TO: Kevin M. Casey, President Comcast's Northeast Division Michael Parker, Senior Vice President Comcast Cable's Western New England Region June 13, 2016 Dear Sirs, am writing to report inappropriate actions and words by Comcast Cable’s Vice President of Government & Regulatory Affairs, Attorney Daniel Glanville during a meeting that was held on Tuesday, May 24, in the Town of Amherst, MA. This meeting included the Town of Amherst, represented by legal counsel Attorney Peter Epstein, temporary Town Manager Pete Hechenbleikner, two members of the local Cable Advisory Committee, two attorneys from Comeast, Attorney Daniel Glanville and Attorney Eileen Leahy and myself accompanied by a member of Amherst Media staff. As the Executive Director of Amherst Media, the non-profit contracted by the Town of Amherst to undertake all PEG programming and responsibilities, | was asked to present the Town's Capital Request for the license renewal. While knowing that any negotiations with a company as large as Comcast, who has no real competition to fear regarding its current Amherst franchise, would more than likely expose us to a certain amount of posturing by the Comcast lawyers, we were not adequately prepared for what we witnessed. The contempt towards those representing the Town's interests and vileness spewed by Comcast Attorney Danielle Glanville went much further than we could ever imagine or desire to see again. We were appalled at the provocatively anti-gay comments and insinuations directed at Attorney Epstein by Attorney Glanville. These included questions and innuendos about his relationship with his “Quasi law partner’ Bill August and whether they “shared expenses’, inferring co-living as life partners. Attorney Glanville delivered this in stereotypical tones and mannerisms reflecting and intimating feminine characteristics. It appeared his intention was to diminish Attorney Epstein’s position as legal counsel, by portraying gayness as somehow inferior and by insinuating that Attorney Epstein was gay and as a gay man, an inferior or lesser lawyer. It was clearly an act of boorish intimidation and coercion. Attorney Glanville did not stop there but proceeded to sprawl his body onto the conference table, leaning exaggeratingly into and quizzing the CAC chairperson, Demetria Rougeaux Shabazz, Ph.D. if she was “staring at him"? This continued for an extended period of time. Professor Shabazz who is an African-American woman wassitting directly across from Attorney Glanville, looking at him as he spoke before Glanville made his sudden and irrationally aggressive movement towards her. After the meeting | was approached separately by two attendees asking me if | had noticed or registered the comments and actions of Attorney Glanville previously stated. Each individual felt Attorney Glanville’s bullying actions were disdainful, unprofessional, and potentially unlawful. Peter Epstein is an accomplished and recognized attorney in Massachusetts and throughout the country regarding his knowledge of the cable licensing laws. What allows an individual, such as Comeast Attorney Glanville, to publicly attack another attorney in front of his employers and others, using discriminatory language? If Attorney Glanville feels he can do this publicly in closed negotiations with legal counsel present, what must he feel he can do to less educated and legally vulnerable individuals who identity as LGBT? This was not a meaningless theatrical joke but an attack on Attorney Epstein and anyone who identifies as LGBT or an ally. Additionally, Attorney Glanvill's actions towards a fellow lawyer and public officials is in direct violation of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Rule 3:07, Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, in regards to the “Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibility, scope number 3°, which in part states: A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers, and public officials. Comcast Corporation's own Code of Conduct directs its staff to, “Demonstrate that business needs and results are never more important than ethical standards and commitment to integrity.” Your code continues asking employees to question their actions...."does it potentially violate any applicable law, regulation, policy or contract?” Attorney Glanville’s actions and willingness to violate state standards of professional conduct have more than demonstrated his rejection of Comcast Corporation's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Brian L. Roberts’ plea in his Statement of Integrity which in part states, | am personally asking you to commit to following the Code of Conduct as a guide for your interactions with our customers, our viewers, our fellow employees, our business partners, and anyone else with whom you come in contact.Gentlemen, as a Comcast consumer and business partner, | request action from you that addresses and rectifies the belligerent behavior of Attorney Glanville. R nn) Lescault Executive Director Amherst Media 246 College Street Amherst, MA 01002 rector @amherstmedia.or:676 Island Pond Road COMCAST Maneater 209 603.695.1500 July 26, 2016 Mr. Jim Lescault Executive Director Amherst Media 246 College Street Amherst, MA 01002 Dear Mr. Lescaut: Comcast is in receipt of your letter to Kevin Casey and Michael Parker dated June 13, 2016, with respect to the meeting on May 24, 2016, between the Town of Amherst and representatives from Comcast, including Mr. Glanville. ‘As you outline in your letter, Comcast takes diversity and inclusion very seriously. We are very Proud of our record in this regard. Comcast is committed to diversity with respect to its hiring practices, the culture of our employees and the businesses and organizations we support. ‘When we received your letter, we immediately looked into the matter. Mr. Glanville wholeheartedly agreed that we speak to others who were present in the meeting, as he did not believe that your allegations were representative of what transpired. He felt strongly that this does not reflect his behavior either personally or professionally. He was personally hurt and offended by the nature and tone of your letter. | want to state that Mr. Glanville has been an employee of Comcast for more than eighteen years and has consistently served the company in a manner that reflects both a strong work and business ethic. Having worked with Mr. Glanville over the years, | can personally tell you that I have firsthand knowledge of how seriously he takes his personal and professional ethics. Additionally, he has built and leads a diverse team at Comcast and has partnered and bullt relationships with diverse and inclusive external partners across the Western New England. region. The quality of Mr. Glanville’s professionalism has been represented to us by both internal and external parties throughout the course of his career. | will state that there are often matters in contract negotiations that can result in difficult conversations. Mr. Glanville is a hard-working and proud representative of Comcast, in the same way that Amherst's representatives energetically represent the town. have taken the time to speak to two individuals who were also in attendance at the meeting other than Mr. Glanville or Ms, Leahy. | can report that thelr recollection of the facts are not at all representative of what you outline in your letter. ‘Comcast has fully reviewed this matter and considers it closed‘Mr. Jim Lescautt Page Two July 26, 2016 We look forward to continuing to work with the negotiating team and serve the residents of Amherst, Sincerely, Mark E. Reilly Senior Vice President Government & Regulatory Relations mer/tem By UPS, tracking # 12v954420394843864Mark E. Reilly Senior Vice President Government & Regulatory Relations Northeast Division 676 Island Pond Road Manchester, NH 03109 Tuesday, August 23, 2016 Dear Mr. Reilly, Jam writing to you in regards to a letter recently sent by Jim Lescault of Amherst Media to Kevin Casey, President of Comcast’s Northeast Division and Michael Parker, Senior Vice President, Comeast Cable's Western New England Region to which you replied via mail dated July 26, 2016. ‘Mr. Lescault’s letter dated June 13, 2016, portrayed in his words what he saw transpire at a May 24, 2016 meeting between the Cable Advisory Committee of the Town of Amherst MA and Comeast Cable’s Vice President of Government & Regulatory Affairs, Daniel Glanville. Mr. Leseault’s described Mr. Glanville’s actions and words during a closed cable renewal meeting between Comcast and the Town of Amherst. Lam the Chair of the Amherst Cable Advisory Board and one of the aggrieved persons who was the recipient of Mr. Glanville’s “sudden and irrationally aggressive movement.” Although this was the first meeting Mr. Lescault attended, you need to know these aggressive actions towards me by Mr. Glanville had also occurred in previous meetings. Not only were Attorney Epstein and Temporary Town Manager, Petet Hechenbleikner present at the actual transgressions but also they along with others from the CAC reviewed Glanville’s actions publicly during a subsequent meeting, Mr. Lescault shared the response letter you wrote and I was surprised by the dismissal of Attorney Glanville’s actions. You note that “ Mr. Glanville wholeheartedly agreed that ‘we speak to others who were present in the meeting,” however only two people were consulted. There were nine people in the room that day, two of which were Comeast employees. Of the remaining seven people you selected Attorney Epstein, as you should have, he being one of the people bullied and cited as a victim of homophobic remarks and inferences by Daniel Glanville. It is my understanding that the second individual was Peter Hechenbleikner, temporary Town Manager of Town of Amherst While Epstein has yet to speak to me about how he felt or how he internally processed Glanville’s remarks, you have noted that both of the individuals saw the letter as “...not at all representative...” of how they saw or heard the cited transgressions. I can say I viewed the comments and actions of Attorney Glanville as bordering on harassment of not only Attorney Epstein but also toward me, repeatedly leaning over the table andasking “why was I looking at him,” Glanville’s behavior wes not only inappropriate but also not very professional. I view your investigation as severely limited in scope and neither Comeast nor you have been very thorough in your investigation of the serious charges brought against Mr. Glanville As far as | am aware you did not reach out to the others on the Cable Advisory Committee present that day and certainly I was not asked about the incident. As one of the two persons signaled out as a recipient of his coercive and intimidating actions, 1 do not consider the incident “. . . fully reviewed” nor the matter “closed.” For a fuller investigation, Comcast Affirmative Action Officers and/or Human Resource Personnel should speak to others including myself about the incident that day. Nin, Cabs metria Rougeaux Shabazz, Assistant Professor Department of Communication, University of Massachusetts — Amherst Sincerely, Ce Kevin Casey Micheel Parker Jim Lescault