In Re: 					)
			               )
EN BANC HEARING ON 	          )
BROADCAST AND CABLE EQUAL	)
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY RULES  )
Volume:	1
Pages:	1 through 138
Place:	Washington, D.C.
Date:		June 24, 2002
	Before the
	FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
	Washington, D.C.  20554
In Re:                  	)
			)
EN BANC HEARING ON	)
BROADCAST AND CABLE EQUAL	)
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY RULES  )
			Commissioners Meeting Room
			Federal Communication
			Commission
			445 12th Street, S.W.
			Washington, D.C.
			Monday,
			June 24, 2002
		The parties met, pursuant to notice of the
Commission, at 10:03 a.m.
		APPEARANCES:
		On behalf of the FCC:
		CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL
		COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN ABERNATHY
		COMMISSIONER MICHAEL COPPS
		COMMISSIONER KEVIN MARTIN
		SECRETARY MARLENE DORTCH
		FORMER COMMISSIONER HENRY RIVERA
		Panelists - Panel I:
		HUGH PRICE, President and Chief Executive Officer
		National Urban League
		JOAN E. GERBERDING, President
		American Women in Radio and Television
		MARILYN KUSHAK, Vice-President
		Midwest Family Broadcasters
		APPEARANCES:    (Cont'd.)
		Panelists - Panel I:  (Cont'd.)
		GREGORY HESSINGER, National Executive Director
		American Federation of Radio and Television
		Artists
		ANN ARNOLD, Executive Director
		Texas Association of Broadcasters
		LINDA BERG, Political Director
		National Organization for Women
		ESTHER RENTERIA, President
		Hispanic Americans for Fairness in Media
		Panelists - Panel II:
		CATHERINE L. HUGHES, Founder and Chairperson
		Radio One, Inc.
		BELVA DAVIS, Special Projects Reporter
		KRON-TV, San Francisco, California
		MICHAEL JACK, President and General Manager
		WRC-TV, Washington, D.C.; and
		Vice-President, NBC Diversity
		REVEREND ROBERT CHASE, Executive Director
		Office of Communications, United Church of Christ
		CHARLES WARFIELD, President and Chief Operating
		Officer
		ICBC Broadcast Holdings, Inc.
		SENATOR ART TORRES, Retired, President
		Kaitz Foundation
		TOM BAXTER, President, AOL/Time Warner
		Time Warner Cable
		STEVE WHITE, Senior Vice-President
		AT&T Broadband
	P R O C E E D I N G S
	(10:03 a.m.)
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Good morning to everyone, and
welcome to the Commission's En Banc Hearing on Broadcast and
Cable Equal Employment Opportunity Rules.
		We are honored to have so many take time out of
their tremendously busy schedules to accommodate today's
proceeding and give us the benefit of their collective
experience.  We especially want to thank former FCC
Commissioner Henry Rivera for joining us today.  We are
fortunate to have him with us as he has a rich background in
this area from his time at the Commission.  Thank you,
Henry.
		I would also like to take this moment to recognize
some other individuals who have contributed enormously to
this subject.  First, we have with us today Pluria Marshall,
chairman of the National Black Media Coalition.  Pluria,
thank you.  David Hoenig, executive director, Minority Media
and Telecommunications Council, standing in the back.
Phyllis Eagle Olson, president of the Emma L. Bowen
Foundation.  Where is she?  There she is.  And Felix
Sanchez, executive CEO of the National Hispanic Foundation
for the Arts.
		Thank you all for being here.  All have devoted a
considerable amount of time and energy to equal employment
opportunity over the years, and we thank them.
		I am also indebted to my fellow commissioners,
whose commitment to crafting constitutionally sound EEO
rules is evident by their enthusiastic participation in
today's hearing, and a special nod to Commissioner Copps,
who suggested last December that we convene this hearing.
		At this point I'd like to ask my colleagues to
share their opening remarks, and we'll begin with
Commissioner Abernathy.  Commissioner?
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.  I also want to thank everyone for being here
today and being part of this hearing on the proposed equal
employment opportunity rules.
		Our goal is to ensure that all people from various
background within each community become aware of specific
job openings and opportunities in the media.  In addition,
longer term recruitment initiatives, including scholarships
and internship programs, should help a wide array of people
develop the knowledge and the skills to pursue these
opportunities.
		At the end of the day, I think that all of us will
benefit -- the media, consumers, employers -- so this is
basically a win/win situation for everyone.  That became
clear to me last week when I had the opportunity to meet
with a talented group of college students who were working
in the industry as interns through the Emma L. Bowen
Foundation for Minority Interests in Media.
		These amazingly talented kids -- I can call them
that because they're so much younger than me -- were all
concerned about the opportunities that lay ahead of them,
and I believe that the FCC's EEO rules, partly by fostering
the kinds of opportunities that the internship program
fostered, will ensure that these students and others become
a part of our vibrant media industry.
		The other point I want to make is we were
overwhelmed with the number of people who wanted to come
here and talk with us today, and I think that's fabulous.
The insight and the viewpoint of the industry and the public
is always an important part of the process.
		I'm hopeful that the proposal that we've set forth
will allow companies a considerable amount of flexibility
and discretion in how they achieve broad outreach and will
pass scrutiny by the Courts, but the benefit of today's en
banc is it provides us an opportunity to hear from all the
affected and interested parties so we can refine those
rules.
		Thank you again.  I look forward to hearing about
the various companies' best practices that you can share
with one another about all the industry efforts that are
already underway and how we can further refine those to
ensure that we come up with the best and the most effective
EEO rules possible.  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you.
		Commissioner Copps?
		COMMISSIONER COPPS:  I am really pleased to
welcome all of today's panelists and participants to this
important meeting.  Some of you have come a long ways to get
here today distance wise, and we thank you for that.  Others
have come a long way fighting to break down barriers and to
open doors of equal opportunity to get here, and we thank
you for being here, too.
		We have been many, many years getting to an en
banc hearing on equal employment opportunity.  I'm told the
last one may have been 1973, so I want to commend the
Chairman for making it possible.  I think this is a real
public service.
		We at the Commission are in the middle of a
struggle to establish effective rules to ensure that the
doors to employment in our media industry are open wide for
all Americans.  The fact that the D.C. Circuit has twice
struck down our EEO rules does not mean that we should shy
away from a strong commitment to a proactive program of
equal opportunity.  That would be constitutionally
unnecessary and morally unforgivable.  What the Court's
action does mean is that we have to work harder, be more
creative and discover together how to reach our goal.
		To be frank, there are counsels of caution, even
in some quarters a feeling that we best not push very hard
for fear of yet another Court rejection, but that approach
is not sound counsel.  It is instead a formula for retreat
and defeat, and it is at odds with the whole direction and
progress of America over the past 40 years.
		By now we should all understand that America's
strength is its diversity.  Diversity is not a problem to be
accommodated.  It is an opportunity to be developed.  We
will succeed in the twenty-first century not in spite of our
diversity, but because of our diversity.
		As our friends in the Congressional Hispanic,
Black and Asian Pacific American Caucuses remind us in their
insightful letter of June 21, "Diversity is the backbone and
strength of our great nation, and diversity provides the
opportunity for us to become an even greater nation."
		Of course we have to act in light of the D.C.
Circuit Court's decisions, but we must not allow these
decisions to halt our progress towards true equal
opportunity in the media industry.  Our first panel will
give us more insight into the critical role that our EEO
rules have played in these industries and information about
the obstacles that stand between success and us.
		We will hear clearly and frankly, I trust, about
the problems that many have had in learning about job
openings and getting hired, about the state of diversity in
our licensees' companies today and about the wide
differences in various companies' dedication to making equal
opportunity a reality.
		Our second panel will help us find solutions to
these problems.  I believe in these industries and in the
ingenuity and good citizenship of American broadcasters and
cable companies.  Our second panel is living proof that a
number of companies are aggressively continuing their
outreach efforts, even after the Court's ruling.  Their hard
work in connecting with their communities has improved their
work forces and improved the diversity of their companies.
		We need to distill from these successes best
practices that other companies can employ, so I look forward
to hearing from people actually trying to achieve equal
opportunity, about what they think could work and about what
they think won't work.
		I welcome hearing good news, but I want to know
about the bad and the ugly, too.  We've got a big job to do
and a long ways to go, so I hope today no one will pull any
punches and that you will tell us how we can work together
to open wide the doors of opportunity.
		Why is this so important?  Here's one reason.
Just two years ago, an FCC Commission study by the Ivy Group
found that women and minorities faced pervasive
discrimination in the media industries over the last 50
years.  The study found that the loosening of the ownership
caps made these barriers nearly insurmountable for small
minority and women owned businesses attempting to thrive or
even enter the broadcast industry.
		The report concluded that government actions or
inaction on particular regulatory and market issues have
exacerbated the barriers.  These actions and inactions
include the uneven enforcement of EEO policy.
		In that same Ivy Group study, former Commissioner
Henry Rivera, who I am so pleased to see here today because
he has been such a real leader on this, explained how EEO
rules are critical not only to jobs today, but to new voices
in the media tomorrow.  He explained that new people hired
for positions in the media companies are the farm team for
the future of the industry, and he correctly noted, "Those
are the folks that you look to in the future to get into
ownership."
		If the doors to jobs with our licensees are not
open today, the doors to diverse ownership and a
multiplicity and diversity of voices in the media are
already closed for the future.
		Let's not look on this hearing as an isolated
proceeding.  It is in fact related to so many other things
we do.  How we craft these rules will affect not just
employment in the ranks, but employment in the upper
management ranks and in ownership, too.  How we craft these
rules will have much to do with our ability to enhance
diversity in programming.  The two go together.  Note that I
said diversity in programming and not variety.  There's a
big and substantive difference.
		How we craft these rules is also related closely
-- intimately connected -- to the public interest that both
the FCC and broadcasters are charged to promote.  This is
not something we do at the fringes or something divorced
from our other ongoing work.  It is rather at the heart of
what we do, and how we do here will affect how we do across
the board.
		We can do better than we're now doing.  This
includes the industry.  This includes the FCC.  We must all
do better both as trustees of the people's spectrum and as
citizens of this land of ever greater opportunity, so let's
roll up our sleeves and get to work.  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you, Commissioner.
		Commissioner Martin?
		COMMISSIONER MARTIN:  I, too, want to thank all of
you for the considerable time you've taken out of your
schedules to be with us this morning and help educate us
about the challenges and opportunities that we're facing.
		You are each in a unique position capable of
explaining to us both the challenges and opportunities
inherent in crafting rules that can promote equal employment
opportunity in the cable and broadcast industries.
		Certainly creating EEO rules that will withstand
the Court's scrutiny is an extremely important
responsibility of the Commission.  I believe we all share
the same goal -- designing a broad outreach program that is
comprehensive, effective and constitutional.  I believe it
is also important to remember that a successful EEO program
can be a valuable tool to promote not just diversity, but
also true competition.
		Broad outreach will benefit our society
tremendously by enabling the media to take advantage of the
rich diversity of our nation.  By expanding our recruitment
efforts, broadcasters and multi-channel video programming
distributors are more likely to find the best qualified
candidates.  When the media has the most talented work force
possible, we all reap the benefits.
		I, therefore, am particularly interested in
hearing from all the witnesses today who are able to speak
about what tools actually can create such broad outreach
programs, and I know many of you have had such successful
programs in place for some time, and I commend you for it.
I appreciate your taking the time to share with us today how
those programs have been effective.
		I also look forward to hearing from you what you
think would constitute the best practices that we could
adopt in expanding those equal employment opportunity
programs to others.
		While I'm confident that we will succeed in
creating an effective outreach program, I am cognizant of
the Commission's history in this area.  Twice the Courts
have struck down this agency's EEO rules as
unconstitutional.  This time as we draft EEO rules we must
make sure that we give proper heed to the Court's
instructions, and in that regard I also hope that our
witnesses address any particular weaknesses that they might
see in our proposed rules.
		Again I thank you for your time and your
willingness to share your concerns and insights, and I look
forward to hearing from all of you this morning.  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you, Commissioner Martin.
		Before we begin with the panelists, I'd like to
invite our FCC secretary, Marlene Dortch, to give us the
rules of the road, if you will, with some recognition that
we have a lot of panelists, and we need to stick to them in
order to get through them.
		Madam Secretary?
		MS. DORTCH:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners and invited panelists.  Following are the
procedures for today's en banc hearing.  We will utilize a
time keeping machine located in front of Chairman Powell to
maintain time limits on each presentation.
		Each panelist will have a total of six minutes to
make their individual presentation.  The green light will
signal for the first five minutes of your remarks.  When the
yellow light signals, you have one additional minute to sum
up your presentation and close your remarks.  The red light
signals the end of your allotted time.  Please conclude your
remarks at that time.
		We will adhere to these procedural rules for both
panels.  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you.
		Before we begin, I'd like to acknowledge
Commissioner Copps made reference to a letter that we
received from members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,
the Black Caucus, the Asian Pacific American Caucus that
"...urging the Commission to take affirmative steps to
ensure that broadcasters and cable entities do not
discriminate against current and prospective employees and
that they eliminate barriers predicted upon race, ethnicity
and gender."  I will have this letter entered into the
official record.
		We would now like to begin with a historical
overview.  The en banc, of course, will focus on issues
raised in the rule making, and we'll hear many
recommendations from panelists on best practices and
successful outreach programs, but we thought it important to
try to provide an opportunity to frame the discussion by
getting a historical overview of the EEO rule, and we've
asked former Commissioner Henry Rivera to perform that task.
		I can't do justice to Henry's varied and
successful career, but, just to name a few highlights, he
has currently since 1998 been a partner in the law firm of
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, also was an assistant managing partner
in the law firm of Ginsberg, Feldman & Bress, and prior to
that a partner in Dahl, Lonas and Albertson.
		Mr. Rivera served as FCC Commissioner from August,
1981, to September, 1985.  During his tenure at the
Commission, Henry served as Chairman of the Advisory
Committee on Alternative Financing for Minority
Opportunities in Telecommunications.  Henry is the recipient
of numerous awards, including the Donald Magnan Award for
Advancing the Cause of Women and Minorities in the Media.
He is currently chairman of the board of the Catholic
Charities of Washington and a board member of the Minority
Media and Telecommunications Council.
		Commissioner Rivera, welcome.
		COMMISSIONER RIVERA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.  It's a
pleasure to be here, although I must confess to feeling a
little odd being on this side of the dais.
		I have been given the job of providing you with a
little history of these important regulations.  Speaking of
history, I gather that we are making it today by
participating in this unique en banc hearing that brings
together representatives from the cable, broadcasting and
public, supporters and opponents of EEO.
		My own history with these rules began almost
immediately upon my arrival at the Commission.  I can assure
you that when I came here it was not with the intention of
being the focal point of EEO efforts at that time.  However,
as my tenure unfolded I encountered a large number of people
who went out of their way to tell me how important these
rules were, how their careers in the media were attributable
directly to these rules and how important it was that they
be preserved.  As Commissioner Copps has just pointed out,
many people told me how important it was to their efforts to
become media owners.
		Time does not permit me to recite a comprehensive
history of 35 years of FCC EEO regulation or list all of the
chairmen, commissioners and general counsels who have been
committed to these rules, but I commend that history to you.
 Some of the names on that list might surprise you.  The
jurisprudential background is already in the record of this
docket, so I will focus on how these rules came to be
adopted and how they were called into question.
		The Commission's EEO efforts began in 1967 when
the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ
petitioned the Commission to prohibit stations that engaged
in employment discrimination from holding a license.  In
response, the Commission announced a new policy requiring
broadcast licensees to show nondiscrimination in their
employment practices.
		The Commission recognized, as articulated in the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the national policy against
employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion,
sex or nationality and that deliberate discrimination would
be inconsistent with the responsibility of each broadcaster
to serve all elements of the community.
		In further explaining the basis for its new
policy, the FCC cited the Kerner Report, which was the
federal government's first official written document
concluding that racism existed and that it was a problem.
The report cited the mass media's failure to foster
interracial communications as one of the causes of the
1960's civil disturbances and found that the media had not
shown an appreciation of black culture or history, had not
employed or trained enough blacks in decision making
positions and recommended that television develop
programming integrating blacks in order to foster positive
race relations.
		In 1969, the FCC adopted rules requiring equal
opportunity in the employment practices of broadcast
licensees.  The Commission required stations to establish,
maintain and carry out a continuing program of specific
practices designed to assure equal employment opportunity in
every aspect of station employment and that the EEO programs
address issues such as program dissemination, recruitment,
managerial accountability and self-evaluation.
		The Commission stated that a formal EEO rule was
necessary to emphasize its policy, make it specific and
provide remedies for noncompliance.  The Commission also
reiterated the bedrock principle that discriminatory
employment practices are incompatible with the operation of
the station in the public interest.
		A year later the Commission refined its EEO rules
and instituted reporting requirements.  These rules required
each licensee with five or more full-time employees to
submit with its license renewal application a written equal
employment opportunity program designed to ensure
nondiscrimination in station recruitment, hiring, placement
and promotion.
		The Commission also adopted a rule requiring each
licensee with five or more full-time employees to file an
annual statistical profile report, known as FCC Form 395.
The Commission explained that these changes would provide
useful statistical data and ensure that licensees focused on
the best method of assuring effective equal employment
practices.
		Later years saw the extension of the rules to
include gender and to cover the cable industry.  The
Commission fine tuned its program as it developed experience
in the area, most notably by entering into a 1978 memorandum
of understanding with the EEOC outlining the jurisdictions
of each agency in handling complaints of discrimination
against licensees, thus avoiding regulatory duplication.
		In 1994, the Commission designated for hearing the
license renewal applications of the Lutheran Church Missouri
Synod for failing to recruit minorities and for possible
misrepresentation or lack of candor.  Among other things,
the licensee explained that it had not recruited minorities
because its station employees required classical music
expertise.
		Ultimately, the Commission fined the licensee
$25,000 for allegedly misrepresenting whether classical
music expertise was a job requirement.  The licensee
appealed the FCC's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit.  In 1998, the Court ruled that the
outreach provisions of the broadcast EEO rule were
unconstitutional and vacated other aspects of the FCC's
Order.
		The Court held that the FCC's internal processing
guidelines, which compared a station's minority and female
employment to minority and female representation in the
local labor force, pressured licensees to hire minorities.
In response, the Commission adopted new EEO rules for the
broadcasting and cable industries to provide them with
significant flexibility and control over the development of
their outreach programs.
		Upon review, the Court eventually affirmed the
Commission's statutory authority for its new EEO outreach
rules, but found unconstitutional one of the provisions
designed to achieve broad outreach.
		That brings us to where we are today.  Last
December, the Commission sought comment on a proposal for
new EEO rules.  The Commission reiterated its commitments to
prohibiting discrimination in broadcast and cable employment
and to requiring broadcasters and cable entities to reach
out to all segments of the community when filling vacancies.
		It is against the backdrop of these Court
decisions that you and the panelists here today must craft
new rules that will pass judicial muster.  I have every
confidence that you and this institution are up to this
challenge.
		And now, before I have to leave, I want to offer a
few words of praise for the Commission's sometimes under
appreciated, usually under compensated and always
underestimated staff.  I like to think that this
Commission's staff is the smartest, most capable and most
creative of any federal agency.  Its integrity and
commitment to developing, explaining and enforcing the
agency's regulations is unparalleled.  Its hard work will be
invaluable as the agency strives to meet the challenges you
face in this arena.
		Thank you again for the opportunity to be a part
of this historical event.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you, Henry, for that
outstanding overview.  On behalf of Commission staff, thank
you for that public recognition, which I share
wholeheartedly.
		Before turning to the panelists, we do have a
brief videotape address from Reverend Parker from the United
Church of Christ.  As you heard in Henry's opening remarks,
they played a pivotal role in the original petition that
brought EEO's rules into being.  We can run the videotape.
		(Whereupon, a videotape was shown.)
		REV. PARKER:  Mr. Chairman, Honorable
Commissioners, my name is Everett Parker.  In 1967, the
Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ,
which I headed at the time, successfully petitioned the
Commission to issue EEO rules for broadcasting stations.
		When the first station reports were published in
1971, executives set about making changes.  By 1973, when
the first en banc hearing on EEO was held, blacks and women
were beginning to be seen in prominent on-air roles.
		It's heartening that in the years since the FCC
has never wavered in its commitment to equal employment
opportunity.  I believe that every Commissioner save one has
endorsed EEO regulations.
		Responsible broadcasting and cable companies
support EEO rules, realizing that our diverse population
requires that a variety of views and voices be involved in
communication decision making.  It is shameful that there
are still those who spread the myth that the FCC's EEO
program is a kind of quota system or an imposition on
business.  Actually, giving employment to everyone is one of
the best things government can do.
		I believe it is especially important that
broadcasting and cable companies concentrate, as some are
doing now, on opening entry level jobs to inner city and
remote area minority youth, grooming them to be decision
makers in the future.
		Please keep in mind that today's minorities plus
women constitute tomorrow's overwhelming majority.  We're
not yet at the halfway mark of achieving full equal
employment opportunities for them.  I know I won't be around
to see you finish the job, but I urge you never to give up
trying.
		Thank you.
		(Whereupon, the videotape was concluded.)
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Very nice.  Thank you.
		We have an ambitious agenda, so let's begin.  If I
could ask that you please state your name and company or
organization you represent before sharing your remarks?
We'll start with Mr. Hugh Price.
		MR. PRICE:  Thank you very much, Chairman Powell.
 My name is Hugh Price.  I'm president of the National Urban
League.  I'd like to thank you and Commissioners Abernathy,
Copps and Martin for convening this historic en banc
hearing, which I believe is the first in more than a
generation.
		It's also delightful to see the tape of Everett
Parker and a relief to know he still has vinegar coursing
through his veins.  He is very much in this game.
		I particularly want to salute the Commission for
keeping the issue of equal employment opportunity on the
radar screen of the Commission itself despite the judicial
setbacks and, more importantly, on the radar screen of the
industry and of the public.  Certainly promoting diversity
and inclusion through outreach is an effective way to
accomplish those ends.
		I bring several perspectives to the comments that
I want to offer this morning.  First, as president and CEO
of the oldest and largest community based movement devoted
to empowering African Americans to enter the economic and
social mainstream, we see all across the country in our more
than 100 affiliate communities the vital importance of
making sure that young people in our community are aware of
the industry and the opportunities in the industry.  They
are eager to participate in the labor market and in the
communications field, and we know that we can provide those
opportunities and that access through the kind of outreach
that's envisioned by the FCC.
		Secondly, through the work that we do as Urban
Leaguers around the country, we understand the critical
importance of the composition of labor forces in
communications decisions and the choices that are made about
which stories to cover, how to cover them, whether they're
given the kind of importance that's necessary in order to
convey a full picture of our community, so from the vantage
point of the Urban League I understand the importance of
outreach and inclusion.
		Secondly, from 1982 to 1988 I was a senior
executive in public broadcasting with Channel 13 in New York
City.  I initially oversaw all local programming and
scheduling for the station, and then I ran all national
production for the station.  As an executive, I saw up close
that this is indeed a word of mouth industry and that people
who make critical hiring decisions tend to want to rely upon
known quantities and are more resistant to opening it up to
those who are unfamiliar than we need.
		This is also an industry that increasingly relies
on freelancers and subcontractors, and without outreach to
help young people understand how the industry works to see
what the opportunities are not only with primary
broadcasters, but also with those who supply programs and
perform services, they will not be fully aware of the
possibilities in communications.
		Thirdly, I'm a member of an African American men's
organization in Westchester County called the Foundation of
Westchester Clubmen.  A few years ago, we took a number of
our young people who were in middle school on a tour of
Channel 13.  I can't begin to tell you what a revelation it
was for them to see not only minorities and women on air,
but to see them in the editing suites, behind the cameras
and to know that this is an industry that truly can be
exciting.
		For many perspectives we believe that outreach and
recruitment are critically important in achieving EEO goals.
 We believe that diversity and inclusion are important to
the industry and to the country because that work force
needs to be robustly inclusive so that our young people know
that this sector of our society is open.  We know that it's
critically important in the editorial process and story
selection, presentation, framing of stories, the editing of
stories and in the mix of programming that is offered on
air, be it television, radio or cable.
		Lastly, the exposure sets the stage for promoting
diverse ownership in the industry.  In an evolving world
with our multi-channel world with digital television and web
radio and all the many new options, we've got to have many,
many voices there.
		I can only tell you as the president of the Urban
League that the existence of Radio One, the existence of
Inner City Broadcasting and others you will hear from today
vastly enriches our society because in many respects those
outlets serve as the town meeting on the air for our
community.  They promote civic engagement in our community.
 Therefore, having those kinds of entities owned by women
and by minorities in our society it vastly enriches the way
in which our society functions.
		We think that promoting diversity and inclusion
helps to fulfill the goal which is the theme of our annual
conference each year that opportunity plus equality equals
one America, and we believe very strongly that the outreach
initiatives envisioned by the FCC will help to accomplish
that end.
		Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you, Mr. Price.
		Ms. Gerberding?
		MS. GERBERDING:  Yes.  I am Joan Gerberding,
president of National Media Partners and national president
of American Women in Radio and Television.  Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, I want to thank you today for having AWRT
here to discuss these issues, although I find it hard to
believe that in the year 2002 we still have a need to
discuss these issues.
		The world of broadcasting and communications has
undergone rapid changes in the recent years, yet as these
changes in technology and ownership heighten competition
among broadcasting companies, it seems that one needed
change has been overlooked.  Women, a vital resource, are
still not present in the world of broadcast management as
much as they should be.
		Even the newest media conglomerates seem to be
reflecting old boy attitudes in their executive suites.
Women are rarely represented among the top executives or on
their boards of directors.  According to the recent study by
the Annenberg Public Policy Center entitled Progress Or No
Room At The Top, out of all the executives in media, telecom
and the e-companies, only three percent were women with
clout titles, clout titles being defined as chairman, CEO,
vice-chairman, president, COO, senior EV-P and EV-P.
		AWRT, whose mission is to advance the impact of
women in the electronic media, is very concerned that the
perpetual glass ceiling in the broadcasting industry has had
too few cracks in recent years.  Thus, while many state
broadcasters associations have implemented on-line
recruiting, job fairs and the like, AWRT believes that the
FCC's proposed EEO rules are necessary to ensure that all
non-exempt broadcasters offer equal employment opportunities
through broad outreach to and recruitment of all candidates
regardless of gender, race or ethnicity.  Otherwise, the
substantial progress still needed in the development of a
diverse broadcast industry won't happen as rapidly as it
should.
		AWRT's comments in this proceeding cited
employment statistics that we believe demonstrate the
continuing need for regulatory overlay by the FCC in the
area of EEO.  For instance, in the year 2000, in the 3,000
plus radio stations in the top 100 markets in this country,
only 13 percent of all general managers were women, only 25
percent were sales manager, and only ten percent were
program directors.  The average percentage of women in the
upper four job categories was up by only 0.5 percent since
1995.
		In 2001, we saw some slight improvements.  In
those same radio stations in the top 100 markets, the number
of women in the general manager position rose from 13 to 15
percent, sales managers went from 25 to 30 percent, and
female program directors stayed the same at ten percent.
		While AWRT is encouraged by the slight increase in
the number of radio stations with female general managers,
we certainly do not believe that these figures in and of
themselves are laudable.  Indeed, one of the most
discouraging facts revealed by the employment data compiled
in 2001 by M Street Productions' Most Influential Women in
Radio Group, nearly one-half of the 32 groups that owned
between 12 and 49 radio stations have no female general
managers at all.
		The numbers are a bit better with television with
17 percent female general managers and 31 percent females as
sales managers.  Women make up 44 percent of TV news
anchors, but only 26 percent of news directors.
		So what do we need to do?  All owners and managers
of television and radio stations should determine whether
they encourage or discourage women from advancing within
their companies or organizations.  Does their corporate
culture encourage retention of women?  Are there women who
are qualified to move into positions of greater authority?
Are there female friendly training programs?  Are management
meetings female friendly?  Are women encouraged by company
executives from the top down to seek advancement?  If not,
they should be.
		Broadcasters should identify successful training
programs both inside and outside the company and
organization and encourage their rising stars, both female
and male, to participate.  Broadcasters should ask whether
their male managers are even trained to identify rising
female stars within their ranks.  If not, they should be.
Mentoring opportunities with senior executives are important
for the vital growth of men and women and for their success.
Are women employees encouraged to join organizations that
give them leadership training?
		Can all of the above be accomplished without the
FCC's anti-discrimination rule and proposed EEO regulations?
As much as we'd like to say yes, I think that the statistics
still say no.  AWRT therefore urges the FCC to continue to
be the driving force to create a level playing field for
women in the broadcast and cable industries through EEO
rules that require stations and cable systems not only to
engage in broad outreach and recruitment, but also to be
accountable to the FCC and to the public for their efforts.
		It has taken the broadcast industry way too long
to break out of the bad habits of the old boys' network and
the word of mouth recruitment that have limited
opportunities for advancement by well qualified women.
Without the FCC's regulatory push to ensure that these old
habits cease immediately, the glass ceiling will be
perpetuated.
		Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you very much.
		Ms. Kushak?
		MS. KUSHAK:  I'm Marilyn Kushak.  Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to appear at
this historic en banc hearing on equal employment
opportunity.  I am vice-president of sales and marketing and
also a partner in a group of four small and medium market
radio stations based in Springfield, Illinois, actually
Lincoln's hometown.
		The Springfield market is part of Midwest Family
Broadcasters, which also serve four other markets in the
midwest.  We operate all four of our radio stations with
only 44 full-time employees, of which 12 of them are sales
and marketing professionals.  My stations have always
believed in having a diverse staff because it's in our best
interest, and it just makes good business sense.  It is
merely the activities and the strategies used to meet our
mutual goal where we differ.
		At this hearing today, I appreciate the
opportunity to share with the FCC the activities we have
found to be most effective and most efficient to achieving
our mutual goal of work force diversity.  In a typical year,
we usually hire between six and eight new full-time
employees.  Given the size of our company, we just simply
cannot justify having a personnel director or human
resources department.
		We found that complying with the FCC's previous
rules often were very difficult since my employees are
already taking on a maximum number of duties in order to
serve best our stations and our community.  Specifically, we
have found it very burdensome to track, collect and report
the information needed for the many forms required.
		We found that for many of our vacancies,
recruiting in our community is unrealistic and fruitless.
In the past year, we have had vacancies for an engineer, a
midday personality and a news person.  Each of these
positions require a different strategy for identifying
qualified candidates.
		Placing an ad in a newspaper or making on-air
announcements simply do not attract candidates for these
specialized positions, although we sometimes have success
finding employees in this way for other types of jobs such
as the sales and marketing, clerical jobs, support staff.
My stations have found that widely disseminating information
on these specific job vacancies is very often a waste of
resources.
		On the other hand, we have experienced great
success in identifying superior job candidates through our
ongoing general outreach efforts.  I'd like to share a few
of those examples with you today.
		First, we produce a job fair in central Illinois
every January and July.  Our stations heavily promote this
approximately eight weeks in advance, also on our website,
and we also distribute educational information about this to
our educational institutions.
		As a result, the expos have attracted an average
of 1,000 job seekers in a small market and routinely are a
major source of new employees at our stations and other
participating companies in our community.  In addition, we
have noted that the expos attract an extremely diverse mix
of attendees.
		We also perform continuous ongoing outreach on our
radio stations' websites.  We maintain a current list of
available job openings, and as a matter of course we post
all vacancies on NAB's electronic career page and also on
the Illinois Broadcasters Association's website.
		We also make on-air announcements describing
particular vacancies.  In fact, we've identified that our
on-air announcements are one of the most effective ways of
attracting quality job candidates for certain types of jobs
such as the sales support staff and promotions.  We
encourage listeners to visit our websites for additional
details on these vacancies.
		Finally, we make a concerted effort to establish
partnerships within our community organization.  One very
worthwhile successful partnership is forging the partnership
with the annual Women's Professional Conference, which is
made up of about seven women's organizations within the
community.  Several of the women we've hired over the past
several years have noted that our presence at this
conference was one of the ways our stations came to their
attention for the first time.
		I believe these examples demonstrate how much more
successful that ongoing general outreach can be as compared
to job specific recruitment.  From my perspective as a
female broadcaster in management with many years in the
business, I have never witnessed or experienced
discrimination against anyone.  It simply is not a
characteristics of our industry, and not because the FCC
tells us not to discriminate, but rather because it is good
business to have a diverse work force.  We have a common
goal, and we are very committed to executing results
oriented strategies that achieve workplace diversity.
		Again, thank you for the opportunity to share my
experiences with you.  I appreciate your attention and
consideration, and I would be pleased to respond to any
questions that you may have.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you, Ms. Kushak.  We'll
ask questions at the end of all the panelists.
		Mr. Hessinger?
		MR. HESSINGER:  Thank you.  My name is Greg
Hessinger.  I'm the national executive director of the
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists known as
AFTRA.  AFTRA is the national labor union that represents
employees working at television and radio stations and
networks nationwide.  We represent approximately 80,000
members, and we negotiate over 300 collective bargaining
agreements with stations and networks throughout the
industry.
		I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak
to you about these issues as they are immensely important to
our members in their working lives.  I want to thank you for
reaffirming the Commission's anti-discrimination policy,
which we obviously endorse.
		We also support the proposed new EEO rules that
are designed to promote broad outreach to all qualified
applicants for job vacancies.  As set forth in my written
statement and our written comments, we do believe the rules
could be improved with some clarifications and
modifications, but we applaud you for continuing to promote
the public interest.
		If there is one thing that I would really like to
emphasize to you today it is that our members, who after all
are most directly impacted by the Commission's policy in
this area, report both the perception and the real life
experience that meaningful EEO rules are absolutely
essential to ensure that the broadcast and cable industries
remain accountable and responsible to the communities they
are obligated to serve.
		What our members tell us is that the need for
strong, meaningful and legally sound EEO rules is greater
now than ever.  It's partly a function of the deregulation
and consolidation that has occurred over the past few years.
 It's undeniable that as the industry continues to
consolidate there are certain cost and efficiency pressures
placed on the corporations that ultimately are shouldered by
the employees.  There are simply fewer jobs and less
resources within these companies to devote to the practice
of equal opportunity employment.
		If you read the response of broadcasters, I think
you can essentially sum the response up in this fashion.  We
should be treated like any other employers in any other
industry.  Even if you do conclude that our industry
deserves special scrutiny, they will argue that
alternatively the market will protect the public interest or
that we should trust the employers based upon the practices
that have taken place in the past.
		I would submit to you that we, the public, cannot
afford to take these kinds of risks of relying upon the
market or relying upon trust in the employers that operate
in these industries.  When you talk about the market, you
need to be honest about the marketplace that exists.  The
licensees in these industries are for-profit corporations by
and large.  They are in business to make a profit for their
shareholders.  The CEOs of these companies are held
accountable for generating those profits.  That is the
interest that they serve.  They are in the business to make
a profit.
		The compact that we, the public, have with these
broadcasters is that in exchange for utilizing a public
resource we demand only that they serve the public interest.
That is the fundamental compact between broadcasters and the
public.  Our interest, the public interest, is in promoting
diversity of voices over the airwaves and promoting equal
opportunity in employment in these industries.
		Those interests, while I would argue are largely
compatible with a profit interest in most cases, we believe
that promoting equal opportunity in employment is something
that is very compatible with making a profit, but there's
also no denying that it is interest that is different than a
purely economic interest in profit.
		Given these realities of the market, it is
obviously not responsible to simply trust employers to do
the right thing.  There is already some evidence that absent
meaningful EEO rules the commitment in the industry will
tend to wane.  There are employers who have already removed
the equal opportunity employer label from their websites.
We have seen a reduced participation in job fairs throughout
the industry, and we receive reports from members that
insular hiring practices are on the rise.
		You need not impugn anyone's character or intent,
however, to reach the conclusion that these rules are
necessary.  As I said before, sometimes the profit interest
and the public interest simply collide, and it's our job to
protect the public interest.
		As I said at the outset, AFTRA does support
specific outreach and record keeping rules that have been
proposed, but we also believe that there are important
modifications and clarifications that should be adopted to
best further the Commission's goals.  The specific
recommendations are set forth in my written statement, but I
will say in sum that we have deliberately designed those
recommendations to minimize the burden on employers.
		For example, with regard to the proposed rules
that licensees be required to distribute job announcements
to any organization that requests them, we have suggested
that organizations only need request that information once,
after which they would be part of a regular distribution
list.  That is a suggested rule that we believe would
minimize the burden on employers.  Once somebody has
requested the information, they're on a regular distribution
list, and the administrative burden is minimized.
		Finally, and I know I'm running out of time, while
age is not currently part of the Commission's anti-
discrimination mandate, the Commission does have authority
and responsibility to continually monitor the industry to
ensure that licensees are serving the public interest.
		At AFTRA, we have seen increasing evidence of age
discrimination practices in this industry.  We believe that
the time has come to investigate the scope of this problem.
 After all, we are talking about an industry whose business
model is undeniably based upon selling the eyeballs of
younger viewers to advertisers at a profit, at a premium.
Given this undeniable fact, coupled with the rise of
complaints, we urge you to take seriously this problem and
to investigate it thoroughly.
		Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you
today, and I look forward to answering any of your
questions.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you, Mr. Hessinger.
		Ms. Arnold?
		MS. ARNOLD:  Thank you.  I'm Ann Arnold.  I'm
executive director of the Texas Association of Broadcasters.
We represent the free, over-the-air broadcasters in Texas,
834 radio stations and 197 television stations.  Today I
also represent the other state broadcasters' associations.
I organized the unanimous effort of the state associations
in successfully challenging your last EEO rules and
coordinated the state associations' joint comments in this
proceeding.
		I'm grateful to be invited to speak to you today.
In the past six years that I have been concerned about the
FCC's actions in this area, this is the first time that
there has been an opportunity for all parties to talk
directly to the FCC Commissioners about our concern, the
numerous efforts we already undertake to promote diversity
in broadcasting, the unwarranted burden bureaucratic
regulations impose on broadcasters and the unfair impact of
the rules, making radio and television operators targets for
attack and the reasons that we believe the FCC should
routinely defer to the EEOC, the Courts and state
authorities on questions of unlawful employment
discrimination in the general area of the EEO.
		I commend all the members of the Commission, as
well as the able Commission staff, for arranging this forum
where we can express our views.  I'm not a lawyer, so I'm
not here to talk about the law.  Our written comments fully
address the legal issues, and our lawyers would be happy to
provide you anything additional that you need.
		What I'm here today to do is to give you the real
world impact of your previous attempts to impose stricter
requirements on broadcasters than other American businesses
face and the misuse of the entire regulatory process in an
abusive way that I cannot imagine you ever envisioned or
countenanced.
		I want to stress that we're in total agreement
with your goal of equal employment opportunity and the
critical importance of ensuring that no one is discriminated
against on the basis of their color, their country of
origin, their ethnic heritage or their sexual orientation.
We support diversity, and I believe our record in Texas and
the Texas stations demonstrates that we believe in reaching
out to the entire qualified population in our job searches.
		Where we differ is the need for the Federal
Communications Commission to take a heavy handed role and
attempt to dictate specific requirements for radio and
television stations and how they seek out employees, whether
a broadcaster must advertise in a newspaper or meet some
arbitrary requirement with regard to how many minority
organizations are solicited or how many minorities are
interviewed for each job opportunity.
		We think broadcasters do a good job of reaching
out to minorities, providing diverse programming to meet the
needs of a diverse interest and promoting the values of a
multi-ethnic society with opportunities for all.  The
broadcast industry lived three decades under FCC
administered nondiscrimination and affirmative action rules.
For all practical purposes, those affirmative action or
broad outreach rules have been off the books for three years
now without any evidence of radio and television stations
acting to curtail equal employment opportunity for all or to
discriminate against any minorities.
		The broadcast industry continues to reach out for
qualified employees from the entire population.  Outreach
efforts have in essence become institutionalized, and we
question why anyone would assert that there is any true need
for any industry wide re-regulation in this area.  I don't
know of any allegations of discrimination against actual
individuals.
		The real concern we have about re-regulating is
the way the rules are used.  I'm here today to tell you the
ugly truth about how the EEO rules you promulgate are
misused to abuse, threaten and blackmail radio and
television stations.
		There's a reason why the state associations have
taken the lead in this fight.  Most broadcasters and many
groups and organizations that traditionally represent radio
and television stations' interests are wary of
repercussions.  Some tell me they fear they would be branded
as racist to object to any of the FCC's EEO regulations or
actions.
		Individual broadcasters are actually afraid to
complain to you about it, but they tell me about the calls
they get asking for thousands of dollars for preparation of
"minority recruitment plans" for their station in exchange
for dropping protests of their license renewals.
		Even those who paid and got the two or three page
boilerplate plan still found themselves caught up in an
enforcement action in 1994 when the Commission adopted rules
one day and applied them the next day retroactively to
stations whose license renewals were still pending from four
years earlier.  They were all expected to have records of
actually interviewing minorities in two-thirds of their
hiring opportunities when no one had ever talked about that
or discussed it before that point.
		Some stations in the midst of sales or other
actions requiring FCC approval quietly pay the forfeitures,
only to be contacted again asking for several thousand
dollars in exchange for a group not appealing the FCC's
final decree to Court.  Whether they paid or refused to pay,
the unlucky broadcasters targeted for attack face legal
bills totaling tens of thousands of dollars.
		The undue pressure to hire from a particular
ethnic group that the Court cited last year in striking down
the latest version of the FCC's EEO rules is real.  The
pressure is there.  Broadcasters tell me and sometimes they
even tell white male applicants that they cannot hire anyone
but a minority.
		Rightly or wrongly, in the face of the regulatory
environment created by the FCC regulations the broadcasters
believe they must find a minority for an opening, especially
if the economic downturn has caused them to downsize or have
fewer openings.  I have agonized truthfully at the prospect
that these broadcasters will be caught in a Catch-22
situation, a trap, and find themselves sued for reverse
discrimination.
		TAB has also documented the incredible paperwork
burden imposed by some FCC regulatory schemes.  In 1994, we
conducted a statewide survey of the costs of the paperwork
regulations by the then EEO rules.  On average, it cost
radio stations $15,775 and television stations $9,500 to
deal with all the bureaucratic requirements.
		We broadened our outreach efforts at that point.
We already had those underway, but we did broaden it to try
to especially recruit minorities to positions for other than
traditional air jobs that many young people regard as the
only opportunities in broadcasting.  We went to more job
fairs.  We created more job fairs.  We did all kinds of
things.
		We try to recruit minorities and other qualified
applicants to business administration jobs, sales positions
and every other opening available in radio and television
stations.  In the current economic downturn, however, I
wonder if the repeated job fairs give applicants a false
hope of employment in an industry where the work force is
being downsized.
		Consequently, we have grave concerns about the
likely impact of the proposed new FCC regulations along the
lines that you're considering.  We're most troubled at the
proposed requirement that stations have to report specific
numbers of ethnics on their 390 report and make that public.
Even if you wait three years, that will be used by people in
the way that I'm talking about to abuse the process.
		If you find that your reasons and rationale
outweigh our very serious arguments against further
regulation, we sincerely implore you to consider restraint
in imposing regulations so that what broadcasters are
required to do is as clear cut as possible, as
straightforward in what stations must do to comply and least
susceptible to the misuse I have described at the stations.
		I would like at this point to ask the long-time
chair of Texas EEO efforts to tell you about the special
things Texas broadcasters do in this regard and the outreach
efforts we undertake jointly for the members of our
association without any FCC rules in force.
		Ernie Jackson served a number of years as a member
of our board of directors and last year was unanimously
elected to move on to the executive committee.  He has
deferred temporarily moving up to become TAB president to
devote himself full-time to a hugely successful public
service effort that he pioneered as general manager of
Houston's KBXX and KMJQ.
		If it's all right, Mr. Chairman, I'd like for
Ernie to speak.  He's right here.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Ms. Arnold, I'm sorry.  Your
time is up.  If we could finish the panelists and then come
back around, if you don't mind?
		MS. ARNOLD:  All right.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you.
		Ms. Berg?
		Ms. BERG:  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners.  My name is Linda Berg, and I am the
political director of the National Organization for Women,
which is the largest grassroots feminist organization in the
country.
		NOW's 500,000 contributing members reside in every
media market across the nation.  As one of NOW's missions is
to work to achieve pay equity and economic equality for
women, we are extremely concerned with the implementation of
equal employment opportunity rules in the broadcasting and
cable industries.  We very much appreciate the opportunity
to testify at this vital hearing.
		Employment statistics in the aftermath of EEO
Court decisions and the suspension of the EEO rules clearly
demonstrate the continuing need for EEO regulations by the
Federal Communications Commission.  Women and minorities are
still under represented in broadcasting cable industries,
particularly in upper level and management positions.  After
years of slow but steady progress towards parity, the
numbers are slipping for the first time in the wake of the
Lutheran Church decision and the subsequent EEO rule
suspension.
		A study by the Radio Television News Directors
Association noted that in the year of 2000, "The white male
world of TV general managers is actually a bit more white
and a bit more male this year than last."  The study shows
that the percentage of minority radio news directors has
also dropped from eight percent in late 1998 to
approximately 4.5 percent in 2000.  In television, the drop
was from 14 percent to eight percent.
		While women are represented in radio and TV
broadcasting, they tend to be clustered in clerical,
administrative, support and sales areas, often trapped below
the glass ceiling.  In the year 2000, close to 75 percent of
office and clerical workers in broadcast stations were
women.  In contrast, in a study by the Annenberg Public
Policy Center, only ten percent of top executive officers
were women.
		For this reason, NOW seeks broad outreach
regarding job openings, as well as other creative solutions
to reverse this alarming trend.  NOW has worked with the
Commission for years to develop fair gender and sex neutral
EEO rules, and NOW fully appreciates the Commission's
initial proposals and supports their goals.
		We do, however, have suggestions to expand the
outreach of these proposed rules.  We ask that part-time
jobs, as well as full-time jobs, be included in the
requirement for full dissemination of information and notice
of job openings.  We also suggest that stations be required
to make public service announcements which inform the public
and community organizations of their right for information
on job openings.  We further request that any EEO reports
that stations must already make available to the public be
posted on the stations' websites or a central website.
		Requiring outreach for part-time jobs would
advance parity in the industry.  Part-time positions
constitute a significant portion of the total work force at
most broadcasting stations -- 31 percent for radio news
staffs and 13 percent for TV news staffs.  According to the
National Association of Broadcasters, these positions are
important for gaining entry to and training in broadcasting,
which is particularly crucial for women who frequently
re-enter the work force via part-time jobs after having
their children.
		Without wide dissemination of information about
part-time positions, a significant avenue of entry into
broadcasting may be unavailable for many potential
applicants.  While broadly disseminating job information and
granting community organizations the right to be notified of
job vacancies is a good start, these requirements will be
ineffective if the groups do not know of their entitlement
to that information.  NOW therefore asks that broadcast
stations be required to issue public service announcements
which inform the community organizations of their right to
be notified of job vacancies.
		Finally, NOW suggests requiring increased public
access to filed EEO reports.  As the Commission itself has
noted, meaningful ongoing communication between a
broadcaster and the public will result in a more effective
outreach program.  To allow for easier access to the
reports, the Commission should require stations to post them
on their websites and perhaps also in a central location,
such as at the Commission's website.  Because most stations
already maintain extensive websites, any additional burden
would be minimal and outweighed by the benefits of
facilitating public access.
		While NOW supports using the internet for wide
dissemination of vacancy notices and aiding access to EEO
reports, traditional forms of notices appearing in
newspapers and trade publications are still essential.  Only
54 percent of Americans have access to and use the internet,
and only 7.5 percent of Americans search for jobs via the
internet.
		Additionally, while about 60 percent of white
Americans have access to the internet, only 40 percent of
African Americans and 32 percent of Hispanics have internet
access.  Allowing radio and television stations to advertise
jobs only through the internet would not meet the
Commission's goals of broad outreach.
		Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you, Ms. Berg.
		Ms. Renteria?
		MS. RENTERIA:  Mr. Chairman and fellow
Commissioners, I commend you for holding this hearing.  Many
of us were terribly disappointed when the Court of Appeals
struck down the 30-year-old rules in 1998.  We feel very
strongly that until television and cable programs look like
America looks, there needs to be a mechanism for change and
a reason for broadcasters to do it.
		I have had a very long association with the media
first as an employee from 1959 through 1983 and later as a
community advocate for change from 1986 to the present.  In
1959, I was a newspaper reporter, and in 1968 I was
recruited by KNX Radio to become the first Hispanic woman on
their staff.  They called three different organizations and
asked for recommendations for a Hispanic reporter, and they
were given my name by all three groups.
		They called and offered me a job, and I took the
job as a news writer and desk editor.  If I hadn't been
recruited, I would not have gone into broadcasting.  There
were very few women and no Hispanics outside of the Spanish
language media at that time.  There were no role models for
me at all.
		In late 1969, I transitioned to television,
working as a writer, producer and host on a KCET series
about Mexican Americans.  I thus became the first Latino
host of an English language program in Los Angeles.  That
was 1969, and I was told that I was the 200th woman on the
air in the United States.
		As you may recall, the 1960s were turbulent years
with many civil rights issues and some civil unrest.  That
was a time when few women and even fewer people of color
were employed in the media industries.  For example, during
the Watts riots of 1965 the Los Angeles Times had to
instantly promote a mail room employee to be a reporter to
cover the event.  They had no black writers.  I am happy to
tell you he is still working there as a reporter.
		Then we got the Kerner Commission and the
Christopher Commission Reports, which documented the blatant
racism then existing across America.  The FCC, among other
governmental institutions, called for equal employment
opportunity rules and regulations.
		We believe that these rules were very helpful in
opening broadcasting to women and minorities in the 1960s
and the 1970s.  However, by the middle 1980s many station
managers had adopted the idea that EEO rules were no longer
that relevant.  We'll come back to this statement in just a
few minutes.
		In 1986, a group of us looked around and saw that
Hispanic American faces were disappearing from LA television
stations.  A few of us got together, and we founded the
National Hispanic Media Coalition as a non-profit
educational foundation.  I worked very closely with Armando
Duron, the founding chairperson, and in 1990 I succeeded him
as the national leader of the group.
		As I mentioned before, some general managers were
no longer really taking the EEO obligation seriously.  We
met with the general manager of one Los Angeles station who
later wrote to us saying that "because he didn't believe in
affirmative action or equal employment opportunity" he
didn't need help from the Coalition to find good recruitment
sources.  Fortunately, his network headquarters did not
share his opinion.  The next general manager at KCET -- at
KCBS -- was happy to meet with us and reinstitute equal
employment opportunity rules.
		From 1988 to 1996, the Coalition filed about 60
petitions to deny license renewals against radio and
television stations for the most egregious violations of EEO
rules.  We could have filed many others, but our pro bono
legal counsel only had so much time.
		The Coalition routinely reviewed EEO performance
at stations, and we found some very strange things.  In one
instance, we noticed that a New York City station had very,
very few minority employees.  When we visited the station
and asked what newspapers and magazines they used for
recruitment, we were told they didn't.  They simply posted
the job openings on their employee bulletin board, and the
employees referred their friends, their relatives and their
neighbors to apply for the open positions.  That's not equal
employment opportunity.  We filed against WNET in New York,
and it received a conditional license renewal with serious
reporting conditions from the FCC.
		We've noticed some backsliding by stations in
their EEO efforts since the Appeals Court voided them in
1998, and we find them to be very tragic at several levels.
 Hispanic American children need to see good role models on
television to provide them with goals and aspirations.
Other children need to see Hispanic Americans because they
will be competing with them in the future.  Latinos remain
severely under represented on prime time.  While we make up
12 percent of the U.S. population, we are only four percent
of the prime time populous.
		We applaud your December, 2001, draft.  We feel
that the oversight of the broadcasting industry is
definitely a federal responsibility since broadcasters are
essentially migrant workers who go from city to city and
state to state as they move up to bigger media markets.
However, we disagree with your thought that stations with
less than five employees should be exempt from these rules.
		If America is truly to be the land of opportunity
for everyone, then we need to level the playing field by
adopting these equal employment rules.  They are needed now
more than ever.  Communities of color have grown from 16
percent of the national population in 1970 to 31 percent in
2000.  The minority population has doubled in 30 years, and
the Latino population has tripled in the same time period.
The problem is that employment opportunities for minorities
have decreased.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you very much.
		We are running slightly behind on time so, Ms.
Arnold, if you could submit your manager's testimony for the
record as opposed to having a presentation?  He's welcome to
join you at the panel for Q&A if you'd like.
		We're going to enter the process of questions and
answers now.  I'd like to take the prerogative to ask one
set of questions.
		I was struck, Ms. Arnold, by your presentation in
that without knowing any of the facts of the particular
things that you allege, it seems to me ironic to suggest
that the FCC rules are the coercive element of that kind of
activity should it exist.  It seems to me that the FCC's
rules are a dramatic subset of the kind of legal recourses
that exist generally in the population, including Title VII
litigation and the like.
		The FCC rules last time, though struck down in one
component, were largely process, the requirement that one
reach out broadly.  The FCC tried to make clear that it
didn't have an intention of using the coercive aspects of
its regulatory authority for the enforcement of alleged
claims discrimination.
		I'm sort of curious why the FCC rules are a source
of that potential sort of shakedown, if you will, as opposed
to the general rules of discrimination in society, so why
aren't you just like every other institution who faces those
sorts of challenges?
		MS. ARNOLD:  Well, the discrimination, if there
were any, would be the subject of a complaint of the EEOC.
I don't know of any complaints that are being filed, but
these regulations give these certain groups and individuals
a power over stations who are fearful of having some sort of
action or complaint filed with you.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  If we are making clear that we
don't use the process to entertain complaints and take
regulatory enforcement, why don't you just not pay?
		MS. ARNOLD:  Whether you entertain or announce
that you're not going to use them for those purposes or not,
they in effect end up being used that way because you
collect the information on what races are at a station and
how many there are and how many they interviewed.  That ends
up being a subject for someone to complain about.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Surely, but they have recourse
for complaints in many other places than they do here at the
Commission.
		MS. ARNOLD:  Yes, and if there were legitimate
claims of discrimination they would be able to file those
complaints and to have some action, but there aren't any
complaints of discrimination.  All there are are these
groups that are trying to push an agenda to have certain
entities or certain groups favored over other groups, and it
amounts to reverse discrimination.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  My only reaction is if they are
false and unsubstantiated, there is nothing to fear, and
people shouldn't pay.
		MS. ARNOLD:  You might not think they should pay.
 However, in the business perspective of a broadcaster who
is looking at whether or not he can sell his station,
whether or not there's some pending action against him, when
the license renewal thing drags out for four years and then
somebody can complain even further and it goes on forever
and you have to get those sort of things resolved before you
can sell your station or take some other actions, that's a
real problem for businesses.
		Literally some of the businesses that were fined
in Texas told me they felt like they had to pay because they
were in the process of some sale or action that needed your
approval.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  I appreciate that, but at some
level you have to sort of be believed in what it puts into
law and says, as opposed to what it might do.
		I wanted to ask a separate set of questions before
turning over to my colleagues.  Many of the panelists
focused quite heavily on the broadcast base, and certainly
the EEO rules are borne and come out of the broadcast base.
		It seems to me one of the questions that's always
presented in the context of this debate is why does this
industry need a level of regulatory intervention in EEO
above and beyond what the rest of business is and society
is, and the answer is, as Mr. Hessinger pointed out, in the
context of broadcasting was that broadcasters receive
licenses for free and as a condition of that license serve
the public interest.
		What's becoming increasingly challenging, however,
is that similar claim can't necessarily be said about the
cable industry to whom we extend these rules.  We did not
provide the core license functionality.  While the cable
companies have franchise licenses, the public interest model
that's traditional of broadcasting is not the core of
regulatory authority in that industry.
		One could talk about direct broadcast satellite,
who purchases spectrum at auction, as opposed to the
traditional public interest model.  They certainly in some
kind of general sense are trying to serve the public, but to
the extent you have that hooked in broadcasting.
		I would invite anyone on the panel to talk about
why media is different in a way that can reach or justify
the rules with respect to other industries, as opposed to
specifically broadcasting.
		MR. HESSINGER:  I can certainly take a crack at
it.  It's absolutely a very valid question to ask, and it's
a distinction worth noting.
		One of the rationales that broadcasters will cite
for why the regulatory scheme as applied to broadcasters
should be loosened not only with respect to EEO rules, but
other rules, is that there has been an explosive growth of
other media that consumers have available to them and,
therefore, our attention on broadcasters is in a sense
misplaced because it reflects the reality when there were
only three broadcast networks that everyone watched, and
those broadcasters uniquely influenced the public.
		I think you have to take a global perspective and
recognize that the media, whatever it may be, whether it's
just the broadcast network, so the broadcast networks plus
the stations or the networks and the stations and cable or
the network stations, cable and the internet, and who knows
what's going to come along in the future.
		The media has a unique influence on this country,
on its citizens, on our democracy, and I think you have to
start there.  It becomes a question of what is it that we
stand for as a country?  What kinds of democratic ideals are
we trying to promote?  If we don't have policies and
regulatory schemes in place that promote the continued
dissemination of diverse points of view, I think it's a very
dangerous thing for our democracy.
		I think you can get away from the traditional
analysis of the quid pro quo of the broadcast spectrum for
serving the public interest and take a larger view of what
are we really trying to promote as a country when we talk
about this resource of the media that reaches the eyes and
ears of our citizens.  I think it's very important that we
continue to grow our thinking with the growth in technology.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Hugh?
		MR. PRICE:  Mr. Chairman, I would only add as a
criminal defense lawyer and not as a communications lawyer
by any stretch of the imagination that I think that the same
kind of oversight and encouragement should be applied to all
sectors of the communications industry.
		I think there is an artificiality emerging because
of evolving technology, and I think that the cable industry,
the over air industry, should be equally encouraged to
promote outreach and inclusion.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  I'll end here and turn over to
my colleagues.  I purposely would sort of be edgy here as
devil's advocate here because in maintaining some
sustainability before the Court one could easily say isn't
the argument equally true of the newspaper industry and who
provides an additional level of oversight there or other
components of industry that have an important impact on
society.
		I think that's an important question to be
focusing on as we develop the rules in terms of the
rationale.  The why is it different component is always one
of the most challenging aspects of rationale underlying the
rules.
		Questions or comments in any order?
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  I have a couple quick
questions.  I'm curious to better understand the percentage
and numbers of part-time employees that are involved in the
broadcast industry so we can have a feel for just what role
that plays in the recruitment efforts.
		I thought maybe, Mr. Price or Ms. Kushak, you
might be able to tell me generally the percentages of part-
time employees that broadcast entities employ and the kinds
of jobs that are generally recruited for on a part-time
basis.  Are they on-air personalities, engineers,
administrative or all of the above?
		MS. KUSHAK:  And that is an important question.
We have, and I haven't called into my office today so it
changes from hour to hour, but for part-time we range around
ten part-time people.  Those are in various capacities.
		It's when we have clearly maximized all of our
other full-time employees that we are able to benefit with
part-time employees, which would be some on-air, there are
some support staff and in various positions.  They become
very valuable.
		It's a great time many times for the interns to be
able to move in to our industry and get some very valuable
experience and from the part-time then be promoted into
full-time.  It works very well.
		MR. PRICE:  Commissioner, I don't have the data to
answer your question.  I would only say from my
understanding, having been in the broadcast industry for a
spell, that it's not only a question of part-time and full-
time.  It's a question of freelancers who don't count as
part-time in the many production companies that subcontract
for the creation of programming that broadcasters run.
		When you look at the importance of the issue, it
reaches to not just who's working and who isn't, but also
one of the critical aspects of it is what kinds of programs
are chosen, what's the vantage point of those programs, et
cetera.
		The Commission would have to wrestle with the
question of the reach of your authority obviously, but the
way the industry works it stretches out far beyond part-time
and full-time, but it's critically important in all of the
ramifications.
		MS. GERBERDING:  Commissioner, if I could add to
that as well?
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  Sure.
		MS. GERBERDING:  Since consolidation has happened,
many radio stations now are using many more part-timers than
they did prior to that in order to be more efficient in
their staffing of their radio stations.
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  Okay.  I have one last
question for Ms. Kushak, which is the statement that you
made about recruitment efforts.  You said ongoing general
outreach is far superior to job specific outreach.  I think
that was your statement.
		My question there is if you have ongoing general
outreach, when a job opens up how do the job fair folks know
that a specific job has opened up?  I'm a bit confused about
what you were trying to say there.  How would you envision
it working in the real world?
		MS. KUSHAK:  Thank you for the opportunity to
clarify that.
		Our different specific jobs, for example, that I
had mentioned -- engineer, on-air prime time personalities,
some of those individuals -- are not available in our own
community, so having to recruit for those positions we have
to use different strategies to achieve the results to get
the work force diversity.
		Very, very important would be our ongoing outreach
with our job fairs, with our internet, over the air where at
any time individuals in our community know that we do have
the positions available and, if positions are not available,
at least how to contact us and apply for positions, so
keeping people as we call in a pool, in a benchmark, is
very, very effective not only for the job seeker, but also
for us.
		MS. ARNOLD:  Commissioner, could I address that
for a moment?
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  Sure.  Thank you.
		MS. ARNOLD:  That was actually one of the things
that I wanted Ernie to talk about is that we have had a job
site that I think is probably one of the more successful in
the country.  We have today 800 plus individuals who are
being notified about any listing that applies to their
particular expertise or the kind of things they're
interested in doing.
		We have 210 resumes posted on our job site, and we
have 113 jobs, so there's a continual pool for people to
access if they're looking for a particular kind of person
with a particular expertise.
		Because of the FCC's requirements, we have
attempted to try to go out and find large groups of
minorities that we could include in the bank by job fairs in
particular areas, and then because we are not able to tell
people you're looking at a minority when you pull up this
person we tell them if you pull ten people who were at this
job fair, you'll have 60 percent of those be minorities or
whatever.
		It's a complicated thing when they're trying to
look at both meeting the expertise requirements and also
getting a certain race.
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		COMMISSIONER COPPS:  Well, I must say I'm still in
kind of a state of shock listening to this that the old
lines are as clearly and starkly drawn as they seem to be.
I thought we were coming here today to talk about options
for dealing with a problem that most of us agree exists in
one fashion or another, but I've heard a couple of the
panelists say don't worry about it.  There is no problem.
We can all go home.  The situation will take care of itself.
		I was reading something over the weekend, and I
wrote it down.  I said well, I won't need this quote in this
day and age.  It says, "After nearly five decades of
operation, the broadcast industry does not seem to have
grasped the simple fact that a broadcast license is a public
trust subject to termination for breach of duty."
		That was said by Warren Berger, hardly a paragon
of judicial activism, in 1966.  He referred to five decades.
 You can add three and a half decades on that now.  We're 85
years into this and still debating some of these issues.
		I suppose it does lead to a legitimate problem or
question on how do we find discrimination?  You know, I
think discrimination is out there.  I think it's probably
under reported, but I'd like to hear if any of our panelists
have some suggestions on how we find out about
discrimination.
		You know, for a lot of our rules we wait for the
competitors to come in and say well, so and so built a tower
over there.  It's too tall.  Get them to take it down.  Then
you go up and down the whole agenda that we have here, all
of the rules that we have here.  We can rely on the
competitors to do that, but I'm not sure that that happens
with regard to discrimination.
		Even employment candidates I think often don't
know they're being discriminated against, and if they do
know they're being discriminated against how will they know
that the FCC, which they've probably never heard of, has a
whole lot to do with it?
		I'd like to know a little bit how we get the
information we have on discrimination and what we can do to
get a better inventory of information without running afoul
of the Court.
		Mr. Price, would you have any thoughts on that?
		MR. PRICE:  Well, I think one of the challenges
is, to use the phrase, to flood the ramparts with qualified
people and then see whether they're hired.  That's why
outreach is so critically important.
		I think if more pools of qualified applicants can
be developed, if more people can be introduced to the
industry, that puts less pressure on the industry to shop
around all over the country to fill slots.
		Secondly, of the subtler aspects of
discrimination, which is hard to get a handle on, but the
NAACP with its study I think was trying to get at it.  It
would be interesting to document the choices that
broadcasters make about what's carried and what isn't, what
kinds of stories are broadcast and which aren't, how many
stories are constructed and which aren't.
		I realize that that's uncomfortable terrain, but I
think it's terrain that we on this side of the table
probably have to explore and then have to bring that to the
attention, but I can only say as someone in a field where we
are perpetually trying to tell stories about what is moving
forward, tell stories about what the problems are.  The
responses of folks in the communications industry are often
dispiriting, and we need to do a better job of documenting
that and helping the broadcast industry understand the
implications of the choices they make.
		It is alleged that folks in the African American
community, for example, do not care about academic
achievement.  The examples of programs in the Urban League
and the NAACP and many, many others that are promoting
academic achievement are legion.  Getting those stories
told, which is an exercise of discretion on the part of
broadcasters, is very, very difficult.
		I think it would be interesting to examine what
are the choices that are made and what are the ethnic and
other implications of those choices.  I think you're only
getting the tip of the iceberg, and I appreciate the
delicacy of the legal situation that you face, and I think
on our side we need to be more helpful in lifting the lid on
that.
		COMMISSIONER COPPS:  Ms. Kushak, do you believe
that your recruitment program or the representation of
diversity in your organization is something that should be
of any interest or concern to the FCC at license renewal
time?
		MS. KUSHAK:  That's again a very important
question, and we've never had any problem with it.  In the
last two and a half years or so when there were no
requirements, nothing changed.
		I'm very proud of our diverse work force.  We've
always been committed to that, and I would have no problem
at all keeping the FCC informed.
		COMMISSIONER COPPS:  But you think it's a
legitimate area for us to have an interest in and to be
looking at?
		MS. KUSHAK:  I think that the tracking is
something that, you know, I'm unqualified to say in terms
of, you know, I think it's a legal issue.  You know, I have
nothing to hide, and I would never do that.  We're committed
to a diversified work force, and we have the same mutual
goal that you all have.
		MR. JACKSON:  Commissioner Copps, if I might?
		COMMISSIONER COPPS:  Yes, sir.
		MR. JACKSON:  If I might just add to that?  Before
I do that, you mentioned another issue, and that is the
issue of public service.  In addition to the issue of EEO,
broadcasters in our industry also face this concern about
public service.  Broadcasters are being criticized for not
doing public service.
		As Ann mentioned, I was in broadcasting for 27
years, and I am currently working with broadcast companies,
specifically Inner City Broadcasting, Clear Channel,
Cumulus, Radio One, Infinity, Hispanic Broadcasting and
Emmus Broadcasting, and I am testing African American and
Hispanic listeners for what is the most critical health
issue facing African American and Hispanic communities in
this country, and that's HIV and AIDS.
		In the past year, Project Way, which I'm the
executive director of, has tested 7,000 people for the HIV
virus around the country using radio station T-shirts as
incentives for getting tested.  It's an unprecedented
program.  The reason that's important, sir, is that there
are 450,000 people walking around today with the HIV virus
that don't know they have it.
		Now, let me go on the record to say that I am an
advocate of affirmative action.  Most Texas broadcasters I
work with are advocates of affirmative action.  In 1995, in
the City of Houston on the ballot was an amendment to do
away with the city's affirmative action program.  My radio
station created a public service campaign that created the
largest turnout of African American voters in the city's
history, and the affirmative action initiative which was on
the ballot was saved.
		What I am here to talk about is that when I was
called by the Texas Association of Broadcasters, we created
a very innovative, a very successful program using job
fairs, using internet, using other recruiting activities,
working with the local urban leagues.  My posture is, going
back to your original question, that broadcasters should be
given credit for those kinds of activities, for
participation in those kinds of activities.
		As you think about rules and regulations, it seems
to me that broadcasters in Texas and other places who are
doing this should be given credit for those kinds of things.
		COMMISSIONER COPPS:  Thank you.
		MR. HESSINGER:  Commissioner?
		COMMISSIONER COPPS:  Let me just comment on that
for a second.  I agree 100 percent with you that
broadcasters should be given credit for the thousands of
good actions and programs that they undertake.  I think
there are many, many of them.
		Also, I think they need to do a better job
sometimes in telling us what they're doing.  That's one of
the problems we're dealing with right here right now.
People come by and say well, you don't know what we're still
doing.  We don't know because nobody has told us a lot of
these things.
		I applaud the public service activities of
broadcasters and cable, too.  I don't think we're where we
need to be yet on that.  I think the recent Kaiser study
told us that when it comes to public service announcements
on the air waves we've looking at about 15 seconds an hour
and that those come primarily between midnight and 6:00.
Not primarily, but in overwhelming force.
		Yes, there are a lot of success stories.  This is
an industry that's doing a lot of good, but, like I tried to
say in my remarks earlier, we've got to do more.  We've got
to do better.  God knows, there's enough room for
improvement.
		You had a comment?
		MR. HESSINGER:  Yes.  I'm sorry, Commissioner.  I
would just like to underscore the importance of the point
that was made about outreach requirements and how you have
to start there as an important ingredient in dealing with
these problems.
		You know, these issues, as you can see, a lot of
time invoke intense feelings and emotions in people, and
sometimes we lose sight of the fact that I really believe
that most people who are out there doing the hiring would
like to do the right thing, want to do the right thing and
think they're doing the right thing.
		The problem is that the industries that these
people work in, there's a lot of pressure being imposed on
everyone involved, intense pressures of profit and
efficiency.  When you're in a position when you need to fill
a position, you've got 16 other things you need to do, you
can't spend the money to engage in real outreach activities.
 You tend to fall back on the more insular practices of
hiring.  It's just the fact of the pressures that are
imposed on the people involved.
		I once worked on the employer's side of the
broadcast industry, and I have some experience with how it
works.  I can remember when a particular company that I
worked for was taken over by another company, and there was
a new CEO in charge.  I was talking to a general manager of
one of the stations about the new budgeting process and how
he would go line by line through the budget and say the
Christmas party.  Tell me how that generates revenues for
the stations.
		That was a funny anecdote until about a year later
when the individual who was in charge of human resources at
the station, who was in charge of the program for equal
opportunity employment, was laid off because there was not
perceived to be a need for that particular position because
it was not a revenue generating position.
		I believe that equal employment practices
ultimately lead to profits because the public wants to see a
diverse work force in front of them on the television
camera.  I really believe that, but I also believe that the
Commission needs to lead broadcasters and cable operators to
that conclusion.
		I believe that if you impose a requirement that
you actually do the hard work and expend the limited
resources that are necessary to do the outreach that the
people who make the hiring decisions will do the right
thing.
		If they're exposed to a diverse pool of
applicants, they will in fact engage in diverse hiring
practices, but you've got to impose the obligation to do the
outreach because absent that it will simply fall by the
wayside as difficult choices are made about resources and
what can be done in a very competitive environment.
		COMMISSIONER COPPS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		COMMISSIONER MARTIN:  I wanted to follow up on
some of the comments in Ms. Arnold's testimony.  She was
talking about the importance of providing flexibility to the
broadcasters to meet these kinds of opportunities, and I
think you just talked about getting credit as well for the
flexibility.
		Isn't it helpful still, though, to have some
regulations that would establish some kind of safe harbor
for the kinds of outreach efforts that we would be expecting
in part to minimize those challenges that can occur on the
renewal side so that you would recognize that if you had
taken these certain steps then you would be presumed to be
meeting the expectations that would come across from holding
that public interest license?
		In the absence of those, won't it actually lead to
further exacerbation of the kind of challenges that are
being filed in the context of your renewals?  I actually
viewed some of our steps in this regard as trying to
actually minimize that and trying to provide some helpful
floor or a safe harbor so to speak; not trying to not
recognize the additional flexibility and give you credit so
to speak for the other steps you've taken, but maybe I'm
missing something in my analysis.
		MS. ARNOLD:  I agree that having specific
requirements and clear cut options would be an improvement
over what you've done in the past.  We've proposed something
that we think is a good balance of those in suggesting that
you do require at least 50 percent.
		If you want to look at the numbers or come up with
some different number, we're not tied to that, but have some
certain number that people have to post either on the
internet or on their own website or something like that and
then allowing them to promote those websites so people have
notice of the availability of jobs and that be essentially
the requirement without all these other things that get into
how many minorities you interviewed and keeping records on
where the applications come from.
		COMMISSIONER MARTIN:  Maybe I'm starting to
appreciate.  So some of the concerns you have are not as
much on the regulatory requirements that might be posed on
the outreach side, but some of the record keeping
requirements?
		MS. ARNOLD:  Very much so.
		COMMISSIONER MARTIN:  One of the --
		MS. ARNOLD:  Although the outreach can be a
problem, too, when you go to the extent that you insist that
a minority be interviewed in two-thirds of the hiring
opportunities.
		COMMISSIONER MARTIN:  On our record keeping and
forms, on the Form 395, which I think you mentioned in your
opening testimony as well, you thought that some of the
proposals to not have that information available for three
years was insufficient to kind of provide protection from
the kinds of concerns that you were raising.
		I know that I think Mr. Hessinger in his written
testimony -- he didn't mention it in his oral testimony --
talked about the Commission could be collecting that
information, but not be making it available to the public.
I think that was his proposal to try to address some of
those concerns.
		Do you have any other thoughts on what the
Commission could do to try to make the information available
on an industry wide basis, but trying to protect against
some of the concerns that you've raised about the potential
misuse at times of that information by others?
		Is there anything else you could do in trying to
minimize the likelihood of that occurring while still trying
to gather industry wide information to make that available?
		MS. ARNOLD:  If that's the only way that you can
collect the information, I would suggest that there are
other entities that could give you that kind of information
without even subjecting stations to that.
		The BIA and some of these people that do these
kinds of number crunching for other things could give you
those kinds of figures, I believe, especially if you would
ask them to do that specifically.  Obviously not having it
subject to investigation and review in the individual
stations' case would be an improvement over the alternative.
		COMMISSIONER MARTIN:  I didn't mean to exclude any
of the other panelists if they wanted to comment on an
important subject, but I did want to focus on it because you
had raised specific concerns with collecting that
information.  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you.  Just one final
comment before we take a break.  We're going to abbreviate
the break in the interest of time to five minutes.
		One of the challenges we have, and I urge people
to try to explore some of this precision, is there are two
components to rules and the worthiness of them.  One has to
do with actual discrimination cases, which is unquestionably
unlawful and is a serious question of enforcement.  Whether
the FCC has a role to play in that or not is a legitimate
question, as opposed to the general.
		The other thing we're talking about is what used
to be called affirmative action, but is a component of an
affirmative choice because you think the media industry is
important or benefitted in some meaningful advancement of
communication policy objectives to justify trying to reach
out.
		I think the outreach programs were designed to
provide increased representation to advance communication
policy objectives, not specifically for the purposes of
rooting out discrimination, though there could be a
secondary effect of having a healthy recruitment process.
Just thinking about the tradeoff or the balance between
actual discrimination and something akin towards an
advancement of a communication policy objective I think is
important.
		With that, I think we'll take a brief five minute
break.  If I could urge everyone to come back at 11:50, and
then we'll go to the next panel.  Thank you.
		(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Let's reconvene the hearing and
jump right in with our first panelist, Ms. Cathy Hughes.
		MS. HUGHES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I am very
grateful that I was invited by the FCC to provide testimony
this morning, and I pray that God will place in my mouth and
upon your ears words and facts that will be agents of change
for this great broadcasting industry.
		I have been a broadcaster for over 30 years, and I
am very proud to support the FCC's proposal to lift its
suspension of EEO rules because I am without question a
living example of what equal opportunity in broadcasting can
produce for women, for people of color and for this great
country.
		I have sold air time.  I have programmed and
created formats.  I have managed facilities, and this
morning as I appear before this distinguished hearing I am
the only African American woman to ever head a publicly
traded corporation.
		Radio One is a radio corporation that employs over
1,600 broadcasters, 70 percent of whom are African American,
42 of whom are women, and you can rest assured that as I am
speaking my HR director is diligently working on getting our
number of women up to 50 percent because that is a true
representation of the population we are licensed to serve.
		The reality is that women have made far more
progress in basketball than they have in broadcasting.  The
WNBA is a viable enterprise that in some cities attracts
more attendance than its heritage male counterparts, yet
when I attend sessions at the National Association of
Broadcasters I am always the only woman and only one of a
few African Americans to be seated among the major broadcast
owners of America.
		My career in broadcasting has been the exception
to the rule, not because I am exceptional, but because the
Federal Communications Commission pried open the window of
opportunity that afforded me an equal chance to prove my
worth in value to the broadcasting community.  It is
painfully evident that other members of my gender and my
ethnic group have not been afforded the same opportunity,
and I am obligated to do everything in my power to correct
this disparity.
		Perhaps Radio One's greatest contribution to EEO
has been our willingness to provide first time opportunities
to women and people of color.  Over the last couple of
years, we have hired seven African American and three women
first time general managers.  At the executive level, Radio
One has provided first time opportunities for our CEO, who
is an African American, and our general counsel, who is a
woman.
		We understand that consolidation has caused a
reduction in job and management opportunities, particularly
for women and people of color, and that experienced
management is usually the preference of any industry.
However, we remain committed to the old tried and proven
principle of recognizing potential, and we recognize the
potential not only applies to the employee, but also to the
opportunity to better serve our audiences, which has
directly impacted our ratings and revenue.
		In 1980, we acquired our first radio station and
changed its format from R&B to talk during a period when
Washington, D.C. was starting to experience a substantial
Spanish population increase.  We saw the potential to
attract listeners outside of our target audience, and we
hired the first full-time Hispanic air personality to host a
talk show in the nation's capital.
		Broadcasters and trade associations who oppose EEO
rules are limiting the potential of not only qualified
applicants for broadcasting opportunities, for also limiting
their own growth and success.  Many may think that EEO has
been easier for Radio One because we are African American,
but the opposite is the reality.  The 30 percent of our work
force that is not African American did not just one day
mysteriously appear at their positions.  We have had to
apply the same techniques and procedures for identifying and
recruiting applicants throughout all ethnic groups, and
sometimes it's really more difficult for us because we are
African American.
		Before consolidation and taking our company
public, I shudder to remember how many times a non-black
applicant spent the majority of the interview questioning
our financial viability.  Our overtures for recruitment were
often times met with objections over our format, location of
our facility, apprehension about having to do promotions in
the community or the reluctance to service our local
accounts.
		I maintain that while EEO sometimes has
challenging aspects for all broadcasters, commitment and
creativity are the keys to its success.  Since the first of
this year, Radio One has sponsored and promoted job fairs in
Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore and Detroit, as well as
participated in those sponsored by other companies and
organizations.
		Our HR booth is set up at non-traditional events
like concerts, health fairs, vendor malls, remotes and
wherever we know our audience will be in attendance.  We
stay in constant contact with high schools, colleges, and we
offer both intern opportunities and volunteer slots.  We
recruit for every vacancy.  Our list of job openings is
posted throughout the company and e-mailed to churches,
organizations, agencies, companies, clubs and anyone who
contacts us.  Technology makes it a lot easier for everyone
to know when you are recruiting.
		We advertise in national, as well as local
newspapers and magazines, and we have a policy of requiring
our staff to respond to all inquiries concerning employment.
Additionally, we have used our air waves to announce
opportunities at Radio One, knowing that if other companies
trust us to advertise in finding qualified applicants for
them then certainly it should work for us, and it has.
		In all of our recruitment efforts, it is our
policy to make it clear that we are an equal opportunity
employer.  Diversity in the workplace is much easier to
achieve when a company makes it clear that all applicants
are welcome.  Last year we were named by Fortune magazine as
one of the best companies in America to work for, and we
attribute that recognition to the diversity in our work
force and management team and our reputation that we give
everyone equal opportunity.
		In closing, I would like to stress the importance
of all broadcasters having active EEO efforts.  This
industry is a seamless web with an interdependence on each
and every facility in each and every market regardless of
size.  Broadcast professionals in small and medium markets
bring their experience and expertise to the major markets.
Broadcast professionals in major markets become executives
who run our consolidated corporations and become equity
players and owners.
		When you take a survey of those of us who own and
operate the broadcasting outlets of America, you quickly
realize that broadcast operation and broadcast finance are
the common denominators we share.  You will also find an
embarrassing absence of women and people of color.
		How can anyone own and operate a company that they
have not been allowed to work in is the question.  Too much
time and energy and money has been spent fighting EEO, and
yet so little has been spent in an effort to correct the
discriminatory practices that limit our collective potential
and safeguard our future.
		New technologies threaten our old ways of doing
business, and we ask the FCC to do as they have done so many
times in the history of broadcasting, and that is to move
our great industry in the positive direction that is
required of us at this time to assure our healthy and
prosperous future.
		Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you, Ms. Hughes.
		Ms. Davis?
		MS. DAVIS:  Thank you and good morning.  My name
is Belva Davis, and I would like to join all the others in
thanking the Commission for this opportunity to speak today.
In particular, I would like to thank Chairman Powell for
keeping his word to continue the dialogue on this subject
and the FCC staff members who assisted me in getting here
from quite far away to take part in this very important
occasion.
		I have worked in broadcasting now for 35 years.
I've been a reporter, an anchor, a program host, done
politics, done most of what can be done on air.  At the
present time, I host a current affairs program at KQED-TV,
the public station in San Francisco.  I also continue to
work part-time at KRON-TV doing special projects for them.
I worked full-time there over 20 years and announced my
retirement three years ago.  I'm also a national vice-
president of AFTRA and its national EEO chair.
		I have seen tremendous change in the industry.
When I began my career, broadcasting was almost totally a
segregated industry.  My first job was for black owned
newspapers.  I then moved to work for black programmed radio
stations that were white owned.  I speak to you today as one
who knows personally what it was like to seek employment in
broadcasting before there was a government willing to open
the door of opportunity for all of us.  I've seen the hugely
positive change after pressure from citizens through this
agency forced fairness.
		I believe with all my heart that the electronic
mass media is far too critical to democracy to let it return
to segregation.  This is America's signature industry
serving as the mirror through which not only the citizens of
this country, but those of the rest of the world, form their
opinions about who we are.
		My three decades in local television has taught me
that our immigrants and our international visitors and
tourists all look to us for leadership in this area.  My
husband, William Moore, also recently retired after nearly
three decades working as a television news photographer.
Just like me, when we decided to pursue our dreams and look
for a job in TV, there were no road maps, nothing for us to
follow.
		In those early days, the broadcast industry and
its unions were closed to us.  Thank God the unions have
changed.  Now we must bring industry along.  Part of my
union with AFTRA has been in the vanguard of keeping those
doors open for minorities and women.
		As part of our collecting bargaining agreement,
AFTRA has been able to achieve mandated meetings to discuss
the employment of minorities on daytime television dramas.
Using employment numbers kept by show producers, we've been
able to track the inclusion of women, minorities, seniors
and performers with disabilities that explore ways to be
more inclusive in their employment.
		While this area of work does not fall directly
under the rules that we are discussing today, I believe,
though, that the positive results came from the policy
direction of the FCC and its EEO rules.
		We started down this path in large part because of
the interest and power of one man, and I want to emphasize
that it takes interest and good people to make these things
happen.  This man, his name was Jim Cochran.  In the 1980s,
he was the vice-president of Proctor & Gamble.  They were
the largest buyer of time on soap operas in this country.
		Our union sponsored a conference in New York in
the 1980s.  Mr. Cochran came to that conference without
invitation, without letting any of us know that he was in
the room, listened to our grievances during the day.  After
the lunch break we asked who are you, and what are you doing
here, and he explained.  He thereafter wrote a letter to his
advertising agency saying that he wanted change.  From that
day forward, daytime soaps began to have color.  One man can
make a big difference.
		In the 1960s, a few good men like Don McGannin,
the former president of the Westinghouse Broadcast Company,
also set an example through a directive to his general
managers to reach out to minorities and women and let them
know they were welcome to apply for jobs.  Consequently, in
1965 I was interviewed, along with 64 other women, for a job
I finally landed.
		Let me tell you what it was like before the FCC
EEO rules put fairness on every manager's mind.  In 1965, I
also applied for an open position at the ABC ONO in San
Francisco where civil rights leaders had been pressuring
them to hire a person of color.  I finally got my interview
with the manager, Dave Sachs, who at the time was a very
nice man, very friendly.
		I waited more than two hours, though, to see him,
and I knew I was in trouble.  At the end of my short time he
said to me I want to thank you very much, but we are not
hiring negresses yet.  If we ever do, I will certainly keep
you in mind.
		Those hurtful words relegated me to jungle status.
 It commits me today to be here with you, and I still choke
up over it.  It was an emotional moment, a turning point in
my life, and I was determined that if I got in I would
certainly work hard to make sure that others did, too.
		Various managers have supported all kinds of
programs, mentoring programs, drawing from our colleges with
diverse student population.  Minority staff members have
been given time off to speak at college conferences and
participate in seminars.  My station even financially
supported a summer scholarship program in my name at a
junior high school in a predominantly black neighborhood as
a way of reaching students early and letting them know they
had to prepare themselves if they wanted to be part of this
industry.
		Even with those successful programs, it was
difficult to make sure we didn't slip back in the old habit
of cronie-ism or word of mouth recruitment would still
prevail.  The minorities in the newsroom were told to be
proactive and to also let their friends know what was going
on.
		It is critical for there to be someone at the top,
someone committed to this chore.  That is why I continue to
be proud of my association with KRON-TV in San Francisco,
who just won the RTNDA award, as well as the Unity award,
for continuing to reach out, continuing to cover the
populations in our area.
		They do it because there is a diversity committee
to discuss stories, culture, ideas, staffing.  It takes that
to succeed in America.  We do it with everything else.  We
certainly can do it in broadcasting.
		Thank you very much.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you, Ms. Davis.
		Mr. Jack?
		MR. JACK:  Thank you, Your Honor.  Good afternoon.
My name is Michael Jack.  I am the newly appointed president
and general manager of WRC-TV here in Washington, D.C.
		I am also the newly appointed vice-president of
diversity for NBC Television where I replaced Paula Madison,
who is the president of our TV stations in Los Angeles and
continues on the Diversity Council with me where she
spearheads our efforts in the area of entertainment.  Most
recently, for the past three and a half years I've been
president and general manager of WCMH-TV in Columbus, Ohio,
also an NBC station.
		It is a pleasure for me to be here with all of you
to discuss an issue that is crucial to GE and NBC and
something that is personally very important to me.
Diversity at NBC is a moral and economic imperative.  Moral
because it's the right thing to do.  Economic because NBC
realizes that in order to succeed, we must service the
communities we live in and have a work force that is
reflective of the diversity of these communities.
		We have made unprecedented progress with our
on-air efforts in the past three years.  I wanted to share
some of the highlights with you.  Our on-air diversity has
increased by 51 percent across prime time, daytime, late
night and Saturday morning teens since the 1999-2000 season.
 In prime time series, we're up 38 percent from that same
year for series regulars, and that figure jumps to a
whopping 54 percent when combined with reoccurring roles.
		While much attention is paid to prime time
programming, it is our local TV stations that have the key
relationship with our communities.  We know that it is of
utmost importance that we represent our communities at the
local level with relevant programming, community
involvement, representative anchors and reporters and a
diverse management team.
		While we are proud of the progress we have made
among our management and employee ranks throughout the
company, we realize that our future leadership will come
from those who are just now beginning their careers.  One of
our key focuses has, therefore, been on increasing minority
presence among our entry level positions.
		There are five distinct programs that I'd like to
share some best practices with you right now.  The first is
the associates program.  NBC has created a year long program
within our news, entertainment, sales, finance, information
technology and HR departments in order to give professionals
an opportunity to learn the broadcast industry from the
inside out.
		Based on the success, we are now actually even
rolling it out in the summer of this year to the NBC agency
which is our internal advertising and promotions
organization.  In 2002, NBC will have 30 minority associates
up from 24 in 2001.
		Secondly, the Emma Bowen Foundation scholars.  We
are proud to be the sponsor of the Emma Bowen Foundation for
Minority Interests in Media, which offers paid internships
for high school and college students with interests in the
broadcast industry and is housed at our NBC corporate
offices in Washington, D.C.
		The Foundation's programs are unlike other intern
programs in that students work in our company during the
summers and school breaks from the end of their junior year
in high school until they graduate from college.  Mentoring
is a key component, and these students are mentored by
various leaders within the divisions that they are placed
in.  In 2002, NBC will have 37 Emma Bowen scholars, up from
26 in 2001.  All are minorities.
		We have internship programs, the third program I'd
like to speak about.  Our programs give students the
opportunity to apply course work learning to the workplace.
 Students are placed throughout our company in positions
related to their major and career goals.  It is in practice
a feeder program that identifies high potential talent for
future employment.  During the fall/winter school season, 28
percent, as many as 78, of our interns are minorities.
		Fourth is the page program.  The page program has
been at NBC for many years.  It offers college graduates the
opportunity to take the first step in broadcasting.  Pages
learn many aspects of the network television business from
the ground up.  They are primarily involved as a liaison
between NBC and the general public and have the opportunity
to work in different departments within the company on
either short or long-term assignments.  As of June, 2002, 30
percent of the pages at NBC in Burbank and New York where
the majority are employed are minorities, up from 20 percent
in the year 2001.
		Finally, the fifth program is the second year
writers program.  In the 2000 and 2001 season, NBC initiated
a second year writers program in which any show returning
for a second season would have a writing position filled by
a minority.  We've expanded the program this year to include
all 21 of our Fall, 2002, shows.  It is the network's hope
that increasing diversity behind the camera will result in
the development of additional minority characters and story
lines.
		We are making good progress.  We are proud of the
progress, but are energized and committed to seeing that
these results grow.  We believe it is imperative that we
become more diverse in all facets of our business.  The
merger with Telemundo has instantly made us a more diverse
company, but this merger will not in any way be a substitute
for our commitment to incrementally increasing diversity in
the future.
		Ultimately our success at NBC is measured
quantitatively.  It is measured by talented people from
diverse backgrounds who have assumed leadership positions.
Bob Wright and the senior management team at NBC will not
rest and will not be complacent until our leadership,
employee base and on-air programming is representative of
the diversity of all people in this country.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you.
		Rev. Chase?
		REV. CHASE:  Mr. Chairman, esteemed Commissioners,
it is an honor to participate in these historic proceedings.
 It's an honor further to speak in my capacity as successor
to Dr. Everett Parker, who so eloquently addressed us on
videotape this morning.
		I serve as director of the Office of
Communication, Inc., of the United Church of Christ or UCC,
a mainline Protestant church of more than 1.3 million
members in almost 6,000 congregations in every state and
Puerto Rico.
		I also speak to you today on behalf of the
National Council of Churches, the leading organization in
the movement for ecumenical cooperation among Christians in
the United States.  The NCC's 36 Protestant, Anglican and
Orthodox member communions and denominations include more
than 50 million persons in 140,000 local congregations in
communities across the nation.
		As you know, the UCC has had a long partnership
with the Commission in the quest for equal employment
opportunity dating back to 1955 when we first began to call
the Commission's attention to discrimination at broadcast
stations.  It was in fact the UCC that first filed the
petition for rule making that led to the original EEO rules.
		Not only in our churches, but many in the nation's
mainstream religious community have been steadfast in their
support for the Commission's efforts to prevent
discrimination.  For us, at its heart it's a question of
justice.
		Once again the agency displays great statesmanship
in proposing to lift the suspension of the EEO program.
Your EEO enforcement efforts have helped the broadcast
industry move past its worst impulses and begin to offer
opportunities at all levels for women and people of color.
Since 1969, virtually every FCC Commissioner has supported
this effort.
		You have heard anecdotes about proactive efforts
broadcasters have undertaken, and I applaud such efforts,
but I, too, can cite anecdotes.  In more than 20 years in
video production and dozens and dozens of crew members, I
have worked with only one female camera person, with no
African American editor or technical director and with no
Latino/Latina, Pacific Islander, Asian American or Native
American technicians in any discipline.
		I am both personally and professionally aggrieved
by this experience, which in part is why I am before you
today.  I long for this reality to change.
		Partly in response to Commission Copps' question
at the first panel, for 30 years it has been voluntary
public participation in broadcast regulation that has rooted
out lawbreakers and kept the industry honest.  According to
the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, which
studies such things, there were 251 FCC EEO enforcement
rulings from 1994 to 1997.  In 62 percent of these cases,
involving 155 licensees, the Commission found that the
licensee had fallen short of the agency's minimal standards
for effective EEO programs.
		In few other areas of FCC regulation has public
intervention been so helpful in rooting out law violators.
Every one of these 155 EEO cases were brought because
citizen groups, assisted by a handful of counsel who usually
work without pay, came forward and brought evidence of
misconduct to the Commission.
		As explained in the EEO supporters' comments in
which we joined, research has found that across a broad
spectrum of industries about 20 to 25 percent of companies
discriminate covertly against minority job applicants.  For
argument, let us assume that only one percent of
broadcasters discriminate.  That would be about 150
broadcast stations, none of which under longstanding
precedent is entitled to have a broadcast license.
		Would the IRS tolerate 150 tax cheats among 15,000
businesses?  Would a town of 15,000 tolerate 150 drunk
drivers or looters or polluters?  Even a little unemployment
discrimination should be unacceptable, just as a little
housing discrimination or a little police misconduct is
unacceptable.  It drives bright, creative people away from
an industry whose very health is dependent upon talent and
creativity.
		Reports of unremedied discrimination are sure to
frighten impressionable college freshmen away from broadcast
majors and into other pursuits.  It would hardly be
reassuring to them to learn that only 150 broadcasters
discriminate.
		In a recent study by MMTC, since the set aside of
the rules in 1998, 42 percent of the listings on state
association websites do not have EOE notices.  Forty-two
percent.  That's a cause of great concern.
		One of the most absurd arguments our opponents
have made is that the FCC has caught few discriminators, so
we don't need the rules anymore.  It is not surprising that
the FCC catches few discriminators.  The EEOC catches less
than one one-hundredth of one percent of discrimination as
identified in scholarly research.
		The reason?  Discrimination is done covertly so
that almost all of it escapes detection.  How would a job
applicant know if her application was thrown into the trash
or that it wasn't true that the job was just filled?
		Simply because someone has not been caught does
not mean that laws have not been violated, people have not
been hurt, communities and whole institutions have not been
damaged.  One need look no further than the tragic current
events in the church to be reminded that unreported events
do not mean that such events have not taken place.
		In closing, we want to encourage broadcasters to
stop fighting anti-discrimination laws and start fighting
discrimination.  Deploy your vast resources and skills to
expose the lawless ones in your midst.  Turn over evidence
of discrimination to the FCC just as you tell the FCC when
you see other broadcasters violating antitrust laws or over
modulating or broadcasting out of band.
		We want to applaud the FCC in its determined
effort to reinstate the EEO rules for race neutral
recruiting.  As our society moves relentlessly toward a day,
some estimate little more than 40 years away, when people of
color will constitute the majority of our population, this
is a small but essential step toward ensuring all citizens,
irrespective of race or gender, a voice over the air waves,
a public trust held on behalf of all of us.
		Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you, Reverend.
		Mr. Warfield?
		MR. WARFIELD:  Thank you.  Good afternoon.  I,
too, thank you for this opportunity to participate in this
historic hearing.  I, too, personally and on behalf of Inner
City Broadcasting Corporation salute Chairman Powell and the
Commission for your ongoing commitment to diversity,
nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in our industry.
		As stated, I am Charles Warfield, and I'm the
president and chief operating officer of ICBC Broadcast
Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of Inner City Broadcasting
Corporation in New York City.  Our company is the second
largest black owned and operated radio company in America.
		My broadcast career covers 25 years, beginning in
1977.  Inner City Broadcasting Corporation hired me as its
first comptroller.  The company and its founding family
members, Percy and Pierre Sutton, provided me an opportunity
to learn the radio business and the opportunity to advance
to the position of vice-president and general manager of its
flagship stations, WBLS and WLIB, in New York City.
		At that time, there were three African American
general managers in New York City, and black owners employed
two of us.  In the past 20 years in New York City, there
have not been more than two African American general
managers, and at all times they have been employed by black
owners.
		Since my initial tenure with Inner City
Broadcasting Corporation, I've held senior management
positions with Summit Broadcasting Corporation as vice-
president and general manager of WRKS-FM in New York and
also as senior vice-president and regional manager for AM/FM
Radio with responsibility for management oversight for a 30
station cluster.
		In those two companies, I was the most senior
African American employee.  In both companies, senior
management was responsible for, committed to and involved in
efforts to identify, recruit and hire employees from diverse
ethnic backgrounds.  While this effort was ongoing, we were
continually challenged to identify suitable candidates due
to a shortage of very high quality job applicants; that is,
people with extraordinary creativity, long-term dedication
to and passion for broadcasting as a profession, not just a
career.
		There are a number of reasons for this difficulty.
 First, broadcasting is not all that highly regarded,
unfortunately, in the minds of young people making their
career decisions.  A highly motivated person wants to rise
to the top, but when a young minority person considering
whether to pursue radio or some other career looks at the
top of our profession, he or she doesn't see a lot of people
who look like him or her except at minority owned station.
		As reported by the Minority Media and
Telecommunications Council, just over half of the minorities
in radio work for minority owned stations.  Minorities only
own 4.2 percent of the radio stations.  Thus, minority owned
stations simply don't have enough top positions to which
young people coming into the industry can aspire to.
		The record of this proceeding includes extensive
evidence of the gross under deployment of minorities and
women and under utilization of their talent in our industry.
 For example, EEOC data for 2000 discloses that for
broadcasters with over 100 employees, minorities were only
15 percent of officials and managers and 15 percent of sales
workers.  Women were only 18 percent of the technicians.
		The Radio and Television News Directors
Association has found that between 1994 and 2001, the
percentage of minorities among radio journalists declined
from 14.7 percent to 10.7 percent, and the percentage of
minorities among radio news directors declined from 8.6
percent to 4.4 percent.  Most of the few minority news
directors were at Spanish language or minority owned
stations.
		From my own experience, in 1997 at a meeting of
corporate executives and general managers of a 96 station
group, there were only six African Americans in attendance.
 We represented six percent of the general managers in
attendance, and as a result of consolidation only three of
us are employed today in the broadcast industry.
		A second reason we have difficulty attracting
talent is that too many companies disregard their
obligations to provide equal opportunity.  I'm not talking
about intentional discrimination, although there's no
question that there is a lot of that.  I'm talking about
broadcast stations that simply do the bare minimum or
nothing at all to show that they care at all about bringing
persons historically excluded from our profession into the
fold.
		When the EEO rule was originally adopted in 1969,
the Commission said that the best hope for equal opportunity
was the voluntary efforts of broadcasters to do training and
mentoring, efforts that should be taken above and beyond the
bare minimum requirements of the rules.  That's still true
today.  However, most of today's broadcast managers were
kids in 1969 of weren't even born then, so they don't
remember the tradition of public service that we as
broadcasters took for granted.
		A young person trying to decide what to do with
his life will go where he thinks he will have a fair chance
to compete.  Thus, the decision by the FCC to lift the
suspension of the rules will go a long way towards
reassuring our young people that the broadcast industry
offers them real opportunity, an opportunity free from
discrimination and a process open to all.
		The rules you have proposed remind me of the days
of voluntary public service a generation ago -- my
generation -- when most of us today were participants in the
start of the industry.  One of your proposals is that we
pick four means of outreach from a list of 13.  I suggest
that that be expanded.  Let's look at what's on the list.
Job fairs, mentoring programs, internship programs,
participation in job banks, scholarships, speaking to groups
of young people.  Our industry should be doing all of these
things.
		There are also a few additional steps I would
propose.  First, you might encourage broadcasters to work
with minority and women's groups to help them develop
training programs and mentoring and job referral programs
targeted to broadcasting.
		Second, you might encourage broadcasters to do
their own in-house training on EEO so that junior broadcast
managers will acquire a conscious understanding of how to
provide equal opportunity.
		Third, you should encourage broadcasters to
participate in joint, industry wide programs such as the
Walter Kaitz Foundation and the Emma Bowen Foundation for
Minority Interests in Media, which we all support within our
company.
		EEO isn't something our industry should be cheap
about.  It is our legacy, and this is the least of what we
have to do to maintain our industry's competitiveness today.
		Thank you for this opportunity of being here
today.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you very much, Mr.
Warfield.
		I thank everyone for trying to stay within the
time.  I would just remind people to keep their eye on the
red.
		MR. WHITE:  Did you say that just for me?
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Yes, I did.
		MR. WHITE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners, for the opportunity to be here with you this
morning.  It is an honor to be here.  My name is Steve
White.  I'm the senior vice-president for AT&T Broadband in
Atlanta, Georgia.
		I have the honor of supporting 1,600 employees in
serving almost 800,000 customers with video, internet and
telephone services.  Prior to joining the Atlanta team
during the summer of 2000, I served as regional vice-
president for AT&T Broadband in Chicago and its predecessor
company, TCI, serving the greater Chicago area and northwest
Indiana.
		I grew up in the State of Indiana, one of four
boys raised by a single mother to this day who still works
as a high school custodian.  We lived in government housing
projects, and as the oldest son my mom wanted me to go to
college and be successful.  One of the reasons I selected
this industry was that it embraced the notion of diversity.
 I worked at Colgate-Palmolive and Pepsi Cola, and this is
one of the industries, the cable industry, that certainly
embraced diversity.
		Through the efforts of the NCTA, NAMIC and other
organizations, we have seen women and people of color
aggressively recruited, developed and promoted to the
highest levels of leadership.  I'm an example of that.
		As you know, AT&T Broadband is the nation's
largest broadband services company, providing a variety of
communication and entertainment services to about 14 million
cable customers nationwide.  As you look out across our
markets, you can see examples of the progress we've made in
the areas of diversity and equal employment opportunities.
Women and people of color serve in the most senior
leadership positions in Atlanta, Denver, Boston, Miami,
Dallas, Los Angeles and Seattle.
		We're proud to say that women and other minorities
lead in the areas of finance, sales and marketing, customer
care, advanced product services, media services and
commercial business development at our corporate offices in
Denver.  At AT&T Broadband, our commitment to diversity
starts with recruiting, finding the right people for the
right jobs regardless of race, culture, lifestyle or other
differences.
		In Atlanta, 66 percent of our 1,600 employees are
minority.  Forty-one percent of our senior management are
minorities.  I've personally interviewed our top leaders to
ensure that we are maintaining a diverse work force.
		In this high tech world, many companies rely
heavily on the internet to recruit employees.  However,
while the web may reach the world, we've found that personal
relationships and face-to-face time with community
organizations often make the difference.
		For example, in Chicago I had the pleasure of
personally working with a group called Jobs for Youth.  It's
a group that focuses on minority youth age 18 to 14 where we
hired and mentored members of this group.  They received
training both in business skills and life skills.  The
organization recognized AT&T Broadband as its employer of
the year.
		In Atlanta, we recently developed a multi-lingual
recruitment plan where we regularly reach out to employment
prospects through organizations like the Latin American
Association, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and local
colleges and universities.  The Hispanic population of metro
Atlanta has grown to seven percent.  We now have four
percent in our employee group, obviously an opportunity.  In
addition, we have developed relationships with NAACP, the
National Organization of Women, the Urban League and other
organizations.
		Once we have recruited the right people, we place
a strong emphasis on training and development from front
line employees at our call center and in field operations to
management and senior leadership.  Our new hire orientation
is more than a handshake and directions to the break room.
It's a three day intensive training program on the basis of
our basis, our vision and what we're trying to do as an
industry.
		Once you're introduced into the business, our
commitment is for continued training and development.  For
example, we call it high performance leadership and leading
the broadband way.  AT&T Broadband also requires all leaders
throughout our company at supervisor level or higher to
participate in extensive training on managing inclusion.
Our commitment is to create a work culture where our core
value is respect for others and inclusion is lived out in
the workplace.
		Beyond our employees, at Broadband we also place a
great deal of importance on diversity among our suppliers
and business partners.  Since diversity is an inherent part
of serving our employees and our customers, everyone
involved in delivering our products and services must share
this emphasis.  In Atlanta, we spend on average 20 percent
of our discretionary budget each month with minority
vendors.
		In closing, I was raised to believe that every
person deserves a seat at what my mother calls the table of
prosperity, but first they must receive an invitation to the
table.  Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you for the
opportunity to allow me to sit at this table today to talk
proudly about my company's record and my personal beliefs
and values.
		I am honored and proud of your leadership in
creating a tent wide enough for people of all color.  Thank
you again for the opportunity to be with you.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you very much, Mr. White.
		Mr. Baxter?
		MR. BAXTER:  Mr. Chairman, fellow Commissioners,
my name is Tom Baxter.  I am president of Time Warner Cable.
 I work out of our Stanford, Connecticut, corporate offices.
		I also represent the cable company on the AOL/Time
Warner Diversity Council, which was set up by our parent
company so that each division could share experiences and
success stories in terms of seeking greater diversity in our
employee base, management and third party business
relationships.
		I appreciate the opportunity to be here this
morning to share with you our experience in terms of
expanding diversity of our work force, as well as among
vendors with whom we do business.  For the record, I'd like
to point out that Time Warner Cable, in conjunction with the
NCTA, continues to voluntarily comply with the Commission's
EEO regulations because we wholeheartedly agree with the
policies behind them.
		Cable television is fundamentally a local
business, a wire line distribution network built for an
individual community that we construct, operate and maintain
under a franchise granted by a municipality.  People from
the community staff it.  Local management selects
programming based on the assessment of its local viewing
preferences.  We work in partnership regularly with local
associations and organizations as a member of the local
business community.
		At Time Warner Cable, we have long favored a
highly decentralized management approach which will not get
in the way of localism, but rather serve to nurture it.  It
is against this backdrop I would like to briefly talk about
Time Warner Cable's approach to increasing the talent pool,
as well as expanding the list of people we do business with.
 Some examples from our local operating divisions would be
instructive.
		In our Memphis division, we have partnered with
the YMCA since 1993 in an effort to help women either enter
the work force for the first time, return to the work force
or find their way into a non-traditional job.  In 1999 and
2000, our partnership took the form of creating a special
training class for cable installers, hardly a traditional
work opportunity for women.
		That one year program yielded 15 graduates who
joined our work force in Memphis.  Each year the partnership
helps women find employment in the community and provides
solid hires for Time Warner Cable.  Four women have been
placed so far this year in this Memphis YMCA program.
		The division also works closely with the Mid South
Minority Business Council in hosting annual expos that seek
to enlarge the circle of minority vendors with which we do
business.  In our Memphis division alone, over $2 million
was spent on firms owned by minorities and women last year,
an increase of 19 percent over the year before.  That
increase was in large part due to the success of this
relationship we enjoy with the Mid South Minority Business
Council.  Across the 28 states where we do business, Time
Warner Cable spent over $136 million last year with minority
vendors, about ten percent of our total expenditures in that
area.
		Last year, our Cincinnati division initiated a
plan to increase the direct sales staff from 17 to 50
associates.  Through carefully targeted job fairs, a new
sales management team was recruited that had the effect of
tripling the representation of women in that job category.
		In Houston, we participate with the Houston
Community College and Texas Southern University in job fairs
and regular seminars designed to help students become more
marketable.  We do the same with local military job fairs,
usually two a year.
		One of the most successful projects in Houston has
been the production of recruitment spots, which are run
across channels in unsold advertising inventory.  The spots
feature a diverse work force and promote a fun and
satisfying work environment, and it provides a substantial
number of leads for us in our recruitment efforts.
		Of course, in states like New York, Ohio, North
Carolina and Texas where we are the largest cable operator,
we recruit actively from local colleges and state
universities with two goals in mind.  We are looking for the
next generation of talent, and we keep a special eye on
developing people of color and women as a part of that
group.
		Internship programs have also proven useful tools
to increase diversity in our work force.  We were involved
with historic black colleges and universities in many areas,
including Jackson State and the University of South Carolina
to name two.  These are simply two examples of kinds of
community outreach efforts which each of our divisions are
involved in.
		When you look across our 39 divisions, we work
with more than 400 community groups in terms of recruitment
and training efforts targeted at women and minorities.  Each
of these efforts is successful because each of us draws on
community resources, works through established institutions
and organizations, most importantly, that best reflects the
community itself.  Efforts in this area are not undertaken
in a vacuum.  A diverse work force is not just a social
goal.  It's a business imperative.
		Our customer care center in Queens, New York, for
example, is staffed by people capable of speaking a dozen
languages, including Hindi, Greek, Russian and Portuguese.
That operation has direct dial customer service numbers in
Korean, Spanish and Chinese.
		Our systems serving communities in the Rio Grande
Valley in Texas reflect the Hispanic culture that exists in
those cities.  We could not serve our customers if it were
otherwise.  Our 24 hour news channel in Tampa, Bay News 9,
also operates a 24 hour Spanish language news feed.  We need
editors and reporters fluent in Spanish to staff that
operation.
		Cable television, after all, is in the cultural
transformation business.  Our early promise in the beginning
was to bring diverse programming to people that traditional
broadcasting networks could not.  Cable was responsible for
making television not only a tool for mass entertainment,
but also a source of niche programming and serving the needs
of each segment of our audience.
		We're bringing our promise of the internet in an
increasing number of homes today with the role of our
broadband service.  Incidentally, through a program called
Power Up we provide access and training to young people,
especially those in inner cities who may not otherwise have
the opportunity to go on line.
		Change is part of cable's DNA.  That is not only
right, but it is absolutely appropriate that cable
television companies like ours should take an active role in
helping change the employment landscape as well.  These
efforts put Time Warner Cable ahead of the cable industry in
terms of the number of minorities in our work force, 39
percent, and the number of minorities in our top four
management levels, 31.6 percent.
		They have contributed to a track record for women
that is at parity with the overall cable industry against
both of those calibrations.  To do anything else, from my
point of view, would simply be wrong.  It would be wrong
from a social responsibility perspective, and it would be
wrong from a business perspective.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Thank you, Mr. Baxter.
		Senator Torres?
		SEN. TORRES:  Mr. Chairman and members, it's a
pleasure to be with you.  Thank you for continuing your
leadership and staying awake throughout all these panels.
		I am president of the Walter Kaitz Foundation and
took the foundation over in late 2000 during a very
difficult time, but I want to say thanks to Robert Sachs,
who is the president and CEO of the NCTA, Michael Wilner,
who is our chairman, and Glenn Britt, who is the chairman
and CEO of Time Warner who is the current chair of the Kaitz
Foundation, and the CEOs that form the basis of this
Foundation's board, which have never provided an obstacle,
but rather encouragement to look at how we develop many of
the initiatives that you've talked about, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the Commission, as well as what we can do
essentially in terms of the future.
		I believe that dividing the cable industry's
approach is both acute and preventive care.  Like a good
doctor in the country, we want to make sure we take care of
the emergencies, and you've heard some of those emergencies
today.  We want to make sure we take care of preventive care
as well.
		I want to talk about diversity in programming.  We
always talk about employment in the management field, and
we're lacking there.  As Mahatma Gandhi said, "Without a
struggle there is no movement."  Well, we're definitely in a
struggle when it comes to higher management replacing Tom
Baxter with a Spanish surnamed individual, but the fact of
the matter remains that that is still a struggle because
he's a pretty good guy.
		We're also in a movement, and the movement
encourages us to look at what we've been doing in
programming.  We far exceed the broadcast industry.  My
apologies to my colleagues there.  Look at HBO.  Look at
Showtime.  Look at BET, Lifetime, A&E, Oxygen, Discovery,
Telemundo, Weather, Nickelodeon.  Yes, the Weather Channel.
 There are more women on that channel than most people
realize through the good efforts of Decker Angstrom.
		Nickelodeon, The Rainbow, MTV with gay and lesbian
programming, Turner Broadcasting, even Turner CNN News
providing an incentive, especially during Hispanic Heritage
Week, during Affirmative Action Week, during African
American Week, providing programming and initiatives to
those.
		The second issue is what does the cable industry
do in terms of its foundations?  We don't even talk about
that.  We've heard references earlier, about millions --
untold millions -- of dollars on a regional basis, as Tom
well knows and others here at AT&T on a regional basis, in
terms of contributing for scholarships, internships, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera, which go on on a regional
basis, which if you mounted a total initiative could reach
clearly almost in the billions of dollars.
		Lastly, I want to talk to you about what we're
doing in terms of preventive care.  The Walter Kaitz
Foundation was founded about 18 years ago, and it was
founded to deal with diversity in the industry.  The cable
television industry was far ahead of everybody else talking
about the fact of what Esther Renteria talked about earlier
-- she was my instructor years ago as well in Los Angeles --
trying to figure out where do we go from here?  How do we
provide more incentives?
		What the Walter Kaitz Foundation is now doing is
providing three essential elements.  Number one, awarding
grants to innovative projects, some of whose directors are
here.  The Emma Bowen Foundation.  Stand up, Phyllis.  The
Women in Cable Television.  Stand up, Anita, Olympic
champion, gold medalist.  People who are concerned about the
future not only in their communities, but in an industry.
		What do we do with these organizations?  We have
awarded grants to AFTRA to develop a master course to help
human resource people understand how to recruit people.
Number two, we've developed at the initiative of the NCTA
and Robert Sachs' leadership a diversity supplier network.
		Commissioner Copps was there and gave a very
enlightening speech, even in the heat of New Orleans, at our
national conference talking about where we're going to move,
how we're going to provide incentives to diversity
suppliers.  It was like a Christian meeting, wasn't it?
There was even testimony from diversity suppliers who had
received contracts from the cable television industry as a
direct result of the NCTA's efforts, one which we've taken
up.
		What does that mean?  Today a diversity supplier
can go to our website and find out what RFPs are available.
 A procurement officer in the cable television industry can
look and see who do I need to hire in my area and connect on
a real basis.
		The same thing is true in terms of a job bank.  A
human resources professional can provide access to that
website and find out who the candidates are -- there are
over 1,000 now resumes that have been updated -- and provide
an incentives to make sure what kind of jobs they have
available and what kind of connection to make.
		We heard today that internet is not enough.
That's true.  Not everybody has access to the internet, and
that's why on our website right now we have over 50 ethnic
media.  We're increasing those numbers day by day.  In
California alone, there are over 500 ethnic media outlets --
radio, television.  In Los Angeles alone, there are six Thai
speaking newspapers, for heaven's sake.  We haven't even
begun to scratch the surface in terms of outreach.  This
website will help to do that.
		We also want to make sure that we list within this
website the calendar of events.  The people know where to go
to job sites in their regional area, number one.  Number
two, we also highlight a list of all universities and
campuses from Bay Mills Community College in Montana, which
has the highest Native American student population, where
people can go and search out for Native American
professionals that might work in the cable television
industry, to where Latinos and Asian and Pacific Islanders,
African Americans and others may reside as well.
		What are we doing on the preventive side as well?
 As our very, very wonderful chairman of the Women in Cable
understands, we're providing funding to make sure that
executive leadership programs continue.  We're also
providing to make sure that the mentoring program continues
with the Emma Bowen Foundation and to make sure that we work
with NAMIC, which is another organization designed to help
minorities with a tremendous leader, Pat Keenan out of
Chicago, trying to make sure that they know how to access
the internet and, most importantly of all, how do we get
those kinds of mentoring programs, of which they have had
260 pairs so far of mentors -- I was one of them -- with
CEOs and of minority professionals and also how to make sure
that we provide an incentive to do that.
		Lastly, we want to make sure that we talk about
the future, and that is where are we going to find the
engineers for the future?  We have just signed a contract
and a grant with Polytechnic University, which is probably
the urban MIT.  Those of you from New York will understand
that.  A lot of their young people are young people of
color.
		We will establish this summer for the first time
in the history of the industry a cable television specific
scholarship program with high school students with express
interest in becoming engineers and relating them to the
cable industry.  You can't just rely on the current pool of
people that are out there.  You're going to have to reach
out and create new pools of opportunities and new pools of
candidates as well.
		My light is on.
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  It's only yellow.
		SEN. TORRES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Most admirable from a former
legislator.
		Questions and comments?
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  Just a quick question.
As I've been listening, and, by the way, the programs that
all of you are talking about are absolutely fabulous.  We're
struggling with how do we get the most bang for our buck
with the initiative and with the EEO rules we'll ultimately
adopt.
		My question is when you look at some of the
programs involving job fairs and scholarships and internship
programs, which I think in many instances are promoted and
advocated by the trade associations, as opposed to outreach
and recruitment efforts which I think come more at the radio
station or the broadcast station level, on balance are some
more effective than others?  Are they all part of a pool
that is necessary in order to see some changes in the
industry?  Anyone can answer this.
		What do you think about basically public/private
partnerships that go more towards away from some of the
mandates, but more towards encouragement of the internship
and the scholarship programs and the educational efforts
that seem to be too great for some of the smaller
broadcasters to do on their own?  That's it.
		SEN. TORRES:  Yes, Commissioner Abernathy.  If I
may, I think your question is very complex and requires a
complex answer.
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  Okay.
		SEN. TORRES:  Number one, you need regulations or
statutes --
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  Right.
		SEN. TORRES:  -- because a lot of people don't
have a historical frame of reference, and you're not going
to be able to take the time to educate somebody in Fresno,
California, for example, or some other rural community about
what the incentives or initiatives ought to be, but rather
give him a set of regulations by which to follow.
		The other answer to your question is that we need
all of what you've heard today because not one organization,
not even the great FCC, can provide all of these answers.
You're going to need the efforts that are happening in
Texas, in Colorado, in Arizona, in New York, in California,
all working together.
		What we're trying to do with the cable industry in
terms of the Kaitz Foundation is to make sure we support
organizations like WIC, Emma Bowen, NAMIC and CATHRA and
others because they are much more able to deal with specific
interaction with potential candidates, but also to make sure
that other professionals have an access where they may not
have the opportunities in their own communities, at least a
website of where to go.
		Let's say you're in a community.  What kind of
ethnic media can I advertise this job in?  They can go to
the Kaitz website, find out who those media outlets are in
their own communities and utilize a resource they may not
have literally on the reservation or in the barrio or in the
ghettos of America.
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  So the idea then is to
build on the steps.  You've got the regulations, and then
you push and go beyond that as you work with the trade
associations, as you work with the internships and the
scholarships?
		SEN. TORRES:  And membership organizations who you
know are here in this audience and who are outside of this
room who are trying to do the best they can to reach out and
to continue to support that.  The only way you can ensure
that is if in fact you have a framework by which to follow
that others can proceed thereafter.
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  Okay.  That's all.  Thank
you very much.  In the interest of time, I'm going to defer.
		COMMISSIONER COPPS:  I guess our progress here,
rather than having one silver bullet set of rules and
regulations to solve this problem, is going to have to be a
number of practical, targetable, achievable success.
		Let's just take one item.  I think most of us
agree that there needs to be better interaction with
minority recruiters, minority owned recruiters, yet there is
a legal caution now that we really can't mandate that
broadcasters reach out with every job notice to the
recruiters.
		How do we come up with a program to ensure that
that loop is closed and that we really have communication
between the broadcasters, the cable companies and the
minority recruiters?
		You know, I'm always a big believer in the
government not trying to do everything and public/private
partnerships.  It seems to me if we could get to the
realization that there is a problem among all the
stakeholders and then try to take some practical steps, I
could see some public/private partnering or just private
partnering really to reach out and make sure that the
minority recruiters, minority owned recruiters, know that
there are openings, know what the problem is and are brought
into the extent of the problem so they can be part of the
solution.
		Do any of you have any ideas how we can maybe
encourage that?
		MR. WARFIELD:  Mr. Commissioner, I think that when
we talk about, you know, minority recruiters, and I think
we're all sensitive about forcing individuals to use
specific individuals.  What we're all looking for here is
finding the best and the brightest of our young people and
giving them an opportunity.
		I think that when you look for the best and the
brightest, you can't afford to leave any segment of our
community, of our country, unaddressed, unspoken with.  I
think that the regulations require broadcasters to identify
where these individuals can be reached.  Word of mouth, and
I think we talked about the statistics in our industry that
word of mouth is just not done enough.  There's still a lot
more to be done.
		We're all looking for as we talk about driving the
profitability of our company, the way that we do that is
through having the best and the brightest employees in our
company.  I think that when we talk about the public/
private, we talk about minority recruiters, we're not trying
to exclude anything here.  What we're asking the
broadcasters to do is just be aware that there are many
sources out here that they may not have tapped into before.
		There are many resources out here for them to
utilize, and we're asking them to continue that process; not
feel that it's required to do that or there's any advantage
for them to do that.
		MR. BAXTER:  At Time Warner, one of the
participants in the first session talked about kind of the
pressure of hiring, that all of a sudden a job comes open,
and the executive has ten other things to do plus then fill
this slot.  Sometimes they don't take the time to do the
proper recruiting.
		What we're doing at Time Warner Cable is what we
call build the bench.  We're actually organized into six
operating areas, each one run by an executive vice-
president.  This year we've told each one of them you must
hire, you know, a young executive from a diverse background,
and you've got to make that hire with the following
understanding; that they're going to work for you for a
year, and then within a year they're going to be moved
someplace else so that, you know, they're going to have to
be moved.  You build a bench.  Then when jobs come open
you've got good candidates.
		I think one of the problems here is pretty
legitimate that things are moving so fast now that unless
you build a bench when all of a sudden jobs come open,
people won't take the time to do the full recruiting job you
should do.  The way to really solve that I think is to build
a bench.
		If you do this every year, you know, a company
like Time Warner all of a sudden within a couple years can
have a pretty substantial number of talented young men and
women to pull from when jobs do open up, so I think you've
got to do some, as Art would say, preventative work here.
		COMMISSIONER COPPS:  Well, it just seems -- I'm
sorry.
		MR. WHITE:  I would just like to make the point
about the uniqueness about our business, whether it's cable
or broadcasting.  We're local companies.  We might be part
of larger companies, but we're paid to be in tune with
what's happening in our local community.
		The value of knowing what's important in your
community actually drives your business, so we're uniquely
prepared and set up to do that because we are locally there,
and we're local businesses.
		COMMISSIONER COPPS:  I would encourage a
multiplicity of ways to reach out, but it seems to me if we
could get the industry together, everybody who agrees that
there is a problem here, with some kind of an outreach
program to make that first hook up and make sure all of
these recruiters are in the loop, I think once they're all
in the loop they'll stay in the loop.  Let's get them in.  I
think that would be a great first step.
		Let me ask Kathy Hughes or Belva to comment.  What
is the relationship between diversity and programming and
diversity and ownership in your mind?
		MS. HUGHES:  Why don't you go first?
		MS. DAVIS:  Well, I can tell you I tried to
mention the program at KRON where I worked.  We had a
problem.  One day I looked in my newsroom, looked around my
newsroom, and it was the shock of my life.  I was the only
person of my color in a newsroom where I thought we had a
very high awareness of what it meant to serve our community.
		We formed a diversity committee, which is open to
all employees, to come once a week.  The news director
always attends.  We discuss story content, our slant on
stories, the inclusion of communities and look at our
employment group to see who within our bank who may not be
at that week's meeting could help us pursue that story.
That's how we get a diversity of opinions, culture and
outlook on our stories.
		It took active participation by our managers to
say this is something we're going to do.  We're going to
serve this community.  That's reflected in our programming,
and that is why it is an award winning station in this area
because they have an interest.  It's your programs that
cause them to have an interest.
		COMMISSIONER COPPS:  Ms. Hughes?
		MS. HUGHES:  I think that probably the most
obvious evidence of the benefit of diversity in programming
deals with women's health issues, which have always been of
key importance in our community, but you didn't hear about
them.  You didn't know about them because there were not
women in positions to disseminate that information.  Now
that there are a few women, you're seeing more and more
information.
		In terms of diversity in ownership, it's what has
made America great.  Without it, we continue to always turn
on our news, and if it bleeds it leads is still too common
with little regard for what is really important to this
local community.  What's really important to the people who
live in this community?
		It's been so interesting with consolidation how
although the numbers of stations that are now under minority
control has increased, the number of us has in fact
decreased.  That greatly affects our ability to exchange
ideas, to form teams to help with the scarcity of personnel.
		It is very difficult, particularly in the Hispanic
and African American communities, for us to even compete to
attract managers of our own community when they're working
for one of the larger broadcast corporations with benefit
plans that we hope one day to get large enough to offer to
them.
		With us being the only public corporation, a lot
of people assume that just going public would automatically
catapult us into that position.  It doesn't.  It takes years
of being public to get to that economic level.
		I was very naive about it, Mr. Commissioner, when
I started because I thought the same way; that now that
there's WNBA that there would be a WNAB in that women
broadcasters would be able to come together and share.
		A lot of what gets criticized about the "old boy
network" kind of disregards that there were certain benefits
and are certain benefits to a fellowshipping and sharing of
information, a sharing of talent, a sharing of resources
that today those of us in the communities of people of color
and the communities of women have not been allowed to form
those type of coalitions that would greatly benefit not only
ourselves and our facilities, but ultimately greatly benefit
the United States of America.
		COMMISSIONER COPPS:  Thank you.
		COMMISSIONER MARTIN:  Briefly, I wanted to ask Mr.
Warfield, who had mentioned the importance of potentially
adding to the outreach programs and outreach efforts under
our rules and making additional requirements.
		Do you think that that would in any way be
sufficient, and how do you judge the effectiveness of that,
or can you judge the effectiveness of those programs without
also keeping track of the ethnicity and gender of the work
force by the companies and the kinds of forms that we've
also required and the concerns that have been raised about
those?  Are those a necessary component, do you think, as
well?
		MR. WARFIELD:  I don't necessarily propose that we
have to quantify the ethnicity of the individuals that we're
talking to.  I think that when we talk about additional
steps to be taken, if there are additional resources that
senior managers can utilize for identifying again, as I
said, the best and the brightest of those out there
available to join our industry.
		I think that, you know, the difficulty, and I
constantly hear managers in major markets.  Where do you
find qualified African American employees?  Obviously with
black owned and operated companies we're able to find these
individuals, but the recruitment effort is an ongoing
process.  You can't wait until you have an opening because
we always have the pressure of filling the position,
particularly a key position in an organization.
		You're constantly farming out here.  You're having
people not necessarily in your company on the bench because
we can't always afford that, but we have a list of potential
candidates that we can reach out to.  You have to do more
rather than less.
		You do remember the individuals that you talked
to, and people will leave an impression on you beyond their
ethnicity.  Again, that's what we're really asking for here
is to put forth that effort to identify these individuals.
		COMMISSIONER MARTIN:  Thank you.  I don't have
actually a question, but I did want to also just thank Belva
Davis for her personal testimony and for sharing the
poignancy of that with us.  I thought that was particularly
compelling.  I just want to thank her for that.  Thank you.
		MS. DAVIS:  Thank you, Commissioner.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  I just have one question before
we move to wrap up the hearing.
		One of the things that struck me as being
persistent throughout the day is the relatively low
representation numbers we've heard and how sort of
persistently stagnant they seem to be.
		One of the things I'm curious about is I don't
know if anybody has this information, but it would be
interesting to know to what degree does that compare to the
representation experiences in so many of the industries that
are related to this medium?  For example, the number of
minorities or women in the Hollywood studio community, the
number of minorities and women in the music industry.
		My sense is, and I could be wrong, that those
individuals have done better in those communities, those
communities being the lifeblood of distributors ultimately.
 I don't know if anybody knows that here.  I'll just look
around.  Is anybody raising their hand?
		MS. HUGHES:  I know a little, Mr. Chairman, about
the music industry.  It has consolidated also, and there are
in fact fewer opportunities for people of color and women in
the music industry than there have been historically.  I
guess that my counterpart in the music industry would be
Sylvia Rhone, who is the only woman chairperson of a music
company, Electra Records, and has been for many, many years
now.  She's a stand alone.
		Not only has the music industry consolidated, but
entire divisions that are dealing with African American or
what they call urban music have actually been shut down.
Only one music company now is still owned by an American
corporation.  All of the rest of the music companies not
only have consolidated; they have all been sold to foreign
interests.  They don't even reside in the United States.
		It's really amazing how while urban music each
year increases in terms of the profit margin that they
provide for the music industry at the same time the music
industry has eliminated and continued to reduce the number
of opportunities that it provides in terms of employment for
women and people of color in the business of music.
		Now, they open their doors and welcome any
recording artists that will sell, you know two, three, four,
five million copies of a song for them, but in terms of the
administrative input you do not find it.
		As I said, Sylvia Rhone for at least -- what,
Charles, over a decade?
		MR. WARFIELD:  A decade.
		MS. HUGHES:  About a decade has been the only
woman and the highest ranking African American in the music
industry.
		SEN. TORRES:  Mr. Chairman, when I was in the
Senate I served as chair of the Entertainment Industry
Committee for California, and my dear friend, Sherry
Lansing, who heads up Paramount, was one of the few women
ever elevated to that level.
		As you look at the other management levels within
the entertainment industry, especially in Hollywood, you'll
find very similar occurrences, as Catherine has indicated,
in the recording industry.  Also, if you talk to actors of
color and producers of color, you'll find out how difficult
it is to get projects funded, number one, and especially
with Latinos that move into the Spanish language dimension.
 More funding occurs out of Telemundo or Univision than
would occur from the major motion picture studies.
		In addition thereto, I think what you'll find here
is when Tom talked about that diversity means good business,
he's absolutely on target.  Demographics are finally
accentuating the line here in terms of where people are
going.
		The other dynamic in the industry, at least the
Hollywood industry, is that the chronologically gifted
writers are the ones that are being discriminated against
more because more and more it's that Adam Sandler is looking
for a $100 million picture hit to 14-year-old teenage boys
rather than hiring the older writers, which are, quite
frankly, in my opinion, much more wise, et cetera.
		The fact of the matter is there is still that kind
of discrimination, so I think it would be interesting to
have a hearing like that at some point.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  I don't want to open up that can
of worms.  We have enough problems with our little piece of
the universe.
		We're going to proceed now to closing comments,
which I hope will be brief, and call it a day.  Commissioner
Abernathy?
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 I just want to say thanks again to everyone who
participated today.  I've heard personal stories about the
lengths and the efforts that people made to be here to share
their stories with us.
		It's critical to our evaluation, and I think what
I've heard today about consolidation in the industry and
normal business pressures in today's economy I think has
elevated the importance of our task versus what it may have
been five or six years ago, and that's been a nuance that I
think I didn't fully appreciate until hearing from all of
you today.
		We are going to continue to move forward.  We are
going to work on all these, take all the information that
you gave us today, and I think it's safe to say, looking at
all of the talented individuals who participated today, that
none of us women or minorities want anything better.  We
just want an equal opportunity, and I think that's what
we're all about as we're working on this proceeding.
		Thank you.
		COMMISSIONER COPPS:  I think this has been a good
and helpful hearing, and I'm grateful to everybody on both
panels who took the time and went to the trouble to
participate.
		I guess I would kind of end where Reverend Parker
began saying that he won't be around to see us win the fight
to use EEO rules to maximize opportunity.  Probably none of
us will because this is an ongoing battle, an ongoing
struggle.  As America develops, we have to be constantly
aware of it and react to it.
		I do know that unless we're aggressive now, we
will live to be around to see the program fail, and I think
that's one message we should take away from here today.  I
hope we come out of this realizing that there is a problem.
 I don't know how anybody could listen to most of the folks
on this panel and realize or think that there's not a
problem.
		I hope we'll keep our eye on the goal here.  The
goal is not developing procedures so the FCC can reach out
and whack somebody every morning at sunset.  The goal is to
deal with the systemic problem in this country that, as Mr.
Warfield I think said, women and minorities are grossly
under represented in this industry.  We need as a country to
do something about it.  We need to push the envelope.
		I'm glad that most people support the proposal
that was put forward in the NPRM.  I would hope that we
could develop between now and the time we get to further
determination even a more proactive stance, one that will
still pass Court muster, but will be even more aggressive.
I think we've had some good suggestions from the panelists
today and in their written testimony, too, and I think we'll
all be going back looking very closely at that.
		I think we've got to realize that the FCC is
constrained here, too.  It's not a problem in search of a
governmental solution.  Our rules can help.  We can have
clear, good proactive rules.  We can enforce them swiftly
and surely so that everybody knows that we are certain about
them, but most of the action here is going to be with you
folks in the industry working among yourselves.
		I would just hope that out of this dialogue we've
had today that we might have an enhanced dialogue between
the public and the private sectors, but even more than that
amongst all of the stakeholders in the private sector.  We
need best practices, and we don't have those best practices
even outlined yet, but we need people working together and
reasoning together and dedicating themselves to getting this
job done together.
		I hope that somebody after this meeting will
convene a meeting of the industry stakeholders and say hey,
let's follow up.  Let's see what we can do in a practical
way to take a step here.  As I said before, we're not going
to solve this problem in one fell swoop.  Little steps along
the way will get us down the road, though, going in the
right direction to ensure our progress in the final
analysis.
		Thanks to everybody for coming.  Thanks again to
our Chairman for convening this.  I for one, and I'm sure I
speak for all our colleagues, look forward to working with
all of you as we try to tackle this problem and do something
about it.
		COMMISSIONER MARTIN:  I'd just like to also thank
all the panelists from today for what I thought was a very
important and useful session to be able to hear all of the
experiences and the insight that you all can bring to this
process.
		I also would like to thank the Chairman for
organizing this, which I thought was very helpful, and also
to Commissioner Copps for originally suggesting that we do
this, to both of them.
		I would take issue with one thing that
Commissioner Copps did say, though.  I guess I'm a little
more hopeful that maybe I would live to see the end of it.
I'm not sure that that's a difference in the degree of
optimism or age, but I am more hopeful I think in that.
		Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  That was low.  Anyway, let me
just take this opportunity to thank our extraordinary
panelists and all of you in the audience.
		I mean, I've always believed quite deeply that
equality is achieved in a free and democratic society first
and foremost by discourse, dialogue and understanding and
for everyone's willingness to come and participate and that
this course dialogue and understanding is an important
testimony to the rightness of the cause.
		It seemed to me as I listened today that one thing
stood clear.  The amount of representation achieved over the
decades in this area is nothing to be proud of.  I don't
know what all the solutions are.  I mean, government can
contribute a portion to it, but one of the things that
strikes me is that at the end of the day it will always be a
modest contribution to making significant inroads at the end
of the day.
		It will take leadership.  It will take corporate
leadership that exercises a commitment and relentless
willingness, a strategic imperative to proving the
circumstances of their operation, their corporation, to ever
achieve the kinds of things that we would universally claim
as successful.
		At the end of the day, we will do what we can do,
but I hope that one of the messages that goes away from that
is if you are a leader in the twenty-first century and
committed to the future and health of the country and its
industry, you will be as committed as some of the leaders we
saw today are in their programs and their commitment to this
what I think is a strategic priority for the nation and for
any industry that hopes to make money in a diverse future.
		With that, this hearing is closed.  We thank
everyone for their participation.
		(Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m. the hearing in the above-
entitled matter was concluded.)
//
//
//
//
//
	REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
FCC DOCKET NO.:	--
CASE TITLE:	En Banc Hearing on Broadcast and Cable
		Equal Employment Opportunity Rules
HEARING DATE:	June 24, 2002
LOCATION:		Washington, D.C.
	I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence
are contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes
reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the
Federal Communications Commission.
Date:   __________           _____________________________
                              Official Reporter
                              Heritage Reporting Corporation
                              1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600
                              Washington, D.C. 20005-4018
	TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
	I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence
were fully and accurately transcribed from the tapes and
notes provided by the above named reporter in the above case
before the Federal Communications Commission.
Date:   __________            ______________________________
                              Official Transcriber
                              Heritage Reporting Corporation
	PROOFREADER'S CERTIFICATE
	I hereby certify that the transcript of the
proceedings and evidence in the above referenced case that
was held before the Federal Communications Commission was
proofread on the date specified below.
Date:   __________            ______________________________
                              Official Proofreader
                              Heritage Reporting Corporation
	UNITED STATES
	FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
	HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION
	Official Reporters
	1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600
	Washington, D.C.  20005-4018
	(202) 628-4888
	hrc@concentric.net
	5
	Heritage Reporting Corporation
	(202) 628-4888
	Heritage Reporting Corporation
	(202) 628-4888