Norwood Citizens Overwhelmingly Back Cable TV-August 21, 1980

The Norwood CATV Committee officially announced last night that approximately 80 percent of the roughly 120 individuals contacted during an informal telephone poll expressed clear support for bringing cable television to the town. The remaining 20 percent of those surveyed indicated that they either did not want cable television services established or currently held no opinion on the matter. The poll data also revealed that local residents desire a broad and diverse variety of specialized programming options. Respondents explicitly requested the inclusion of local and world news coverage, feature films, sports broadcasts, weather updates, children’s programming, televised symphony concerts, and dedicated educational shows. While gathering program preferences, several residents specifically noted that they did not want X-rated movies broadcast on the system, though at least one surveyed individual expressed a desire to see adult films offered exclusively late at night.

The Norwood CATV Committee conducted the telephone survey to conclusively determine public interest levels and to establish the exact types of programming desired by the community. Acting on these findings, the committee will formally recommend one specific cable television provider to the Norwood Board of Selectmen in late September. The final selection will be chosen from a pool of 10 separate cable television firms that have formally applied for municipal permission to operate and provide television service within the town.

Once approved, the cable television infrastructure will be physically transmitted via specialized cables hung directly on utility poles owned and maintained by the town. Under the terms of the proposed agreements, the selected cable firm will be required to pay the town a currently undetermined utility fee in exchange for the right to use the municipal poles.

Acting Norwood CATV Committee Chairman William Balfour expressed surprise at the high level of public awareness regarding the emerging technology, though he noted that a few residents initially confused cable television with Channel 68, an over-the-air station that broadcasts movies for a fee to subscribers utilizing specialized decoding equipment attached to their television sets. William Balfour and committee member Fred Epstein highlighted several unique and advantageous features of the proposed cable system. A major defining characteristic of cable television is its interactive capacity, allowing viewers to send electronic messages back to the broadcasting stations, which provides instant audience feedback and criticism of programs. Fred Epstein emphasized that another significant advantage is the capacity for robust local programming. He noted that local schools could directly broadcast educational lessons to children who are forced to remain at home due to temporary illness.

To further refine the implementation process, the Norwood CATV Committee is scheduled to meet with an official representative from the Massachusetts CATV Commission on September 3 to evaluate and discuss the specific methods other Bay State municipalities are utilizing to select their respective cable firms. However, procedural disagreements have emerged within the local board. Committee member Robert A. Arnold stated that he wants the upcoming September 3 meeting to be conducted entirely in executive session. While Robert A. Arnold declined to provide a specific personal reason for closing the meeting to the public, he cited two explicit clauses within the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law that legally permit executive sessions. The first clause allows for closed sessions to discuss strategic positions concerning collective bargaining or ongoing municipal litigation if an open meeting would detrimentalize the town’s bargaining position. The second clause permits executive meetings to consider the purchase, exchange, lease, or financial value of real property if a public meeting would compromise the town’s negotiating stance.

Robert A. Arnold’s formal motion to mandate an executive session for the September 3 meeting failed to receive a second from any other board member and subsequently died. Despite the motion’s failure, William Balfour, who actively spoke out against holding a closed session, stated that he will formally request that Town Counsel Justin C. Barton review the situation to determine the exact legality of an executive session under these circumstances. William Balfour noted that Robert A. Arnold retains the right to present his motion for a closed executive session again when the board convenes on September 3.

Archival Note: This article has been dynamically reconstructed from the original public record print archives of the Patriot Ledger