A lioness, a godfather, and a new elementary school: Why is Stoughton fighting with its cable access channel?
shared access agreement by trying to interfere with its operations because it dislikes critical programming.
Stoughton officials have denied the allegations, arguing that it's SMAC that violated the access agreement — a document that allows SMAC to record and air government meetings.
Advertisement
The town says the station exhibited an undue political bias against funding for the new school — including by airing programs such as 'A Lioness & You on the Watch' and 'The Stoughton Godfather,' a local talk show that begins with 90-year-old host Peter Ventresco photoshopped into iconic images from 'The Godfather.' Local officials also said the station has failed to provide the select board with updates as required in the agreement.
Advertisement
The lawsuit raises thorny First Amendment questions about the relationship between a public access channel and its local government at a time when such organizations are at greater risk of shutting down, thanks in large part to lost revenue as
Founded in 2009, SMAC is funded all but entirely by cable fees received by the town, thanks to laws that require cable companies such as Comcast and Verizon to pay for public access programming in exchange for operating in local communities. It is an independent nonprofit and is required by federal law to be apolitical and open to all viewpoints. SMAC had a budget of $467,000 last year.
The current feud traces back to an earlier, failed vote for the school proposal in June 2024. The new school is estimated to cost a total of $113 million — roughly $47 million of which will come from state grants — which required residents to vote on a debt exclusion.
Opponents said the project will put an even greater strain on residents who are already struggling to keep up, while supporters argued that the proposal is the best and cheapest option for its aging schools.
The real breaking point came after residents voted down the initial proposal, which prompted Town Manager Tom Calter to form a working group of residents. They produced a detailed report about the project ahead of the revote this year.
Advertisement
'I find it easy to get information out,' Calter said. 'The problem is that factual information has to compete with misinformation.'
Calter and other supporters of the school proposal said that opponents didn't characterize the project accurately, claiming, for instance, that the project did not include the costs of tearing down one of the existing elementary schools and building a new road and bridge.
Lyons, treasurer of the Stoughton No More Tax Hikes political committee that opposed the proposal, said that her critics were misunderstanding the group's arguments.
'Saying that I'm full of misinformation? It's preposterous,' Lyons said.
When SMAC tried to cover the second meeting of the Calter-appointed working group, a member told SMAC to leave, despite the meeting being open to the public. Calter said the meeting didn't have to be recorded because it wasn't subject to open meeting law.
'Video recording or live streaming the meetings would be contrary to the mission of the working group,' Calter wrote in a public letter at the time, adding that he was worried that clips without context would be released before the final report.
The move alarmed SMAC, which sued the town just days after residents approved the school proposal in April, alleging that Calter and Select Board members Steve Cavey, and Joseph Mokrisky were not just trying to hide opposition to the school project but also actively trying to steer SMAC's programming. The station also alleged that Select Board members intimidated SMAC staff and had previously tried to gain influence over the station's operations.
Advertisement
'SMAC is under a duty to be independent, and it is independent,' said Joseph Zoppo, an attorney representing the media organization.
Town officials denied that they tried to steer programming but argued that SMAC needs to remain unbiased.
'We want them to be able to broadcast ideas, even ones that we don't agree with,' Cavey said. 'But what we do need from them is to be able to take that role seriously.'
Turning SMAC away from the meeting also troubled some residents, other officials, and station hosts, including Lyons. She filed an open meeting law complaint with the state
attorney general's office, but the office did not find that Stoughton violated the law.
'How dare the town manager not allow SMAC to videotape those working groups so that the working public, or anyone for that matter, could then go to SMAC and watch it at their own convenience,' Lyons said in an interview. 'They're the ones spreading misinformation and outright lies.'
Crossover between local politics and SMAC helped fuel the town's concerns that the station has a political bent. Lyons and David Lurie, who up until last month was a SMAC board member, advocated
against the school proposal and serve on the town's finance committee. SMAC board chair Bob Mullen is the town moderator.
