******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re Applications of ) ) Sandab Communications Limited ) File Nos. BR-950912UB Partnership II ) BRH-950912UA ) For Renewal of Licenses for ) Stations WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) ) Vero Beach, Florida ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 22, 1998 Released: June 24, 1998 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it for consideration: (i) our decision in Sandab Communications Limited Partnership II, 11 FCC Rcd 9040 (1996) ("Sandab I"); (ii) an Emergency Motion to Vacate Grant of Renewals and Hold Assignment Applications in Abeyance ("Motion to Vacate") filed on July 23, 1996, by the Southern Region of the National Rainbow Coalition ("Rainbow"); (iii) oppositions thereto filed by Sandab Communications Limited Partnership II ("Sandab"), licensee of radio stations WTTB(AM) and WGYL(FM), Vero Beach, Florida, and Fairbanks Communications, Inc. ("Fairbanks"), formerly the proposed assignee of the stations, and Rainbow's reply to the oppositions; (iv) a Petition for Reconsideration of Sandab I timely filed by Rainbow and Sandab's opposition thereto; (v) an October 4, 1996, letter from counsel for Rainbow submitting additional evidence in accordance with our action in Sandab Communications Limited Partnership II, 11 FCC Rcd 11790 (1996) ("Sandab II"); (vi) responses to the additional evidence submitted by Rainbow separately filed by Sandab and Fairbanks and Rainbow's replies thereto; (vii) separate responses by Sandab and Fairbanks to a November 1, 1996, staff inquiry letter directed to those parties; (viii) Rainbow's comments concerning the inquiry letter responses and replies thereto by Sandab and Fairbanks; (ix) Rainbow's further comments concerning the replies; and (x) Sandab's final comments. II. BACKGROUND/PLEADINGS 2. In Sandab I, we granted the above-captioned applications for renewal of license for radio stations WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM), Vero Beach, Florida. In addition, we denied a Petition to Deny those applications filed by Rainbow. Rainbow alleged in its Petition to Deny that Sandab had failed to comply with our Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") Rule, Section 73.2080 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.2080. We found that allegations by Rainbow concerning the accuracy of language in the licensee's 1995 EEO Program Report describing the demographics of the stations' labor force were not properly supported and did not otherwise raise a question as to whether the licensee had violated our EEO Rule. We also rejected Rainbow's contention that we should draw an adverse inference because the licensee did not file a formal opposition to Rainbow's Petition to Deny, but only a letter relying on information already submitted. Finally, we held that the licensee's minority employment profile would not, standing alone, constitute grounds for sanctions because our primary concern relates to a licensee's efforts to recruit minority applicants rather than the attainment of a particular statistical benchmark. We therefore concluded that Rainbow's Petition to Deny failed to establish a prima facie case that grant of the renewal applications would be inconsistent with the public interest, as required by Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1). We further concluded that there were no substantial and material questions of fact and that grant of the renewal applications was otherwise consistent with Section 309(d)(2) and (k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(2) and (k). 3. Rainbow's Motion to Vacate was filed on July 23, 1996, the day after the release of Sandab I. Rainbow indicated that it intended to submit under seal certain evidence which it claimed would raise questions as to the qualifications of Sandab and Fairbanks, the proposed assignee of WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) at the time. Rainbow contended that emergency relief was warranted because applications for approval of the assignment of the licenses to Fairbanks might otherwise be granted prior to consideration of the material submitted under seal. Rainbow therefore urged that we vacate Sandab I, hold in abeyance the assignment applications pending at the time, and require Fairbanks to file early renewal applications for all stations for which it currently holds licenses. In Sandab II, we rejected Rainbow's request that its allegations be considered under seal but afforded it ten days in which to file the material submitted under seal with the Secretary and serve it on the parties in the regular manner. On October 4, 1996, Rainbow did file the bulk of its allegations previously submitted under seal. The evidence submitted concerns the activities of George W. Sloan in connection with the renewal applications for WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) and the applications for the assignment of the licenses to Fairbanks. Briefly stated, Rainbow contends that, while acting as an agent for Sandab and Fairbanks, Sloan made prohibited ex parte contacts with the Commission and engaged in other improper behavior (including offers of "bribes" to Rainbow and its personnel) and that Sloan's conduct raises questions as to the fitness of Sandab and Fairbanks to be Commission licensees. Issues Relating to the Activities of George W. Sloan 4. Rainbow's Initial Allegations. In its October 4, 1996, submission, Rainbow includes declarations under penalty of perjury from two of its members. The first declaration is from Victor Hart, who provided the supporting declaration that accompanied Rainbow's Petition to Deny the WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) renewal applications. Hart alleges that, in late June, 1996, he received approximately five unsolicited phone calls from Sloan, whom he did not know. The calls came at all hours of the day and night, up to midnight. According to Hart, Sloan told him that he was calling on behalf of Fairbanks and urged Hart to direct the withdrawal of Rainbow's Petition to Deny. Sloan noted, Hart indicates, that Fairbanks would employ Black people referred by Sloan if permitted to acquire WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). Hart further asserts that, on July 17, 1996, Sloan called again and noted that he had asked Fairbanks' President, James Hilliard, to write a letter to Hart. Hart indicates that he had in fact received such a letter dated July 11, 1996. Sloan further stated, according to Hart, that Sloan's sister had contracted with Fairbanks to provide an audio program if Fairbanks were able to acquire WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). Hart reports that Sloan said that Fairbanks wanted to give Hart a radio program on the stations and that Sloan added that "I'm trying to get you some money" and "if you decide to withdraw the charges, I'll see that you are taken care of." Sloan then asked what Hart's "needs" were, which Hart states he declined to provide because it appeared to him that he was being offered a bribe. The second declaration included in Rainbow's October 4, 1996, submission is from Lawrence Landry, who is President of Rainbow's Washington, D.C., chapter. According to Landry, he received a phone call from Sloan on July 1, 1996. Landry reports that Sloan claimed that he was calling on behalf of Fairbanks because he wanted Landry's assistance in securing the withdrawal of Rainbow's petition concerning WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). Landry says that Sloan stated that, if the petition were withdrawn, Fairbanks would give money to Rainbow. Landry states that Sloan did not provide a dollar amount and Landry did not ask because he viewed it as being an offer of a bribe. 5. Rainbow's October 4, 1996, submission also includes a declaration under penalty of perjury of David Honig, Rainbow's counsel. Honig recounts a June 25, 1996, telephone call he made to Sloan, returning two prior telephone messages from Sloan. Honig reports that Sloan claimed to be hostile to Sandab and had thought about picketing the stations a year before because of the licensee's discrimination in employment. Honig asserts that he did not believe Sloan's claim in this regard. Honig indicates that he asked Sloan whether he had contacted anyone at the FCC and Sloan reluctantly conceded that he had spoken with and sent a letter to officials in the EEO Branch. However, Honig states, Sloan said he had not spoken to any Commissioners, or other persons in their offices. Honig also reports that he asked Sloan about his connection with Fairbanks. According to Honig, Sloan denied that Fairbanks was paying him directly but that he had an "unusual relationship" with Fairbanks, including its support for his business, which he said was an immunization clinic. Sloan also said, according to Honig, that Fairbanks had promised to hire three Black upper-level employees at WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) and a Black General Manager at another station owned by Fairbanks. Honig indicates that, after repeated questioning, Sloan admitted that Hilliard, Fairbanks' President, knew that Sloan had sent a letter to the Commission. However, Sloan told Honig that Hilliard had not asked him to contact the Commission. Honig volunteers that, in his opinion, this claim is unworthy of belief. Honig further reports that he received another phone call from Sloan on July 17, 1996. In that phone call, Sloan allegedly mentioned that Sloan's sister had a programming contract with Fairbanks and that Fairbanks desired to give Hart a radio program. Sloan also mentioned that he had talked to Hart and that he had asked Hilliard to write to Hart. Assertedly, Sloan again disparaged Sandab and indicated that Fairbanks intended to fire the General Manager upon assuming control of WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). Finally, Honig reports that Sloan said he wanted to meet Hart's and Rainbow's "needs" and asked what they were. Further, Sloan assertedly indicated that his sister would be able to secure legal business for Honig and that Sloan would be able to "get" Honig money if he would cooperate in withdrawing Rainbow's petition. Thereafter, Honig states, he recognized this as a bribe and informed Sloan that the Commission's Rules prohibited him from accepting money or the proffered legal business. He further asked Sloan to put his request concerning Hart's and Rainbow's needs into writing and he would pass it along to Rainbow. Honig reports no further contacts from Sloan. 6. Rainbow also relies upon Sandab's February 12, 1996, response to Rainbow's Petition to Deny. The response is in the form of a letter from Sandab principal Stephen D. Seymour and consists of one paragraph in which Seymour expresses the belief that the record then before the Commission warranted the grant of the renewal applications for WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). As noted, in Sandab I, we rejected Rainbow's contention that the minimal nature of Sandab's response should be viewed as evidence of a deficient EEO record. Rainbow now alleges that, in addition, Sandab's failure to file a formal opposition to its Petition to Deny should be viewed as evidence that Seymour was aware of Sloan's plans to achieve the grant of Sandab's renewal applications by improper means. Thus, in Honig's declaration, Honig asserts that he called counsel for Sandab to check on the status of Sandab's expected opposition to Rainbow's Petition to Deny. Honig states that Sandab's counsel reported that Sandab had decided not to file an opposition but had told its counsel that it would handle the matter "another way." Rainbow contends that it can be assumed that the reference to "another way" was a reference to the activities of Sloan. 