WPCگ 2HBVX@Z3|J' (TT)y.C8*XoC\  P6QP"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 4/4MCL) (Additional)HPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,,&$7~P2d z Zv3|J'HP LaserJet 4/4MCL) (Additional)HPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,,&$7~Pa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2pkkqa4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2 vt) 7 a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2   _  a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2v  va6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical24xa1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2f ua3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2O-3ea8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:.5/7091<Right Par 4Right Par 4.` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5/` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 60` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 71` hp x (#X` hp 0X` hp 0` hp x (#2F2i>3(@4$B5$DRight Par 8Right Par 82` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Document 1Document 13` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 54` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 65` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#2J6l)G7lG8$H9l%JTechnical 2Technical 26 Technical 3Technical 37 Technical 4Technical 48` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 19 2GS:$J;$L< O=)QTechnical 7Technical 7:` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8;` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#toc 1toc 1<` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 2toc 2=` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#2[>yS?U@WAYtoc 3toc 3>` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4?` hp x (#  ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5@` hp x (#hh` hp x (#toc 6toc 6A` hp x (#` hp x (#2bBv#\C\D^E`toc 7toc 7B toc 8toc 8C` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9D` hp x (#` hp x (#index 1index 1E` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#2=hF%cGCeHlagIpgindex 2index 2F` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingG` hp x (#` hp x (#_Equation Caption_Equation CaptionH Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gI` ` ` 2=jJqohKehLeEiMiDocument[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gJ  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gK  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gL  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gM*    2lNpojOjPqkQ lDocument[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gN  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gO8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gPA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gQ0     2oRlSwmT$nUnRight Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gRJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gSS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gT\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gUe` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2rVoWpXdqYrRight Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gVn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gWw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gXF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gY&!"  . 2uZr[Zs\s]tTechnical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gZ&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g[*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g\''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g]&)*   2w^Qu_v`va wTechnical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g^4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g_&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g`&/0  . footnote tex#a'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#2|biwc%yd~yei6{headerbAx 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# referencec;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1d&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2eI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2Ѐf^|gO/~h~i2heading 3fF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!g!!#d\  PCP#HeadingChapter HeadinghJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersi>a݅@  I.   X(# 2jkdlmSubheadingSubheadingj0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldeddk+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Datel X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offm@@    2n1ۃo1 p1=q1nLETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5n 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5of 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11pL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14q 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   2rnшs?tduj$TITLETitle of a DocumentrK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedsN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargetB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscoredu V -q2vwEߌx-$y8QLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsvu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoicew ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatxD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoicey:A ,p, $0$002Gz8{|X}[INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macrozz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice{+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle|SMALLSmall Typestyle}2~[y[Ԕ[/[FINEFine Typestyle~LARGELarge TypestyleEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleVERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle2ڙ rhENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#a2Agenda2 rWa1AgendaAgenda Items7D yP ) I. a3Agendapage numberpage number1#XP\  P6QXP# S'#&J\  P6Q &P#2t"3Zڜ@409-24-97 12:13p   Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)qy.C8*XC\  P6QPr2J=.X &J\  P6Q&P.s2N=.X7&N4  pQ&tP,%X)J,\  P6QJPI(!XI,(\  P6Q,P@X@"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS2@@@&@f"5@^.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc.====IK=\\QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\\QQzQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\\I\=\===\G\p3pK\\\z=zKfGfGN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7==QQ\==\\=Q=7t=eeeegoo.Ijg2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=\Q\\=f===QQ@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\g=\Ie77=jS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\\\"5@^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_.====IK=\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\QQQzQzQzQ\\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\fz3zKff\QQfGfGN@.c\=\\\\\\7<\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7t=eeeeioo.Iji2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\i=\Ie77=jc.=7<\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffff\f"5@^%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N&27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>mBBs,?>[N6Wms[77UUUH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5@^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!()!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2HH2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2==)H2H2H2YHC!C)8'8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!t!77778c<not financial support, for this cause. Thereafter, in the latter part of 1995, Sloan solicited Seymour's  d(#/participation in several projects that were partially charitable and partially entrepreneurial, including  d(#0hurricane relief for the Virgin Islands, the use of prefabricated homes for the poor, and urban lead  d(#abatement. Seymour indicates, however, that these projects did not come to fruition because, in his  d(#opinion, of Sloan's inability to remained focused on a single goal. Seymour states that one project that  d(#<particularly impressed him related to a proposal by Sloan to manufacture inexpensive caskets. This project  d(#yarose when Sloan learned that Seymour controlled a patented substance known as Kerfkore. Sloan raised  d(#the issue of whether the substance could be used to manufacture caskets. He pointed out that poor people  d(#.were traditionally unable to afford conventional caskets and that there would be a substantial market for  d(#inexpensive caskets. Seymour indicates that, after it was determined in early 1996 that Kerfkore could  d(#be used to manufacture inexpensive caskets, he agreed to put up money to start a company to pursue the  d(#\project. Sloan's role in the business was to have been threefold. First, Sloan claimed that he knew an  d(#individual who was interested in investing in the venture. Second, Sloan was responsible for searching  d(#for a manufacturing site in Baltimore that would qualify for "Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Zone"  d(#incentives. Third, Sloan was responsible for marketing the caskets to Black funeral directors, which  d(#Seymour viewed as critical to the success of the project because they served the urban minority  d(#community whose needs the inexpensive caskets were primarily designed to meet. Documents submitted  d(#by Sandab reflect that extensive efforts were made by Seymour and Sloan throughout 1996 in furtherance of this project.  S$-  13.` ` Seymour indicates that Sloan's involvement with WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) began in  d(#November 1995, when he asked Sloan to become an informal advisor to Sandab on EEO matters, not only  d(#<for WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) but also for other stations in which Seymour was involved. In this capacity,"p&,l(l(,,0*"  d(#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:  XAs 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  nthemselves in trouble or from the RTC/FDIC. Regardless, the stations have never had any  Saffirmative action programs much less a true sensitivity to the employment and advancement of minorities.   XIn 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.   XIf you agree which I sincerely hope you will; you will work directly with me and the  Astations. The Affirmative Action Plans will be sent to you for your review as well as any  Aother minority opportunities or problems that may arise. I know how busy your are, and  aI also know what an imposition this is; however, I hope you will give this your full consideration.   d(#=When Rainbow filed its Petition to Deny, Seymour asked Sloan to find out why Rainbow had protested  d(#the Vero Beach renewals so that he could rectify any perceived problems. In this respect, Seymour  d(#indicates that he was proud of Sandab's EEO record and did not understand why Rainbow filed its  d(#objection. According to Seymour, Sloan represented himself as being a prominent member of Rainbow  d(#.and other civil rights organizations, and claimed that he personally knew the top leadership of Rainbow.  