver jury that Douglas Bruce used a smallgovernment charity he founded to hide millions of dollars from the state taxman, pocketing interest and using the funds to further his political agenda. After four hours of deliberation, jurors Wednesday c onvicted Bruce on four counts, the most s erious of which carries a penalty of up to six years in prison and $500,000 in fines (Fender, 2011) His final punishment was much less: Bruce served 180 days in jail, and was s entenced to an additional six years probation, but was not fined. Prosecutors contend he had hidden $2 million dollars in income into a political 501(c)(3) corporation he founded called ACT, or Active Citizens Together, a non profit charity that was p art of the driving force behind TABOR (Fender, 2012) For his part, Bruce claims the charges were nothing more than political motivation for his smallgovernment, anti tax stances: "All I did is give away my salary to an IRS approved charity," Bruce said outside the jail. "I did so publicly. That is not a crime, and 53

PAGE 62

the IRS agreed it wasn't a crime. It will come out eventually (Mitchell, 2012) It is now 2015, and no more of Bruces side of the story has come out, but an appeal is pending. There has been still more legal trouble for Bruce: he was charged in April, 2015 with assault for an altercation at the Denver County Courthouse: Bruce is accused of assaulting Dede Laugesen executive dir ector of Colorado Springs Government Watch and wife of Gazette opinion page editor Wayne Laugesen while she followed Bruce and Colorado Springs City Councilwoman Helen Collins out of the Lindsey Flanigan C ourthouse. Dede Laugesen was recor ding video on her cellphone and asking Collins about the closure of a Kansas City, Mo., apartment building owned by the councilwoman when she said Bruce grabbed her phone and threatened to hit her with it before shoving it back into her hand. "His bully like behavior was totally unwarranted. And I had not even spoken to Douglas Bruce that day," Laugesen said Tuesday. "So for him to strike out at me in such a way was very unexpected." Bruce is seen placing his hand over the cellpho ne camera lens and saying "Show the rent money, idiot. Show the rent money," before the video ends (Hobbs, 2015) A disposition in that case is pending. And so, it would seem, is a disposition of the appeals against the TA BOR Amendment, as opponents of the law challenge its constitutionality: A federal appeals court on Friday said it would allow a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights to go forward. The decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marks a milestone in a legal fight over how Colorado conducts its most important functions. For more than two years, Attorney General John Suthers has argued that plaintiffs in the lawsuit did not have the right to sue. The lawsuit, filed by more than two dozen individuals, argues that by taking away lawmakers' ability to tax, TABOR violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee that every state have a republican form of government (Lee, 2014) One final note about TABORs progenitor: w hen he was released from jail, Bruce actually said very little about TABOR to reporters. Instead, he threatened lawsuits against the jails staff, complained about the food, and complained t hat he spent four days in solitary 54

PAGE 63

confinement (Mitchell, 2012) Doug las Bruce had become a far different man from the state r epresentative who drastically and perhaps permanently, changed state budgets in Colorado. And ther e is also a final note about the legal status of TABOR. The Unite d States Supreme Court, in its session that ended in June, 2015, sent a case debating the very constitutionality of TABOR back to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. While the l aw stays on the books in Colorado, its long term prospects are less clear. The suit, originally filed by two state lawmakers in 2011 seeking to overturn TABOR, will now go back to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the earlier decision (Matthews, 2015) The issue is one of legal standing. The high courts ruling confirming the rights of Arizona voters to create an independent redistricting panel to avoid accusations of partisan, politica l gerrymandering or political district boundary lines is part of the Supreme Court s ruling on the TABOR case (Liptak, 2015) At issue in Colorado: whether or not TABORs opponents have standing to sue. At issue in Arizona: whe ther or not the Legislature had standing to sue, for which the Supreme Court found they did not. Who won and who lost with the high court ruling? The reaction is mixed. The Supreme Court sort of kicked the can down the road when it returned the case t o the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, said Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, one of several outside groups that filed briefs last year in support of TABOR (Matthews, 2015) It isn't a black and white win, but it is encouraging from our perspective, said Michael Feeley, one member of a team of attorneys representing the TABOR opponents. (Matthews, 2015) No matter the next ruling from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, both sides do expect it to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court again, and the earliest that could happen is 2016. And 55

PAGE 64

the third largest newspaper in the Colorado (as listed by Audit Bureau of Circulation figures) editorialized that it is past time for something to be done about TABOR: The real effect of the measure has been to diminish Colorado schools and roads. Despite having one of the healthiest economies in the country, the state cant afford to properly maintain or build new roads, run schools or keep colleges competitive and affordable. The insult to injury of TABOR is back: Colorado must now refund hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes to state residents, despite the widespread public needs. This week, buried in a flurry of epic Supreme Court rulings, the high court also forced the local 10th Circuit Court of appeals to take another look at a lawsuit filed by state legislators in regards to TABOR. The argument is that the state government charges lawmakers with taxation as representatives of a republic, and TABOR illegally prohibits that. We agree. If a lawmaker wants to spend more than taxpayers want, out the lawmaker. Instead, Colorado voters have created a system that doesnt allow them to steer the government a long a winding and treacherous e conomic road. Its long been a disaster in the making. After more than 20 years of TABOR, Colorados ranking among taxation has changed little. What has changed is that money desperately needed for state programs hasnt been raised, so the growing debt is not the state budget, but in the states roads, schools and colleges (The Aurora Sentinel, 2015) Whether or not TABOR is constitutionally acceptable is, in reality, far fr om being decided, and the political debate far from over. 56

PAGE 65

CHAPTER XI THE FUNDING PROCESS AND AURARIA MEDIA CENTER No one, least of all the staff of Auraria Media Center, has been under the illusion that the analog playback systems of Studio A, Studio B and Channel 54 could continue indefinitely. Maintenance alone becomes a huge cost, and parts for older analog television gear ar e rapidly becoming unavailable (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) But until three years ago, a funding mechanism for any improvements was not available. Auraria Media Center is maintained by student fees emanating from classes from all the schools that use the facility, as well as a separate budget from AHEC. None of the sch ools on campus nor AHEC had any additional money for a drastic renovation of the facility. Matt Keller and Kent Courtnage say they were contacted by the then director of City and County of Denver Media in 2011 about a plan for improving the facility. And what they were told surprised them: They said you guys are next in line for this upgrade money we have. And we said what upgrade money? And what they said was they were doing ascertainments for generation of high definition television, and we didnt have the back end to generate it. So thats kind of how all it started, and thats probably the big driver. (Keller, 2015) It was the first that the Auraria Media Center staff had heard of the potential for outside funding to rebuild the Center, and it started with the City and County of Denver Media coming in to the Center to assess the upgrade needs. They brought in somebody; they walked throughout the entire facility, came up with a, a list between their pe ople and our chief engineer, Kent Courtnage. And it was a big list, it was well over a million dollars in upgrades (Keller, 2015) 57

PAGE 66

A million dollars in upgrades was perhaps not feasible, but it could be perceived as an indic ator of how much attention the facility needed. And at the time, the FCC had accepted proposals that would make ATSC digital television the standard in American TV; stations could choose between one channel of HDTV programming, four to six channels of SDTV at various times of the day or a mixture of standard definition and high definition. That would later change to a complete approval by the FCC of digital television instead of older National Television Standards Council specifications in 2009. All of thi s, as many local television stations were still broadcasting news in the old 4:3 aspect ratio even as broadcasters chose HDTV in the 16:9 aspect ratio (August Grant, 2010) C hannel 54 was, until July of 2015, producing all pro gramming in 4:3. But the process was not smooth for City and County of Denver Media and Auraria Media Center. When they really started looking at the dollar amount and everything that was involved, it was right at the same time as the director was trans itioning out of the job and new people were coming into the job, namely interims. And so, it stalled. And we went back a couple times, back and forth with one director. And he ended up leaving before we got a final answer, even though it sounded at the tim e like it was all looking very good (Keller, 2015) But even though the discussions stalled, they were far from over: And it went into the hands of the new people, the new interim people, they hired some people and that' s where it stalled for a while. Then they decided hell right, we want to get up to speed. Daryl's (the former director) no longer here. We don't want to talk about the past, let's talk about the future, let's do a new walkthrough a nd see exactl y what your needs are. And then that's when they came back to us, a nd started talking about what are your actual needs? Let's take a look at this list again (Keller, 2015)13 13 The full list, as well as the specific contract language, constitutes the entire Appendix A of this thesis. 58

PAGE 67

The key issue became content; what cont ent could Auraria Campus provide for City and County of Denver Media? But this issue became more complex with the fact that Auraria Media Center could not require any of the three schools on campus to provide content; yet, at the same time, Auraria Media C enter generated no content of its own. We created an MOU (memorandum of understanding) that went to all three schools, which was separate from anything that Denver Media needed or required. But, at the same time, the MOU really galvanized the schools support for this effort (Keller, 2015) While the memorandum of understanding between Auraria Media Center and the three schools specifically states that the schools are not required to provide any programming, Keller believes th e improvements to Auraria Media Center itself could generate programming for Channel 54 that comes from outside the current contributors: MSU Denvers Office of Student Media and CU Denvers Theatre, Film and Video Production Department: it can be any groups on campus, and not just media classes or technical broadcast classes. We hope all different entities on campus take an interest in providing content. Concerts at the King Center. Maybe other campus events (Keller, 2015) City and County of Denver Media is requiring, as part of the agreement, twenty hours of programming per month from Auraria Media Center.14 My first reaction was, wow. We dont have any programming (Keller, 2015) AHEC and the Auraria Media Center staff did not believe that they could grow twenty hours of content on a monthly basis. And that meant that Auraria Media Center would be forced to go to the schools to fill the programming hole.15 14 It is still to be determined whether some of that programming can be repeated th r oughout the month. 15 The first such meeting between Media Center staff and representatives from C U Denver and MSU Denver happened in summer of 2014. I was there for that meeting, and all subsequent discussions. Others in attendance included Eric Lansing from Metro State Broadcast Network, David Liban from CU Denvers TVFP Department, and Jim Furrer from MSU Denvers Broadcasting Department. 59

PAGE 68

The big difference between the fi rst round of negotiations with the first director who left and the second round, Keller says, was accountability, especially accountability from Auraria Media Center for the money that would be spent. The new administrator (for City and County of Denver M edia said no, hey, you cant just be writing checks with no strings attached. And so the second agreement came back with new, really strong provisions (Keller, 2015) Those provisions also include areas where the money cann ot be spent. According to the intergovernmental agreement between Denver Media and AHEC, new personnel cannot be hired with this money, nor can physical facilities such as buildings or infrastructure be rebuilt. The money must go toward program generation and technology that facilitates program generation. Also, City and County of Denver Media was demanding interns to be supplied by AHEC. It was an educational process. Truly an education (Keller, 2015) The amount of money, at this point, is still undecided, as well. It went from a million to $150,000 at one point. And I said youre dealing with institutions with very strong wills here, and they will start asking why are the negotiations taking so long? And I remember writ ing one email where I had to explain there really arent AHEC interns, but there are interns from the schools, and I can introduce you to the Experiental Learning Center (CU Denver) and The Internship Office (MSU Denver). But we really dont have any AHEC interns (Keller, 2015) Explaining the dynamic of Auraria Campus as a facility with three schools proved successful in the end. And then the light goes on again, and they really started to get it (Keller, 2015) And that is when the final dollar amount came into the discussion: $453,000. That amount leaves Auraria Media Center some flexibility, as well. Weve been able to go out to bid and take care of the process. And with that dollar amount we will still have extra money for other gear (Keller, 2015) 60

PAGE 69

There was still one very problematic part of the agreement: if City and County of Denver Media did not like the programming it was receiving from Auraria Media C enter, for any reason, it could demand Auraria Media Center pay back the $453,000. We stamped rejected on that and told them we were really, really sorry, and we didnt mean to waste your time, but you wasted a bunch of ours, too (Keller, 2015) That provision went back and forth, and City and County of Denver Media relented. No matter what, Auraria Media Center would keep the equipment. This left one issue: whether Denver Media would air the programming. They can pull th e plug on it, but its written in the agreement that they cant just do it willy nilly. And if they dont air the programming we provide, we have still complied with our end of the agreement (Keller, 2015) As mentioned prev iously the funding already existed. It was not a new charge on cable bills; in fact, the charge to consumers has been there, in many instances and many communities, for thirty years. Under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, which added a section on Cable Communications to the original Communications Act of 1934, local cable franchisees could charge what became known as a PEG fee on a consumers cable bill, with the fee intended to directly support the creation of public service channels and p rogramming development and production on those channels. PEG stands for public, education and governmental. (Comcast, 2015) The goal of the Cable Communications Policy Act was to strike a delicate regulatory balance between the FCC, local governments, and marketplace competition where, in the past, each of these entities had vied for dominance. The Cable Act was to be the solution to the ongoing problem of who, or what, should exercise the most power over local cable op erations (Wenmouth Williams, 1987) 61

PAGE 70

And the Act came at a critical time in the development of cable television as cities were demanding state of the art wiring systems, and cable operators were trying to wring as many custo mers as cheaply as they could out of densely populated urban areas. And the animus showed in court filings, especially in Cox Cablevision versus Marquette, Michigan, and Warners promises to many communities of the best technology possible technology tha t Warner simply did not have the ability to offer (Wenmouth Williams, 1987) Congress hoped the Act would be seen as one that balanced the newfound popularity of cable television, placing power for running cable operations in t he hands of a local operator, and out of the purview of a nationalized FCC, while granting great powers in rate deregulation to the cable industry itself (To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide a national policy regar ding cable television, 1984) The PEG fee that developed in the negotiations leading up to the passage of the 1984 Act had the express purpose of providing any combination of television production equipment, training and airtime on a local cable syste m to enable members of the public, accredited educational institutions, and government to produce their own shows and televise them to a mass audience (Center For Media and Democracy, 2015) One man who wrote a letter to Bur lington (Vermont) Telecom asked the cable franchisee about the fee, and received this response: Thanks for bringing up the question of franchise fees and PEG access fees. Thanks to the contributions of cable subscribers via the PEG access franchise fees, C hannel 17 and 42 other local community television channels provide training, equipment and airtime to people across the state of Vermont. In many communities these channels are the way that folks can find out about local government or school actions, exerc ise their free speech rights and see their neighbors on TV. Locally, we air the neighborhood NPA meetings, Burlington City Council, a regular call in "Live at 5:25" program with politicians and citiz ens, community events and more. (Center For Media and Democracy, 2015) 62

PAGE 71

The decision as to whether to require a PEG fee is solely up to the local cable licensing authority. But the future of PEG channels, in some cases, is murky. The environment is being roiled by public policy and budgetary changes at the federal, state and local levels and by technological changes in cable networks, stated a 2011 report to Congress on the issue of public access programming: Driven by technological changes, some cable operators have begun to offer PEG channels in a fashion that may reduce consumer access to, and the quality of, those channels, and may raise consumer costs to obtain PEG channels. As traditional cable providers are migrating from analog to digital transmission of pr ogramming, some subscribers must obtain set top boxes to receive PEG programming. AT&Ts U verse service uses a different platform for PEG channels than for commercial channels. It is more difficult for subscribers, especially the visually impaired to access the PEG channels, and PEG programming cannot be recorded on a DVR, leading some to claim the service does not meet requirements in franchise agreements or in the Communications Act. AT&T responds that it meets all requirements and i t is inappropriate to require it to deploy its network inefficiently to meet rules developed for traditional cable architecture, (Goldfarb, 2011) Franchisees control where channels are assigned on the cable system, so i t is true that at some point, Auraria Media Center could lose Channel 54, and City and County of Denver Media could reassign the programming to many different channels. There is, however, another confirmed deal for a different cable operator in the Denve r MSA (market service area) to carry programming from Auraria Campus. CenturyLink is starting their own cable company, called Prism, and they want us to be able to provide content for them, as well. They actually got that started up sometime in June, and we will provide them what we can (Keller, 2015) Right now, CenturyLinks Prism service is available in only seventeen cities nationwide, including Denver, but the company hopes it can challenge 63

PAGE 72

Comcast, which is often the lone cable provider in many markets in many other cities soon (Rogoway, 2015) by carrying cable TV over a fiber optic network (CenturyLink, 2015) Perhaps interestingly enough, PEG fees in Denver be tween Comcast and CenturyLink are exactly the same: $1.05 per customer account per month. Also, a report from the City and County of Denver says many of the other requirements for CenturyLink in Denver are almost identical to the requirements for Comcast (Martinez, 2015) In addition, that same report may indicate that Channel 54 is here to stay at Auraria Media Center, as both Comcast and CenturyLink want to carry eight public service channels each, which is the current number Comcast carries; Comcast also may choose to add one more public service channel for a total of nine. The $453,000 from City and County of Denver Media is also, perhaps, just a start. The initial agreement is for two years, and then we have to go in front of the committee, Keller said. And he also says thats where proof of compliance with the agreement becomes important: If there is more money, and it sounds like there will be, and the committee says why should we give them even more money? What have they been doing? Have they done this, and this and this? And well have been doing it for two years (Keller, 2015) The negotiations between City and County of Denver Media took years, as well. They were sometimes tinged w ith acrimony, and often resulted in stalemates. But Keller says he never gave up, and at the last meeting, he says City and County of Denver Media personnel said the following: what else do you guys need? Keller says that comment came as a true surpris e, and a pleasant one. 64

PAGE 73

CHAPTER XII THE WORK BEGINS The week after finals week of the spring semester, 2015, Auraria Media Center closed. For the next few weeks, the outside contractor 5280 Broadcast would occupy the space, rewiring and reworking all of the television facilities.16 This meant that for the first summer in many summers, both The Met Report and Noticiero TV Met would be unable to broadcast summer shows, of which each did one per month in June, July and August. Instead, both news shows chose to present individual stories online throughout the summer at www.mymetmedia.com 5280 Broadcast personnel worked in the studios five days a week, starting at 7:30 AM, and finishing between 4:00 and 5:00 pm. P revious projects they have undertaken in the Denver area include a rebuilding of NBC/Universals facility when NBC announced the move of their network sports operations from Los Angeles to Denver in 2013: 5280 Broadcast was given a 60day timeline to de mo an existing standard definition production studio and control room and retrofit them into a fully functional live HD production facility for a 24/7 cable network specializing in international athletics events. The project included the installation of new cameras, switcher, graphics systems, prompters, servers, 11 video editing bays, two Pro Tools audio suites, audio control room, and a voice over booth. The scope of work also included several upgrades and enhancements to the existing facility routing, intercom, and Avid ISIS systems. (5280 Broadcast, 2015) The firm also rebuilt the PAC 12 sports networks digital distribution facility in San Francisco, as well as a redesign and installation of Rocky Mo untain PBS facilities in Denver with a new consolidated master control system for three stations (KRMA, KRMJ and KTSC 16 A fully detailed list of 5280 Broadcasts duties can be found in Appendix C, which is the request for proposal distributed for bids by Auraria Media Center. 65

PAGE 74

DT.) But Danny Rowland of 5280 Broadcast was quick to emphasize the groups experience with smaller stations and operations, as well: It wasnt bad. Ive seen way worse. We do a lot of small stations and we have seen a lot of things that were messier than they were when we walked in here. For us, conversion is always the biggest thing, because all the new gear is hi def (definit ion). That s the easy part, actually: converting the signals to the destinations we need to go to. But you have to make sure the signal always looks good; in the end, its always about signal integrity. (Rowland, 2015) The time requirements within the RFP for the work to be done were a matter of weeks, necessitating some long days in the studios. But Rowland says that didnt faze him or his crew: We do it quite often. As long as your planning stages are effective well, its all just effective planning. You have to plan for this stuff. And we really didnt have any big issues, nothing major, anyway, and our workload got a little lighter on a couple of issues. That really helped. Once we test everything and commission the gear thats new, we should be good. (Rowland, 2015) Auraria Media Center scheduled training starting July 20, 2015 for everyone who uses the studios: CU Denver faculty, MSU Denver faculty, CCD faculty, and MSU Denvers Office of Student Media, as well as other departments who have video production needs. I think it would be cool if we could get some programming from departments other than the places we usually get it, says Matt Keller. (Keller, 2015) Maybe other departments want to come together and do their own TV show. While all the programming still needs approval from City and County of Denver Media, such a scenario might help Keller and AMC with the requirement of twenty hours of programming per month on Channel 54. 66

PAGE 75

CHAPTER XIII THE LIMITATIONS OF STUDENT MEDIA If we are walking into a gray area with needing City and County of Denver Media to approve programming from Auraria Media Center, it is best to first stop and examine the somewhat tenuous state of First Amendment rights and the producers of student media: journalists, musicians, broadcasters, filmmakers, and more, all of whom generate a publishable product for their college or university, and one that i s often supported by advertising dollars.17 Often, their product is under the microscope from their own school. Sometimes, it is suppressed before it can reach an audience. Two legal cases can be examined that essentially tell the story of students and the First Amendment: Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 620 (1988), and Kincaid vs. Gibson, 236 F .3d 342 (6th Circuit 2001). The Hazelwood case came first, and involved a highschool advanced journalism class. Students in that class wrote a nd edited the school newspaper, called The Spectrum, for the school district near St. Louis. In the last issue for the academic year, two stories concerning divorce and teenage pregnancy were set to be published stories in which the subjects interviewed were kept anonymous, and their names were changed to protect their privacy (Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, 1988) The schools principal deemed the two articles inappropriate subject matter, and further decided that th e father in the article about divorce should be given an opportunity to comment. In practice, the principal had spiked both stories, since there was no time to re write the material in time for the press deadline, and pages were eliminated wholesale fro m the last issue. The student journalists sued in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri and 17 MSU Denvers Office of Student Media posted an $84 ,000 profit in 2014. 67

PAGE 76

won. But in the end, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 53 that the students First Amendment rights were not violated, since the school district spons ored the newspaper, and was the organization to be held accountable for publication. The Courts ruling limited the First Amendment by narrowly defining the role of The Spectrum to that of a limited forum in which journalism students wrote articles. In t he Hazelwood case, the legal concept of sponsorship was established for student media, and never had been part of the law concerning student media before then. This is an important legal concept in the sense that any high school, college or university ca n claim sponsorship for what any member of a student medium creates, a nd deny publication based on that concept alone. The second case was far less controversial in terms of subject matter. In Kincaid, the dispute was all about how the 1997 yearbook looked at Kentucky State University in Frankfort. University Vice President for Student Affairs Betty Gibson simply thought the yearbook looked bad, and decided to withhold it from distribution. Several students sued, and lost when District Judge Joseph Hood r ejected the case (Kincaid vs. Gibson, 2001) Hood cited, at length, the Hazelwood case in his decision, which alarmed college and university press advocates ; it was the first time a ruling in a high school level media case had been applied to student media in higher education. The students filed with the Appellate Court, and were again denied by a three judge panel. But a full en banc seating of the Appellate Court (all the judges) later ruled 10 3 in favor of the students in 2001. The university debated an appeal to the Supreme Court, but chose not to do so. The 1997 yearbooks were eventually distributed in 2001 to the students who could be found. 68

PAGE 77

The case law governing student media is neither deep nor wide, and to date, fe w other student media cases have come to the courts. But university censorship of student media is a topic often discussed, if not hotly debated. In 1987, the Northern Star student newspaper at Northern Illinois University and WNIU FM, a National Public Ra dio affiliate owned by the university, both filed Freedom of Information requests seeking records on university administrators unpaid parking tickets after a reporter found a handful of tickets in the administration building parking lot with administrator s names on them 18 The university claimed it had no such records, and after further review, the FOIA requests were dropped at the behest of NIU administration. There are other instances of university censorship of student media. In 2006, an administrator at Governors State University in Chicago demanded an article critical of her tenure be pulled from the student publication The Fire. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals chose to use the Hazelwood standard in deciding this case (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 2006) The College of San Mateos student newspaper, the San Matean didnt print an issue for the entire fall semester of 2012, three years after an editorial by the paper questioned the intentions of fac ulty and staff content reviews prior to publication (Garza, 2012) All journalism classes at the school were cancelled; neither the program nor the paper ever resumed. Still, what many people close to student media report an ecdotally is not so much outright censorship as it is pressure: pressure to not publish a certain story or air a certain piece of audio or video. A 2015 survey conducted by the Center for Scholastic Journalism at Kent State University states: of 464 studen t journalists and 51 advisors answering survey questions 18 I was that reporter. 69