7. Rainbow further relies upon two Notices of Prohibited Presentations relating to this proceeding issued pursuant to the Commission's Rules concerning prohibited ex parte communications, Section 1.1200 et seq. of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1200 et seq., as well as documents concerning the prohibited presentations that were made available for public inspection at the time the Notices were issued. The first Notice was issued on May 6, 1996. The documents relating to this Notice include an April 11, 1996, memorandum prepared by three members of the staff of the Commission's EEO Branch; a February 12, 1996, letter addressed to the Commission from Sloan; and a February 14, 1996, letter from Fairbanks principal Hilliard to Sloan. The April 11, 1996, staff memorandum reflects that Sloan first contacted a member of the EEO Branch by telephone on March 13, 1996. He identified himself as a personal friend of a member of the Commission, and claimed affiliation with United Family Shelter and the National Rainbow Coalition. He stated that he was calling in reference to the WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) renewal applications. He indicated that, although affiliated with Rainbow, he did not support Rainbow's Petition to Deny the stations' renewal applications. He further indicated that he had sent a letter expressing his opposition to the Petition to Deny and also reflecting that he was instrumental in negotiating the sale of the stations to Fairbanks, which had promised to employ two African-Americans in the Officials and Managers job category. Sloan was informed by the staff member that the Commission's ex parte rule prohibited discussion of the merits and/or substance of the case. Sloan then indicated that he would contact the Commission's Chairman to request permission to share the letter with the EEO Branch staff. On March 27, 1996, Sloan called the staff member again and reported that he had been advised that it would not be a violation of the ex parte rule to submit his letter to the EEO Branch staff and that he would do so in person later that day. Thereafter, on the same day, he appeared at the EEO Branch office and submitted the letter to three members of the staff. He reiterated his support for the grant of the WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) renewal applications and the intention of Fairbanks to hire two African-American managers following the sale. He was then again informed that the ex parte rule precluded discussion of the merits of the case as well as the receipt of the written presentation. Sloan's letter dated February 12, 1996, is directed to the attention of the Commission's Chairman; the Chief, Mass Media Bureau; and a member of the staff of the Mass Media Bureau's Audio Services Division. The letter affirms Sloan's opposition to Rainbow's Petition to Deny the WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) renewal applications, suggesting that the petition arose because Hart's daughter had been denied employment at the stations. The letter also praises Sandab principal Seymour and Fairbanks principal Hilliard for their past support of and contributions to a number of organizations that Sloan views as pursuing goals beneficial to the African-American community. The letter is on letterhead of the Kurt Schmoke Committee and is signed by Sloan as Chairman of the Board, United People's Family Shelter Group, and as a member of the Kurt Schmoke Development Committee. Honig in his declaration characterizes the Kurt Schmoke Committee as a reelection committee for Baltimore, Maryland, Mayor Kurt Schmoke and disputes Sloan's claim to be a member as of February 12, 1996, because the election was over and the Committee had never been involved in radio licensing or matters outside of Baltimore. Finally, in Hilliard's February 14, 1996, letter to Sloan, Hilliard initially commended Sloan for his efforts on behalf of the disadvantaged, but then informed Sloan that he could not assist in Sloan's personal goal relating to the immunization of African-American children. He asked Sloan to come up with ideas that would work for Fairbanks' stations in developing projects for minorities and the underprivileged and indicated generally that he would be willing to assist if Sloan suggested a project that would make a meaningful contribution on a self- liquidating basis, with a particular reference to an IRS tax credit program. However, the letter contained no specific commitment to any particular project and does not reflect that Hilliard was at that time providing support to Sloan or his activities. Rainbow contends that the letter serves to memorialize the relationship between Sloan and Fairbanks, noting the fact that it is dated two days after the date of Sloan's letter to the Commission. 8. The second Notice of Prohibited Presentations cited by Rainbow was issued on May 17, 1996. A staff memorandum prepared in connection with the Notice reflects that on May 1, 1996, Sloan telephoned a member of the staff of the Audio Services Division and left a voice-mail message. The message was thereafter forwarded to a member of the EEO Branch staff. In the course of his message, Sloan stated that Fairbanks had "pledged" to give Blacks three major jobs at WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) if Fairbanks could buy the stations. As a result, Sloan stated, "we're not really concerned with the other people here." He suggested that the three people who would receive jobs were currently experiencing employment difficulties, although he indicated that Fairbanks was willing to put them on partial salary immediately. He then asked for any information concerning the status of the stations that could be shared without violating the Commission's Rules. He concluded by stating "Hope you can help. We don't want to lose these jobs. We would love to see Fairbanks become the new owner of these stations." 9. Finally, Rainbow's October 4, 1996, submission includes a letter dated July 11, 1996, from Fairbanks principal Hilliard to Victor Hart and Sonya Hart. Hilliard characterizes the letter as a "method of personal introduction." He indicates that he feels somewhat acquainted with the Harts because of what he has been told about them by Sloan, whom he characterizes as a "friend." The letter states: "I want you to know that if Fairbanks Communications does have the opportunity to close the sale of the Vero Beach properties, that we will make every effort to eradicate any trace, or even shadow, of any type of discrimination practices that may have been prevalent. Our company is very committed, from our owner through every employee, to introducing our holistic management style into not just a business practice, but as a living example of how we all can work and thrive successfully in a united community." Apart from this, the letter does not address Fairbanks' hiring or programming plans for the stations. Nor does it indicate that any specific commitments had been made with respect to hiring or programming. 10. Based on the foregoing, Rainbow alleges that Sloan was acting on behalf of both Sandab and Fairbanks. In the case of Sandab, Rainbow bases its allegation on Sandab's failure to file a full response to Rainbow's Petition to Deny, which Rainbow contends reflects that Sandab intended to rely upon improper activities by Sloan to achieve grant of its renewal applications. In the case of Fairbanks, Rainbow alleges that it knew of Sloan's letter filed with the Commission in violation of the ex parte rules; that Sloan held himself out as acting on Fairbanks' behalf; that Sloan had indicated that Fairbanks had made commitments for job placements, as well as a program services contract for Sloan's sister; that Sloan had "apparent authority" to offer Victor Hart a program if Fairbanks acquired WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM); that Sloan had indicated to Honig that he had a "relationship" with Fairbanks, including financial contributions to Sloan's business; and that Sloan arranged for Hilliard to write a letter to Hart, which letter did not disclose Sloan's relationship to Fairbanks. Accordingly, Rainbow concludes that Sandab and Fairbanks were involved in a concerted campaign of ex parte contacts and attempted bribery that renders them unfit to be broadcast licensees. 11. Sandab and Fairbanks filed separate responses to the allegations of Rainbow. Generally, they denied involvement in any wrongdoing that might be attributed to Sloan. After reviewing the responses, our staff sent both parties an inquiry letter on November 1, 1996, in order to compile a complete record concerning the allegations relating to Sloan. 12. The Responses of Sandab. Sandab's responses to Rainbow's allegations primarily rely on two declarations under penalty of perjury of its principal, Seymour; one, in response to Rainbow's initial allegations; the second, in response to the staff inquiry letter, along with supporting documents requested by the inquiry letter. In addition, the inquiry response includes a declaration under penalty of perjury by Daniel S. Bradley, the general manager of stations WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). Seymour indicates that he had known Sloan when they worked together in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Westinghouse Broadcasting in the late 1960s. He states that Sloan impressed him as an individual who cared deeply about the rights of the disadvantaged and about fostering community values. In 1969, Seymour was transferred to a new position in Baltimore, Maryland, and did not encounter Sloan again until the late summer of 1995. At that time, according to Seymour, Sloan contacted him. At a subsequent meeting, Sloan outlined various charitable and entrepreneurial projects in which he was involved, most particularly a program to promote the immunization of children. Seymour promised his moral, although not financial support, for this cause. Thereafter, in the latter part of 1995, Sloan solicited Seymour's participation in several projects that were partially charitable and partially entrepreneurial, including hurricane relief for the Virgin Islands, the use of prefabricated homes for the poor, and urban lead abatement. Seymour indicates, however, that these projects did not come to fruition because, in his opinion, of Sloan's inability to remained focused on a single goal. Seymour states that one project that particularly impressed him related to a proposal by Sloan to manufacture inexpensive caskets. This project arose when Sloan learned that Seymour controlled a patented substance known as Kerfkore. Sloan raised the issue of whether the substance could be used to manufacture caskets. He pointed out that poor people were traditionally unable to afford conventional caskets and that there would be a substantial market for inexpensive caskets. Seymour indicates that, after it was determined in early 1996 that Kerfkore could be used to manufacture inexpensive caskets, he agreed to put up money to start a company to pursue the project. Sloan's role in the business was to have been threefold. First, Sloan claimed that he knew an individual who was interested in investing in the venture. Second, Sloan was responsible for searching for a manufacturing site in Baltimore that would qualify for "Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Zone" incentives. Third, Sloan was responsible for marketing the caskets to Black funeral directors, which Seymour viewed as critical to the success of the project because they served the urban minority community whose needs the inexpensive caskets were primarily designed to meet. Documents submitted by Sandab reflect that extensive efforts were made by Seymour and Sloan throughout 1996 in furtherance of this project. 