FCC 90-294 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Red No. 19 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
MM Docket No. 87-50 
In re Applications of 
METROPLEX 
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 
(WHYI-FM) 
Fort Lauderdale, 
Florida 
For Renewal of License 
SOUTHEAST FLORIDA 
BROADCASTING 
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 
For Construction Permit for a 
New Commercial FM Station 
File No. BRH-860801 YJ 
File No. BPH-861030MH 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Adopted: August 24, 1990; Released: September 19, 1990 
By the Commission: 
1. The Commission has before it an application for 
review of a decision of the Review Board granting 
Metroplex Communications, Inc.'s application for renewal 
of WHYI-FM in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and denying 
Southeast Florida Broadcasting Limited Partnership's mu­
tually" exclusive application for a construction permit. 
Metroplex Communications, Inc., 4 FCC Red 8149 (Rev. 
Bd. 1989), affirming, 4 FCC Red 847 (I.D. 1989). 1 We 
agree with the Board's resolution of this case. However, 
we believe that several matters warrant comment.2 
I. BACKGROUND 
2. In this comparative renewal proceeding, the Board 
found no merit to allegations that violations of 47 U.S.C. 
§ 317. concerning sponsorship identification had occurred 
at WHYI-FM. It found that WHYI-FM's broadcast record 
during the period December 20, 1985 to December 20, 
1986 was substantial and deserving of a renewal expec­
tancy. In this regard, WHYI-FM had previously been giv­
en a short-term renewal because of deficiencies in its 
EEO program. In designating this case for hearing, how­
ever, the Mass Media Bureau found no recurrence of 
EEO problems, and the ALJ found no basis to add such 
an issue. Metroplex Communications, Inc., 2 FCC Red 
1542 (Mass Media Bureau 1987); FCC 87M-1301 (Jun. 8, 
1987). 
3. The Board found that Southeast was not financially 
qualified. Moreover. the Board found that even if South­
east were qualified, it would be comparatively inferior to 
Metroplex. The Board refused to credit Southeast's or-
5610 
ganization as a limited partnership controlled by its gen­
eral partner, Gloria Butler. a four percent owner. The 
Board found that Butler did not actually control the 
partnership. The Board concluded that Metroplex was to 
be preferred over its "nothing" competitor. 4 FCC Red at 
8162 11 64. 
II. SPONSORSHIP IDENTIFICATION 
4. Under 47 U.S.C. § 317 (and 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212), a 
station must make an announcement identifying any 
broadcast material for which valuable consideration has 
been paid or furnished and identifying the person paying 
for the broadcast material. These provisions also require 
the licensee to exercise "reasonable diligence" to obtain 
information, from its employees and others with whom it 
deals directly, to enable it to make the required sponsor­
ship identification announcement. The Board considered 
several allegations that WHYI-FM or its employees re­
ceived consideration for broadcasting records and that 
Metroplex failed to make the statutorily required an­
nouncement or failed to exercise reasonable diligence to 
obtain information concerning the payment of consider­
ation. Having examined the Board's decision, the plead­
ings, and the evidence, we are persuaded that the record 
does not indicate that the station received consideration 
for which an announcement should have been made or 
that Metroplex failed to exercise reasonable diligence to 
prevent violations of § 317 from occurring. 3 In this 
regard, we disagree with Southeast that the result of this 
case would be different if the burden of proof were dif­
ferently allocated or if a "heightened" standard of dili­
gence were deemed relevant to this case. 
5. Despite our agreement with the Board, we believe 
that it would be helpful for us to clarify two legal ques­
tions involved in applying § 317 to this case. The first 
question involves the relationship between § 317(a) (the 
substantive requirement that the licensee make an an­
nouncement identifying broadcast material for which con­
sideration has been paid) and § 317(c) (the reasonable 
diligence requirement). Like the Board, we see no basis to 
fault a licensee for lacking reasonable diligence. in a situ­
ation in which there has been no failure to make a 
required announcement. 4 FCC Red at 8156 ~ 39. 
6. In commenting to Congress, we stated that the pro­
posed enactment of the reasonable diligence requirement: 
would not place a licensee in the position of being 
an insurer, nor does it permit a licensee to escape 
responsibility for sponsorship announcements by in­
activity on its part. 
Letter by direction of the Commission to Congressman 
Oren Harris (May 20. 1960), reprinted in, [1960J U.S. 
CODE CONG. & AD. NEWS 3539-40. 4 As this language 
indicates, we believe that the reasonable diligence require­
ment was intended to fix the licensee's level of respon­
sibility for a failure to make required announcements and 
not to establish an independent basis for culpability. CBS, 
Inc., 69 FCC 2d 1082, 1087-90 (1978), cited by Southeast, 
does not hold to the contrary. There, a required an­
nouncement was not made. 
7. A second matter involves the finding that WHYI-FM 
(and apparently other stations) customarily received 50 or 
more copies of records that it added to its playlist. These 
5 FCC Red No. 19 Communications Commission Record FCC 90·294 
multiple copies were used by the station for promotional 
purposes, such as on-the-air giveaways, and for archival 
4 FCC Red at 887-88 'll'll 351-52. We agree that 
practice does not violate § 317 absent an indication 
that the multiple copies were consideration for playing 
the records. !d. at 8155 'II 38. Here, Metroplex's showing 
specifically rebuts any such inference. Id. at 887-88 'll'll 
355-57.5 The use of records for on-the-air giveaways (in 
which the records are incidently identified) falls within 
the provision of § 317 exempting from announcement 
property furnished in connection with a broadcast. See 
Amendments, 1960, 40 FCC 88, 90 (1960), example 7. In 
the same vein. other similar uses of the records by the 
station do not constitute a violation unless the record was 
furnished "with an agreement by the sration, express or 
that the record will be used on a broadcast." Id., 
1. As noted, Metroplex specifically rebutted any 
inference of such an understanding here. 
HI.EEO 
8. In light of WHYI-FM's past EEO deficiencies, it is 
appropriate to state explicitly that we do not believe 
Southeast has raised a substantial and material question 
about Metroplex·s EEO compliance during the one-year 
'ihort-term renewal period. As the Mass Media Bureau 
found i11 to designate an EEO issue against 
designated this case for hearing, 
Metroplex's overall EEO record was satisfactory. 
Melroplex Communications. Inc., 2 FCC Red 1542 (Mass 
Media Bureau 1987). Nonetheless, as Southeast points out 
in the addition of issues by the AU. Metroplex 
its EEO procedures as to one particular 
position -- that of program director. Petition to Enlarge 
Issues filed 20. 1987, Att. 5. This isolated matter. 
however. does not undermine Metroplex·s otherwise ade­
quate record of compliance. This is especially so since the 
record discloses nc intent on Metroplex's part to discrimi­
nate minorities in filling the program director 
position. Indeed. two of the three individuals in the final 
running for the position, including the one actually hired, 
were minorities. See Baltimore Metropolitan Broadcasting 
Stations. 89 FCC 2d li83. 1187 11 10. 1191 11 22 (1982). 
9. Additionally. we see no basis to pursue Southeast's 
allegations made before the ALJ that Metroplex improp­
erly classified the position of WHYI-FM's music research 
director in the official and manager category. Southeast 
bases its allegations on the declaration of a former station 
who has not been shown qualified to evalu­
ate the responsibilities of the music research director. 
Petition to Enlarge Issues fiiecl April 20. 1987. Att. 3. In 
contrast. Metroplex provided declarations corroborating 
the music research director's responsibilities by the music 
research director herself and by WHYI-FM's top manage­
12. 
correctly in 
Metro p lex. 
to Pe{ition to Enlarge Issues filed May 
4-7. Thus. the Bureau and the ALJ acted 
not designating an EEO issue against 
IV. RENEWAL EXPECTANCY 
10. The Board found that WHYI-FM's performance 
during the one-year short-term renewal period was sub­
stantial and therefore warranted awarding Metroplex a 
renewal expectancy preference, even if its record was 
considered diminished to some extent because WHYI-FM 
5611 
presented certain public affairs programming during early 
morning fringe hours. In making this finding, the Board 
stated the relevant criteria in a manner somewhat at 
variance with the Commission's own general statements of 
these criteria. In particular, the Board separately listed the 
ascertainment of the community's needs and "community 
outreach" as among the relevant criteria, which the Com­
mission has not explicitly done in its own general state­
ments of the relevant criteria. Compare Formulation of 
Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Appli­
cants, 4 FCC Red 6363, 6368 n.11 with Metroplex Commu­
nications, Inc., 4 FCC Red at 8151 'II 16. Nonetheless, 
despite this discrepancy in the Board's general statement 
of the relevant criteria, the Board's specific evaluation and 
discussion of the record is consistent with Commission 
precedent. We agree with the Board that WHYI-FM's 
record is "sound, favorable and substantially above a level 
of mediocre service which might just warrant renewal." 
Cowles Broadcasting, Inc., 86 FCC 2d 993, 1006 11 40 
(1981), affd sub nom. Central Florida Enterprises, Inc. v. 
FCC, 683 F.2d 503 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 
1084 (1983). We also find that WHYI-FM made a "dili ­
gent, positive, and continuing effort to discover and fulfill 
the tastes, needs. and desires of [itsJ community or service 
area." WPIX. Inc., 68 FCC 2d 381. 400 41 56 (1978).6 
V. SOUTHEAST'S ORGANIZATION 
11. Southeast is organized as a limited partnership con­
sisting of one general partner, Gloria Butler (four percent 
equity). and ten limited partners. The Board, however, 
concluded that this form of organization was a sham 
designed to artificially enhance Southeast's integration 
and diversification showings. The Board found that Butler 
had nothing to do with the formation of Southeast and 
had virtually no contact with the limited partners there­
after. (Rather, the law firm Cohen and Berfield recruited 
Southeast's limited partners and met with several of them, 
on May 16, 1986, to decide on Southeast's organization, 
financing, and other important matters.) Cohen and 
Berfield also recruited Butler, who was interviewed by 
two of the limited partners on June 13. 1986. the only 
occasion that she met with any of the limited partners 
before the evidentiary hearing. 
12. The Board found that Butler has no broadcast ex­
perience7 and would make no investment in Southeast. 
Under these circumstances, the Board concluded that 
Butler could not be expected to exercise sole control over 
Southeast, as her title, general partner, would indicate. 4 
FCC Red at 8160 4111 53-55. 
13. Southeast contends that the Board had no basis to 
disregard its ownership structure. Application for Review 
at 10-13. Southeast asserts that it is irrelevant that Butler 
did not participate in the formation of the limited part ­
nership because she has been actively involved in the 
prosecution of the application since then. In this regard. 
Southeast maintains that the Board's decision conflicts 
with the Commission's holdings in Victory Media, Inc., 3 
FCC Red 2073 (1988), and Susan S. Afulkey, 4 FCC Red 
5520 (1989). Southeast also asserts that Butler's four 
percent interest represents a sizable stake in the station 
and that, although Butler has no broadcast experience, 
she has business experience. Southeast emphasizes that its 
limited partnership agreement is a legally binding docu­
ment. 
FCC 90-294 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Red No. 19 
14. We agree with the Board that Southeast's organiza­
tion should be rejected as unreliable. It is not credible 
that a group of experienced investors (including those 
with past broadcast ownership) would grant exclusive con­
trol of their station to a virtual stranger with no broadcast 
experience, who would make no investment in the sta­
tion. On the facts before us, we fail to see any legitimate 
quid pro quo by Butler for becoming general partner. We 
have in the past rejected such instances of "giving away 
the store" as unworthy of credence. See KIST Corp., 102 
FCC 2d 288, 292 11 8 (1985).8 We wish to stress, however, 
that the parties' conduct after the formation of the limited 
partnership reinforces this conclusion. In this regard, But­
ler signed Southeast's limited partnership agreement in 
late June 1986. 4 FCC Red at 863 11 153. The agreement 
was filed with the state of Delaware on July 22, 1986. 
Southeast Exh. 12. (Southeast's application was filed Oc­
tober 30, 1986.) After these significant dates, we would 
expect that Southeast would conduct itelf consistent with 
its purported status as a limited partnership controlled by 
its nominal general partner. In our view, however, as 
discussed below, the record compiled subsequent to the 
formation of Southeast discloses several circumstances in­
consistent with the claim that Butler will exercise sole 
control over the partnership. These circumstances estab­
lish a pattern of conduct indicating that there is no assur­
ance that the lack of control on Butler's part suggested by 
the manner in which Southeast was formed will not 
continue. Thus, there is no basis for awarding credit for 
Butter's integration. 
15. Limited partners power to withdraw: The record in­
dicates that, at the May 16 meeting between Lewis Cohen, 
of Cohen and Berfield, and key limited partners, an agree­
ment was made that the limited partners could abort the 
broadcast venture if, at the time of designation, South­
east's case looked weak. 4 FCC Red at 861 11 140. This 
agreement contemplated the possible exercise of control 
by the limited partners, contrary to their assertedly pas­
sive status. 
16. Southeast's financing: The circumstances surround­
ing Southeast's financial arrangements reflects a pattern of 
relative passivity on Butler's part. At the May 16 meeting, 
Cohen and Robert Davidoff (a principal of CMNY 
Capital, L.P.) agreed (before Butler became involved with 
Southeast) that CMNY would loan Southeast necessary 
funds. 4 FCC Red at 862 11 142, 87111 225. Butler had no 
input in negotiating the terms of the loan commitment. 
Rather, on July 24, after Butler had accepted the position 
of general partner, Cohen sent a draft commitment letter, 
which he had prepared, directly to Davidoff, with a cour­
tesy copy to Bernard Perry (a key limited partner), but 
not Butler. ld. at 863-64 11 155; Metroplex Exh. 17. Addi­
tionally, Davidoff did not consult with Butler when, at 
counsel's urging, he later decided to increase the amount 
of the loan commitment. 4 FCC Red at 8761111 269-70. 
17. Additionally, Davidoff's expectations in making the 
loan commitment are inconsistent with the sole exercise 
of control by Butler. Davidoff testified that CMNY does 
not participate in ventures unless it is satisfied that the 
enterprise has competent management. 4 FCC Red at 865 
11 166. Thus, he could insist, as a condition for making 
the loan, that individuals with broadcast experience be 
hired to run the station. ld. at 876 11 275.9 Davidoff also 
testified that his participation in Southeast was prompted 
5612 
by his confidence in Perry, which contradicts the claim 
that Butler, not Perry, would be active in the partnership. 
ld. at 866 11 175. 
18. Likewise, the circumstances surrounding the prep­
aration of Southeast's budget after Butler accepted the 
position of general partner reflects a lack of control by 
Butler. Southeast's initial budget was prepared by Cohen. 
Although Butler discussed the budget with Cohen, she did 
not know the basis for Cohen's figures. 4 FCC Red at 867 
1111 193-95. In this regard, Cohen hired Dr. Robert L. 
Hoover, an engineer, and Rafael Diaz Gutierrez to assist 
in preparing cost estimates. 10 Butler had no contact with 
Hoover and Diaz, who dealt only with Cohen. ld. at 868 11 
205, 871 11 231. Thus, the record indicates that Butler had 
no significant input in the preparation of Southeast's 
financial arrangements. 
19. Transfer of limited partners interests: The record also 
indicates that Southeast disregarded the provisions of its 
limited partnership agreement. The limited partnership 
agreement requires that limited partners must obtain ap­
proval from the general partner and counsel before trans­
ferring their interests. Nonetheless, when Arthur Baer 
wished to transfer part of his interest to his wife and 
another individual, he obtained approval from Cohen 
without notifying Butler. 4 FCC Red at 864 11 156. Simi­
larly, the record does not indicate that CMNY sought 
approval from Butler when CMNY Capital, L.P. was sub­
stituted for CMNY Capital Company, Inc. At the hearing, 
Butler was unable to explain why the limited partnership 
agreement required counsel's (i.e., Cohen's) approval in 
addition to hers. ld. at 903 n.12.u 
20. Buller's role at the station: Testimony concerning 
Butler's proposed role at the station suggests that the 
parties are attempting to inflate Butler's authority. At the 
hearing, Butler claimed that she would serve as the sta­
tion's general manager and receive the $75,000 a year 
salary specified in Southeast's financial showing for the 
general manager. 4 FCC Red at 864 11 163; Tr. 1471-72; 
Southeast Exh. 3, Att. 1 at 2. However, neither the limited 
partnership agreement, Southeast's integration statement, 
nor Southeast's hearing exhibit on integration specifies 
that she would serve as general manager (they specify 
only that she would be involved in station management 
full-time). ld. In depositions. key limited partners testified 
that the question of who would be general manager (But­
ler or an experienced outsider) was undecided. At the 
hearing, however, they changed their testimony to in­
dicate that Butler would serve as general manager. ld. at 
864-65 1111 164-66. 12 
21. Moreover, the limited partnership agreement speci­
fies that Butler's salary is to be determined based on 
comparable rates in the industry. 4 FCC Red at 864 11 
163; Southeast Exh. 12 at 8 ~ 11. Butler admitted that no 
such determination supported the $75,000 figure. As in 
the case of Butler's management role, the record contains 
inconsistent testimony concerning when and how Butler's 
salary would be determined. ld. at 866 11 184Y These 
factors indicate that hearing testimony regarding Butler's 
role at the station is "result-oriented" and undeserving of 
credit. 
5 FCC Red No. 19 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 90-294 
VI. OVERALL COMPARISON 
22. We agree with the Board that Metroplex should be 
preferred over Southeast whether or not Southeast is 
deemed financially qualified. Because Southeast's organi­
zation as a limited partnership should be disregarded, we 
will not treat Butler as Southeast's sole owner for integra­
tion purposes. Southeast therefore deserves no credit for 
Butler's proposed integration. 14 Southeast is also charge­
able with the media interests held by its limited partners 
in radio stations in Rhode Island and the Virgin Islands, 
newspapers, and cable systems. 4 FCC Red at 866-67 ~~ 
187-88. Metroplex claims no integration and is chargeable 
with the ownership of radio stations in Florida, North 
Carolina, Virginia, and Ohio. 4 FCC Red at 849 ~~ 10-11. 
Southeast is entitled to no significant integration pref­
erence and a moderate diversification preference. Id. at 
903 ~ 51. Metroplex's renewal expectancy, as described 
above, is more than sufficient to overcome this advantage. 
See generally Cowles Broadcasting, Inc., 86 FCC 2d at 
1015-17 ~~ 66-71. 
VII. ORDERS 
23. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the Mo­
tion to Expedite Disposition of Application for Review 
filed December 28, 1989 by Metroplex Communications, 
Inc. IS DISMISSED as moot. 
24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, good cause 
having been shown, the Motion for Leave to File Supple­
ment to Application for Review filed April 20, 1990 by 
Southeast Florida Broadcasting Limited Partnnership IS 
GRANTED and the associated supplement IS ACCEPT­
ED. 
25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, pursuant to 47 
C.F.R. § 1.115(g), the Application for Review filed De­
cember 12, 1989 and supplemented April 20, 1990 by 
Southeast Florida Broadcasting Limited partnership IS 
GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and otherwise 
IS DENIEDY 
26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the decision of 
the Review Board, FCC 89R-67 (Nov. 17, 1989) (4 FCC 
Red 8149) IS MODIFIED to the extent indicated herein. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Donna R. Searcy 
Secretary 
FOOTNOTES 
1 The following pleadings are pending: (1) an Application for 
Review filed December 12, 1989 by Southeast Florida Broadcast­
ing Limited Partnership, and oppositions filed December 28, 
1989 by Metroplex Communications, Inc. and the Mass Media 
Bureau; (2) a Motion to Expedite Disposition of Application for 
Review filed December 28, 1989 by Metroplex, and a response 
filed January 8, 1990 by Southeast; and (3) a Supplement to 
Application for Review and a Motion for Leave to File Supple­
ment to Application for Review fled April 20, 1990 by South­
east, and an opposition filed April 27, 1990 by Metroplex. 
5613 
2 Southeast complains that it was termed an abusive applicant 
in Formulation of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Re­
newal Applicants, 4 FCC Red 4780, 4783 ~ 23 (1989). We have, 
however, specifically disavowed any such intention. Formulation 
of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, 
FCC 90-190 (Jul. 2, 1990) at n.l5. 
3 We wish, however, to express our concern as to one matter 
in particular. Some of the allegations under this issue involved 
the use of drugs by station employees off the station premises, 
although the admitted drug user in this case is no longer 
employed by Metroplex. 4 FCC Red at 898 Cone. ~ 23, 8164 
n.32. While the record persuades us that Metroplex did not 
violate § 317 or implicate the concerns underlying our new 
character policy (Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in 
Broadcast Licensing, 5 FCC Red 3252 (1990)) in this regard, we 
nonetheless wish to emphasize that drug use represents a matter 
of grave concern. Moreover, we encourage licensees to make the 
"maximum effort" on their part to stem drug trafficking. Public 
Notice, 4 FCC Red 7533 (1989). 
4 The Department of Justice had a similar understanding. " ... 
the person in control of the broadcasting would not be required 
to make such an announcement if neither he nor any officer or 
employee of such person had knowledge of such payment or 
lack of such knowledge was not due to failure to use reasonable 
diligence." Letter from Lawrence E. Walsh, Deputy Attorney 
General to Congressman Oren Harris (Apr. 15, 1960), reprinted 
in, [1960J U.S. CODE CONG. & AD. NEWS 3534-36. 
5 The evidence indicates that some spare copies of the records 
were taken by employees. 4 FCC Red at 887 ~ 374. Despite the 
fact that this occurred, the evidence indicates that the multiple 
copies of records were furnished for promotional purposes rath­
er than for personal use. See id. at 888 ~~ 358-60. Thus, the 
occurrence of this practice does not indicate that either the 
record companies or the station viewed the multiple copies as 
consideration. 
6 In particular, we find no significance in the fact that some of 
WHYI-FM's programming was prepared by volunteers or by 
part- time employees. 
7 Butler and her husband own three McDonald's restaurants. 
Butler proposes to terminate her day-to-day involvement with 
the restaurants but would continue to participate in overall 
policy decisions concerning the restaurants. Metroplex originally 
sought to prove that Butler's franchise agreement obligated her 
to devote full-time to the restaurants. However, Metroplex later 
abandoned this position and withdrew the relevant hearing ex­
hibits. See Tr. 4246-49. In light of Metroplex's failure to pursue 
this point after it had an opportunity to review the pertinent 
documents relating to Butler, we see no reason to assume, based 
on an asserted understanding of the terms of a "standard" 
McDonald's contract, that doubts exist about Butler's ability to 
fulfill her integration proposal. See 4 FCC Red at 8160 ~ 56. 
Accordingly, although we agree that Butler's integration pro­
posal should be discounted because of the unreliability of South­
east's ownership structure, we disagree with this specific aspect 
of the Board's analysis. 
8 In Coast TV, 5 FCC Red 2751 (1990), the Commission 
reaffirmed the principle set forth in KIST that it is appropriate 
to examine the totality of facts in determining whether an 
applicant's ownership proposal is bona fide. ld. at 2753 n.4. 
Coast also limits Victory, which by implication discounted the 
significance of pre- and post-organizational activities of an ap­
plicant's principals in determining whether an applicant's own­
ership structure should be credited. Compare Mulkey, in which 
neither the passive owner's post-organizational conduct nor the 
totality of the circumstances was otherwise inconsistent with the 
applicant's stated ownership structure. 
FCC 90-294 Federal Communications Commission Record 
9 At hearing, Davidoff contradicted his deposition testimony 
that he and others would decide whether to hire experienced 
management and testified that the general partner would make 
this decision. 4 FCC Red at 866 ~ 185. 
10 Roughly $198,000 of the $200,000 contributed by the limited 
partners was transferred to counsel. Butler has probably spent 
less than $1,000 on behalf of the partnership. 4 FCC Red at 864 
~ 158. 
ll Butler has never called a partnership meeting, although the 
partnership agreement authorizes her to do so. 4 FCC Red at 
864 ~ 159. 
12 Nonetheless, Perry admitted that, on September 14, 1987, he 
Davidoff, and Baer met with Cohen to discuss Butler's appoint­
ing another person to serve as general manager. ld. at 864-65 ~11 
164-65. 
13 Similarly, the record contains conflicting testimony as to 
whether the limited partners could remove Butler for incompe­
tence, further suggesting that the parties' hearing testimony 
represents an attempt to inflate Butler's importance in compari­
son with their original understanding of her role. 4 FCC Red at 
866 1111 182-83. 
14 Our disposition of this case should not be construed as 
giving any indication of what determination will be made with 
respect to the questions concerning the " Anax " doctrine, 
raised in our recent Proposals to Reform the Commission's 
Comparative Hearing Process to Expedite the Resolution of 
Cases, FCC 90-194 (Jun. 26, 1990). 
15 In its supplement, Southeast argues that a recent decision, 
Monroe Communications Corp. v. FCC, No. 89-1092 (D.C. Cir. 
Apr. 10, 1990), warrants reconsideration of the Board's award of 
a renewal expectancy to Metroplex. In Monroe, the court faulted 
the Commission for failing to take into account a licensee's 
downward trend in performance in determining whether it was 
entitled to a renewal expectancy. That issue is not involved in 
this case. 
5614 
5 FCC Red No. 19