PAGE 78

about censorship, 25 percent of students and 17 percent of advisors said school officials had told them to not publish or air certain material. In addition, 7 percent of advisers said school offic ials had threatened their position as adviser or their job at the school based on content decisions their students had made. Student and adviser respondents both indicated self censorship was an issue they confronted. Twelve percent of students and 13 percent of advisers said their staff had decided not to publish something based on the belief that school officials would censor it (Student Press Law Center, 2015) In the instance of broadcast media in higher education, where student voices are heard and student music often airs, the schools governing body or the university itself will hold any and all broadcast licenses for the stations on campus, which makes them ultimately responsible for not only m edia law (e.g., slander and libel), but FCC laws. In the late 1970s, the FCC actually revoked the license of a student station at the University of Pennsylvania, at which students were alleged to have used drugs and alcohol on the air and broadcast profani ties (Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, 1979) But in that ruling, the FCC noted that most university owned stations had operated with no (or very few) problems for many years, and the Commission did not wish to inter fere with the operations of those stations. But the FCC noted that the abdication of University of Pennsylvania officials in the WPXN incident was total, and cannot be tolerated. The FCC later issued a stronger ruling in favor of student operated radio and television stations ten years later in a case involving the radio station at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The station found itself in the midst of an obscenity investigation in 1987 (Student Press Law Center, 1987) for airing a song containing what the university believed was indecent language. The FCC declined to investigate further, but accepted the schools policy that university officials could control or punish students for playing content that violated FCC 70

PAGE 79

rules. But even if school officials found the content offensive or indecent, they could not punish staff members of the radio station so long as the content did not violate FCC language guidelines. But according to the Student Press Law Cente r, no court has ever directly addressed the question of where the upper boundaries (of censorship) might lie (Student Press Law Center, 2015) The bottom line is that administrative oversight if it goes too far will a lmost certainly weaken the forum status of the station and, by extension, the First Amendment protections available to students wishing to exercise editorial control at the station. (Student Press Law Center, 2015) To d ate, no other cases have come before the courts or the FCC in an effort to balance the wishes of a university administration against a student operated newspaper, radio station or television station. The SPLC says a judicial doctrine known as the Muir Doct rine actually puts more of the onus on the university for choosing to not air or publish the material but only for the broadcast field. While the print side of student media is still mostly under the purview of the case law from Hazelwood and Kincaid, the case Muir vs. Alabama Educational Television Commission ( 688 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1982) cert. denied 1983), upheld the authority of two state owned television stations to not air a controversial program (Muir vs. Alabama Educatio nal Foundation, 1982) But the Appellate Courts judgment in that case sets a standard from a different case that can be used to help protect the ability of students to air what they wish, within FCC guidelines: Standard First Amendment doctrine conde mns content control by governmental bodies where the government sponsors and financially supports certain facilities through the use of which others are allowed to communicate and to exercise their own right of expression. (Bazaar vs. Fortune, 1973) 71

PAGE 80

In the Bazaar case, University of Mississippi administrators disapproved of the content in a student run literary magazine, but the court ruled they did not have the authority to censor the magazine even though the university provided financial support and sponsorship. Though the 1973 Bazaar case was later differentiated (if not overturned in toto ) by the later Hazelwood case, the ruling from Bazaar and the courts decision and writings from Muir still stand as accepted law when discussing student broadcasting at stations owned by universities. Student broadcasting (and, ergo, electronic media) may well enjoy greater creative freedom than student printed media. While that is an apparent dichotomy in the law, no new cases have come forward to settle the matter. For now, the tenuous setting between student generated content and the university media in which is appears will seemingly continue. 72

PAGE 81

CHAPTER XIV EXAMPLES OF PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT IN SIMILAR SCHOOLS As mentioned previously, the academic literature is far from awash with examples of schools that have used private sector monies to fund capital improvements in electronic arts and electronic media programs. In fact, a search through the academic databases at www.auraria.edu in October, 2014, turned up no examples of peer reviewed material on the subject. But there is one very notable example of a fouryear university using private sector funding to essentially power an all new program and it is one that has generated headlines. Boldly proclaiming the degree is in disruption, the website for the Iovine Young Academy at the University of Southern California boasts the right environment for the next level of learning (University of Southern California, 2015) The full name of the school is the USC Jimmy Iovine and Andre Young Academy for Arts, Technology and the Business of Innovation, and its progenitors come with highly pedigreed r esumes. Jimmy Iovine is the former chairman of Universal Music Groups Interscope/Geffen/A&M records unit. Andre Young is perhaps better known by his popular music name: Dr. Dre, a founder of the southern California rap group N.W.A, and a cofounder, along with Iovine, of Beats Electronics, the makers of the popular Beats headphone line (University of Southern California, 2015) Together, they gave $70 milli on dollars to USC to start the A cademy in 2013, but with a curriculu m far different than a traditional electronic arts or media school, with the goal of creating a degree that blends business, marketing, product development, design and liberal arts (Wortham, 2013) 73

PAGE 82

If the next start up that becomes Facebook happens to be one of our kids, thats what we are looking for, said Mr. Iovine, an energetic 60 year old dressed in his trademark uniform of T shirt and fitted jeans, faded baseball hat and blue tinted eyeglasses. Like many cel ebrities, Mr. Iovine and Dr. Dre have been seduced by the siren call of the tech world, which has lured celebrities like Justin Bieber, Tyra Banks and Leonardo DiCaprio to finance a start up or develop their own idea. They have had more success than most with Beats, a private company that they say makes $1 billion in sales annually. (Wortham, 2013) USC officials have declined to say how many students applied, nor the admissions criteria, but the inaugural 2015 cl ass was 31 total students.19 The classroom space is also far different than a traditional college setting: students meet in something called The Garage, shown below: ( Figure 3 : "The Garage," University of Southern Cal ifornia ) 19 Posters to the site College Confidential claimed more than 320 people applied to be part of the inaugural class. The site is an informal chat based website, and, as such, cannot be formally cited. But the n umber can be footnoted for context. 74

PAGE 83

A look through the curriculum required in the bachelors degree program reveals a hodgepodge of classes, ranging from Microsoft Excel for business management to mobile application development to communications classes (University of Southern California, 2015) Five classes address audio production, two address motion graphics, and seemingly no courses focus exclusively on video production. Critics of the school say the curriculum lacks cohesion: The USCJIAYAATBI, where every lecture is a TED Talk. Now the notion of taking components of, say, computer science, design, and marketing degrees isn't the worst idea if you want to create a Media Employee in A Box it's worked well at NYU's multi disciplinary ITP program, famous in Silicon Alley for spawning Foursquare. This could be ITP West a decent mix of book learnin' and vocational preparation with quick feeder access to the new Californian economy. But the more you read on USC's Snow Fall press release, the less you'll understand what this program actually consists of, or what it's really meant to accomplish. It's a mlange of jargon and wide eyed entrepreneurial thumbs upisms. (Biddle, 2013) Erica Muhl, t he executive director of the Iovine and Young Academy (and the Dean of the Roski School of Art and Design), declined to reply to several emails and voicemails seeking more information about the Academy. But Muhl found herself in a controversy earlier in 2015, after an entire first year class of seven students in the MFA program in the Roski School announced they were quitting: We have no idea what MFA faculty wed be working with for the coming year, we have no idea what the curriculum would be, other than it will be different from what it was when we enrolled and is currently being implemented by administrators outside our field of study, and finally, we have no idea whether wed graduate with twice the amount of debt we thought we would graduate with. (Stromberg, 2015) The mention of money at the end of that statement references a meeting in which the students say they were told that once guaranteed teaching assistant slots would now be open for competition, covering the ent ire second year tuition of $38,400 along with a $10,000 stipend 75

PAGE 84

(Simpson, 2015) Did the money for those slots, instead, go to the Iovine Young Academy? Muhl would not say and refused to speak to the media, instead choosing to release the following statement: The USC Roski MFA program remains one of the most generously funded programs in the country. These students would have received a financial package worth at least 90 percent of tuition costs in scholarships and T Aships. The school honored all the terms in the students offer letters. C hanges are made to the curriculum on an ongoing basis. Minor changes were made to the MFA curriculum prior to the students' arrival in fall 2014, mainly involving one electi ve in the summer of 2015. Studio visits and study tours remain part of the curriculum as the students requested. I have met with the students at length and hope for an opportunity to continue engaging them in a full and open conversation. (Simpson, 2015) To date, there have been no updates provided on that purported full and open conversation. The first class from the Iovine/Young Academy will not graduate until 2019. There are, however, other schools that bear th e names of some of the greats in electronic arts, music and media: schools that are more established, with their track records and reputations easily examined from existing literature. The Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music at New York University supports the record label 194 Recordings, and started in 2003 (New York University, 2015) Course offerings range from classes in punk rock to Motown to entrepreneurship in the music industry, and 128 credits are required for the schools Bachelor of Fine Arts degree.20 The program was launched by Davis with a five million dollar donation in 2003, celebrated its tenth anniversary in 2013, and its website promises more details on successful alumni under a coming soon section. 20 A full list of the curriculum can be seen at http://clivedavisinst.tisch.nyu.edu/object/remucurriculum.html It contains 135 rotating cours es. 76

PAGE 85

The ReMu school, as it colloquially calls itself, also makes the claim to being the first of its kind in the U.S. But it, too, has its critics: One of the biggest misconceptions about NYUs Clive Davis Department of Recorded Music is that its students while learning how to make it in the music business, will be plucked out of obscurity b y Davis himself. For the last four years, the programs first graduating class had expected the legendary hitmaker would make an appearance beyond his remarks at freshman orientation and at graduation ceremonies. If not during classes or recording sessions, then at the very least, they hoped, hed show up during the Capstone project panel, a threeday event beginning May 2nd. O ver the final three d ays of school, the students pitch their business plans and play their albums during the Capstone to a panel of experts. None of them is Davis himself. On the Sunday after the panels, the students gather in an auditorium, where prizes like Best Production or Best Song are announced. And less serious awards like Best Hair and Best Dressed. One citation, the Tom Schecter Rock Star award of the year, obviously goes to Schecter. On the back of every certificate is the face of Clive Davis and a slogan: Congratulations, now youre going to be famous. (Ashman, 2007) Clive Davis may have established naming rights for himself at New York University with a five million dollar endowment, but he is not seemingl y involved in the curriculum that bears his name. An older school is the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University established as the Division of Journalism in 1949, and named for the veteran CBS news anchor in 1984 with his approval (Arizona State University, 2015) Unlike the Davis School at NYU, the Cronkite School offers graduate degrees. But the Cronkite School is consistently up against journalism schools with perceived higher pedigrees: Syracuse, Northwestern, University of Missouri at Columbia (colloquially called the Mizzou Mafia by its own graduates), and University of Southern California. The Cronkite School stresses its lower tuition compared to the other schools, (Clarke, 2014) as well as its opportunities for students to gain professional experience: 77

PAGE 86

At Cronkite, there are nearly unlimited extracurricular opportunities for a wannabe reporter. From The State Press, to the Walter Cronkite Sports Network to the countless other student media organizations that give students real life journalism experience, theres no excuse to not be involved with something if youre a Cronkite student. Judging by the hefty number of Hearst journalism awards, thos e who are involved reap the benefits. However, the hidden gems of Cronkite are its bureaus from coast to coast, which give upperclassmen opportunities to develop their journalistic niche. For those interested in the political side of journalism, Cronkite gives you a chance to go to the political hub of this country Cronkites Washington, D.C. bureau operates out of ASUs Washington Center to give political journalists the opportunity to report on national political issues with releva nce to the state of Arizona. These reporters work in conjunction with professionals in the industry as well as Cronkite NewsWatch back home. If you're a sports journo worried about USC's location advantage, Cronkite has its own sports bureau in Los Angeles, located at ASUs California Center, which allows sportswriters and broadcasters to spend a semester covering sports in the media mecca that is L.A. (Clarke, 2014) The only connection between Cronkite himse lf and the school is his name. No money changed hands for a legend in broadcast journalism to be featured as the name on a school. While the name obviously implies marketing for the school, College Magazine has ranked the Walter Cronkite School of Journali sm consistently within the top ten journalism schools in the country (Tetzloff, 2014) While Davis connection with NYU and the new inclusion of Andre Young and Jimmy Iovine at USC will also provide a marketing draw for new s tudents, as well as some budget ary support, there are perhaps some things private sector influence cannot buy in academics. Credibility may be on that list 78

PAGE 87

CHAPTER XV SURVEYING OTHER SCHOOLS Our story and experience may have already helped you, but this project needed to take on a survey of its own to find out just how much such an arrangement would be palatable, or even possible, for other schools that teach electronic arts and electronic media production. Survey research began in December, 2014, with the assembly of a list of names and email addresses for college and university faculty involved in electronic arts and electronic media curricula. Such a survey straddled several instructional lines, and included the following: Audio production progr ams Video production programs Broadcast journalism programs Electronic music programs Interactive and new media journalism programs Broadcasting programs (TV and radio programs that did not focus on journalism) Film schools Caveats that needed to be put into the survey quickly became apparent when the database approached 900 names, finally reaching 977. Test emails were sent, and emails that bounced back were taken out of the list immediately Curriculums at different schools were examined to see if many of the recipients of the survey were already in the same department, which would have led to a duplication of answers, but perhaps not a new answer to the survey questions. This took some time. At some colleges and universities, film and video are in the same department. At others, music production schools are entwined with video curriculum. At some schools, journalism and broadcasting are in separate departments, while at other schools, they 79

PAGE 88

have been merged under one roof. There is no standard for what electronic arts and /or electronic media curricula are in the same department, or different ones. Individual webpages of course offerings had to be examined to determine if one email address would represent someone who potentially represented sever al differ ent tracks of courses, and ergo, an answer that would unfairly skew results. For profit colleges were not included in the survey for some simple reasons: their budget structures and funding systems are vastly different from public colleges and universiti es, even to the point that forprofit institutions do not have to follow as many facets of Title IX law that their counterparts in the public sector do. If a private school receives no federal funding, that school is exempt from Title IX; while almost all forprofit schools receive some federal funding through student financial aid programs some for profit schools have discussed operating their own financial aid program via the private sector (Theobald, 2014) In short, the rul es between the two are different, and a common ground must be established. That common ground for the purpose of this thesis is the two year or fouryear publicly funded college or university. While it may seem farfetched that any school would decline fe deral financial aid, there are schools that have declined all such federal funding to avoid Title IX, including federal financial aid for students. They have instead focused on local private banks for student loans and scholarships. The most notable exampl e is a college at the root of a U.S. Supreme Court Case: Grove City College in Pennsylvania established a loan program with PNC Bank in Grove City, Pennsylvania, and still declines all forms of federal financial aid to this day ( Grove City College vs. Bell, 1984) although Congress attempted to overturn that case with the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.21 21 The list of colleges that receive no federal funding is growing. The U.S. Department of Education has recently granted exemptions to three Christian schools in a case involving transgender students (Kingkade, 2014) 80

PAGE 89

In addition, Matt Kel ler of Auraria Media Center expressed some concern that survey recipients in the Denver televisio n market area could use the survey to seek the same money Auraria Campus is receiving, perhaps lowering the amount we would receive in future years. The concern, however, only eliminated one school: University of Denver, as the University of Colorado Boulder is on a different cable system than th e city of Denver uses ; ergo, any funding CU Boulder could obtain in relation to PEG channels would be the result of a different cable franchisee and a different agreement .22 The survey totaled nine questions, as fol lows: 1) Do you have unfunded capital improvement needs in your electronic media or electronic arts programs? This was a yes or no answer. 2) How immediate are those needs? Choices here were right now, a year, five years, and further afield, with only one answer available to each recipient. 3) Can you describe all of those needs? This was a long list of multiple choices in the survey, as follows: Audio recording facilities TV studio space/soundstage facilities Lighting Audio editing and production Vid eo editing and production 3D animation, such as Maya or 3D Max Audio production software Video production software Live audio broadcast (e.g., radio) Live video broadcast Film cameras/film recording Film postproduction 22 Ke ller and I discussed this, and realized that with only one school in the DMA that could compete for the money, the objectivity of this survey would not be compromised by excluding DU from the survey. 81

PAGE 90

Video post production Other (please specify) For question 3, survey recipients were allowed to choose as many answers as they wished. 4) Have you discussed those funding needs with your university? Again, a yes or no answer here. 5) If there has been a response to the discussion in question four, how confident are you that your university can provide the ne eded funds? Choices here were very confident, somewhat confident, and not confident at all. 6) Have you considered any of the following funding sources? Here, respondents could choose from multiple options : state based general funding, state based special capital improvement funding, tuitionbased general funds, tuitionbased special assessment or student referendum funds, and private sector funds. They could also list other ideas they had. 7) On a scale of one to ten, would funding from the private sector be acceptable to fund infrastructure needs, even if that funding came with conditions and restrictions on its use? The survey scale went from one to ten, with each respondent able t o choose only one answer. 8) Would our story and experience help you? This was also a yes or no question. 9) Question nine solicited any and all comments from the survey respondents. They were told they could remain completely anonymous if they chose. Th e final list for emailing the survey via www.surveymonkey.com totaled exactly 500 recipients after non functioning and duplicate emails were removed, and some further email addresses were removed via cross checki ng curriculum websites for various departments. The survey was sent twice via www.surveymonkey.com once on April 21, 2015 and again on June 29, 2015. A total of 35 people responded. The survey was kept complet ely anonymous due to its subject matter; respondents could have too easily feared reprisals from their own schools had their names and positions become known; even with a completely anonymous survey, participation may have been hindered by that fear of reprisal. In fact, in the comments, some respondents asked for anonymity but gave some details about their positions 82

PAGE 91

allowing their comments to be used but not their names or titles One person identified herse lf; all other commenters remain ed anonymous. In addition, the survey was sent once during spring semester and once during the summer. Sending it earlier in a sixteen week semester may have generated more responses. But the responses were uniform, and very consistent, across all the recipients who took part in the survey. The first responses came in mere minutes after the survey went out the first time in April of 2015, and the same happened when the survey was sent again in June of 2015. In each case, a fter two day s survey responses quickly died out. The responses to each question are examined in detail below: 83

PAGE 92

QUESTION 1 (Table 3: Survey of unfunded capital needs ) This answer was overwhelming evidence of the concerns about funding capital improvement needs in electronic media and electronic arts programs, with 91 percent of respondents saying they needed money for equipment and infrastructure improvement. Only three respondents indicated they had no needs at all. 84

PAGE 93

QUESTION 2 (Table 4: Survey of timetable of needs) Again, an overwhelming majority responded they are dealing with capital improvement needs right now. Far fewer respondents believed they could wait for a year or five years, and only one respondent believed a wait of more than five years was acceptable. 85

PAGE 94

QUESTION 3 (Table 5: Spe cific capital improvement needs) 86

PAGE 95

QUESTION 3 CONTINUED (Table 6: Specific capital imp rovement needs ) The answers to question three indicated the depth of need the respondents had, and while all respondents felt they needed something, most felt as if they needed many capital improvements. Television studio space, soundstages and live television production facilities topped the list, followed closely by video editing and production (the example given in the survey was Avid editing suites.) More than h alf of the recipients said they needed better audio production facilities overall, not counting the digital audio workstation software that was addressed in a different question. 87

PAGE 96

QUESTION 4 (Table 7: Discussio ns with school ) This questi on also indicates the need for funding in capital improvements for electronic arts and electronic media programs. Only one respondent had not gone to his or her school asking for funding to update equipment used in the curriculum. 88

PAGE 97

QUESTION 5 (Table 8: Co nfidence level in school funding capital needs ) There is a definite recalcitrance among respondents to this survey, and perhaps fear, that their college or university either cannot or is not interested in meeting the capital needs of their elect ronic arts and electronic media programs. Only three respondents believed their school would be able to fund capital im provement needs, while a full 46 percent expressed no confidence in their schools ability or desire to do so. This survey did not distinguish between the schools that did not have the money and the schools that simply would not provide the money; again, survey respondents needed to feel as much at ease as they could when answering. 89

PAGE 98

QUESTION 6 This was another question that provided for the possibility of multiple, and even openended answers. A simple survey could not cover all the possibilities, and in many cases, respondents had some of their own ideas: (Table 9: Some alternative funding sources ) 90

PAGE 99

(Table 10: O ther possible f unding sources ) It is worthwhile to examine some of the answers in the other section in table 10. A private Christian university foresaw problems maintaining full editorial control, yet attracting outside funding (answer 2). One school was targeting not forprofit grants and foundations (answer 4), but did not specify if those groups would also have conditions on how the money could be used. Private contributors and alumni also factor in to possible funding sources (answers 6 and 9). One school is looki ng at a bond issue (answer 3), and one replied none of the above are 91

PAGE 100

viable, (answer 7), but did not specify if any funding source would be viable to that school. This goes toward showing that the options may not be limited to just private sector funds, but beyond alumni groups and private gifts, the options do dwindle. Answer 8 mentions Perkins funding, which is a federal student loan program that is separate from other loan programs : The purpose of Perkins is to provide individuals with the academi c and technical skills needed to succeed in a knowledge and skills based economy. Perkins supports career and technical education that prepares its students both for postsecondary education and the careers of their choice. Federal resources hel p ensure that career and technical programs are academically rigorous and upto date with the needs of business and industry. The federal contribution to career and technical education, about $1.3 billion annually, supports innovation and expands access to quality programs. State and local funding supports the career and technical education infrastructure and pays teachers' salaries and other operating expenses. Federal funds provide the principal source for innovation and program improvement, and help to drive state support through a "maintenanceof effort" provision in the federal law (Association for Career & Technical Education, 2015) 92

PAGE 101

QUESTION 7 (Table 11: Restricti ons on funding ) He re is where the respondents seemingly divide on the issue. While all respondents but one admitted to needing money for capital improvements, only a little more than half (close to an average of six on a scale of one to ten) would accept private sector fund s if the funding came with conditions and restrictions on its use. When we examine the comments, this was an extremely popular topic with the survey respondents. They need money, but many are leery of accepting the conditions that might come with private s ector money: conditions that might include content restrictions, proof of performance, and more. 93

PAGE 102

QUESTION 8 ( Table 12: Our story and experience) Another overwhelming response: 83 percent do want to read how AHEC, Auraria Media Center, and the schools involved were able to obtain funding to upgrade Studio A and Studio B. Only five respondents said our story would not help them. 94

PAGE 103

QUESTION 9 Here, we open the floor. Since the respondents were able to remain anonymous, it was hoped they would provide more honesty and insight into their own situations. The question was asked this way: if you have any comments about your own experience with the issues above, feel free to leave them below. And it its acceptable to quote you in the thesis, I would be honored to do so. Please tell me if I can; I can do so anonymously, but if you wish to identify yourself, I would appreciate it. Only one respondent identified herself There would be a risk of editorializing if we were to analyze the comments, so the y are simply included verbatim below: Receiving equipment to train (lab) vs. getting it to be responsible for producing content is major issue. NO educational institution can or should rely on students to produce content without compensation. To m ake matters worse, youre letting Comcast off the hook, as THEY are required to provide community ascertainment/programming IF your grant allows you to hire professionals to produce the content and supervise students then this might be a benef icial arrangement. Initial costs are not the end of the funding need. Ongoing upgrades, replacements, and maintenance are just as important. We have tried to explain the need to administrators and they have granted us some concessions that, i n their eyes, are very generous (as in, $50,000). But they cannot understand that an HD overhaul cannot be done with a couple of pieces of equipment here and there, and that a quality switcher alone is $100k+. We are having issues getting them to understand; however, university alumni with deep pockets are beginning to ask why the media properties are so antiquated. (In many cases, their children are now athletes in our university and they want to see their kids play in HD over the Inte rnet.) We are hoping this will serve as leverage to generate funding for meaningful capital improvements in the very near future. Please keep my comments anonymous. 95

PAGE 104

We are a smallish private liberal arts institution (3,500 undergrads, about 425 in the JMC program). While we have University and donor funds to keep our computers and software current, the TV studio facility itself and the studio cameras are badly outdated. It is difficult to make the case for the expensive upgrade, considering the relatively small number of students affected. We are currently working with an architect on plans for remodeling the building to create a flexible multimedia production/"innovation hub" space that could be used by all of our m ajors, in the hope of making it more attractive to more private donors. Kathleen Richardson, Drake University, Des Moines, IA Funds for equipment at a private university are hard to come by. Film and media programs are expensive but critical in an information society. But the focus on STEM in the academy means other expensive programs are getting all the funds. Private sector funds are pretty much our only option. But there aren't many funders who want to give money for equipment give n its sometimes short shelf life. It's a continual challenge as capital equipment budgets drop each year or simply can't keep up with inflation. You can quote me anonymously as a film and media department chair at a private university. The private funding issue is a conflict between us and donor relations. I'm not allowed to go after anyone for a gift without the university department knowing about it so as not to conflict with their ask. Our media is also funded by student life rathe r than the academic department, so I am limited to the whims of the student senate, who do not understand things like "you have to pay for the Internet every year." The acceptability of terms and conditions would depend on what they are. Almost always private funding comes with explicit and implicit expectations. We have been able to negotiate such expectations in the past, but have walked away from deals once or twice because of the strings attached. We have looked into partnerships with various broadcast entities, and have thought about going after grant opportunities. We are a small faculty, and so that work seems a bit daunting to complete along with all of our other duties. 96