d(#Seymour suspected that the challenge had arisen only because of Victor Hart's dissatisfaction arising from  d(#jthe stations' decision not to hire one of Hart's relatives in 1994, which suspicion Seymour communicated  d(#to Sloan. Seymour hoped that Sloan could ascertain from the top leaders of Rainbow the nature of their  d(#concern with the hope that, if there was a problem, it could be resolved. Seymour indicates that, based  d(#on his hopes that any problems could be resolved through contacts with Rainbow's leadership, he felt that  d(#an extensive response to the Petition to Deny would be a waste of Sandab's funds and might appear  d(#confrontational. Accordingly, he states, he chose to file a brief, nonconfrontational letter response that relied on the existing record rather than have counsel prepare a formal opposition.  Sm- 14.` ` Seymour indicates that he envisioned that Sloan might make inquiries at the Commission  d(#concerning the status of the renewal applications as part of his endeavors. However, he denies that he  S- d(#instructed Sloan to make ex parte contacts. Further, Seymour asserts that he first learned of Sloan's  d(#contacts as a result of the May 6, 1996, Notice. After he learned of the Notice, he chastised Sloan for  d(#having made the improper contacts. In addition, Seymour states that, in the same discussion, he instructed  d(#Sloan to cease any efforts with respect to the Vero Beach renewals. Seymour concedes that he did not  S;- d(#Lclearly explain the Commission's ex parte rules to Sloan because it did not occur to him that Sloan would  d(#zbe unaware of the impropriety of going beyond a status check. Seymour states that, until he received  S - d(#=Rainbow's October 4, 1996, submission, he was unaware of the specifics of the alleged ex parte contacts  d(#that resulted in the May 6, 1996, Notice and of the fact that a second Notice had been issued on May 17,  d(#1996. Seymour indicates that Sloan's February 12, 1996, letter greatly overstated the extent of his past  d(#relationship with Sloan. Finally, Seymour denies knowledge of the alleged contacts with Hart, Landry  d(#and Honig prior to Rainbow's October 4, 1996, submission. He further states that, if those contacts were  d(#=made, the alleged offers of consideration by Sloan were made without his direction and without Sandab's authorization or approval. "p&,l(l(,,0*"Ԍ S-  15.` ` Seymour states that Sloan called him in February 1996, to report that he had discovered  d(#lthat Hart was not a member of Rainbow but instead was associated with the NAACP. Sloan also  d(#Kreportedly relayed what Seymour characterizes as a "fantastic story" that persons associated with Rainbow  d(#khad suggested that Sandab make a contribution to Rainbow in excess of $150,000, "with the apparent  S4- d(#expectation that the petition would be withdrawn."4=" S- d(#"Ѝ #C\  P6QP#One of the individuals allegedly involved in this matter has supplied a declaration under penalty of perjury denying the assertions reportedly made by Sloan. Seymour indicates that he sternly informed Sloan that  d(#he was unwilling to make the suggested payment. Shortly thereafter, Seymour reports, Sloan called again  S- d(#yand stated that he (Sloan) had decided, on his own, to make a $90,000 donation to the persons associated  d(#with Rainbow, which he did by a loan from a nonprofit organization with which he was associated.  d(#{Sloan also assertedly told Seymour that he could repay him for the donation, or not, as he saw fit.  d(#Seymour states that he again castigated Sloan as to the impropriety of such a payment and told Sloan that  d(#he would have no part of it. Seymour indicates that he was skeptical of Sloan's story that a donation had  d(#been requested and made. Thereafter, in March or early April 1996, Seymour indicates that he received  d(#a call at home after 11:00 p.m. from Sloan, who proceeded to patch in another person whom Sloan  d(#yidentified as the person who had executed a declaration in support of Rainbow's Petition to Deny insofar  S6 - d(#as it related to the renewal application of a Panama City, Florida, licensee.6 0=" S- d(#"Ѝ #C\  P6QP#Rainbow's Petition to Deny concerning Sandab's renewal applications also sought denial of renewal  d(#applications filed by two other Florida radio licensees, one in Panama City and one in Fort Myers. Rainbow  d(#submitted separate declarations by different individuals in order to establish its status as a party in interest with  d(#Yrespect to the three licensees, as required by Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47  d(#/U.S.C.  309(d)(1). Although addressed by Rainbow in a single Petition to Deny, we have considered the applications of each licensee separately.  According to the person on  d(#kthe telephone, Rainbow had provided him with a new van for his church in exchange for executing the  S - d(#declaration.0 =" S(- d(#"Ѝ #C\  P6QP#There is no evidence that the person whom Sloan patched into the telephone conversation was the individual  d(#.he purported to be. The individual who actually executed Rainbow's Panama City declaration has provided a  d(#declaration denying the claim sponsored by Sloan and stating that, in fact, it was Sloan who offered him a van, which he declined. Subsequently, in April 1996, Seymour reports that he received a late night call from Sloan  d(#who claimed that Hart had agreed to withdraw Rainbow's Petition to Deny. Sloan patched into the call  d(#=an individual who was identified as Hart, who reportedly told Seymour that he had decided to withdraw  d(#the Petition to Deny after Sloan explained Sandab's excellent work in the community and the station's EEO  d(#record. According to Seymour, Sloan later told him that he had accompanied Hart to the FCC to hand S-deliver a letter withdrawing the complaint against WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM).  = S!-ԍ #C\  P6QP#There is no record that any such letter was ever received by the Commission.  Sk-  #16.` ` Apart from his May, 1996, reprimand to Sloan after learning of the May 6, 1996, Notice,  d(#\Seymour does not report any further discussions with Sloan concerning the situation arising from the  d(#MRainbow Petition to Deny until the summer of 1996. At some point during that period, according to  d(#Seymour, Sloan began to press Seymour for financial assistance in repaying the $90,000 Sloan had  d(#>allegedly borrowed to make a donation to persons associated with Rainbow. Seymour also reports a  Sl- d(#telephone call from Sloan in August 1996, after the release of Sandab I. Sloan patched in the general  d(#<manager of the Fort Myers, Florida, radio stations that had been the subject of Rainbow's Petition to Deny.  d(#During the course of this discussion, Sloan reportedly said that he had contacted an individual who had  d(#executed a declaration in support of Rainbow's Petition to Deny and that individual had expressed concern"P ,l(l(,,{"  S- d(#that Rainbow's counsel was personally benefitting from the Petition.  =" Sh- d(#="Ѝ #C\  P6QP#The individual in question has submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury disputing the assertions concerning him reportedly made by Sloan.  Sandab has supplied an undated  d(#handwritten note by Seymour apparently relating to a conversation with the Fort Myers general manager  d(#which reflects a claim that Rainbow's counsel was in violation of Section 73.3588 of the Commission's  d(#Rules (Dismissal of Petitions to Deny), which is followed by the notation: "George will take offensive  d(#action." Although this note is undated, it refers to the grant of the renewal applications for the Fort Myers  d(#stations, subject to reporting conditions, which occurred on September 24, 1996. Accordingly, the note was necessarily prepared at some point after that date.  Sh- 17.` ` According to Seymour, Sloan received, from December 1995 to March 1996 five payments  d(#of $2,000 for services as a consultant for the casket enterprise. These payments were made by the  d(#company that manufactures the substance from which the caskets were to be made. In addition, Seymour  d(#states, from February to May 1996, he made a number of payments to Sloan that totalled $29,700. These  d(#>payments were made in response to requests by Sloan and were made from the Sandab bank account  d(#because, according to Seymour, it had available cash resources. Seymour indicates, however, that these  d(#payments were only in part intended to recognize Sloan's services to Sandab. The payments were also  d(#made because of services provided to other businesses in which Seymour was involved, primarily, the  d(#casket enterprise. Thus, Seymour indicates that he viewed Sloan's continued participation as crucial to the  d(#successful development of the casket enterprise. Also, according to Seymour, the payments reflected his  d(#=regard for Sloan as "a courageous and righteous person seeking to make the world a better place," as well  d(#as concern for Sloan's financial condition, as a result of an illness of Sloan's exwife. Seymour indicates,  d(#.however, that after May 1996, he scaled back his financial support to Sloan because the casket business  d(#jwas not making as much progress as anticipated. Seymour states that, over the summer of 1996, he paid Sloan only $1200 from personal accounts.  S8- 18.` ` At some point during the summer, Seymour reports, Sloan began to seek aggressively  d(#.Seymour's assistance in order to repay funds that Sloan had allegedly borrowed to make the payment to  d(#Lpersons associated with Rainbow in February. Seymour indicates that he had serious doubts concerning  d(#zSloan's story about the February payment and he therefore initially resisted Sloan's requests for more  d(#money. However, in August 1996, according to Seymour, Sloan's requests became more persistent and  d(#Seymour finally agreed in September 1996, to give him $25,000 immediately and an additional $69,000  d(#by the end of 1996 (not all of which was ultimately paid). The initial $25,000 was paid from a Sandab  d(#account because, according to Seymour, it had the most available cash. In addition, Seymour prepared  d(#\an invoice, nominally from Sloan to Sandab, in the amount of $95,000, for services rendered by Sloan  d(#in connection with the development of an EEO Program and the overseeing of the license renewal at the  d(#FCC. The invoice was dated September 5, 1996. Seymour signed Sloan's name on the invoice, on Sloan's  d(#behalf. Notwithstanding the invoice, Seymour indicates that his reasons for making the payment arose  d(#Lfrom Sloan's contributions to all of his various ventures, including the casket enterprise, which Sloan had  d(#ycontinued to promote throughout the summer. Seymour indicates that he viewed the additional payment  d(#Zin recognition of Sloan's continued efforts to promote the casket enterprise as consistent with startup costs  d(#in other ventures Seymour had supported. Also, Seymour indicates that the payment was motivated in  d(# part by continuing personal financial distress being experienced by Sloan. After the initial payment,  d(#>Seymour reports that Sloan continued to pressure him for money. On October 1, 1996, according to  d(#Seymour, he authorized a $5,000 payment to Sloan from the Sandab account, after Sloan reported that his  d(#son had been severely injured in an automobile accident. This was the last payment by Sandab.  