13. Seymour indicates that Sloan's involvement with WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) began in November 1995, when he asked Sloan to become an informal advisor to Sandab on EEO matters, not only for WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) but also for other stations in which Seymour was involved. In this capacity, Seymour asked Sloan to review Sandab's EEO program. He also asked Sloan to refer potential minority job applicants. In a November 13, 1995, letter to Sloan, Seymour stated, in pertinent part: As you know I have pretty much stayed in broadcasting over the years, and currently own several radio properties. Most I have acquired from either poor broadcasters who got themselves in trouble or from the RTC/FDIC. Regardless, the stations have never had any affirmative action programs much less a true sensitivity to the employment and advancement of minorities. In light of your reputation and as a champion of the disadvantaged, I would like to entice you to become an advisor/ombudsman to Sandab Communications. Sandab is the partnership that holds the ownership of the stations. If you agree which I sincerely hope you will; you will work directly with me and the stations. The Affirmative Action Plans will be sent to you for your review as well as any other minority opportunities or problems that may arise. I know how busy your are, and I also know what an imposition this is; however, I hope you will give this your full consideration. When Rainbow filed its Petition to Deny, Seymour asked Sloan to find out why Rainbow had protested the Vero Beach renewals so that he could rectify any perceived problems. In this respect, Seymour indicates that he was proud of Sandab's EEO record and did not understand why Rainbow filed its objection. According to Seymour, Sloan represented himself as being a prominent member of Rainbow and other civil rights organizations, and claimed that he personally knew the top leadership of Rainbow. Seymour suspected that the challenge had arisen only because of Victor Hart's dissatisfaction arising from the stations' decision not to hire one of Hart's relatives in 1994, which suspicion Seymour communicated to Sloan. Seymour hoped that Sloan could ascertain from the top leaders of Rainbow the nature of their concern with the hope that, if there was a problem, it could be resolved. Seymour indicates that, based on his hopes that any problems could be resolved through contacts with Rainbow's leadership, he felt that an extensive response to the Petition to Deny would be a waste of Sandab's funds and might appear confrontational. Accordingly, he states, he chose to file a brief, non-confrontational letter response that relied on the existing record rather than have counsel prepare a formal opposition. 14. Seymour indicates that he envisioned that Sloan might make inquiries at the Commission concerning the status of the renewal applications as part of his endeavors. However, he denies that he instructed Sloan to make ex parte contacts. Further, Seymour asserts that he first learned of Sloan's contacts as a result of the May 6, 1996, Notice. After he learned of the Notice, he chastised Sloan for having made the improper contacts. In addition, Seymour states that, in the same discussion, he instructed Sloan to cease any efforts with respect to the Vero Beach renewals. Seymour concedes that he did not clearly explain the Commission's ex parte rules to Sloan because it did not occur to him that Sloan would be unaware of the impropriety of going beyond a status check. Seymour states that, until he received Rainbow's October 4, 1996, submission, he was unaware of the specifics of the alleged ex parte contacts that resulted in the May 6, 1996, Notice and of the fact that a second Notice had been issued on May 17, 1996. Seymour indicates that Sloan's February 12, 1996, letter greatly overstated the extent of his past relationship with Sloan. Finally, Seymour denies knowledge of the alleged contacts with Hart, Landry and Honig prior to Rainbow's October 4, 1996, submission. He further states that, if those contacts were made, the alleged offers of consideration by Sloan were made without his direction and without Sandab's authorization or approval. 15. Seymour states that Sloan called him in February 1996, to report that he had discovered that Hart was not a member of Rainbow but instead was associated with the NAACP. Sloan also reportedly relayed what Seymour characterizes as a "fantastic story" that persons associated with Rainbow had suggested that Sandab make a contribution to Rainbow in excess of $150,000, "with the apparent expectation that the petition would be withdrawn." Seymour indicates that he sternly informed Sloan that he was unwilling to make the suggested payment. Shortly thereafter, Seymour reports, Sloan called again and stated that he (Sloan) had decided, on his own, to make a $90,000 donation to the persons associated with Rainbow, which he did by a loan from a non-profit organization with which he was associated. Sloan also assertedly told Seymour that he could repay him for the donation, or not, as he saw fit. Seymour states that he again castigated Sloan as to the impropriety of such a payment and told Sloan that he would have no part of it. Seymour indicates that he was skeptical of Sloan's story that a donation had been requested and made. Thereafter, in March or early April 1996, Seymour indicates that he received a call at home after 11:00 p.m. from Sloan, who proceeded to patch in another person whom Sloan identified as the person who had executed a declaration in support of Rainbow's Petition to Deny insofar as it related to the renewal application of a Panama City, Florida, licensee. According to the person on the telephone, Rainbow had provided him with a new van for his church in exchange for executing the declaration. Subsequently, in April 1996, Seymour reports that he received a late night call from Sloan who claimed that Hart had agreed to withdraw Rainbow's Petition to Deny. Sloan patched into the call an individual who was identified as Hart, who reportedly told Seymour that he had decided to withdraw the Petition to Deny after Sloan explained Sandab's excellent work in the community and the station's EEO record. According to Seymour, Sloan later told him that he had accompanied Hart to the FCC to hand-deliver a letter withdrawing the complaint against WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). 16. Apart from his May, 1996, reprimand to Sloan after learning of the May 6, 1996, Notice, Seymour does not report any further discussions with Sloan concerning the situation arising from the Rainbow Petition to Deny until the summer of 1996. At some point during that period, according to Seymour, Sloan began to press Seymour for financial assistance in repaying the $90,000 Sloan had allegedly borrowed to make a donation to persons associated with Rainbow. Seymour also reports a telephone call from Sloan in August 1996, after the release of Sandab I. Sloan patched in the general manager of the Fort Myers, Florida, radio stations that had been the subject of Rainbow's Petition to Deny. During the course of this discussion, Sloan reportedly said that he had contacted an individual who had executed a declaration in support of Rainbow's Petition to Deny and that individual had expressed concern that Rainbow's counsel was personally benefitting from the Petition. Sandab has supplied an undated handwritten note by Seymour apparently relating to a conversation with the Fort Myers general manager which reflects a claim that Rainbow's counsel was in violation of Section 73.3588 of the Commission's Rules (Dismissal of Petitions to Deny), which is followed by the notation: "George will take offensive action." Although this note is undated, it refers to the grant of the renewal applications for the Fort Myers stations, subject to reporting conditions, which occurred on September 24, 1996. Accordingly, the note was necessarily prepared at some point after that date. 17. According to Seymour, Sloan received, from December 1995 to March 1996 five payments of $2,000 for services as a consultant for the casket enterprise. These payments were made by the company that manufactures the substance from which the caskets were to be made. In addition, Seymour states, from February to May 1996, he made a number of payments to Sloan that totalled $29,700. These payments were made in response to requests by Sloan and were made from the Sandab bank account because, according to Seymour, it had available cash resources. Seymour indicates, however, that these payments were only in part intended to recognize Sloan's services to Sandab. The payments were also made because of services provided to other businesses in which Seymour was involved, primarily, the casket enterprise. Thus, Seymour indicates that he viewed Sloan's continued participation as crucial to the successful development of the casket enterprise. Also, according to Seymour, the payments reflected his regard for Sloan as "a courageous and righteous person seeking to make the world a better place," as well as concern for Sloan's financial condition, as a result of an illness of Sloan's ex-wife. Seymour indicates, however, that after May 1996, he scaled back his financial support to Sloan because the casket business was not making as much progress as anticipated. Seymour states that, over the summer of 1996, he paid Sloan only $1200 from personal accounts. 18. At some point during the summer, Seymour reports, Sloan began to seek aggressively Seymour's assistance in order to repay funds that Sloan had allegedly borrowed to make the payment to persons associated with Rainbow in February. Seymour indicates that he had serious doubts concerning Sloan's story about the February payment and he therefore initially resisted Sloan's requests for more money. However, in August 1996, according to Seymour, Sloan's requests became more persistent and Seymour finally agreed in September 1996, to give him $25,000 immediately and an additional $69,000 by the end of 1996 (not all of which was ultimately paid). The initial $25,000 was paid from a Sandab account because, according to Seymour, it had the most available cash. In addition, Seymour prepared an invoice, nominally from Sloan to Sandab, in the amount of $95,000, for services rendered by Sloan in connection with the development of an EEO Program and the overseeing of the license renewal at the FCC. The invoice was dated September 5, 1996. Seymour signed Sloan's name on the invoice, on Sloan's behalf. Notwithstanding the invoice, Seymour indicates that his reasons for making the payment arose from Sloan's contributions to all of his various ventures, including the casket enterprise, which Sloan had continued to promote throughout the summer. Seymour indicates that he viewed the additional payment in recognition of Sloan's continued efforts to promote the casket enterprise as consistent with start-up costs in other ventures Seymour had supported. Also, Seymour indicates that the payment was motivated in part by continuing personal financial distress being experienced by Sloan. After the initial payment, Seymour reports that Sloan continued to pressure him for money. On October 1, 1996, according to Seymour, he authorized a $5,000 payment to Sloan from the Sandab account, after Sloan reported that his son had been severely injured in an automobile accident. This was the last payment by Sandab. Thereafter, Seymour states, he confronted Sloan concerning the alleged payment to persons associated with Rainbow, at which time, according to Seymour, Sloan admitted that he had concocted the entire story. Seymour nonetheless indicates that he gave Sloan $2,400 from a personal account on November 4, 1996, after Sloan alleged difficulty in meeting his mortgage payment. 19. The declaration of WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) General Manager Bradley initially addresses the job application of Dorothy Hart, the daughter-in-law of Victor Hart. Bradley asserts that Dorothy Hart acted in a rather confrontational manner during her interview. She refused to allow Bradley's assistant, whose position the stations were seeking to fill, to participate in the interview. After the interview, according to Bradley, she called repeatedly to ascertain the status of her application and, at one point, told Bradley that she planned to let Victor Hart know if she didn't get the job. Bradley also reports a number of contacts with Sloan during the spring and summer of 1996. Initially, he recalls reviewing the Petition to Deny with Sloan over the telephone and advising Sloan of the incident involving Dorothy Hart. He received numerous additional calls from Sloan in which, according to Bradley, Sloan sought to impress him with Sloan's knowledge of senior Rainbow officials and Commission staff attorneys, to which Bradley states he gave little credence. Bradley states that in one call Sloan told him that a senior Rainbow official wanted Sandab to fire Bradley. Sloan also sought to impress Bradley with his past achievements and celebrity friends. At one point, around April, 1996, Sloan reportedly told Bradley that Rainbow would appreciate a $100,000 donation, but that Seymour was being stubborn by refusing to make it. Bradley asserts that he told Sloan that he could not assist in changing Seymour's mind because Seymour had made it clear that he refused to pay any money to Rainbow. 