PAGE 105

I will say that if the funds restricted the educational mission of the institution or the ideals of the faculty and students I would be against it. Corporate control over education is the worst possible scenario I can think of. If a corporate entity would like to fund an instituti on it should be unrestricted and left entirely up to the institution. I have had a similar experience in my past at a large state University and I can honestly say it does nothing for the college and everything for the corporation. They are investing in a free training facility that they do not have to maintain, support or think about after it is built. Plus, they receive a huge tax deduction in the end. All funds should be distributed across the institution as a whole. 2 suggestions: 1, see if there is a state telecommunications mandate, or anything similar or anything out of the Chancellors office: I used that to do a complete overhaul of our old control room to bring us to HD from studio to Comcast. 2, the other strategy that has worked for me is making something a safety issue: the tripods are bent and unstable, they could fall over and injure a student; those incandescent lights explode sometimes. The falling glass could cut a student. The carpet is shredded, a student could catch their foot on it and trip and fall and hurt themselves or fall onto another student. You get the idea. The survey shows a consistent need for funding for capital improvements in electronic arts and media programs. The overwhel ming majority of respondents said not only did they need money for upgrades, they needed it immediately. But at the same time, the survey showed a recalcitrance to accepting the money if it came from the private sector with significant strings attached. Th e schools who responded to the survey want to maintain their editorial independence and integrity. But at the same time, the vast majority admit they are teaching on outdated gear. 97

PAGE 106

CHAPTER XVI AURARIA MEDIA CENTER IMPROVEMENTS AND TEACHING WORKFLOW M et Report, Noticiero TV Met, MSU Denvers television production classes and CU Denvers video production classes have been hampered by a workflow issue for years: while we can all teach audio and video production and editing in the digital realm, all playback from Studio A has been analog. This meant that all edited video had to be dubbed in real time to a Betamax or DVC Pro tape (and usually both), and live shows recorded on tape (which most were) had to be later recorded to DVD in real time to be reaired on Channel 54. And from there, the only way to ingest the video into Channel 54s playback system was one DVD at a time. Kent Courtnage has been dealing with that for years; its not easy, and its time consuming, but we can get it on the air on Channe l 54 that way, he said (Courtnage, Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center, 2015) But this has meant lots of attention paid to the video that will air on Channel 54, and, as a result, audio quality has suffered. Below (figure s 4, 5 and 6) are screenshots of actual audio levels of the Met Report as it aired live on March 22, 2013: 23 23 I was the advisor then, and am now. 98

PAGE 107

(Figure 4: Met Report audio, March 22, 20 13) (Figure 5: Met Report audio, March 22, 20 13) 99

PAGE 108

(Figu re 6: Met Report audio, March 22 20 15) The dB measurement scale at the right or each photo shows, at worst, a differential of 20 dB between the highest and lowest levels in the audio chain. Compounding matters, with the old audio board, no outboard gear was used to compress or limit the audio chain. What went out is what aired. While the pair of Dorrough loudness meters made the audio levels easy to see, most student audio operators were reacting to abrupt changes in audio levels and often, not in time to prevent a discrepancy from airi ng. That changes drastically with the installation of the new Yamaha MG32X consoles in both studios ( figure 7 ), which come with a compressor on every channel, but no limiter. 100

PAGE 109

(Figure 7 : Yamaha MG32X console, Studio A ) With compressors on every c hannel, student produced audio should be much more even, and Courtnage remains amenable to the installation of a rackmounted limiter if necessary. As for teaching video students about audio compression, Courtnage wants to ease them into the concept slowly with the help of an instructor running audio for a few live television shows to establish a pattern 24 However, many media professionals do believe that the teaching of audio with video 24 So far, it app ears that instructor will be me. 101

PAGE 110

r emains a weak link. Video producer Patrick Dell says audio is ofte n the neglected half of the video equation: Clean audio is critical for viewers to absorb whats said in a video. Bad or difficultto understand sound will quickly turn them off. Viewers can be more forgiving of inferior image quality, as long as the sound is solid. Good location sound is also an incredible source of atmosphere and emotion when used properly in post production/editing. Knowing how audio can be used subtly to enhance the story will elevate your videos to the next level (Dell, 2015) RODE microphone product specialist Matthew Piccolotto says with exponential advances in video production, great audio should be even more of a goal: H ow good is cinematic, highdefinition video if the audio is lacking? Great audio can elevate and enhance the immersive qualities of a film or video, just as bad audio can ruin the experience, and distract the viewer. If youve ever filmed something and resorted to using the inbuilt microphone on your camera, you know exactly what Im talking about! (Piccolotto, 2015) Is audio the neglected part of the instructional chain in Studio A? It is always mentioned as a crucial element, especially by Courtnage. But with so m uch attention in the past forced on to the video workflow, audio often slipped through the cracks. That need not be the case now. Gone, also, is the real time dubbing to tape, a process that added hours of workflow to any show that took place in Studio A In November of last year, MSU Denvers Office of Student Media took possession of one of the video drives for the AJA Ki Pro playback system in Studio A, which was installed months ahead of the rest of the remodeling. This did create a problem: the Ki Pro is almost exclusively compatible with the Apple Pro Res codec, and any video that comes from an Adobe nonlinear editor has to be conformed to the ProRes settings. While not difficult, it did take some time to successfully create the 102

PAGE 111

settings in Adobe Media Encoder.25 MSU Denvers Office of Student Media has the Adobe Creative Suite, but several students still use Final Cut 7 in the office. MSU Denvers main video production lab has Final Cut X and the Adobe Creative Suite. CU Denvers TVFP department has completely shifted to Adobe Creative Suite now (Liban, 2015) While this has caused some hiccups, and may continue to do so, it remains easier to change a video codec setting than it is to realign heads in a Beta SP video pl ayback deck. Graphics building is, at this writing, a bit of an unknown. Adobe is the preferred software package for building graphics at MSU Denver and CU Denver, and those graphics have to be successfully transferred to the Ross Expressions system. For tunately, there are online tutorials, and several departments (including the Office of Student Media) have discussed buying their own Ross Expressions package and linking it over the existing IT network directly to Studio A. That would eliminate the need t o transfer graphics on hard drives. The Ross Expressions video codec can be added, however, to Adobe Media Encoder, a program which both MSU and UCD have in abundance. During the first training session on July 28th, a representative from Ross happily provi ded the codec that can translate student creations in Adobe Creative Suite into final files for Ross Expressions, saving MSU Denvers Office of Student Media approximately $3,400 dollars. The office would no longer need to purchase the Ross Expressions sof tware for students to be able to work on graphics away from Studio A. Workflow will be faster now that the analog part of video has been removed from the equation. There is simply no way otherwise. All instructors who use Studios A and B have a learning curve in front of them, but the learning curve should be one that features fewer equipment failures and more progress in what we can teach and how we can teach it. 25 It took me about two months and a few calls to Ki Pro support. 103

PAGE 112

CHAPTER XVII CONCLUSION Was it worth it? Did accepting money from City and County of De nver Media that came with a long list of conditions justify the improvements to Auraria Media Center? This question can be examined in several ways, but two that are perhaps the most germane are: necessary job skills, and editorial integrity. In terms of job skills, a study conducted by Deb Wenger and Lynn Owens showed a huge growth over the years in the need for job applicants to have more technical skills in the field of television news. In their journal article published in Electronic News in 2013, t heir survey shows a drastic jump in the need for nonlinear video editing skills between 2009 and 2010; in 2009, TV newsroom surveyed rated it 29.2 percent important, while the very next year, the same newsrooms rated it 42.3 percent important (Owens, 2013) That same study showed that overall, the newsrooms surveyed believed that the ability to do video production was important for more than a third of all television news related jobs (39.2 percent). The research results indi cate that it may be time for journalism programs to rethink the multimedia skills that should be required of all broadcast journalism majors. It seems clear that journalism students should know how to write for the web and how to post content onl ine. Though the percentage of broadcast jobs that referenced social media and mobile news was still relatively small in 2010, those categories are growing rapidly and the authors and interviewees anticipate another significant increase in the next round of content analyses. Finally, 21.9% of broadcast jobs require video/photo skills, w hich led the researchers to conclude that the ability to do visual storytelling must also be included on the list of essential multimedia skills. (Owens, 2013) 104

PAGE 113

Media critic Marshall McLuhan may have foreseen this in the 1960s: Rapidly, we approach the final phase of the extension of man -the technological simulation of consciousness, when the creative proces s of knowing will be collectively and corporately extended to the whole of human society, much as we have already extended our senses and nerves by the various media. Whether the extension of consciousness, so long sought by a dvertisers for spe cific products, will be 'a good thing' is a question that admits of a wide solution. (McLuhan, 1964) What McLuhan could not have foreseen was the exponential growth in media technologies coupled with a downturn in availa ble funding at the college and university levels at approximately the same time The 1980s and 1990s saw huge advances in digital audio workstations and nonlinear video editors, with companies like Avid, Digidesign, and then Adobe developing market domina nce across several lines of products, from animation (Adobe AfterEffects was released in 1993; Apples Motion in 2004 as Molokini), to video editing (Avids first version came out in 1987), to audio (the first version of ProTools, called SoundTools, debuted in 1989). And the 1990s and 2000s saw greater implementation of the digitalediting realm in facilities nationwide facilities that employ our students. But the bumpy ride that was higher education funding had a hard time keeping up. A report from Demos, a nonprofit public policy research and advocacy organization, finds that state funding for higher education totaled $65,057,360 in all states in fiscal year 19901991, and totaled $75,619,510 in all states in fiscal year 2010 2011. While that m ay represent a ten million dollar increase on its face, funding per college student went from $2,424 in FY 19901991 to $2,465 in FY 20102011, an increase of only $41 in ten years (Quinterno, 2012) At the same time, enrollme nts jumped drastically: 105

PAGE 114

Public institutions have played an important role in serving the growing numbers of undergraduate students. Between 1990 and 2009, undergraduate enrollments in public institutions rose by 37.9 percent, or 3.7 million s tudents. Put differently, public institutions absorbed 65.6 percent of the undergraduate enrollment increases that have occurred since 1990, including 63.7 percent of the undergraduate students who have enrolled in college since 2007. (Quinterno, 2012) It is fairly easy to deduce that even a ten million dollar increase in total state support for public higher education over ten years could not keep up with the gains in enrollment. Add to that the high and sometimes prohibitive cost of equipment for electronic arts and media programs, and it becomes fairly easy for individual public colleges and universities to delay or even postpone indefinitely the purchase of new gear for the curricula.26 At the same time, however, pu blic higher education has become more reliant on money from the private sector, to the point some critics argue that such a reliance interferes and often negatively, with the schools educational mission: Empirical evidence has been presented that inst itutions which generate revenue through increased private donations become increasingly beholden to those donors, whereas institutions that engage in more applied research through partnerships with public or private organizations divert institu tional resources from other activities to honor contractual obligations. Second, the strength of the estimated effect suggests that modification of the mechanisms through which institutions are funded represents a potentially powerful lever which policymakers can utilize to direct the immediate behaviors of public universities. Given the ongoing public discussions of how public institutions can best be managed and steered by the states, the findings presented here are consistent with an emerging body of cross disciplinary research that suggests that market based policies can function as powerful change agents in public sector service delivery and suggests that such endeavors should be approached cautiously. (Fowles, 2014) 26 The Ross Carbonite video switcher installed in Studio A came with a price tag of approximately $48,000 for one piece of equipment. 106

PAGE 115

The same article from Fowles issues a warning that might be construed as directly on point to the situation at Auraria Media Center: Evidence presented here and in other research has consistently found that the potentially at odds with institutional missions, at least as these core missions have been defined historically. If the implicit bargain between public universities and legislatures which accompanied appropriations involves public service and research endeavo rs that produces spillover benefits to the public, increased reliance on alternative revenue sources will likely be accompanied by a decline in the production of these activities. (Fowles, 2014) But Matt Keller and Kent Courtnage at Auraria Media Center have said that the job of modernizing Studios A and B to more present technological conditions was not going to get done any other way than with money from an outside source. Weve discussed direct funding with all three schools, and none of them have the money to maintain Auraria Media Center, let alone upgrade it, Keller says. (Keller, 2015) But its an integral part of the video instruction for the schools, be it a lighting and grip class from UCD or a TV news producing class from MSU. Or the Met Report. Even Fowles admits that his research showing greater resource dependence on outside funding doesnt tell the whole story. In fact, he says his own study cant correlate a shift in resource allocation to student achievement or university efficiency: A robust parallel literature in primary and secondary education suggests that expenditures are, at best, likely only loosely coupled with successful long term student outcomes ( Hanushek 1989) and a small but growing body of literature in higher education reaches broadly similar conclusions (Pike et al. 2006). It is well understood that universities simultaneously provide students with goods and services designed to incre ase the students own stock of human capital (Becker 1962) as well as other goods and services that simply provide the students with greater current consumption. (Fowles, 2014) 107

PAGE 116

The choice has to be up to the individual school. As many universities are in a race to gather more privatesector dollars, something MSU Denver President Steven Jordan readily admits (Jordan, 2013) some experts see this as a trend that is here to stay: Relation ships with foundations, donors, state agencies, and private business will become increasingly important in the funding game. The opportunities to form partnerships with business are especially intriguing. Many businesses have cut back their R&D i nfrastructure, so the potential to take advantage of the infrastructure and talent on university campuses may be a win win situation for businesses and institutions of higher education. Businesses can tap into the expertise of highly skilled scien tists and their students on an as needed basis, while scientists gain insight into the questions important to businesses and the means by which to translate research results into marketable products. (Daniel Howard, 2013) The National Science Boards 2012 report Trends and Challenges for Public Research Universities detailed a depressing scenario: state appropriations to research schools declining from just under forty percent of each schools operating revenue in 1992 to about 22 percent in 2011. Among the boards conclusions: Increased enrollment and declining state support have occurred in all sectors of the public higher education system. They are contributors to economic development at the local, state, and national levels and represent an essential component of the higher education landscape. A continued decline in state support will negatively impact the ability of these universities to provide quality education and training to a diverse st udent body and attract and retain the talent needed to maintain the scope and quality of their research efforts. (National Science Board, 2012) Is any state currently able to make a commitment to more funding of public hi gher education? According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, only two states, Alaska and North Dakota, are spending as much or more as they did on public higher education before the recession of 2008. Alaska spent $636 dollars more per pupil in 2015 than before the recession; North Dakota spent $3,150 more per pupil (Povitch, 2015) 108

PAGE 117

This all raises the question of a potential new normal in public higher education: one more reliant on outside funding for not only capital improveme nts, but research needs and even curricular offerings. Over the past 35 years, tuition at public universities has nearly quadrupled (Campos, 2015) The reasons why vary, depending on the research, with some (such as Campos) de crying increased costs in administration. Others point to the decrease in state funding (Mitchell M. 2014) and others say the vast increase in students has much to do with it (Quinterno, 2012) Perhaps it is some combination of all three, but it may also vary from state to state and school to school. And all of this is happening at a time when public colleges and universities that teach electronic arts and media programs are trying to stay abre ast of the latest technological advancements. But the possibility of PEG fees from cable television franchisees have existed since the original FCC Cable Act of 1984, and still exist today. The system may already exist, and the money may already be in the system, for public colleges and universities struggling with finding a funding source. Matt Keller says his attitude and thinking changed when he heard the words content provider. It was the first time I had heard that discussed; if we were willing to become a content provider for City and County of Denver Media, we could have their help in upgrading all of our facilities. And that, to me, is when it became a win win. We help them, but they help us at the same time (Keller, 2015) The answer may lie with your local cable provider. Federal Communication Commission requirements that all licensees carry some form of public service programming are not going away anytime soon; the language that all licensees must act in t he public interest, convenience and necessity has been part of the Federal Communications Commissions 109

PAGE 118

purview since 1934, and all licensees must retain a copy of public service programs they broadcast in their public file, which is a large part of the F CCs re licensing procedures for radio stations, television stations, and cable companies. No license is ever issued permanently; all stations periodically have to renew their license with the FCC, proving compliance with the Commissions dictates. It is no small process for a licensee to maintain compliance with the mandate of public interest, convenience and necessity: Each licensee must affirmatively identify those needs and problems and then specifically treat those local matters that it deems to be significant in the news, public affairs, political and other programming that it airs. Each station must provide the public with information about how it has met this obligation by means of quarterly reports, which contain a listing of the programming that it has aired that the licensee believes provided significant treatment of issues facing the community. Each station also must maintain and make available to any member of the public for inspection, generally at its studio, a local public inspection file which contains these reports, as well as other materials that pertain to the stations operations and dealings with the FCC and with the community that it is licensed to serve. The public file is an excellent resourc e to gauge a stations performance of its obligations as a Commission licensee. (Federal Communications Commission, 2008) Have any licensees lost their licenses as a result of not acting in the public interest, c onvenience, or necessity? No. But penalties from public file violations, of which such programming is a required inclusion, are numerous. In June, 2015, WMEB FM at the University of Maine in Orono was penalized $1,200 for quarterly issues and programs lis ts (that) were not prepared for the Stations public file from July 2007 to July 2013 (Waits, 2015) The Trustees of Columbia University in New York were penalized $10,000 in 2012 during the license renewal process when the U niversity self disclosed that its stations public file was missing twenty nine quarterly issues/programs lists (NACUA, 2012) In 2013, the FCC fined two television stations (one in Hawaii, one in Oregon) $9,000 each for failing to 110

PAGE 119

upload their public service programming lists on time to their respective public file websites (Scott Flick, 2015) While the violations may not become apparent until the licensee goes through the renewal process (ranging from every seven to every 13 years, depending on several factors), the Commission has always been perceived as stringent in looking through a licensees public file. Since the FCC places a premium on programming in the public interest being included in the public file, cable franchisees would have to generate their own at a cost to the franchisee, or look to other sources. The cable franchisee can establish a public service channel by assessing a PEG charge on subscribers bills, but then turn to outside sources such as Auraria Media Center to provide that programming. Whatever restrictions on the use of the money that may come from accepting PEG funds is a matter of negotiation between the individual school and the cable provider. The circumstances at Auraria Media Center would not apply, necessarily, to other cable franchisees, who may be willing to give more free rein (or less) to the public college or university accepting the money. And the agreement here may not be set in stone; this could help en sure that the cable provider is living up to the expectations of airing the programs, and that the school is living up to whatever expectation it agreed to when accepting the funds. Ours is a story that is far from over. The first chapter is only being w ritten in the fall semester of 2015, when we start teaching in the new facility and generating programming for City and County of Denver Media. All along, Channel 54 has done just that: aired programs for Denver Media, but the new agreement is a more forma lized relationship. It is not known, at this juncture, whether the agreement will prove amenable in the long term to the schools on Auraria 111

PAGE 120

Campus and to City and County of Denver Media. Still, even with more than a years negotiation required to get thi s far, it has proven to be beneficial in some respects. The new equipment is installed and ready to go. Improvements in teaching and workflow will be evident in just the first few weeks. And the analog television systems are gone for good. It is now up to the instructors to introduce their students to the latest equipment. So, it is now up to the instructors to learn it. 112

PAGE 121

CHAPTER XVIII EPILOGUE For most reporters, getting personally involved in the stories they cover is anathema. It goes against good journalistic practice to have a personal stake in the news that one covers. And, for more than two decades, I studiously avoided that. But I have been part of this story from the beginning, and I hope to be part of it for years to come. And much of i t is yet to be told: as of this writing, we are merely starting the two year agreement with City and County of Denver Media. If I get a chance, Ill come back by in two years and add a chapter as to how the initial agreement went. We can no longer risk t eaching on outmoded, antiquated equipment not just at Auraria Campus, but on any campus Rapid advances in technology from TV newsrooms to recording studios to post production houses could leave our students vulnerable to not being up to date with the sk ills they need to get a job in an ever changing world of electronic media. And while we can always fall back on Marshall McLuhans media equation, they still have to create the medi a with the proper tools to know why the media is the message. Im happy to finally be able to teach more audio control, motion graphics, digital video and more, and actually be able to apply those things in a live broadcast. As to whether or not the terms and conditions behind the financing are acceptable, Im still at a bit of a loss. I dont know yet. It is probably too easy a rationalization to say talk to me in a couple of years, but for now, thats what I will have to say. While I do wonder what will happen with the relationship between our individual schools and City and County of Denver Media, I have no way of really knowing. Like most relationships, its bound to be a bit fluid, and will change over time even 113

PAGE 122

over the next two years. For now, I (and many other colleagues who use the Media Center) will be very busy revamping our classes for the next semester. Its all new to us, too. And we will all have to get in to the studios and figure out all the buttons, all the patch panels, and all the accessories so that we can teach our own students. And we dont have much time; the fall semester starts in mid August, and as I write this epilogue its August first. Just this week, I was trained on all the new equipment. Is it worth the risk of running afoul of City and County of Denver Media with programming that the franchisee doesnt approve? If Met Report, for example, wants to do a story on Comcast raising cable rates for all of Denver County, what happens? If a CU Denver video class wants to put together a documentary on the assumed evils of so called big media, what happens? There are provisions in the intergovernmental agreement that fortunately specify such issues: if Denver Media determines the program is unsuitable for airing, Auraria Media Center doesnt have to come up with a replacement to fulfill the m onthly requirement of twenty hours of programming. The programming we submit, no matter the topic, goes toward the monthly minimum. Whether or not it airs is something I will have to monitor. But this is where I will have to leave the story hanging. I will have to do the first things first. As for the rest? Talk to me in a couple of years. Benjamin Boltz first conceived the idea of the campus cable TV channel in 1984. Thirty years later, it has risen to a point that it can, and has, launched careers i n the media. Many of them are my students, current and former. No matter the ending, I can only hope that the 114

PAGE 123

improvements in Studios A and B give them more of the requisite job skills they need to succeed. And the discussions have had one more effect: c reating more of an atmosphere of cooperation, at least to begin with, when discussing Studios A and B. In the past, different departments within the same university would jockey for position to obtain their preferred class times, not to mention universitie s competing against each other. But now, projects involving both universities working on the same thing for Channel 54 have been openly discussed, and I am part of those ongoing discussions. As three schools, we share one video facility, and perhaps more cooperation would make everyones jobs easier. Class conflicts will still happen, and scheduling changes by both schools will need to be accommodated. That much will not change unless one school builds an entirely separate video production facility for its students. While those discussions have occurred at both schools, and CU Denver is building a black box type facility in the Tivoli Student Union, CU TVFP Chair David Liban has expressed a strong desire to keep some of CU Denver s class es in the Auraria M edia Center, but the specific number isnt yet known (Liban, 2015) This is all very new, and changing rapidly Nonetheless, it is a vast improvement over a scant three years ago when I started as the Met Report advisor, and ten years ago when I started teaching radio and television courses at what was then Metropolitan State College of Denver. Change is always hard, and perhaps more so in some facets of higher education. At Auraria Campus, the television studios represent big changes that we will all somehow need to embrace. 115

PAGE 124

WORKS CITED 5280 Broadcast. (2015, May 15). Review sample projects from our portfolio. Retrieved from 5280 Broadcast: http://5280broadcast.com/broadcast cable data projects/ A.C. Nielsen Company. (2014). Local television market universe estimates. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from Nielsen: http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielsen_20142015_DMA_Ranks.pdf A.C. Nielsen Company. (2015). Radio market survey population, rankings and information spring 2015. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from Market Survey Rankings, Frequency, Type and Population: http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/docs/nielsenaudio/market_populations_and_rankings_2015.pdf Arizona State University. (2015, July 21). Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Retrieved from ASU: http://cronkite.asu.edu/ Ashman, A. (2007, May 15). School of Schlock. Retrieved from The Village Voice: http://www.villagevoice.com/music/schoolof schlock 6425083 Associa ted Press. (2015, May 5). Governor Scott Walker's UW proposal dead in Legislature, cuts debated. Retrieved from Fox 6 Now: http://fox6now.com/2015/05/05/governor scott walkers uw proposal dead in legislature cuts debated/ Association for Career & Technical Education. (2015, July 2). Policy and advocacy. Retrieved from Carl D. Perkins Act: https://www.acteonline.org/perkins/#.VZWotflVhBc August Grant, J. M. (2010). Communication Technology Update and Fundamentals. Danvers, MA: Focal Press. Auraria Higher Edu cation Center. (2014). About us. Retrieved from For campus faculty and staff: http://www.ahec.edu/for campus faculty staff/academicservices/aurariamedia center/contact us mediacenter/ Auraria Higher Education Center. (2014). AHEC leadership. Retrieved f rom Auraria Higher Edication Center: http://www.ahec.edu/about aurariacampus/ahecleadership/ Auraria Higher Education Center. (2014). Annual report 20132014. AHEC. Denver: AHEC. Auraria Higher Education Center. (2014). Auraria Media Center. Retrieved fr om AHEC for campus faculty and staff: http://www.ahec.edu/for campus faculty staff/academic services/auraria media center/ Auraria Higher Education Center. (2015). About Auraria higher education center. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from About Auraria Campur: ht tp://www.ahec.edu/about aurariacampus/about the auraria campus/ 116

