Staff cagey on Verizon pact

Friday, Sept. 12, 2008

The rollout date was one of the few details that escaped from a vague discussion that frustrated the county commissioners Wednesday as they tried to question their information technology director and a consultant about Verizon’s plans.

The county is simultaneously negotiating a new cable franchise agreement with Verizon to bring FiOS to the county and working to pass a law that would regulate the technical details of how Verizon operates the service within the county’s rights of way.

The commissioners attempted to ask questions about how the law would increase high-speed Internet access, only to get vague answers from their staff, who were trying not to expose their negotiating position.

‘‘It’s safe to say that the difference in [Verizon and Comcast Cable’s] infrastructure could result in a difference in coverage,” said Rick Elrod, who is consulting the county on the Verizon agreement. However, Elrod declined to say more in open session.

‘‘Why are we meeting today, to go into closed session?” asked commissioners’ President F. Wayne Cooper (D), showing some frustration. ‘‘We’re talking, but we can’t say anything.”

County Attorney Roger Fink explained that, in a perfect world, the county would have negotiated and signed the Verizon agreement before proposing the legislation. However, Fink said that the county is under pressure from the Federal Communications Commission to expedite Verizon’s agreement. Fink said that the FCC has agreed with major communications companies that local governments are stalling the rollout of broadband data competition.

‘‘So far, they’re winning with the FCC,” Fink said.

Fink said that the county, with other local jurisdictions, is currently arguing in federal court that their ‘‘methodical, rational way” of negotiating agreements is not obstructionism.

The necessity to discuss the Verizon negotiations and the ordinance simultaneously exposes a conflict in the state’s open meetings law. The law allows the county to keep contract negotiations secret in order to protect the taxpayers’ bargaining position, but they are required to discuss pending legislation in open session. However, many of the issues covered by the franchise agreement and the proposed bill are interwoven.

Fink tried to navigate the contradiction by asking a question on the commissioners’ behalf.

‘‘There will be competition in both the offering of the services and the rates?” Fink asked. Elrod confirmed there would be.

Commissioner Edith J. Patterson (D) asked about an increase in service area. Richard Aldridge, the county’s information technology director, said he had discussed the issue with Verizon, but preferred to brief the commissioners on the issue in closed session.

‘‘We’re going to be served better than most [jurisdictions] throughout the U.S.,” Aldridge said, who said the expansion of services would be addressed by buildout provisions in the agreement.

The commissioners went into closed session to discuss the matter further at the end of their meeting.

The bill governing Verizon’s buildout is scheduled for public hearing next Wednesday.