20. The Responses of Fairbanks. Fairbanks' responses are based on two declarations under penalty of perjury of its principal Hilliard. Hilliard denies that Sloan was an agent or representative of Fairbanks. He indicates that he first heard about Sloan from Seymour in January 1996, in the context of a conversation in which Seymour generally outlined his plan in response to the Rainbow Petition to Deny. Thereafter, in late January 1996, Hilliard received a telephone call from Sloan. According to Hilliard, Sloan introduced himself and described a number of public interest projects in which he was involved. During the course of the conversation, Hilliard indicated that it was Fairbanks' general practice to embrace minority communities in the service area in programming decisions and hiring practices. Sloan requested a letter from Hilliard describing generally Fairbanks' policy in this respect, indicating that it would be helpful in resolving the petition against Sandab if he could show a continuity of responsiveness to minority needs. Hilliard states that he did not construe Sloan's comments as asking for a commitment in terms of specific jobs or programming at the stations. Thereafter, Hilliard wrote a letter to Sloan (attached to his declaration) dated January 23, 1996. It is a general introduction to the company and indicates that it is Fairbanks' philosophy to avoid unfairness in its hiring practices. The letter contains no discussion of any specific hiring or programming plans with respect to WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). Subsequent to this initial telephone conversion, Hilliard reports that he received a number of telephone calls from Sloan, some of which he took or returned. However, Hilliard states that he has never personally met Sloan. 21. With respect to the February 14, 1996, letter from Hilliard to Sloan, Hilliard indicates that Sloan had solicited his support generally for a project to promote child immunization and another project to publicize the IRS earned income tax credit program, although Sloan never specifically asked for money. Hilliard states that, while he was not interested in donating money to Sloan's projects, he did find merit in the project to publicize the tax credit program. Also, Sloan had indicated, according to Hilliard, that a further communications from Fairbanks would assist him in his efforts on behalf of Sandab. Hilliard explains that he wrote the February 14, 1996, letter in order to indicate Fairbanks' interest in assisting in publicizing the tax credit program, provided this could be done on a "self-liquidating basis," while also politely making clear to Sloan that Fairbanks was not interested in making monetary donations to Sloan's projects. 22. Hilliard denies that he ever made any commitments to Sloan or discussed with him the possibility of making any commitment to provide money, employment, radio programs, or anything else, to Sloan or anyone else. Hilliard specifically denies assertions made in Sloan's ex parte statements to the Commission that Fairbanks had pledged to hire minorities for certain jobs at WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). He states that any such claims were made without authorization from Fairbanks. Hilliard indicates that he only had one discussion with Sloan concerning specific personnel matters at WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). In that discussion, according to Hilliard, Sloan expressed the view that Fairbanks should fire the present general manager when it assumed control of the stations. Hilliard responded by stating that he had no intention of firing the present general manager. Hilliard further indicates that the only other discussion with Sloan concerning a specific personnel or programming matter arose when he told Sloan of Fairbanks' plans for a minority-oriented call-in show at other Florida stations operated by Fairbanks. According to Hilliard, Sloan referred Hilliard to his sister as a possible host for the program, without asking that she be hired, or receiving from Hilliard a commitment that she would be. Hilliard later talked to Sloan's sister, but ultimately hired someone else who lived in the local community to host the show. There is no evidence that Hilliard ever paid or offered any money to Sloan or gave or offered him anything of value, apart from the vague offer of some assistance, on a "self-liquidating basis," in connection the project to publicize the IRS earned income tax credit referenced in Hilliard's February 14, 1996, letter to Sloan. 23. Hilliard reports that Sloan faxed to him on March 15, 1996, at least a portion of Sloan's letter to the Commission dated February 12, 1996. Hilliard cannot confirm that the material faxed to him included the letter itself since the fax as he found it at the time he prepared his inquiry response included only a handwritten note to Hilliard and various letters and newspaper articles concerning Sloan's activities that had been attached to Sloan's letter to the Commission. In any event, Hilliard did not look at the material until some time later because he was in the process of moving his office and was away due to a family illness. Hilliard reports that when he initially read the material, he did not review it in detail, but focused primarily on Sloan's handwritten note, which emphasized that Seymour and Hilliard had played important roles in Sloan's projects and had the highest regard for African-American families. Hilliard asserts that he learned for the first time when his attorney sent him a copy of the documents obtained as a result of the May 6, 1996, Notice, that, in his written and oral presentations to the Commission's staff, Sloan had misstated the duration and extent of his relationship with Hilliard and had falsely stated that Fairbanks had committed itself to hiring minorities for specific positions at WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). Thereafter, probably on May 17, 1996, Hilliard discussed the situation with Seymour. According to Hilliard, he asked Seymour to control Sloan and ensure that he made no further ex parte contacts. Seymour reportedly assured Hilliard that he had reprimanded Sloan, that he had not asked Sloan to contact the Commission's staff, and that it would not happen again. Hilliard indicates that, sometime after his discussion with Seymour, he discussed with Sloan the issue of Sloan's ex parte contacts. According to Hilliard, Sloan took the position that he had done nothing wrong. Hilliard chose not to debate the matter with Sloan because he viewed Sloan as being Sandab's problem. Hilliard states that, in his view, he had adequately dealt with the matter by discussing it with Seymour, who had, as far as Hilliard knew, acted to correct the problem, given that no further ex parte contacts had been reported. 24. With reference to the July 11, 1996, letter to Hart, Hilliard indicates that he received a telephone message from Sloan on July 10, 1996, asking him to write a "generic letter" introducing Fairbanks and reflecting its respect for the African-American community. Sloan's message also indicated that "Mr. Hart is the one who signed the letter for denial and will rescind if all things go all right." Also, in another telephone call during that time period, Sloan had suggested that Hart was willing to withdraw the Rainbow petition. In view of this, as well as his desire not to make enemies of the Harts, Hilliard wrote the letter. Also on July 11, 1996, Hilliard sent a brief, complimentary note to Sloan, referring to Sloan as "gold . . . . in the creek of life" and as a "keeper." According to Hilliard, this letter reflected his understanding, based on what he had been told by Sloan, that Hart intended to withdraw the Rainbow Petition to Deny. In his declaration submitted with Fairbanks' inquiry response, Hilliard states: "Given Dr. Sloan's reports, it came as no surprise when, on July 22, 1996, the Commission issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Rainbow's petition." Hilliard denies having discussed with Sloan the offering of a job, program or money to the Harts. Hilliard also denies that he ever authorized Sloan to make any such offers. Hilliard further states that, prior to Rainbow's October 4, 1996, submission, he was unaware of any contacts by Sloan with Honig and Landry and that he never authorized Sloan to make offers of money or anything else of value to them. 25. Hilliard reports that during the period from January to May, 1996, Sloan advised him in various telephone calls that he had talked to a high-ranking Rainbow official who indicated that they were going to discharge Rainbow's counsel; that the person who executed the declaration supporting Rainbow's Petition to Deny the Panama City, Florida, station had received a van for executing the declaration; that the person who executed the declaration supporting Rainbow's Petition to Deny the Fort Myers, Florida, stations was dissatisfied with Rainbow's counsel; and that the Harts intended to withdraw the Petition to Deny concerning Sandab. In one instance, according to Hilliard, Sloan asked him to be available for a conference call with a high-ranking Rainbow official. However, the conference call never materialized. Hilliard also indicates that he received a telephone call from Sloan on May 21, 1996, in which he told Hilliard that he had a meeting with a Commission official concerning the Vero Beach stations. Hilliard indicates that he did not believe this was possible under the circumstances and therefore did nothing about it in terms of discussing it with Sloan or Seymour. At a later time, according to Hilliard, Sloan claimed to have had dinner with a Commission official. In July or August, 1996, Hilliard reports that Sloan urged him to contact the general manager of the Fort Myers stations, which Hilliard eventually did. Hilliard expresses uncertainty as to why Sloan considered it important for him to talk to this individual. 26. Rainbow's Comments. In its comments concerning the responses of Sandab and Fairbanks to the staff inquiry letter, Rainbow urges generally that we should keep four considerations in mind. First, Seymour and Hilliard are experienced broadcasters. Second, the ex parte rules and our policies concerning abuse of process are not complicated. Third, Seymour and Hilliard had time to devote to matters pertaining to WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). Fourth, Sandab and Fairbanks had a motive to complete the sale of the stations expeditiously. In the case of Fairbanks, Rainbow notes that completion of the sale by a date certain was necessary for tax reasons. In the case of Sandab, Rainbow asserts that Seymour had a motive to indulge and cover up misconduct by Sloan because of Seymour's participation with Sloan in the casket enterprise, which Sloan had convinced Seymour would be enormously profitable. Rainbow also suggests that the venture was in fact a scheme to exploit Blacks. It further suggests that Seymour's willingness to believe Sloan's claims as to the potential profitability of the scheme was the product of unconscious racism on Seymour's part. In addition, Rainbow suggests that Seymour's alleged willingness to believe allegations adverse to Rainbow or its personnel, such as Seymour's suspicion that Rainbow's Petition to Deny arose because the stations failed to hire Victor Hart's relatives, similarly reflected unconscious racism. 