PAGE 125

Auraria Higher Education Center. (2015). Auraria board of directors. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from About Auraria Campus: http://www.ahec.edu/about auraria campus/boardof directors/board membe rs/ Bazaar vs. Fortune, 476 F.2d 570, 574 (5th Cir. 1973) (5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals May 9, 1973). Bell Policy Center. (2003, April). Colorado's TABOR. Retrieved from The Bell Policy Center: https://bellpolicy.org/node/1196 Bell Policy Center. (2003, April). Referendum C. Retrieved from The Bell Policy Center: https://bellpolicy.org/node/1197 Bereit, M. (2015). Mark Bereit Resume. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from Mark Bereit: http://www.markbereit.com/resume/index.html Biddle, S. (2013, June 3). Dr. Dre unveils incoherent college degree in "disruption". Retrieved from ValleyWag: http://valleywag.gawker.com/dr dre unveils incoherent college degree in disruptio511036952 Bilek, C. (2015, May 13). Executive Producer for Newsgathering, KMGH TV, Denver, CO. ( R. Strong, Interviewer) Blackmagic Design. (2010, August 12). Blackmagic Design acquires Echolab. Retrieved from Press Releases: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/press/release/20100812 01 Broadband Cable Association of Pennsylvania. (2004, October). Histor y of cable television. Retrieved from The Early Days: http://www.pcta.com/about/history.php Brooks, E. (2015, July 12). Digidesign Cofounder. (N. O. Program, Interviewer) Retrieved from https://www.namm.org/library/oralhistory/evanbrooks Brown, T. (2001). The effects of TABOR on municipal revenues and spending in Colorado. Center for Colorado Policy Studies 19. Bruce, D. (2015, 1 June). Douglas Bruce. Retrieved from Douglas Bruce: http://www.douglasbruce.com/ C.F. Murphy Associates. (1976). Architect' s statement on the Auraria Library. Denver: CFMA. Callais, H. (1997, September 22). State, private money improving higher education. Retrieved from Letters: http://tb4cz3en3e.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.882004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF 8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:jour nal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=STATE%2C+PRIVATE+MONEY+IMPROVING+HI GHER+E Campos, P. (2015, April 4). The real reason college tuition costs so much. Retrieved from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the real reason collegetuition costs so much.html?_r=0 117

PAGE 126

Carpentier, V. (2012). Public private substitution in higher education: has cost sharing gone too far? Higher Education Quarterly 363390. Ce nter For Media and Democracy. (2015, June 23). Why do we pay a PEG fee on our cable bill? Retrieved from Center For Media and Democracy: https://www.cctv.org/news/why do we pay peg feeour cablebill Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2013, Februar y 15). Policy basics: taxpayer bill of rights (TABOR). Retrieved from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy basics taxpayer billof rights tabor CenturyLink. (2015, June 23). CenturyLink Prism. Retrieved from Get Prism TV in Denver: http://www.centurylink.com/prismtv/#index.html City and County of Denver Media & Auraria Higher Educartion Center. (2014, October 11). Intergovernmental agreement. Intergovernmental agreement between City and County of Denver Media (d/b/a Comcast) and Auraria Higher Education Center Denver, CO, USA: City and County of Denver Media. City of Denver. (2015, May). Education access. Retrieved from Denver Media Services: https://www.denvergov.org/mediaservices/MediaServices/CableTVFranchise/Public Acc essStations/EducationAccess/tabid/444297/Default.aspx Clarke, R. (2014, September 18). Despite rankings, Cronkite trumps top competition in value. Retrieved from The State Press: http://www.statepress.com/article/2014/09/despite rankings cronkite trumps topcompetition in value College in Colorado. (2013, May). The College Opportunity Fund. Retrieved from College in Colorado: https://content.xap.com/media/12409/cof_chart_201415.pdf Colorado Commission on Higher Education. (2013). Higher education in Col orado: our challenges and our goals. Denver, CO: Colorado Commission on Higher Education. Colorado Commission on Higher Education. (2013). Tuition and fees report: fiscal year 20122013. Denver, CO: State of Colorado. Colorado Communications and Utility Al liance. (2015, May). About Us. Retrieved from Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance: http://coloradocua.org/index.html Colorado Department of Higher Education. (2015). History. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from The History of the Colorado Commission on H igher Education and the Department of Higher Education: http://highered.colorado.gov/CCHE/history.html Comcast. (2015, June 23). Understand taxes and surcharges on your bill. Retrieved from Comcast Business: http://businesshelp.comcast.com/help and support /accounts billing/mostcommontaxes fees surcharges onbill/ 118

PAGE 127

Community College of Denver. (2015, May). Cashier's office. Retrieved from Tuition Rates Per Credit Hour: https://www.ccd.edu/administration/nonacademicdepartments/cashiers office/tuition rates credit hour Community College of Denver. (2015). CCD history. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from About CCD: https://www.ccd.edu/about ccd/ccd history Community College of Denver. (2015). Steps to successful application for new students. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from Apply to CCD Today: https://www.ccd.edu/files/arr steps enrollment worksheet2015.pdf Community College of Denver. (2015, June 1). Workforce initiative now (WIN). Retrieved from Community College of Denver: https://www.ccd.edu/org/workforce initiative now win Concerning Higher Education Flexibility to Improve the Financial Position of State Institutions of Higher Education, 10003 (Colorado State Senate May 6, 2010). Concerning the Creation of an Outcomes Based Funding Model for Higher Education, and, i n Connection Therewith, Making and Reducing Appropriations, 141319 (69th General Assembly, State of Colorado April 17, 2014). Cotton, A. (2014, March 13). Colorado House speaker pushes bill to shake up higher ed funding. Retrieved from Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_25332188/coloradohouse speaker pushes billshake uphigher Courtnage, K. (2015, February 11). Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center. (R. Strong, Interviewer) Courtnage, K. (2015, May 28). Chief Engineer, Auraria Media Center (R. Strong, Interviewer) Cozart, J. (2015, May 12). General Manager, Met Report and Noticiero TV Met. (R. Strong, Interviewer) Daniel Howard, F. L. (2013). The new normal in funding university science. Issues in Science and Technology Davis, R. (1984, S eptember 5). The Metropolitan. Retrieved from The Metropolitan: http://issuu.com/themetonline/docs/1984_0905_v7i3/1 Dell, P. (2015, July 12). The power of audio: the neglected half of the video equation. Retrieved from ONA14, Chicago: http://ona14.journal ists.org/suggestions/the power of audiothe neglected half of the video equation/ Dominguez, R. (2014). Discussion with Met Report Staff. Metropolitan State University of Denver, Office of Student Media. Denver: MSU Denver Office of Student Media. Doyle, J D. (2014). State spending on higher education capital outlays. Research in Higher Education, 433466. 119

PAGE 128

eBay. (2015). Iris technologies PX1600B video commander. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from eBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Iris Technologies PX1600B Video Comm ander /250923502065 Federal Communications Commission. (1990). Cable television basic service rates: FCC notice of proposed rulemaking. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. Federal Communications Commission. (2007, April). VHF/UHF narrowbandi ng FAQs. Retrieved from FCC Public Safety Spectrum: https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/public safety spectrum/narrowbanding faq.html Federal Communications Commission. (2008, July). The public and broadcasting. Retrieved from Federal Communications Commission : https://www.fcc.gov/guides/public and broadcasting july 2008 Federal Communications Commission. (2014). Evolution of cable television. Retrieved from The FCC: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/evolutioncabletelevision#sec7 Federal Communications Commission. (2015, May). Evolution of cable television. Retrieved from Federal Communications Commission: https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/evolutioncabletelevision Fender, J. (2011, December 22). Douglas Bruce convicted of tax evasion, faces prison time. Retriev ed from Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_19597660 Fender, J. (2012, February 14). Doug Bruce sentenced to 180 days in jail, six years of strict probation for tax evasion. Retrieved from The Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_19958114 Ferran dino, M. (2015, January 24). Colorado's new higher education funding model. Retrieved from The Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_27380544/new higher education funding model Forbes. (2015, June 1). The world's billionaires. Retrieved from Forbes: ht tp://www.forbes.com/profile/philip anschutz/ Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. (2006, January 17). Governors State University: censorship of student newspaper. Retrieved from foundation for Individual Rights in Education: https://www.thefire.o rg/cases/governors state university censorshipof student newspaper/ Fowles, J. (2014). Funding and focus: resource dcependence in public higher education. Research in Higher Education, 272287. Furrer, J. (2015). MSU Denver broadcasting. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from Department of Communication Arts and Sciences: http://catalog.msudenver.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=19&poid=4245&print 120

PAGE 129

Garza, L. M. (2012, August 21). College newspapers fight for rights, against censorship. Retrieved from College: http://co llege.usatoday.com/2012/08/21/college newspapers fight forrights against censorship/ Gilmore, G. J. (2005, July 5). Fitzsimons closure attracts investments, hightech jobs. Retrieved from DoD News: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16726 Gol dberg, M. (2015, May 19). This is what happens when you slash public funding for universities. Retrieved from The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/article/207697/gentrification higher ed Goldfarb, C. B. (2011). Public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access cable television channels: issues for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Gordon, E. E. (2015). Advanced measures of music audiation. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from GIA Publications: Music Education For Life: https://www.giamusic. com/products/P 3372.cfm Grove City College vs. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (United States Supreme Court February 28, 1984). Hazlett, T. (2004, March 16). Local motives: why the FCC should scrap its absurd rules for satellite radio. Retrieved from Slate: http://www. slate.com/articles/arts/gizmos/2004/03/local_motives.html Hazlewood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 620 (United States Supreme Court January 13, 1988). Hobbs, S. (2015, April 21). Douglas Bruce accused of assault, wanted in Denver. Retrieved from T he Gazette: http://gazette.com/douglas bruceaccused of assault wanted in denver/article/1550078 Holzman Moss Bottino Architecture. (2011). Design charette for Auraria Library. Denver: Humphries Poli Architects. Hoover, T. (2013). TABOR at twenty. National Conference of State Legislatures 2023. Jordan, D. S. (2013, February). A tale of two cities: using public private partnerships to create higher education opportunities. Trusteeship pp. 2831. Retrieved from MSU Denver Media. Keller, M. (2015, May 15). Director, Auraria Media Center. (R. Strong, Interviewer) Kerstcher, T. (2015, February 20). With Scott Walker's $300 million budget cut looming, UW Madison says it doesn't have reserves to tap. Retrieved from Journal Sentinel PolitiFact Wisconsin: http://w ww.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/feb/20/rebecca blank/scott walkers 300 million budget cut looming uw ma/ Kincaid vs. Gibson, 236 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (6th U.S. Diostrict Court January 3, 2001). 121

PAGE 130

Kingkade, T. (2014, July 28). Religious colleges are getting legal permission to discriminate against trans students. Retrieved from HuffPost College: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/28/religious colleges trans students_n_5624139.html Klawe, M. (2015, May 28). Getting the university in dustry partnership right ... or not. Retrieved from NACE: National Association of Colleges and Employers: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0407s.pdf Lansing, E. (2015, May 12). Director, Metro State Broadcast Network. (R. Strong, Interviewer) Lee, K. (2014, March 7). Federal appeals court rules Colorado TABOR lawsuit can move forward. Retrieved from The Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25297712/10thcircuit court rules colorado tabor lawsuitcan Liban, D. (2015, April 24). Chair, CU D enver Theatre, Video and Film Production Department. (R. Strong, Interviewer) Liptak, A. (2015, June 29). Supreme Court rebuffs lawmakers over independent redistricting panel. Retrieved from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme cour t upholds creation of arizona redistricting commission.html?_r=2 Marriott. (2015, June 1). Metropolitan State University of Denver: hands on experience, real world results. Retrieved from SpringHill Suites Marriott: http://www.springhillsuitesdenver.com/me tropolitan state university/ Martinez, D. S. (2015). Summary of proposed Qwest Broadband Services (CenturyLink) cable television franchise; comparison to Comcast franchise. Denver, CO: City and County of Denver. Matrix Design Group. (2015, 1 June). Fitzimo ns redevelopment. Retrieved from Matrix Design Group: http://www.matrixdesigngroup.com/Projects/Environmental/Fitzsimons Redevelopment.php Matthews, M. K. (2015, June 30). Supreme Court sends TABOR lawsuit back to appeals court: Arizona redistricting case to play role. Retrieved from Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28407150/supreme court sends tabor lawsuitback appeals court McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGrawHill. McPhail, I. (2011). Industry ca n help us diversify. ASEE Prism 80. Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation. (2015, May). Communities. Retrieved from Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation: http://www.metrodenver.org/dobusiness/communities/ 122

PAGE 131

Metropolitan State University of Denver. (2012). Metro State U! Metro State community invited to "name change" bill signing ceremony, April 18 in the SSB. Denver, CO: Metropolitan State University of Denver. Metropolitan State University of Denver. (2013). About MSU Denver. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from Metropolitan State University: Lives Transformed: http://www.msudenver.edu/factsheet/ Metropolitan State University of Denver. (2015). Admissions. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from Requirements (Age 19 and Younger) : http://www.msudenver.edu/adm issions/apply/first timeundergraduate/requirementsage19andyounger/ Metropolitan State University of Denver. (2015, May). Admissions. Retrieved from Cost: http://www.msudenver.edu/admissions/cost/ Metropolitan State University of Denver. (2015). Applicants 20 years of age and older. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from MSU Denver Admissions: http://www.msudenver.edu/admissions/apply/first timeundergraduate/requirementsage20andover/ MFG Pages. (2015). Iris technologies, INC. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from MGFPages.com: http://www.mfgpages.com/company/Iris Technologies Inc in PENNSYLVANIAUSA5202243/ Michael Mitchell, M. L. (2015). Years of cuts threaten to put college out of reach for more students. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Washington, DC: Center on Budg et and Policy Priorities. Military.com. (2015, 1 June). The Fitzsimons Army medical center. Retrieved from Military.com: http://www.military.com/HomePage/UnitPageHistory/1,13506,107883%7C879035,00.h tml Mitchell, K. (2012, June 1). Freed anti tax activist D ouglas Bruce deplores jail conditions. Retrieved from The Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_20756102/freedanti tax activistdouglas bruce deplores jail Mitchell, M. (2014, May 1). States are still funding higher education below pre recession level s. Retrieved from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: http://www.cbpp.org/research/states are stillfunding higher education below pre recession levels MSU Denver. (2015, February 4). Bright lights, big city ... and a cool job. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from MSU Denver Newsroom: http://msudenver.edu/newsroom/news/2015/february/04 robert dominguez alumni profile.shtml 123

PAGE 132

Muir vs. Alabama Educational Foundation, 688 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 1983 (5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals October 23, 1982). NACUA. (2012, December 4). FCC's $10,000 fines against college radio station. Retrieved from Higher Ed Compliance: http://www.higheredcompliance.org/resources/resources/CollegeRadio.pdf National Science Board. (2012). Diminishing funding and rising expectations: trends and challenges for public research universities. Washington, DC: National Science Board. New York State Board of Education. (2015, July 02). Office of postsecondary access, support and success. Retrieved from Collegiate Development: http: //www.highered.nysed.gov/kiap/colldev/VTEA/ New York University. (2015, July 21). Course Offerings Retrieved from NYU Recorded Music: http://clivedavisinst.tisch.nyu.edu/page/courses.html Newman, K. M. (2004). Radioactive: advertising and consumer activis m, 19351947. Berkeley : University of California Press. Owens, D. W. (2013). An examination of job skills required by top U.S. broadcast news companies and potential impact on journalism curricula. Electronic News 22353. Pedreza, J. M. (2015, February). Next generation of broadcast meteorologists have new state of the art equipment to keep an eye on the sky. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from University of North Dakota: http://und.edu/features/2015/02/weather wizardry.cfm Piccolotto, M. (2015, July 12). Improv ing audio for video production. Retrieved from Kessler University: http://www.kessleru.com/2014/07/signal to noise improving audioforvideoproduction/ Pittsburg State University Press and Media. (2014, March 6). Student broadcasters upgrade to HD equipme nt. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from Pittsburg State University: http://www.pittstate.edu/news/studentbroadcasters upgrade to hdequipment Potomac Instruments, Inc. (2015). AG 51 audio generator. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from Potomac Instruments, Inc. : http://www.pi usa.com/ag51/ag51g.htm Povitch, E. S. (2015, March 27). To balance budgetsm, governors seek higher education cuts. Retrieved from Pew Charitable Trusts: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research and analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/3/27/to balancebudget s governors seek higher education cuts Quinterno, J. (2012). The Great Cost Shift. New York: Demos. Riley, T. (2012, December 19). The FCC, the public interest and the blue book. Retrieved from Moyers and Comoany: http://billmoyers.com/2012/12/19/the fcct he blue bookand the public interest/ 124

PAGE 133

Rivard, R. (2015, January 19). Checkered recovery continues. Retrieved from Inside Higher Ed: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/19/higher ed spendingmost states recession stillstings Robles, Y. (2015, April 23). Colorado Senate committee kills proposal to change Metro's admission. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27975932/coloradohouse committee kills proposal changemetros admission Rogoway, M. (2015, May 13). Cen turyLink launches cable TV in Portland, challenging Comcast. Retrieved from The Oregonian: http://www.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/index.ssf/2015/05/centurylink_launches_cable_tv.html Rowland, D. (2015, July 6). Engineer, 5280 Broadcast. (R. Strong, Inter viewer) Sav, G. T. (2010). Private giving crowding government funding in public higher education. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 293299. Scott Flick, J. N. (2015, May 27). FCC enforcement monitor. Retrieved from Comm Law Center : http://www.commlawcenter.com/2015/05 Simpson, I. (2015, May 15). An entire class of USC art students leaves school after Dean pisses them off. Retrieved from LA Weekly: http://www.laweekly.com/arts/an entireclass of usc art students leaves school after dean pissesthem off5581808 Stapleton, W. (2014, October 8). Department of the treasury. Retrieved from Colorado: the official web portal: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Treasury_v2/CBON/1251590030644 StartClass. (2015). University of Colorado Denve r. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from StartClass Detail: http://colleges.startclass.com/l/659/University of ColoradoDenver State of Colorado. (2015, June 1). Constitutional provisions. Retrieved from Colorado: Department of the Treasury: http://www.colorado.gov /cs/Satellite/Treasury_v2/CBON/1251592160342 Stromberg, M. (2015, May 15). Entire firstyear MFA class drops out in protest at the University of Southern California. Retrieved from Hyperallergic: http://hyperallergic.com/207235/entire first year mfa class drops out in protest at the university of southern california/ Student Press Law Center. (1987, October). KCSB FM responds to FCC investigation. Retrieved from Report : http://list.msu.edu/cgibin/wa?A3=ind9701c&L=AEJMC&E=7BIT&P=41339&B= -&T=TEXT%2FPLAIN;% 20charset=US ASCII Student Press Law Center. (2015, February 2). High school students, teachers confront student media censorship. Retrieved from SPLC: http://www.splc.org/article/2015/02/high school students teachers confront student mediacensorship 125

PAGE 134

Student Press Law Center. (2015, July 13). The First Amendment on the air. Retrieved from Guide To Broadcast Press Freedom for Student Journalists: http://www.splc.org/article/2000/05/the first amendment onthe air_0501#fn111838951953fe33168ff6a studioINSITE. (2007). Auraria higher education center master plan update 2007. Denver: Sasaki Associates. TABOR Alliance. (2005). TABOR benefits Colorado's cirizens: a response to misleading video. Denver, CO: TABOR Alliance. Taylor, C. T. (2006). Higher education in Colorado: an economic empire running on empty. Colorado Succeeds Denver, Colorado, USA: Colorado Succeeds. Tetzloff, R. (2014, July 29). CM's Top 10 journalism schools 2014. Retrieved from College Magazine: http://www.collegemagazine.com/cms top10journali sm schools for2014 The Aurora Sentinel. (2015, July 2). Editorial: Answer TABOR problems before Supreme Court does. Retrieved from Aurora Sentinel: http://www.aurorasentinel.com/opinion/editorial answer tabor problems before supreme court does/ Thelin, J. R. (2013). Success and excess: the contours and character of American higher education since 1960. Society, 106114. Theobald, B. (2014, November 30). Obama financial aid plan sparks fight over for profit colleges. Retrieved from AZ Central: http://www.az central.com/story/news/local/arizona/2014/12/01/obama financial aid plan sparks fight profit colleges/19721129/ To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide a national policy regarding cable television, Public Law 98 549 (United States Congress October 30, 1984). Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, 69 F.C.C.2d 1394 (Federal Communications Commission 1979). U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Public education finances 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. University of Colorado Denver. (2015). Admi ssion requirements for freshman students. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from CU Admissions: http://www.ucdenver.edu/admissions/bachelors/freshman/Pages/AdmissionsRequiremen ts.aspx University of Colorado Denver. (2015). BFA theatre, film & television film and t elevision emphasis. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from Department of Theatre, Film & Video Production: http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/CAM/advising/degrees/Documents/advisi ng_sheets_1314/201314_BFA_Film_TV.pdf 126

PAGE 135

University of Colorado Denver. (2015). CCHE admission eligibility index. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from University of Colorado Denver Admission Requirements: http://www.ucdenver.edu/admissions/Documents/admission_index.pdf University of Colorado Denver. (2015). Consolidation background. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from History of Consolidation: http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/WhoWeAre/about/Pages/Consolidationbackground.aspx University of Colorado Denver. (2015, May). Helping your student with housing. Retrieved from Finding Off Campus Housing: http://w ww.ucdenver.edu/life/services/housing/Living off Campus/Pages/Off Campus Housing.aspx University of Colorado Denver. (2015). History. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from About Us: http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/WhoWeAre/about/Pages/history.aspx University of Color ado Denver. (2015, June 1). The power of partnership. Retrieved from University of Colorado Denver: http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/WhoWeAre/community/partnership/Pages/default.aspx University of Colorado Denver. (2015, May). Undergraduate tuition and fees. Retrieved from Costs and Financing: http://www.ucdenver.edu/student services/resources/CostsAndFinancing/tuition/undergrad/Pages/Denver.aspx University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus. (2014). Economic contributions: University of Colorado Denve r Anschutz Medical Campus. Denver, CO: University of Colorado Denver. University of Southern California. (2015, July 9). Catalogue 2014/15. Retrieved from Iovine and Young Academy: http://catalogue2014.usc.edu/schools/usc iovine and youngacademy/courses o f instruction/ University of Southern California. (2015, July 9). Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre. Retrieved from Founders: http://iovine young.usc.edu/program/speakers/Jimmy Iovine and Dr Dre 6.html University of Southern California. (2015, July 9). The degree i s in disruption. Retrieved from Iovine Young USC: http://iovine young.usc.edu/ US Census Bureau. (2004). Public school finances 2004. Washington, DC: US Department of the Census. Vacarelli, J. (2015, May 6). Metropolitan State University of Denver celebrat es completion of Regency Athletic Complex. Retrieved from YourHub Denver: http://www.denverpost.com/denver/ci_28064312/msudenver celebrates completion regency athletic complex 127

PAGE 136

Waits, J. (2015, June 18). $1,200 civil penalty for college radio station WMEB for public file violations. Retrieved from Radio Survivor: http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2015/06/18/1200civilpenalty forcollege radio station wmeb for public file violations/ Wenmouth Williams, J. &. (1987). Perceived impact of the Cable Policy Act of 1984. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 193205. Whaley, M. (2013, October 24). TABOR group sues 2 special districts RTD, SCFD over new tax. Retrieved from Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24379305/tabor groupsues 2special districts rtd scfd Wortham, J. (2013, May 14). Two musical minds seek a different kind of mogul. Retrieved from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/technology/dr dre and jimmy iovine start usc program.html?_r=0 Zaller, J. (2010, May 20). Echolab goes into liquidation. Retrieved from Devoncraft: Broadcast and Digital Media Market Research, Strategic Consulting and Analysis: http://blog.devoncroft.com/2010/05/20/echolabgoes into liquidation/ 128

PAGE 137

APPENDIX A : INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Aur aria Higher Education Campus and City and County of Denver Denver Media Services (Operation of Comcast Educational Access Channel and Content) THI S INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the "IGA") made between the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado ("City"), and the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER, a body corporate and agency of the State of Colorado, ("AHEC"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the City has a cable franchise agreement with Comcast and is responsibl e for identifying the 'Designated Access Providers' under Section 9 of that agreement "...to control and manage the use of any and all Access facilities provided by Grantee...". Comcast has currently assigned Channel 54 as one of those Access facilities. W HEREAS, the City has identified and assigned AHEC as a Designated Access Provider for this education access channel on the cable lineup until the channel is unavailable, as provided for in Section 9.2(E) of the agreement with Comcast. After that time, AH EC will become a Designated Access Programming Provider. AHEC's video content will air on one or more of the other access channels and possibly any future digital and or highdefinition channels assigned to the City in future franchise agreements with Comc ast or any other cable operator. WHEREAS, this IGA covers the operation of one educational access channel for as long as allowable by the City's cable franchise agreement(s) and applicable federal law. It also establishes AHEC as a video content provider once Comcast removes the cable access channel 54, which AHEC currently manages for the City. In addition, it approves the purchase of educational access video/audio equipment utilizing the City's Public/Education/Government ("PEG") Fund for the purpose of providing content for the City's cable access channels. WHEREAS, the City will provide AHEC 30 days notice when Ch. 54 will no longer be a City assigned access channel. On the following business day, AHEC will become a Cable Access Video Content Provider f or the City. The City and AHEC win work to identify blocks of time on one or more of the City's Cable Access Channels, to air AHEC originally produced programming. This programming block will formalize by the end of the 1st quarter of 2015. 129