d(#-Thereafter, Seymour states, he confronted Sloan concerning the alleged payment to persons associated with  d(#Rainbow, at which time, according to Seymour, Sloan admitted that he had concocted the entire story. " $ 0 ,l(l(,,'"  d(#LSeymour 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.  Sg-  n19.` ` The declaration of WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) General Manager Bradley initially addresses  d(#Zthe job application of Dorothy Hart, the daughterinlaw of Victor Hart. Bradley asserts that Dorothy Hart  d(#acted in a rather confrontational manner during her interview. She refused to allow Bradley's assistant,  d(#whose position the stations were seeking to fill, to participate in the interview. After the interview,  d(#according to Bradley, she called repeatedly to ascertain the status of her application and, at one point, told  d(#jBradley that she planned to let Victor Hart know if she didn't get the job. Bradley also reports a number  d(#of contacts with Sloan during the spring and summer of 1996. Initially, he recalls reviewing the Petition  d(#to Deny with Sloan over the telephone and advising Sloan of the incident involving Dorothy Hart. He  d(#received numerous additional calls from Sloan in which, according to Bradley, Sloan sought to impress  d(#him with Sloan's knowledge of senior Rainbow officials and Commission staff attorneys, to which Bradley  d(#jstates he gave little credence. Bradley states that in one call Sloan told him that a senior Rainbow official  d(#kwanted Sandab to fire Bradley. Sloan also sought to impress Bradley with his past achievements and  d(#celebrity friends. At one point, around April, 1996, Sloan reportedly told Bradley that Rainbow would  d(#appreciate a $100,000 donation, but that Seymour was being stubborn by refusing to make it. Bradley  d(#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.  S- 20.` ` The Responses of Fairbanks. Fairbanks' responses are based on two declarations under  d(#penalty of perjury of its principal Hilliard. Hilliard denies that Sloan was an agent or representative of  d(#.Fairbanks. He indicates that he first heard about Sloan from Seymour in January 1996, in the context of  d(#a conversation in which Seymour generally outlined his plan in response to the Rainbow Petition to Deny.  d(#>Thereafter, in late January 1996, Hilliard received a telephone call from Sloan. According to Hilliard,  d(#Sloan introduced himself and described a number of public interest projects in which he was involved.  d(#During the course of the conversation, Hilliard indicated that it was Fairbanks' general practice to embrace  d(#=minority communities in the service area in programming decisions and hiring practices. Sloan requested  d(#Ma letter from Hilliard describing generally Fairbanks' policy in this respect, indicating that it would be  d(#helpful in resolving the petition against Sandab if he could show a continuity of responsiveness to minority  d(#needs. Hilliard states that he did not construe Sloan's comments as asking for a commitment in terms of  d(#specific jobs or programming at the stations. Thereafter, Hilliard wrote a letter to Sloan (attached to his  d(#declaration) dated January 23, 1996. It is a general introduction to the company and indicates that it is  d(#Fairbanks' philosophy to avoid unfairness in its hiring practices. The letter contains no discussion of any  d(#specific hiring or programming plans with respect to WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). Subsequent to this initial  d(#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.  Sn-  P21.` ` With respect to the February 14, 1996, letter from Hilliard to Sloan, Hilliard indicates that  d(#Sloan had solicited his support generally for a project to promote child immunization and another project  d(#to publicize the IRS earned income tax credit program, although Sloan never specifically asked for money.  d(#Hilliard states that, while he was not interested in donating money to Sloan's projects, he did find merit  d(#in the project to publicize the tax credit program. Also, Sloan had indicated, according to Hilliard, that  d(#a further communications from Fairbanks would assist him in his efforts on behalf of Sandab. Hilliard  d(#=explains that he wrote the February 14, 1996, letter in order to indicate Fairbanks' interest in assisting in  d(#publicizing the tax credit program, provided this could be done on a "selfliquidating basis," while also  d(#jpolitely making clear to Sloan that Fairbanks was not interested in making monetary donations to Sloan's projects. "p& ,l(l(,,0*"Ԍ S-  322.` ` Hilliard denies that he ever made any commitments to Sloan or discussed with him the  d(#possibility of making any commitment to provide money, employment, radio programs, or anything else,  S- d(#[to Sloan or anyone else. Hilliard specifically denies assertions made in Sloan's ex parte statements to the  d(#=Commission that Fairbanks had pledged to hire minorities for certain jobs at WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM).  d(#He states that any such claims were made without authorization from Fairbanks. Hilliard indicates that  d(#he only had one discussion with Sloan concerning specific personnel matters at WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM).  d(#In that discussion, according to Hilliard, Sloan expressed the view that Fairbanks should fire the present  d(#general manager when it assumed control of the stations. Hilliard responded by stating that he had no  d(#intention of firing the present general manager. Hilliard further indicates that the only other discussion  d(#ywith Sloan concerning a specific personnel or programming matter arose when he told Sloan of Fairbanks'  d(#Lplans for a minorityoriented callin show at other Florida stations operated by Fairbanks. According to  d(#Hilliard, Sloan referred Hilliard to his sister as a possible host for the program, without asking that she  d(#be hired, or receiving from Hilliard a commitment that she would be. Hilliard later talked to Sloan's sister,  d(#but ultimately hired someone else who lived in the local community to host the show. There is no  d(#evidence that Hilliard ever paid or offered any money to Sloan or gave or offered him anything of value,  d(#apart from the vague offer of some assistance, on a "selfliquidating basis," in connection the project to publicize the IRS earned income tax credit referenced in Hilliard's February 14, 1996, letter to Sloan.  Sj-  ~23.` ` Hilliard reports that Sloan faxed to him on March 15, 1996, at least a portion of Sloan's  d(#yletter to the Commission dated February 12, 1996. Hilliard cannot confirm that the material faxed to him  d(#[included the letter itself since the fax as he found it at the time he prepared his inquiry response included  d(#only a handwritten note to Hilliard and various letters and newspaper articles concerning Sloan's activities  d(# that had been attached to Sloan's letter to the Commission. In any event, Hilliard did not look at the  d(#material until some time later because he was in the process of moving his office and was away due to  d(#ka family illness. Hilliard reports that when he initially read the material, he did not review it in detail,  d(#>but focused primarily on Sloan's handwritten note, which emphasized that Seymour and Hilliard had  d(#played important roles in Sloan's projects and had the highest regard for AfricanAmerican families.  d(#MHilliard asserts that he learned for the first time when his attorney sent him a copy of the documents  d(#obtained as a result of the May 6, 1996, Notice, that, in his written and oral presentations to the  d(#LCommission's staff, Sloan had misstated the duration and extent of his relationship with Hilliard and had  d(#@falsely stated that Fairbanks had committed itself to hiring minorities for specific positions at  d(#WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). Thereafter, probably on May 17, 1996, Hilliard discussed the situation with  d(#Seymour. According to Hilliard, he asked Seymour to control Sloan and ensure that he made no further  Sm- d(#ex parte contacts. Seymour reportedly assured Hilliard that he had reprimanded Sloan, that he had not  d(#asked Sloan to contact the Commission's staff, and that it would not happen again. Hilliard indicates that,  S- d(#]sometime after his discussion with Seymour, he discussed with Sloan the issue of Sloan's ex parte  d(#contacts. According to Hilliard, Sloan took the position that he had done nothing wrong. Hilliard chose  d(#not to debate the matter with Sloan because he viewed Sloan as being Sandab's problem. Hilliard states  d(#Lthat, in his view, he had adequately dealt with the matter by discussing it with Seymour, who had, as far  S;-as Hilliard knew, acted to correct the problem, given that no further ex parte contacts had been reported.  S -  $24.` ` With reference to the July 11, 1996, letter to Hart, Hilliard indicates that he received a  d(#?telephone message from Sloan on July 10, 1996, asking him to write a "generic letter" introducing  d(#[Fairbanks and reflecting its respect for the AfricanAmerican community. Sloan's message also indicated  d(#.that "Mr. Hart is the one who signed the letter for denial and will rescind if all things go all right." Also,  d(#in another telephone call during that time period, Sloan had suggested that Hart was willing to withdraw  d(#kthe Rainbow petition. In view of this, as well as his desire not to make enemies of the Harts, Hilliard  d(#wrote the letter. Also on July 11, 1996, Hilliard sent a brief, complimentary note to Sloan, referring to  d(#Sloan as "gold . . . . in the creek of life" and as a "keeper." According to Hilliard, this letter reflected his  d(#understanding, based on what he had been told by Sloan, that Hart intended to withdraw the Rainbow"=' ,l(l(,,+"  d(#LPetition to Deny. In his declaration submitted with Fairbanks' inquiry response, Hilliard states: "Given  d(#@Dr. Sloan's reports, it came as no surprise when, on July 22, 1996, the Commission issued its  d(#Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Rainbow's petition." Hilliard denies having discussed with  d(#Sloan the offering of a job, program or money to the Harts. Hilliard also denies that he ever authorized  d(#Sloan to make any such offers. Hilliard further states that, prior to Rainbow's October 4, 1996,  d(#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.  Sh-  25.` ` Hilliard reports that during the period from January to May, 1996, Sloan advised him in  d(#various telephone calls that he had talked to a highranking Rainbow official who indicated that they were  d(#going to discharge Rainbow's counsel; that the person who executed the declaration supporting Rainbow's  d(#Petition to Deny the Panama City, Florida, station had received a van for executing the declaration; that  d(#the person who executed the declaration supporting Rainbow's Petition to Deny the Fort Myers, Florida,  d(#stations was dissatisfied with Rainbow's counsel; and that the Harts intended to withdraw the Petition to  d(#/Deny concerning Sandab. In one instance, according to Hilliard, Sloan asked him to be available for a  d(#conference call with a highranking Rainbow official. However, the conference call never materialized.  d(#MHilliard also indicates that he received a telephone call from Sloan on May 21, 1996, in which he told  S - d(#Hilliard that he had a meeting with a Commission official concerning the Vero Beach stations. Hilliard  d(#indicates that he did not believe this was possible under the circumstances and therefore did nothing about  d(#it in terms of discussing it with Sloan or Seymour. At a later time, according to Hilliard, Sloan claimed  d(#to have had dinner with a Commission official. In July or August, 1996, Hilliard reports that Sloan urged  d(#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.  S8- n26.` ` Rainbow's Comments. In its comments concerning the responses of Sandab and Fairbanks  d(#to the staff inquiry letter, Rainbow urges generally that we should keep four considerations in mind. First,  S- d(#Seymour and Hilliard are experienced broadcasters. Second, the ex parte rules and our policies concerning  d(#?abuse of process are not complicated. Third, Seymour and Hilliard had time to devote to matters  d(#pertaining to WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). Fourth, Sandab and Fairbanks had a motive to complete the sale  d(#of the stations expeditiously. In the case of Fairbanks, Rainbow notes that completion of the sale by a  S- d(#date certain was necessary for tax reasons. =" Sn- d(#"Ѝ #C\  P6QP#Fairbanks had previously reported that it was necessary to complete the acquisition of  d(#,WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) by October 30, 1996, in order to mitigate the tax consequences of its May, 1996, sale of  d(#JStation WKLBFM, Framingham, Massachusetts, by acquiring replacement property for other property of like kind  d(#Jand qualifying use pursuant to Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Fairbanks indicated  d(#that the loss of the timely opportunity to acquire replacement property would result in an additional 1996 tax liability of approximately $1.5 million. In the case of Sandab, Rainbow asserts that Seymour had  d(#a motive to indulge and cover up misconduct by Sloan because of Seymour's participation with Sloan in  d(#the casket enterprise, which Sloan had convinced Seymour would be enormously profitable. Rainbow also  d(#suggests that the venture was in fact a scheme to exploit Blacks. It further suggests that Seymour's  d(#zwillingness to believe Sloan's claims as to the potential profitability of the scheme was the product of  d(#yunconscious racism on Seymour's part. In addition, Rainbow suggests that Seymour's alleged willingness  d(#to believe allegations adverse to Rainbow or its personnel, such as Seymour's suspicion that Rainbow's  d(#Petition to Deny arose because the stations failed to hire Victor Hart's relatives, similarly reflected unconscious racism.  S - 27.` ` Rainbow also notes the sentence in Seymour's November 13, 1995, letter to Sloan which  d(#?states: "Regardless, the stations have never had any affirmative action programs much less a true" P ,l(l(,,$"  d(#sensitivity to the employment and advancement of minorities." Rainbow construes this sentence as  d(#referring to Sandab's operation of WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). It therefore urges that Sandab has admitted  S- d(#that it has no EEO Program. See para.Make Sure Correct 13, supra. Rainbow further contends that this admission  d(#undermines claims by Seymour that he was confident that Sandab's EEO efforts would satisfy the  d(#Commission. Rainbow further urges that the credibility of statements made by Sandab concerning its EEO  d(#program are suspect because Seymour believed that Rainbow's Petition to Deny may have been motivated  d(#<by the nonselection of Dorothy Hart. Rainbow submits a declaration under penalty of perjury by Dorothy  d(#Hart in which she disputes Bradley's claim that she was confrontational during her job interview; that she  d(#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.  S-  328.` ` With respect to ex parte contacts made by Sloan, Rainbow urges that both Sandab and  d(#Fairbanks must be held responsible. Rainbow contends that, because Sandab paid Sloan a considerable  d(#sum of money, it cannot be accepted that Sloan was expected to make only a status inquiry. It further  d(#argues that the substance and timing of Sloan's letter dated February 12, 1996, suggests that Sloan must  d(#yhave been instructed by Sandab and/or Fairbanks. Rainbow also faults the parties because Seymour only  S - d(# verbally reprimanded Sloan after it became known that he had violated the ex parte rules, but neither  d(#Sandab nor Fairbanks provided him a written memorandum as to the appropriate way to conduct himself  d(#before the Commission. Rainbow also contends that Sandab and Fairbanks were remiss in failing to serve  d(#za copy of Sloan's letter dated February 12, 1996, on Rainbow after it became known as a result of the  d(#May 6, 1996, Notice, and in failing to correct erroneous information contained in Sloan's letter. In the  d(#case of Fairbanks, Rainbow questions the credibility of Hilliard's claim that he did not carefully read the  S- d(#material Sloan had faxed him in March 1996 in light of the importance of the WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM)  Sk- d(#transaction to Fairbanks. See para. 23 Check para. no, supra. Rainbow also contends that Hilliard was remiss in failing  d(#jto take action in response to assertions by Sloan, subsequent to the May 1996 Notices, that his contacts  d(#at the Commission were not improper and that he had further contacts with a Commission official.  d(#jRainbow further alleges that language in Hilliard's declaration in response to the staff inquiry letter to the  S- d(#.effect that he was not surprised when Sandab I was released in light of reports from Sloan (See para. 24Check para. no,  Sl- d(#supra) suggests that Sloan had reported to Hilliard additional ex parte contacts that have never been disclosed.  S- p29.` ` Rainbow alleges that Sloan conducted an abusive investigation of Rainbow that was  d(#Ndesigned to harass, intimidate and coerce Rainbow and its representatives in a manner contrary to  Sm- d(#Commission policy. See, e.g., Chronicle Broadcasting Co., 19 FCC2d 240, 245 (Rev. Bd. 1969)  S:- d(#("Chronicle"). Rainbow also contends that Sloan was acting as an agent for both Sandab and Fairbanks,  d(#both of which are therefore responsible for his activities. Rainbow contends that Sloan's activities  d(#constituted an abusive investigation because: 1) Sloan called Hart, Landry and Honig repeatedly at odd  d(#.hours to urge that Rainbow's Petition to Deny be dropped and misleadingly suggested that he, also, was  d(#kan adversary of Sandab; 2) Sloan offered what Rainbow characterizes as "bribes" to Hart, Landry and  d(#Honig; 3) Sloan interjected himself in the Panama City and Fort Myers, Florida, cases in an effort to pry  d(#jaway the persons who had executed declarations in support of Rainbow's Petition to Deny; and 4) Sloan  d(#invented and published, at least to Sandab and Fairbanks, false rumors to the effect that Rainbow officials  d(#/had solicited donations in exchange for the dismissal of the Petition to Deny. Rainbow suggests that  d(#Sandab or Fairbanks must have authorized Sloan's investigation into the Panama City and Fort Myers  d(#cases since Sloan would have had no other way of knowing of these cases. Rainbow contends that  d(#Seymour and Hilliard were remiss in that they heard reports from Sloan concerning the cases involving  d(#other licensees and Rainbow's alleged solicitation of a donation and failed to institute an investigation or  d(#=report the matters to the authorities. Instead, Rainbow alleges, Seymour decided to engage Sloan to take  d(#"offensive action" against Rainbow, as reflected in Seymour's late September 1996 note discussed in para."p& ,l(l(,,0*"  S- d(#16, Check Para. No.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.  Sg- 330.` ` Rainbow contends that, in conducting his investigation, Sloan was acting as a agent for  d(#Sandab because of the large amount of money paid to Sloan which was attributed to services on behalf  d(#kof Sandab. Rainbow questions Seymour's explanation that the payments to Sloan were motivated by  d(#Seymour's perception that Sloan's participation was necessary for the success of the casket enterprise and  d(#because of his personal regard and concern for Sloan. Rainbow argues that Seymour could not have  d(#.employed Sandab funds for purposes related to the casket enterprise because the ownership of Sandab  d(#and the casket company are different. Rainbow asserts that Sloan should be considered an agent of  d(#Fairbanks because the January 23, 1996, February 14, 1996, and July 11, 1996 letters from Hilliard to  d(#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.  S6 - 31.` ` In light of the foregoing, Rainbow urges that Sandab's renewal applications should be  d(#designated for hearing, that we should call for the filing of early renewal applications by Fairbanks, and  d(#ythat we designate all such applications for a consolidated hearing with the Sandab applications. Rainbow  d(#Lfurther requests that we should order immediate sequestration of the witnesses in the hearing sought and  d(#direct the presiding judge to issue an order restricting public disclosure of scandalous matter that might arise during the proceeding.  S- 32.` ` Sandab's Reply. In a response to Rainbow's comments, Sandab contends that Sloan was  d(#a manipulator and confidence man whose statements, with the benefit of hindsight, were unworthy of  d(#belief and who was pursuing his own agenda without the control or approval of those around him, and  d(# that Rainbow's comments effectively acknowledge those facts. Sandab further contends that Sloan's  S- d(#yactions 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 decisionmaking process.  Sl- Q33.` ` Sandab also argues that the sentence from the November 13, 1995 letter from Seymour  d(#to Sloan was taken out of context by Rainbow and that the statement "the stations have never had any  d(#jaffirmative action programs" in fact refers to the absence of EEO programs at distressed stations prior to  d(#their acquisition by Sandab. Sandab also submits a further declaration from Bradley in which he indicates  d(#that his prior declaration was incorrect in describing the events surrounding the job interview with Dorothy  d(#Hart. Bradley indicates that there had in fact been two interviews in the fall of 1994, one with Dorothy  d(#Hart (Victor Hart's daughterinlaw) and one with Sonya Hart (Victor Hart's daughter). Bradley indicates  d(#that the interview described in his initial declaration was the Sonya Hart interview, rather than the Dorothy Hart interview.  