'I'll never argue what SMAC puts up there,' Calter said. 'But it's pretty easy to argue that they had their thumb on the public policy scale with respect to this project.'
Calter singled out the programs from Lyons and Ventresco, the latter of whom he called a 'cynic' who 'does no homework.'
Mullen and Lurie declined to comment and referred the Globe to SMAC's attorneys, who said SMAC board members don't make editorial decisions,
that the station aired plenty of pro-school programming, and that a lot of people in town hold positions at multiple institutions.
Advertisement
Ventresco said, 'I never lie, I put the truth out,' and said a lot of misinformation comes from the town. He added that he is supportive of the outgoing and incoming superintendents in town and supports a new school, just not the one voters passed.
The outsized attention on SMAC comes as there are few other sources of information in town.
The local newspaper, the Stoughton Journal, was combined with neighboring weekly papers in 2019, and the paper stopped printing in 2021, when its coverage went fully online at Gannett's Wicked Local website, a spokesperson said.
As the fight between SMAC and Stoughton charges on, some residents want permanent change to what they see as too much overlap and dysfunction in town government and at SMAC. Others point to the difficulty in getting independent and reliable information.
'It's not like it used to be back in the day. People could get information,' said Mark Hausseman, 77, a retired Stoughton resident who the SMAC board tapped in 2020 to evaluate a former station manager. 'I think that's one of the problems.'
Aidan Ryan can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
25 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana AG Rokita steps up Butler, Notre Dame DEI investigations with new legal demands
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is demanding more information from the University of Notre Dame and Butler University as his office ramps up its pre-litigation investigation into whether the colleges' diversity, equity and inclusion practices are illegal. Earlier this summer, Rokita's office sent letters to Notre Dame, Butler and DePauw University in which he requested a bevy of internal DEI information and argued such practices and policies are a form of racial discrimination. Now, in letters sent this month, Rokita is issuing a civil investigative demand, which is a legal tool the attorney general can use to collect information prior to litigation. "On behalf of the people of Indiana, a full investigation is warranted to ensure that racial discrimination is not practiced in our institutions of higher education," Rokita said in a new release. He said the two universities failed to "address in any meaningful way" the questions included in his initial request for information in May. In the release, he said publicly available materials are "troubling" and "raise serious questions" whether they are in compliance with discrimination law. DePauw's response to the office's request is still being reviewed, the release said. IndyStar has requested comment from Notre Dame and Butler. In his Aug. 6 letter to Notre Dame — a Catholic university — Rokita said its religious mission does not give it "a license to discriminate on the basis of race, and the critically important First Amendment right to free exercise of religion." Rokita was more scathing and explicit in his Aug. 13 letter to Butler, which doesn't have a religious affiliation. "The state of Indiana has a 'fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education,'" Rokita's Butler letter reads. "I aim to vindicate that interest by helping ensure that institutions of higher education in our state do not practice racial discrimination of any kind in their admissions, hiring, or other functions." His office is additionally investigating whether the univeristy has violated two consumer protection laws, the Indiana False Claims Act and the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act — threats that were not weighed against Notre Dame. Rokita is the first attorney general in the country to publicly threaten legal challenges using a university's nonprofit status over differences on "culture war" issues — following the lead of U.S. President Donald Trump's feud with Harvard University. A flurry of recent federal and state executive orders seek to strip DEI from the government's vernacular. One particular Indiana law prohibits public institutions from taking actions based on an individual's "personal characteristic," such as race, religion, color or sex. These types of civil demands are typically a precursor to litigation, which Rokita has floated as a possibility. Notre Dame must respond to the new demands by Aug. 27 and Butler by Sept. 3. Rokita's assistant chief deputy, Blake Lanning, previously told IndyStar that the office could seek targeted court injunctions to halt policies and practices it believes to be illegal. Nonprofit organizations such as these universities exist to provide a public benefit, Lanning said, and in turn, they receive tax benefits. If an organization's actions are antithetical to its purpose, he said, the attorney general's office has legal grounds to act. However, the Indiana attorney general's powers are focused on operational changes, so the office cannot revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status and force an organization to pay state taxes, such as corporate income, property and sales taxes. The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Judges debate Georgia's ban on giving snacks, water to voters