PAGE 138

NOW, THERE FORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the parties hereto it is understood and agreed as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS: A. "Agreement" or "Management Agreement" shall mean this Management Agreement. B. "Annual Work Plan" shall mean AHEC's specific video cont ent delivery initiatives for the term of this IGA. C. "Progress Reporting" shall mean AHEC documenting educational access content development accomplishments and successes during the tenure of this agreement. D. "Auditor" shall mean the Auditor of the City or De nver Media Services official representative. E. "Cable Provider" shall mean every franchise provider of cable services in the City. F. "City" shall mean the City and County of Denver. Whenever in this Agreement any approval or authorization is required to be given by the "City" the term shall mean the Council, except as otherwise provided. G. "Comcast Franchise" shall mean the Franchise approved by the City pursuant to Ordinance No. 39 CBB0975. H. "AHEC" shall mean Auraria Higher Education Center comprised of the three institutions, Metropolitan State University of Denver, University of Colorado at Denver and Community College of Denver: AHEC I. "AHEC Media Center" shall mean the location(s) managed by AHEC on behalf of the three institutions, Metropolitan S tate University of Denver, University of Colorado at Denver and Community College of Denver related to services provided by AHEC hereunder, including, without limitation, this Agreement. J. "AHEC Intellectual Property" shall mean any and all Intellectual Pro perty Rights (as defined below) of AHEC, whether developed prior to or during the term of this Agreement, whether or not developed or created by AHEC in connection with performance of this Agreement. K. "AHEC's Proposal" shall mean the access content developm ent programming plan submitted to the City by AHEC. L. "Council" shall mean the City Council of the City M. "Designated Access Provider" shall have the same meaning as is provided in the Comcast Franchise or any similar provision of any other Franchise. N "Director" shall mean the Director of Denver Media Services, his/her designated representative, or the City's designated representative. 130

PAGE 139

2. SCOPE OF W ORK. The City hereby identifies AHEC and the Auraria Campus as a Designated Access Video Content Provi der for the City, to air on one or more of the City's Cable Access Channels provided under every Franchise granted by the City. AHEC will provide 20 hours monthly of Auraria Campus originally produced programming, created by Auraria Campus Entities which i nclude, but not limited to, all campus departments, student organizations, campus recreation, other campus educational affiliates, and students enrolled in the colleges and universities in partnership with and surrounding the Auraria Higher Education Campus. 3. CHANNEL ASSIGNMENT. Comcast is changing the channel 54 assignment, which takes effect approximately during the first quarter 2015. The City will provide AHEC 30 days notice when Ch. 54 will no longer be an assigned education access channel. On the 31st day, AHEC will become a content provider for the City's cable access channels. The City and AHEC will work to identify blocks of time on one or more of the City's Cable Access Channels to air AHEC's produced programming. This programming block of time will be identified and established by the end of the 4th quarter of 2014. 4. CONTENT. AHEC agrees to provide 20 hours of AHEC and AHEC Campus related programming to the City on a date agreed upon mutually by both parties for each month of the IGA. AHEC may provide more than 20 hours of AHEC, or AHEC Campus related content per month when feasible by AHEC. AHEC and the AHEC Campus commits that this content will be representative of the quality and integrity of the institutions that are providing this content but m akes no claims as to the suitability for airing on the Public Access Channels. The suitability for airing will be at the sole discretion of the City. lf the City deems the content provided unsuitable for airing, AHEC and/or the AHEC Campus has no obligatio n to provide additional content to meet the original 20 hour commitment for the given month. AHEC and the AHEC Campus will make a good faith effort to provide unique and/or original programming; programming may be resubmitted as part of the 20 hour per mo nth commitment to the City. AHEC shall provide a Video Content Development and Deliverables Program Plan to the City. This City and AHEC agreed upon program plan, will be used by the City to assist with oversight and auditing, which is a requirement of rec eiving capital equipment funding via the City's Franchise Agreement with Comcast. Current funding and future capital equipment support is contingent upon performance. AHEC program plan submission is due no later than September 30, 2014. This Work Plan shal l include, but not limited to the following information: 131

PAGE 140

A. The anticipated total number of hours, with no less than 20 hours per month, of AHEC locally produced programming to be provided to the City's Denver Media Services a. A statement of programm ing goals, which shall contain a description of the programming to be provided to the Denver Media Services, along with a narrative description of the following. i. A summary of the established partnerships AHEC Media Cente r: has with departments and instructors to produce content suitable to air over Comcast cable access channels. The content plan provided will be reviewed by the DMS Director and content outlined is subject to a quality acceptance process prior to air/playback over the cable access channel( s). ii. A content creation timeline, which provides an overview of the process AHEC will utilize to coordinate with DMS to air the 20 plus hours of programming to be air over the cable access channel(s). iii. Planned AHEC use of the capital equi pment supported by the capital funding provided by the City. Include a description of curriculum and each course offered requiring the use of the capital equipment provided by the City. Provide estimated 2015 student enrollment figures, specifically around the courses that will utilize the new TV and video equipment provided by the City. iv. Identify recommended air/replay time slots for provided programming. 5. Participate in annual marketing/outreach initiatives, which promotes AHEC student video content pr oduction accomplishments utilizing the AHEC Media Center, and highlights the partnership between the Auraria Campus and The Denver Media Center and the City of Denver C. AHEC will be granted a 4 hour of time on a pre -designated l ist of Friday s for cablecast of certain Auraria Campus programs identified in AHEC program plan. D. The identified 20 plus hours of AHEC provided programming will air on one, or more, of Comcast assigned cable access channels no later than March 27, 2015. E. Denver Media Service will be pl aced on the Auraria Campus list of places that Auraria Campus students can apply for internship. Internships are voluntary and competitive by nature at Metropolitan State University of Denver and University of Colorado at Denver. In the case of both school s, internship possibilities need to be previously vetted by the respective university before students can apply: For Metropolitan State University of Denver, internships are controlled by The Internship Program, and the intern coordinator. Internships thro ugh University of Colorado at Denver are handled through their Office of Experiential Learning. 132

PAGE 141

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT. A. Section 9.6 of the cable franchise agreement with Comcast identifies the "Capital Contribution," sometimes called the "PEG Fee", which coll ects revenue from subscribers for the procurement of video and audio capital equipment for all Designated Access Providers. The City will provide AHEC capital equipment funding to assist AHEC with delivering and meeting Section 4 CON T ENT of this agreement. B. AHEC shall submit a capital equipment improvement plan/designs and capital equipment list to the Director of Denver Media Services for review and approval no later than September 30, 2014. The lists shall include requested equipment, man ufacturer, unit cost, quantity, purpose, total cost, and available model number. AHEC shall receive notification of the status of equipment approval within 10 business days starting the next business day of the City's receipt. Approval of the requested equipment is at the sole discretion of the Director. Approval of all or part of the request shall be dependent, in part, on the amount of PEG Fee revenue; and the City Cable Access Channel Provider equipment demands. Upon approval from the Director, the City shall disburse AHEC up to $453,000.00 based on the above approved capital equipment list. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, the City's maximum payment obligation will not exceed FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($453,000.00) (the "Maximum Contract Amount''). The City is not obligated to execute an Agreement or any amendments for any further services, including any services performed by Consultant beyond that specifically described in Exhibit A. Any services performed beyond those in Exhibit A are performed at Consultant's risk and without authorization under the Agreement. The City's payment obligation, whether direct or contingent, extends only to funds appropriated annually by the Denver City Council, paid into the Treasury of the City, and encumbered for the purpose of the Agreement. The City does not by this Agreement irrevocably pledge present cash reserves for payment or performance in future fiscal years. The Agreement does not and is not intende d to create a multip1e fiscal year direct or indirect debt or financial obligation of the City. C. AHEC shall utilize its internal purchasing processes to procure its equipment. The City shall also conduct a quarterly review with AHEC to confirm the status of approved equipment purchases. If the cost of approved capital equipment is lower than or i ginally identified, AHEC may submit additional capital items to the DMS Director for review and approval, to utilize the savings. D. All procured equipment by AHEC for its purposes is the property of AHEC and placed on its inventory. Any costs associated with damage or theft of AHEC's equipment shall be the responsibility of AHEC. E. Upon complete execution of this IGA and upon delivery of required documentation outlined in this IGA to the City's satisfaction, AHEC may submit an invoice after 30 days to the City for the capital equipment amount granted of $453,000. The invoice AHEC submits for capital equipme nt purchases shall be submitted to the City based on the City approved equipment list. Payment will be pursuant to the City's Prompt Payment Ordinance or sooner if noted by AHEC with approved reasoning for the expedited payment request. F. AHEC shall maintain the audio and video capital equipment and AHEC shall bear the financial burden of the capital maintenance of the capital equipment 133

PAGE 142

provided by the City in connection with this agreement. AHEC shall maintain all of the pr ovided capital equipment in good working order, and shall, when necessary to comply with this obligation, coordinate the repair or replacement of such equipment to ensure equipment is working. PERFORMANCE R EPORTS. Accomplishment reports shall be submitted to the City by AHEC bi yearly. The reporting format shall be in a form agreeable to both parties as this will be used for over sight and auditing purposes. PLANS, REPORTS, AND INFORM ATION. At such times and in such form as the City may reasonably requir e, AHEC shall furnish such statements, records, reports, data and information with respect to the equipment and use of the equipment purc hased with PEG funds, as the City may reasonably request and deem pertinent to matters covered by this Agreement. MONI TORING AND EVALUATION. A. The City shall perform on-site monitoring of AHEC's performance under this Agreement. The City shall coordinate the on -site monitoring with the Director of the AHEC Media Center. The monitoring of equipment use will take place to confirm equipment matches approved capital equipment plan, and used is accordance with this IGA and the City's Franchis eAgreement(s). This monitoring of the equipment will take place until all audits have been c onfirmed and confirmation of all equipment agreed upon has been purchased and installed. Any additional monitoring in any way will be at the sole discretion and approval of AHEC but not unreas o nably denied. B. AHEC agrees to reasonably cooperate wit h the City in the development, implementation and maintenance of record keeping systems and to provide data reasonably determined by the City necessary for the City to effectively fulfill its Franchise monitoring and compliance responsibili ties. C AHEC agrees to cooperate in such a way so as not to obstruct or delay the City in such monitoring and to designate one of its staff members to coordinate the monitoring process as requested by City staff. D. After each monitoring visit, the City shall provide AHEC with a written report of monitoring findings within thirty (30) days. 134

PAGE 143

E. On a quarterly basis the City shall conduct an evaluation and audit of equipment monies received by AHEC. Such evaluation will include equipment procured in the previous quarter. AHEC will provide invoices, packing slips, and cancelled warrants proving the approved equipment was purcha sed, installed, and placed on its inventory list. The City will then utilize that documentation to add the equipment to the City's audit records. Any funds spent without adherence to the pre -approved capital procurement plan, will be deducted from future P EG fund appropriations granted and impact how future funds are disbursed and managed. TERM, RENEWAL, TRANSFER, AND T ERMINATION. The Agreement will commence on September 1, 2014 and will expire on September 1, 2016 (the "Term "). This IGA is eligible for renewal for an additional 6 year period. In no instance shall this IGA continue past the term of any cable franchise agreement(s). The City may cancel this IGA with or without cause at any time upon three (3) month written notif ication. AHEC may transfer responsibility for this !GA to another educational institution on the Auraria campus with ninety (90) days written or electronic notice to the City. The new contr o11ing entity must take legal responsibility and co mply with all provisions of the existing IGA. In the case of the City canceling the IGA or the AHEC Media Center transferring the responsibilities of this IGA to any educational institution on the AHEC Campus; the Capital Equipme nt identified in Article 5 Capital Equipment" of this IGA remains the property of AHEC. 6. LIABILITY. Each party to this IGA shall be an independent agent, and either party or such party's agents, officers and employees shall be deemed to be an agent of the other party. Each party waives all claims and causes of action against the other party for compensation, damages, personal injury or death, which may result or occur as a consequence, direct or indire ct, of the performance of this Agreement. AHEC and the City are each responsible for their own negligence and that of their agents, officers and .employees to the extent provided in the Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. 2410101, et seq. No thing in this IGA shall be construed as a waiver of immunity provided by common law or statute, specifically the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, or as an assumption of any duty for the benefit of any third party. 7. EXAMINATION OF RECORDS Each party agrees that any duly authorized representative of the other party, including the City's Auditor or his representative, shall have access and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, document, papers, and records of the parties, involving transactions related to this Agreement. This access and right shall be allowed until the expiration of three (3) years after the final payment under this agreement. 8. NO THIRD PARTY B ENEFICIARY It is expressly understood and agreed that enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the City and AHEC. Nothing contained gives or allows any such claim or right of action by any other or third person or entity on 135

PAGE 144

such IGA, including but not limited to subcontractors, suppliers, AHEC students or any other member of the public. It is the express intention of the City and AHEC that any person or entity other than the City or AHEC rec eiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed to be an incidental beneficiary only. 9. GOVERNING LAW; VENUE. Each term, provision, and condition of this IGA is subject to the provisions of Colorado law, the Charter of the City and County of Denver and the ordinances, and regulations enacted pursuant thereto. Unless otherwise specified, any general or specific reference to statutes, laws, regulations, charter or code provisions, ordinances, executive orders (including memoranda thereto), or contracts, means statutes, laws, regulations, charter or code provisions, ordinances, and executive orders (including memoranda thereto) and contract as amended or supplemented from time to time and any corresponding provisions of successor statues la ws, regulations, charter or code provisions, ordinances, or executive orders (including memoranda thereto) and contracts. Venue for any legal action relating to or arising out of this IGA will be in the District Court of the State of Colorado Second Judici al District. 10. SURVIVAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS. The terms of this IGA and any exhibits and attachments that by reasonable implication contemplate continued performance, rights, or compliance beyond expiration or termination of this 1GA survive this IGA and w ill continue to be enforceable. 11. NO DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT In connection with the performance of work under the IGA, AHEC may not refuse to hire, discharge, promote or demote, or discriminate in matters of compensation against any person otherwise qualified solely because of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, military status, sexual orientation, gender variance, marital status, or physical or mental disability. AHEC shall insert the foregoi ng provision in all subcontracts related to this IGA. USE OF CABLE OPERATOR TRADEMARKS, TRADENAMES, SERVICE MARKS, LOGOS. AHEC shall not use any Cable Operator trademarks, trade names, service marks, logos, or other form of commercial identification, with out the express prior written approval of the Cable Operator; provided, however, that AHEC may identify Public Access Programming as appearing on Public Access channels of the cable TV system. 136

PAGE 145

INFORMATION, REPORTS AND AHEC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. As between the City and AHEC, all AHEC Intellectual Property (including, without limitation, any content, software, documentation or other works of authorship developed by or for AHEC in connection with this Agreement), shall remain the sole and exclusive property of AHEC. And to the extent (if any) the City acquires any rights in such AHEC Intellectual Property, the City hereby irrevocably assigns to AHEC all right, title and interest in and to such AHEC Intellectual Property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a ll Reports, Proposals, Contracts and Correspondence (including any charts, schedules, or other documentation appended thereto) submitted to the City by AHEC shall become the property of the City upon receipt. 12. NOTICES. Notices concerning the termination of this IGA, notices of alleged or actual violations of the terms or conditions of this IGA, and other notices of similar importance shall be made: By AHEC t o: Denver Media Services City and County of Denver 1437 Bannock Street, Room 002 Mailbox #P3 Denver Colorado 80202 By the City t o: Auraria Higher Education Center Attn: CFO Business Services Office, Campus Box B 1201 5th Street, Suite 370 [if personal delivery] P.O. Box 173361 [if USPS] Denver, Colorado 80217-3361 ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES AND ELEC TRONIC RECORDS. AHEC consents to the use of electronic signatures by the City. The IGA, and any other documents requiring a signature hereunder, may be signed electronically by the City in the manner specified by the City. The Parties agree not to deny the legal effect or enforceability of the IGA solely because it is in electronic form, or because an electronic record is being used in its formation. The Parties agree not to object to the admissibility of the IGA in the form of an electronic record, or a paper copy of an electronic document, or a paper copy of a document bearing an electronic signature, on the ground that it is an electronic record or electronic signature or that it is not in its original form or is not the original. 137

PAGE 146

IN WITNESS OF T HE PARTIES' AGREEMENT, AHEC has executed this IGA on the date indicated below: FOR AHEC: Barbara Weiske, Executive Vice President for Administration (CEO) Tax ID No. 841144747 Approved: Approved as to Legal Form: Contract Control Number: TECHS -2 01310939 -00 Contractor Name: Auraria Higher Education Center 138

PAGE 147

B : EQUIPMENT LISTS 139

PAGE 148

140 C : RFP FOR STUDIO REMODELING AURARIA HI G HER EDUCATI O N CENTER REQU E ST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) COVER SHEET Da t e : 2/11/15 RFP Num b e r : AH E C 158 0 0 8 R Aurar i a Hi g h e r Education Cent e r (AH E C) Return all Sealed Proposals t o : Procure m ent Office 1 201 Fifth Street, Suite 37 0 C ampus Box K PO BOX 173361 De n v e r, CO 8 021 7 3 3 61 Purchasing Age n t: Kevin L a ng h orn R FP Openi n g Da t e : 3/16/15 RFP Openi n g Time: 2:00 p.m. ( M ountai n ) BROADC A ST TELEV I SION E QU I PM E NT Auraria H igher Education Center Per the attached sp e c ifica t ions, ter m s a nd c o nditio n s F.E.I.N.: Terms: Delivery D a te: (Minimum of Net 45)

PAGE 149

Signatur e : Typed/Printe d Name: T itle: Compa n y N a me: Addr e s s: Cit y : State: Zip: Phone Num ber: Fax Num b er: I M PORTAN T : The follo wi n g infor m ation m ust be on the outsi d e of the RFP Return Envel o pe: RFP Num b er Opening Date and T i me Please b e a d vised that telegr a ph i c or e l ectr o nic r e s p onses (F a x W e stern Uni o n, Telex, etc.) can n ot be accep t e d dir e ctly in the Proc u re m ent Office as a sea l ed prop o sal. Offerors are urged to read t he R F P thoroug hly before subm itting a pro p osal. Offeror i s req uired to subm it Federal e m ployer Identif i c ation Nu m ber (FEIN). This sheet must be completed, signed and submitted with proposal. 141

PAGE 150

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONS PAGE Table of Contents SECTION 1: ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION 2 SECTION 2: BACKGROUN D O VE R VI E W, AND SCOPE 14 SECTION 3: MINIMUM Q U ALIFCATIONS 19 SECTION 4: INFORMATION REQUI R ED FROM OFFERORS 20 SECTION 5: COSTS 21 SECTION 6: OFFEROR RESPONSE FO R MAT 22 SECTION 7: EVALUATION 23 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: AHEC P URCHASE ORDER T E RMS AND CONDITIONS Attachment B: PERA Attachment C: W 9 142

PAGE 151

SECTION 1: ADMINI STRAT I VE INFORMATION 1.1 ColoradoVSS and Registration The State of Colorado has begun transitioni ng to a new financial m anagement system called the Colorado Operations R esource E ngine (CORE). Solicitati ons for most State Agencies (Agencies) and State Institu t ions of Hig her Educat i on (Institutio n s) will be p osted on a n e w website, ColoradoVSS. Solicitation details for goods and services, as w e ll as construction no t ices on ColoradoVSS a re public and do not require registration; however, a ny updates or modificatio ns to this Request f or Proposal (RFP) will be published using ColoradoVSS, s o it is important to be registered. There is no cost to register on ColoradoVSS. To become a registered supplier on ColoradoVSS: https://codpa vss.h ostams.com/ w ebapp/PRDVSS1X1/AltSelfService 1.2 Official Means of Communication During the solicitation process for this RFP, a l l official c ommunication between AHECs Pr oc urement Office and offerors will be via postings on the C oloradoVSS. AHEC wi l l post notices that will include, but not be limited to, modificatio ns to administrati v e or performance requirements, answers to inquiries received, clarificatio ns t o requirements, and the announc em ent of the apparent winning offe r or. It i s incumbent upon offerors to carefully and regularly monitor C oloradoVSS for any such notices. 1.3 State of C olorado Solicitation Instructions/Terms and Condi tions Any propos al submitted in response to this RFP is su b ject to the State of C olorado Solicitation Instructions / Terms and Conditions f ound on ColoradoVS S 1.4 Purpose of the RFP The Auraria Higher Ed uc ation Centers Media Center (AMC) is seeking to contract the procurement and installation of broadcast televisi on equipment. 1.5 Term of the Contract The initi a l t e rm of the c ontract(s) resulting from t his RFP is/ a re anticip a t e d to be for a period of one (1) calendar y e ar commencing upon c ontract exec ution. I f AHEC requires t hese same 143

PAGE 152

services af t er that time, the c ontract(s) may be exten ded for up to an addition a l four (4) ye ars in one year increments for a total term not to exceed five (5) ye a rs. AHEC r e serves the right to canc e l this/these contract(s) at a ny time without cause, upon written n otice given t hi r ty (30) days in advance. AHEC will give written documentation to t he c ontractor as t o the reason for cancellation. Aut horized services performed for AHEC will be paid for t h rough the c a ncellation date. 1.6 Number of A w ards AHEC inte nds to award one or more contract(s) as a result o f this RFP, depending on offe rors' a biliti e s to service t he various systems identified in the R FP. 1.7 RFP Ca nc ellation AHEC reserves the right to cancel t his entire R e quest for Proposal, at a ny time, wit hout penalty. 1.8 Document Information This document, includi ng attachments, cons ti tutes a fo rm al Requ e st for Proposal (RFP) and is a competitive procurement; therefore, the offeror must carefully follow the instructio ns herein in order to be conside r ed fully responsive to the RFP. The Auraria Hi g her Education Cent er (AHEC) reserves the right to rej e ct a proposal that is d e termined to be incompl e te, or which does not f ollow the r e quired structure a nd format; however, w hen such s ta tements are innocent or inadvertent in the opinion of AHEC, AHEC further reserves the r ight to either r eque s t clar i f ications or waive them a s informalities. 1.9 Issuing Office This RFP is issued on behalf of A uraria High e r Educa t ion Center by the AHEC Procurement Office. The AHEC Procurem e nt Office is the sole point of c ontact conc e rning this RFP. The AHEC Procureme nt Office is t he procur em ent authority for Auraria Higher Education C e nter and as such issues t heir solicitations. 1.10 Schedule Of Activities Listed bel ow are specific and estimated dates and time s of actions related to this RFP. The actions with specific dates must be completed as indic a ted unless o therwise c h anged by AHEC. In the eve nt that AHEC finds it nec e ssary to c ha nge any of t he specific dates and times in the calendar of events listed be low, it will do so by issuing a modification to this RFP on ColoradoVSS. There may or may not be a formal notification issued for c h anges in the estimated dates and times. 144

PAGE 153

Activity Date and Time (Mountain Time) Request for Proposal Notice Publis h ed on ColoradoVSS 2/11/15 Mandatory Pre Proposal Meeting & Walkthrou g h 2/19/15 1:00 PM Written Inq u iry Deadline 2/23/15 10: 0 0 AMM Modification Issued with Answers to Written Inquiries (if necessary) 2/26/15 (Estimated) Proposal Submission Deadline 03/16/15 2: 00 PM Oral Presentations, if re quired 3/23/15 (Estimated) Best and Final Offers (BAFOs), if required 3/27/15 (Estimated) Notice of Award 4/1/15 (Estimated) Contract Period See estimated project schedule below. 1.11 MANDAT O R Y PreP r opos al Meeting and Walkthrough To ensure sufficient inf ormation is available to offerors pre p aring resp onses, a mandatory pre proposal meeting and walkthroug h has been scheduled (see date a nd time listed in the S c h e dule of Ac ti vities). The intent of this meet i ng is to have AHEC staff available to disc u ss the project and tour the facility to be serviced. The pre proposal meeting will be h eld at: Auraria Hig h er Educ a tion Center Administ r at i on Building 1201 5th St S uite 370 Den v er, CO 802 0 4 Please all ow extra t ime to l o cate parking as it is limited. Prompt attendance is required; offerors arriving late will be turned away Offerors m ust attend the entire meeting and w alkthr ough and must sign in in order to have the i r proposals accepted. Offerors s hould allow one (2) hour for the meeting and walkthro ugh. Any substantial cl a rificatio n s r e sulting from the meeti ng will be po sted on ColoradoVSS. 145