Sn- o34.` ` Sandab argues that there is no evidence that Sandab authorized or encouraged Sloan's ex  S;- d(#parte contacts; that it promptly rebuked Sloan after it learned of the contacts, which to its knowledge did  d(#not recur; and that the contacts did not influence our decisionmaking process. Sandab also contends that  d(#it never authorized Sloan to conduct an investigation of Rainbow or to offer payments of money. It states  d(#that Sloan's intended mission, based on Sloan's claim that he knew the top leaders of Rainbow, was to  d(#[communicate with those persons for the purpose of convincing them that Rainbow's challenge of Sandab  d(#was unfounded and should be withdrawn. Sandab suggests that Sloan's actual conduct was outside of the  d(#yinstructions he received from Sandab and was intended to promote Sloan's own concerns. Sandab asserts  d(#>that payments to Sloan did not constitute payment for improper activities with respect to Rainbow.  d(#]Sandab also indicates that Sandab funds were only used initially to pay Sloan and have since been  Sp&- d(#allocated among the various ventures in which Sloan had been involved. It is also stated that the Sandab"p& ,l(l(,,0*"  d(#partnership is aware of the initial use of Sandab funds to pay Sloan. Finally, Sandab urges that there is  S-no connection between the Sloan matters and the legality of our action in Sandab I.  Sg- 35.` ` Fairbanks' Reply. Fairbanks notes that, with the dismissal of its applications for  S4- d(#assignment of the WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) licenses, it has no pending applications before the  d(#Commission. Thus, it notes, Rainbow is effectively seeking the midterm revocation of other licenses held  d(#yby Fairbanks. Fairbanks contends that Rainbow has not justified this extraordinary result. It argues that  S- d(#ythere is no evidence that Fairbanks either solicited or encouraged Sloan to violate the ex parte rules. With  d(#respect to statements made by Sloan to Hilliard suggesting that he had made further contacts with a top  d(#LCommission official after the May 1996 Notices, Fairbanks asserts that there was no requirement that it  d(#Lreport those statements to the Commission because it was not a party to the WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM)  d(#renewal proceeding and because Hilliard did not believe Sloan's claim to have met with the Commission  d(#official. Fairbanks also contends that it was not remiss in failing to report Sloan's letter dated February  d(#12, 1996, to the Commission because, due to an office move and illness in the family, Hilliard had given  d(#=the matter an understandable lack of attention until after the May 1996 Notices. Fairbanks finally urges  d(#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.  Sj-  P36.` ` Rainbow's Further Comments. In a further pleading filed by Rainbow, it again relies upon  d(#-its interpretation of Seymour's November 13, 1995, letter to Sloan as constituting an admission that Sandab  d(#had no EEO program. Rainbow also challenges Bradley's second declaration that his initial declaration  d(#had erroneously attributed an interview with Sonya Hart as having been with Dorothy Hart. Rainbow  d(#=submits a declaration from Sonya Hart disputing that her interview transpired as reported by Bradley in  d(#=his first declaration. Rainbow further questions the credibility of Sandab's assertion that it was unaware  d(#jof the contents of Sloan's letter to the Commission dated February 12, 1996, prior to Rainbow's October  d(#4, 1996, submission. In any event, it urges, Sandab would have been under an obligation to obtain the  d(#documents as a result of the May 6, 1996, Notice. Finally, Rainbow questions Sandab's statement that  d(#funds used to pay Sloan were only initially taken from Sandab accounts, but were later allocated among  d(#all businesses in which Sloan had been involved. It notes that Sandab has not provided a sworn  d(#jdeclaration verifying this assertion. Rainbow alleges that the yearend settling of accounts was contrived  d(#Mto conceal the fact that the money had in fact been paid to Sloan primarily to compensate him for his  S-efforts on behalf of Sandab in dealing with the Commission and Rainbow. h=" S;- d(#="Ѝ #C\  P6QP#Rainbow also filed a letter urging that the contents of Fairbanks' Reply to its comments on the inquiry  d(#jresponses are unworthy of substantive consideration and should be disregarded. However, we find no basis for refusing to consider Fairbanks' submission.  Sm- 37.` ` Sandab's Final Comments. In response to Rainbow's foregoing submission, Sandab again  d(#urges that the language in Seymour's November 13, 1995, letter to Sloan is not properly construed as an  d(#-admission that Sandab had no EEO program at WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). It further urges that the dispute  d(#concerning the circumstances surrounding Sonya Hart's interview does not pose any substantial or material  d(#Lquestion of fact warranting a hearing. With respect to Sandab's knowledge of Sloan's February 12, 1996,  d(#letter, Sandab contends that Rainbow has presented no evidence contradicting the sworn and  d(#uncontradicted testimony that Seymour did not know about the letter until Rainbow's October submission.  d(#It also notes that Seymour took effective action when he first learned of Sloan's improper contacts with  d(#Lthe Commission's staff. Finally, Sandab submits a sworn declaration from Seymour verifying that funds  d(#initially paid to Sloan from Sandab accounts had been allocated among the various ventures in which  d(#Sloan was involved and Sandab had been reimbursed by the other ventures for their shares of the"o" ,l(l(,,%"  d(#payments. Sandab also contends that Rainbow's insinuation that the funds had been paid to Sloan for use  S-in bribing Rainbow personnel was contrary to sworn and uncontradicted evidence.  Sg- Issues Relating to Sandab's EEO Compliance  S- 38.` ` In its Petition for Reconsideration, Rainbow urges that further investigation of the  S- d(#licensee's EEO program should have been conducted pursuant to Bilingual Bicultural Coalition on Mass  S- d(#?Media v. FCC, 595 F.2d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ("Bilingual"). Rainbow contends that the showing  Sh- d(#contained in its Petition to Deny was comparable to showings made in other cases where a Bilingual  d(#inquiry had been conducted and the Commission's failure conduct such an inquiry here constitutes a  d(#change in policy. Rainbow characterizes its petition as having shown that the stations reported no  d(#minority employees in the upperfour job categories in five years and that, in its statement concerning the  d(#.demographics of the stations' labor force, "Sandab invoked absurd and apparently racist pretexts for not  d(#=having recruited and hired minorities." With respect to the latter claim, Rainbow in a footnote concedes,  S6 - d(#[as discussed in para. 11 of Sandab I, that the licensee's statement was on its face offered as a reason why  d(#the licensee felt that "creative" recruitment efforts were needed. Rainbow contends, however, that the  d(#/statement must actually be viewed as an excuse for a deficient past record that should be treated as a  d(#"pretextual reason for minority exclusion..." Rainbow further reiterates its position that the licensee's  d(#failure to file a substantive opposition should be construed adversely to the licensee. Rainbow concludes  S7- d(#zthat, in light of the foregoing matters, "there was absolutely no good reason not to conduct a Bilingual investigation."  S- 39.` ` Rainbow also contends that this case was treated in a nonroutine manner that further  Sk- d(#=indicates the need for a Bilingual inquiry. Rainbow suggests that it was unusual that the Commission en  S8- d(#banc ruled upon Sandab's renewal applications, rather than the Chief, Mass Media Bureau, pursuant to  d(#jdelegated authority. It further suggests that Sandab's applications were taken ahead of their usual turn in  S- d(#ythe processing line. Rainbow also urges that we should investigate the ex parte contacts referenced in the  d(#{May 1996 Notices to ensure that there was no wrongdoing attributable to Sandab. It refers to the  Sl- d(#ydocuments that it had submitted under seal (see para. 3, check  supra), which were pending at the time Rainbow filed its Petition for Reconsideration.  S- 440.` ` Finally, Rainbow raises for the first time in its Petition for Reconsideration several  d(#objections based on Sandab's 1995 EEO Program Report that were not raised in its Petition to Deny or  d(#its reply to Sandab's letter opposition. Rainbow generally urges that we should not have accepted  S:- d(#unverified assertions in the Report. It further contends that a Bilingual inquiry was warranted to determine  d(#whether the recruitment sources listed in the Report were used for all hires; whether the seven minority  d(#applicants reported included any for upperlevel positions; how long the two minority hires reported were  d(#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.  S - C41.` ` In addition to the matters raised in Rainbow's initial Petition for Reconsideration, a  d(#November 13, 1995, letter from Seymour to Sloan, provided by Sandab in response to the inquiry letter  d(#concerning the Sloan matter, included the statement that: "Regardless, the stations have never had any  d(#affirmative action programs much less a true sensitivity to the employment and advancement of  d(#[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.  S%- 42.` ` In its Opposition to Rainbow's Petition for Reconsideration, Sandab urges that Rainbow  d(#zwas merely repeating speculation that had previously been found insufficient to raise a question as to  d(#WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM)'s compliance with the EEO Rule. With respect to the sentence from the"=' ,l(l(,,+"  d(#November 13, 1995, Seymour letter, Sandab urges, as discussed above, that Rainbow has taken the  d(#<sentence out of context and that it does not constitute an admission that WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) had not maintained an EEO program.  S4-O III. DISCUSSION ă  S-  Issues Relating to the Activities of George W. Sloan  S5- $43.` ` The issues concerning Sloan were first raised in connection with Rainbow's Motion to  d(#zVacate. The Motion to Vacate sought interim relief in the nature of a stay designed to defer action on  d(#Lthe applications for assignment of the WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) licenses to Fairbanks. The assignment  d(#>applications were not granted and have since been dismissed. Accordingly, the interim relief initially  d(#lsought by Rainbow is moot. We will rather treat the Motion to Vacate as, in effect, a petition for  S6 - d(#jreconsideration of our decision in Sandab I, along with Rainbow's additional pleading formally designated  d(#as a Petition for Reconsideration, which addressed the substance of our decision concerning Sandab's EEO  S - d(#{record in Sandab I. The issues concerning Fairbanks are different in that, with the dismissal of the  d(#assignment applications, there are no applications involving Fairbanks currently before us. Thus, we must  d(#determine with respect to Fairbanks whether the circumstances warrant requiring the filing of early renewal  d(#applications for other stations licensed to Fairbanks. Since the legal considerations pertinent to Sandab  S-and Fairbanks are not the same, we will consider the two entities separately.  S- #44.` ` Sandab. Reconsideration is appropriate only where the petitioner shows either a material  d(#error or omission in the original order or raises additional facts not known or not existing until after the  S8- d(#petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. See WWIZ, Inc, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub  S- d(#lnom, Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965) cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967 (1966)  S- d(#("WWIZ"); Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106. Applying this standard, we will  d(#.consider the allegations raised concerning Sloan since most of the facts did not become known until after  Sl- d(#Sandab I. In considering the allegations, we will use the analytical framework provided by Section 309  S9- d(#of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. WWORTV, 6 FCC Rcd 6569, 6570 n. 7  S-(1991)("WWORTV").  S- o45.` ` With respect to ex parte contacts made by Sloan, Sandab principal Seymour states that  d(#he first learned of Sloan's contacts as a result of our May 6, 1996, Notice. Further, Seymour expressly  d(#denies that Sloan was instructed to make improper contacts with the Commission. No contrary evidence  d(#has been presented. Nor do we find that the circumstances raise a substantial and material question of fact  d(#suggesting that Seymour retained Sloan for the purpose of achieving a grant of Sandab's applications by  d(#means of improper contacts with Commission personnel. According to Seymour, it was hoped that Sloan  d(#ywould be able to convince the top leaders of Rainbow that Sandab in fact had a favorable EEO record and  d(#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.  S!- o46.` ` Rainbow has not demonstrated that Seymour's explanation is inherently improbable, at  So"- d(#least based on what Seymour knew of Sloan at the time. o"=" S$- d(#"Ѝ #C\  P6QP#There is nothing in the record evidencing that Sloan was in fact closely acquainted with the leadership of Rainbow. Moreover, Seymour's decision to file only a  d(#brief response to Rainbow's Petition to Deny is consistent with the existence of a hope that Rainbow's  d(#kconcerns could be amicably resolved through the good offices of Sloan. While Seymour indicates that" $0 ,l(l(,,'"  d(#[he anticipated that Sloan, in the course of his efforts, might make a status inquiry concerning the renewal  d(#Kapplications, unrebutted evidence indicates that Sloan's primary mission, as contemplated by Seymour, was  d(#to use his purported influence to achieve an amicable resolution with Rainbow's leadership, not to make improper contacts with the Commission.  S-  47.` ` Seymour apparently had, at least, a suspicion that the Petition to Deny may have arisen  d(#because of Victor Hart's dissatisfaction with the failure of WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) to hire his relatives.  d(#If so, this would buttress the reasonableness of Seymour's belief that the disinterested national leadership  d(#of Rainbow might be convinced of Sandab's good faith when its case was presented by a person (Sloan)  d(#whose judgment Seymour had been led to believe they would respect. We note this consideration only  d(#insofar as it is pertinent to assessing Seymour's intent in involving Sloan in the renewal proceeding. There  d(#is no evidence that Rainbow's Petition to Deny was the product of a personal grudge against Sandab on  d(#>the part of Hart. On the other hand, we reject Rainbow's suggestion that the mere fact that Seymour  d(#.harbored suspicions as to Hart's motives reflects "unconscious racism" on Seymour's part, which is also not supported by any evidence.  S - A48.` ` Admittedly, there are inconsistencies between the declarations of Bradley and Sonya Hart  d(#as to the events that transpired in connection with the her employment application. Also, Bradley had  d(#initially believed that the events he now says occurred in connection with Sonya Hart's application had  d(#happened in connection with the job application of Dorothy Hart, another relative of Victor Hart who  d(#iapplied for employment at WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM). However, we do not find that these matters warrant  d(#jexploration at hearing. A hearing is not required to resolve every factual dispute that may arise, but only  d(#those that are "substantial and material." Section 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,  Sk- d(#47 U.S.C.  309(e); California Public Broadcasting Forum v. FCC, 752 F.2d 670, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985).  S-  249.` ` We do not find the events that transpired in connection with Sonya Hart's job application  d(#to be substantial and material. Even if Bradley's interpretation of the events were found to be in error,  d(#>that would not suffice, standing alone, to raise an issue that Sandab retained Sloan for the purpose of  S9- d(#lviolating the ex parte rules or conducting an abusive investigation. Nor do we find that the factual  d(#]inconsistencies raise a question of possible misrepresentation warranting consideration at hearing.  S- d(#/Evidence of an intent to mislead is necessary to raise a misrepresentation/lack of candor issue. Swan  S- d(#Creek Communications v. FCC, 39 F.3d 1217, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Fox Television Stations, Inc., 10  Sm- d(#FCC Rcd 8452, 8478 (1995); Fox River Broadcasting, Inc., 102 FCC2d 1179 (1986). Here, Sandab never  d(#ysought to place affirmative reliance on Bradley's allegations concerning Sonya Hart's conduct in opposing  S- d(#Rainbow's Petition to Deny. The matter did not arise until after Sandab I, when it was mentioned as part  d(#of Sandab's explanation of the circumstances surrounding the Sloan matter. Moreover, the merits of  d(#LBradley's allegations relating to Sonya Hart do not appear critical to Sandab's explanation. The matter is  d(#pertinent only to Seymour's claim that he was concerned that the Rainbow Petition to Deny might have  d(#been occasioned by the stations' failure to hire relatives of Victor Hart. However, Seymour's point did  d(#jnot require that one of the Hart relatives be shown to have behaved inappropriately. We accordingly see  d(#\no motive for Sandab to have concocted an intentionally false account of the facts surrounding Sonya  d(#Hart's job application. This is particularly so because Sandab could have expected its account to be  d(#challenged by Rainbow, which had already challenged the erroneous attribution of the conduct to Dorothy Hart.  S$- #50.` ` Nor is Seymour's explanation of his purpose in retaining Sloan contradicted by a sentence  d(#from his November 13, 1995, letter to Sloan. The sentence states: "Regardless, the stations have never  d(#Lhad any affirmative action programs much less a true sensitivity to the employment and advancement of  d(#minorities." We do not agree with Rainbow's contention that this sentence constitutes an admission by"=' ,l(l(,,+"  d(#kSeymour that WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) had no EEO program during Sandab's tenure as the licensee.  d(#\Rather, when read in the context of the paragraph in which it appears, the sentence appears to reflect  d(#-Seymour's view that stations he had acquired because they were financially distressed had not implemented  d(#=an EEO program prior to his acquisition. Moreover, at a later point in the letter, Seymour states that he  d(#?will send Sloan the "Affirmative Action Plans" of the Sandab stations, which is inconsistent with  S- d(#LRainbow's interpretation of the earlier sentence as reflecting that there were no such plans. See para. 13 !Check ,  S-supra.  Sh- 51.` ` Rainbow contends that the amount of money Seymour paid to Sloan suggests that Sloan  d(#was expected to employ improper tactics. However, the unrebutted evidence indicates that Seymour had  d(#a number of personal and business motives for making payments to Sloan, many of which were unrelated  d(#to Sandab. In particular, Seymour viewed Sloan's participation in the proposed casket enterprise as  d(#essential to its success. Indeed, Rainbow itself urges that the casket venture should be viewed as a  d(#jcompelling factor explaining Seymour's support of Sloan. In these circumstances, the suggestion that the  S6 -payments were intended as a reward for the making of ex parte contacts is speculative.  S - A52.` ` We disagree with Rainbow's contention that further inquiry is warranted based on the fact  d(#that the payments were initially made from Sandab accounts but have since been allocated among all of  d(#]the businesses involved with Sloan. Rainbow has presented no evidence that the allocation of the  d(#payments was designed to conceal the extent to which the payments served as compensation to Sloan for  d(#Mservices on behalf of Sandab. This is particularly so in that our concern as to the payments to Sloan  d(#zwould arise only if there were evidence that the payments were compensation for or in furtherance of  d(#violations of our Rules. The accounting treatment of the payments does not constitute sufficient evidence  d(#Mto raise a substantial question of fact as to whether the payments were intended as compensation for  d(#zactions in violation of our Rules, especially since there is an absence of other evidence of an improper purpose.  S- 53.` ` We also do not accept Rainbow's contention that Sloan's February 12, 1996, letter suggests  d(#Mthat Sloan had received oral instructions from Sandab or Fairbanks in connection with its preparation  d(#because it is unsupported by any evidence. Indeed, there is no evidence that the Sloan letter was in fact  d(#prepared in February, 1996, or that it was filed with or sent to the Commission on February 12, 1996.  d(#Moreover, the substance of the letter is largely devoted to detailing the purported accomplishments of  d(#[Sloan, which suggests that it had been prepared by Sloan. Also, the letter contains erroneous statements  d(#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.  S-  o54.` ` Rainbow further faults Sandab for failing to serve a copy of the letter on Rainbow after  d(#the release of the May 6, 1996, Notice, or to correct the erroneous statements made in the letter.  d(#>However, Seymour states that he had no specific knowledge of the February 12, 1996, letter until he  d(#received Rainbow's October 4, 1996, submission. Rainbow has not offered any evidence contradicting  d(#[Seymour's testimony. In any event, the unrebutted evidence is that Seymour reprimanded Sloan after he  d(#[learned of the improper contacts and admonished Sloan not to make any further improper contacts. The  d(#record contains no evidence that any further contacts occurred. It thus appears that Seymour took adequate steps to prevent any additional violations by Sloan.  S $- P55.` ` We note that Hilliard reported statements by Sloan suggesting that he had further contacts  d(#with a Commission official after the May 1996 Notices. While hearsay that is relevant and material is  d(#ladmissible in administrative proceedings, the weight to be accorded it depends on its truthfulness,  Sp&- d(#=reasonableness, and credibility. Wine Country Radio, 11 FCC Rcd 2333 (1995). Here, we are unable to  d(#accord any weight to Sloan's alleged claims to Hilliard that he had further contacts with a Commission"=' ,l(l(,,+"  d(#{official after the May 1996 Notices. Hilliard made no claim to have any personal knowledge of or  d(#involvement in the contacts alleged by Sloan. His declaration purports to do nothing more than report  d(#what Sloan said. However, Sloan's statements were not made under oath or penalty of perjury and are  d(#not supported by any other evidence. To accord them any evidentiary value merely because they were  d(#repeated in Hilliard's declaration would conflict with the requirement of the Act that factual allegations  d(#be supported by affidavits (or sworn declarations) from persons with personal knowledge of the facts.  d(#Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1). It is clear that  d(#the declarant here Hilliard wholly lacked any personal knowledge as to whether or not the contacts  d(#Malleged by Sloan occurred. In fact, Hilliard did not believe Sloan's claims. We therefore conclude that  d(#there is no cognizable factual allegation of any contacts between Sloan and the Commission staff after the  S-May 1996 Notices. Warren Price Communications, Inc., 6FCC Rcd 4424 (1991).  S - P56.` ` Rainbow also criticizes Seymour for not having instructed Sloan in writing after he learned  Si - d(#Mthat ex parte contacts had occurred. We reject this contention because the ex parte rules prescribe no  S6 - d(#/specific procedure for instructing agents as to the impropriety of ex parte contacts. Here, the record  d(#.reflects that Seymour took action in response to the May 6, 1996, Notice that was sufficient to prevent  S - d(#further ex parte contacts. Given that fact, we find no basis for concluding that Seymour's response to the  S -May 6, 1996, Notice violated any provision of the ex parte rules.  S7- 57.` ` Sandab concedes, however, that Seymour initially failed to give Sloan any guidance as  S- d(#to the requirements of the ex parte rules. Accordingly, although we find no evidence that Sandab intended  S- d(#/that Sloan would make ex parte contacts, it is nonetheless accountable for the fact that such contacts  d(#[occurred. A licensee is responsible for the conduct of its employees and agents within the scope of their  Sk- d(#employment. Liability of the Computer Force, 8 FCC Rcd 1763, 1764 (1993); Triad Broadcasting Co.,  S8- d(#Inc., 96 FCC 2d 1235, 1242 (1984). At the time of the improper ex parte contacts, Sloan was an agent  d(#jof Sandab, and contacts with the Commission were within the scope of his employment. Considering all  S- d(#the circumstances in this case, we will admonish Sandab based on the violation of the ex parte rules by  d(#Sloan, who, at the time, was acting as Sandab's agent. However, we do not find that any further sanctions  Sl- d(#yare warranted. Choctaw Broadcasting Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd 8534, 8545 (1997); PCS 2000, L. P., 12  S9-FCC Rcd 1681, 1700 (1997); Centel Corporation, 8 FCC Rcd 6162, 6165 (1993).  S- $58.` ` Next, we reject Rainbow's suggestion that a hearing is warranted as to whether Sandab  S- d(#=conducted, through Sloan, an improper investigation such as that at issue in Chronicle. In Chronicle, the  d(#kgeneral right to conduct an investigation of an adversary was affirmed. However, we found that there  d(#were questions as to whether the scope and manner of the investigation (including intrusive shadowing  d(#of witnesses and inquiry into irrelevant matters) was so devoid of any proper relationship to the pending  d(#proceeding as to suggest an intent to harass or intimidate the opposing party. Here, we initially find no  d(#[evidence that Sandab even intended to conduct an adversarial investigation of Rainbow through Sloan, let  d(#alone an investigation designed to harass or intimidate. As discussed above, the evidence in the record  d(#indicates that Sandab's purpose in dispatching Sloan was primarily to achieve an amicable resolution of  d(#ythe concerns that led to Rainbow's Petition to Deny, not to mine for information that might be employed  d(#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.  S<#- $59.` ` With respect to the allegations concerning Sloan's telephone calls to Hart, Landry, and  d(#Honig seeking dismissal of the Rainbow Petition to Deny, we note initially that these calls occurred in  d(#late June and July 1996. The evidence does not suggest that, during this time period, Sloan was acting  d(#as an agent for Sandab in connection with the prosecution of its renewal applications. Thus, according  d(#to Seymour, he had instructed Sloan to take no further action with respect to the Sandab renewals in his  d(#discussion following the receipt of the May 6, 1996, Notice. Moreover, Seymour states that he did not"=' ,l(l(,,+"  d(#know of Sloan's June and July contacts with Hart, Landry, and Honig, until they were disclosed by  d(#LRainbow in its October 4, 1996, submission. There is no evidence contradicting Seymour's statements in  d(#this respect. It accordingly appears that Sloan was acting on his own when he made the June and July  d(#1996 contacts and not within the scope of any direction received from Sandab. While Sloan may have  d(#[hoped that Sandab (or Fairbanks) would reward him if he achieved a favorable result, his mere hope does  d(#not establish that he was acting as an agent for either party. In any event, the telephone calls, as described  d(#in the declarations of Hart, Landry, and Honig, do not appear to have been excessive in number or to have  d(#persisted after a request that they cease. Only Hart mentions a late night call. There is no basis for  d(#concluding that Sloan's telephone calls amounted to a campaign of harassment and intimidation. While  d(#Sloan was evidently disingenuous in some of his statements made during the conversations, there is no basis for attributing this to Sandab.  S -  60.` ` We also find no basis for holding Sandab accountable for offers of money or other  d(#Mvaluable consideration allegedly made by Sloan to Hart, Landry, and Honig. As indicated, there is no  d(#\evidence suggesting that Sloan was acting as an agent for Sandab in connection with his June and July  d(#contacts. Nor is there any evidence that Seymour was aware of Sloan's offers prior to their disclosure by  d(#Rainbow. Moreover, unrebutted evidence indicates that Seymour had previously made clear to Sloan that  d(#!he was unwilling to pay money to Rainbow in order to achieve dismissal of its Petition to Deny.  d(#Accordingly, even during the period when Sloan was acting as an agent of Sandab, the offering of  d(#kmonetary consideration for the dismissal of Rainbow's Petition to Deny was beyond the scope of his  d(#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.  Sk- ~61.` ` With respect to Sloan's contacts with individuals who signed declarations in support of  d(#KRainbow's Petition to Deny the renewal applications of the Panama City and Fort Myers, Florida, stations,  d(#.we find no evidence that Seymour instructed Sloan to undertake such an inquiry as part of his activities.  d(#Rainbow's suggestion that Sloan could only have learned of the other renewal applications because Sandab  d(#L(or Fairbanks) asked him to investigate the circumstances pertaining to those applications is speculative.  d(#Rainbow addressed all three applicants in a single Petition to Deny, to which was attached the declarations  d(#of individuals establishing Rainbow's standing with respect to each applicant, including their addresses.  d(#jSloan could have learned the identity of the other applicants, as well as the Rainbow declarants, from the  d(#[Petition to Deny itself, independent of any suggestion that he should take any action with respect to the  d(#other applicants. Sloan did make Seymour aware of his purportedly having learned information adverse  d(#to Rainbow from the Rainbow declarants, whom Sloan depicted as sympathetic to his concerns. However,  d(#there is no evidence that Sandab ever sought to use the purported information received in a manner  d(#adverse to Rainbow. Sloan's claims were only disclosed in response to the staff inquiry letter. In any  d(#event, contacting persons who executed a declaration on behalf of a party in order to verify the party's  d(#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.  S -  #62.` ` We also find no impropriety in the fact that Sloan communicated to Seymour and Hilliard  d(#rumors concerning Rainbow. The rumors are apparently false. However, they were never disclosed by  d(#Sandab or Fairbanks until disclosure was required to respond to the staff inquiry letter. It is not apparent  d(#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.  S$- 463.` ` We further find no impropriety in a handwritten note by Seymour memorializing a  d(#telephone call in (at the earliest) late September 1996 which suggests that a discussion of a possible  d(# violation of our Rules by Rainbow's counsel occurred, and includes a notation that "George will take  d(#[offensive action." Rainbow evidently assumes that "George" is a reference to Sloan. The precise import"=' ,l(l(,,+"  d(#of the note is necessarily ambiguous, since it merely summarizes Seymour's impressions derived from the  d(#telephone call. However, there is no evidence that, subsequent to the telephone call, Seymour authorized  d(#Sloan to take any actions with respect to Rainbow's counsel on behalf of Sandab. Further, Rainbow does  d(#>not cite any specific conduct by Sloan during the time period after the telephone call which Rainbow  S4- d(#alleges to reflect an improper investigation of its counsel. Moreover, the policy reflected in Chronicle  d(#would not preclude a reasonable investigation of alleged violations of Commission Rules attributed to a party or its agents.  Sh-  64.` ` In sum, we find no evidence that Sandab intended to rely upon ex parte contacts or an  d(#abusive investigation in order to achieve favorable action on its renewal applications. Rather, the record  d(#suggests that Sandab's reliance on Sloan was based primarily on the hope that Sloan could amicably  d(#convince Rainbow's leadership as to the good faith of Sandab's EEO efforts, which Sloan claimed he  d(#might be able to do. Rainbow has failed to provide evidence raising a substantial and material question  d(#Lof fact that Sandab intended actually to utilize Sloan for the purpose of placing improper pressure either on the Commission or on Rainbow.  S - 65.` ` Fairbanks. As noted above, there are no applications involving Fairbanks pending before  d(#|us. Therefore, the only matter at issue is whether we should require the filing of early renewal  d(#japplications for other stations licensed to Fairbanks in order to hold a hearing concerning the Sloan issue.  d(#kRequiring the early filing of a renewal application is warranted only for "compelling reasons," such as  d(#situations where the filing of a renewal application is essential to the proper conduct of a hearing or an  S- d(#investigation. Section 73.3539(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.3539(c); WWORTV, 6 FCC  S- d(#Rcd at 6574; RKO General, Inc. (WORTV), 1 FCC Rcd 1081, 1085 (1986). We find no basis here to call for the early filing of renewal applications for other Fairbanks stations.  S-  D66.` ` There is no evidence that Sloan was acting at any time as an agent of Fairbanks.  d(#Fairbanks never compensated or promised to compensate Sloan either with money or other consideration.  d(#.While Sloan apparently held himself out at various times as being an agent of Fairbanks, we do not view  d(# Sloan's claims, standing alone, as evidence that he in fact was an agent of Fairbanks. As discussed in  S9- d(#para. 55 ocheck , supra, in the context of assessing whether a hearing is required pursuant to Section 309 of the  d(#Act, we can accord no evidentiary weight to hearsay where the original statements were not made under  d(#.oath and the person reporting them has no personal knowledge as to their truth. Similarly, we attach no  d(#evidentiary weight to uncorroborated and unsworn claims by Sloan that Fairbanks had made various  d(#commitments in the event that it became the licensee of the stations. Moreover, the letters authored by  d(#.Fairbanks principal Hilliard do not reflect any intent to authorize Sloan to act on Fairbanks' behalf. Nor  d(#Mdo the letters contain anything from which Sloan could have reasonably inferred such authority. The  d(#.letters also carefully avoid any commitments beyond a general commitment to fairness and a willingness  d(#[to consider a proposal by Sloan to provide limited, nonfinancial assistance in publicizing the IRS earned income tax credit.  S -  67.` ` Sloan apparently faxed some or all of his letter to the Commission dated February 12,  d(#y1996, to Hilliard on March 15, 1996. Hilliard states that he did not read the material until sometime later  d(#and did not read it carefully enough to notice erroneous statements concerning himself, which he did not  d(#^become actually aware of until after the May 1996 Notices. Rainbow has offered no evidence  d(#jcontradicting Hilliard's sworn testimony. Nor do we find any basis for faulting Hilliard for failing to pay  d(#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.  Sp&-  68.` ` We also find no basis for faulting Hilliard for failing to report, pursuant to Section 1.1214  d(#of the Commission's Rules, comments by Sloan that he had talked to a Commission official about this"=' ,l(l(,,+"  d(#proceeding after the May 1996 Notices. Section 1.1214 requires a report when a party has a "substantial  S- d(#reason to believe" that a violation of the ex parte Rules has occurred. However, given the circumstances  d(#pertaining when Sloan's statements were made, Hilliard was not unreasonable in concluding that the  Sg- d(#statements were not credible. Therefore, he had no substantial reason to believe that any additional ex  S4- d(#parte violations had occurred that would trigger the reporting obligation of Section 1.1214. Moreover,  d(#there is no evidence that any violations in fact occurred. Finally, we disagree with Rainbow's speculation  S- d(#that Hilliard's awareness of further ex parte contacts is evidenced by his statement in Fairbanks' inquiry  S- d(#response that he was not surprised when, on July 22, 1996, the Commission issued SandabI, denying  d(#Rainbow's Petition to Deny. Hilliard's statement was made in the context of explaining that, shortly prior  S5- d(#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.  S - 269.` ` In sum, a compelling justification for the extraordinary remedy of requiring the early filing  d(#of renewal applications for other stations licensed to Fairbanks has not been shown. Moreover, the  d(#misconduct alleged relates solely to Fairbanks' now dismissed applications for assignment of the  d(#WTTB(AM)/WGYL(FM) licenses. However, we do not automatically assume that misconduct in  d(#connection with one station necessarily impacts a licensee's qualifications to hold other licenses unrelated  S - d(#to the misconduct. Trinity Broadcasting of Florida, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2475, 2481 (1993); Policy Regarding  Sj- d(#LCharacter Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 122324 (1986) (subsequent history  d(#[omitted). Rather, we determine on a casebycase basis whether alleged misconduct is so fundamental to  S- d(#the licensee's operation that it is relevant to its qualifications to hold any station license. Hicks  S- d(#Broadcasting of Indiana, LLC, FCC 9888, released May 18, 1998, at para. 52. Even assuming that  d(#Rainbow had raised valid questions as to possible misconduct by Fairbanks in connection with its Vero  d(#LBeach 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.  S- Issues Relating to Sandab's EEO Compliance  Sl- 70.` ` Rainbow also seeks reconsideration of our finding in Sandab I that Rainbow had failed  S9- d(#to make a prima facie case that Sandab had violated our EEO Rule. Subsequent to the filing of the instant  d(#renewal applications, the United States Court of Appeals found the outreach portions of the Commission's  S- d(#jequal employment opportunity regulations to be unconstitutional. Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod v.  S- d(#FCC, Case No. 97-1116 (D.C. Cir. April 14, 1998). We note that the Court's mandate has not yet issued.  d(#=In any event, applying the standard governing the disposition of a petition for reconsideration discussed  S:- d(#=above, we conclude that Rainbow has alleged no basis for reconsideration of the result reached in Sandab  S- d(#MI. Rainbow does not identify any material error or omission in our conclusion that it failed to make a  S- d(#=prima facie case that Sandab had violated the EEO Rule. Rainbow primarily reargues the matters alleged  d(#in its Petition to Deny. As we have repeatedly stated, reconsideration will not be granted for the purpose  Sn- d(#of debating matters on which we have already deliberated and spoken. See, e.g., Isis Broadcast Group,  S;-8 FCC Rcd 24 (Rev. Bd. 1992), citing WWIZ.  S -  _71.` ` The only new evidence presented by Rainbow that could not have been raised prior to our  S!- d(#decision in SandabI is the language in Seymour's November 13, 1995, letter to Sloan, discussed in para.  So"- d(#50 SCheck , supra. However, as also noted in para. 50, we do not agree with Rainbow's interpretation of the  d(#pertinent language. Rainbow also raises for the first time in its Petition for Reconsideration new  S $- d(#allegations based on Sandab's 1995 EEO Program Report, as summarized in para. 40, supra. However,  d(#these matters could have been raised in Sandab's Petition to Deny. A petition for reconsideration based  d(#on new matters not previously raised can be granted only upon a showing that the new matters reflect  Sp&- d(#Mchanged circumstances or could not reasonably have been discovered in a timely manner. See Section"p& ,l(l(,,0*"  d(#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.  Sg-  P72.` ` Further, there is no basis for Rainbow's contention that its Petition to Deny was disposed  d(#of in a nonroutine manner. The Petition to Deny was referred to us in accordance with the provisions  d(#/of Section 0.283 of the Rules. Also, there was no unusual expedition, given the priority we place on  d(#=expedition in the processing of renewal applications that affect pending assignment of license or transfer  S- d(#of control applications. See Public Notice, "Mass Media Bureau Announces Assignment and Transfer  d(#Backlog Reduction and New Speed of Service Initiatives," No. 54882, June 15, 1995. Finally, with  S5- d(# respect to the ex parte communications that were received prior to our decision in Sandab I, we have  S- d(#conducted an investigation into those matters, as discussed above. See para. 11, supra. Sloan's  S- d(#communications were not considered in connection with our decision in Sandab I, and we have not  d(#otherwise found evidence of misconduct by Sandab arising from the Sloan situation that would warrant  Si -reconsideration of Sandab I.  S6 -L IV. CONCLUSION ă  S - ~73.` ` Accordingly, we grant Rainbow's Motion to Vacate and Petition for Reconsideration to  d(#the extent that we have conducted an inquiry into the allegations involving Sloan and we admonish Sandab  Sj- d(#based upon violations of Section 1.1208 of the Rules in that its agent made prohibited ex parte contacts  d(#in a restricted proceeding. However, we have reviewed the entire record and find no substantial and  d(#\material questions of fact that would require a hearing as to whether Sandab intended to prosecute its  S- d(#renewal applications through the use of ex parte contacts or an improper investigation of Rainbow. We  d(#also find no basis for requiring the filing of early renewal applications for stations licensed to Fairbanks.  d(#Because we find that no hearing is necessary, Rainbow's request for procedural rulings to govern the hearing it requested is moot.  S-8 V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S- 74.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, with respect to Sandab Communications Limited  d(#Partnership II, the Emergency Motion to Vacate Grant of Renewal and Hold Assignment Applications in  d(#]Abeyance and Petition for Reconsideration filed by the Southern Region of the National Rainbow  S- d(#\Coalition ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated above; ARE DISMISSED as moot insofar as  S-emergency relief was sought; and ARE OTHERWISE DENIED .  S-  Sm- 175.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with respect to Fairbanks Communications, Inc., the  d(#Emergency Motion to Vacate Grant of Renewal and Hold Assignment Applications in Abeyance filed by  S- d(#the Southern Region of the National Rainbow Coalition IS DISMISSED as moot insofar as it relates to  S- d(#applications for assignment of the licenses for WTTB(FM)/WGYL(FM), Vero Beach, Florida, and IS  S- d(#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.  S - 76.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order be  d(#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.  S<#-` `   hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCMagalie Roman Salas  S='-` `  hhCSecretary