27. Rainbow also notes the sentence in Seymour's November 13, 1995, letter to Sloan which states: "Regardless, the stations have never had any affirmative action programs much less a true sensitivity to the employment and advancement of minorities." Rainbow construes this sentence as referring to Sandab's operation of WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). It therefore urges that Sandab has admitted that it has no EEO Program. See para. 13, supra. Rainbow further contends that this admission undermines claims by Seymour that he was confident that Sandab's EEO efforts would satisfy the Commission. Rainbow further urges that the credibility of statements made by Sandab concerning its EEO program are suspect because Seymour believed that Rainbow's Petition to Deny may have been motivated by the nonselection of Dorothy Hart. Rainbow submits a declaration under penalty of perjury by Dorothy Hart in which she disputes Bradley's claim that she was confrontational during her job interview; that she sought to exclude another station staff person from her interview; that she repeatedly called to check on the status of her application; and that she mentioned Victor Hart's name. 28. With respect to ex parte contacts made by Sloan, Rainbow urges that both Sandab and Fairbanks must be held responsible. Rainbow contends that, because Sandab paid Sloan a considerable sum of money, it cannot be accepted that Sloan was expected to make only a status inquiry. It further argues that the substance and timing of Sloan's letter dated February 12, 1996, suggests that Sloan must have been instructed by Sandab and/or Fairbanks. Rainbow also faults the parties because Seymour only verbally reprimanded Sloan after it became known that he had violated the ex parte rules, but neither Sandab nor Fairbanks provided him a written memorandum as to the appropriate way to conduct himself before the Commission. Rainbow also contends that Sandab and Fairbanks were remiss in failing to serve a copy of Sloan's letter dated February 12, 1996, on Rainbow after it became known as a result of the May 6, 1996, Notice, and in failing to correct erroneous information contained in Sloan's letter. In the case of Fairbanks, Rainbow questions the credibility of Hilliard's claim that he did not carefully read the material Sloan had faxed him in March 1996 in light of the importance of the WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) transaction to Fairbanks. See para. 23, supra. Rainbow also contends that Hilliard was remiss in failing to take action in response to assertions by Sloan, subsequent to the May 1996 Notices, that his contacts at the Commission were not improper and that he had further contacts with a Commission official. Rainbow further alleges that language in Hilliard's declaration in response to the staff inquiry letter to the effect that he was not surprised when Sandab I was released in light of reports from Sloan (See para. 24, supra) suggests that Sloan had reported to Hilliard additional ex parte contacts that have never been disclosed. 29. Rainbow alleges that Sloan conducted an abusive investigation of Rainbow that was designed to harass, intimidate and coerce Rainbow and its representatives in a manner contrary to Commission policy. See, e.g., Chronicle Broadcasting Co., 19 FCC2d 240, 245 (Rev. Bd. 1969) ("Chronicle"). Rainbow also contends that Sloan was acting as an agent for both Sandab and Fairbanks, both of which are therefore responsible for his activities. Rainbow contends that Sloan's activities constituted an abusive investigation because: 1) Sloan called Hart, Landry and Honig repeatedly at odd hours to urge that Rainbow's Petition to Deny be dropped and misleadingly suggested that he, also, was an adversary of Sandab; 2) Sloan offered what Rainbow characterizes as "bribes" to Hart, Landry and Honig; 3) Sloan interjected himself in the Panama City and Fort Myers, Florida, cases in an effort to pry away the persons who had executed declarations in support of Rainbow's Petition to Deny; and 4) Sloan invented and published, at least to Sandab and Fairbanks, false rumors to the effect that Rainbow officials had solicited donations in exchange for the dismissal of the Petition to Deny. Rainbow suggests that Sandab or Fairbanks must have authorized Sloan's investigation into the Panama City and Fort Myers cases since Sloan would have had no other way of knowing of these cases. Rainbow contends that Seymour and Hilliard were remiss in that they heard reports from Sloan concerning the cases involving other licensees and Rainbow's alleged solicitation of a donation and failed to institute an investigation or report the matters to the authorities. Instead, Rainbow alleges, Seymour decided to engage Sloan to take "offensive action" against Rainbow, as reflected in Seymour's late September 1996 note discussed in para. 16, supra. Rainbow contends that it was injured by Sloan's behavior because it has been required to expend considerable time and efforts on matters relating to Sloan. 30. Rainbow contends that, in conducting his investigation, Sloan was acting as a agent for Sandab because of the large amount of money paid to Sloan which was attributed to services on behalf of Sandab. Rainbow questions Seymour's explanation that the payments to Sloan were motivated by Seymour's perception that Sloan's participation was necessary for the success of the casket enterprise and because of his personal regard and concern for Sloan. Rainbow argues that Seymour could not have employed Sandab funds for purposes related to the casket enterprise because the ownership of Sandab and the casket company are different. Rainbow asserts that Sloan should be considered an agent of Fairbanks because the January 23, 1996, February 14, 1996, and July 11, 1996 letters from Hilliard to Sloan and Hilliard's July 11, 1996, letter to Hart, written at Sloan's request, would reasonably have led Sloan to conclude that he was authorized to act on behalf of Fairbanks. 31. In light of the foregoing, Rainbow urges that Sandab's renewal applications should be designated for hearing, that we should call for the filing of early renewal applications by Fairbanks, and that we designate all such applications for a consolidated hearing with the Sandab applications. Rainbow further requests that we should order immediate sequestration of the witnesses in the hearing sought and direct the presiding judge to issue an order restricting public disclosure of scandalous matter that might arise during the proceeding. 32. Sandab's Reply. In a response to Rainbow's comments, Sandab contends that Sloan was a manipulator and confidence man whose statements, with the benefit of hindsight, were unworthy of belief and who was pursuing his own agenda without the control or approval of those around him, and that Rainbow's comments effectively acknowledge those facts. Sandab further contends that Sloan's actions had no impact on our decision in Sandab I, so that there is no basis for the suggestion that Sandab had used Sloan to manipulate our decision-making process. 33. Sandab also argues that the sentence from the November 13, 1995 letter from Seymour to Sloan was taken out of context by Rainbow and that the statement "the stations have never had any affirmative action programs" in fact refers to the absence of EEO programs at distressed stations prior to their acquisition by Sandab. Sandab also submits a further declaration from Bradley in which he indicates that his prior declaration was incorrect in describing the events surrounding the job interview with Dorothy Hart. Bradley indicates that there had in fact been two interviews in the fall of 1994, one with Dorothy Hart (Victor Hart's daughter-in-law) and one with Sonya Hart (Victor Hart's daughter). Bradley indicates that the interview described in his initial declaration was the Sonya Hart interview, rather than the Dorothy Hart interview. 34. Sandab argues that there is no evidence that Sandab authorized or encouraged Sloan's ex parte contacts; that it promptly rebuked Sloan after it learned of the contacts, which to its knowledge did not recur; and that the contacts did not influence our decision-making process. Sandab also contends that it never authorized Sloan to conduct an investigation of Rainbow or to offer payments of money. It states that Sloan's intended mission, based on Sloan's claim that he knew the top leaders of Rainbow, was to communicate with those persons for the purpose of convincing them that Rainbow's challenge of Sandab was unfounded and should be withdrawn. Sandab suggests that Sloan's actual conduct was outside of the instructions he received from Sandab and was intended to promote Sloan's own concerns. Sandab asserts that payments to Sloan did not constitute payment for improper activities with respect to Rainbow. Sandab also indicates that Sandab funds were only used initially to pay Sloan and have since been allocated among the various ventures in which Sloan had been involved. It is also stated that the Sandab partnership is aware of the initial use of Sandab funds to pay Sloan. Finally, Sandab urges that there is no connection between the Sloan matters and the legality of our action in Sandab I. 35. Fairbanks' Reply. Fairbanks notes that, with the dismissal of its applications for assignment of the WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) licenses, it has no pending applications before the Commission. Thus, it notes, Rainbow is effectively seeking the mid-term revocation of other licenses held by Fairbanks. Fairbanks contends that Rainbow has not justified this extraordinary result. It argues that there is no evidence that Fairbanks either solicited or encouraged Sloan to violate the ex parte rules. With respect to statements made by Sloan to Hilliard suggesting that he had made further contacts with a top Commission official after the May 1996 Notices, Fairbanks asserts that there was no requirement that it report those statements to the Commission because it was not a party to the WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) renewal proceeding and because Hilliard did not believe Sloan's claim to have met with the Commission official. Fairbanks also contends that it was not remiss in failing to report Sloan's letter dated February 12, 1996, to the Commission because, due to an office move and illness in the family, Hilliard had given the matter an understandable lack of attention until after the May 1996 Notices. Fairbanks finally urges that the record contains no evidence, beyond hearsay statements of Sloan that are not credible, suggesting that Sloan was acting as an agent of Fairbanks at any time. 36. Rainbow's Further Comments. In a further pleading filed by Rainbow, it again relies upon its interpretation of Seymour's November 13, 1995, letter to Sloan as constituting an admission that Sandab had no EEO program. Rainbow also challenges Bradley's second declaration that his initial declaration had erroneously attributed an interview with Sonya Hart as having been with Dorothy Hart. Rainbow submits a declaration from Sonya Hart disputing that her interview transpired as reported by Bradley in his first declaration. Rainbow further questions the credibility of Sandab's assertion that it was unaware of the contents of Sloan's letter to the Commission dated February 12, 1996, prior to Rainbow's October 4, 1996, submission. In any event, it urges, Sandab would have been under an obligation to obtain the documents as a result of the May 6, 1996, Notice. Finally, Rainbow questions Sandab's statement that funds used to pay Sloan were only initially taken from Sandab accounts, but were later allocated among all businesses in which Sloan had been involved. It notes that Sandab has not provided a sworn declaration verifying this assertion. Rainbow alleges that the year-end settling of accounts was contrived to conceal the fact that the money had in fact been paid to Sloan primarily to compensate him for his efforts on behalf of Sandab in dealing with the Commission and Rainbow. 37. Sandab's Final Comments. In response to Rainbow's foregoing submission, Sandab again urges that the language in Seymour's November 13, 1995, letter to Sloan is not properly construed as an admission that Sandab had no EEO program at WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). It further urges that the dispute concerning the circumstances surrounding Sonya Hart's interview does not pose any substantial or material question of fact warranting a hearing. With respect to Sandab's knowledge of Sloan's February 12, 1996, letter, Sandab contends that Rainbow has presented no evidence contradicting the sworn and uncontradicted testimony that Seymour did not know about the letter until Rainbow's October submission. It also notes that Seymour took effective action when he first learned of Sloan's improper contacts with the Commission's staff. Finally, Sandab submits a sworn declaration from Seymour verifying that funds initially paid to Sloan from Sandab accounts had been allocated among the various ventures in which Sloan was involved and Sandab had been reimbursed by the other ventures for their shares of the payments. Sandab also contends that Rainbow's insinuation that the funds had been paid to Sloan for use in bribing Rainbow personnel was contrary to sworn and uncontradicted evidence. Issues Relating to Sandab's EEO Compliance 38. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Rainbow urges that further investigation of the licensee's EEO program should have been conducted pursuant to Bilingual Bicultural Coalition on Mass Media v. FCC, 595 F.2d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ("Bilingual"). Rainbow contends that the showing contained in its Petition to Deny was comparable to showings made in other cases where a Bilingual inquiry had been conducted and the Commission's failure conduct such an inquiry here constitutes a change in policy. Rainbow characterizes its petition as having shown that the stations reported no minority employees in the upper-four job categories in five years and that, in its statement concerning the demographics of the stations' labor force, "Sandab invoked absurd and apparently racist pretexts for not having recruited and hired minorities." With respect to the latter claim, Rainbow in a footnote concedes, as discussed in para. 11 of Sandab I, that the licensee's statement was on its face offered as a reason why the licensee felt that "creative" recruitment efforts were needed. Rainbow contends, however, that the statement must actually be viewed as an excuse for a deficient past record that should be treated as a "pretextual reason for minority exclusion . . ." Rainbow further reiterates its position that the licensee's failure to file a substantive opposition should be construed adversely to the licensee. Rainbow concludes that, in light of the foregoing matters, "there was absolutely no good reason not to conduct a Bilingual investigation." 39. Rainbow also contends that this case was treated in a non-routine manner that further indicates the need for a Bilingual inquiry. Rainbow suggests that it was unusual that the Commission en banc ruled upon Sandab's renewal applications, rather than the Chief, Mass Media Bureau, pursuant to delegated authority. It further suggests that Sandab's applications were taken ahead of their usual turn in the processing line. Rainbow also urges that we should investigate the ex parte contacts referenced in the May 1996 Notices to ensure that there was no wrongdoing attributable to Sandab. It refers to the documents that it had submitted under seal (see para. 3, supra), which were pending at the time Rainbow filed its Petition for Reconsideration. 40. Finally, Rainbow raises for the first time in its Petition for Reconsideration several objections based on Sandab's 1995 EEO Program Report that were not raised in its Petition to Deny or its reply to Sandab's letter opposition. Rainbow generally urges that we should not have accepted unverified assertions in the Report. It further contends that a Bilingual inquiry was warranted to determine whether the recruitment sources listed in the Report were used for all hires; whether the seven minority applicants reported included any for upper-level positions; how long the two minority hires reported were employed at the stations; and whether a meeting of the station's general manager with NAACP officials was "very intensive" in light of an alleged error in the title given for those officials. 41. In addition to the matters raised in Rainbow's initial Petition for Reconsideration, a November 13, 1995, letter from Seymour to Sloan, provided by Sandab in response to the inquiry letter concerning the Sloan matter, included the statement that: "Regardless, the stations have never had any affirmative action programs much less a true sensitivity to the employment and advancement of minorities." As noted above, Rainbow contends that this language constitutes an admission by Seymour that there was no EEO program in place at WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) during the license term under review. 42. In its Opposition to Rainbow's Petition for Reconsideration, Sandab urges that Rainbow was merely repeating speculation that had previously been found insufficient to raise a question as to WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM)'s compliance with the EEO Rule. With respect to the sentence from the November 13, 1995, Seymour letter, Sandab urges, as discussed above, that Rainbow has taken the sentence out of context and that it does not constitute an admission that WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) had not maintained an EEO program. III. DISCUSSION Issues Relating to the Activities of George W. Sloan 43. The issues concerning Sloan were first raised in connection with Rainbow's Motion to Vacate. The Motion to Vacate sought interim relief in the nature of a stay designed to defer action on the applications for assignment of the WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) licenses to Fairbanks. The assignment applications were not granted and have since been dismissed. Accordingly, the interim relief initially sought by Rainbow is moot. We will rather treat the Motion to Vacate as, in effect, a petition for reconsideration of our decision in Sandab I, along with Rainbow's additional pleading formally designated as a Petition for Reconsideration, which addressed the substance of our decision concerning Sandab's EEO record in Sandab I. The issues concerning Fairbanks are different in that, with the dismissal of the assignment applications, there are no applications involving Fairbanks currently before us. Thus, we must determine with respect to Fairbanks whether the circumstances warrant requiring the filing of early renewal applications for other stations licensed to Fairbanks. Since the legal considerations pertinent to Sandab and Fairbanks are not the same, we will consider the two entities separately. 44. Sandab. Reconsideration is appropriate only where the petitioner shows either a material error or omission in the original order or raises additional facts not known or not existing until after the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. See WWIZ, Inc, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub nom, Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965) cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967 (1966) ("WWIZ"); Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106. Applying this standard, we will consider the allegations raised concerning Sloan since most of the facts did not become known until after Sandab I. In considering the allegations, we will use the analytical framework provided by Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. WWOR-TV, 6 FCC Rcd 6569, 6570 n. 7 (1991)("WWOR-TV"). 45. With respect to ex parte contacts made by Sloan, Sandab principal Seymour states that he first learned of Sloan's contacts as a result of our May 6, 1996, Notice. Further, Seymour expressly denies that Sloan was instructed to make improper contacts with the Commission. No contrary evidence has been presented. Nor do we find that the circumstances raise a substantial and material question of fact suggesting that Seymour retained Sloan for the purpose of achieving a grant of Sandab's applications by means of improper contacts with Commission personnel. According to Seymour, it was hoped that Sloan would be able to convince the top leaders of Rainbow that Sandab in fact had a favorable EEO record and that Rainbow's challenge should therefore be dismissed. This, of course, was premised on Sloan's claim that he was closely connected to Rainbow and knew its leadership. 46. Rainbow has not demonstrated that Seymour's explanation is inherently improbable, at least based on what Seymour knew of Sloan at the time. Moreover, Seymour's decision to file only a brief response to Rainbow's Petition to Deny is consistent with the existence of a hope that Rainbow's concerns could be amicably resolved through the good offices of Sloan. While Seymour indicates that he anticipated that Sloan, in the course of his efforts, might make a status inquiry concerning the renewal applications, unrebutted evidence indicates that Sloan's primary mission, as contemplated by Seymour, was to use his purported influence to achieve an amicable resolution with Rainbow's leadership, not to make improper contacts with the Commission. 47. Seymour apparently had, at least, a suspicion that the Petition to Deny may have arisen because of Victor Hart's dissatisfaction with the failure of WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) to hire his relatives. If so, this would buttress the reasonableness of Seymour's belief that the disinterested national leadership of Rainbow might be convinced of Sandab's good faith when its case was presented by a person (Sloan) whose judgment Seymour had been led to believe they would respect. We note this consideration only insofar as it is pertinent to assessing Seymour's intent in involving Sloan in the renewal proceeding. There is no evidence that Rainbow's Petition to Deny was the product of a personal grudge against Sandab on the part of Hart. On the other hand, we reject Rainbow's suggestion that the mere fact that Seymour harbored suspicions as to Hart's motives reflects "unconscious racism" on Seymour's part, which is also not supported by any evidence. 48. Admittedly, there are inconsistencies between the declarations of Bradley and Sonya Hart as to the events that transpired in connection with the her employment application. Also, Bradley had initially believed that the events he now says occurred in connection with Sonya Hart's application had happened in connection with the job application of Dorothy Hart, another relative of Victor Hart who applied for employment at WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). However, we do not find that these matters warrant exploration at hearing. A hearing is not required to resolve every factual dispute that may arise, but only those that are "substantial and material." Section 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  309(e); California Public Broadcasting Forum v. FCC, 752 F.2d 670, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 49. We do not find the events that transpired in connection with Sonya Hart's job application to be substantial and material. Even if Bradley's interpretation of the events were found to be in error, that would not suffice, standing alone, to raise an issue that Sandab retained Sloan for the purpose of violating the ex parte rules or conducting an abusive investigation. Nor do we find that the factual inconsistencies raise a question of possible misrepresentation warranting consideration at hearing. Evidence of an intent to mislead is necessary to raise a misrepresentation/lack of candor issue. Swan Creek Communications v. FCC, 39 F.3d 1217, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Fox Television Stations, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 8452, 8478 (1995); Fox River Broadcasting, Inc., 102 FCC2d 1179 (1986). Here, Sandab never sought to place affirmative reliance on Bradley's allegations concerning Sonya Hart's conduct in opposing Rainbow's Petition to Deny. The matter did not arise until after Sandab I, when it was mentioned as part of Sandab's explanation of the circumstances surrounding the Sloan matter. Moreover, the merits of Bradley's allegations relating to Sonya Hart do not appear critical to Sandab's explanation. The matter is pertinent only to Seymour's claim that he was concerned that the Rainbow Petition to Deny might have been occasioned by the stations' failure to hire relatives of Victor Hart. However, Seymour's point did not require that one of the Hart relatives be shown to have behaved inappropriately. We accordingly see no motive for Sandab to have concocted an intentionally false account of the facts surrounding Sonya Hart's job application. This is particularly so because Sandab could have expected its account to be challenged by Rainbow, which had already challenged the erroneous attribution of the conduct to Dorothy Hart. 50. Nor is Seymour's explanation of his purpose in retaining Sloan contradicted by a sentence from his November 13, 1995, letter to Sloan. The sentence states: "Regardless, the stations have never had any affirmative action programs much less a true sensitivity to the employment and advancement of minorities." We do not agree with Rainbow's contention that this sentence constitutes an admission by Seymour that WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) had no EEO program during Sandab's tenure as the licensee. Rather, when read in the context of the paragraph in which it appears, the sentence appears to reflect Seymour's view that stations he had acquired because they were financially distressed had not implemented an EEO program prior to his acquisition. Moreover, at a later point in the letter, Seymour states that he will send Sloan the "Affirmative Action Plans" of the Sandab stations, which is inconsistent with Rainbow's interpretation of the earlier sentence as reflecting that there were no such plans. See para. 13, supra. 