The Brief A panel of federal appeals court judges heard oral arguments over Georgia's ban on providing food and water to voters waiting in line outside their polling place. In 2023, a judge restricted part of the state's election bill, saying that the provision that bars people from offering food and drink within 25 feet of any person in line is probably unconstitutional because that zone is tied to the location of voters. Civil rights groups argue that the law shuts off expressive conduct and violates the First Amendment. The state argued that it was necessary to prevent voter distraction and intimidation. A federal appeals court is debating whether Georgia's ban on providing food and water to voters waiting in line violates the First Amendment. In court on Wednesday, the groups behind the lawsuit asked the panel of three judges to uphold a lower court's ruling that part of the restrictions were probably unconstitutional. The backstory The ban is just one piece of SB 202, a 98-page bill containing dozens of changes to state voting law passed in 2021. Other changes included shortening the time to request a mail ballot, rolling back the COVID-19 pandemic-driven expansion of ballot drop boxes and reducing early voting before runoff elections. Voting rights groups, who have filed a lawsuit challenging multiple parts of the law, argued that the provision infringes on their free speech rights and should be blocked. In 2022, a judge declined to restrict the ban, saying that, while the groups may prevail in part of their challenge, it was too close to the November general election to block any part of the provision. One year later, the judge chose to temporarily block one aspect of the restrictions, saying that the provision that bars people from offering food and drink within 25 feet of any person in line is probably unconstitutional because that zone is tied to the location of voters and could stretch thousands of feet from the polling place. As part of that ruling, US District Judge J.P. Boulee also stopped the requirement that voters put their birthdates on the envelopes of their absentee ballots. What they're saying During oral arguments, the debate centered on whether passing out snacks and water should be protected under the constitutional right to free speech. Attorney Davin Rosborough, who is representing the civil rights groups, told the judges that the sharing of food or drinks was a form of speech. "[The law] absolutely shuts off this form of expressive conduct," he said. "It absolutely prevents the voters." He said that the testimony they provided as evidence showed that the act was encouraging and did not show an attempt to sway voters to any political message. The other side The state had argued that the provision was necessary to protect against conditions at polling places that could raise worries over potential illegal campaigning or voter distractions. "The reason you have a buffer zone is because you don't want a situation where people get in line to vote and they are accosted by a bunch of confusing, distracting, and possibly intimidating things," Solicitor General Stephen Petrany said. He said there was no specific reason that distributing food and drinks would constitute freedom of speech that should be protected. "We want people to be able to stand in line and be basically unobstructed," he said. What's next The arguments are expected to take months before a final decision is made. The Source Information for this article came from oral arguments and previous FOX 5 reporting. Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Judge refuses to block Alabama school DEI ban
U.S. District Judge David Proctor declined to impose a preliminary injunction that bans diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, along with the teaching of 'divisive concepts,' in public schools and universities. The judge ruled the University of Alabama professors and students did not meet the standard for a preliminary injunction after they argued the new law violates their First Amendment rights. The case will continue but the law will remain in place for now. The Alabama law, which went into affect last October, prohibits schools from hosting or funding DEI programs and says 'divisive concepts' such as making one feel guilty or complicit about past or present actions because of their race or ethnicity. The judge argued this law does not prohibit professors from teaching these subjects, but 'it expressly permits classroom instruction that includes 'discussion' of the listed concepts so long as the 'instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement' of the concepts.' 'If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129,' the judge wrote in his decision. The professors argued they have changed lessons plans due to the law and that it violates their academic freedom.
