Cable competition pushed by councilor > Ordinance failed twice for lack of second

HOULTON – Town Councilor Philip Bernaiche has, for a third time, introduced an ordinance before the council calling for that body to approve competition for cable TV services in the town.

On two previous occasions in July and September, the same ordinance failed to get a second from other councilors and thus was not even discussed.

“I’m introducing this in good faith,” Bernaiche said after the introduction during a Monday night council meeting. “I will not rest and let four or five councilors take my rights away from me.”

Three weeks ago, Bernaiche presented a petition bearing 558 signature to council Chairman Paul Romanelli that asked the council to reconsider its action at the Sept. 11 meeting, when it failed to get a second to move the Bernaiche-sponsored order for discussion.

The town’s attorney, Daniel Nelson, determined that the petition was merely an expression of public sentiment on the issue, since the council on Sept. 11 never acted on the order Bernaiche had introduced. In essence, there was no action to reconsider.

At Monday’s meeting, Nelson’s opinion did not set well with Bernaiche, who said he had introduced the petition as an order and had expected that it would be up for a first reading on the agenda.

When it was not, he re-introduced the order for the third time.

The town in late September awarded a 10-year cable franchise contract to Pine Tree Cablevision of Wayne, Pa., after nearly two years of unsuccessful negotiations with the current service provider, Houlton Cable TV, and its parent company, NEPSK Inc. of Yarmouth.

The town’s contract with the company expired in April 1999, but was allowed to be extended during negotiations.

Houlton Cable is suing the town in U.S. District Court over the issue. The contract with Pine Tree will not take effect until the court issues a ruling.

In the meantime, the company continues to provide service to about 1,800 customers in Houlton.

At Monday’s meeting, Councilors Hal Britton and Paul Cleary both pledged not to second the competition order when it comes up for a public hearing on Dec. 12.

“It’s one of those issues we just can’t seem to get over,” Cleary said, referring to two years of debate that have gone on over the issue.

“We’re being sued by Houlton Cable,” he said. “Let the law court decide.”

Last month, when Bernaiche presented his petition, he said he was doing so because he believed in freedom of choice and he wanted people to be able to pick the cable service they wanted.

In December 1998, however, he introduced an order that would have renewed the town’s contract with Houlton Cable for at least 15 years, with an option for a 10-year extension, based solely on an offer made by the company.

That order was introduced before formal negotiations for a new contract had gotten under way.

The Town Council in January 1999 voted unanimously to table action on the renewal to give the two sides time to negotiate an acceptable agreement.

Bernaiche later said his intention in introducing the order in December 1998 was merely to get people moving on the issue.