51. Rainbow contends that the amount of money Seymour paid to Sloan suggests that Sloan was expected to employ improper tactics. However, the unrebutted evidence indicates that Seymour had a number of personal and business motives for making payments to Sloan, many of which were unrelated to Sandab. In particular, Seymour viewed Sloan's participation in the proposed casket enterprise as essential to its success. Indeed, Rainbow itself urges that the casket venture should be viewed as a compelling factor explaining Seymour's support of Sloan. In these circumstances, the suggestion that the payments were intended as a reward for the making of ex parte contacts is speculative. 52. We disagree with Rainbow's contention that further inquiry is warranted based on the fact that the payments were initially made from Sandab accounts but have since been allocated among all of the businesses involved with Sloan. Rainbow has presented no evidence that the allocation of the payments was designed to conceal the extent to which the payments served as compensation to Sloan for services on behalf of Sandab. This is particularly so in that our concern as to the payments to Sloan would arise only if there were evidence that the payments were compensation for or in furtherance of violations of our Rules. The accounting treatment of the payments does not constitute sufficient evidence to raise a substantial question of fact as to whether the payments were intended as compensation for actions in violation of our Rules, especially since there is an absence of other evidence of an improper purpose. 53. We also do not accept Rainbow's contention that Sloan's February 12, 1996, letter suggests that Sloan had received oral instructions from Sandab or Fairbanks in connection with its preparation because it is unsupported by any evidence. Indeed, there is no evidence that the Sloan letter was in fact prepared in February, 1996, or that it was filed with or sent to the Commission on February 12, 1996. Moreover, the substance of the letter is largely devoted to detailing the purported accomplishments of Sloan, which suggests that it had been prepared by Sloan. Also, the letter contains erroneous statements concerning Seymour and Fairbanks principal Hilliard. It is improbable to suppose that one or both of them would have coached Sloan to make such statements. 54. Rainbow further faults Sandab for failing to serve a copy of the letter on Rainbow after the release of the May 6, 1996, Notice, or to correct the erroneous statements made in the letter. However, Seymour states that he had no specific knowledge of the February 12, 1996, letter until he received Rainbow's October 4, 1996, submission. Rainbow has not offered any evidence contradicting Seymour's testimony. In any event, the unrebutted evidence is that Seymour reprimanded Sloan after he learned of the improper contacts and admonished Sloan not to make any further improper contacts. The record contains no evidence that any further contacts occurred. It thus appears that Seymour took adequate steps to prevent any additional violations by Sloan. 55. We note that Hilliard reported statements by Sloan suggesting that he had further contacts with a Commission official after the May 1996 Notices. While hearsay that is relevant and material is admissible in administrative proceedings, the weight to be accorded it depends on its truthfulness, reasonableness, and credibility. Wine Country Radio, 11 FCC Rcd 2333 (1995). Here, we are unable to accord any weight to Sloan's alleged claims to Hilliard that he had further contacts with a Commission official after the May 1996 Notices. Hilliard made no claim to have any personal knowledge of or involvement in the contacts alleged by Sloan. His declaration purports to do nothing more than report what Sloan said. However, Sloan's statements were not made under oath or penalty of perjury and are not supported by any other evidence. To accord them any evidentiary value merely because they were repeated in Hilliard's declaration would conflict with the requirement of the Act that factual allegations be supported by affidavits (or sworn declarations) from persons with personal knowledge of the facts. Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1). It is clear that the declarant here -- Hilliard -- wholly lacked any personal knowledge as to whether or not the contacts alleged by Sloan occurred. In fact, Hilliard did not believe Sloan's claims. We therefore conclude that there is no cognizable factual allegation of any contacts between Sloan and the Commission staff after the May 1996 Notices. Warren Price Communications, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd 4424 (1991). 56. Rainbow also criticizes Seymour for not having instructed Sloan in writing after he learned that ex parte contacts had occurred. We reject this contention because the ex parte rules prescribe no specific procedure for instructing agents as to the impropriety of ex parte contacts. Here, the record reflects that Seymour took action in response to the May 6, 1996, Notice that was sufficient to prevent further ex parte contacts. Given that fact, we find no basis for concluding that Seymour's response to the May 6, 1996, Notice violated any provision of the ex parte rules. 57. Sandab concedes, however, that Seymour initially failed to give Sloan any guidance as to the requirements of the ex parte rules. Accordingly, although we find no evidence that Sandab intended that Sloan would make ex parte contacts, it is nonetheless accountable for the fact that such contacts occurred. A licensee is responsible for the conduct of its employees and agents within the scope of their employment. Liability of the Computer Force, 8 FCC Rcd 1763, 1764 (1993); Triad Broadcasting Co., Inc., 96 FCC 2d 1235, 1242 (1984). At the time of the improper ex parte contacts, Sloan was an agent of Sandab, and contacts with the Commission were within the scope of his employment. Considering all the circumstances in this case, we will admonish Sandab based on the violation of the ex parte rules by Sloan, who, at the time, was acting as Sandab's agent. However, we do not find that any further sanctions are warranted. Choctaw Broadcasting Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd 8534, 8545 (1997); PCS 2000, L. P., 12 FCC Rcd 1681, 1700 (1997); Centel Corporation, 8 FCC Rcd 6162, 6165 (1993). 58. Next, we reject Rainbow's suggestion that a hearing is warranted as to whether Sandab conducted, through Sloan, an improper investigation such as that at issue in Chronicle. In Chronicle, the general right to conduct an investigation of an adversary was affirmed. However, we found that there were questions as to whether the scope and manner of the investigation (including intrusive shadowing of witnesses and inquiry into irrelevant matters) was so devoid of any proper relationship to the pending proceeding as to suggest an intent to harass or intimidate the opposing party. Here, we initially find no evidence that Sandab even intended to conduct an adversarial investigation of Rainbow through Sloan, let alone an investigation designed to harass or intimidate. As discussed above, the evidence in the record indicates that Sandab's purpose in dispatching Sloan was primarily to achieve an amicable resolution of the concerns that led to Rainbow's Petition to Deny, not to mine for information that might be employed adversely against Rainbow. Nor does a review of the specifics alleged by Rainbow reveal a strategy on Sandab's part of attempting to harass or intimidate Rainbow. 59. With respect to the allegations concerning Sloan's telephone calls to Hart, Landry, and Honig seeking dismissal of the Rainbow Petition to Deny, we note initially that these calls occurred in late June and July 1996. The evidence does not suggest that, during this time period, Sloan was acting as an agent for Sandab in connection with the prosecution of its renewal applications. Thus, according to Seymour, he had instructed Sloan to take no further action with respect to the Sandab renewals in his discussion following the receipt of the May 6, 1996, Notice. Moreover, Seymour states that he did not know of Sloan's June and July contacts with Hart, Landry, and Honig, until they were disclosed by Rainbow in its October 4, 1996, submission. There is no evidence contradicting Seymour's statements in this respect. It accordingly appears that Sloan was acting on his own when he made the June and July 1996 contacts and not within the scope of any direction received from Sandab. While Sloan may have hoped that Sandab (or Fairbanks) would reward him if he achieved a favorable result, his mere hope does not establish that he was acting as an agent for either party. In any event, the telephone calls, as described in the declarations of Hart, Landry, and Honig, do not appear to have been excessive in number or to have persisted after a request that they cease. Only Hart mentions a late night call. There is no basis for concluding that Sloan's telephone calls amounted to a campaign of harassment and intimidation. While Sloan was evidently disingenuous in some of his statements made during the conversations, there is no basis for attributing this to Sandab. 60. We also find no basis for holding Sandab accountable for offers of money or other valuable consideration allegedly made by Sloan to Hart, Landry, and Honig. As indicated, there is no evidence suggesting that Sloan was acting as an agent for Sandab in connection with his June and July contacts. Nor is there any evidence that Seymour was aware of Sloan's offers prior to their disclosure by Rainbow. Moreover, unrebutted evidence indicates that Seymour had previously made clear to Sloan that he was unwilling to pay money to Rainbow in order to achieve dismissal of its Petition to Deny. Accordingly, even during the period when Sloan was acting as an agent of Sandab, the offering of monetary consideration for the dismissal of Rainbow's Petition to Deny was beyond the scope of his employment. Because we do not find Sandab responsible for the offers apparently made by Sloan, we do not need to reach questions as to the propriety of the offers themselves. 61. With respect to Sloan's contacts with individuals who signed declarations in support of Rainbow's Petition to Deny the renewal applications of the Panama City and Fort Myers, Florida, stations, we find no evidence that Seymour instructed Sloan to undertake such an inquiry as part of his activities. Rainbow's suggestion that Sloan could only have learned of the other renewal applications because Sandab (or Fairbanks) asked him to investigate the circumstances pertaining to those applications is speculative. Rainbow addressed all three applicants in a single Petition to Deny, to which was attached the declarations of individuals establishing Rainbow's standing with respect to each applicant, including their addresses. Sloan could have learned the identity of the other applicants, as well as the Rainbow declarants, from the Petition to Deny itself, independent of any suggestion that he should take any action with respect to the other applicants. Sloan did make Seymour aware of his purportedly having learned information adverse to Rainbow from the Rainbow declarants, whom Sloan depicted as sympathetic to his concerns. However, there is no evidence that Sandab ever sought to use the purported information received in a manner adverse to Rainbow. Sloan's claims were only disclosed in response to the staff inquiry letter. In any event, contacting persons who executed a declaration on behalf of a party in order to verify the party's good faith would not be an inherently improper investigation. In these circumstances, we find no basis to conclude that Sandab was attempting to harass or intimidate Rainbow. 