URTV removes board member

On an 8-0 vote with one abstention, the URTV board of directors removed Richard Bernier from his post June 15, asserting that he hadn't dealt with conflicts correctly and had damaged URTV's reputation with his outspoken criticism of the station's management. Maintaining that he'd tried to bring up important issues of transparency that many of the other directors had ignored, Bernier actually urged his colleagues to remove him if they disapproved of his behavior.

“The division is there now:” URTV board member Richard Bernier speaks in his defense before being dismissed by the URTV board of directors. Photo by Jason Sandford

Over the past few months, Bernier has criticized a confidentiality clause in an oath for board members (later rescinded), attempts by Executive Director Pat Garlinghouse to discourage filming of board meetings (allowed within certain guidelines under the state's open-meetings law), and the overall direction of the public-access station, which he feels hasn't been aggressive enough in recruiting and retaining members.

A statement circulated among board members asserted that Bernier's actions “have damaged URTV in the eyes of the community it represents,” citing four reasons for his removal:

“Richard has not brought issues to [the] board for consideration, or to be defended, before going to the community/media/Council/Commissioners with complaints and/or demands for action — rather, he has continually argued his positions in the press. Any and all legitimate issues that were raised were dealt with quickly and correctly as per URTV bylaws;

“Richard presents a state of antagonism between himself and the URTV board. By so doing, Richard is not acting in the best interests of the organizaton;

“Richard doesn't consider cause and effect;

“Richard's actions are contrary to an acceptable standard of conduct for URTV.”

Before the vote, Bernier defended his actions as those of a longtime station producer and advocate who was trying to address pressing issues.

“I support URTV 100 percent, and the current staff has met their obligation to meet the public's needs on a daily basis — that's not in question,” said Bernier. “But the direction of the URTV board is troubling.”

Sticking to his guns, Bernier declared: “If you're not a supporter of transparency and open-meeting laws, vote me off. If you see no fault in URTV's staff not wanting our meetings filmed, then vote me off. That was totally against open-meetings law, and we [Bernier and former board member Davyne Dial, who was removed April 29] tried to bring it up.”

Bernier maintained that he was left with little choice but to make the matter public. After “a member of the public asks to film and is shot down, where do you go?” he asked. “I sent e-mails out, I asked for help about being on the board and procedure and said there were issues. The rest of the board said there were no issues.

“I didn't want there to be this kind of animosity, but I will stand up for what's right.”

Bernier also voiced the fear that these conflicts signaled the end of “the melting pot” of diverse views that had attracted him to URTV in the first place.

“I don't know if we'll get that back,” he said. “The division is there now. After I'm gone, you'll have full rein. But you're still board members, you still have responsibilities, and I suggest you look at them very strongly.”

Bernier completed his statement by making the motion for his own removal and voting in favor of it.

New member Matt Howard abstained, saying that because he wasn't on the board during the period in question, he didn't feel he could vote either way.

After the meeting, board member Hunter Goosmann told


that URTV's own attorney had “very different views” concerning the actions Bernier said violated open-meetings law. Goosmann also maintained that for him, the vote wasn't personal.

“I hope he'll remain and be an active producer; he's an excellent producer,” said Goosmann, adding, “My biggest concerns right now aren't for Mr. Bernier: They're for URTV.”


Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

One thought on “URTV removes board member

  1. Johnny L House Jr

    I know for a FACT them Mr. Bernier tired on many occasions to address the issues mentioned with fellow Board Members behind the scenes in emails to the various members. His concerns were virtually IGNORED. So when Mtn Exp. began this expose and ask for comment Mr. Bernier went spoke out precisely because the Board was arrogantly turning a deaf ear.

    Mr Goosmann mentions open meeting issues brought forward on many occasions by Mr. Bernier, and how he went about dealing with non compliance issues wrongly…..However URTV has continually defied meeting law, notification law, procedures for removing a sitting board member, and there are other issues of non compliance. Open meeting laws are pretty clear and proper meeting notifications are pretty simple…all on has to do is follow what the city and county is now doing to be in compliance. It’s not that complicated Mr. Goosman. Furthermore Mr. Goosmann’s “concerns” for URTV seem odd, since he appears to be the author of the newly written bylaws that are so vague they can mean anything, and missing in these bylaws is the original mission statement form the previous bylaws that URTV is : 2. Mission.
    ” The Mission of the Corporation is to empower every resident of our community by providing equal means and opportunities to create and present television programming in keeping with First Amendment principles of free speech.”

    At this meeting for Bernier’s dismissal, “public comment” was not allowed by the spokesperson. However all “special meetings” I read about do indeed, allow for public comment. Does anyone but me get the impression that these people (who are supported by public funds) don’t really care about the mission mentioned above or to uphold the laws??? And what does that say about what is going on behind the scenes with public funds????? If you’re not concerned, you not looking very closely and the wool has been pullover over your eyes.

    The city’s 2007 amendment to the original management agreement SPECIFICALLY states URTV is funded by the public and must comply with NC Open meeting laws.

    And here’s the county amendment.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.