PAGE 154

1.12 Written Inquiries Offerors m a y make wr i tten, e mail, or fax inquiries co nc e rning this RFP to obtain clar i f ica t ion o f requirements. No inquires will be accepted after the date and time indicated i n the Schedule of Activities. T he AHEC Procurement Office prefers that all in quiries be se n t by electronic mail to: Procurement Office, Auraria Higher Education C enter 1201 Fifth Street, Suite 370 Campus B ox K PO B ox 173 361 Denver, Co l orado 802173361 Fax: (303) 5562093 E mail: kevin.langhor n @ahec.edu RFP # AHEC 158008 R Address written or fax inquiries to: K evin Langhor n Response t o offeror's inquiries ( if r equired) will be published as a modificat i on on ColoradoVSS in a timely ma nner. The only official r esponses t o an offerors inquir i es are those responses t hat are published as a modification on ColoradoVSS. Offero rs should not rely on any other statements, either written or oral, that al t er any specifica t ion or other term or condi t i on of this RFP. Offerors are responsible for monitoring ColoradoVSS for publica t ion of modifications to this solicita t ion. 1.13 Modifications or Wi thdra w als of Proposals Proposals may be modified or withdrawn by the offeror prior to the established due date and time. 1.14 Proposal Submission Proposals must be received on or be fore the date and time i ndicated in t he Sched ule of Activities. Late proposals will not be accepted. I t is the res ponsibility of t he offeror to ensure that AHEC receives the proposal on or before the proposal opening da te and time, regardless of the delivery method used. Offerors m a iling their propos als s h all allow s u fficient mail delivery time to ensure receipt o f their proposals by the time specified. T he proposal package sh a ll be delivered or sent by mail to: 146

PAGE 155

Auraria Hi gher Education Center Procurem e nt Office Attn: Kevin Langhorn RFP # AHEC 1 58008 R Mailing A d dress (US Mail): Ca m pus Box K, P.O. Box 173361, Denver, CO 802 1 7 3361 Courier, D e livery S e rvice, or hand delivery : 1201 5th Street, Suite 370, Denver, CO 80204 The Request for Proposal cover pa g e MUST be signed in i nk by the of f eror or an officer of the offeror legally authorized to bind the offeror to the proposal. The signed RFP cover page must be included with the pr oposal copy t hat is mark e d ORIG I NAL. Proposals which are determined to be at a v ariance with this re quirement may not be accepted. P r oposals m ust be submitted and s e aled in a pa ckage. The outer envelope of the package must show the following information: OFFE R OR S N A ME RFP N U M B ER PROPO SA L DUE D A T E AND T IME 1.15 Alterations in Proposals Proposals made in pencil shall be rejected. Alterations in cost figur e s shall be rej e cted unless initiale d in ink by the person responsible for, or authorized to make decisio ns as to the cost specifie d. Proof of authorizati on shall be p r ovided upon request. T he use of white out is considered a n alteration. 1.16 Addendum or Supplements to Request for Proposal In the event that it bec om es necessary to revise any part of this RFP, a modification notice will b e sent via ColoradoVSS. 1.17 Oral Presentations/Site Visits Offerors m a y be asked to make oral presentatio ns Such pr esentations w ill be at the offeror's expense. The Evalua t ion Committee m a y re quire a site visit if warranted by the nature of the requirements and the offerors response. Evaluation Committee membe r s ha ve the right t o modify an offerors evaluation based on in f ormation provided in o r al presentations and/or site visits. Oral presenta t ions and si t e visi t s may be co ns idered in d etermining the apparent successful offeror(s). 1.18 Best and Final Offers (BAFOs) AHEC reserves the right to request BAFOs for this solicita ti on. Evaluation Committee members have the right t o modify an offerors evaluation bas e d on infor m ation provi d ed in a BAFO. BAFOs may be considered in determining the appare nt succ e ss f ul offeror(s). 147

PAGE 156

1.19 Accepta n ce of RFP Terms A proposal submitted in r esponse to t his RFP sh a ll co ns titute a binding of f er. The aut ographic sig nature of the offeror or an officer of the offeror legally authorized to execute contract ual obligatio ns shall indicate acknowledgm e nt of t his condition. A submission in r e sponse to this R FP acknowledges acceptance by the of f eror of all terms and conditions i n cluding co m pensation, as set forth herein. Offeror shall identify cl e arly and th o roughly a ny varia t ions between its proposal and the AHEC's RFP. Failure to d o so shall be deemed a waiver of a ny rights of t he offeror to subsequent ly modify the terms of performance, except as outlined or specifi e d in the RFP. 1.20 Confirmation of Submiss ion Offerors m a y send an e mail message to the P urchasing A gent of rec ord indica t ing that the pr oposal has been s e nt and requesting con f i r mation by r e turn e mail upon AHEC s receipt of proposal. If offeror requires c onfirmation, it is the of f eror's respon sibility to co nfirm in this way receipt of the proposal i n advance of the posted deadline. 1.21 Protested Solicitations and A w ards Any actual or prospective offeror o r contractor who is aggrieved in connection with the solicita t ion or award of a co ntract may protest to AHECs D i rector of Procurement and Distrib ution Services. The protest must be submitt e d in writing within seven (7) working days after such aggrie v ed person knows, or should ha ve known, of the facts gi ving rise th e reto. With regard t o the em phasized la nguage above, it is important for bidders to note that a challenge to the solicitations requir e ments, or specifica t ions, must be made w ith i n seven (7) w orking d ay s of w hen the p rotest item is kno w n Announcement of the Notice of Intent to Awa rd will be made via a posting on ColoradoVSS. The requirement for time l y s ubmission of any prote s t (7 working days) will begin on the first working day following posting of the award notice on ColoradoVSS. 1.22 Confidential/Proprie t ary Inform ation Any restrictions of the use or inspection of mat e rial contain e d within the proposal s hall be clearly stated in the pro posal its e lf. Written requests for c onfidentiality shall be s ubmitted by t he offeror with the proposal. The offeror must state s pecifically which elements of the proposal a r e to be considered confidenti a l / proprietary. Confidential/proprietary informat i on must be readi l y identified, marked and s e parate l y p ackaged from the r e st of the proposal. Co mingling of confidential/proprieta ry and other informat i on is NOT accep table. Nei t her a propo sal, in its en tirety, nor proposal c ost information, will be co ns i dered confidenti a l and proprie t ary. Any information that will be i ncluded in a ny resulting contract c a nnot be considered confiden tia l. AHEC will make a written determination as t o the appa rent validity of any written request for confidenti a li t y. In the e v ent AHEC does not concur with the offeror's request for confidentiality, 148

PAGE 157

the written deter mination will be sent to t he offeror. Ref. Section 2472 201 et. seq., C .R.S., as amended, Public (ope n ) Records. 1.23 RFP Res p onse Material O w nership AHEC has t he right to r etain the original proposal response and other proposal response materials for its files. As such, AHEC m a y reta in or dispose of all copies as is lawfully de e med a ppropriate. Proposal response materials may be reviewed by any person after t h e "Notice of Intent to Make an Awa rd" has been posted on ColoradoVSS, subject to the te rm s of Section 2472201 et seq ., C .R.S. as amended, Public (Open) Records. AHEC has the right to use any or all information/material presented in reply to the RFP, s ubject to limi t ations outli ned in the paragraph, Confidential/P r oprietary Information ( a bove). Offerors expressly agree that AHE C m a y use the materials for all lawful State purposes, i n cl uding the right to rep r oduce and distribute c o pies of the material su bm itted for purposes of evaluation, and as part of the r esulting co n tract, and to make the i nformation available to t he public i n a ccordance with the provisions of the Colorado Open R e cords Act. 1.24 Proposal Costs Proposal c o sts must be firm for a minim u m of ninety (90) days after proposals a re due. Estimated proposal c o sts are not acceptable. Proposal costs will be con sidered t o be your best and f in a l offer, unless othe r wise stated in the RFP. The proposal cost will be consider e d in determ i ning the apparent successful offeror(s). 1.25 Multiple Proposals from a Single Offeror Offerors m a y submit m ultiple proposa ls; however, ea c h proposal must conform fully to the requirements for proposal submissio n. Each such proposal must be submitted separately and labeled as Propos a l #1, Proposal #2, etc. on each page included in t he respons e Alternate Financial P r oposal options are allowed and do not constitute multiple proposals. 1.26 Selection of Proposal Notice An Evaluation Committee will review and evaluate offers submitted and make a recommen dation for award. This select i on will be for award to the resp onsible offe r or(s) whose proposal ( s ) is/are determined to be most advantageous to AHEC. AHEC will post a "Notice of Inte nt to Make an Award" on ColoradoVSS which will announce the selec t ed. 1.27 Notice of Intent to A w ard AHEC reserves the right to make an award on receipt of i nitia l proposals, so offerors a re encoura g ed to submit their most favorable proposal at the ti me established for receipt of pro p osals. Off e rors not meeting the requirements identified in the RFP shall be ineligible f or further consid e ration. AHEC m a y conduct discussio ns wi t h offerors in the competitive range for the purpose of 149

PAGE 158

promoting unders t anding of AHECs requirements and the offerors pr oposal, to clarify requirements, make adjus tm ents in services to be perform ed, and in prices. Chan g es to pr o posals, if permi t ted, will be r equested in writing from offerors. 1.28 A w ard of Contract Award(s) will be made to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal(s) will be the most advantageous to AHEC, costs and othe r factors co ns idered. In t he event the parties are unable to e nter into a c ontract, AHEC m a y elect to cancel the "Notice of Intent to Ma ke an Awar d" and make the award to the responsible offeror whose proposal would subs e quently have received the award. 1.29 Acceptance of Proposal Content The conten t s of the proposal (incl uding perso ns speci f ied t o work for AHEC) of the successful Offeror will become contractual obligations if acquisiti on action ensues. Fail ure of the successf u l Offeror to accept th es e obligati on s in a state contract, p u rchase ord e r, or similar authorized a c quisi t ion document may result in cancell a ti on of the award and such Offeror m a y be removed from future solicitations. 1.30 Standard Contract The succes sf ul Offeror is re quired to agree to AHEC Purchase Order Ter m s and Conditions. T he se ter m s are i ncluded in t he attach m ent labeled Attachment A to t his RFP. Offerors m ust clearly i dentify any e xceptions to the contractual terms and conditio ns described in this RFP, and pr ovide justification and al t ernative language in th e ir proposal r esponse. O f ferors are s t rongly encouraged to seek advice from legal counsel r e garding such contractu a l exceptions. Offerors should not ass ume any term or condition in this RFP or Mod e l Contrac t is negotiable. In the event the p arties are u nable to n e gotiate co nt ract terms t hat are f ully satisfactory to AHEC within a reasonable period of time, at AHECs sole discretion, AHEC may el ect to enter i nto negotiations with another offeror within t he c ompetitive range. If a Notice of I ntent to M a ke an Award has been issued, and the par t ies are una b le to enter into a contr a ct that is fully satisfacto r y to AHEC within a re a s onable period of time, AHEC may elect to request that AHEC cancel the Notice of Intent to Make an Award and comme nce contract negotiatio n s with anot h er offeror within the competitive range. 150

PAGE 159

1.31 O w nership of Contract Products/Services Proposals, upon established opening time, become the property of A HEC. All products/s ervices produced in response t o the contr a ct result i ng f rom this RFP will be the sole prope r ty of AHEC, unless otherwise noted in the RFP. The contents of t he succe ssf ul Offeror's pr oposal will become cont r actu a l obligations. 1.32 Incurring Costs AHEC are not liable for ANY cost incurred by offerors prior to issuance of a legally executed contract, purchase or der, or other authorized acquisi t ion document. No property interest, of any nature, shall occur until a contract is awarded and signed by al l required parties. All costs i n curre d in the res ponse to the RFP are the sole responsibility of the offeror. 1.33 Non Discrimination Offerors shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws, rules and regulations involving nondiscrimina ti on on the basis of race, color, religio n national origin, age or sex. 1.34 Rejection of Proposals AHEC reserves the right to reject a ny and all propos als, w aive inform a lities and minor irregularities in proposals received as determined by AHEC, and to a ccept any portion of a pr oposal or a ll items proposed if deemed in t he best interest of AHEC. Failure of an offer or to pr ov ide any information requested in this RFP (and in t he manner or format r e quired) may result in disqualificati on of the prop osal. 1.35 Parent C o mpa n y If an offeror is owned or controlled by a parent company, t he name, main office a ddress and parent company's tax identific a tion number shall be pr ov ided in the proposal. T he tax identification num ber of the offeror r espo nding t o the RFP must be pr ov ided. The offeror must be a legal entity with t he legal right to cont r act. 1.36 Ne w s Releases News releases pertaini ng to this R F P shall NOT be made prior to execution of the c ontract with out prior written approval by A HEC. 1.37 Certification of Ind e pendent Price Determination Except as otherwise disclosed with particularity, through its submission of an offer, the offeror certifies that the prices and other terms in the offer have been arrived at independently w ithout any consultation, communication, agreement with, or knowledge of the contents of the offer by a ny other c ompeting offeror. For purposes of this paragraph, "consultation, communication, agreement with, or knowledge" does not i n clude know l edge of pric es or terms gained through availability of 151

PAGE 160

estab l ished price l ists or catalogues made avail a ble to the public by the co m peting offeror. No attempt has be en made or will be made by t he offeror to induce any other person or firm to submit or not to submit a proposal for the purpose of r estricting c o mpetition. 1.38 Prime Contractor AHEC will consider the selected of f eror to be the sole point of contact w i th regard to contractual matters including t he performa nce of services and the payment of a ny and a ll c harges. There m a y be areas for use of subcontractors o r partners in this project. AHEC en c ourages use of small business e s wherever viable. If you are using subcontr a ctors/partn e rs, your pr oposal must list the subcontractors/ partners, their area(s) of expert i se, and include all other applicable information herein requested for each subcontrac t or/partner. 1.39 Taxes AHEC, as purchaser, i s e xe m pt for all federal e xcise ta x es under Chapter 32 of the Internal R ev enue Code and from all state and loc a l g overnment use taxes ( r ef. Colorado Revised Statutes Cha pter 3926 114(a)). Seller is he r eby notified that when materials are purchased in certain political subdivisions (for examp l e City of Denver) the seller may be required to pay sales tax e v en t hough the ultimate product or service is pr ov ided to the State of Colorado. This sales tax will not be reimbursed by AHEC. 1.40 Assignment and Delegation Except for assignment of antitrust claims, neith e r party to any resulting contract may assig n or de legate any portion of the agre e ment without the prior written conse nt of the othe r party. 1.41 Legislative Changes AHEC reserves the rig ht to amend any resulting contract in response to legislati v e changes, which affect the s e rvices relat e d to this R F P. 1.42 Error Reporting The successful Offeror will promptly report any errors occu r ring with pr ograms thro ughout the duration of this cont r act. A su m m ary report must be su bm itted at le a s t once eve r y three (3) months, beginning with the date this contr a ct is en a ct e d. Failure t o discl os e t his information is grou nds for termination of the contract for cause. 1.43 Order of Precedence In the eve nt of any conflict or inconsistenc y between terms of this Request for Proposal and the pro posal (o f fer), such conflict or inconsistenc y shall be res o lved first, by giving effect to the terms and conditions of the resulti ng contract, second to the Request for Proposal, a nd third, to t he proposal. 1.44 Availability of Funds 152

PAGE 161

Financial o bli gations of AHEC, pa y a ble after the current fiscal year, are contingent upon funds f or that purpose being appropriated, budg e ted and ot h erwise made available. In the event funds a re not appropriat e d, any resulting contract will become null and vo i d, witho ut penalty to AHEC. 1.45 Venue The parties agree that venue for any action related to pe r formance of this contract shall be in t h e City and County of Denver, Colorado. 1.46 Offeror Proposed Terms and Conditions Except as specified i n t he o fferors proposal, t he submissi on of the of f erors propo sal will indicate its acceptance of the te rm s and c onditions. Offerors must disclose in their proposals t erms and conditions, or required clarifications, of terms a nd condition s consist e nt with these instructio ns AHE C and AHEC reserve the right to clari f y terms and c onditions not having an appreciable effect on quality, price/cost risk or delive r y schedule during post award form a lization of t he contract. 1.47 Contract Cancella tion AHEC reserves the right to cancel for cause, any cont ract resulting from this RFP, by pr ov iding time l y written notice to the con t ractor. 1.48 Insurance The contractor shall pr oc ure, at its own expense, and mai ntain for the duration of the cont rac t the insurance coverage as describ e d in the attached AHEC Purchase Order Ter m s and C o nditions (Attachment A). 1.49 Past Performance Each offerors past performance will be reviewed as part of AHECs overall evaluat i on. This evaluat ion will take into account past performance information submitted as a part of s uch offerors proposal including, but not limited to, information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant ex perience, a nd subcontr a ctors perfo rm ing maj or or critical aspects of the service(s), if such information is relevant. Offerors without a reco r d of relevant past perform ance or for whom information on past performance is not available will receive a neut ral past performance rating. AHEC wi l l consider offerors p e rformance on past or current AHEC contracts with r equirements similar to AHEC requirements for t his contract. AHEC will co ns ider infor m ation provi ded by offeror regardi ng any problems encountered o n the identified contracts and any assoc iated co r rective acti ons. 1.50 State Empl oyment Affiliation Offerors must explain any State employment affili a tion as described on t he ColoradoVSS website in the Solicitation I nstructions f ound on ColoradoVSS. 153

PAGE 162

1.51 Key Pers onnel AHEC sh all consider C ontractor Key Personnel and therefore essenti a l to the work being performed. Contractor shall immediately notify AHEC in writ i ng prior to replacing Key Perso nnel. Replacement personnel must have the same skill level and qualif i c ati ons, or bett e r, than the personnel t hey are replacing. AHEC mu s t approve the replac em ent personnel in writing prior t o new personnel commencing work and the change must not delay the project. AHECs approval of replacement K e y Personnel shall not b e delayed nor unreasonably withheld. Contractor shall take commercially reasonable action to transfer their departing personnels project knowledge to the Con t ractors substitute p ersonnel to ensure continuity of services performed. 1.52 References AHEC m a y contact the references provided by an off e ror (primary s ources) to validate the offerors experience. Other individuals and entities, (seconda r y sources) id e ntified as possessing relevant information during the course of discussio n s wi t h t he refer e nces provi ded by an offeror, also may be contacted by AHEC. AHEC reserves the right to c ons id e r represen t ations by t hese indivi duals or entities (secondary sources) conce r ning project s c ope, timeliness of performance, project management capabili t i es, and other i nformation relevant to determining the quality of an offeror s past experience and demonstrated capabilitie s. 1.53 FER P A/HIPPA Successf ul contractor a nd consult a nt must adhere to Federal FERPA (Family Edu c ation Rights and Privacy Act ) and HIPAA (Health Insurance P ortability and Accountability Act) regulations. 1.54 Conflicts of Interest Offeror avers that to his/her knowl e dge, no AHEC employee has any personal or benefici a l interest whatsoever in the service or property descr ibed herein. See CRS 18 201 and CRS 50 507. The signat ory hereto avers that he / she is familiar with CRS 8 301, et seq ( Bribery and Corrupt Influence) a nd CRS 8 401, et seq (Abuse of Public Office) as amended, and that no violation of such provisions is pr e s e nt. 1.55 Cost Increases In the event that awar ded offerors costs e scalate, the a w arded offer or may petition, in writing, for a cost increase not to exceed five pe r cent (5%) d uring the first three (3) years of the r esulting co n t ract. I n years four and five the contract, r e quests for cost incre a s e s cannot exceed the 154

PAGE 163

C onsumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI U) Denver Boul der Greeley Any requests for cost increas e s must be submitted to the AHEC Procurement Office sixty (60) days in advance of the effecti v e date of t he cost increase. Requests must be accompanied by writ t en supp orting documentation for increases f r om the manufacturer/offeror's supplier(s). Should AHEC de t erm i ne the cost increase is unjusti f i e d, they r eserve the right to negotiate with the incumbent contract o r, or issue a new solicit a tion for the services and not renew with the awarded contractor. SECTION 2: BACKGROUND, OVERVIEW, AND SCOPE 2.1 Backgro u nd A. Introduction Currently, the S tudio A production operation involves digital (SD SDI) a nd analog (NTSC) signals. The production switcher is a 1.5 ME Sony DVS 7200 which is associa t ed with a Sony DVS6464/BVS A3232 (configured a s a 32 X 32 matrix) rout i ng switcher utilizing SDI video and an alog audio. T h e graphics / CG is an Inscriber Title O ne and the audio mixer is a Soundcraft RW1283. The existing RTS intercom system s hall be retained and integra t ed into the new system. Recording and playback of studio signals is do ne with an assortment of S ony video tape machines plus two AJA KiPro Rack digital file recorde r s. Three Sony standard definition c a meras equipped with tria x cable interf a c es serve Studio A. There is also an I r is Technol ogies 128X 128 analog ro u ting switcher that serves the AMC facil ity. Both of the exist i ng routing switchers will be replaced by the new router. B. Spaces and function T here are four rooms within the Auraria Media Center that will be involved in this projec t : 1) Studio A, room AL B 024 2) equi pm ent room/ master control, room AL B 020 3) studio control ro om Ro om AL B020C 4) studio audio operations, room AL B 020D. 2.2 Overview The Auraria Higher Education Centers Media Center (AMC) is seeking t o contract t he procurement and installation of bro a dcast tele vision equipment. The purpose of this procurement is to upgr a de the tech n ology and operation of t he two AMC television s t udios (Studio A and Studio B) to a high definition seri a l digital video format with digital file recording/p l ayback capability. The Aur aria Media Center is locat ed within the Auraria Libra r y building, 1151 Lawrence Street Mall, on the Auraria Campus in Denver, Color a do. The AMC studios a r e utilized for campus related video productio n s and as pr a c tical learni ng spaces for media production cou r ses offered through Auraria institu tions of highe r education. A M C also serves as a content provider for the City of Denvers public a ccess cable TV channels. The Studio A portion of this upgrade includes b oth equipment procurement and design/installati on. This integration shall incorpo r ate both co ntractor procurements and existing 155

PAGE 164

equipment to form a complete system. The scope of work description in this docu m ent refers to the Studio A upgrade only. The prim a ry compone nts of this project are a video pro duc t ion switcher, a graphics/CG system, a multi format central routing switcher, three high definition studio cam e ras, digital file recorders and an audio mixer. The Studio A control room is a highly visible area to visitors a nd students. In addition t o ef ficient f unctionality, t his space must possess modern technology aest hetics and be visually appe aling. The custom furniture was specified for this reason. The Studio B portion of this upgrade is an equi pm ent only procurement. Items on this equipment list s h a ll be delivered to AMC prior t o the start of Studio A installation work. Integrati on of Studio B equipment will be the responsib i lit y of AMC. 2.3 Scope of Work Selected Co n tract or(s) Responsibilities and Requirements I. DEFINITIONS ANSI The American National Sta ndards Instit ute (ANSI) BICSI Building Indust r y Consulting Service International EIA/TIA Electronics I ndustry Assoc./Teleco m munications Industry Assoc. HD High Definition HD SDI High Definition Serial Digi t al Interface S MP T E 292 NEC (Nati onal Electric a l Code) SD Stan dard Definiti on SDI Serial Digital Inte r face SMP T E 259 SMPT E Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers VTR video tape recor der II. STATEMENT OF WORK A. Introduction The cont r actor sha ll procure equi pm ent listed in Exhibits A and B as well as design and inst a ll the system in accordan ce with provided descrip t ions and documents. Funding ap proval for this project was based on t he attached e quipment lists, however, if or equal is st a ted, vendor may quote a substitute product that matches or exceeds the specificatio n s of the bra nd/model lis t ed. Contractor must submit, with the bid respons e product literature th a t contains complete technical sp e c i f ications of t he proposed substitute. AHEC m a y request that the vendor submit indus t ry comparisons to subs t antiate that a substitute product is equivalent. AHEC reserves the right to make the final determination as to whether or not a substitute p r oduct is eq u ivalent, or better for its intended use at AHEC. 156

PAGE 165

Design and i nstall work consists of i nstalling a nd i nterconnect i ng the video, audio, con t rol, data and electrical power wiring of system compone nts. All Eth e rnet jacks a r e to be connected to the AMC local area network switch (locat ed in room AL B 020) v i a Category 6 cables. C ontractor shall also p r ovide rack layout/elevat ions and documents lis t ed in the s ubmittals sect ion. Switcher, router and pa t ch panel c a ble assign m ents will be specified by contractor a nd approved by AMC after t he initial p l a nni ng meeting. B. Descriptions 1. Studio (AL B024) Ins t all the three new HD cameras on existing Vinten 3076 heads that are mounted on three Vint e n Pro Ped Pedestals. This pr oc e ss sh a ll also incorporate the existing Prompt e r People 15 t eleprompters on e ach camera. Contractor shall also r un three fi ber optic c a mera cables from the studio through existing raceway and under raised floor into the equipment room (AL B020) where the camera control uni t s are mounted.2. Control Ro om (AL B02 0C) A. Ins t all custom furniture to factory specifications (s e e exhibit D). B. Run necessary cables and ins t all video s w itcher co ns o le, comput e r monitors, graphics keyboard/mouse and owner furnished r ack mounted equipment as identified in exhibit C. Elec trical power in this room i s supplied by twist lock receptacl e s under the r a ised floor. C. Contractor shall provide power cords and t h e means to di stribute power as required by the de sign. D. Mount two 55 multiviewer displays on east wall with appro priate backer board. Exact positioning to be determined during pla nning meetings. Display cabling shall be run inside the wall. Alternate d i splay confi g urations will be conside r ed. E. Mo unt existing JBL speaker s on east wall; run speaker wires through wa ll and under floor t o audio amplifiers. 3. Equipment Room (AL B020) Util izing exis t i ng equipment racks, Contractor sh a ll design rack elevations and cabling details to implement a professional integration of new and e x isting equi pm ent. Sco pe of work i nc ludes: wiring and term i nation of patch panels, rou t ing switch e r, producti on switcher, digital file recorders, VTRs, vid e o monitoring, audio monitoring, wave f orm monitor and camera control uni t s Contractor shall a lso modify cut out in camera shading table to a ccommoda t e new camera remote c ontrol panels. Design s hall i nclude: quality assurance/c a mera shading station (i nc ludes evaluation picture monitor, waveform mo nitor, audio monitor and router switching), dedicated color monitors for each camera and reco rd/playback device, cue audio for digital file recorders and VTRs. All open rack s paces shall b e covered with blank pa n els. 4. Audio Operations (AL B 020D) AMC will provide a desk a n d an 84 e quipment rack in this space. Contractor shall install new m i xer and associated cabling as well as rack mounted gear referenced in e quipment list. These items consist of a Joe Meek audio processor, digital audio recorder, RTS intercom station, two crown amplifiers for control r oom speakers and studio speakers. Design shall include vid e o monitoring with two LED 24 flat panels fed by the producti o n switchers two multivie wer outputs. Contractor shall provide appropriate distribution amplifiers for this purpose. Audio mixer output shall be connected to owner provided po we r ed speaker s. Contract or shall extend audio cables from the studio as needed for a udio mixer and amplifier connection s. 157

PAGE 166

C. AHECs Re s ponsibilities 1. Auraria Media Centers Chief Engineer will be t he primary point of cont a c t and approver of technical de sign. 2. AHEC will remove old e quipment and provide a space for n e w installation. 3. AMC will be responsible to provide a normal secured work environment. D. Contractors Responsibilities 1. All materials and equi pm ent supplied by the contractor s h all be new and shall meet or exceed the l a test publis hed speci f ic a tion of the manufacturer in all respects. E quipment, connectors, cabling and terminations shall meet or excee d professional broadcast performance standards. 2. Sele cted c ontractor will be responsible for scheduling planning meetings with owner representative. The first meeting shall t ake place 10 days before work begins. Su bs equent meetings will be held on a weekly basis. 3. All onsite work shall be done dur ing regular business h ours, Mond a y through Friday, 8:00am to 5:00pm, unless o t herwise approved by AMC Chief Engineer. 4. Any custom cutting a nd drilling of flooring ti l es or walls will be done by the contractor a fter approval of AMC C hief Engineer. Maintai ning a safe, cl e an work environment is required. 5. Contractor shall b e r e sponsible f or all equi pm ent, mat e rials, t ools and other items left onsite or in s t orage until final accept a nce and si g n off by AMC. 6. Contractor is responsible for any dama ge they c ause in wo r k area. 7. All of the installation s hall be completed in a manner that conforms to SMP T E standards and InfoComm Internati onal best practices and complies with the National Electrical Code as well as the ANSI/NECA/BICSI 586 2006 minimum requirements and proc e dures. 8. Manufacturers in depth Operational training for the Studio A production switcher (two days) shall be procured and scheduled (aft er AMC approval) by contractor to begin no later than August 3rd of 2015. Training shall take place in the AMC control room (AL B020C). 9. Commissio ning Contr a ctor shall all o w for one day of combined system testing and introductory equipment training. Contractor shall provide an offici a l c hecklist, approved by 158

PAGE 167

AMC, to verify the integrity of all signals and proper performance of equipment in the scope of the project. 10. Contractor shall warr a nty their work and materials for a period of one year starting the day after final commissioning. Tel e phone and onsite supp ort shall be made av ailable duri ng normal business hou r s .If onsite support is needed due to inst al lation issu e s contrac to r shall disp a tch a person on staff w ithin one business d a y. All warra nties provided by manufacturers shall be extend e d to the AMC and c e rtified in writing. E. Project sch e dule 1. 05/18/2015 Consultation and planni ng meeting 2. 06/01/2015 I ntegration begins 3. 07/13/2015 t o 07/17/2015 Integration completed. Final commissioning an d document approval finalized. 4. 07/20/2015 t o 08/07/201 5 Tra ining period III. Submittals At the completion of p r oject, contr a ctor shall provide in person: A. Shop Draw i ngs and wire list one printed copy and electronic copi e s in both AutoCAD (.dwg) and Adobe (.pdf) formats. B. Product Data: For e a ch product m odel sp e c ifie d provide manufacturer product da t a cut sheets and any published operation/maintenance manuals in print and electronic data files. C. Invoices a nd packing slips for all pr oc ured equi pm ent. D. Equipment list with serial numbers E. Commis sio n ing check list signed by contractor a nd AMC re presentative. IV. Attachm e nts 1. Exhibit A Studio A Equipment List (procured by contractor) 2. Exhibit B Studio B Equipment List (procured by contractor) 3. Exhibit C Studio A Existing Equipment List (AMC provided) DO TO FILE SIZE, EXHIBIT D AND E WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE WA L K THROGH OR YOU CAN EMAIL ME A REQUEST TO BE EMAI L ED TO YOU. 4. Exhibit D Control Room Design speci f ications (Provided at Walk through) 5. Exhibit E Conceptual Drawing s (Provided at Walk through) 159

PAGE 168

SECTION 3: MINIMUM AND PREFERRED QUALIF I CATIONS 3.1 Minimum Quali f ications of O ff erors Required Minimum Qualificatio n s of Organizati o n; 1. Established company in the business of sales a nd installa tion of Broadcast and Professional Video equi pm ent. 2. Must have a minimum of 5 years of rece n t integration and commissioning experience with projects of similar scope and ap p lication. 3. Authorized dealer for p roduction switcher, rou t ing switche r graphics/CG, studio cameras and audio mixer. 4. Submission of 3 references from projects of similar scope a nd design. SECTION 4: INFORMATION RE QUIRED FROM OFFERORS Each pro p osal response to this RFP m u st contain the foll o w i ng information: 4.1 Include a c over letter introducing company, f ully describing corporate organization, history of company, i ncluding size and num be r of years in business, and fin a ncial position. Also summarize qualific a tions and include mission statement or business philos ophy, and detail any exceptions to this RFP (please note that exceptions may make your proposal nonresponsive). 4.2 Provide principal contact information for this R F P, including address, t e lephone number, e mail, and website (if a pplicable). 160

PAGE 169

4.3 List of ma nagers, engineers, and staff that w ould be in v olved in this project a nd a biographical sketch of e ach. 4.4 Cost proposal in the form of an itemized spreadsheet with make/m o del, descri ption, quantity, unit, unit cos t extended cost and proposed total. In clu d e design, labor, materials and incident a ls 4.5 Pre construction drawi ngs and design overview. 4.6 References 4.7 Offerors must affirm and demonstrate they a r e able to provide all items outlined in Section 2.3, Scope of Work Sel e c t e d Contractor(s) Responsi bilities a n d Requirements, of this RFP. 4.8 Offerors m ust demonstrate they meet all of the Minimum Qualific ations stated in Section 3.1 and include all information requested in Section 3.1. SECTION 5: COSTS Cost prop osal in the fo r m of an itemized spreadsheet with make/mo del, descrip tion, quantity, unit, unit c o st, extended cost and pr oposed tot a l for Exhibit A and B. I nclude a line for design, labor, inst a llation, materials and i nci dentals. Incl ude a line for trainin g. To t al for entire bid. SECTION 6: OFFEROR RESPONSE FORMAT Following a re the res ponse requi r ements for this RFP. All speci f ic response i t ems represent the minim u m information to be submit t ed. Deleti ons or inc omplete responses in t e rms of con t ent o r aberrations in form m a y, at AHECs discretion, r e nder the response nonr esponsive. 6.1 Technical P roposal: One (1) original, four (4) copies, and one electronic (1) copy (computer disk or thumb dr i v e) of the technical p r oposal must be s ubmitted. Or iginal must be signed in ink by t he authorized representative of the of f eror. Prop osals must be submitted in a s e aled package, clearly marked on the outside. Proof of authority of the person signing shall be f urnished u p on request. 6.2 Cost Pro p osal (See Section 5: Costs): One (1) ori g inal and one (1) copy of the cost information submitted sealed in a separate package from the technical prop osal, clearly marked Cost Proposal on the ou t side. Cost P roposal must be submitted under s eparate packaging. F ai lure to m e et this requirement may render pr oposal as nonres ponsive. 6.3 Proposal Organization: 161

PAGE 170

To facilitate the evalua t ion, offeror shall submit and organize all resp onses in the same order a s listed in Se c tion 4: Inf ormation Required from Offerors Proposals that are de t ermined to be at a variance with this re quirement m a y not be ev a luated. All pages, except pre printed technical inserts, m u st be sequentially numbered. An identifiable ( i.e., protruding) t ab sheet s hould prece de each pro posal section The proposal (hardcopies) should be typed and s ubmitted on 8 x 11 paper (front and back), stapled in the upper left hand corner, or spiral bound on the left side. Proposals will be limited t o twenty f i ve (25) pages max i mum. Resumes, drawings and cos t information do not count towards page m a ximum. AHEC desires and encourages that proposals be submitted on recycled paper, printed on both sides. W hile the appearance of proposals and professional presentati on is important, the use of no nrecyclable or nonrecycled, glossy paper is discouraged. 6.4 Public Empl oyees Retirem e nt Association (PERA) and W 9 Include th es e forms as provided in Attachment B and Attachment C with Proposal. A current PERA Certification and a W 9 form will be requ i red fro m the successful offeror(s). SECTION 7 : EVALUAT I ON 7.1 Process Failure of t h e offeror to provide any information requested in this RFP may result in disquali f ication of the proposal. The specifications within this RFP represent t he minim u m performance necessary for response. A numeric ev a luation will be conduct e d and award will be made to the offeror(s) whose proposal is/are determined to be most advantageous to AHEC considering t he evaluation factors set forth below. The AHEC Procurement Office will review all responses to this RFP p rior to su bm itting them to an evaluation committee. Evaluators are expected to independently evaluate proposals, followed by group discussion. After thorough discussi on and ultimately forming a consensus the committee may s ubmit a recommen dation to award of the proposal(s) that most likely meets or exceeds the requirements, reflecting c ost co ns ider a tions, and in the best in t erest of A H EC to the AHEC Procurement Office. Prior to any rec ommendation to award, th e committee may request any or none of t he following: oral presentatio ns clari f icati ons, and best and final of f ers (BAFOs). 162

PAGE 171

The technical factors will be asse ssed based on the soundness of t he offerors approach and the offerors un derstanding of the r equirements. Assessments may in c lude a judg ment concerning the potential risk of unsuccessful or untimely pe rformance, and the anticipated am ount of AHEC involvement necessary (beyond that reasonably necessa ry) to insure timely, successful pe r fo rm ance. The sel e cti on ultimately is a busin es s judgment t hat will r e fl e c t an integr a ted ass e ssment of the relative merits of proposals us ing the fact ors identified in this RFP. AHEC re s erves the right to reject any (or all) propos a ls that p os e in the ju dgment of AHEC, unacceptable risks of uns u c cessful or un time l y performance, unaccep t able AHEC resources r e quiremen t s, or costs exceeding the b udget const r aints. 7.2 Evaluation Criteria Those pro posals that meet the minimum qualifications will then be evaluated on t he following in no particular o r der: A. Total Cost Equipment procurement and services B. Design In relation to SOW and ov erall quality C. Experience requires a minimum of 5 years of recent experience with projects of similar scope and a pplication. T hree (3) references required. D. H istory of installa t ion and c ommissio ning experience in relation to primary e quipment manufacturers or equivalent. E. Must have been a Broadcast Tel ev ision Equipment dealer and integr a t or the past five (5) years as authorized dealer for the primary equi pm ent manu f acturers na med in proposal. 7.3 Determination of Responsibility of Offer or 7.3.1 AHEC Procurement Ru l es state that an RFP award shall be made to the responsible offe ror whose proposal is determined in writing to be t he most advantageous t o AHEC, taking into consideration the price and t he evaluation factors s e t forth in the RFP. AHEC reserves the right to make its of f eror respo n sibility determination at any time in t his RFP process and may not make a responsibili t y determination for eve r y offeror. 7.3.2 Factors to b e consider e d in determining whether the stand a rd of respo nsibility has been met include whet her an offeror has: 6.3.2.1 Available the appropri a te fina nci a l, material, equipment, facility, a nd personnel r esources a nd expertise, or the a bility to ob t ain them as necessary t o indicate t he capability t o meet all contractual r e quirements; 163

PAGE 172

6.3.2.2 A satisfacto r y record of performance; 6.3.2.3 A satisfacto r y record of integrity; 6.3.2.4 Legal author ity to contract with AHEC; and 6.3.2.5 Supplied all necessary information in connecti on with the i nquiry concerning r esponsibility. 7.3.3 The offeror shall supply information requested by A HEC concerning the offerors responsibili t y. AHEC reserves the right to re quest further information as it deems necessary t o determine the offerors respo nsibility. If the offeror fails t o supply t h e requested i n formation, AHEC shall base the det e rmination of responsibili t y upon an y available information, or m a y fi nd the offeror nonresponsible if such failure is unreasonable. 164

PAGE 173

165 D : 2015 CITY OF DENVER COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTURYLINK CABLE TELEVISION PROPOSAL AND COMCAST CABLE TELEVISION PROPOSAL T O : F ra nk Da i done E x ecutiv e D i rect o r T echnol og y S er vi ces C hr i s Her ndon, P re s i de nt De nve r Ci t y C ounc i l M e mb er s of t he D e nve r Ci t y C oun c i l F R O M: Da vi d W B r oa dw e ll, A s s t Ci t y A tt or ne y R E: Sum m ar y of p r op os e d Q w e st B r oa dban d S ervi ces ( C e n t u r yLink ) c abl e te l e vi s i on f r an c hi s e ; c o m p a r i son t o C o m c ast f r an c hi se DATE: F e br u a r y 4, 2015 I nt r o duc t i o n Qwe st B r oa dba nd S e r vi c e s, I nc ., d/b/ a C e nt ur y L i n k, i s seeki ng a ppr ova l of a c ompe titive cabl e t e l e vi s i on fra nc hi se i n De nve r A lthoug h C e nt ur y L i nk a nd its pre de c e sso r s h a v e l on g m a i nt a i ne d facilitie s i n c ity r i g ht s of w a y d e liver i ng l o c a l e x c ha nge t e l e phone s er vi c e a nd ot he r br oa db a nd s er vi ces t o c us t om e r s, unde r C ol ora do l a w t he c ompa n y i s not r e qui re d t o ha ve a c i t y f ra nc hi se i n or de r t o de live r t he se s e r vi c e s. H owe ve r i n or de r t o a dd cabl e t e l e vi s i on pr odu c t s a nd s er vi c e s t o its c urre n t of fer i n g s, s t a t e a nd fe d eral l a w s re q ui r e C e nt ur y L i nk t o obt a i n a l ocal f r a n c hi s e M ile H i C a bl e P ar t ner s, L .P ( C om cas t ) i s c u rre ntly t he so l e pr ovi d e r of c a bl e t e l e vi s i on s er vi c e i n De n ver vi a a non e x c l us i ve f ra nc hi se or i g i na l l y g r a nt e d i n 1984, a nd recent l y r e ne w e d f or a n a dditiona l t er m of t e n y e a r s t hr ou g h D ecem b e r 31, 2023.

PAGE 174

U nde r s t a t e a nd fe d eral l aw s, e x c l us i ve cabl e f ra n c hi s e s ar e p r ohibi t e d. W hile a l ocal fra n c hi s i ng a ut hor it y ha s t he powe r t o ne g oti a t e t he t er m s a nd c ondi t i ons of a c ompe titive fra nc hi s e i t m a y not unreaso n a bl y r ef use t o a w ar d a c ompe t i t i ve fra nc hi s e I n g e ne r a l fe d eral l a w i s st r uc t ure d t o e nc ou r a ge c ompe tition i n t he de liver y of t e l ecomm uni cations s er v i ces, i nc l udi ng cabl e T V The e x i s ting C om cast fra nc hi se ackno w l e d g e s t ha t ot he r cabl e c ompa ni e s m a y e n t e r t he D e nve r m ar ke t ; howe ver t he doc um e nt c ont a i ns a ne w c ompe titive e qui t y pr ovi s i on a dde d w he n t h e fra n c hi se wa s re c e nt l y r e newed. I n shor t i f a c o mp e titive fra nc hi se c ont a i ns m a t e r i a l t er m s a nd c onditions t ha t d i ffe r f r om t he pr ovi s i ons of t he C om cast fra nc hi s e t he n C om cast m a y d e m a nd a m e ndm e nt s t o its o w n fr a nc hi se t o m a t c h t he pr ovi s i ons i n its c om pe titors fra n c hi s e The pur pose of t hi s p r ovi s i on i s t o e nsur e t ha t t he r e g ul a t or y a nd f i na nc i a l bur de ns on each par t y a r e m a t er i a l l y e qui va l e nt . Th eref o re i t i s i mpor t a nt t o under s t a nd how t he C e nt ur y L i nk p r opos a l e ith e r m a t c he s o r d i ffers f r om t he e x i s ting C om ca st fra nc hi s e Identical provisions in the CenturyLink proposal and the existing Comcast Franchise Most of t he l a ng ua g e i n t he C e nt ur y L i nk p r opos a l i s i de ntical t o e x i s t i ng l a ng ua ge i n t he C om cast fra nc hi s e Th i s c ommona lit y i s due t o t he fact t ha t bot h doc um e nt s a r e b a s e d t o so m e de g r e e up on a m od e l f ra n c hi se a g r eem e nt c raf t e d i n re c e n t y e ar s b y t he Great e r M e t r o T e l ecom m uni cations C onsor tium (G MT C ) now know n a s t he C ol ora do C ommuni cations a nd U tilit y A llia nc e ( CCU A ) T he doc um e nt s a r e e sse nt i a l l y i de ntical on t he f ollow i ng subj e c t s: T e rm of f ra n c h is e T e n y ear s. ( 2.3 ) B as i c gran t of f ra n c h ise rig h ts. A ut hor i t y t o oc c u p y c i t y r i g ht s of w a y a n y w he r e i n De nv e r f or pur pos e s of d e live r i ng c a b l e s er vi ces. ( S ection 2) A m ount of f ra n c h ise fe e 5% of g r oss re v e nue w ith t he t er m g r oss re ve nue de f i ne d i de ntic a l l y ( 1.29, 3.1 ) A m ount of P E G fee. $1.05/ c us t om e r a c c ount/mont h ( 9.3) A d m in i s t r ation a n d R e g ul ation of t h e f ra n c h is e ( S ection 4) I n s u ra n c e an d I n de mn i f i c ation ( E x cept a s i ndi cat e d be l ow .) ( S ecti on 5) Cu s t o m e r se r v i c e s t an dards. The de t a ile d c us t om e r s er vi c e s t a nda r ds a dopt e d vi a or di na n c e of t he Ci t y C ou n c i l i n J a nua r y 2014 a pp l y e qua l l y t o a l l cabl e f r a nc hi s e e s a nd m ust be i nc or pora t e d b y r ef e re nc e i n e a c h fra nc hi s e ( S ection 6) R e ports an d r ecords. ( S ection 7) Programmin g. ( S ecti on 8) Ge n e ral rig h t of w ay u se an d c on s t r u c tio n s t a n da rds. I n c l ude s re qui r e m e nt s r e l a t e d t o u nde r g r ound c ons t r u c tion a nd re l oc a tion. ( S ection 166

PAGE 175

10) C abl e s y s t e m t echni c al s t an dards an d t e s t i n g. ( S e c tion 11) R e qui r e m e n ts f or c o nnection t o s c h ools an d p u b lic buildin g s. ( 12.2) F ra n c h ise v i ol ation s. ( S ection 13) F ra n c h ise r e n e w al an d t ra n s fe r. ( S ection 14) Service Availability The m ost s i g ni f i cant di ff erenc e s b e t w een t he C e nt ur y L i nk p r opos a l a nd t he e x i s ting C om cast fra nc hi se ar e t h e pr ovi s i ons g ov er ni ng s er vi c e a v a i l a bilit y . I n t he f i r st De nv e r c a bl e t e l e vi s i on fr a nc hi se o r i g i na l l y a war d e d b y t he c i t y i n 1984, M ile H i C a bl e wa s re qui re d t o s e r ve t he e ntir e c i t y w ithi n f our y e ar s, unde r t hr e a t of liqui da t e d da m a g e s a n d ot he r pot e n tia l s a nc tion s i f t he c ompa n y fa ile d t o m eet t hi s d ea dline The o r i g i n a l f r a nc hi se i n c l ude d a m a p a nd ot he r de t a ile d i nf or m a tion showi ng how buildout t o t he e ntir e c i t y w oul d be pha s e d i n dur i ng t he f i r st f our y e a r s of t he fra nc hi s e The r e qui re m e nt f or M ile H i C a bl e t o offe r cabl e s er vi c e uni v er s a l l y t o a n y p er son re qu e s ting s er vi c e a n y w he r e i n t he c i t y ha s s i nc e been car r i e d f o r wa r d i n subs e que nt re n ewal s of t he fra n c hi se i n 1999 a nd 2014, a nd c ur r e nt l y a pp e ar s a t .1 of t he C om cast fra n c hi s e I n c ont ra s t t he pr opos e d C e nt ur y L i nk f ra nc hi s e d oe s not re qui r e uni ver s a l s e r vi ce un l e s s a nd until C e nt ur y L i nk a c hi e ve s a c e r t a i n l e ve l of m ar ke t su c cess i n De nve r ov e r time The ba s i c c on cept of ke y i n g e x pa ns i on of s er vi c e t o m a r ke t su c c e ss is a da pt e d from t he CCU A m ode l H owe ve r uni que t o De n ver t he pr opos a l a dds r e qui re m e nt s f or g e o g r a phi c di s t r ibution of cabl e s er vi c e t h r ou g hou t t he c i t y a s s e t f or t h i n 12.1: Ma n da t ory s c ope an d dis t r i butio n of c abl e s e r v i c e i n th e f i rst tw o years. W ithi n t w o y e ar s C e nt ur y L i nk m us t : (A ) of fe r c a bl e s er vi c e t o a t l east 1 5 % of t he L i v i n g U nits i n t he e ntir e c i t y ; and ( B ) of fe r cabl e s er vi c e i n e ach of t h e e l e ve n c ounc i l d i s t r i c t s, t hr oug h t he i ns t a lla tion of a t l east one rem ot e t er mina l ( R T) i n each di s t r i c t C e nt ur y L i n k act ua l l y i n t e nds t o de live r cabl e s er vi c e t hr ou g h t w o di s tinc t t echnol o g i e s F ib e r t o t he node ( F TTN ) v i a t he R Ts; a nd F ib e r t o t he hom e ( F T T H ) w hi c h doe s not utili z e R Ts. The c ompa n y w ill m a p a nd d ef i ne t he i nitia l F TTN a nd F T TH s er vi c e ar e a s i n e a c h c oun c i l di s t r i c t Mark e t p e n e t ra tion be n c h m ark. I f a nd w he n C e n t ur y L i nk s e r ve s a t l e a st 27.5% of t he livi ng units i n t he i nitia l s er vi c e a r e a i n a n y c ounc i l d i s t r i c t t he c ompa n y w ill be re qui re d t o i ns t a l l a t l east one a dditiona l R T i n t he di s t r i c t Futu re be n c h m arks. T h e Ci t y w ill c ontinue t o r e qui r e t ha t a s C e nt ur y L i n k s s er vi c e ar e a e x pa nds, a dditiona l R Ts m ust be activa t e d w he n e ve r t he 27.5 % m ar ke t pe ne t ra tion t hre s h ol d i s m e t i n t he e x pa nde d s er v i c e ar e a Pr e dom in a n t c abl e s e r v i c e prov i de r. I f C e nt u r y L i nk i s e ve r de t er mine d t o s er ve a t l east 50% of a l l c a bl e t e l e vi s i on c us t om er s i n t he c i t y t h e c ompa n y w ill be re qui re d t o pr ovi de uni ve r s a l s er vi c e t hr ou g hout t he c i t y w ithi n a reaso n a bl e t ime t here a f t er not t o e x ceed f our y e a r s. 167

PAGE 176

No n dis c r i m i n atio n I n t he de pl o y m e nt of c omp e t itive cabl e s er vi c e C e nt ur y L i nk i s pr ohibite d from di s cr imina ting a g a i nst a n y n e i g hb o r hood o n t he b a s i s of i nc om e l e ve l s i n t he ne i g hbo r hood. The f ra nc hi se r e qui re s q u ar t er l y m eeti n g s b e t w een t he Ci t y a nd C e nt ur y L i nk t o re v i ew a m on g ot he r t hi n g s, w he t h e r or not C e nt ur y L i nk i s d e pl o y i n g cabl e s e r vi c e i n a nondi s cr imina t or y m a nner Public, Educational and Government Access Channels The C e nt ur y L i nk pr opos a l i s subs t a ntia l l y s imila r t o t he C om cast fra nc hi se on t he g e n eral subj e c t of P E G i nc l udi ng pr ovi s i ons f or c onver s i on of P EG c ha nn e l s t o HD. H owe ve r t her e ar e a f e w di ffere n ces i n t he d e t a ils of t he P EG pr ovi s i ons: N u m be r of P E G c h anne ls C e nt ur y L i nk pr opos e s 7 P EG c ha nne l s, t he s a m e a s numbe r of P EG c h a nne l s a s C om cast h a s c ur re nt l y a c ti va t e d i n De nv er H owe ve r t he C om cast f r a nc hi se pr ovi de s f or t he possibilit y of a c ti va ting a t l east one a dditiona l c ha nn e l unde r c e r t a i n c i r c um s t a nc e s. ( 9.2) Ch anne l 8 as s ig n m e nt C e nt ur y L i nk c ommits t o m a i nt a i ni ng C ha nn e l 8 a s t he m a i n g ove r nm e nt a c cess c ha nn e l a ssi g nm e nt C o m cast si mp l y s t a t e s: G r a n t e e w ill use reasona bl e eff o r t s t o minimi z e m ove m e nt of P EG c ha nn e l s. Mark e tin g an d ou t r e ac h wh e n P E G c h anne l r e a ssig n m e n ts C e nt ur y L i n k pr opos e s t o c ove r c i t y c o s t s f or m ar ke tin g a nd out reach c os t s a sso c i a t e d w ith P EG c ha nne l r eassi g nm e nt s up t o $.50/ subs cr ib er C om cast p r ovi de s a m ax imu m c ost re i mbur s e m e nt of $2 0,000 pe r c ha nne l H D r ecei v e r e qu ip m e n t t o P E G prov i de rs. C e nt ur y L i nk pr opos e s f r e e H D recei v e r e quipm e nt f o r e ac h a ccess p r ovi d er ( 9 .2 ( B ) ( 3) ) G over n m e n t A ccess V i de o on D e m an d (G A V O D ) C e nt ur y L i nk p r opos e s m or e g e n er ous a nd l e ss p re s c r i ptive pr ovi s i ons f or G A VOD t ha n doe s t he C om cast fra nc hi s e i n c l udi ng 20 h our s of GAVO D pr o g ra mming cap aci t y pe r c ha n ne l i n c on t ra st t o t he 5 hour s t ot a l o ffe r e d b y C om cas t ( 9.2(D)) Ch an ge i n t echn o l ogy an d t echni c al qu al i ty affe c tin g P E G The c ommitme nt t o a ssi st t he Ci t y a nd a c cess pr ovi der s i s so m ew ha t m or e qua lif i e d i n t he C o m cast fra nc hi se t h a n i n t he C e n t ur y L i nk pr opos a l ( 9 .9; 9.10) A pplic ab ility of P E G fe e t o bul k bill in g s i tu ation s. I n bul k r e s i de ntia l b illing s cenar i os ( a par tme nt bui l di n g s, e t c ) C e nt ur y L i nk pr opos e s t o c ollect a s e pa ra t e P EG fe e pe r re s i d e ntia l subs cr ib er U nd e r t he C o m cast fra n c hi s e onl y one P EG fe e i s c h a r g e d f or t he e nt i r e buildi n g ( 1.35; 9.6 ) P E G r e tu rn l i n e s / access origin atio n The C e nt ur y L i nk pr opos a l d i ffer s f r om C om cast i n t ha t i t a ddre sse s re sponsibilitie s f or c o ns t r uc tion of e ntire l y ne w re t ur n line s t o t he C e nt ur y L i nk he a de nd, w hile t he l a tte r f oc us e s p r imar i l y on m a i nt a i n i ng t he r e t ur n line s t ha t ar e a l r e a d y i n p l a c e ( 9.13) 168

PAGE 177

Other miscellaneous differences A s e x pl a i ne d a bove t o t he e x t e nt t her e a r e a n y su b s t a ntive di ffe r e nces i n th e C e nt ur y L i nk pr opos a l a n d t he C om cast fra n c hi s e t he y t e nd t o b e c l us t e r e d i n t w o areas s er vi c e a va ila bilit y a nd P E G H owe v er t he r e a r e a fe w o t he r not a bl e di f f e r e nces i n t he t w o doc um e nt s: C o m pe titiv e e qui t y To re peat t he C om cast f ra nc hi se c ont a i ns de t a ile d c r it er i a a nd pr ocedu re s a llow i n g C o m cast t o f orc e a n a m e ndm e nt or re ne g oti a tion of t he i r fra nc hi se i f C om cast b e l i e ve s t he r e g ul a t or y a nd f i na nc i a l bu r d e ns i mpos e d upon C om cast p l aces t he c ompa n y a t a c ompe titive di s a dva nt a g e i n c ompa r i son t o a not he r c a bl e c omp a n y I n c ont ra s t t he C e nt ur y L i nk pr opos a l s i mp l y re qu i re s t ha t fra nc hi s e s o ffe re d t o ot he r cabl e c ompa ni e s i n t he f ut ur e w ill be reaso n a bl y c omparabl e ( 2.6) I n de mn i f i c ation The i n de m ni f i cation c l a use p r o pos e d b y C e nt u r y L i nk c o nt a i ns a n a dditiona l a ssu ra n c e t ha t t he c ompa n y w ill d e f e nd a n y l aw su its i f a c om pet it or c ha lle n g e s t he g ra nt of a fra nc hi se t o C e nt ur y L i nk ( 5.1 ( C )(1) a nd ( F ) ) L e tte r of C r e di t. C e nt ur y L i nk pr opos e s a s t a ndi n g l e tte r o f c r e di t ( $100,0 00) t o s ecur e p erf o r m a nc e of t h e fra n c hi s e The C om c a s t fra nc hi se s t a t e s t ha t a L O C w ill be pr ovi de d onl y i f d e m a nde d i n c onj unc tion w ith a n a lle g e d br each o f t he fra nc hi s e ( 5.4) St at e of th e A r t prov i s i on The C e nt ur y L i nk pr opos a l c ommits t he c ompa n y t o upg r a di n g its s y s t e m a nd s er vi ces c ons i s t e nt w ith t echnol o g i cal a dv a nc e m e nt s i n t he i ndus t r y I n li e u o f su c h a pr ovi s i on, t he C om cast fra n c hi se s i mp l y s t a t e s t ha t t he c ompa n y w ill do a t echnol og y a ss e ssm e nt u pon t he re que st of t he Ci t y but w ith no obli g a tion t o upg ra de its s y s t e m b a s e d upo n suc h a n a sse ssm e nt ( 11.2) S e r v i c e t o pu blic buildi n gs, s c h ools an d librar i e s. B ot h t he C om cast f r a nc hi se a nd t he C e nt ur y L i nk pr o pos a l c ont a i n re qui r e m e n t s t o pr ovi de fre e s er vi c e t o public buildi n g s, s c hool a nd l ib rar i e s. H o we ve r because C om c a st p r ovi de s ser vi c e uni ve r s a l l y t hr ou g hout t he c i t y t he c ompan y i s e sse ntia l l y r e qu i r e d t o pr ovi de fre e s er v i c e t o eve ry s c hool a nd l ib r a r y i n De nver I n c ont ra s t C e nt u r y link w oul d be ob li g a t e d t o pr ovi de s er vi c e onl y t o s c hool a nd l ib r ar i e s t ha t e x i st i n t hose areas of t h e c i t y w h er e C e nt ur y L i nk ha s c hos e n t o a c tiva t e a R e m ot e T er mina l H owe v er C e n t ur y link w oul d be r e qui r e d t o s er ve a t l e a st one s c h ool or l ib ra r y i n e a c h c ounc i l d i s t r i c t i n its i ni t i a l s er vi c e area, a nd t he n e ach t ime t he c ompa n y i s re qui re d t o a c tiva t e a ne w R T i f a nd w he n i t re a c he s a m ar ke t p e ne t ra tion be n c hm ar k w ithi n a par tic ul a r c oun c i l d i s t r i c t ( 12.1, 12.3) 169

PAGE 178

E: PROGRAMMING PROSPECTUS FOR CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER MEDIA The following is a summary program prospectus for CU Denver and MSU Denver for Channel 54 wr itten by this author. It was used early in the negotiation stage between Denver Media and Auraria Media Center to prove we could meet the twenty hour per month requirement. When we met with Matt Keller in 2014 to discuss what programming we could provide we all looked at programming we already had. Also, while we didnt know if the hourly requirement could include repeated programming, we decided to assume that we would need to generate twenty hours of first run programming per month. David Liban, the chair of CU Denvers Theatre, Film and Video Production Department provided me with a list of student and faculty films that students had worked on that could be included in the total. I met separately with Steve Haigh, the director of Student Media for MS U Denver, about what we could provide, and included that, as well. But it became evident that after we had run through the list of CU films and the pre packaged shows from the MSU Office of Student Media, we might actually be short of the hourly requirement. New programming ideas came to the table for discussion, and are still being discussed. A faculty concert series involving CU Denvers Music and Entertainment Industry Studies program, but using MSU Denver students and faculty as videographers and editors, is in the development stage. A Reporters Notebook roundtable news discussion show from the Office of Student Media is in the pre production stage as of this writing, as are other ideas. One problem may arise if City and County of Denver Media e xpects Auraria Media Center to not vary from the programming prospectus, which may need to be resubmitted soon. Student productions change as students interested in producing shows change; there are 170

PAGE 179

also proposals for news satire shows, comedy shows, and s hows featuring local student musical acts with interview; when the prospectus was submitted to City and County of Denver Media, none of those were even in the proposal stages. As a result, t here will be more possible television sh ows that come up for dis cussion maybe many more. 171

PAGE 180

PROGRAM SCHOOL AVAIL TRT DESCRIPTION FIRST AIRING OR REPEAT TOTAL HOURS The Met Report, June 20, 2013 MSU Denver NOW 37:00 The Met Report is a weekly newscast generated by the Metropolitan State University Office of S tudent Media. It is produced, directed and hosted entirely by students. This show airs live Fridays on Channel 54 at 12:30. FIRST Roadrunner Sports Review, June Show MSU Denver NOW 28:00 Roadrunner Sports Review is a monthly roundtable show produced by the MSU Denver Athletics D epartment. It uses student producers. FIRST 1:05:00 172

PAGE 181

Noticiero TV Met MSU Denver NOW 30:00 Noticiero TV Met is a Spanishlanguage newscast generated by the Metropolitan State University Office of Student Media. It is produced, directed and hosted entirely by students. In fall, this show will air live on Fridays on Channel 54, right before The Met Report. FIRST 1:35:00 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 26:00 Mustache Girl by Matthew Brown A post apocalyptic vaudeville act tries to survive. FIRST 2:01:00 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 26:00 Carhenge: Genius or Junk by David Liban the story of the creation Carhenge which is a replicate of Stonehenge made out of junked cars. FIRS T 2:27:00 173

PAGE 182

UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 56:00 Mortal Lessons by David Liban An Emmy award winning documentary about death and dying FIRST 3:49:00 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 26:40 Voices From DuPont Circle by David Liban A documentary about the part of Washington DC called DuPont Circle FIRST 4:15:40 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 26:40 Driven to Ride by Michelle Carpenter -A documentary about women motorcycle enthusiasts. Nomi nated for an Emmy, and aired nationally on PBS. FIRST 5:29:20 174

PAGE 183

UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 47:00 In the Heart of Chile by Stacy Barton A documentary that focuses on memory and free expression in post dictatorial Santiago Chile and the pivotal role of women, activism & creativity within that transitory structure. Santiago was once littered with torture sites large and small which today are replaced with art, memorial and an endless search for the disappeared. FIRST 5:02:40 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 26:40 Imagining th e Law by Jessica McGaugh A documentary about public art FIRST 5:58:00 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 26:00 Above the Ashes by Michelle Carpenter: about the fires in Boulder that destroyed many peoples home FIRST 6:22:00 UC Denver Film Showca se UC Denver NOW 60:00 The Golden Hour by Jessica McGaugh and FIRST 7:22:00 175

PAGE 184

Roma Sur -Traffic issues in India MSU Denver Communication Arts & Sciences Presents MSU Denver NOW 60:00 The Spectacular Vernacular: A presentation of speeches from MSU Denvers yearly speech and rhetoric competition FIRST 8:22:00 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 78:00 Looking for Mr. Miyagi by David Liban A documentary about a middle aged man trying to earn his black belt in karate before he turns fifty FIRST 9:40:00 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 26:40 Roll On by David Liban A documentary about people who live with a neuromuscular disorder FIRST 10:06:00 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 20:00 Smithees Lecture by David Liban A group of st udents are on a mad rush to get to class but things are not going as planned FIRST 10:26:00 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 15:00 Likhana by Aaron Kopp Orphaned children from Swaiziland find a remarkable FIRST 1 0:41:00 176

PAGE 185

orphanage that helps kids prosper UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 26:40 Ghosts of Elitch Theatre by David Liban the historic Elitch Theatre in Denver FIRST 11:07:40 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 15:00 Stan Needs A Maid by Scout Wise A socially inept hoarder i s being robbed by a couple about to have a baby FIRST 11:22:40 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 11:25 Ponderosa Drive A woman is terrorized in a cabin in the woods FIRST 11:34:05 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 08:26 Monster by Kathyn Me ljorsen FIRST 11:42:31 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 20:00 Short Shorts from UC Denvers Digital Effects class FIRST 12:02:31 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 10:00 Films From The Digital Animation Center Two films that run ten minutes each. FIRST 12:12:31 177

PAGE 186

UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 07:11 Sanction, Episode 1 This is a series about a family triangle that revolves around two estranged sisters and their struggle to attain a lasting domestic peace under the shadow of their mothers terminal illness. FIRST 12:19:42 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 05:35 Sanction, Episode 2 This is a series about a family triangle that revolves around two estranged sisters and their struggle to attain a lasting domestic peace under the shadow of their mothers terminal illness. FIRST 12:25:17 178

PAGE 187

UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 06:13 Sanction, Episode 3 This is a series about a family triangle that revolves around two estranged sisters and their struggle to attain a lasting domestic peace under the shadow of their mothers terminal illness. FIRST 12:31:30 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 07:35 Mortal Coils, Episode 1 A series about people who recently die where they must first check in with an adm inistrato r bef ore moving on to the next phase of death FIRST 12:39:05 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 05:06 Mortal Coils, Episode 2 A series about people who recently die where they must first check in with an adm inistrato r before moving on to the ne xt phase of death FIRST 12:44:11 179

PAGE 188

UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 03:19 Mortal Coils, Episode 3 A series about people who recently die where they must first check in with an adm inistrato r before moving on to the next phase of death FIRS T 12:47:30 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 06:22 Mortal Coils, Episode 4 A series about people who recently die where they must first check in with an adm inistrato r before moving on to the next phase of death FIRST 12:53:52 180

PAGE 189

UC Denver F ilm Showcase UC Denver NOW 05:10 Mortal Coils, Episode 5 A series about people who recently die where they must first check in with an adm inistrato r before moving on to the next phase of death FIRST 12:59:02 UC Denver Film Showcase U C Denver NOW 07:25 Mortal Coils, Episode 6 A series about people who recently die where they must first check in with an adm inistrato r before moving on to the next phase of death FIRST 13:06:27 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 03:42 Mortal Coils, Episode 7 A series about people who recently die where they must first check in with an adm inistrato r before moving on to the next phase of death FIRST 13:10:09 181

PAGE 190

UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 06:36 Mortal Coils, E pisode 8 A series about people who recently die where they must first check in with an adm inistrato r before moving on to the next phase of death FIRST 13:16:45 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 04:58 Mortal Coils, Episode 9 A series abou t people who recently die where they must first check in with an adm inistrato r before moving on to the next phase of death FIRST 13:21:43 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 07:50 Mortal Coils, Episode 10 A series about people who r ecently die where they must first check in with an adm inistrato r before moving on to the next phase of death 182

PAGE 191

UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 06:15 Mortal Coils, Episode 11 A series about people who recently die where they must first ch eck in with an adm inistrato r before moving on to the next phase of death FIRST 13:35:48 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 06:44 Daydreamer by Lene Telep FIRST 13:42:32 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 06:00 Trouble in Cheddar Bay by Dar en Hone FIRST 13:48:32 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 08:26 Ashes of Ashes by Zach Wyman FIRST 13:56:58 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 03:58 The Story of Harriet by Sydney Thomas FIRST 14:00:56 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 08: 07 The Field that Grows Faster by Stephen Bessette FIRST 14:09:03 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 05:24 Wispy Whimsical Wails by Tashina Three Sticks FIRST 14:14:27 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 04:31 Exorcynicism by Holly Arai FIRST 14:18:54 UC Denver Film Showcase UC Denver NOW 07:00 Stuff by Johnny Huddle FIRST 14:25:58 183

PAGE 192

The Met Report: July 11, 2014 MSU Denver July 11 45:00 The Met Report is a weekly newscast generated by the Metropolitan State University Office of Student M edia. It is produced, directed and hosted entirely by students. This show airs live Fridays on Channel 54 at 12:30. FIRST 15:10:58 Noticiero TV Met: July 11, 2014 MSU Denver July 11 45:00 Noticiero TV Met is a Spanishlanguage newscast generated by the Metropolitan State University Office of Student Media. It is produced, directed and hosted entirely by students. In fall, this show will air live on Fridays on Channel 54, right before The Met Report. FIRST 15:55:58 184

PAGE 193

Roadrunner Sports Review, July Show M SU Denver July 24 28:00 Roadrunner Sports Review is a monthly roundtable show produced by the MSU Denver Athletics Department. It uses student producers. FIRST 16:23:00 The Met Report: August 8, 2014 MSU Denver August 8 45:00 The Met Report is a weekl y newscast generated by the Metropolitan State University Office of Student Media. It is produced, directed and hosted entirely by students. This show airs live Fridays on Channel 54 at 12:30. FIRST 17:08:58 185

PAGE 194

The Met Report: August 22, 2014 MSU Denver Au gust 22 45:00 The Met Report is a weekly newscast generated by the Metropolitan State University Office of Student Media. It is produced, directed and hosted entirely by students. This show airs live Fridays on Channel 54 at 12:30. FIRST 17:53:58 Octobe r 3 Met Report MSU Denver October 3 45:00 The Met Report is a weekly newscast generated by the Metropolitan State University Office of Student Media. It is produced, directed and hosted entirely by students. This show airs live Fridays on Channel 54 at 1 2:30. FIRST 25:34:58 186

PAGE 195

October 10 Met Report MSU Denver October 10 45:00 The Met Report is a weekly newscast generated by the Metropolitan State University Office of Student Media. It is produced, directed and hosted entirely by students. This show airs live Fridays on Channel 54 at 12:30. FIRST 28:19:58 October 10 Noticiero TV Met MSU Denver October 10 45:00 Noticiero TV Met is a Spanishlanguage newscast generated by the Metropolitan State University Office of Student Media. It is produced, direct ed and hosted entirely by students. In fall, this show will air live on Fridays on Channel 54, right before The Met Report. FIRST 27:04:58 187

PAGE 196

November 7 Met Report MSU Denver November 7 45:00 The Met Report is a weekly newscast generated by the Metropoli tan State University Office of Student Media. It is produced, directed and hosted entirely by students. This show airs live Fridays on Channel 54 at 12:30. FIRST 31:17:58 November 14 Met Report MSU Denver November 14 45:00 The Met Report is a weekly newscast generated by the Metropolitan State University Office of Student Media. It is produced, directed and hosted entirely by students. This show airs live Fridays on Channel 54 at 12:30. FIRST 32:47:58 188

PAGE 197

October 24 Noticiero TV Met MSU Denver October 10 45:00 Noticiero TV Met is a Spanishlanguage newscast generated by the Metropolitan State University Office of Student Media. It is produced, directed and hosted entirely by students. In fall, this show will air live on Fridays on Channel 54, right be fore The Met Report. FIRST 27:04:58 Roadrunner Sports Review, November Show MSU Denver Late Novembe r 28:00 Roadrunner Sports Review is a monthly roundtable show produced by the MSU Denver Athletics Department. It uses student producers. FIRST 34:45:58 189

PAGE 198

November 21 Met Report MSU Denver November 21 45:00 The Met Report is a weekly newscast generated by the Metropolitan State University Office of Student Media. It is produced, directed and hosted entirely by students. This show airs live Fridays on Cha nnel 54 at 12:30. FIRST 33:32:58 November 21 Noticiero TV Met MSU Denver November 21 45:00 Noticiero TV Met is a Spanishlanguage newscast generated by the Metropolitan State University Office of Student Media. It is produced, directed and hosted entire ly by students. In fall, this show will air live on Fridays on Channel 54, right before The Met Report. FIRST 34:17:58 190

PAGE 199

December 5 Met Report MSU Denver December 5 45:00 The Met Report is a weekly newscast generated by the Metropolitan State University Office of Student Media. It is produced, directed and hosted entirely by students. This show airs live Fridays on Channel 54 at 12:30. FIRST 35:30:58 FOR FALL MSU Denver LATER 60:00 Reporters Notebook a monthly show of indepth reporting from the sta ff of The Met Report. FIRST 36:30:58 FOR FALL MSU Denver LATER 60:00 Reporters Notebook En Espanol a monthly show of indepth reporting from the staff of Noticiero TV Met. FIRST 37:30:58 FOR FALL MSU Denver LATER 60:00 The Roundtable a monthly panel discussion with reporters and anchors from The Met Report FIRST 38:30:58 191

PAGE 200

FOR FALL MSU Denver LATER 20:00:00 Radio on Your TV live radio shows from MSU Denvers online radio stations: KMET and WCAS. FIRST 58:30:58 FOR FALL UC Denver LATER 5:00:00 King Center Concert Series monthly concerts featuring students and faculty of UC Denvers Music and Entertainment Industry Studies Program. FIRST 63:30:58 192

PAGE 201

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION PAGE Between Metropolitan State University of Denver and University of Colorado Denvers existing programming, we can generate 35 and a half hours of unrepeated programming between now and the end of the year. Adding a few new programs, all of which you see on page 19, brings that total up sharply, to 63 hours of unrepeated programming from now until December. So, to satisfy the terms of the intergovernmental agreement, we would need only repeat each program once. Other programs and ideas will come to the fore and be added, but that may have to wait until August, as faculty and students return for the fall semester. We are all sure we will have more. With new equipment, we would have much more productivity. As it is, The Met Report has to work in real time with production and playback. Digital (and HD) equipment would make us much more productive; the Office of Student Media, in fact, has now completely switched to digital field cameras (no more tape.) At some point, wed also like to discuss the possibility of Denver Media hosting the efforts of both our schools as a streaming channel on the internet. Were excited about the possibility of adding new programs, but feel this can only be done if the TV studios are improved. Thank you again for reading this proposal, and please feel free to contact me. Richard A. Strong Fac ulty. Speech and Broadcasting | Advisor, MSU Denver Office of Student Media Central 120 | Tivoli 313 3035563033 7202315723 193

PAGE 202

F : BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS All photos were taken from the same location and angle where possible, and all are from the aut hors personal collection. (Figure 8: Studio A, May, 2015) 194

PAGE 203

(Figure 9: Studio A, July, 2015) 195

PAGE 204

(Figure 10 : VTR/playback room, May, 2015) 196

PAGE 205

(Figur e 11 : New VTR/digital routing/playback room July 2015) 197

PAGE 206

G: EXAMPLES OF PEG FEES ON CABLE TELEVISION BILLS (Figure 12: Comcast generic example with PEG Access Fee highlighted 198

PAGE 207

(Figure 13: Customerspecific cable television bill with personal information r edacted) 199