62. We also find no impropriety in the fact that Sloan communicated to Seymour and Hilliard rumors concerning Rainbow. The rumors are apparently false. However, they were never disclosed by Sandab or Fairbanks until disclosure was required to respond to the staff inquiry letter. It is not apparent how Rainbow could have been harassed and intimidated by rumors that, but for the inquiry that Rainbow requested into the Sloan matters, would never have become known to it. 63. We further find no impropriety in a handwritten note by Seymour memorializing a telephone call in (at the earliest) late September 1996 which suggests that a discussion of a possible violation of our Rules by Rainbow's counsel occurred, and includes a notation that "George will take offensive action." Rainbow evidently assumes that "George" is a reference to Sloan. The precise import of the note is necessarily ambiguous, since it merely summarizes Seymour's impressions derived from the telephone call. However, there is no evidence that, subsequent to the telephone call, Seymour authorized Sloan to take any actions with respect to Rainbow's counsel on behalf of Sandab. Further, Rainbow does not cite any specific conduct by Sloan during the time period after the telephone call which Rainbow alleges to reflect an improper investigation of its counsel. Moreover, the policy reflected in Chronicle would not preclude a reasonable investigation of alleged violations of Commission Rules attributed to a party or its agents. 64. In sum, we find no evidence that Sandab intended to rely upon ex parte contacts or an abusive investigation in order to achieve favorable action on its renewal applications. Rather, the record suggests that Sandab's reliance on Sloan was based primarily on the hope that Sloan could amicably convince Rainbow's leadership as to the good faith of Sandab's EEO efforts, which Sloan claimed he might be able to do. Rainbow has failed to provide evidence raising a substantial and material question of fact that Sandab intended actually to utilize Sloan for the purpose of placing improper pressure either on the Commission or on Rainbow. 65. Fairbanks. As noted above, there are no applications involving Fairbanks pending before us. Therefore, the only matter at issue is whether we should require the filing of early renewal applications for other stations licensed to Fairbanks in order to hold a hearing concerning the Sloan issue. Requiring the early filing of a renewal application is warranted only for "compelling reasons," such as situations where the filing of a renewal application is essential to the proper conduct of a hearing or an investigation. Section 73.3539(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.3539(c); WWOR-TV, 6 FCC Rcd at 6574; RKO General, Inc. (WOR-TV), 1 FCC Rcd 1081, 1085 (1986). We find no basis here to call for the early filing of renewal applications for other Fairbanks stations. 66. There is no evidence that Sloan was acting at any time as an agent of Fairbanks. Fairbanks never compensated or promised to compensate Sloan either with money or other consideration. While Sloan apparently held himself out at various times as being an agent of Fairbanks, we do not view Sloan's claims, standing alone, as evidence that he in fact was an agent of Fairbanks. As discussed in para. 55, supra, in the context of assessing whether a hearing is required pursuant to Section 309 of the Act, we can accord no evidentiary weight to hearsay where the original statements were not made under oath and the person reporting them has no personal knowledge as to their truth. Similarly, we attach no evidentiary weight to uncorroborated and unsworn claims by Sloan that Fairbanks had made various commitments in the event that it became the licensee of the stations. Moreover, the letters authored by Fairbanks principal Hilliard do not reflect any intent to authorize Sloan to act on Fairbanks' behalf. Nor do the letters contain anything from which Sloan could have reasonably inferred such authority. The letters also carefully avoid any commitments beyond a general commitment to fairness and a willingness to consider a proposal by Sloan to provide limited, non-financial assistance in publicizing the IRS earned income tax credit. 67. Sloan apparently faxed some or all of his letter to the Commission dated February 12, 1996, to Hilliard on March 15, 1996. Hilliard states that he did not read the material until sometime later and did not read it carefully enough to notice erroneous statements concerning himself, which he did not become actually aware of until after the May 1996 Notices. Rainbow has offered no evidence contradicting Hilliard's sworn testimony. Nor do we find any basis for faulting Hilliard for failing to pay closer attention to the fax, especially since it is not clear that he in fact received Sloan's letter. Thus, he may have received only the attachments thereto. 68. We also find no basis for faulting Hilliard for failing to report, pursuant to Section 1.1214 of the Commission's Rules, comments by Sloan that he had talked to a Commission official about this proceeding after the May 1996 Notices. Section 1.1214 requires a report when a party has a "substantial reason to believe" that a violation of the ex parte Rules has occurred. However, given the circumstances pertaining when Sloan's statements were made, Hilliard was not unreasonable in concluding that the statements were not credible. Therefore, he had no substantial reason to believe that any additional ex parte violations had occurred that would trigger the reporting obligation of Section 1.1214. Moreover, there is no evidence that any violations in fact occurred. Finally, we disagree with Rainbow's speculation that Hilliard's awareness of further ex parte contacts is evidenced by his statement in Fairbanks' inquiry response that he was not surprised when, on July 22, 1996, the Commission issued Sandab I, denying Rainbow's Petition to Deny. Hilliard's statement was made in the context of explaining that, shortly prior to the release of Sandab I, he had been led to believe by Sloan that Victor Hart had agreed to withdraw the Rainbow Petition to Deny. 69. In sum, a compelling justification for the extraordinary remedy of requiring the early filing of renewal applications for other stations licensed to Fairbanks has not been shown. Moreover, the misconduct alleged relates solely to Fairbanks' now dismissed applications for assignment of the WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) licenses. However, we do not automatically assume that misconduct in connection with one station necessarily impacts a licensee's qualifications to hold other licenses unrelated to the misconduct. Trinity Broadcasting of Florida, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2475, 2481 (1993); Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1223-24 (1986) (subsequent history omitted). Rather, we determine on a case- by-case basis whether alleged misconduct is so fundamental to the licensee's operation that it is relevant to its qualifications to hold any station license. Hicks Broadcasting of Indiana, LLC, FCC 98-88, released May 18, 1998, at para. 52. Even assuming that Rainbow had raised valid questions as to possible misconduct by Fairbanks in connection with its Vero Beach applications, Rainbow has made no showing that those questions are so fundamental as to impact Fairbanks' qualifications to hold other licenses unrelated to the alleged misconduct. Issues Relating to Sandab's EEO Compliance 70. Rainbow also seeks reconsideration of our finding in Sandab I that Rainbow had failed to make a prima facie case that Sandab had violated our EEO Rule. Subsequent to the filing of the instant renewal applications, the United States Court of Appeals found the outreach portions of the Commission's equal employment opportunity regulations to be unconstitutional. Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod v. FCC, Case No. 97-1116 (D.C. Cir. April 14, 1998). We note that the Court's mandate has not yet issued. In any event, applying the standard governing the disposition of a petition for reconsideration discussed above, we conclude that Rainbow has alleged no basis for reconsideration of the result reached in Sandab I. Rainbow does not identify any material error or omission in our conclusion that it failed to make a prima facie case that Sandab had violated the EEO Rule. Rainbow primarily reargues the matters alleged in its Petition to Deny. As we have repeatedly stated, reconsideration will not be granted for the purpose of debating matters on which we have already deliberated and spoken. See, e.g., Isis Broadcast Group, 8 FCC Rcd 24 (Rev. Bd. 1992), citing WWIZ. 71. The only new evidence presented by Rainbow that could not have been raised prior to our decision in Sandab I is the language in Seymour's November 13, 1995, letter to Sloan, discussed in para. 50, supra. However, as also noted in para. 50, we do not agree with Rainbow's interpretation of the pertinent language. Rainbow also raises for the first time in its Petition for Reconsideration new allegations based on Sandab's 1995 EEO Program Report, as summarized in para. 40, supra. However, these matters could have been raised in Sandab's Petition to Deny. A petition for reconsideration based on new matters not previously raised can be granted only upon a showing that the new matters reflect changed circumstances or could not reasonably have been discovered in a timely manner. See Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Rules, as it relates to Section 1.106(b)(2), 47 C.F.R.  1.106(b)(2) and (c)(1). Rainbow failed to make such a showing. 72. Further, there is no basis for Rainbow's contention that its Petition to Deny was disposed of in a non-routine manner. The Petition to Deny was referred to us in accordance with the provisions of Section 0.283 of the Rules. Also, there was no unusual expedition, given the priority we place on expedition in the processing of renewal applications that affect pending assignment of license or transfer of control applications. See Public Notice, "Mass Media Bureau Announces Assignment and Transfer Backlog Reduction and New Speed of Service Initiatives," No. 54882, June 15, 1995. Finally, with respect to the ex parte communications that were received prior to our decision in Sandab I, we have conducted an investigation into those matters, as discussed above. See para. 11, supra. Sloan's communications were not considered in connection with our decision in Sandab I, and we have not otherwise found evidence of misconduct by Sandab arising from the Sloan situation that would warrant reconsideration of Sandab I. IV. CONCLUSION 73. Accordingly, we grant Rainbow's Motion to Vacate and Petition for Reconsideration to the extent that we have conducted an inquiry into the allegations involving Sloan and we admonish Sandab based upon violations of Section 1.1208 of the Rules in that its agent made prohibited ex parte contacts in a restricted proceeding. However, we have reviewed the entire record and find no substantial and material questions of fact that would require a hearing as to whether Sandab intended to prosecute its renewal applications through the use of ex parte contacts or an improper investigation of Rainbow. We also find no basis for requiring the filing of early renewal applications for stations licensed to Fairbanks. Because we find that no hearing is necessary, Rainbow's request for procedural rulings to govern the hearing it requested is moot. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 74. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, with respect to Sandab Communications Limited Partnership II, the Emergency Motion to Vacate Grant of Renewal and Hold Assignment Applications in Abeyance and Petition for Reconsideration filed by the Southern Region of the National Rainbow Coalition ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated above; ARE DISMISSED as moot insofar as emergency relief was sought; and ARE OTHERWISE DENIED. 75. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with respect to Fairbanks Communications, Inc., the Emergency Motion to Vacate Grant of Renewal and Hold Assignment Applications in Abeyance filed by the Southern Region of the National Rainbow Coalition IS DISMISSED as moot insofar as it relates to applications for assignment of the licenses for WTTB(FM)/WGYL(FM), Vero Beach, Florida, and IS DENIED insofar as it is construed as a request to require the filing of early renewal applications for other broadcast licenses issued to Fairbanks Communications, Inc. 76. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order be sent by Certified Mail -- Return Receipt Requested -- to the Southern Region of the National Rainbow Coalition, Sandab Communications Limited Partnership II, and Fairbanks Communications, Inc. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary