WPC% 2BJ Z Univers3|}MX}xP7XPHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4X}xP7\oeXP26F X3|}UniversUnivers BoldRoom 201HPLA4MPC.PRSX}xP7\A3vXP 2}CC,MX}xP7XP$ 2~CC,X~ps7X\winapps\wpc\fmwin.exe;00000020;File Manager WPMF=?m:\winapps\wpc\mfwin.exe;00000WordPerfect Macro Facility WPMX=?m:\winapps\wpc\mxwin.exe;00000000;WordPerfect Ma2%f 4f $f $",tB^ f ^CCd||CCC|CCCC||||||||||CCh|so8okv|xCCCddCkskskHss00k0ssssFdHsooo`YdY|9|||||C||||||d|x0kkkkkksksksksk80808080sssssssssoktssosvsl|lll||tl||||tlt||||||80||||9x`|||l0lD||lHl0tt|t|HH|ddd||P|H||st||ts|x`x`x`|||||||oCddCCCWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNd||Choo||~QQ|LLdd|LCCdd~JJ~~zzdddzzCddL"djd9 dCCvCd|o~dC~d~skzUvdYYCCCCo~kodks]zUsk80dhoo~UssvkvvY~]k`sC~koCC~~~~~~~CsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L",tB^ f ^CCh||CCC|CCCC||||||||||CCh|so8okv|xCCCddCkskskHss00k0ssssFdHsooo`ddd|8|||||C||||||d|x0kkkkkksksksksk80808080sssssssssoktssosvsl|lll||tl||||tlt||||||80||||8x`|||l0lP||lNl8tt|t|HH|ddd||\|H||st||ts|x`x`x`|||||||oCddCCCWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNd||Choo||~QQ|LNdd|LCCdd~JJ~~zzdddzzCddL"dod9 dCCzCd|v~`C~o~sdzUvdddCCCCs~vodssdz]sz84ddvo`szvsz]~]vosC~sCC~~~~~~~CzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LUniversUnivers BoldUnivers Italic",tB^ f ^CCd||CCC|CCCC||||||||||CCh|so8okv|xCCCddCkskskHss00k0ssssFdHsooo`YdY|8|||||C||||||d|x0kkkkkksksksksk80808080sssssssssoktssosvsl|lll||tl||||tlt||||||80||||8x`|||l0lD||l?l0tt|t|HH|ddd||P|H||st||ts|x`x`x`|||||||oCddCCCWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNd||Choo|||QQ|LLdd|LCCdd~JJ~~zzdddzzCddL"dnd9dCCvCd|o~dC~d~skzUvdYYCCCCo~kodks]zUsk80dhoo~UssvkvvY~]k`sC~koCC~~~~~~~CsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2%  h  $//Center for Study and Application of Black Economic Development, Des Moines, IA., MM 91204, MO&O, 95R12//$ $/1.106 Petitions for Reconsideration/$  Sv- GBefore the ă  S_- ` ` FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 95R12 8Washington, D. C. 20554  S -MM Docket No. 91204 ă In re Applications of  S-CENTER FOR STUDY AND hh,VppFile No. BRED900131UA APPLICATION OF BLACK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT For Renewal of License of Station KUCBFM Des Moines, Iowa and  S-IOWA ACORN BROADCASTINGVppFile No. BPED900102MB CORPORATION  Se-MINORITY COMMUNICATIONS, INC.VppFile No. BPED900116MA For a Construction Permit for a New FM Station Des Moines, Iowa  S - MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  S"-` ` Adopted: May 30, 1995; Released:  SQ%- By the Review Board: MARINO (Chairman) and GREENE.  S#'- "(0*0*0*0*"Ԍ S-   1. ` ` On April 17, 1995, Center for Study and Application of Black Economic   Development filed a petition for reconsideration, which was opposed on April 19 by   Minority Communications, Inc., and May 1 by the Mass Media Bureau. Center replied   on April 28, 1995. It is well established that "reconsideration will not be granted to  S-  wdebate matters upon which we have already deliberated and spoken." Eugene Walton,  S-  =7 FCC Rcd 6038 (1992), quoting WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685 (1964), aff'd sub nom.  Sv-  xLorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967   (1967). A petition for reconsideration must show a manifest error or material omission  SH-  requiring "substantial alteration of the original decision." Rio Grande Broadcasting Co.,  S1-  8 FCC Rcd 8726 (Rev. Bd. 1993); see 47 CFR  1.106 }?/ (d) }?/ . The petition does not   satisfy the Commission's requirements for reconsideration requests and will, therefore, be denied.  S -  ` 2. ` ` By Decision, 10 FCC Rcd 2836 (Rev. Bd. 1995), we denied Center's   application for renewal of Station KUCBFM, in Des Moines, Iowa, after reviewing the   Lrecord "based primarily on Center's exceptions, its proposed findings of fact, its   contemporaneous documents filed with the Commission during 19871990, and the   ztestimony of [three of its principal witnesses]." 10 FCC Rcd at 2837  7. Two separate and independent conclusions were reached by a unanimous Board:  XFirst, we hold that substantial record evidence supports the ALJ's finding  2that Center's "no" response to Question 6 of the renewal application  denying Knox's felony convictions was a misrepresentation. Second, and  even more serious, is our conclusion that the record fully supports the  ALJ's findings about a "cover up" and the giving of candorless testimony  by Center's witnesses at the hearing. Thus, Center has breached the  fundamental requirement that complete candor is demanded of "Commission licensees as to matters under investigation."   Se-   }?0 Id. (citations omitted); see also Statement of Board Member Marjorie Reed Greene,   "this Review Board's decision has... everything to do with the Commission's requirement of truthfulness and reliability from its licensees...." 10 FCC Rcd at 2851.  S -   3. ` ` As argued by the Mass Media Bureau and Minority, Center's petition   merely repeats arguments, often verbatim, previously advanced in its proposed  S-  kfindings and exceptions and addressed by the Board's Decision and additional  S -  Statement. For example, Center states: "The Board failed to appreciate and   understand that pertaining to Dr. Charles Knox's felony convictions, board members   of Center did not have knowledge of these convictions as one occurred in Texas and   one in Illinois"; and second, Center states: "The Board failed to understand and   /appreciate that Larry Nevilles was a crucial witness in the testimony that was   presented and Mr. Parrish [Center's counsel of record] was denied the opportunity to   crossexamine him...." The first argument had been advanced previously in Center's  S#'-  proposed findings to the ALJ and in exceptions filed with the Board. Our Decision at"#'0*((P("    10 addressed the argument and specifically stated that we were not relying on the   ALJ's finding that Center's board members "Long and Samad knew of the [Knox]   Kconvictions when the renewal application was filed...," and that "our Decision [did]   Jnot rest on that finding." The second argument was set forth in Center's exceptions,  S-  and addressed by us at  22 of the Decision, where we held that "contrary to a   contention by Center, ... its chief counsel, Alfredo Parrish, had an opportunity to fully  Sv-  Kcross examine Larry Nevilles... See Tr. 656717, 762764." Its other arguments are  S_-  equally repetitive of matter previously considered in our Decision, and therefore provide no substantial basis for reconsideration.  S -  } 4. ` ` ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the petition for reconsideration   ,filed by Center for Study and application of Black Economic Development on April 17, 1995, IS DENIED.    ` `  hh,VFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,VJoseph A. Marino ` `  hh,VChairman, Review Board