Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-206 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of W.S. Communications, L.L.C. Applications For Renewal of Licenses for Stations KWGL(FM), Ouray, Colorado and KAVP(AM), Colona, Colorado ))))))))) NAL/Acct. No. MB-200841410010 FRN: 0012241105 Facility I.D. No. 58856 File No. BRH-20041202ACI Facility I.D. No. 82282 File No. BR-20041202ACH MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: September 5, 2008 Released: December 30, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing a joint statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules (the “Rules”),1 we find that W.S. Communications, L.L.C. (the “Licensee”), licensee of Stations KWGL(FM), Ouray, Colorado and KAVP(AM), Colona, Colorado (the “Stations”), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(1)(i), 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6), 73.2080(c)(6)(iii), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv) and 73.3526(e)(7) of the Rules2 by failing to comply with the Commission’s Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) self-assessment, record keeping, recruitment source information, interviewee information and public file requirements. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the Licensee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000). We impose reporting conditions with regard to the Stations and any other stations that are included in the employment unit, to prevent future violations of these requirements. We also grant the captioned renewal applications for Stations KWGL(FM) and KAVP(AM). II. BACKGROUND 2. Section 73.2080(c)(1) of the Rules requires that a broadcast licensee recruit for every full-time job vacancy in its employment unit operation. In this regard, the Rules impose, inter alia, the following respective obligations on such licensees: · Section 73.2080(c)(1)(i): use recruitment sources for each vacancy in a manner sufficient, in the licensee’s reasonable, good faith judgment, to widely disseminate information concerning the vacancy; · Section 73.2080(c)(3): analyze the recruitment program for the licensee’s unit on an ongoing basis to ensure that it is effective in achieving broad outreach to potential applicants, and address any problems found as a result of its analysis; 1 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k) and 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80. 2 See 47 C.F.R. §§73.2080(c)(1(i), 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6), 73.2080(c)(6)(iii), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv), and 73.3526(e)(7). Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-206 2 · Section 73.2080(c)(5): retain records of its EEO efforts; · Section 73.2080(c)(6): place its EEO public file report in the stations’ local public inspection file; · Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iii): maintain recruitment source data; and · Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iv): maintain interviewee data. In addition, Section 73.3526(e)(7) requires commercial licensees to include certain EEO-related materials in their station public files. 3. EEO Review. We have before us the Licensee’s captioned license renewal applications for the Stations and accompanying Broadcast EEO Program Report (Form 396). We also have before us the Licensee’s responses 3 to the Media Bureau’s letter of inquiry concerning the Stations’ compliance with Section 73.2080 of the Rules.4 The Licensee reports that records were lost, misplaced or taken during the transition of its general managers, one of whom passed away on November 23, 2006.5 Our review of these materials shows that, during the reporting periods at issue (March 10, 2003, through November 30, 2003; December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004; December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005; and December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006), the Licensee did not retain adequate EEO records of interviewees and referrals, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(5). Also, the Licensee’s 2003 EEO public file report for the Stations failed to list the recruitment source that referred the hiree for each full-time vacancy, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iii), because it listed the hiree source for only two of six vacancies. In addition, the Licensee’s 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 EEO public file reports for the Stations failed to list the total number of interviewees referred by each of the Stations’ recruitment sources, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iv). The Licensee’s 2003 EEO public file report for the Stations failed to list the total number of interviewees for any of the Stations’ six full-time vacancies, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iv). This information is required to be placed in the public inspection file of each station in a unit by Section 73.3526(e)(7). The Licensee also failed to recruit widely for any of its five full-time vacancies in the 2006 reporting period because it relied solely on two Internet web sites or its Stations’ on-air advertisements to fill those vacancies, in violation of Section 73.2080(c)(1)(i). Finally, the Licensee failed to place its 2006 EEO public file report in the public inspection file of each of the Stations, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(6). These failures reveal a continuing lack of self-assessment, in violation of Section 73.2080(c)(3). III. DISCUSSION 4. We conclude that the Licensee violated Section 73.2080(c)(5) by failing to maintain adequate EEO records of interviewees and referrals for all of its vacancies, which consisted of six vacancies in the 2003 reporting period, five vacancies in the 2004 reporting period, five vacancies in the 2005 reporting period, and five vacancies in the 2006 reporting period. 3 Letter from Ken Branch, General Manager, W.S. Communications, L.L.C., to Lewis Pulley, Assistant Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau (Dec. 6, 2005); facsimiles from Kathy Prouty, W.S. Communications, L.L.C.,, to EEO Staff, Policy Division, Media Bureau (Dec. 6, 2005, and Dec. 9, 2005), facsimiles from John Reid, General Manager, W.S. Communications, L.L.C., to EEO Staff, Policy Division, Media Bureau (Nov. 23, 2007, and Dec. 3, 2007). 4 Letter from Lewis Pulley, Assistant Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau, to Tom Davidson, Esq., Akin, Gump, Strauss & Feld, LLP (Nov. 10, 2005). 5 Facsimiles from Kathy Prouty, W.S. Communications, L.L.C.,, to EEO Staff, Policy Division, Media Bureau (Dec. 6, 2005, and Dec. 9, 2005); facsimile from John Reid, General Manager W.S. Communications, L.L.C., to EEO Staff, Policy Division, Media Bureau (Nov. 23, 2007, and Dec. 3, 2007). Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-206 3 5. We also find that, during the 2006 reporting period, the Licensee failed to recruit widely for every full-time vacancy, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(1)(i), instead relying solely on two Internet web sites as recruitment sources for two vacancies and its stations’ on-air advertisements as recruitment sources for three vacancies. While the Commission does not require the use of a specific number of recruitment sources, if a source or sources cannot reasonably be expected, collectively, to reach the entire community, as here, a licensee may be found in noncompliance with the Commission’s EEO Rule.6 Moreover, the Commission’s EEO policy requires a licensee to recruit from non-Internet sources, in addition to any sources from the Internet, in order for its recruitment to sufficiently widely disseminate information concerning the vacancy.7 The Licensee’s only recruitment for two positions, program director and general sales manager, were to list the openings on two websites. For the Licensee’s other three positions in the 2006 period, all sales account managers, the only recruitment was on-air ads. Onair ads, with no other recruitment, will reach only those listening to the station at the particular time the ads are aired. All the people in the community listening or watching other stations or not in the audience for any broadcaster will not be aware of the advertising. Thus, in most cases, on-air advertising alone will not be sufficiently broad under our rules. 6. We also conclude that the Licensee’s 2003 EEO public file report for the Stations failed to list the recruitment source that referred the hiree for four of six full-time vacancies, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iii). Further, the Licensee’s 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 EEO public file reports for the Stations failed to list the total number of interviewees referred by each of the Stations’ recruitment sources, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iv). The Licensee’s 2003 EEO public file report for the Stations failed to list the total number of interviewees for any of the Stations’ six full-time vacancies, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iv). Because of the Licensee’s lack of records of interviewees and referrals, we find that it was not possible for it to have adequately analyzed its recruitment program to ensure that it was effective in achieving broad outreach, in violation of Section 73.2080(c)(3). Finally, we find that it failed to place the required information in the public inspection files of the Stations, as required by Sections 73.3526(e)(7) and 73.2080(c)(6). 7. This NAL is issued pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Under that provision, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.8 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as “the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to violate” the law.9 The legislative history of Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act,10 and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context.11 Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that “[t]he term ‘repeated,’ when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.”12 6 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.2080(c)(1)(i). See also, Review of the Commission’s Broadcast and Cable Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and Policies, MM Docket No. 98-204, Second Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 24018, 24047, ¶86 (2002), recon. pending. 7 See 17 FCC Rcd at 24051, ¶99, wherein the Commission said, “…we are unable to conclude that Internet usage has become sufficiently widespread to justify allowing it to be used as the sole recruitment source.” 8 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1). 9 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). 10 See H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). 11 See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991). 12 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2). Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-206 4 8. The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules do not establish base forfeiture amounts for specific EEO rule violations, such as a failure to recruit widely for vacancies or to self-assess EEO performance. However, they do establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of the Commission´s public file rules, of $3,000 for failure to file required information, and of $1,000 for failure to maintain required records.13 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including “the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”14 9. As discussed supra, the Licensee did not retain adequate EEO records of interviewees and referrals for any of its vacancies, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(5). Also, the Licensee’s 2003 EEO public file report for the Stations failed to list the recruitment source that referred the hiree for each full-time vacancy, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iii). In addition, the Licensee’s 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 EEO public file reports for the Stations failed to list the total number of interviewees referred by each of the Stations’ recruitment sources, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iv). The Licensee’s 2003 EEO public file report for the Stations failed to list the total number of interviewees for any of the Stations’ six full-time vacancies, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iv). This information is required to be placed in the public inspection file of each station in a unit by Section 73.3526(e)(7). The Licensee also failed to recruit widely for any of its five full-time vacancies in the 2006 reporting period because it relied solely on two Internet web sites or its Stations’ on-air advertisements to fill those vacancies, in violation of Section 73.2080(c)(1)(i). Finally, the Licensee failed to place its 2006 EEO public file report in the public inspection file of each of the Stations, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(6). These failures reveal a continuing lack of self-assessment, in violation of Section 73.2080(c)(3). Accordingly, based upon the facts before us, the factors noted above, and pertinent precedent,15 we find that the Licensee is apparently liable for the following forfeiture amounts for its willful and repeated violations of these Rules: $5,000 for its violation of Section 73.2080(c)(1)(i); $2,000 for its violation of Section 73.2080(c)(3); $2,000 for its violation of Section 73.2080(c)(5); $1,000 for its violation of Section 73.2080(c)(6); $1,000 for its violation of Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iii); $2,000 for its violation of Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iv), and $1,000 for its violation of Section 73.3526(e)(7), for a total proposed forfeiture in the amount of $14,000. We will also impose reporting conditions as set forth below, to ensure that the Licensee and any successor licensee of either of the Stations maintains an adequate EEO program in compliance with the Rules. The reporting conditions will apply to the Stations, and to all other stations that are part of their employment unit. 13 See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113-15 (1997) (“Forfeiture Policy Statement”), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), note to paragraph (b)(4), Section I. 14 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); see also Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01, ¶27; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), note to paragraph (b)(4), Section II. 15 In Waitt Omaha, LLC, we proposed an $8,000 forfeiture for a licensee’s violations of various EEO rules, specifically Sections 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6)(iii), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv), and 73.3526(e)(7). The licensee had failed to maintain required EEO records, list the recruitment source of hirees, provide data on the numbers of persons interviewed and referred from each recruitment source, self-assess adequately, and place required EEO information in its public inspection file. Waitt Omaha, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 2661 (2007) (response pending). In Liberman Television of Dallas License Corp., we proposed, among other things, a $1,000 forfeiture for a licensee’s violation of Section 73.2080(c)(6). The licensee had failed to place its EEO public file report in its station’s public file. Liberman Television of Dallas License Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 2032 (2007) (response pending). In New Northwest Broadcasters LLC, we proposed, among other things, a $5,000 forfeiture for a licensee’s violation of Section 73.2080(c)(1)(i). The licensee had failed to recruit widely for every full-time vacancy by relying solely on an Internet website or that website and walk-in applicants as recruitment sources for five (20%) of its 25 vacancies. New Northwest Broadcasters LLC, 21 FCC Rcd 10748 (2006) (forfeiture paid). Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-206 5 10. License Renewal Applications. In evaluating an application for license renewal, the Commission’s decision is governed by Section 309(k) of the Act. That Section provides that if, upon consideration of the application and pleadings, we find that: (1) the station has served the public interest, convenience, and necessity; (2) there have been no serious violations of the Act or the Rules; and (3) there have been no other violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of abuse, we are to grant the renewal application.16 If, however, the licensee fails to meet that standard, the Commission may deny the application – after notice and opportunity for a hearing under Section 309(e) of the Act – or grant the application “on terms and conditions that are appropriate, including a renewal for a term less than the maximum otherwise permitted.”17 11. We find that the Licensee’s violations of the Commission’s EEO rules discussed above do not constitute “serious violations” of the Rules of such gravity that they warrant designation for evidentiary hearing.18 We also find no evidence of violations that, when considered together, evidence a pattern of abuse.19 Further, we find that the Licensee served the public interest, convenience, and necessity with the Stations during their respective license terms. We will therefore grant the captioned license renewal applications for the Stations below.20 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules, that W.S. Communications, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) for its apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.2080(c)(1)(i), 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6), 73.2080(c)(6)(iii), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv), and 73.3526(e)(7) of the Commission’s Rules. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules, that, within thirty (30) days of the release of this NAL, W.S. Communications, L.L.C. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 14. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account 16 47 U.S.C. § 309(k)(1). The renewal standard was amended to read as described by Section 204(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). See Implementation of Sections 204(a) and 204(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Broadcast License Renewal Procedures), Order, 11 FCC Rcd 6363 (1996). 17 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k)(2), 309(k)(3). 18 See e.g., New Northwest Broadcasters LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, DA 06-1921 (rel. Sept. 27, 2006); Viper Communications, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 20 FCC Rcd 20254 (Med. Bur. 2005). 19 For example, we do not find here that the Licensee's operation of either of the Stations "was conducted in an exceedingly careless, inept and negligent manner and that the licensee is either incapable of correcting or unwilling to correct the operating deficiencies." See Heart of the Black Hills Stations, 32 FCC 2d 196, 198, ¶6 (1971). Nor do we find on the record here that "the number, nature and extent" of the violations indicate that "the licensee cannot be relied upon to operate [its stations] in the future in accordance with the requirements of its licenses and the Commission's Rules." Heart of the Black Hills Stations, 32 FCC 2d at 200, ¶11. See also Center for Study and Application of Black Economic Development, 6 FCC Rcd 4622 (1991); Calvary Educational Broadcasting Network, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 4037 (1992). 20 See 47 U.S.C. § 309(k). Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-206 6 Number and FRN Number referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer – Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures. 15. The response, if any, must be mailed to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20554, ATTN: Lewis Pulley, Assistant Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau, and MUST INCLUDE the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above. 16. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the respondent submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent threeyear period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices (“GAAP”); or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the respondent’s current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. 17. Requests for full payment of the forfeiture proposed in this NAL under the installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington D.C. 20554.21 18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that W.S. Communications, L.L.C. and any successor licensee for either or both of Stations KWGL(FM) and KAVP(AM)22 shall submit to the Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau, EEO Staff, an original and one copy of the following information on January 4, 2010; January 3, 2011; and January 3, 2012, with respect to Stations KWGL(FM)/ KAVP(AM) and all other stations in its employment unit: (a) the unit’s most recent EEO public file report; (b) dated copies of all advertisements, bulletins, letters, faxes, e-mails, or other communications announcing each full-time vacancy for the preceding reporting year; (c) the recruitment source that referred the hiree for each full-time vacancy; and (d) the total number of interviewees for each full-time vacancy for the preceding reporting year and the referral source for each interviewee. 19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, that the renewal applications for Stations KWGL(FM), Ouray, Colorado, and KAVP(AM), Colona, Colorado, ARE GRANTED. 21 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914. 22 In the event of an assignment of either of the Stations, this continuing obligation will run to the assignee with regard to each Station assigned. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-206 7 20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 73.3526(e)(10) of the Commission’s Rules, W.S. Communications, L.L.C. shall place a copy of this NAL in the public inspection files of Stations KWGL(FM) and KAVP(AM). 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this NAL shall be sent, by First Class and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to W.S. Communications, L.L.C. , 751 Horizon Court, Suite 225, Grand Junction, Colorado 81506, and c/o Allen H. Brill, 845 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022, and to Tom Davidson, Esquire, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP, Robert S. Strauss Building, 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-1564. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-206 8 JOINT STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS AND COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN Re: Dickey Broadcasting Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture; Urban Radio I, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture; Puerto Rico Public Broadcasting Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture; W.S. Communications, L.L.C., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture; Cumulus Licensing L.L.C., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture; Fox Television Stations, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture The Commission’s enforcement of Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) rules related to selfassessment, recordkeeping, recruitment source information, interviewee information, and public file requirements is one of the principal ways we strive to promote employment diversity and opportunities in the communications industry. While this is unquestionably the right thing to do, Sections 334 and 634 of the Communications Act specifically authorize the Commission to take steps to promote equality of employment opportunities for women and members of racial and ethnic minority groups. Our EEO rules, for example, require wide dissemination of job vacancies in order to attract all qualified employees. According to reports, from 1971 to 1997, employment of people of color in broadcasting increased from 5 to 19 percent, and from 12 to 43 percent for women during the same period. In recent years, however, Commission enforcement of EEO rules has been inconsistent and, as one consequence, employment in broadcasting does not reflect America. As the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council has found, while the average forfeiture amount for EEO violations has increased, the Commission’s EEO docket has decreased by 96 percent. Between 1994 and 1997, the Commission decided 251 cases, resulting in 86 forfeitures. Between 2004 and 2007, however, the Commission decided only 10 cases, resulting in 8 forfeitures. Lax EEO enforcement has yielded less diversity in employment. The most recent report on employment trends in broadcasting by the Radio and Television News Directors Association/Hofstra University found that, while the minority population in the United States has risen 8.1 percent in the past 18 years, minority workforce in TV news is up 5.8 percent, and the minority workforce in radio is up by just 1 percent. So it is clear that the Commission’s recent efforts to promote employment diversity have been woefully inadequate. If we are truly committed to employment diversity, as required by law, we must get serious about restoring an effective and rational EEO enforcement program. This level of commitment is currently lacking at the FCC. There are other, more pro-active, steps we should consider. At a minimum, we should make our process more transparent by compiling and releasing FCC Form 395 data, as well as developing annual and longitudinal employment reports. As we work with industry and advocacy groups in a cooperative manner, these initial steps should help us better understand employment trends in the communications industry and permit us to better craft more effective oversight. Having a communications industry that reflects our nation’s diversity would best serve a wide range of consumer and societal interests. It is not only a legal obligation, it is also the right thing to do.