KBOO on notice from FCC ..... BOOYAH!!!
Mar 15, 2015 4:01:15 GMT -8
Post by lurker on Mar 15, 2015 4:01:15 GMT -8
Didn't some clown used to troll something like it was a fantasy the FCC would ever do anything?
Guess our dreams sometimes come true.....
feedback.pdxradio.com/forums/topic/fcc-fines-14-stations-no-permission-recording-calls/page/10/
December 18, 2014 at 12:17 pm #4640
Andy Brown
Participant
The FCC has found KBOO’s arguments in their Petition For Reconsideration disingenuous and has denied their requests to omit required facts about where their Board Members actually live from required filings.
licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=54985
Quote from document:
Just to highlight that again:
We find disingenuous the Foundation's argument that the term could be interpreted to mean state of residence. No provision of the Communications Act of 1934, the Commission's rules or its policies, turns on whether a board
member of an applicant or licensee resides in one state versus another. In contrast, certain Commission
rules and/or policies do require us to know the address at which an applicant's or licensee's board
members reside.'3 In addition, we note that, to interpret the term "residence" differently would be a
policy change. Accordingly, we affirm that the Foundation must include the residence addresses of its
Board members in any future ownership reports it files.
Wow. Turns out the KBOO KLUB aren't more equal than everyone else. LOL.
Guess our dreams sometimes come true.....
feedback.pdxradio.com/forums/topic/fcc-fines-14-stations-no-permission-recording-calls/page/10/
December 18, 2014 at 12:17 pm #4640
Andy Brown
Participant
The FCC has found KBOO’s arguments in their Petition For Reconsideration disingenuous and has denied their requests to omit required facts about where their Board Members actually live from required filings.
licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=54985
Quote from document:
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
December 15,2014
In Reply Refer to:1 800B3-HOD
Cohn Black Andrews, Esq.
Garvey Schubert Barer
1000 Potomac Street, NW
Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20007
In re:
KBOO Foundation
Applications for Transfer of Control of
Licenses and Construction Permit
Dear Counsel:
We have before us a Petition for Reconsideration ("Petition") filed by the KBOO Foundation
("Foundation") on September 26, 2014. The Foundation seeks reconsideration of an August 25, 2014,
letter decision in which we (1) granted the referenced applications ("Applications") to transfer control of
the licenses and construction permit held by the Foundation from the Foundation's old Board to its new
Board, and (2) directed the Foundation to include the residence addresses for its Board members in the
ownership report filed after consummation of the transfer of control as well as all subsequent ownership
reports.' The Foundation does not seek to overturn our grant of the Applications. Rather, it challenges
the requirement that it list the residence addresses of its Board members in future ownership reports. For
the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition.
Background.
The Foundation filed the Applications on October 29, 2013. On Februaiy 3, 2014,
one of the Foundation's Board members - Michael Papadopoulos ("Papadopoulos") - filed an Informal
Objection to both the Applications and the Foundation's most recent biennial ownership report. Among
other things, Papadopoulos argued that the Foundation failed to list the residential addresses of its Board
members in both the Applications and the ownership report. The Foundation had listed its headquarters
address as the address of each member. The Foundation maintained that it was not required to list Board
members' residential addresses, citing the instructions to FCC Forms 315 (Application for Consent to
Transfer Control of Entity Holding Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License) and 323 -E
(Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations).
We determined that the Foundation was not required to list the residential addresses of its Board
members in the Applications.2 In contrast, we found that the Foundation should have listed the residential
addressed of these members in its ownership reports.3
We cited Section 73 .3615 of the Commission's
rules ("Rules"), which requires that ownership reports for noncommercial educational ("NCE") stations
include, among other things, the "[n]ame, residence, office held, citizenship, principal profession or
occupation, and by whom appointed or elected" for each board member.4 We thus required the
Foundation to amend the ownership report it had filed on September 20, 2013, to provide the residential
addresses of each Board member.5
We further directed the Foundation to include the residence addresses
for each Board member in its post-consummation ownership report and "all subsequent ownership
reports."
The Foundation explains that it did amend the ownership report filed in September 2013 to
include the residence addresses of its Board members and that it included the residence addresses of its
Board members in the ownership report that it filed after consummating the transfer of control from its
old Board members to its new Board members.7 The Foundation, however, does not wish to include the
residential addresses of its Board members in any future ownership reports it files. Thus, it urges us to
remove or revise the requirement that it include such information in these future reports.8[/b]
Discussion. The Foundation acknowledges that Section 73.3615 does require disclosure of the
"residence" of its Board members.9 However, it argues that the term "residence" is ambiguous and could
be interpreted to mean state of residence.'0 The Foundation asserts that the Commission has never issued
any guidance defining the term "residence."1 Thus, it argues that our decision to interpret the term
"residence" as "residential address" is a policy change that must be made in a more general ruling.'2
We disagree. We find the use of the term "residence" to be unambiguous. We find disingenuous
the Foundation's argument that the term could be interpreted to mean state of residence. No provision of
the Communications Act of 1934, the Commission's rules or its policies, turns on whether a board
member of an applicant or licensee resides in one state versus another. In contrast, certain Commission
rules and/or policies do require us to know the address at which an applicant's or licensee's board
members reside.'3 In addition, we note that, to interpret the term "residence" differently would be a
policy change. Accordingly, we affirm that the Foundation must include the residence addresses of its
Board members in any future ownership reports it files.
Conclusion/Actions. IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the KBOO Foundation on September 26, 2014, IS DENIED.
Sincerely
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Auto Division
Media Bureau
Washington, D.C. 20554
December 15,2014
In Reply Refer to:1 800B3-HOD
Cohn Black Andrews, Esq.
Garvey Schubert Barer
1000 Potomac Street, NW
Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20007
In re:
KBOO Foundation
Applications for Transfer of Control of
Licenses and Construction Permit
Dear Counsel:
We have before us a Petition for Reconsideration ("Petition") filed by the KBOO Foundation
("Foundation") on September 26, 2014. The Foundation seeks reconsideration of an August 25, 2014,
letter decision in which we (1) granted the referenced applications ("Applications") to transfer control of
the licenses and construction permit held by the Foundation from the Foundation's old Board to its new
Board, and (2) directed the Foundation to include the residence addresses for its Board members in the
ownership report filed after consummation of the transfer of control as well as all subsequent ownership
reports.' The Foundation does not seek to overturn our grant of the Applications. Rather, it challenges
the requirement that it list the residence addresses of its Board members in future ownership reports. For
the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition.
Background.
The Foundation filed the Applications on October 29, 2013. On Februaiy 3, 2014,
one of the Foundation's Board members - Michael Papadopoulos ("Papadopoulos") - filed an Informal
Objection to both the Applications and the Foundation's most recent biennial ownership report. Among
other things, Papadopoulos argued that the Foundation failed to list the residential addresses of its Board
members in both the Applications and the ownership report. The Foundation had listed its headquarters
address as the address of each member. The Foundation maintained that it was not required to list Board
members' residential addresses, citing the instructions to FCC Forms 315 (Application for Consent to
Transfer Control of Entity Holding Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License) and 323 -E
(Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations).
We determined that the Foundation was not required to list the residential addresses of its Board
members in the Applications.2 In contrast, we found that the Foundation should have listed the residential
addressed of these members in its ownership reports.3
We cited Section 73 .3615 of the Commission's
rules ("Rules"), which requires that ownership reports for noncommercial educational ("NCE") stations
include, among other things, the "[n]ame, residence, office held, citizenship, principal profession or
occupation, and by whom appointed or elected" for each board member.4 We thus required the
Foundation to amend the ownership report it had filed on September 20, 2013, to provide the residential
addresses of each Board member.5
We further directed the Foundation to include the residence addresses
for each Board member in its post-consummation ownership report and "all subsequent ownership
reports."
The Foundation explains that it did amend the ownership report filed in September 2013 to
include the residence addresses of its Board members and that it included the residence addresses of its
Board members in the ownership report that it filed after consummating the transfer of control from its
old Board members to its new Board members.7 The Foundation, however, does not wish to include the
residential addresses of its Board members in any future ownership reports it files. Thus, it urges us to
remove or revise the requirement that it include such information in these future reports.8[/b]
Discussion. The Foundation acknowledges that Section 73.3615 does require disclosure of the
"residence" of its Board members.9 However, it argues that the term "residence" is ambiguous and could
be interpreted to mean state of residence.'0 The Foundation asserts that the Commission has never issued
any guidance defining the term "residence."1 Thus, it argues that our decision to interpret the term
"residence" as "residential address" is a policy change that must be made in a more general ruling.'2
We disagree. We find the use of the term "residence" to be unambiguous. We find disingenuous
the Foundation's argument that the term could be interpreted to mean state of residence. No provision of
the Communications Act of 1934, the Commission's rules or its policies, turns on whether a board
member of an applicant or licensee resides in one state versus another. In contrast, certain Commission
rules and/or policies do require us to know the address at which an applicant's or licensee's board
members reside.'3 In addition, we note that, to interpret the term "residence" differently would be a
policy change. Accordingly, we affirm that the Foundation must include the residence addresses of its
Board members in any future ownership reports it files.
Conclusion/Actions. IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the KBOO Foundation on September 26, 2014, IS DENIED.
Sincerely
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Auto Division
Media Bureau
Just to highlight that again:
We find disingenuous the Foundation's argument that the term could be interpreted to mean state of residence. No provision of the Communications Act of 1934, the Commission's rules or its policies, turns on whether a board
member of an applicant or licensee resides in one state versus another. In contrast, certain Commission
rules and/or policies do require us to know the address at which an applicant's or licensee's board
members reside.'3 In addition, we note that, to interpret the term "residence" differently would be a
policy change. Accordingly, we affirm that the Foundation must include the residence addresses of its
Board members in any future ownership reports it files.
Wow. Turns out the KBOO KLUB aren't more equal than everyone else. LOL.
