New Haven Independent

In the aftermath of the infomercial “New England Estates v. the Town of Branford,” starring the lawyers who won a huge $12.4 million verdict and “reporters” Duby McDowell and Tanya Meck, residents in Branford have asked if an infomercial that pretends to be a news show should be allowed on public access television.

The 30-minute video, accepted for airing by the seven Comcast towns that make up a shoreline franchise, ran in December and January. Its run ended in East Haven on Jan 26. The video is a thinly disguised advertisement for the law firm’s positions on a variety of topics that go far beyond the Tabor land trial. It was designed to serve the interest of the sponsor, Shipman & Goodwin, one of the state’s best known law firms. Branford’s community cable station, BCTV, has received complaints from viewers.

Yet it was aired. Why?

The short answer is that short of obscenity, pornography or outright commercialism in which a program sets out to make money, anything goes. Public access television encourages viewers to learn how to put on television programs that are of interest to viewers. It is the very essence of First Amendment speech. By and large it works.

Enter Jim Bergenn and Tim Hollister, two partners from Shipman & Goodwin who tried the civil case against the town of Branford last summer. They won. And ever since they have been on a marketing campaign; the video represents their latest offering. They went to a local public television station in Hartford, hired the camera man and hired two hosts, McDowell and Meck, who neglected to tell viewers that their own public relations companies helped create the video. Meck went on to help distribute the video to the seven towns:Branford, East Haven, Guilford, Madison, North Branford, North Haven and Wallingford.

On the video McDowell uses her current WFSB-TV political analyst affiliation and Meck uses a former West Hartford zoning affiliation. The program appeared on channel 18, a non-profit community based station. Two other access channels, 19 and 20, cover the Board of Education and town government. WFSB said it wants to remove the station’s call letters from the video, but it appears that did not happen.

Before public television is unduly criticized for performing what is usually a noteworthy public service, the question might be asked if lawyers should be permitted to produce and star in a video directed against their opponents while their case is on appeal. Should the Bar permit them to engage in self-promotion, to deliver legal advice without permission and in general to advance their own legal agenda which, in the end, may involve great gobs of money?

From the perspective of those who oversee public television, this is the community’s station. Programs center on a variety of themes. For content to be non-commercial, the station means there is no call for viewers to contribute funds. For example, a politician may ask someone to vote but not come to a fund raiser.

Dr. Margot Hardenbergh, the president of BCTV, said most anything goes. “BCTV provides a chance for everyone to express themselves to the community and encourages all to take advantage of the channel, the studio and equipment available for that purpose .This is for the community to use as their own television station. They produce the programming they want in their community”

According to station rules, only a resident or an employee of the town may submit videos for airing. Bergenn, Hollister and Meck neither work for the town of Branford nor live here. This rule is easy enough to get around. Either they find someone living in the town or they make use of a franchise rule that enables one submitter to register the same DVD for all seven towns. In Branford and in North Haven, the video was signed for by Marilyn Proto, a resident of Branford.

DaRos Objects

From the point of view of Branford’s first selectman, Unk DaRos, Bergenn and Hollister should know better. “They are lawyers. And aren’t they also officers of the court?” he asked in an interview.

DaRos said he heard from more than a dozen town residents. “Some of them were enraged that they were doing this on public television. How could this have happened they asked me.”

He said “a lot of people are saying, ‘why don’t we go out there and set the record straight?’” DaRos said “I am not going to try this case in public,” a statement one might have expected from attorneys Hollister and Bergenn. “I don’t think it is right. I certainly can’t imagine professionals’ doing this .This looks like something little kids would do. I don’t get it. If their case is so good why are they out on a p.r. campaign? That is what I wonder. To me it is a very desperate move.”

DaRos said he believes the overwhelming majority of the public “has seen right through this.” He recalled when a reporter for local Channel 8 news interviewed Bergenn at the Tabor land site, for the six o’clock news. The date was Nov. 16, 2007, about ten days after the election and more than two months after the jury verdict. “Why was the lawyer standing in front of the dump lecturing the people of the town of Branford on what they should be doing, I think that is bizarre behavior,” DaRos said.

In an interview two weeks ago, Hollister denied that he had anything to do with putting the video on public access TV. “We are not running our video. Apparently somebody took it off our website. The video is on the website and somebody took it off the website.”

He insisted that “we put it on our website where it is available, but it is not what we. We did not ask the cable television to run it.”

Perhaps Hollister was out of the loop. He ought first to have checked with Bergenn and Meck. They knew about it.

Who Booked The Time

In North Branford, a resident named Jennifer M. McGrath submitted the DVD to the station. But when it appeared that Shipman & Goodwin owned the copyright on the video, McGrath was asked to get a release from the law firm.

She did so. Then she wrote the station on Dec. 19 to say she had permission from Shipman & Goodwin, the copyright holders, “to distribute the DVD.” Her letter identifies Attorney Bergenn as the contact person on questions involving the copyright. The letter also copies Meck.

In Madison, Meck called the cable station to ask about the submission process. After receiving the application, she apparently faxed it to a “Midland Dev,” according to the company name and a fax number that appears on the video application. Perhaps it is coincidence but according to the Secretary of State’s office, Midland Development Co., LLC is, located at 42 Lazy Brook Road in Shelton, the same address for Don Stanziale, Jr. one of the principals of New England Estates and a key witness at the first trial. Stanziale is listed as the owner of Midland Development.

The video also appeared on North Haven public access television. When the first showing occurred, it turned out the DVD was defective; it had a scratch on it that distorted images on the screen. According to Walter Mann, the station manager, a viewer called the station. The caller, Andy Forte, a North Haven resident, then visited the station. Forte is also a principal in New England Estates. Forte delivered a new DVD to the station. That DVD turned out to have a scratch as well. He came back a third time. This one worked, Mann said. Attempts to reach Forte were unsuccessful.

In Branford, Marilyn Proto, a lifelong resident, delivered the Shipman & Goodwin DVD to BCTV. She told the Eagle that as a taxpayer she was deeply concerned about the ramifications of the Tabor verdict and wanted residents to get the other side of the case. She said she was impressed with NEE’s designs for the 77-acre tract, which she saw last year when they were presented at an RTM meeting covered by BCTV.

Proto may have had personal reasons for her decision to get the video before Branford audiences. She said she was concerned about the difficulties a friend was having in trying to purchase a building on Tabor Drive, which borders on the town dump. “It’s gone nowhere because of the environmental issues and I have the feeling it is the same thing. The building has been there for a long time. You need a phase 1 and a phase 2, environmental studies, legal fees. It goes on and on.”

Proto found NEE by searching the internet, and through NEE found Tanya Meck, she said. She called Meck directly. “I told her I agreed with NEE’s position and she was happy to hear that,” she said. Meck then sent Proto the DVD, the one that identifies Meck as the former chairman of the West Hartford P & Z Board. And that is how the DVD found its way onto Branford cable.
###

Sign Up for Email AlertsEmail This Story Email the Author

Your Email:

Recipient's Email:
Your Email:
Message (optional):

Your Name:
Your Email:
Message: