********************************************************
                         NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
*****************************************************************
Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
READING BROADCASTING, INC.
For Renewal of License of
Station WTVE(TV), Channel 51
Reading, Pennsylvania
                            And
ADAMS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
For Construction Permit for a New
Television Station to Operate on
Channel 51, Reading, Pennsylvania
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MM Docket No. 99-153
File No. BPCT-940407KF
File No. BPCT-940630KG
                        INITIAL DECISION
                               OF
           ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD L. SIPPEL
     Adopted: April 2, 2001             Released: April 5, 2001
                          Appearances
Thomas J. Hutton, Esquire and C. Dennis Southard, IV, Esquire on behalf of Reading
Broadcasting, Inc.; Gene Bechtel, Esquire and Harry F. Cole, Esquire on behalf of Adams
Communications Corporation; and James W. Shook, Esquire on behalf of Enforcement Bureau.
                          INTRODUCTION
1.      Reading Broadcasting, Inc. ("RBI") seeks renewal of its license to operate Station
WTVE(TV), Channel 51, in Reading, Pennsylvania.  Adams Communications Corporation
("Adams") has filed a mutually exclusive application for a construction permit for a new facility
to operate on the same channel presently occupied by WTVE(TV).  The Enforcement Bureau
("Bureau") participated as a party in all phases of the case.
                                2.      The proceeding was designated for hearing by Mass Media Bureau Order released
on May 6, 1999.  Hearing Designation Order, DA 99-865 (Vid. Ser. Div., released May 6, 1999)
("HDO").
3.      Assignment for the undersigned to hear this case as Presiding Judge was pursuant to
Order FCC 99M-32, released May 14, 1999.
                             ISSUES
                            Phase I
4.      The standard comparative renewal issue designated in the HDO, as further
explicated in Memorandum Opinion and Order FCC 99M-47, supra, was heard in Phase I.  The
issue was:
To determine which of the proposals would, on a comparative
basis, better serve the public interest; and
To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the
foregoing issue, which, if either, of the applications should be
                  granted.
                            Phase II
5.      By Memorandum Opinion and Order released on October 15, 1999, a Phase II issue
was added as to Reading's basic qualifications:
To determine whether Micheal L. Parker engaged in a pattern of
misrepresentation and/or lack of candor in failing to advise the
Commission of the actual nature and scope of his previously
adjudicated misconduct and, if so, the effect of such misrepresenta-
tion and/or lack of candor on Reading's qualifications to remain a
                 licensee.
Memorandum Opinion and Order FCC 99M-61, released October 15, 1999.
                           Phase III
6.      By Memorandum Opinion and Order released on January 20, 2000, a Phase III
issues was added as to Adams' basic qualifications:
                                
          To determine whether Adams Communications Corporation has
          abused the Commission's comparative renewal processes by the
          filing of a broadcast application for speculative and/or other
          improper purposes.
Memorandum Opinion and Order FCC 00M-07, released January 20, 2000.
For further clarification, Phase III issues were restated for the hearing as follows:
A.To determine whether the principals of Adams Communications Corporation
("Adams") filed, or caused to be filed, an application for construction permit
in the hope or expectation of achieving through litigation and settlement, a
"precedent" or other recognition that the home shopping television
broadcasting format does not serve the public interest.
B.To determine in light of findings and conclusions as to issue A above, whether
the principals of Adams Communications Corporation had, and continue to
have, from June 30, 1994, to the present, a bona fide intention to construct
and operate a television broadcasting station at Reading, Pennsylvania.
C.To determine in light of findings and conclusions as to issues A and B above,
whether Adams Communications Corporation has engaged and/or is
engaging in an abuse of process, i.e., an abuse of the Commission's
comparative renewal litigation and settlement process.
D.If issues A and/or B and/or C are true, to determine whether Adams
Communications Corporation is qualified to receive a Commission license,
even if Adams would be willing to accept a settlement payment that is limited
to legitimate and prudent expenses in return for dismissing its application.
Memorandum Opinion and Order FCC 00M-19, released March 6, 2000, modifying
Memorandum Opinion and Order FCC 00M-07, released January 20, 2000.  The ultimate issue
of fact and law is whether Adams filed for the purpose of settlement.
                        Hearing Sessions
7.      Hearing sessions on the Phase I standard and renewal comparative issues were held
on January 6, 7, 10-13, 2000.  Hearing sessions on the qualifying issues in Phase II and Phase III
were held on June 12-13, 2000 and July 25, 2000.
                                
                        FINDINGS OF FACT
                            Phase I
                   Comparative Renewal Issue
8.      Factors to be adjudicated under the standard comparative issue are (a) diversifica-
tion of media ownership; (b) efficient use of the assigned frequency or the comparative signal
coverage; and (c) local residence and related civic involvement of ownership and any broadcast
experience.  Memorandum Opinion and Order FCC 99M-47, released August 9, 1999.  It also
must be determined whether RBI qualifies for a renewal preference.  Id.
                         Renewal Period
9.      The relevant renewal period was determined to be August 1, 1989, to August 1,
1994.  Memorandum Opinion and Order FCC 99M-47, released August 9, 1999.  At the
beginning of the renewal period, RBI was in bankruptcy and held the license for Station
WTVE(TV) as a debtor-in-possession. (RBI Exhs. 5 and 11.)
Diversification
10.     The preponderance of the evidence shows that Adams is the more diversified of the
two applicants.
                             Adams
11.     Adams is a Massachusetts for profit corporation that neither holds nor plans to hold
any interest in any medium of mass communications other than the license to operate a new TV
station on Channel 51 in Reading, PA. (Adams Exh. 1.)  There is no dispute as to this fact,
except for RBI's contention that Adams filed for settlement, a purpose other than owning a
station and broadcasting on Channel 51.
                                
12.     Adams has eleven principals, none of whom resides or has a business or investment
interest in Pennsylvania.  Its officers and directors are Robert L. Haag, president and director;
Howard N. Gilbert, vice president, secretary and director; Wayne J. Fickinger, vice president,
treasurer and director; Manfred Steinfeld, director; and A. R. Umans, vice president and director.
(Adams Exh. 1.)
13.     Mr. Umans, an 8.7% shareholder of Adams, holds a 4.04% interest in JMP Media,
L.L.C., licensee of Stations WPBG   FM and WMBD, Peoria, Illinois.  Mr. Umans has
committed to divest that media interest at or before commencement of broadcast operations by
Adams on Channel 51. (Adams Exh. 1.)
                              RBI
14.     RBI is the current licensee of Station WTVE(TV), a UHF television facility that is
located on the fringe of the Philadelphia television market, broadcasting on Channel 51.  RBI
holds auxiliary radio authorizations in connection with the operation of the Station.  (RBI
Exh. 4.)  RBI also holds an authorization to operate paging and radiotelephone service on a
subcarrier of Channel 51. (Id.)
15.     RBI has thirty five shareholders.  (RBI Exh. 2.)  RBI's officers and directors are
Micheal L. Parker, president, director and shareholder; Jack A. Linton, director and shareholder;
and Frank D. McCracken, executive vice president, director and shareholder.  (RBI Exh. 3.)
16.     None of RBI's officers, directors or shareholders has any interest in a broadcast or
radio common carrier license or applications, or newspaper, magazine, periodical, cable
television system, or other media of mass communications, with the exception of Mr. Parker.
17.     Mr. Parker's other media interests consist of his ownership of multiple broadcast
outlets that include Two If By Sea Broadcasting Corporation ("TIBS"), licensee of International
Broadcast Station KAIJ, Dallas, TX; translator station on Channel 221 at Upland, CA; Desert 31
Television, Inc., licensee of Station KVMD(TV) at Twenty Nine Palms, CA, and the one-time
intended assignee of and time-brokerage operator of Station WHCT(TV), at Hartford, CN.  (Id.),
Mr. Parker has made no pledge to divest these other broadcast interests.
                                
                      Comparative Coverage
18.     Station WTVE(TV) operates on Channel 51 with an effective radiated power of
1450 kilowatts from an antenna height above average terrain of 229 meters.  The predicted Grade
B contour of WTVE's signal covers a land area of 14,128 square kilometers with a population
of 3,119,889 persons.  (RBI Exh. 48, Jt. Engineering.)  The Station has received a construction
permit to move its site which would permit an increase in its power to 5,000 kilowatts, increase
antenna height to 229 meters above average terrain, and increase population coverage to 21,602
square kilometers serving 7,362,938 people.  (Id.)  However, RBI has shown no reasonable
assurance of moving to the new site.
19.     Adams proposes to operate under a construction permit that allows for an effective
radiated power of 5,000 kilowatts and an antenna height of 153 meters above average terrain.
Adams' predicted Grade B contour for its proposed signal would cover a land area of 14,942
square kilometers with a population of 4,260,920 persons. (Id.)
20.     There are six other authorized broadcast TV services within the Grade B contours of
WTVE(TV)'s current and proposed operations.  The same finding applies to Adams. (Id. at 4-5.)
The areas and populations contained in each of these two Grade B service areas are neither
unserved nor underserved inasmuch as all of the areas and populations to be served by whoever
wins already receive more than five services. (Id.)
21.     The weight of the evidence shows that Adams has reasonable assurance of the
stronger signal as well as the greater signal coverage in terms of population.
Population                                  Land Area
     RBI       3,119, 889               14,128 sq. km.
               Adams4,260,92014,942 sq. mi.
(Jt. Engineering RBI Exh. 48 at 3.)  Adams proposes to serve 33% more people than RBI
presently serves.
                      RBI's Proposed Site
22.     RBI received a construction permit in 1990, authorizing a move to another site.  But
RBI never moved.  In 1995, RBI received another authorization to move to yet a different site
and to construct a new tower that would increase its power so that the predicted Grade B
coverage would serve 75% more people than could Adams.  However, under Commission policy,
RBI could not construct on its designated site because of the lapse of more than three years since
the grant of the license.  Streamlining of Applications, Rules and Procedures, 13 F.C.C. Rcd
23056, 23090 (1998).  The Commission has not responded to a request from RBI for an
exception from that policy.  (RBI Exh. 12, Tab B.)  RBI has failed to show a reasonable
likelihood that it will increase its signal coverage within the foreseeable future.  Therefore, RBI's
proffered engineering (RBI Exh. 48) that would increase its signal coverage beyond Adams'
coverage is rejected for failing to meet the burdens of persuasion and proof of reliability by a
preponderance of the evidence.
23.     There are reliable facts in the record that support this negative finding.  Mr. Parker
testified that the permit to construct was last extended in 1995, and that an ongoing zoning
dispute was delaying construction.  (Tr. 816  822, 854-873.)  RBI correspondence with a
township was not probative because it was shown to relate to a cellular telephone tower.  (Adams
Exh. 41.)  RBI could only "hope" that construction would proceed.  But a local court issued an
adverse decision on January 27, 2000, and the question was assigned for mediation.  (Tr. 1905.)
As of the closure of this record, there has been no report received on the status of that mediation
that would be responsive to an instruction to be kept informed of developments.  (Tr. 1907.)
RBI offered nothing further on the status of its tower relocation in its Reply pleading.  Therefore,
there is no reliable predictive evidence in this record to support a conclusion that RBI has a
reasonable assurance that it will be able to increase its signal coverage.
  Local Residence, Civic Involvement And Broadcast Experience
                             Adams
24.     There are no Adams principals who reside in the Reading area, none have been
active in local civic affairs in the Reading area, and none have qualifying broadcast experience.
The evidence presented by Adams does reflect that there are five principals who have
demonstrated civic interests and activities primarily in and around Chicago, Illinois.  While there
is no credit awarded from their recorded past civic involvements in Chicago, it is reasonable to
assume that principals of Adams would become sufficiently interested in Reading's civic affairs
for making good faith ascertainment should Adams ultimately receive and accept an award of
the license.  (Adams Exh. 1.)  However, Adams claims no credit for local residence, civic
involvement or past broadcast experience, and none is awarded.
                              RBI
25.     RBI identifies thirty five shareholders who have resided and who presently reside
within WTVE(TV)'s predicted Grade B contour.  (RBI Exh. 2.)  However, it appears from
ownership reports that during the renewal period eight of the thirty five were not RBI
                                
shareholders.  (RBI Exh. 11.)  Therefore, RBI is credited with local residence for only twenty
seven of its thirty five shareholders, which still reflects a significant local presence.
26.     There are eleven shareholders of RBI identified as having significant civic
involvement.  (RBI Exh. 2.)
27.     Because of a failure of proof, there will be credit awarded for the civic activities of
only three RBI shareholders:  Mr. Jack Linton ("Linton") for his activities as treasurer and
section chair of a local bar association, for his service as president and member of the board of
directors of the Reading Jewish Community Center, treasurer of Reading Soccer, president of an
Estate Planning Council, membership on the Berks County Mental Health Retardation Board,
and president and a member of the board of directors of the Berks County Chamber of
Commerce; Dr. Paul H. Tietbohl for his activities as organizer of a group of physicians called
"Choice" who provide weekend and holiday coverage for emergencies in the Reading area; and
Mr. Parker for being a member of the Reading Chamber of Commerce.  (RBI Exh. 2.)
28.     Two RBI shareholders had recognizable broadcast experience during the relevant
period: Mr. Parker and Mr. Linton.
29.     Mr. Parker became executive vice president and a director of RBI in 1989.  He
became a shareholder and was voted RBI's president in 1991, under stormy and highly
questionable circumstances.  (See discussion below at Paras. 39-44.)  He served in the capacity of
RBI's president to August 1997, and from November 1997, to the present.  He was the general
manager of Station WTVE(TV) from 1991 to 1996.  He played a key role in bringing RBI out of
bankruptcy.  (RBI Exh. 3.)
30.     Mr. Parker also was a principal of licensees of the following additional broadcast
stations:
              StationCityDates of Involvement
                KYBY(TV)Anchorage, AK1982   1984
          KWBB(TV)    San Francisco CA    1986   1993
                 WHRC(TV)Norwell, MA1992   1997
          KVMD(TV)    Twentynine Palms, CA   1992   Present
          KAIJ        Dallas, TX          1992   Present
(RBI Exh. 3.)  He was involved with these stations during their construction and initial operation.
But the record is silent with respect to Mr. Parker's activities with each station for which credit
for broadcast experience is claimed.  And there is no credit claimed for his related broadcast
activities with respect to periods after the stations went on the air.  Based on this record, RBI is
entitled to some credit for Mr. Parker's past broadcast experience.
31.     Mr. Linton was house counsel for a television production company in New York
City from 1963 to 1966.  He served as a part-time sports announcer for RBI in 1980.  (RBI Exh.
3.)  Mr. Linton served as officer, director and corporate counsel for RBI for over ten years and he
is credited with related broadcast experience.
32.     Mr. McCracken is responsible for the day to day broadcast activities of RBI.  He has
had full-time management responsibilities since 1996.  He has been producer of the program "Air
Gospel" which, since 1996, has broadcast weekly from Station WTVE(TV).  (RBI Exh. 3.)
However, he was not an RBI shareholder during the renewal period and therefore no credit is
awarded for his broadcast experience.
                       Corporate Control
33.     RBI's 1988 Ownership Report reflected that there were 50,000 shares of stock
issued and outstanding, divided among 18 shareholders.  Dr. Henry Aurandt and his wife held
18,000 shares representing the largest portion.  The Report also identified RBI's officers as
Dr. Aurandt (president), Dr. Robert Denby (vice resident/treasurer), Dr. Sergio Proserpi (vice
president) and Mr. Jack Linton (secretary).  (RBI Exh. 11.)  The report did not identify directors.
34.     In a corporate business judgment, RBI decided to hire the experienced Mr. Parker
and his controlled company, Partel Inc. ("Partel"), to remove RBI from bankruptcy and run the
Station's business. On May 28, 1989, RBI and Parker/Partel entered into and executed a
Management Services Agreement ("MSA").  (Adams Exh. 13 at 3; Adams Exh. 19; Tr. 632.)  On
August 1, 1989, RBI shareholders met and elected a new slate of directors.  The five directors
included Dr. Aurandt and Mr. Linton as well as Mr. Parker, Dr. Clymer and Dr. Fischer.  At the
board of directors meeting which immediately followed, two officers were elected: Mr. Parker,
president and Mr. Linton, secretary.  (Adams Exhs. 13, 14.)
35.     The minutes reflect shareholders approval of  the MSA which gave Partel and
Parker full authority to conduct the operations of WTVE(TV).  (RBI Exh. 18 at 2.)  The MSA
also provided for Partel to receive an equity interest in RBI and a certain percentage of its
monthly net revenues.  (Id.)  On September 13, 1989, RBI's directors "ratified" the MSA and
directed bankruptcy counsel to submit it to the bankruptcy court for approval.  (Adams Exh. 14 at
10.)  Bankruptcy counsel did so on June 19, 1990, and court approval followed on August 28,
1990.  (RBI Exh. 18 at 5; Tr. 626.)  RBI did not file the MSA with the Commission or list it on
an ownership report until 1997.  (RBI Exhs. 11, 14.)
36.     On January 20, 1991, RBI's reorganization plan became final and nonappealable.
(Adams Exh. 20 at 2; Tr. 786-87.)  The plan was to become effective on September 17, 1991,
thereby effectively canceling outstanding stock.  (Tr. 796.) (Adams Exh. 20 at 2; Tr. 641, 796-
97.)  In anticipation, on August 14, 1991, RBI filed a short form application seeking Commission
approval to assign WTVE(TV)'s license from RBI, as debtor-in-possession, to RBI.  (Adams
Exh. 21.)  RBI used Form 316 because new shareholders were to be added and shareholders'
interests were going to change in conjunction with RBI's emergence from bankruptcy.  The short
form was used because it was thought that RBI's former shareholders would still hold more than
50% of RBI's stock following consummation.  Mr. Parker signed the application as RBI's
president, both as transferor and as transferee.  Commission approval occurred on August 27,
1991.  (Adams Exhs. 21, 22;  Tr. 789-791.)
37.     The shareholder and director disclosure that was reported in the August 1991 short
form application was consistent with the information that was reported in RBI's Ownership
Report dated and executed by Mr. Parker on March 28, 1991.  (Adams Exh. 21 and RBI Exh.
11.)  Mr. Parker was president and a director while executing both filings.  The other directors
were Dr. Aurandt, Mr. Linton, Dr. Clymer and Dr. Fischer.  RBI was still capitalized with 50,000
shares of common stock that was held by 18 shareholders, with Dr. Aurandt and his wife owning
18,000 shares.  As of August 1991, Mr. Parker and Partel legally owned no shares of RBI stock.
Partel was to receive 118,467 shares out of 399,044 to be issued which would make Partel the
largest RBI shareholder.  (Adams Exhs. 11, 21.)  This set the stage for a struggle for control of
RBI.
                   Parker's Taking Of Control
38.     That struggle began in earnest one month later when on September 14, 1991,
three days before the reorganization plan became final, Dr. Aurandt called shareholders' and
directors' meetings to recommend his wife replacing Dr. Fischer who had resigned as a director.
Mr. Parker testified that " a very volatile dispute [was] going on between shareholders."
(Tr. 669).)  Mr. Parker attended and contested the legality of actions taken at the meeting.
(Tr. 668-69, 677, 679, 791-93.)  The shareholders and the directors terminated the MSA based
on alleged "malfeasance" by Mr. Parker, removed Mr. Parker as a board member, and replaced
him with Mrs. Aurandt.  (Adams Exh. 13 at 39-40, 53, 71-72; Tr. 669-70, 677.)  After
effectively overriding the board actions taken on September 14, Mr. Parker issued new RBI
                                shares to its former and new shareholders on October 15, 1991.  (Adams Exh. 24; Tr. 797.)
Mr. Parker signed the certificates himself that had been prepared by Marvin Mercer, RBI's
bankruptcy counsel.  (Adams Exh. 24; Tr. 797-800, 810.)  Mr. Parker contends that this action
was in accord with the Commission's prior grant of the short-form application which occurred on
August 27, 1991.  (Tr. 672, 795-97.)
39.     In at least two instances, the number of shares issued by Parker did not match the
number approved by the Commission.  First, the Commission had approved issuance of 118,467
shares to Partel, but the number actually issued was 124,401.  (Adams Exh. 24.)  According to
Mr. Parker, the nearly 6,000 extra shares were issued with an option to Meridian Bank, an RBI
lender, that allowed the bank to purchase shares for $1 (one dollar), in exchange for forgiving a
$500,000 overdue payment.  (Tr. 800-01.)  Second, the Commission had approved issuance of
74,678 shares to Dr. Aurandt, but Parker actually issued only 23,868 shares for Dr. Aurandt.
(Tr. 799, 803; Adams Exh. 13 at 84-86.)  Mr. Parker explained that RBI chose not to issue the
additional shares to Dr. Aurandt because of questions concerning a court judgment and
garnishment proceedings which Mr. Parker may not have known about while the short form
application was pending.  (Adams Exh. 13 at 83-84; Tr. 701-02, 803-04, 810.)  Mr. Parker
testified that he received a writ of execution incident to the Aurandt garnishment on October 11,
1991.  (Tr. 888-89, 916.)  Mr. Parker understood that if garnishment should occur, the RBI shares
destined for Dr. Aurandt ultimately would go to the judgment holders and that would result in a
greater than 50% transfer of stock control of RBI.  (Adams Exh. 28; Tr. 685, 701.)
40.     Mr. Parker showed that he had the power to withhold shares from Dr. Aurandt while
causing the issuance of 17,674 shares to an entity called STV Reading, Inc. ("STVR").  (Adams
Exh. 24; Tr. 809-10, 975.)  Dr. Aurandt was the holder of record of some 90% of STVR voting
shares.  But Mr. Parker did not transmit the RBI shares reserved for STVR to
Dr. Aurandt.  Rather, Mr. Parker issued the RBI stock destined for STVR to himself.  Mr. Parker
justified this self-help action on proxies that he had previously received and which he used for
his election as STVR's president.  (Tr. 970, 977.)  But all of the STVR proxies relied upon by
Mr. Parker came from four persons who had not previously held an ownership interest in RBI.  In
fact, they were the same four individuals who had secured the Aurandt garnishment.  (Adams
Exh. 28; Tr. 972, 975-76.)  The RBI shareholders who opposed Mr. Parker found that the new
shares "were allocated by Mr. Parker in a fashion to skew the voting power of the shareholders of
[RBI] in favor of Partel, Inc. and against the former shareholders of [RBI]."  (Adams Exh. 13 at
72-73.)  On cross examination, Adams counsel confronted Parker with the list of shareholders
who had received stock certificates including Partel, and Mr. Parker admitted that those
certificates were issued by him before he had filed the application.  (Tr. 703-904.)
41.     Following issuance of the new stock, Mr. Parker retained an attorney to seek an
extension of time from the Commission in order to allow RBI to consummate the transfer
authorized by the Commission on August 27, 1991.  (Tr. 804-06.)  By letter dated October 22,
1991, Sidley & Austin requested an additional 60 days until December 27, 1991.  (Adams Exh.
22.) The reason cited to the Commission was that RBI needed additional time "to coordinate the
transaction, including implementing the bankruptcy reorganization plan approved by the
bankruptcy court in Pennsylvania."  (Adams Exh. 22; Tr. 883-84.)  Mr. Parker contends that
more than just the issuance of stock had to occur before RBI could move from the protection of
the bankruptcy court.  It was also necessary to satisfy the Meridian Bank.  (Tr. 804-06.)  The
Mass Media Bureau granted an extension to December 27,1991.  (Adams Exhs. 22, 23.)
Mr. Parker then filed a Form 315 long form application to effect a "legitimate" transfer of
control.  (Adams Exh. 28; Tr. 693.)
42.     In the meantime, on October 25, 1991, during the period of extension granted by the
Commission, Mr. Parker sent a notice of special meeting of shareholders on only five days
notice.  (Tr. 806.)  The meeting's purpose was to remove existing directors, elect new ones, and
resolve disputes concerning Dr. Aurandt.  Mr. Parker advised the shareholders that they could
attend either in person or by proxy.  (Adams Exh. 25.)  On October 30, l991, RBI's shareholders
met.  This meeting resulted in the election of a new board of directors consisting of Mr. Parker
and Dr. Clymer and new board members Irvin Cohen, Reverend Frank McCracken and Judge C.
Meyer Rose.  (Adams Exh. 13 at 70; Tr. 678-79, 806-07; RBI Exh. 11.) Mr. Parker knew and
understood at the time that Dr. Fischer was no longer going to be a director.  (Tr. 807.)  The
newly constituted board met on October 30, 1991, and on December 30, 1991.  (Adams Exh. 15
at 77, 85; Tr. 682.)
43.     On November 13, 1991, RBI filed the long Form 315 that removed RBI as debtor-
in-possession and transferred control of the license to the newly constituted RBI.  (Adams Exh.
28; Tr. 693.)  The Commission was informed that corporate shares would increase from 50,000
to 419,038 and that the directors would include Dr. Aurandt, Mr. Linton and a totally passive
Dr. Fischer.  The application showed that the previous short form assignment would not be
consummated because of questions concerning the ultimate ownership of 13.98% (more than
58,000) of RBI's proposed shares.  Notwithstanding the Parker-dictated events of October 15 (the
issuance of RBI stock) and October 30 (the shareholders meeting), Mr. Parker denied that a
transfer of control had occurred prematurely.  (Tr. 811.)  The Commission approved the long
form transfer on February 14, 1992, and Parker believed that a final accounting with creditors
and consummation of new ownership were concluded in March, 1992.  (Adams Exh. 31; Tr. 812-
813.)  But no stock was issued following the Commission's grant of the long-form transfer
application.  (Tr. 703-04, 813.)  Convinced of his existing authority and control, Mr. Parker had
signed the application on behalf of the transferor and the transferee.  (Adams Exh. 28; Tr. 694,
807-09.)  Commission approval was granted on February 14, 1992.  (Adams Exh. 31.)  Amidst
these mix-ups, corporate governance of RBI was in full control of Mr. Parker and he knew that to
be the fact.
                  Erroneous Ownership Reports
44.     RBI's November 1991 transfer application was prepared by one of Parker's
communications counsel (Ms. Friedman) in cooperation with RBI's bankruptcy counsel
(Mr. Mercer).  Mr. Parker denied that he had any role in computing the transferee share
percentages that appeared in the application.  (Tr. 807-08.)  He also did not recall discussing or
thinking about whether RBI needed to report that stock as already issued.  (Tr. 922-23.)  He
believed the overriding fact was that during the pendency of the November 1991 transfer
application, RBI remained a debtor in possession and would continue as such until creditors were
satisfied.  (Tr. 882-84, 923.)  Ms. Friedman compiled the information and exhibits and made
certain the form was prepared correctly.  Ms. Friedman normally received filing information
from the client.  (Tr. 2107.)  Mr. Parker provided or was responsible for the stock ownership data
relied on by Ms. Friedman for reporting to the Commission.
45.     The long form application filed in November 1991, incorrectly listed and incorrectly
omitted directors.  Thereafter, on April 16, 1992, RBI filed its 1992 ownership report.  (RBI Exh.
11.)  RBI listed its directors as Mr. Parker, Dr. Aurandt, Mr. Linton, Dr. Clymer and Dr. Fischer.
RBI reported that it had not issued 50,812 shares to Dr. Aurandt because of the garnishment
issue.  Mr. Parker signed the report as RBI's president.  (RBI Exh. 11; Tr. 814.)  RBI failed to list
the MSA in a contemporaneous ownership report.  It merely was referenced in a document filed
on February 7, 1992, which transmitted an amendment to the pending application to transfer
control of WTVE(TV).
46.     RBI acknowledges that its 1992 ownership report repeated the same errors relative
to directors.  (RBI Exh. 14.)  In April 1993, Parker certified that the 1992 Ownership Report was
accurate even though the slate of directors selected by Parker in 1991 continued to control RBI, a
significant fact never reported to the Commission.  (RBI Exh. 11.)  According to Mr. Parker, the
errors acknowledged by RBI occurred because of unexplained inadvertences on his part.  (Tr.
812, 814-15.)  The evidence establishes that from 1992 to 1997, the Commission was deprived of
sufficient information concerning the corporate control of RBI.  And as indicated above, such
confusion in corporate control worked to the advantage of Mr. Parker.
                       Renewal Expectancy
47.     A renewal expectancy is awarded only for substantial service throughout the renewal
period.  The relevant time period for considering RBI's entitlement to a renewal expectancy
began August 1, 1989, and ended August 1, 1994.
               Minimal Public Service Programming
48.     RBI devoted 2.2% of its air time to issue responsive programming in the third
quarter of 1989.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. A at 2.)  By the end of the renewal period, that percentage
had increased to approximately 7.6%. (Id.)  RBI's exhibit reflects that 35% of such programming
consisted of PSAs.  Using different composite weeks and not including PSAs, Adams calculates
that WTVE(TV) devoted 1.5% of its air time to non-entertainment programming during the
1989-90 period and 2.2% to such programming during the 1993-94 period.  (Adams Exhs. 3 at 1;
7 at 2.)  These statistics show that RBI's quantity of noncommercial programming was minimal.
                         Ascertainment
49.     George Mattmiller was the Station's general manager from August 1989 until
February 1992.  (RBI Exh. 6.)  He was previously employed by Mr. Parker in Seattle,
Washington.  (Tr. 542 - 43.)  He did not have ties with the Reading community when he joined
RBI.  Mr. Mattmiller was responsible for ascertaining community problems, needs and interests.
The Station's methodology that was in place when Mr. Mattmiller arrived, involved receiving
reports of staff contacts with members of the community.  (Tr. 571.)  Station personnel also used
a local newspaper, the Reading Eagle, and WTVE(TV) staff made a review of undefined
"material that was sent to the station."  (Tr.  572.)  Newspaper local stories accounted for about
90% of WTVE(TV)'s ascertainment on a range of topics. (RBI Exh. 6 at 4.)  Another source that
Mr. Mattmiller mentioned was a broadcast segment entitled "Man on the Street" which provided
local input while on-the-air.  (Tr. 572.)
50.     In mid-1992 and through the remainder of the renewal period, RBI expanded its
ascertainment efforts by sending questionnaires to business leaders and schools and by contacting
charitable organizations such as the United Way, Easter Seals, American Cancer Society and the
American Red Cross.  (RBI Exh. 6 at 5; Tr. 453-55, 577.)  Station staff also questioned guests
who appeared for program taping at the Station's studio and students during classroom visits.
(Tr. 1698.)  Mr. Daniel Bendetti, another station manager during the renewal period, testified that
they collected these ascertainment results quarterly.  (Tr. 1732.)  Ralph Tobias, another station
employee responsible for ascertainment, determined which issues were significant.  He then used
such issues to pose questions to local residents in conjunction with the taping of "Streetwise," a
two-minute program that aired twice daily.  (RBI Exh. 8, Apps. C at 17 and D at 14; Tr. 457,
576, 588-89.)  Ms. Kimberley Bradley collected information for program material and potential
guests who could discuss community concerns on WTVE's "In Touch." Program. (Tr. 460-71,
581-82.)
51.     Mr. Bendetti testified that the ascertainment at WTV(TV) did not provide input into
the Station's "public service" programming.  (Tr. 1666-67, 1732-33.)  RBI relied more on
material taken from satellite feeds which station personnel deemed pertinent to the station's
viewing area. RBI also relied on material supplied by eleemosynary organizations such as the
March of Dimes.  (Tr. 461-65, 1734.)  Mr. Parker served as WTVE(TV)'s general manager
throughout the renewal period.  But he did not tabulate ascertained needs; nor did he direct
anyone to do so.  Mr. Parker could not recall whether station personnel ever produced for his
review a document that indicated what were the community's significant problems.  (Tr. 830-31.)
A comparison of headlines from the Reading Eagle (Adams Exhs. 3-7) with WTVE(TV)'s
"Issues and Programs Report[s]" (RBI Exh. 8, Apps. C through W) shows that RBI did not focus
attention on issues affecting Reading and the surrounding area.  Ascertained community
problems either merited a public service announcement or nothing at all.  When asked to identify
a programmatic response to ascertained community problems, Mr. Parker could either not
identify any such program or could point only to public service announcements.  (Tr. 832-47).
                         Home Shopping
52.     The majority of RBI's programming is "home shopping," a format which passed the
public interest test under a formal assessment.  In re Home Shopping Station Issues, 8 F.C.C. Rcd
5321 (1993) (home shopping stations serve the public interest, the programming does not
adversely effect a renewal expectance, and home shopping stations are eligible for must carry
cable carriage).  Id.  While not unanimous choices, those were the policy determinations made by
the Commission.  And Section 4 (g)(2) of the 1992 Cable Act specifically directs that the
Commission not use home shopping format as a basis to deny a renewal expectancy.
53.     The Commission otherwise decided to forego guidelines regarding specified
quantities of types of various non-entertainment programming.  See Commercial TV Stations, 98
F.C.C. 2d 1076, 1090- 92 (1984).  However, the renewal standard requires that a licensee address
community issues with responsive programming.  The licensee is free to choose the
programming that meets the needs.  But it must not be a nominal effort that effectively defaults
on its obligation to contribute to the discussion of issues facing the community.  Commercial TV
Stations, supra; Office of Communications of the United Church of Christ v. F.C.C., 707 F.2d
1414, 1431 (D.C. Cir. 1983).  A challenger must show that the licensee failed to address
community issues in overall programming, not just with respect to specific issues that are not
being addressed.
                           Must Carry
54.     Station WTVE(TV) operated as an affiliate of the Home Shopping Network during
the 1989-94 license term.  (RBI Exh. 8.)  It was classified by Arbitron, Inc. as a station in the
Philadelphia Designated Market Area or "DMA".  (RBI Exh. 6 at 2.)  Reading is geographically
situated between the Philadelphia metropolitan area and the Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon-York
DMA.  Id.  WTVE(TV) was the only television station licensed to Reading and serving Berks,
Lebanon, Chester, Lancaster, Schuylkill and Lehigh counties.  WTVE(TV) was competing with
stations from Philadelphia, including the major network stations and independent stations. (RBI
Exh. 13.)  In 1992, "must carry" was enacted, which significantly upgraded WTVE's(TV)
household reach when cable systems serving the western portions of Philadelphia were required
to begin carrying WTVE(TV)'s signal.  (RBI Exh. 6 at 3.)  But the advent of "must carry" did not
provide a total solution for the Station's financial plight.  WTVE(TV) also shared the
Philadelphia DMA with WHSP-TV, Vineland, New Jersey, another Home Shopping Network
affiliate.  (Id. at 2.)  Both stations provided the same home shopping programming.  Cable
systems were required only to carry the signal of the station closest to their respective headends.
As a result, WTVE(TV) lost cable carriage in the eastern portion of the Philadelphia DMA which
is joined with adjoining portions of New Jersey and Delaware.  (Id.)
55.     It is found that RBI relied on must carry cable carriage to meet much of its non-
commercial programming responsibilities without incurring costs of producing the programming.
This permitted some non-home shopping programming to be introduced in Station WTVE(TV)'s
signal area.  It was a business decision having no impact on this decision.  This predominance of
"home shopping" on WTVE(TV) was not shown to have impeded responsive non-commercial
programming.  RBI's failure to sufficiently identify and address local issues was a failure
separate and apart from providing a "home shopping" format.
                Bankruptcy As Programming Factor
56.     RBI was in Chapter 11 from 1986 until March 12, 1992.  Memorandum Opinion and
Order, FCC 99M-47, supra at  11-13.  The condition of bankruptcy is not conducive to the
operation of a TV broadcast station.  But there is no evidence that RBI's voluntary bankruptcy so
impeded RBI that it should be excused from meeting its public interest duties to the Reading
community.  RBI received Commission approval to operate as debtor-in-possession in 1988,
and also received Commission approval for a reorganization plan to emerge from bankruptcy in
1992.  (Id.)
57.     Mr. Parker succeeded in bringing RBI out of bankruptcy.  But he was not able to
operate the company in the black during the renewal period.  Station WTVE(TV) was not
operated in a profitable manner at any time before and during the renewal period.  The Station
operated at a loss during each year of the 1989-94 license term.  A station manager testified that
RBI's financial condition "was always unstable."  (Tr. 1711 and RBI Exh. 5.)
58.     As a result of its adverse financial condition, the Station's equipment became
outdated and "antiquated" to such an extent that critical equipment, such as the Station
transmitter, had repeated outages.  (Tr. 1153-1172.)  Evidence introduced by Adams also shows
that the Station was understaffed during the renewal term. (Adams Exh. 16 at 5; Tr. 562-563.)
The small size of the staff adversely effected the Station's ability to produce and broadcast public
                                
service programming.  (Tr. 1666, 1691.)  There is no evidence offered by RBI to show that funds
or resources were diverted from a profitable operation or from the compensation of Partel and its
affiliates in favor of supporting public service broadcasting.
59.     In written testimony, Mr. Parker promised to "focus more energy and resources on
the station's public service initiatives."  (RBI Exh. 5 at1.)  The evidence indicates to the contrary.
Mr. Bendetti, a station manager during the renewal period, testified that RBI, through Mr. Parker,
decided to cut operating costs.  He instructed the staff to limit efforts to produce public service
programming and to avoid out-of studio productions and studio productions that would require a
"crew." (Tr. 1674-1679.)  This policy of holding back from public service broadcasting prevailed
from 1990 to 1993. (Tr. 1680.)  To meet this decrease in public oriented programming, in 1993,
the staff at the Station took it upon themselves to increase the production of PSAs.  (Tr. 1681.)
While that was a commendable partial stopgap effort, it did not fill the serious programming gap
created by the Parker initiated cut-backs.
                    Programming Methodology
60.     WTVE(TV) broadcast "home shopping" fare over 53 minutes to 55 minutes per
hour.  The remaining five to seven minutes were dedicated to a mixture of public service
offerings, public service announcements, commercials, promotional announcements ("PSAs"),
and required station identifications.  (RBI Exh. 8 at 1.)  At times, non-entertainment programs
were aired that exceeded 15 minutes in length.  These included religious programs, children's
programs, political programs, and special or seasonal programs.  (Id.)
61.     WTVE(TV) did not broadcast non-entertainment programming on a regularly-
scheduled basis.  Public service programming usually appeared during five to seven minute
windows.  No particular program aired during the same time slots on a daily or weekly basis, and
each particular program was often repeated fifteen or more times during its run. (RBI Exh. 8,
App. S at 66-68, 74 ("News to You"); Tr. 471-73.) When WTVE(TV) began to broadcast the
program, it did not appear at any regular time.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. W at 149-50.)  Therefore, it
would be extremely difficult for a member of the public to anticipate and plan for RBI's non-
commercial fare.  Neither the Reading Eagle nor any TV guide publication advised viewers when
any particular WTVE(TV) program would be broadcast.  (Adams Exh. 11; Adams Exh. 12;
Tr. 591-93, 1795.)  Mr. Parker acknowledged that the station primarily addressed community
problems through the airing of PSAs which aired only when time was available during the daily
schedule.  (Tr. 472-73.)  Mr. Parker asserted that RBI was justified in relying on PSAs because of
the demands of home shopping and the station's negative financial condition.  (Tr. 847-49.)  It is
concluded from this evidence that throughout the renewal period, interested viewers had great
difficulty in ascertaining the time when a particular non-commercial program would appear on
WTVE(TV).  (Tr. 473, 476, 591-93, 598, 1794.)  RBI did not meet its duty to make available
public issue programming.
                   Noncommercial Programming
62.     In reviewing the expanse of evidence in this case, it was found that during the
renewal period, WTVE(TV) did broadcast some locally produced programs in response to
ascertained needs.  Such other public service "programs" identified as PSAs in RBI's issues and
programs reports were: "Streetwise," "In Touch," "News to You Healthbeat Elderly Report,"
"Community Outreach Take 3," and "Kids Korner."  (See RBI Exh. 8, passim.)
63.     "Streetwise" was a two-minute interview program produced by RBI in which
members of the public were asked to expound on local issues. (RBI Exh. 8 at 2; 588-89.)  The
program was aired between August 1, 1989 and November 27, 1989.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. C at 17,
App. D at 14.)  In the third quarter of 1989, the questions ranged from flag burning to literacy,
from the virtue of freedom to prison inmates working for their keep.  (RBI, Exh. 8, App. C at 16.)
In the fourth quarter of 1989, the "questions ranged from hostages in Beirut to rights Americans
take for granted.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. D at 14.)  "Streetwise" aired twice a day, generally around
9:20 in the morning and 6:20 in the evening.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. C (third quarter 1989) at 16,
App. D (fourth quarter 1989) at 14.)
64.     "In Touch" was a three-minute program that featured a host and a guest discussing
RBI's selected community topics (health, welfare).  (RBI Exh. 8 at 2; Tr. 463, 581-83.)  Each
program focused on one topic that was determined to be an issue of public concern based on
local mail and faxes recommending topics. .  (Tr. 458, 582.)   The topic could appear on more
than one segment as part of a series.  (RBI Exh. 8 at 2.)  In 1989, "In Touch" was broadcast twice
a day in the late morning or early afternoon and again in the early evening.  In 1993, it aired three
times during any given day.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. B, C, D, Q, R.)  Topics included local concerns
for consumer protection (RBI Exh. 8, App. C at 13); foster parenting; pet care; drunk driving;
speech and hearing ailments and treatments; a youth exchange program; making marriage work;
AIDS and other health-care topics.  Participants included a speech therapist, a midwife, a
dietician, a gastroenterologist, the deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania's Bureau of Consumer
Protection, the director of the Berks County Humane Society, a neurologist, a laboratory medical
director, and a chiropractor.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. C at 7-8,13-14, App. D at 5, App. Q at 29-30.)
65.     "News to You" aired in two to three-minute segments.  It treated issues such as
health, family concerns, consumer issues and crime/safety - - - ." (RBI Exh. 8 at 2.)  Material for
the program was downloaded from satellite feeds.  RBI inserted "News to You" segments into
available time slots, usually twice a day.  (Tr. 460-64, 472-73.)
66.     "Healthbeat 'or "Health Report" began airing in the fourth quarter of 1992.  (RBI
Exh. 8, Apps. C through 0.)  It ran for three minutes.  Station staff obtained "stock footage" from
a newsfeed company and localized the features with "wraparound information" about socially
directed charitable groups and organizations such as the American Cancer Society, Community
Hospital, Reading Hospital, and the American Red Cross.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. P at 17.)
67.     "Elderly Report" also began airing in the fourth quarter of 1992.  (RBI Exh. 8, Apps.
C through P.)  It usually ran for three minutes.  RBI utilized  "stock footage" from a newsfeed
company and localized the features with "wraparound information" about the area senior groups"
such as the Berks County Office of Aging, the Berks County Senior Citizens Council, and the
Temple Association for Retired Persons.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. P at 8-9.)
68.     "Community Outreach" began airing in the second quarter of 1993.  (RBI Exh. 8,
Apps.  C through R.)  RBI produced this three-minute program featuring a host and guests who
would discuss a topic of local interest.  Topics included local volunteer efforts and organizations;
cooking tips; wedding preparations; taking a cruise; reducing driving while under the influence
of alcohol; other issues related to alcohol; child abuse; recycling/community clean-up; home
safety; and the importance of dietary calcium.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. R, S, T, U, V; Tr. 477.)
69.     "Take 3" was a three-minute program that local youths produced with assistance
from WTVE(TV).  It dealt with issues of interest to young viewers.  (Tr. 465-66.)  "Take 3"
began airing in the second quarter of 1993.  Examples of topics include results of driving under
the influence of alcohol, musical instruments in high school bands, selecting a college, keeping
food safe while camping, and a presentation of the inner workings of the Reading Planetarium.
(RBI Exh. 8, App. R, S, T at 19.)
70.     "Kids Korner" presented programming that was 90 seconds to three and one-half
minutes in duration.  The program was produced by RBI and dealt with issues that were of
interest to children.  (RBI Exh. 8 at 3, App. B, App. R, App. V.)  WRVE(TV) began broadcasting
"Kids Korner" in the second quarter of 1993.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. Q, App. R.) Examples of issues
covered include pet care, dinosaurs, recycling, the life of Milton Hershey, and an elementary
school science curriculum.  When "Kids Korner" aired, it could appear as many as three times
per day.  RBI's "Children's Issues and Program Report" identifies "Kids Korner" as a public
service segment.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. X, at 169, 219-22.)  From the description provided by RBI,
it will be counted towards RBI's locally produced programming.
71.     In the second quarter of 1993, RBI began broadcasting politically oriented programs
that were produced at the Pennsylvania state house.  The programs were designed to keep
"viewers apprised of various government topics." (RBI Exh. 8, App. R at 22.)  RBI would
alternate between programs produced by the Democrats and the Republicans.  (Tr. 1694.)  The
programs featured state legislators who represented Reading and/or the surrounding area.  (RBI
Exh. 8 at 7.)  Programs were approximately 30 minutes in length and were aired on Sundays
between 9:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.  On occasion, WTVE(TV) would broadcast two programs on
the same Sunday.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. B at 6.)  But such political programming was not broadcast
during election campaigns.  (Tr. 1694.)
72.     "The Informative Moment" was a Spanish-language program produced by RBI to
address issues of interest to the Hispanic community.  (RBI Exh. 9 at 3; Tr. 470.)  It appeared in
April 1994 and ran on three minute segments.  (RBI Exh. 8, App.)  In a significant segment, a
host and guest discussed the latter's  struggle to free himself from drugs. The program was
broadcast at approximately 8:20 in the morning and again at 8:20 in the evening.  (RBI Exh. 8 at
5, 11.)
73.     "For the People" was a three-minute program produced by RBI to focus on state and
local political issues.  (RBI Exh. 8 at 3; Tr. 470.)  "For the People" appeared at various times
during the days on which it aired.  The program appeared in June 1994, shortly before the end of
the renewal period.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. B.)
74.     RBI listed "Around Our Town" as a locally-produced program which focused on
topics related to the local environment and community events.  (RBI Exh. 8 at 3.)
                  Public Service Announcements
75.     RBI broadcast PSAs throughout the renewal period and averaged between 30 to 50
PSAs throughout the day.  (Adams Exh. 7 at 5-12, 22-32.)  Some of the PSAs were produced in-
house.  Others were obtained from local, regional or national organizations.  RBI also would
work with local chapters of national organizations to localize PSAs.  Two such PSAs won
awards from the Pennsylvania Association of Broadcasters.  (RBI Exh. 8 at 3-4.)
76.     PSAs broadcast by WTVE(TV) covered such topics as local events; pet adoption;
missing children; apprehension of suspected criminals; health and safety; education; civic and
social concerns; the environment; persons with disabilities; the elderly; children; the armed
forces; and religious groups.  (RBI Exh. 8 at 4-6.)  The timing and quality of the PSAs were
attested to by community witnesses and in letters from listeners that were received by RBI
throughout the license term.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. H; App. L, App. N, App. 0, and App. P.)
                     Children's Programming
77.     In the fourth quarter of 1992, RBI broadcast several children's programs.  (RBI Exh.
8, App. P, App. X.)  WTVE(TV)'s earlier broadcasts for children were limited to PSAS.  (RBI
Exh. 8, App. X.)  None of the programs were locally produced. RBI would air its children's fare
on Saturday and/or on Sunday mornings.
78.     From October 31, 1992 to December 5, 1992, RBI produced and broadcast "Go For
It," a 30 minute program which aired at 9:30 a.m. on Saturdays.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. X at 18-19,
23.)  Guests included current or former professional athletes who stressed the importance of
fitness and who provided advice about developing various sports skills.
79.     From November 1, 1992 through December 13, 1992, RBI broadcast a half-hour
program called "Candid Kids Club." (RBI Exh. 8, App. X at 24.)  Topics covered by the program
included learning to fly, health tips on warm-up exercises, the life of a sea mammal, Magic
Johnson's life with the HIV virus, a book review, and a movie review.
80.     On December 19, 1992, RBI began broadcasting  "Adventure Pals," a 30-minute
program produced by Christian Children's Associates.  The program contained no product
advertisements or commercial breaks.  The program presented a mix of stories, music, clowns,
puppets and special guests to address issues of interest to children.  Other topics included self-
esteem, parent/child relationships and concern for others.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. X at 18, 22.)  It
cannot be determined from this record whether "Adventure Pals" aired weekly through the end of
the renewal period.  Station records indicate that it usually appeared on Sundays at 8 a.m. (RBI
Exh. 8; App. X at 22; RBI Exh. 9; Adams Exh. 7 at 81.)
81.     On January 24, 1993, RBI began broadcasting  "Widget." (RBI Exh. 8, App. X at
141.)  "Widget" was a 30-minute program that covered topics relating to protection of the
environment.  RBI usually broadcast the program on Sundays at 8:30 a.m. (Adams Exhs. 6, 7 at
81; RBI Exh. 8, App. B.)
82.     During the first quarter of 1993, RBI broadcast three other children's programs
during the renewal period: "Kids International," "Nation of Winners," and "How Do You Zoo?"
"Kids International" appeared on February 27, 1993, between 8:40 and 9: 10 a.m.  That program
presents scripture texts taken from educational Bible videos.  RBI aired "Nation of Winners" on
March 7, 1993, between 6:30 and 7:00 a.m.  It contained "interviews and segments with children
explaining how everyone needs to keep fit."  "How Do You Zoo?" appeared on February 27,
1993, between 9:47 and 10:00 a.m.  It presented animal facts and included a question and
answer segment involving children.
83.     In 1993, RBI began broadcasting "The Children's Room" and "Twinkle."  The
former focused on children's literature and was designed to instill an appreciation for reading in
children ages four through eight.  The latter was an animated program featuring a magical
character with the power to make dreams a reality.  The character's adventures were intended to
teach integrity, responsibility and means to save the environment.  The programs ran for
approximately 30 minutes and aired from 6:00 to 7:00 a.m. on Sundays.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. S, T,
U, V; RBI Exh. 9; Adams Exh. 7 at 80.)
                      Special Programming
84.     RBI also broadcast "special long-form programming" during the renewal period
which included inspirational and religious programming (often aired during the Christmas
season), documentaries, and miscellaneous specials.  Examples of such specials appear in the
station's Programs/Issues Reports.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. C at 23-27; App. L at 13; App. P at 15-16.)
                                
85.     RBI broadcast local weather reports several times a day.  (Tr. 478; RBI Exh. 8, App.
0; Adams Exh. 6 at 23-24, 80-8 1; Adams Exh. 7 at 25-26, 31.)  RBI also provided for
broadcasting a variety of religious shows throughout the license term.  (RBI Exh. 8 at 6.)
                       Lack Of Local News
86.     Mr. Parker defended the lack of local news with a rationalization that the market
served simply could not support program-length local newscasts. (Tr. 1746, 1749-51.)  The
Station's service-area received news from Philadelphia's major network stations and from other
media sources, both electronic and print.  (RBI Exh. 5, Appendix A.)  But that was a totally
unacceptable justification for depriving the community of local news.  News about Reading
would occasionally be broadcast by the Lancaster, Pennsylvania station and would more rarely
appear on the Lebanon or Philadelphia stations.   (Tr. 1746, 1786.)  RBI saved money by relying
on others.  But this business practice of using someone else to furnish the news only made RBI a
"free rider" while creating a local news void that was never filled.  As would be expected, the
Station received complaints about the absence of regularly scheduled newscasts.  By knowingly
depriving the community of local news coverage, RBI breached its duty to serve the needs of the
community.
                        Public Witnesses
87.     RBI submitted depositions from persons representing organizations in the local
Reading area.  The deponents expressed their views on how RBI addressed areas of concern.  In
rebuttal, Adams submitted depositions from persons who were not satisfied with the way RBI
addressed concerns.  The conflicting views are summarized below.
                   Witnesses Sponsored By RBI
88.     Warren Haggerty, a life-long resident of Reading, was its mayor from 1987 through
1995.  He recalled appearing on a show called the "The Minute with the Mayor."  A host would
ask a question and Mr. Haggerty would talk for a minute or so in response.  Mr. Haggerty does
not know when the program was actually aired.  Mr. Haggerty also recalled a community
promotion campaign called "Working for a Greater Reading," which aired on WTVE(TV) as a
PSA from the spring of 1992 through the end of 1993.  (RBI Exh. 25,  at 11, 25, 27-30, 32-35,
37-40, 42-45,47-48, 50.)
89.     Sandra Kissinger, life-long resident of Reading, worked with the Berks County
Chapter of the American Red Cross and used media sources to promote the Red Cross in the
community.  (RBI Exh. 26 at 5.)  She recalled an RBI promotion for the Red Cross following a
major fire which destroyed an entire city block.  WTVE(TV) also aired Red Cross PSAs about
water safety during the second and third quarters of 1991 and the second quarter of 1992.  (Id. at
14-15, 42, 44, 46-48.)  The Station assisted the local chapter of the Red Cross with a lupus
support group in the third quarter of 1992.  (Id. at 16, 50.)  WTVE(TV) worked with the local
chapter of the Red Cross in connection with the program, "Health Beat." (Id. at 17-18, 52.) The
Station worked with the Red Cross in assisting hurricane victims. (Id. at 18-20, 53, 55.)  The
Station also sponsored a ham radio club to supply emergency relay communications and when
there was no emergency, to promote a flea market to fund youth services programs.  (Id. at 20-22,
57, 60, 62.)  WTVE(TV) aired PSAs regarding an open house at the Red Cross to aid flood
victims.  (Id. at 23-24, 63, 65.)  RBI helped raise funds for the Red Cross and aired PSAs
warning about the dangers of heat stroke and informing about health and safety classes.  (Id. at
25-30, 67.)  Station WTVE(TV) was "always there" whenever the Red Cross needed it to
promote anything.  (Id. at 30.)
90.     Linda Witman, a life-long resident of the Reading area, is the executive director of
the Berks County Chapter of the March of Dimes.  (RBI Exh. 27 at 4-5.)  WTVE(TV) made a
three-minute promotional tape of a fundraising event sponsored by the local chapter of the March
of Dimes.  (Id. at 7-9, 34.)  The Station also aired the March of Dimes PSA, which was produced
annually and served as the agency's primary fundraiser.  (Id. at 8, 35-37, 4041.)  WTVE(TV) also
dealt with issues related to pregnancy.  (Id. at 12, 28-29, 31-32, 39.)  Ms. Witman believed that
the relationship with WTVE(TV) raised public awareness of the mission of the March of Dimes
while encouraging donations.  (Id. at 15.)
91.     Phyllis Watts is the administrator of Children's Rights of Pennsylvania, Inc.  Her
organization provided pictures of missing children for the Station to show, which RBI would
convert into one-minute spots.  She found WTVE(TV)'s airings to be extremely helpful."  (RBI
Exh. 28 at 7.)  Ms. Watts affirmed that WTVE(TV) broadcasts occurred throughout the license
term and she believed that WTVE(TV)'s efforts were "very good" in comparison with those of
other area television stations.  (RBI Exh. 28 at 5, 80, 103-105.)
92.     Ralph Trainer was executive director of "Abilities in Motion," which provided
services throughout Berks County to people with disabilities.  (RBI Exh. 29 at 5.)  He was
coordinator for Americans with Disabilities Act and a peer counselor.  (Id. at 6.)  Mr. Trainer
testified that WTVE(TV) aired programs on behalf of the "Office of Aging" and on behalf of
"United Cerebral Palsy".  (Id. at 9-12, 52-54, 56, 58.)  Mr. Trainer concluded that the assistance
his organization received from WTVE(TV) was comparable to that provided by other local
media.  (Id. at 12-13.)
93.     Ray Schacht verified that beginning in 1993, he hosted taped programs such as
"Elderly Update" which were meant to address problems of the elderly.  (RBI Exh. 30.)
However, he was unaware of what was done with the programming after it was taped.
(Id. at 18.)
94.     Stanley J. McCarty has resided in the Reading area for 50 years.  He was a police
officer for 28 years.  At the time of his deposition, he was the crime prevention supervisor and
had held that position for nine years.  (RBI Exh. 32 at 4-5.)  He testified that WTVE(TV)
produced Pennsylvania Crime Stopper spots, which name and portray people who are wanted in
connection with serious crimes.  (Id.)  He was also involved in producing WTVE(TV) sponsored
PSAs that covered a variety of topics.  (Id. at 12-13.)  The station provided time for "Reading
React," a group that monitors a local emergency radio band.  (Id. at 15-16, 58, 60.)
95.     Thomas R. Caltagirone has been a member of the Pennsylvania House of
Representatives for 23 years.  Currently, he is Chairman of the Commerce and Economic
Development Committee.  He had served as Chairman of the Consumer Affairs Committee and
of the Judiciary Committee.  (RBI Exh. 33 at 4.)  He described the program "Legislative Journal"
as a summary of legislative events that occur each month in the Pennsylvania state legislature and
confirmed that WTVE(TV) carried his appearances on "Legislative Journal" during 1994.  (Id. at
8, 46-47.)  He also verified WTVE(TV)'s broadcasting of the PSAs listed in the station's second
quarter of 1994 Issues and Programs Report.  (Id. at 49, 52-54.)  Mr. Caltagirone further affirmed
that other programs concerning state legislative affairs were broadcast on WTVE(TV).  (Id. at 10,
12-13.)  Only WTVE(TV) and a cable channel aired legislative report programs that "concerned
public issues and/or public services".  (Id. at 13.)  The Station's broadcasts of legislative reports
continued into the third quarter of 1994 and reported the first impeachment in Pennsylvania of a
state supreme court justice.  (Id. at 13-14.)  Representative Caltagirone believed that WTVE(TV)
did an exemplary job of allowing public access to these governmental related public interest
programs.  (Id. at 15.)
96.     Monica Ruano-Wenrich, a long-term resident of the Reading area, has been an
employee of the United Way of Berks County since July 1991.  (RBI Exh. 34 at 4.)  She testified
that in 1993, WTVE(TV) broadcast PSAs concerning the United Way.  (Id at 9, 27, 29-30.)
97.     Ronald Rouse has resided in the Reading area for 15 years.  He produced segments
for the WTVE(TV) program "Minority Voices."  (RBI Exh. 35 at 4.)  He recalled viewing the
Station's calendar of events and the local weather.  (Id. at 8.)  "Minority Voices" did not appear
on WTVE(TV) during the renewal period.  But it was created during the renewal period and
receives some credit.
98.     Richard Bennett is executive of the Hawk Mountain Council of the Boy Scouts of
America.  He has resided in the Reading area continuously since 1988.  (RBI Exh. 36 at 4.)
Mr. Bennett related that Mr. Bendetti spoke at two area high schools in 1993 on careers in
television in connection with a career awareness program that was sponsored by the Boy Scouts.
(Id. at 7-8, 15.)  Mr. Bennett recalled WTVE(TV) produced PSAs which focused on the
environment and on belonging to the Boy Scouts as opposed to a street gang.  (Id. at 11-12, 18-
20.)
99.     Douglas F. Didyoung, Sr. is a life-long resident of the Reading area.  (RBI Exh. 37,
at 4.)  During the renewal period, Mr. Didyoung was the executive director of Prisoners of
War/Missing in Action, Forget-Me-Nots, Inc.  The organization is a public awareness group
consisting of veterans and civilians who endeavor to have the federal government supply answers
about soldiers still missing from various wars.  WTVE(TV) aired videos supplied by his
organization which related to the construction of a Vietnam War Memorial in Berks County.
The Station also aired allegations that the federal government covered up knowledge about
American soldiers held captive long after the Vietnam conflict ended.  (Id. at 8-10, 25, 28, 33,
35.)  He also confirmed that the station had interviewed him in connection with those veterans'
issues.  (Id. at 12, 14.)
100.    Joan Breisch, a life-long resident of the Reading area, is the executive director of
the Literacy Council of Reading/Berks.  (RBI Exh. 38 at 4-5.)  The Literacy Council is a non-
profit organization that teaches adults to read, write and speak English.  Ms. Breisch was with the
Literacy Council throughout the renewal period.  (Id. at 5.)  She recalled the station airing PSAs
during the renewal period and one longer program concerning issues related to literacy.  (Id.,
passim.)  She recalled other PSAs shown on WTVE(TV) concerning the Humane Society.  (Id. at
15, 34, 40, 48.)
101.    Daniel Dillard is executive director of the Burn Prevention Foundation.  He
served in that capacity throughout the renewal period.  The organization develops and distributes
educational materials and curricula related to the prevention of burn injuries.  It also coordinates
a comprehensive regional health care network of providers of burn care services.  (RBI Exh. 39
at 3-4.)  Mr. Dillard confirmed that WTVE(TV) provided assistance in connection with a Burn
Foundation fund raising event and that it did not charge the Foundation for its services.  (Id. at 5-
7, 18, 20-21.)  Mr. Dillard confirmed that WTVE(TV) aired PSAs from the Burn Foundation as
well as "News to You" segments concerning the Burn Foundation and the National Fire
Protection Association.  (Id.)
102.    Michael A. O'Pake, a life-long resident of the Reading area, filmed a monthly 30-
minute program entitled "Report to the People."  (RBI Exh. 40 at 4-5.)  The program informs the
people of Berks County about activities of the legislature in Harrisburg.  (Id. at 5-6.)  Mr. O'Pake
could not confirm whether the program aired during the renewal period.  But he acknowledged
that he was contacted by WTVE(TV) in July 1994 with regard to a program which was taped and
aired later in 1994.  (Id. at 7-8, 39.)
103.    Frederick C. Windbeck, Jr. is the founder and executive director of the
Switchback Gravity Railroad Foundation, a volunteer organization established in 1986, which
seeks to restore Pennsylvania's first railroad.  (RBI Exh. 41 at 7-8, 11.)  WTVE(TV) worked with
the Foundation to produce a low-cost film for the purpose of promoting the Foundation and
informing the public about the railroad.  (Id. at 9-10.)
                  Witnesses Sponsored By Adams
104.    John Loos has been coordinator of emergency management for Berks County
since 1992.  (Adams Exh. 44 at 6.)  He has resided in the Reading area for 14 years.  Mr. Loos
coordinates the responses and recovery that follow an emergency.  (Id. at 7.)  In situations
warranting warnings to the public, he uses an emergency alert which is handled by two county
radio stations.  (Id. at 9-10.)  Local broadcast media are needed to inform the general public in
responding to such events as a weather emergency.  (Id. at 10.)  WTVE(TV) failed to contact him
or his agency in connection with broadcasting information concerning a local blizzard.  (Id. at 14-
15.)  Mr. Loos recalled that WTVE(TV) only contacted him to do a "short program."  Id. at 28-
29.  However, nothing ever came of it.  (Id. at 23.)  Mr. Loos does not recall whether WTVE(TV)
provided any air coverage with respect to any local emergency that occurred during the renewal
period.  (Id. at 28.)  Those emergencies included two blizzards and one earthquake as well as
related water main and electrical problems.  (Id. at 17-27.)
105.    Lawrence Medaglia is the elected Registrar of Wills and Clerk of the Orphans
Court for Berks County.  He is a life-long resident of the Reading area.  (Adams Exh. 45 at 5.)
Previously, he was the administrative supervisor of the Berks County District Attorney's office.
(Id. at 8.)  So far as he knew, WTVE(TV) never broadcast any programming related to the
District Attorney's office.  (Id. at 13.)  During the renewal period, the only television news
coverage available was on Channel 69 from Allentown, the Philadelphia network channel, or
Channel 8 from Lancaster.  Mr. Medaglia was not aware of the station's airing of Crime Stopper
PSAs or of its governmental affairs programming.  (Id. at 19.)  Such unawareness may have been
due to the absence of WTVE(TV) program scheduling in the local newspapers.
106.    James Troutman was the Berks County Clerk of Courts during the renewal
period. (Adams Exh. 46 at 5.)  He has been a resident of Berks County for 25 years.  (Id. at 6.)
Mr. Troutman attends meetings of the Berks County Commissioners.  (Id. at p. 7.)  WTVE(TV)
never covered any meeting of the County Commissioners.  (Id. at 13-14.)  Mr. Troutman had no
knowledge of WTVE(TV) ever providing any news coverage of any local, state or national
elections during the renewal period.  (Id. at 17.)  If Mr. Troutman wanted to view any local news
stories he would watch Channel 8 from Lancaster.  (Id. at 18.)
107.    Roger Kimpland resided in the Reading area for 25 years.  For the past 20 years,
he has been the media coordinator for the Reading Area Community College.  (Adams Exh. 47 at
5-6.)  If he wanted to watch coverage of local news and events during the renewal period, Mr.
Kimpland would watch Channel 8 from Lancaster.  (Id. at 9.)
108.    David Baldinger is a television producer for Lucent Technologies.  In the early
1980s he was the operations manager for WTVE(TV).  He had also worked for Channel 69 in
Allentown.  He has resided in Reading since 1984.  (Adams Exh. 48 at 5-6.)  While he was at
WTVE(TV), the station had two news broadcasts per day during the week with two-minute
updates during the evening and on the weekends.  Newscasts were locally oriented and included
coverage of city council and county commissioners' meetings, local elections and criminal
enforcement activities.  (Id. at 7-8.)  Mr. Baldinger recalled that after WTVE(TV) stopped
covering local news sometime in the mid-1980s, the only television coverage of local news was
provided for a brief period over Channel 15 from Lebanon and, infrequently, from Channel 69 in
Allentown.  (Id. at 8-9.)  WTVE(TV) did not provide any local news coverage of interest to
Reading or Berks County during the renewal period.  (Id. at 10.)  Mr. Baldinger testified that
while Philadelphia stations would not have carried news of interest to residents of Berks County,
some of the stations closer to Reading would have done so.  (Id. at 14-15.)
                      Community Activities
109.    The staff at Station WTVE(TV) made efforts at community outreach.  Those
included fund raisers for the Red Cross, Reading React (emergency radio band) and the Burn
Foundation.  The Station also produced a film for the Switchback Gravity Railroad Foundation.
School visits were made at which Station personnel spoke to students about careers in
broadcasting.  Visits were made by local youth groups to the Station's studio.  (RBI Exhs. 6, 8,
and 36.)  Station staff assisted local police in preparing an informational video and a local fire
company in producing tapes of an anniversary parade.  Local high schools were assisted in
producing their own shows.  (RBI Exh. 8, App. N, P.)  WTVE(TV) produced a five-minute
segment about the Reading Rehabilitation Hospital that aired on a local cable system.  (Id.)  The
Station donated space for the translator of the Harrisburg public television station.  (Id. at 32.)
The Station distributed fliers that explained a non-alcoholic dairy beverage program, donated
equipment and support services in conjunction with the production of a video on teenage
drinking and driving, and participated in meetings of local women's groups and discussions on
careers in broadcasting.  (RBI Exh. 8 at App. V.)  These are all commendable activities that
receive credit.
                           Compliance
                 Failures To Report Information
110.    To qualify for a renewal preference, the incumbent licensee must show a positive
record of compliance with the Communications Act and Commission rules.  Cowles
Broadcasting, Inc., 86 F.C.C. 2d 993, 1017 (1981).  Under the management of Micheal Parker,
RBI is shown to have been lax and indifferent in reporting significant events.  RBI has candidly
acknowledged that it failed on multiple occasions to comply with Commission requirements
to timely and accurately report officers, directors, shareholders and ownership/operating
agreements.  (RBI Exh. 14; Tr. 624-628, 814-815.)
                 Management Services Agreement
111.    RBI entered into the MSA on May 28, 1989, under which Partel was to receive a
substantial ownership interest in RBI.  (RBI Exh. 18 at 6-19; Adams Exh. 19; Tr. 626.)  The
MSA was to be reported to the Commission within 30 days of the MSA's execution under 1.65.
On February 7, 1992, more than one year after its execution, RBI reported the MSA, but only as
an amendment to the bankruptcy transfer application. (RBI Exh. 14.)  The amendment contained
no identifying reference to the MSA, did not direct the reader's attention to the MSA in the
material which followed, and gave no communicative information from which it might be
determined that Parker would be in full charge of the business of Station WTVE(TV). RBI's
counsel, to his credit, disclosed in a composite document prepared for the hearing these many
RBI "Reporting Failures."  Mr. Parker offered as explanation for delays in disclosure the fact that
the MSA was a work in progress which needed court approval before achieving finality.  (Tr.
625-626.)  But it was more than 18 months from the bankruptcy court's approval that the
Commission finally was informed that Parker via Partel had "full authority necessary to conduct
the day-to-day operations of the Station."  (Adams Exh. 19 at 4.)  There was no acceptable
excuse offered for the delay.
112.    Mr. Parker was to be elected chief operating officer with "full authority" to
conduct those day-to-day operations.  (Id.)  Parker received the authority to make all personnel
decisions and no checks for expenses were to be written without his express authority. (Id.)
Approval of the MSA was obtained from the bankruptcy court on January 8, 1991.  Thus, the
Commission was not informed immediately after the court's approval in January 1991, that
Mr. Parker was RBI's chief operating officer.  (RBI Exh. 14.)  Nor was the Commission
informed in connection with the transfer of RBI's license that Mr. Parker had been elected a
director of RBI in August, 1989, at the same meeting in which the MSA was approved by RBI's
shareholders.  (Adams Exh. 13 at 3-4.)  (RBI Exh. 14.)  Reference to the MSA appears towards
the end of the document as a consulting contract between Partel, Inc. and the debtor that was
court approved.  (Adams Exh. 30.)  The mere reference to the MSA in February, 1992 as cited in
RBI Exh. 14, did not disclose that Partel was to receive a substantial ownership interest or that
the Parker had full operational control over WTVE(TV).
              Officers, Directors and Shareholders
113.    RBI has acknowledged that between October, 1991 and March, 1994, it
misreported to the Commission the identities of RBI's officers and directors.  (RBI Exh. 14.)
Inaccurate reports were included in RBI's 1991 long-form transfer of control application, in its
April, 1992 ownership report, and in its April, 1993 ownership certification.  Mr. Parker signed
the inaccurate reports in question which he brushed away as "inadvertence[s]".  (Tr. 815.) RBI's
long-form transfer of control reflected that as late as November 1991, RBI stock had not been
issued to individuals and entities who had received the right to the stock almost one month prior
to the filing of the application.  (Adams Exh. 28.)  These matters were too important to be
excusable "inadvertence[s]".
                   Telemundo Option Agreement
114.    In May, 1998, RBI entered into a Network Affiliation Agreement ("Affiliation
Agreement") with Telemundo Network, Inc.  (RBI Exh. 11.)  After a delay of one year, the
Affiliation Agreement accompanied RBI's Ownership Report dated March 31, 1999.  Section
10(b) of the Affiliation Agreement provided:
                                                                 ... Telemundo shall have the right (the "Option"), in
          its sole discretion, exercisable upon sixty (60) days written notice
          to [RBI] (the "Option Notice Date"), to purchase all interests in
          [RBI] or substantially all of the assets [sic] of [RBI] for a purchase
          price equal to the greater of (i) $40 million or (ii) twelve (12) times
          the broadcast cash flow for the previous twelve (12) month period.
          --- [T]he Option shall be of no force or effect until such time as the
          grant of [RBI]'s license renewal application filed on or about
          April 1, 1994, with the FCC becomes final, that is, no longer
          subject to FCC or judicial review.
(Id.)  Thus, Telemundo held a conditional option to acquire ownership of Station WTVE (TV)
and timely disclosure of that option was withheld without excuse.
115.    Section 73.3613 of the Commission's Rules requires the submission to the
Commission, within 30 days of execution, of agreements which relate to the present or future
ownership of a broadcast license.  Section 73.3613(b)(3)(iii) specifically includes options as
agreements required to be submitted.  The Telemundo Affiliation Agreement was not submitted
to the Commission until April, 1999, almost a year after it was executed.  The fact that the option
was contingent upon RBI succeeding in its renewal did not negate RBI's duty to timely disclose
the option.
116.    By letter dated March 26, 1999, addressed to Ms. Ann Gaulke, an official of
Telemundo, Mr. McCracken acknowledged RBI's decision not to disclose the option:
          Because I never believed that Section 10(b) [of the Telemundo
          Affiliation Agreement] constituted an option that Telemundo could
          exercise at any time whether RBI desired to sell or not, I have not
          filed the [Telemundo Affiliation Agreement] with our ownership
          reports as an option affecting ownership.
                       (Adams Exh. 87.)
117.    A motive for the non-disclosure appears elsewhere in the McCracken letter:
          Our communications attorney has pointed out to us that the
          option set out in Section 10(b) could be construed in a way that
          could cause RBI considerable comparative disadvantage in the [to-
          be-designated comparative renewal] hearing, because it may seem
          that RBI could not be relied upon by the FCC to honor its promises
          to operate the station during the coming license renewal.... Thus,
          the last thing RBI wants is for the FCC to perceive that it seeks
          license renewal solely to unload the television station at the
          direction of an option holder.
(Id. at 1.)  Mr. McCracken and RBI were concerned that the agreement could harm their
comparative case and therefore arbitrarily chose not to file in violation of 73.3613.
                            Phase II
                Misrepresentation/Lack Of Candor
118.    Evidence was received on whether Mr. Parker engaged in a pattern of
misrepresentation or lack of candor with respect to disclosures made to the Commission in six
separate applications and one amendment.  Five of the applications and the one amendment were
filed while Parker was a principal of RBI.  The disclosures concerned formal Commission
decisions that were adverse to Mr. Parker's character qualifications.  (Adams Exhs. 49, 50, 51,
52, 53, 54.)  The burden of proceeding and the burden of proof on the issue were assigned to
Adams.  The Bureau participated in the examination of witnesses and sponsored two documents
and two stipulations.
                         San Bernardino
119.    On October 30, 1987, a Commission Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial
Decision, which found, inter alia, that Mr. Parker was a real party-in-interest to the application of
San Bernardino Broadcasting Limited Partnership ("SBBLP"), an applicant for a new television
station in San Bernardino, California.  The Judge based his finding on actions taken by Mr.
Parker between the time SBBLP was organized and the time SBBLP's general partner fired Mr.
Parker as consultant.  Mr. Parker appeared as a witness and testified at the San Bernardino
hearing.  (Tr. 1922.)  As a consequence of Mr. Parker's role, the Judge disqualified SBBLP's
application from comparative consideration.  Religious Broadcasting Network, 2 F.C.C. Rcd
6561 (Admin. L. J. 1987).  Mr. Parker received and read a copy of the Initial Decision shortly
after its release.  (Tr. 2082.)
120.    On July 5, 1988, the Review Board refused to award integration credit and held:
          We affirm, con brio, the ALJ's refusal to award "integration" credit
          to SSB; its application was and remains a travesty and a hoax.  We
          need not repeat, point-by-point, all of the findings of fact which the
          ALJ has set out to support his conclusion that the progenitor and
          the real party-in-interest of SBB is definitely not Van Osdel, she
          being merely a fig leaf for the true kingpin of SBB, one Micheal
          Parker, who currently holds an interest in numerous other
          broadcast permits (I.D., para. 61), and who could not in his own
          identity have hoped to prevail in this very close comparative
          contest.
                        * * *
     
          [W]e find no error in the ALJ's core conclusion that Van Osdel is
          neither the sole nor dominant management figure --- but a
          convenient vizard [and SBBLP] is a transpicuous sham [cite
          omitted], and the ALJ justly rejected its attempted fraud.
          Religious Broadcasting Network, 3 FCC Rcd 4085, 4090 (Rev. Bd.
          1988).  (Emphasis added.)
Mr. Parker received and read a copy of the Review Board's decision shortly after its release.    (Tr.
2085.)
121.    After the Initial Decision, the parties reached a settlement which the Review
Board approved.  5 F.C.C. Rcd 6362, released October 31, 1990.  SBBLP received $850,000 to
dismiss its application.  Religious Broadcasting Network, 5 F.C.C. Rcd 6362 (Rev. Bd. 1990).
Mr. Parker did not directly share in the payment to SBBLP.  He testified that he "never got a
dime."  (Tr. 1945.)  However, at one time Mr. Parker held a 20% interest in SBBLP which he
transferred to a sister and her husband who did receive money from the settlement.  Mr. Parker
testified that his understanding at that time was that approval of the settlement resolved the real
party-in-interest issue in favor of SBBLP, rationalizing that otherwise, SBBLP could not have
participated in the settlement.  (Tr. 2069-70, 2074-75.)
                           Mt. Baker
122.    One month after the Review Board found Mr. Parker to be an undisclosed real
party-in-interest, the Commission denied an application for review filed by another entity
controlled by Mr. Parker.  (Tr. 747.)  Mt. Baker Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.C.C. Rcd 4777
(1988).  Mt. Baker asked the Commission to reinstate a construction permit for a new television
station in Anacortes, Washington.  The staff had cancelled the permit due to a substantial
variance found between what had been authorized and what Mt.  Baker had actually constructed.
The Commission denied reinstatement and held:
     [I]mproper construction did not occur through error or inadvertence; the facts
     clearly indicate an effort to deceive the Commission.  (Emphasis added.)
3 F.C.C. Rcd at 4778.  Mr. Parker received and read the Commission's decision shortly after its
issuance.  (Tr. 1908, 2076.)  Notwithstanding the finding of an "effort to deceive the
Commission", Mr. Parker testified that he understood that the Commission did not have a
problem with anyone's character in the proceeding because no character issue was added and
decided.  (Tr. 2645.)  The conclusion that the Commission had no problem is rejected in view of
the decision's language.

                  Disclosures On Applications
                            Form 315
123.    Questions 4 and 7 of the Commission's transfer application form asks for
information regarding character qualifications.
     Question 4:
     Legal Qualifications:
          (a)  Has an adverse finding been made, adverse final action taken or consent
          decree approved by any court or administrative body as to the applicant or
          any party to the application in any civil or criminal proceeding brought
          under the provisions of any law related to the following: any felony,
          antitrust, unfair competition, fraud, unfair labor practices, or
          discrimination?  (Emphasis added.)
          (b)  Is there now pending in any court or administrative body any proceeding
          involving any of the matters referred to in 4(a)?
               If the answer to (a) or (b) above is Yes, attach as Exhibit No. ___ , a full
          disclosure concerning the persons and matters involved, identifying the
          court or administrative body and the proceeding (by dates and file
          numbers), stating the facts upon which the proceeding was based or the
               nature of the offense committed, and disposition or current status, of the
          matter.  Information called for by this question which is already on file
          with the Commission need not be refiled provided:  (1) the information is
          now on file in another application or FCC form filed by or on behalf of
          transferee; (2) the information is identified fully by reference to the file
          number (if any); the FCC form number and the filing date of the
          application or other form containing the information and the page of
          paragraph referred to; and (3) after making the reference, the transferee
          states, "No change since date of filing."
     Question 7:
     Broadcast Interests:
     Has the applicant or any party to this application had any interest in or connection with
     the following:
          (a)  an application which has been dismissed with prejudice by the
          Commission?
          (b)  an application which has been denied by the Commission?
          (c)  a broadcast station, the license of which has been revoked?
          (d)  an application in any Commission proceeding which left unresolved
          character issues against the applicant
        (e)    If the answer ---is Yes, state in Exhibit No. --, the following information
                    (i)  name of party,
                    (ii) nature of interest, giving dates,
                    (iii)     call letters of station,
                    (iv) location.
Question 4 calls for "full disclosure" about adverse findings of "fraud" and essentially asks for
copies of the decisions.  The word "fraud" is sufficiently descriptive to require disclosure of the
adverse decisions against Parker in San Bernardino ("transpicuous sham" and "attempted fraud")
and Mt. Baker ("effort to deceive the Commission").  Question 4 was answered "no."  The
information requested by Questions 7(a) and 7(b) were answered "yes."  Question 7(c) asks about
revocations and the question was answered "no."  Question 7(d) calls for disclosure in the
context of the Commission's Allegan policy and that question was answered "no."
                            Form 346
5.      Form 346 is used to apply for an application to construct a low power television
station (LPTV).  Form 346 questions concerning the legal qualifications of an applicant are
substantially the same that Form 315 asks of parties to a transfer.  But Question 4 is different in
one material respect.  In Form 315, Question 4 asks whether a party was the subject of an adverse
finding made by "any administrative body."  In Form 346, the Question 4 counterpart asks
whether an adverse finding has been made that was related to "fraud before another govern-
mental unit."  (Emphasis added.)  Since the adverse findings that would apply to Mr. Parker
involve only the subject of "fraud" at the Commission and not at "another governmental unit,"
the facts of this case do not fit with respect to Form 346 Question 4.  However, the disclosures in
Form 346 Question 7 do apply to Mr. Parker in the same manner as Question 7 disclosures apply
in Form 315.
                                
             Parker's Disclosures To The Commission
                         San Francisco
6.      On March 2, 1989, an entity named West Coast United Broadcasting ("West
Coast") filed an application for consent to transfer control of Station KWBB(TV), San
Francisco.  (Adams Exh. 50.)  West Coast's secretary signed the application on behalf of the
transferor and the transferee giving for her address Mr. Parker's residential address.  (Adams Exh.
50 at 23; Tr. 1939-40.)  The application reported that Mr. Parker was a vice president and a
director for West Coast and would continue as such following the transfer.  (Adams Exh. 50 at
24, 34.)
7.      West Coast responded to the questions with an unqualified "no" to both parts of
Question 4.  (Adams Exh. 50 at 7.)  West Coast responded to Question 7 in the affirmative as to
subparts (a) and (b) and in the negative as to subparts (c) and (d) thus denying that there were any
unresolved character issues against Parker.  The narrative disclosure stated in an exhibit:
          Micheal L. Parker, Vice President and a director of West Coast, ...
          is an officer, director, and shareholder of Mt.  Baker Broadcasting
          Co., which was denied an application for extension of time of its
          construction permit for KORC(TV), Anacortes, Washington, FCC
          File No. BMPCT-8607OIKP.  See Memorandum Opinion and
          Order, FCC 88-234, released August 5, 1988.  Mt. Baker
          Broadcasting Co. has pending before the Commission a Petition
          for Reconsideration of that decision.
(Id. at 26-27.)  The narrative failed to mention the finding of the "effort to deceive the
Commission."  The narrative also failed to mention at all the San Bernardino decision or
Mr. Parker's role in the flawed SBBLP application.
8.      The law firm of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis ("Schnader, Harrison")
submitted the application to the Commission.  (Adams Exh. 50 at 1; Tr. 1858.)  R. Clark
Wadlow, a Schnader, Harrison partner, previously represented Mr. Parker, or entities in which he
had attributable interests.  (RBI Exh. 46 at 2.)  Mr. Parker acknowledged having reviewed the
narrative response in Exhibit III which he asserted had been drafted by Schnader, Harrison
attorneys.  Mr. Parker claimed that West Coast had relied upon legal advice to decide what was
needed to respond to the application's questions.  (RBI Exh. 46 at 6.)  Mr. Parker testified that he
believed the information referenced above in connection with Question 7 had been prepared by
Mr. Wadlow.  (Tr. 1941, 2012.)  Mr. Wadlow was not certain that he had reviewed the
application.  (Tr. 1858, 1864-65.)  Mr. Wadlow concluded that Question 7 was answered
correctly, but he had no explanation as to why the San Bernardino decision was not referenced.
Nor had he read the Mt. Baker decision at that time.  (Tr. 1859-60, 1865.)  Mr. Parker was not
represented in Mt. Baker by Schnader, Harrison.  (Tr. 1914.)
                       Los Angeles (LPTV)
9.      On December 8, 1989, Mr. Parker filed an application for a construction permit for a
new low power television station in Los Angeles.  (Adams Exh. 49.)  Mr. Parker answered
questions 4 and 7 in the same manner as the disclosure in West Coast.  He also included the same
narrative statement relative to the Mt.  Baker construction permit stating that an extension of time
was denied and that a petition for reconsideration was pending before the Commission.  (Adams
Exh. 49 at 4-5, 11.)  As was the case in the West Coast application, nothing appeared in the Los
Angeles application relating to the "effort to deceive" in Mt. Baker and nothing at all appeared
with respect to the San Bernardino decision which was not even mentioned.
                         Norwell (WHRC)
10.     On July 23, 1991, an application was filed to transfer control of Station WHRC-TV,
Norwell, Massachusetts, from Nikita Maggos to Two If By Sea Broadcasting Corporation
("TIBS").  Mr. Parker was the president, sole director and 100% shareholder of TIBS.  (Adams
Exh. 51 at 10.)  The application was transmitted to the Commission by Mr. Eric Kravetz, a
communications attorney.  (Id., Tr. 2343.)
11.     In response to Questions 4 and 7, TIBS checked the same "no" and "yes" boxes as
had West Coast.  (Adams Exh. 51 at 9, 11.)  The narrative exhibit contained the same
information about the denial of Mt. Baker's extension application but no reference was made to a
petition for reconsideration.  The exhibit explaining Question 7 "yes" responses stated the
following:
          Micheal Parker was an officer, director and shareholder of
          Mt. Baker Broadcasting Co., which was denied an application for
          extension of time of its construction permit for KORC(TV) ,
          Anacortes, Washington, [citations omitted].
          Although neither an applicant nor the holder of an interest in the
          applicant to the proceeding, Micheal Parker's role as a paid
          independent consultant to San Bernardino Broadcasting Limited
          Partnership ("SBB"), an applicant in MM Docket No. 83-911 for
          authority to construct a new commercial television station on
          Channel 30 in San Bernardino, CA, was such that the general partner
          in SBB was held not to be the real party in interest to that applicant
          and that, instead, for purposes of the comparative analysis of SBB's
          integration and diversification credit, Mr. Parker was deemed such.
          See Religious Broadcasting Network et. al., FCC 88R-38, released
          July 5, 1988.  NM Docket 83-911 was
          settled in 1990 and Mr. Parker did not receive an interest of any kind
          in the applicant awarded the construction permit therein,
          Sandino Telecasters, Inc.  See Religious Broadcasting Network et.
          al., FCC 9OR-101, released October 31, 1990.
(Adams Exh. 51 at 17-1 8.)
12.     Mr. Parker testified that he does not know the narrative's author.  But he believes
that an attorney drafted it and he suggested that Mr. Marvin Mercer, RBI's bankruptcy attorney,
prepared the narrative with input from either Mr. Eric Kravetz or Mr. Wadlow's law firm (then
Sidley & Austin).  (RBI Exh. 46 at 7; Tr. 1798, 1952-54, 2058.)  Mr. Kravetz, a communications
counsel who did some work for Mr. Parker, denied any role in the narrative's preparation and had
no knowledge as to who prepared it or how it was prepared.  (Tr. 2344-46.)  Mr. Wadlow also
denied that he had any role.  (Tr. 1805.)  Ms. Paula Friedman, a former Sidley & Austin
associate, testified that she had no role in the Norwell application and that so far as she knew, no
one from Sidley & Austin had any role.  (Tr. 2105-06.)  Whoever was the drafter, Mr. Parker
admitted reviewing the application and approving it, including the narrative.  (RBI Exh. 46 at 7.)
13.     Mr. Parker justified the omissions regarding the Mt. Baker and San Bernardino
decisions based on a letter that he had received from Mr. Wadlow on February 18, 1991.  (RBI
Exh. 46 at 7 and Attachment D.)  The Wadlow letter addressed the sufficiency of the narrative's
disclosure and stated:
          It is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ")
          [in the San Bernardino case] simply concluded that SBBLP had
          failed to report your activities and involvements [sic] with SBBLP - -
          which the ALJ found to be such as to make you a real party-in-
          interest.  However, the ALJ did not find that you had done anything
          improper [sic] or that anything you had done reflected adversely on
          you.
          As I mentioned above, we have continued to represent you
          in other FCC proceedings, as we have for the last eight or ten
          years.  You serve as a principal of other FCC licensees.  We are
          aware of no question that has ever been raised as to your
          qualifications to hold such a position.
Mr. Parker and Mr. Wadlow testified the letter was prepared in haste because Mr. Parker had
requested that it be prepared quickly in order to present it to third parties in connection with
matters related to RBI's bankruptcy.  (Tr. 1806-08, 2001-02, 2016-19, 2025; Adams Exh. 59.)
The letter was not prepared in connection with disclosures to be made to the Commission.
14.     Following the Norwell grant, three more applications were filed which contained the
same questions and answers which had appeared in the West Coast and Norwell applications:
Reading, Twenty Nine Palms and Dallas.  The narrative describing the Mt.  Baker and San
Bernardino decisions which had appeared in the Norwell application was used once again.
(Adams Exh. 52 at 7, 12, 30; Adams Exh. 53; and Adams Exh. 54 at 7, 10, 24-25; Tr. 1971-74.)
                         Reading (WTVE)
15.     On November 13, 1991, an application was filed for the assignment of Station
WTVE(TV), Reading, PA.  (Adams Exh. 52.)  The transferee was Partel, the company controlled
by Mr. Parker that had entered into the MSA with RBI.  The disclosure followed the pattern of
answering "no" to questions about fraud and including in an exhibit the "boilerplate" narrative as
was used for West Coast and Norwell.  Sidley & Austin represented that it had no connection
with Parker's disclosure.  (Tr. 1805, 2105.)  In response to Question 7(a) as to whether any
party had any interest in or connection with any application that had been denied or dismissed
with prejudice, Mr. Parker responded "yes."  (Adams Exh. 52 at 12.)  But Mr. Parker answered
"no" to Question 7(d) asking whether there were unresolved character issues.  The narrative
descriptions of Mr. Parker vis a vis the Mt. Baker and San Bernardino proceedings were
submitted to the Commission as follows:
          Micheal Parker also was an officer, director and shareholder of  Mt.
          Baker Broadcasting Co.  Mt. Baker Broadcasting Co.'s application
          for extension of time of its construction permit for KORC(TV),
          Anacortes, Washington (FCC File No. BMPCT-86070KP) was
          denied.  See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 88   234,
          released August 5, 1988.
          Although neither an applicant nor the holder of an interest in the
          applicant to the proceeding, Mr. Parker's role as a paid
          independent consultant to San Bernardino Broadcasting Limited
          Partnership ("SBB"), - - - was such that the general partner in SBB
          was held not to be the real party in interest to that applicant and
          that, for purposes of the comparative analysis of SBB's integration
          and diversification credit, Mr. Parker was deemed such. - - - .  This
          proceeding was settled in 1990 and Mr. Parker did not receive an
          interest of any kind in the Sandino Telecasters, Inc., the applicant
          awarded the construction permit. (Citation omitted.)
(Adams Exh. 52 at 30.)
                    Twenty Nine Palms (KVMD)
16.     On June 4, 1992, an application for the assignment of Station KVMD(TV) at
Twenty Nine Palms, CA was filed. (Adams Exh. 53.)  Mr. Parker was the transferee and he
executed the transferee portion of the application.  There was no law firm or lawyer identified
with this application.  Mr. Parker responded "no" to Question 4 about "fraud".  He also answered
"no" to Question 7(d) asking whether Mr. Parker had any interest in or connection with any
application which left an unresolved character issue against the applicant.  (Adams Exh. 53 at 6,
8.)  Mr. Parker did answer in the affirmative to Question 7(a) and 7(b) asking whether he had any
interest in or connection with an application which had been denied or dismissed with prejudice,
referring to Parker's disclosure in an exhibit.  (Adams Exh. 53 at 18-20.)  The narrative accounts
of the Mt. Baker and San Bernardino proceedings were the same as those made in the Station
WTVE(TV) transfer quoted above.  (Adams Exh. 53 at 19-20.)
                         Dallas (KCBI)
17.     On August 3, 1992, an application for assignment of the license of International
Broadcast Station KCBI, Dallas, TX, was filed.  (Adams Exh. 54.)  The assignee was TIBS, a
Parker controlled entity.  Mr. Parker responded "no" to the question about fraud.  He also
answered "no" to the question of whether he had any interest or connection with any applications
which left an unresolved character issue against the applicant.  In this particular application, the
staff sought a clarifying amendment on whether basic character issues had been sought or added
with respect to any of the applicants whose applications had been dismissed.  (Bureau Exh. 2 at
3; Tr. 1977, 1979.)  After receiving the request, Mr. Kravetz spoke with Mr. Parker and in
October 1992, Mr. Kravetz drafted an amendment, which Mr. Parker signed:
          Two If By Sea Broadcasting Corporation ("Two If By Sea") has
          applied for authority to acquire Station KCBI from Criswell Center
          for Biblical Studies.  As part of that application, Two If By Sea listed
          applications in which its officers, directors and principals
          had held interests and which were dismissed at the request of the
          applicant.  This will confirm that no character issues had been added
          or requested against those applicants when those applications were
          dismissed.  (Emphasis added.)
(Adams Exh. 55 at 3; Bureau Exh. 2; Tr. 1980, 1982-83, 2355-56.)  Mr. Parker testified that
he or someone under his direction had provided Mr. Kravetz with the information and that      Mr.
Kravetz proposed the amendment which Mr. Parker reviewed "very carefully" and was "satisfied as
to its accuracy."  (Tr. 1983.)  Mr. Kravetz testified that he had spoken to the FCC staff.  (Tr. 2355.)
Mr. Kravetz then drafted the amendment (Adams Exh. 55) based on information that Mr. Parker
provided and which Mr. Parker reviewed and signed thereby giving his approval.  (Tr. 2355-56.)
In drafting the amendment, Mr. Kravetz relied exclusively on information provided him by Mr.
Parker and made no independent research.  (Tr. 2357.)
Mr. Kravetz filed the amendment on October 29, 1992.  The Commission staff granted the
application one day later.  (Adams Exhs. 55, 56.)
                   Evidence Of Lack Of Candor
18.     Mr. Parker never told Mr. Kravetz that a real party-in-interest issue had been added
in the San Bernardino proceeding.  That was a critical piece of information and its withholding
by Parker left Mr. Kravetz factually out in the cold.  Mr. Kravetz was entitled to receive candid
information from Parker before he drafted the amendment.  Had Mr. Parker told
Mr. Kravetz that a real party-in-interest issue had been requested and added in San Bernardino,
Mr. Kravetz would not have drafted the amendment as he did.  That conclusion is established by
the uncontradicted testimony of Mr. Kravetz.  (Tr. 2372.)  Mr. Kravetz's testimony is credible.
As a practicing attorney, there would be no motive for Mr. Kravetz to draft and/or file an
incomplete or misleading amendment with the Commission.  To the contrary, as a practitioner
before the Commission, Mr. Kravetz had every motive to file a complete and truthful document.
Therefore, it is accepted that Mr. Kravetz would have identified and fully described the San
Bernardino proceeding had Mr. Parker informed him of the facts.  In that event, Mr. Kravetz
would have disclosed to the Commission staff that a real-party-in interest issue had been added in
the San Bernardino proceeding and that it had been resolved by the hearing Judge adverse to Mr.
Parker and that the Review Board had agreed with the Judge's conclusion. (Tr. 2372-74.)
19.     Mr. Parker testified that he told Mr. Kravetz that there were no unresolved issues in
the San Bernardino proceeding based on advice that Mr. Parker said he received from Sidley &
Austin attorneys.  (RBI Exh. 46 at 8; Tr. 1983-84.)  But Mr. Parker received no such advice from
Sidley & Austin.  Mr. Wadlow testified that he could never have given such advice because he
was aware that a character issue had been added against SBBLP in the San Bernardino
proceeding.  (Tr. 1813.)  In direct contravention of advice that Mr. Parker would have received
had the lawyers been fully informed by him, the amendment misleadingly concluded that:
          No character issues had been added or requested against those
          applicants when those applications were dismissed.
(Adams Exh. 55 at 3.)  That was not literally true and became misleading without a full
explanation.  A real-party-in-interest issue had been added in which Parker was involved and
which was resolved on the merits against SBBLP and Parker.  Initially, Mr. Parker contended in
written testimony that the Dallas amendment was not meant to include information about the
Mt. Baker or the San Bernardino proceedings:
          Based on the previous advice from the Sidley attorneys about the
          Mt. Baker and San Bernardino proceedings, Linda or I indicated
          that there were no unresolved character issues pending when the
          applications to which I was a party were dismissed.
(RBI Exh. 46 at 8.)  That statement, while incomplete, was literally accurate because with
adverse character findings having been made on the merits, there were no unresolved character
issues left to resolve.
20.     But at the hearing, Mr. Parker took a different approach.  He explained in open court
that he had intended the amendment to cover only those applications in which he, Parker, was the
named applicant or in which he had an interest.  According to Mr. Parker's rationale, because the
Dallas application noted that Mr. Parker was neither the applicant nor the holder of an interest in
the applicant, the San Bernardino application was not relevant to the Dallas amendment:
          The amendment says and gives the same disclosure --- .  And it
          may be cutting fine hairs but the amendment says what the
          amendment says and it clearly says that while I was neither the
          applicant or a holder of an interest, this was (sic) the facts of the
          case.
(Tr. 1987-88.)  Mr. Parker was less then candid in giving such testimony.  His "fine hairs"
explanation for omitting information shows Mr. Parker giving the Commission less than the full
facts when he exchanged and introduced his written testimony.  His live testimony that he held
no interest in the San Bernardino application of SBBLP is intentionally deceptive because he had
been found in that proceeding to be the real party-in-interest behind a "transpicuous sham."  So
in that respect he was a "holder of an interest."
21.     Mr. Parker also wrongly suggested at the hearing that Mr. Kravetz had drafted the
responsive amendment because Mr. Kravetz knew what had been represented in the original
KCBI application concerning the San Bernardino application.  (Tr. 1990.)  That was at best a
mischievous distraction.  As noted above, Mr. Kravetz had no role in drafting the narrative in the
Dallas application.  (Adams Exh. 54 at 24-25.)  And he had no knowledge about the real party-
in-interest issue.  (Tr. 2372)  As for the Dallas amendment, Mr. Parker was solely responsible for
the disclosure and took advantage of his counsel's lack of information.  Yet, Mr. Parker seeks to
convince in this proceeding that the Dallas amendment indirectly informed the staff of the legal
effect of the San Bernardino proceeding because the Judge's adverse conclusions became
subsumed in the Review Board's decisions that denied SBBLP any integration credit and
accepted a settlement.  (Tr. 2027.)  But there is absolutely no basis in the language of the
amendment and/or in Mr. Parker's testimony to excuse or justify an intentional omission by
Mr. Parker in the Dallas amendment (Adams Exh. 55) of adverse findings against his
qualifications in the Mt. Baker and San Bernardino proceedings.

22.     Mr. Parker has also testified in this proceeding that after the San Bernardino
decisions denying comparative credit because Mr. Parker was the real- party-in-interest but
allowing a settlement payment to be made to SBBLP, he believed that the real-party-in-interest
issue "went away."  (Tr. 2027.)  Evidence cannot be found in this record that Mr. Wadlow shared
Mr. Parker's view on the effect the settlement of the San Bernardino proceeding had on the
Initial Decision's conclusions because Mr. Wadlow could not recall having so advised
Mr. Parker on the subject.  (Tr. 1829, 1856.)  Mr. Parker testified that by the time of the
San Bernardino dismissal, he had concluded in his own mind that the disqualifying issue had
been resolved favorably by the Review Board notwithstanding the Board's critical language.
(Tr. 2028, 2030, 2064-65.)  Mr. Parker's explanation must be rejected.  Mr. Parker acknowledged
that he knew that a character issue had been added in the San Bernardino proceeding prior to the
dismissal of the application.  (Tr. 1992.)  Even though not literally found to be "unqualified,"
Mr. Parker understood that the character issue focused, in large part, on him and that the
character issue was going to have implications for him.  (Tr. 2080-81.)
23.     Mr. Parker continued to assert that prior to a Commission "by direction" letter to
TIBS, he had formed his self-acquitting view that the Review Board in its approval of the San
Bernardino settlement had favorably resolved the issue.  (Tr. 2637-39.)  That misapprehension
was dispelled in 1997, when the Commission published that letter:
     Serious character questions also remain regarding the assignee,
     Parker/TIBS.  For example, in one instance an administrative law judge
     disqualified an applicant in a comparative hearing for a new television station
     after finding Parker to be an undisclosed principal in that applicant.  See Religious
     Broadcasting Network, 2 FCC Rcd 6561, 6566-67 (I.D. 1987).  The Review
     Board upheld the disqualification, characterizing the application as a "travesty and
     a hoax" 3 FCC Rcd 4085, 4090 (Rev. Bd. 1988), and the applicant as a
     "transpicuous sham" which had "attempted fraud" upon the Commission.  Id. at
     4091.
Two If By Sea Broadcasting Corporation, 12 F.C.C. Rcd at 2255, 2257 (1997).  This "by
direction" letter published for all to see the serious questions festering about Mr. Parker's
character qualifications and came close to suggesting that Parker was "unqualified" to own or
control a licensee.  Despite those concerns about qualifications, it was later advised in a staff
letter dated May 22, 1997, that the earlier "by direction" letter did not limit the transferability of
any stations that were commonly controlled by Parker.  (Bureau Exh. 2.)  It seems from the later
letter advice that it was contemplated that Parker's qualifications would be in hearing in
connection with a contemplated assignment of a Hartford license (WHRC   TV) after the
qualifications of the assignor were litigated in a pending renewal proceeding.  (Bureau Exh. 2.)
But the qualification questions of the contemplated assignee which was a Parker controlled
entity, were never formally addressed.  The statute of limitations barred the issues for this case.
See Memorandum Opinion and Order FCC 99M -49, released September 3, 1999.  The Hartford
license is now the subject of a settlement and to further avoid addressing Parker's qualifications,
Parker's interest has been assigned to (or bought out by)  a "white knight."  See Martin W.
Hoffman,Trustee, et al., 15 F.C.C. Rcd 22086, 22089 n.4 (2000).  It is truly remarkable that since
1989, Mr. Parker has been able to successfully navigate through the Commission always one tack
away from anyone taking a dead reckoning on his character qualifications.
                      Mr. Wadlow's Letter
24.     The Wadlow letter was written eight months after the Review Board had affirmed
the Initial Decision in the San Bernardino proceeding, yet the letter makes no mention of the
decision.  (Adams Exh. 58.)  It was written and delivered within 45 minutes of the request
because it was needed by Mr. Parker to show to a third party.  (Tr. 1866; 2002   2003.)  The
letter was written on stationary of the law firm of Sidley & Austin and used the colloquial "our
opinion" and the collective "we."  It had the trappings of and indeed it was an opinion letter of
the law firm of Sidley & Austin.  The letter represented that the Initial Decision in the
San Bernardino proceeding had not been reviewed.  But Mr. Wadlow had litigated on behalf of
another party in the San Bernadino proceeding.  It is not surprising he had not reviewed the
Initial Decision in a matter which he actively litigated because, having first-hand knowledge, he
did not need to review the facts.  (Tr. 1831.)  According to the letter, the Judge "did not find
[Mr. Parker] had done anything improper or that anything [he] had done reflected
adversely on [him]. (Adams Exh. 58.)  Mr. Wadlow modified that conclusion by his testimony
that the "conclusion [in the letter], other than the reference to the ALJ, is accurate."  (Tr. 1822.)
But the letter was never intended as advice on Commission disclosure thereby making it less
relevant.
25.     The Wadlow letter also stated that the law firm was "aware of no question that has
ever been raised as to [Parker's] qualifications" to serve as a principal of Commission licensees.
That legal opinion was based in part on the action of the Review Board to approve SBBLP for
settlement whose application was denied but not dismissed.  (Tr. 1823.)  It is true that there has
not been an adjudication by an Initial Decision, the Review Board or the Commission that Mr.
Parker was "disqualified" to hold a license.  That is an important distinction because while
there were decisions on the merits that Parker had been involved in disqualifying conduct, there
was never any ruling that he was "disqualified."  Mr. Parker was justified in relying on the legal
advice as stated in the letter that he has not been "disqualified".  However, that letter provides no
comfort with respect to answering "no" to Question 4 or in failing to fully disclose the findings
of "fraud."
                       Norwell Disclosure
26.     The transfer application for the station in Norwell was filed by Mr. Kravetz for the
transferor, Nikita Maggos.  (Adams Exh. 51.) (Tr. 2344.)  TIBS, the transferee, was a controlled
by Mr. Parker who personally executed the transferee section.  (Adams Exh. 51 at 14, 16-18.)
Mr. Parker answered Questions 7(a) and (b) in the affirmative as to whether any party to the
application had any interest in or connection with any application which had been denied or
dismissed with prejudice.  (Adams Exh. 51 at 11, 16-18.)  In an exhibit, Mr. Parker described his
interests in Mt. Baker and his participation in San Bernardino.
27.     Mr. Kravetz was not connected with the Parker/TIBS disclosure in the Norwell
application.  He received the transferee's disclosure from Mr. Parker.  (Tr. 2346  47.)
Mr. Kravetz did not review the disclosure or discuss it with Mr. Parker.  (Tr. 2348.)  The
question asking about "fraud" was answered "no" by Mr. Parker and not by Mr. Kravetz.  Parker
also answered "no" to the question asking if there were unresolved character issues.
Mr. Parker believed that his San Bernardino disclosure was sufficient given that he had no
ownership interest, he did not directly benefit financially from the settlement, and the crux of
the offending conduct was a failure to disclose the scope of Parker's association with the
SBBLP application.  And Parker was also relying on advice from Sidley & Austin that his
"qualifications" to hold a Commission license were in order.  There is a substantial question as to
Mr. Parker's reasoning for making inadequate disclosure which is being addressed in this
proceeding.  But under the limited circumstances of his retainer, Mr. Kravetz was not responsible
for Mr. Parker's disclosures.  Therefore, there is no issue concerning advice of Mr. Kravetz as a
defense.
                       Dallas Disclosure
28.     Disclosure also was made at a later date in an exhibit with which
Mr. Kravetz had more of a hands on connection.  (Adams Exh. 55.)  Mr. Kravetz recalls that in
October 1992, he was contacted on a question about the application by Mr. Parker or by a
member of the Commission staff.  (Tr. 2354.)  The application had been filed on August 3, 1992.
(Adams Exh. 54.)  But Mr. Kravetz was not associated with that document.  (Tr. 2354.)  A
question was posed by Commission attorneys who were processing the application.  The question
concerned the adequacy of disclosure in the application.  Mr. Kravetz testified:
          And I talked to Andrea Ellis, who was the FCC staff person at the
          time who was reviewing the [Dallas] application to find out what
          the defect was.  She advised me that there was nothing explicit in
          the application that talked about whether [the] character issue had
          been added or raised with regard to the other applications with
          which the applicant was connected   the applicant and its principal
          were connected.
(Tr. 2355.)
29.     Mr. Kravetz spoke with Mr. Parker, advised him of the staff's concerns and of the
need to "cure the defect", and "asked him if he [Parker] could provide a statement."
(Tr. 2355-56.)  Mr. Parker complied and Mr. Kravetz prepared an amendment in which he
inserted "the additional information" that Mr. Parker provided. (Id.)  Mr. Kravetz sent the
document to Mr. Parker for his review and signature.  (Id.)  Mr. Kravetz undertook no
independent research into the cases because that is not what he had been retained to do in
preparing an amendment.  (Tr. 2357.)  Mr. Kravetz testified that if Mr. Parker had told him
(Mr. Kravetz) that he (Mr. Parker) had been found to be a real party in interest in the San
Bernardino proceeding, Mr. Kravetz would have insisted on disclosing the case and the fact of
the added issue and the relevant case history. (Tr. 2374-75.)
30.     The evidence shows that Mr. Parker handled all disclosure himself, without benefit
of counsel.  Mr. Kravetz drafted and filed a Dallas amendment based on information provided by
Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker has offered his own reasons as to why he thought that the additional
details about the San Bernardino proceeding were unnecessary.  But the reasons given by Mr.
Parker, which are his alone and not attributable to Mr. Kravetz, are self-contradictory and
rejected.  First, he testified that he did not consider the San Bernardino proceeding to have been
included in the universe of applications covered by the Dallas amendment.  (Tr. 1986-88.)
Second, he asserted that he thought that the San Bernardino proceeding had been resolved on a
comparative basis only without any finding of a disqualification.  (Tr. 2027-28, 2064-67, 2070.)
Third, he stated that he believed that the real party-in-interest issue had been favorably resolved
in an approved settlement.  (RBI Exh. 46 at 4; Tr. 2070.)  But such reasoning as discussed and
analyzed above, has no connection at all with Mr. Kravetz's limited legal services that were of a
technical filing nature not involving research or counseling.
      Mr. Parker Was Capable Of More Meaningful Disclosure
31.     In stark contrast to the wobbly explanations as to why the obvious Commission
holdings were not disclosed in Parker's applications, Mr. Parker later found it to be in his interest
to be more complete in representing operative facts of the adverse findings.  Far more
informative facts were contained in Mr. Parker's letter sent in 1998, to Ms. Ann Gaulke, Vice
President for Affiliate Relations, Telemundo Network, Inc. (Bureau Exh. 1 at 9-10.)  Mr. Parker
wrote to Ms. Gaulke that the San Bernardino proceeding found that he was an undisclosed real
party in interest and that as a result an applicant was found disqualified.  He also made reference
to conclusions reached in the Initial Decision.  He advised Ms. Gaulke that in the Mt. Baker
proceeding, the Commission held that construction of a facility without disclosing it to the
Commission "evinced an intention on the part of the permittee to deceive the Commission."  (Id.)
However, Mr. Parker represented to Ms. Gaulke that she need not be concerned because in
subsequent transfer applications, the Commission "passed on" his qualifications and the
Commission never raised "any alleged defects in character on [Parker's] part."  (Id. at 10-11.)
The Gaulke letter was written by another or others but Mr. Parker read it and signed it. (Tr. 2629,
2679.)  The Gaulke letter presents a marked improvement over Mr. Parker's earlier disclosures to
the Commission.
32.     In an effort to "educate" the proceeding on what was intended to be conveyed in the
Gaulke letter, Mr. Parker testified that the fact of the San Bernardino settlement was not
"significant in terms of this letter" though it was "significant in terms of the overall look at the
case."  (Tr. 2683.)  Ms. Gaulke had requested a "due diligence letter" on "my problems vis--vis
relicensure at the FCC." (Tr. 2663.)  Mr. Parker considered himself to be "under an obligation to
provide full disclosure of all information of potential consequence" relating to that question.
(Id.)  The Gaulke letter had legal implications which could have severe financial consequences if
the information provided by Parker was misleadingly incomplete.  Mr. Parker testified more than
once that it was important that the letter disclose " all the bad things that can go wrong."
(Tr. 2622, 2629-30.)  By contrast, in disclosures to the Commission for license transfers in
San Francisco, Los Angeles, Twenty Nine Palms, Norwell, Dallas and Reading, there was not the
same concern.  He believed that the far lesser disclosures in the transfer applications were
adequate because the limited disclosures would be linked with a presumed "personal knowledge"
of the details on the part of the staff. (Tr. 2664.)
                           Phase III
                        Abuse of Process
33.     A substantial question was raised on whether Adams filed its application for the
purpose of obtaining a settlement which would be an abuse of the Commission's process.  The
burden of proof and the burden of proceeding were assigned to RBI.  The Bureau participated in
the examination of witnesses.
34.     Adams denies that it filed its application for the purpose of entering into any kind of
settlement or other arrangement pursuant to which Adams would dismiss its application.  (Tr.
2430.)  Unrebutted testimony shows that Adams filed its application for the purpose of obtaining
a construction permit and that it intends to build a station in Reading, PA.  (Tr. 2429-30, 2465.)
Adams principals testified without contradiction that the group was primarily interested in
operating a new station and developing a community service for Reading.
(Tr. 2430.)
35.     All but one of Adams' principals also were principals of Monroe Communications
Corporation ("Monroe"), a comparative renewal challenger in 1982 for a television station in
Chicago.  (Tr. 2429-2430.)  After a decade of litigation, including appeals to a court of

appeals, the proceeding settled with Monroe dismissing its application in return for a buy out
of approximately $18 million.  (RBI Exh. 19.)  The Commission approved the settlement and
acknowledged that Monroe had not filed its application for the purpose of entering into a
settlement.  (RBI Exh. 22 at 3.)
36.     The rules for settlement of comparative renewal proceedings were amended in 1989,
seven years after the filing of the Monroe application and five years before the filing of the
Adams application.  Formulation of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal
Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process
and to the Prevention of Abuses of the Renewal Process, 4 F.C.C. Rcd 4780, 66 R.R.2d 708
(1989), recon. denied, 5 F.C.C. Rcd 3902, 67 R.R.2d 1515 (1990).  The rulemaking was an
outgrowth of an in-depth analysis and criticism of the prevalence of abuses of process found to
exist in the comparative renewal process.  Cf. Second Further Notice of Inquiry and Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, 3 F.C.C. Rcd 5179 (1988).  The Commission revised rules so that no for-
profit dismissal of a comparative renewal challenger would be permitted.  The prohibition rule
against abuse of process was in play when Adams filed in 1994.
37.     Mr. Gilbert was a principal of both Monroe and Adams.  He was the primary
witness for Adams, having a close working relationship with Adams' communications counsel
dating back to the Monroe venture.  A practicing lawyer, Mr. Gilbert was aware of the settlement
limitations that took effect in 1991.  When he received and read Mr. Cole's memorandum dated
August 15, 1991, he was made aware of this new policy to limit settlements of comparative
renewal proceedings to out-of-pocket expenses.  (Adams Exh. 62.)  Mr. Gilbert continued to be
aware in 1994, when Adams's application was prepared and filed, that no for-profit settlement
would be permitted under the Commission's rules, and he so advised all of the Adams
shareholders when they invested.  (Tr. 2429-2430, 2466, 2467.)  The Adams principals went
forward because there was still potential benefits for challengers.  As experienced risk-takers, the
Adams group could, through the successful prosecution of a "comparative renewal" application,
acquire a valuable television broadcast opportunity for considerably less than the fair market
value.  (Tr. 2430, 2467.)  The potential for gain was attractive to the Adams principals who been
financially successful in a similar venture, but who were yet to own a station.  (Tr. 2429, 2467;
Adams Exh. 1.)
38.     Adams also held a belief that the renewal process presented an opportunity to
replace "home shopping" programming which, in Adams view, was not providing locally-
originated programming that served any local public interest.  (Tr. 2457-2458, 2467-2468.)
However, the Adams group had no connection at all with the Reading community and it cannot
be accepted that they picked RBI from a list of renewals out of concern at the time of target
selection for the interests of local viewers of Channel 51.  The prime motivation was a business
opportunity that incidentally could also target "home shopping."  Adams had an awareness of the
criticisms of  "home shopping" programming from source materials that Adams' counsel
provided which presented adverse views from knowledgeable sources.  (Tr. 2468-2471; Adams
Exhs. 63, 64, 65, 67.)  Adams formed a belief that "home shopping" stations generally do not
accommodate locally-originated programming dealing with local community issues.  (Tr. 2468.)
Mr. Gilbert also believed that a station which provided no locally-originated programming would
be vulnerable to a renewal challenge because of the difficulty in achieving a renewal expectancy.
(Tr. 2457 2468.)  Adams' counsel apparently shared Mr. Gilbert's view of that vulnerability.
39.     After discovering that "home shopping" was a target of opportunity, Adams and
counsel formulated their strategy to file against a vulnerable applicant wherever located.
(Tr. 2471, 2473; Adams Exh. 66).  The first opportunity that met Adams' schedule and that "was
available " was a station in Marlborough, Massachusetts.  (Tr. 2474.)  Adams reviewed two-
weeks of taped programming while retaining a real-estate firm to locate an antenna site.
(Tr. 2474.)  Mr. Gilbert also interviewed residents of the Marlborough service area.  Adams
concluded that it had a suitable candidate to challenge.  However, Adams did not file for the
Marlborough channel because Adams could not locate a suitable transmitter site.  (Tr. 2475-
2476.)
40.     So Adams decided to remobilize and strike against a "home shopping" target found
in Reading, PA.  (Tr. 2476.)  Adams retained an engineering firm to prepare the technical portion
of an application.  Adams' consultant focused on planning for "news gathering equipment" with a
goal of providing "local service to the community."  (Tr. 2390-2393; Adams Exhs. 73, 74.)  That
commitment to local service influenced budget figures which the consultant provided to Mr.
Gilbert.  (Tr. 2392-2393; Adams Exhs. 73, 74.)  Prior to filing its application, Adams made no
effort to purchase WTVE(TV) outright or to even determine the potential cost of purchase.  (Tr.
2541.)  In fact, neither Adams nor Monroe ever sought to purchase any television station,
anywhere.  (Tr. 2542.)  Adams' stated reason for not attempting to purchase a station is
that doing so would not achieve Adams' goal of a Commission precedent negating public interest
"home shopping."  (Tr. 1118.)  Adams had already decided that a challenge presented the highest
and best economic opportunity.
                         On-Site Survey
41.     Between February and June 1994, Mr. Gilbert made several trips to Reading.  (Tr.
2475-2476, 2478, 2538.)  At no time during any of these trips did Mr. Gilbert watch WTVE's
Channel 51.  (Tr. 1064, 1065.)  During those trips, Mr. Gilbert informally interviewed 30 to 40
people.  (Tr. 2476-2477, 2538.)  The interviews were conducted at business establishments and
not in homes.  (Tr. 2538.)  Mr. Gilbert did not ask for the names of the people he interviewed,
and he made no written record of the interviews.  (Tr. 2538-2539.)  Mr. Gilbert stated that none
of the people he interviewed were aware of Station WTVE(TV).  (Tr. 2539)  In view of the
uncontrolled, haphazard methodology employed by Adams, this evidence of investigating the
needs of the community is accorded little weight.  But the evidence is consistent with Adams'
strategy and was not rebutted.

                     Flawed Program Taping
42.     In May 1994, approximately one month before filing, Mr. Gilbert hired Mr. Paul
Sherwood to tape RBI's "home shopping channel."  (Tr. 2483-2484 and Tr. 2139, 2154-2156.)
Mr. Gilbert was referred to Mr. Sherwood by Mr. Gilbert's daughter who worked with
Mr. Sherwood's brother in Chicago.  (Tr. 2484, Tr. 2138.)  Mr. Sherwood is not a professional
media consultant.  He is a computer systems consultant.  (Tr. 2137, 2149.)  Mr. Sherwood has no
expertise in analyzing or in evaluating the content of television programming.  (Tr. 2149-2150.)
Nor does he have any expertise in analyzing or in evaluating the public service performance of
television stations.  (Tr. 2150.)
43.     For the duration of the Adams taping job, Mr. Sherwood lived in Chester Springs,
Pennsylvania, approximately 30 miles from Reading.  Chester Springs was serviced by Suburban
Cablevision.  (Tr. 2147-2148.)  Suburban Cablevision did not carry Station WTVE(TV).
(Adams Exh. 11.)  But it did carry the "home shopping" national program.  (Tr. 2148.)
Mr. Gilbert's initial instructions to Mr. Sherwood were to tape the "home shopping channel."
(Tr. 2139, 2140)  To the best of Mr. Sherwood's recollection, Mr. Gilbert never even mentioned
Station WTVE or Channel 51.  (Tr. 2139-2140.)  Mr. Gilbert never told Mr. Sherwood the
purpose for the taping.  (Tr. 2144, 2145-2146.)
44.     Per instructions from Mr. Gilbert, on June 1, 1994, Mr. Sherwood began recording
an initial twenty four hours of the "home shopping channel." (Tr. 2148, 2485-2486.)  That
recording was not of WTVE programming but of the "Home Shopping Club," a cable channel
carrying the national "broadcast feed".  (RBI Exhs. 24, 47 at 1-2; Tr. 2477-2478, 2488-2489.)
The recording contains not a single station identification for Channel 51 in Reading; it only
contains identifications for the "Home Shopping Club."  (RBI Exh. 47 at 12)  The recording also
shows a depiction of the "Home Shopping Club" logo and repeats the words "Home Shopping
Club" with the voiceover announcement:
          You're watching America's original shop at home television
          service, bringing you 24 hours of savings, fun and excitement
          every day.  Live from Tampa Bay, Florida, it is the Home
          Shopping Club.
(RBI Exh. 47 at 2.)  The recording also contains hourly promotional announcements for
upcoming segments of the "Home Shopping Club."  (RBI Exh. 47 at 2.)  The misguided project
had taped Tampa Bay programming and was clearly started off the mark.
45.     Mr. Gilbert reviewed the recording of June 1, 1994.  (Tr. 2487.)  Based on his
review and despite the evident fact that the Tampa Bay recording was not programming of
Station WTVE(TV), Mr. Gilbert instructed Mr. Sherwood to continue to record the
programming, twenty-four hours per day, each day for the period June 13 to June 30, 1994. (Tr.
2477, 2478, 2489-2490.) (RBI Exh. 47 at 1.)  Mr. Sherwood dutifully recorded the "Home
Shopping Channel" from June 13 through June 30, 1994.  (Tr. 2148.)  Mr. Gilbert received a
second batch of recordings (June 22 through June 30) from Mr. Sherwood which was after
Adams had filed its application. (Tr. 2493; Adams Exh. 77.)  The June 22-June 30 recordings
also were not of Station WTVE(TV).  (RBI Exh. 47 at 1-2.)  The June 22-June 30 recordings
virtually mirrored the content of the June 1 tape and the June 13-June 21 recordings.  (RBI Exh.
47 at 2.)
46.     The only PSAs reflected in any of the recordings were those produced for national
consumption by the Missing Children Help Center located in Tampa Bay, Florida. (RBI Exh. 47
at 3.) Of the missing children highlighted in those PSAs, only four are identified as missing from
or last seen in Pennsylvania.  Of those four, only one is identified as missing from or last seen in
the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City area.  None of the missing children were from or last
seen in Reading.  (RBI Exh. 47 at 3-4.)  This best illustrates Adams' problem.  There was no
difference in the "home shopping" format that emanated from Tampa Bay.  What Adams missed
was WTVE(TV)'s noncommercial broadcasting and how and when it was presented to the
community in between the predominant "home shopping" broadcasts.
47.     It was five years later that Mr. Gilbert discovered the taping error.  (Tr. 2499.)  It is
concluded that Mr. Gilbert believed that he had given adequate instructions on the tapings
because there is no rational motive for Mr. Gilbert to deliberately skewer Mr. Sherwood's efforts
or to intentionally send him down the wrong warren.  (Tr. 2484-85; 2554-55.)  The evidence of
this faulty survey shows the value of careful prior planning.  But it does not support a finding of
an intent to deceive or an abuse of process.
                   Proposed Transmitter Site
48.     On June 29, 1994, Adams offered to obtain an option for the prospective use of a
transmitter owned by Conestoga Telephone & Telegraph Company ("Conestoga").  (Adams Exh.
68; Tr. 2480.)  Adams wanted to lease space to affix a UHF antenna to Conestoga's existing
tower, and to occupy 500-600 square feet of an existing equipment building at the site.
Conestoga subsequently advised Adams that any lease concerning the use of the Conestoga tower
would be contingent on the ability to obtain proper zoning permits to construct an additional
building or expand the existing structure.  (Adams Exh. 68; RBI Exh. 74.)
49.     More than two years after the letter of intent, Adams and Conestoga had not reached
an agreement regarding Adams' use of the proposed transmitter site.  (RBI Exh. 74.)  By letter
dated August 8, 1996, Conestoga advised Adams: "At this point, we have no agreement
whatsoever regarding this site."  (RBI Exh. 74, Tr. 2531.)  Gilbert, responded: "I am totally
aware of the obligations stated in your letter of August 8, 1996 . Please forward me an executed
copy of the Restated Option Agreement and License/Lease Agreement with the appropriate check
and we can finally be on our way after all the many, many years." (RBI Exh. 75; Tr. 2532-2533.)
50.     The Conestoga Option Agreement was not executed until December 1996. (Adams
Exh. 71.)  The Option Agreement was for a period of three years to begin with delivery of the
executed agreement and payment to Conestoga.  (Adams Exh. 69.)  Adams delivered the
executed Option Agreement and payment on December 20, 1996.  (Adams Exh. 71.)  The Option
Agreement was neither renewed nor extended during its term and, on or about December 20,
1999, it expired.  (Tr. 2535; RBI Exh. 76; Adams Exh. 69 at 2; Adams Exh. 71 at 1 and 3.)  On
May 17, 2000, shortly before the Phase III hearing in this case, Adams sought to renew its option
for the prospective use of the Conestoga tower.  (Tr. 2535; RBI Exh. 76.)  There is no evidence
of an absolute rejection by Conestoga.  It is concluded from this record that Adams continues to
make reasonable efforts to perfect its transmitter site and has a reasonable chance of success.
                 Adams' Dealings With Telemundo
51.     Ms. Anne Swanson is a partner of the law firm of Dow Lohnes & Albertson in
Washington, D.C. specializing in communications law.  On behalf of Telemundo, a Spanish-
language network, Ms. Swanson spoke with Mr. Cole on April 30, 1999, about the possibility of
settling this proceeding.  This conclusion was confirmed by the law firm's cooperative discovery
and by her straightforward testimony assisted by contemporaneous notes.  (Tr. 2215-2217,
2219-2222, 2301-2302.)  (RBI Exh. 52 at 4-5.)  During an initial conversation, Ms. Swanson
initiated a query about Adams' level of interest in settlement, and specifically at what amount of
money its interest might ripen into acceptance.  Later that day, Ms. Swanson again spoke with
Mr. Cole.  He advised her that while Mr. Gilbert planned to pursue the application, Mr. Gilbert
would not say "no" to a settlement.  (Tr. 2219-2221; RBI Exh. 52 at 4-5.)
52.     Mr. Gilbert was Adams' designated negotiator.  (Tr. 2215-17, 2219-24.)  So on the
same day, April 30, 1999, Ms. Swanson telephoned Mr. Gilbert.  (Tr. 2219-2220, 2222-2224,
2302.) (RBI Exh. 51 at 2.)  Ms. Swanson asked Mr. Gilbert for a settlement figure and
Mr. Gilbert responded that he could not give her a figure because Adams had not valued the
station.  (Tr. 2225-2226; RBI Exh. 52 at 5.)  Mr. Gilbert committed Adams to pay one-third of
the expenses for obtaining an appraisal.  (Tr. 2223-2224, 2230-2231; RBI Exh. 52 at 5; RBI Exh.
57.)  According to Ms. Swanson's contemporaneous, reliable and credible notes, Mr. Gilbert had
indicated at that time that Adams would be reasonable with respect to a possible settlement.
(RBI Exh. 52 at 5.)
53.     On June 2, 1999, Ms. Swanson received the appraisal.  The next day, she
faxed the appraisal to Mr. Cole along with a letter reconfirming that Adams had agreed to pay for
a third of the cost.  (RBI Exh. 62 and Adams Exh. 75.)  On June 7, 1999, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Cole,
Ms. Swanson and possibly Ms. Gaulke, a Telemundo vice president, participated in a telephone
conference to discuss the appraisal and hoped for settlement.  (Tr. 2268-2274.)  (RBI Exh. 52 at
10-11.)  The noninvolvement of RBI and Parker in the appraisal and negotiations was a concern
since the participation of all three parties, the two applicants and the "white knight," would be
needed to close any settlement.  (Tr. 2270-72.)  Mr. Gilbert did not want his time wasted and
reported that Adams was only interested in pursuing serious settlement negotiations.  From this
evidence it is found that Mr. Gilbert was prepared to negotiate a serious settlement in June 1999.
(Tr. 2273.) (RBI Exh. 52 at 11.)  But the evidence does not show Mr. Gilbert as initiator of the
discussions.
54.     On a subject aside from settlement, Mr. Gilbert contacted Ms. Swanson on
July 14 to express Adams' interest in a Telemundo affiliation.  (Tr. 2277-2278; RBI Exh. 52 at
12.)  The next day, Mr. Gilbert and Ms. Swanson discussed the possibility of Telemundo
providing Adams with Spanish language programming in the event that Adams' application was
successful.  (Tr. 2281-82; RBI Exh. 52 at 14.)  On July 16, 1999, Ms. Swanson spoke with
Mr. Cole and with Ms. Gaulke about Adams' interest in affiliation and settlement.  (RBI Exh. 50
at 10.)  The question of a future Adams-Telemundo affiliation was deferred since RBI was then a
Telemundo affiliate.  (Tr. 2286; RBI Exh. 54 at 4.)  On July 29, 1999, Ms. Swanson spent more
time in considering the affiliation question which was eventually deferred.  (Tr. 2285-86.)
              Common Counsel For Monroe And Adams
55.     There is another circumstantial question raised by the retainer arrangement between
Adams and its counsel.  Adams is represented in this proceeding by Bechtel & Cole, the same
law firm that represented Monroe which succeeded in winning a money settlement.
(Tr. 1018, 1042.)  Adams' fee agreement with Bechtel & Cole provides that the firm is to be paid
at a rate that is $100 per hour less than their usual hourly rates with respect to the prosecution of
Adams' application ($125/hour versus $225/hour).  (RBI Exh. 21.) (Tr. 1019.)  The fee
agreement also provides that Bechtel & Cole be paid twice their usual hourly rate ($450/ hour) in
the event that Adams' application is granted or if the application is dismissed on terms that are
"economically favorable," including a settlement for only reasonable and prudent expenses.
(RBI Exh. 21.)  The fee agreement that was signed on June 30, 1999, memorializes the substance
of an oral agreement that was reached in 1993.  (Tr. 1019-20.)  Mr. Gilbert contends that there
was no fee agreement until the written version was signed.  Recall that Monroe had paid Bechtel
& Cole "a substantial bonus" for its work.  (Tr. 1014-15.)  It is found that when the Adams
application was filed in 1994, there was no question in anyone's mind that Bechtel & Cole would
be satisfactorily compensated with or without a formal fee agreement.  The Monroe past was the
Adams prologue as far as legal fees were concerned.  There is no feature of the fee agreement
that is inconsistent with the testimony of Mr. Gilbert that the Adams application was filed to win
the license.
        Failure To Keep Current A Corporate Certificate
56.     In the course of the hearing, it was determined that Adams had inadvertently
permitted its corporate certificate to expire.  Adams was incorporated in Massachusetts on
November 23, 1993, before it filed its application in this proceeding.  (RBI Exh. 71.)  However,
on August 31, 1998, Adams was involuntarily dissolved for failing to file state annual reports.
(RBI Exh. 72.)  The evidence shows that Mr. Gilbert and Adams' counsel were unaware of the
lapse until it was brought up in the hearing by RBI's counsel.  Adams took immediate steps to
correct the error and Adams is now current with respect to its incorporation.  Order FCC 00M-
50, released July 25, 2000 (revival certificate).
                      Credibility Findings
57.     RBI sought misrepresentation/lack of candor issues against Adams after the
conclusion of Phase III.  The issues were denied.  Memorandum Opinion and Order
FCC 00M-56, released October 18, 2000.  However, questions of Adams' candor which arose in
the hearing of this case will be addressed here.  The five subjects on which Reading challenges
Adams' truthfulness are examined below and RBI's arguments are considered anew.
                          Application
58.     There seemed to be a switch in testimony from Adams' asserting that its application
was an opportunity to establish that it is impossible to broadcast in the public's interest through a
"home shopping" format.  That was the thrust of Mr. Gilbert's testimony in Phase I when he
testified to the background of the Adams application.  Also, in the course of his testimony, Mr.
Gilbert disclosed that Adams was discussing settlement possibilities beginning shortly before this
case was set for hearing.  That testimony raised questions of settlement intent, particularly when
considered with the fact that the same principals, as members of the Monroe enterprise, had
settled for cash.  After hearing this testimony, RBI's motion to
enlarge was granted in part and an abuse of process issue was added because substantial
questions of fact had been raised.  Memorandum Opinion and Order FCC 00M-07, supra and
Memorandum Opinion and Order FCC 00M-19, supra.
59.     It is important to note the negative fact that at no time in the deposition discovery
phase was an Adams principal asked the question directly as to why Adams had filed or what
was Adams' motive for filing.  When Adams put on its case countering allegations of abuse of
the hearing process, Mr. Gilbert testified that the prime motive for organizing Adams after a
multi-million dollar settlement was for a business reason, i.e., that a challenge could result in
acquiring a permit to construct a TV station at costs below the market value of the station.  At the
same time, Mr. Gilbert could achieve what he saw as an improvement in Channel 51's
programming.  (Tr. 2467-69.)  Consistent with that testimony, in November 1999, in an
attachment to an opposition to a motion, Mr. Gilbert declared that the Adams group intended to
successfully prosecute its application and had no intention of settling.  Mr. Gilbert's testimony
was credible.

60.     RBI seeks an adverse intent inferred from the fact that Adams did not pursue the
option of purchasing a station that was broadcasting a home shopping format.  Such a purchase
would have permitted Adams to replace home shopping with its own programming.  However,
under Adams' cost benefit analysis, it would expend lower costs in a litigated challenge than in
an open market purchase.  RBI counters that Adams could have searched for a station that was
available at a "bargain price" since Adams was not concerned about location.  But Adams had no
duty to bargain hunt rather than file a challenge.  The controlling question is not to measure
business options that were available to Adams in 1994.  It is to determine the primary motive
underlying Adams' application.
                     Telemundo Discussions
61.     The evidence shows that on April 30, 1999, the month before the HDO was
released, Anne Swanson, counsel for Telemundo, spoke with Harry Cole, counsel for Adams,
with respect to possible settlement.  (Tr. 2215-17; RBI Exh. 52.)  Ms. Swanson asked Mr. Cole
how interested Adams might be in settling.  Ms. Swanson heard that Mr. Gilbert would not say
"no" to a settlement, thus encouraging further discussion.  Ms. Swanson spoke directly with
Mr. Gilbert and asked him to name a settlement price.  Towards that end, both agreed to share the
cost of an appraisal and Mr. Gilbert assured Ms. Swanson that he would remain reasonable as
to agreeing on a settlement amount.  (Tr. 2223-24; RBI Exh. 52 at 5.)  Then the discussion
between Telemundo and Adams went no further.
62.     RBI also seeks a finding of a lack of candor in Adams failing to fully explain in
Phase I testimony the degree of interest that Adams had in Hispanic programming.  The record
evidence indicates that Adams would have liked to have a commitment from Telemundo that it
would provide Hispanic programming.  But Telemundo was then under contract to RBI and its
counsel was concerned about a lawsuit if it pursued an opportunity with Adams.  Mr. Gilbert
should have been more forthright in answering deposition questions that skirted the issue of
Adams having expressed an interest in obtaining the right to Telemundo programming.  But
Telemundo had cut off any such discussion in 1999, and the subject never became a matter of
negotiation.  Such a "Q and A" in a deposition where the question of motive for filing was not
asked directly will not support a disqualification and such evidence does not prove a lack of
candor.
63.     None of this evidence proves an intention on the part of Adams to settle when it
filed in 1994.  The motivation for the Swanson initiated discussions were consistent with
pursuing Telemundo's interest in the Spring of 1999, by preserving an affiliation.  Such efforts
were initiated by Telemundo when Ms. Swanson saw RBI exposed to a serious renewal
challenge.  These conclusions show nothing untoward about settlement.
                        Sherwood Tapings
64.     Mr. Gilbert testified with adequate candor to Mr. Sherwood's episodic taping.  The
"home shopping" format that was broadcast by Station WTVE(TV) was to be assessed for public
service value by Adams. Mr. Gilbert was in charge of the taping project and programming
evaluation.  In June 1994, Mr. Sherwood taped what he and Mr. Gilbert believed to be
programming that was being broadcast from Station WTVE(TV). (Adams Exhs. 76-77.)
Mr. Gilbert reviewed the tapes, at times utilizing a fast forward feature.  His testimony at
deposition and in the hearing may have been lacking in clarity.  But nothing of decisional
significance was raised by RBI showing that Mr. Gilbert had intentionally misled.  It happened
that Mr. Sherwood, who was not experienced in taping television programming, accidentally
taped national home shopping programming and the error was not caught.  His review was in two
stages that were prescribed by Mr. Gilbert.  By happenstance, the first day of taping contained
PSAs from Pennsylvania which, after review by Mr. Gilbert, led him to believe that taping was
being made of WTVE(TV) programming.  After a review of the test run, Mr. Gilbert perceived
that it would be clear sailing and Mr. Sherwood was then virtually on his own as he taped for two
additional weeks.  Mr. Gilbert did monitor from afar by telephone but there was no hands-on
supervision.
65.     All taping was done in June 1994, shortly before Adams filed.  The purpose of the
taping and review was to document Mr. Gilbert's long-held negative views on "home shopping"
formats which he had reached before the Sherwood tapings.  So the short time between taping
and filing has no decisional significance.  More importantly, there was no misleading testimony
in Mr. Gilbert's sometimes shaky account of what should have been an easy chore.  There was no
intentional misleading of the parties or of the Presiding Judge.  The substance of the taping was
sufficient for Adams to formulate or confirm a judgment on Station WTVE(TV)'s "home
shopping" programming.  It is concluded that there was in excess of two weeks of relevant
programming taped which Mr. Gilbert reasonably monitored and reviewed.  The net effect of the
taping project was a good faith assessment by Adams of the programming of Station WTVE(TV)
which was used by Adams to base a decision to file a challenging application.

                      Hispanic Programming
66.     RBI requested adverse findings for allegedly misleading testimony on planned
programming.  The Adams principals gained appreciation for the benefit of Hispanic
programming in the Monroe proceeding.  Before filing in 1994, the Adams principals had formed
a general intent to seek to offer Hispanic broadcasting if an affiliation could be arranged with a
Hispanic network.  RBI argues that there were conflicting accounts given by the Adams'
principals.  Mr. Umans testified that Hispanic programming had been decided upon from the
outset, while Mr. Haag had no recollection, and the application makes no reference to
programming.  Mr. Fickinger testified that there never was a plan.  But Mr. Fickinger also
testified that it was always understood that at the appropriate time, there would be an effort made
to offer Hispanic broadcasting.  The Adams principals operated in a loose fashion in light of their
past success over a period of many years and in view of the length of time that it takes to
prosecute a challenging application.  Evidently, the group saw no need for an internalized
structure in view of the experience of having once endured a lengthy renewal hearing.  The
exploratory efforts of Mr. Gilbert with Ms. Swanson to discuss a relationship with Telemundo
supports Adams contention that it was interested in providing a Hispanic programming format
for Reading.
                        Corporate Status
67.     There is no reason to spend any more time on the significance of a short lapse in
Adams' certificate of incorporation which Adams took steps to correct as soon as was reasonably
possible after its discovery.  Order FCC 00M-50, supra.  Compare Memorandum Opinion and
Order, FCC 00M-56, released October 18, 2000.
                       CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
                               I
             Comparative Renewal Hearing Standards
68.     Integration of ownership into management was declared to be unlawful by a federal
appeals court.  Bechtel v. F.C.C., 10 F. 3rd 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (criterion of integration declared
arbitrary and capricious) ("Bechtel II").  After Bechtel II, the Commission addressed the
comparative standards to be applied in the few remaining comparative cases.  Reexamination of
the Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast Hearings, First Report and Order, 13 F.C.C. Rcd
15920, 16004-16006 (1998) ("First Report and Order").  The Commission determined that its
approach would be "simply to permit the renewal applicants and their challengers, within the
confines of the generally phrased standard comparative issue, to present the factors and evidence
they believe most appropriate."  Id. at 16006.  The parties in this case were put on early notice of
the application of the newly adopted standard.  Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 99M-47,
released August 9, 1999.
69.     The court left it to the Commission to adopt standards that might include the
existing "enhancements" of local residence, civic involvement, and broadcast experience.  The
Commission did not reject these "enhancements."  Each enhancement could be considered as an
individual objective comparative factor.  However, with only a few comparative cases that could
be litigated, the Commission decided not to adopt any new criteria.  The Commission continues
to recognize, however, that in a hearing in which a renewal applicant carries the burden of proof
in showing "substantial performance", a high level of performance will be the most important
factor and will trump other comparative considerations.  First Report and Order, supra at 16005-
16006.
      Renewal Expectancy Requires Substantial Performance
70.     RBI has the burden to show that it is entitled to a preference as a renewing licensed
broadcaster. 47 U.S.C.A. 309(e).  RBI's showing must be based on non-commercial
programming that was broadcast on Channel 51 during the renewal period.  If RBI's service is
shown to be only "minimal", RBI receives no preference. Central Florida Enterprises, Inc. v.
F.C.C., 683 F2d 503, 506 (D.C. Cir. 1982).  The "public interest" supercedes self interests of the
incumbent and the challenger:
          The merit or lack of merit in the incumbent's record   and the
          degree of renewal expectancy to which he is thereby entitled   and
          all the other factors are all to be weighed, all at once, all with an
          eye toward the public interest.
Id. at 506   507 n.16.
71.     The Commission awards a renewal expectancy only to those renewal applicants who
demonstrate a performance during the renewal period that was "substantial." See Cowles
Broadcasting, Inc., 86 F.C.C. 2d 993, 1006   1008 (1981), aff'd sub nom. Central Florida
Enterprises, Inc. v. F.C.C., 683 F. 2d 503 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert denied, 460 U.S. 1084 (1983).
The renewal expectancy is so important that the enhancement factors of challengers pale before a
showing of an incumbent's "meritorious service."  F.C.C. v. National Citizens for Broadcasting,
et al., 436 U.S. 775, 805 (1978).  Under the Cowles standard, where past service is shown to be
"substantial" it must also be considered to have been "meritorious."  Central Florida Enterprises,
Inc. v. F.C.C., supra at 506.  And where service is "meritorious," the renewal expectancy "should
not be destroyed absent good cause." F.C.C. v. National Citizens for Broadcasting, supra at 805.
72.     RBI's programming will be considered in the context in which RBI was operating
between 1989 and 1994.  RBI was in Chapter 11 from 1986 to 1991.  RBI had made a business
decision to specialize in "home shopping" and there is no prohibition against broadcasting a
"home shopping" format.  The Commission found that a licensee can fulfill its public interest
obligation by offering a predominance of "home shopping," provided that there is an appropriate
amount of public interest broadcasting provided.  See Implementation of Section 4(g) of the
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
Section 614(g)(2), 8 F.C.C. Rcd 5321 (1993)  ("Home Shopping Order").
73.     The Adams principles were opposed to "home shopping" as programming that could
accommodate public service broadcasting.  But nothing was filed by Adams in connection with
the rule making, a failure which undercuts Adams' claim of championing the public interest by
filing against RBI's renewal.  The Commission did show concern for a lessening of community
directed broadcasting at "home shopping" stations and issued a specific directive that such
stations must provide public affairs programming that is responsive to issues confronting local
communities. Home Shopping Order at Para. 9.  Accordingly, RBI's duty remains the same, and
if the evidence in this case shows that RBI's community directed programming was only
"minimal", then RBI receives no renewal expectancy.  Formulation of Policies and Rules
Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, 3 F.C.C. Rcd 5179, 5185 (1988).
74.     The renewal expectancy paradigm has five criteria: (1) the efforts made to ascertain
community needs and interests; (2) the programming response to those needs and interests; (3)
the incumbent's reputation in the community for serving the needs and interests;
(4) the record of compliance with the Communications Act and the Commission's rules and
policies;  (5) evidence of community outreach in providing a forum for the expression of local
views.  Fox Television Stations, Inc., 8 F.C.C. Rcd 2361, 2366   68 (1993), recon. denied,
8 F.C.C. Rcd 3583 (1993), modified, 9 F.C.C. Rcd 62 (1993), aff'd sub nom. Rainbow
Broadcasting, Inc. v. F.C.C, 1995 WL 224866 (D.C. Cir 1995).  Compare similar standards
applied in Radio Station WABZ, Inc., 90 F.C.C. 2d 818, 840-842 (1982), aff'd sub nom. Victor
Broadcasting v. F.C.C., 722 F. 2d 756 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (quantity of non-entertainment
programming and extent it met identified needs and interests; amount of locally produced
programming; and station's local reputation).  The later formulated and more extensive Fox
Television standards will be applied in this case.
                         Ascertainment
75.     From 1989 to 1990, RBI ascertained community needs by referrals and staff review
of literature of community based organizations.  In 1990, with the hiring of Mr. Mattmiller as
Station Manager, the efforts expanded to include the polling of business and community leaders
and organizations.  Heavy reliance for ascertainment was placed on news items in the
Times/Eagle, a newspaper of local distribution and interest.  There were meetings and
discussions with community organizations that were identified in the Station's quarterly issues
and programs.  There were improvements made.  But there was no showing of "extensive
measures" that are necessary for the expectancy preference.  See Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
supra, 8 F.C.C. Rcd at 2370-71 (formal interviews with community leaders and numerous
contacts with community leaders).  Nor do the efforts of RBI even approach those that were
approved in other renewal cases.  Cf. Metroplex Communications, Inc., 4 F.C.C. Rcd 8149,
8151-52 (Review Bd 1989) and Seattle Public Schools, 4 F.C.C. Rcd 625, 635 (Review Bd 1989)
(subsequent histories omitted).  Where a station takes short cuts, does not utilize direct contacts
with local civic leaders, and tries to make up the difference with PSA type formats, the renewal
expectancy is not to be expected.

                     Responsive Programming
76.     RBI relies on its quantitative analysis of programming that it asserts was responsive
to identified community issues or needs.  But the programming is in large part in the PSA format:
          A [PSA] is one for which no charge is made and which promotes
          programs, activities, or services of Federal, State or local
          governments (e.g. recruiting, sales of U.S. Savings Bonds, etc.) or
          the programs, activities or services of nonprofit organizations
          (e.g., UTGF, Red Cross Blood Donations, etc.) or any other
          announcements regarded as serving community interests.  See
          [former] Section 73.1810(d)(4) of the Commission's Rules."
In the Matter of Airing of Public Service Announcements by Broadcast Licensees, 81 F.C.C. 2d
346 at n.1.
77.     Under Commission doctrine, it is necessary to separate PSAs from programming.
PSAs are important but are not to be "a broadcaster's primary method of responding to
community needs" and are not to be considered to be  "public affairs" programming.  Id. at 349,
367.  The Commission did not want PSAs to dilute or diminish "the airing of program-length
material meeting community problems." Id.  And the Commission made clear that while it
encouraged PSAs, it did not want its approval to have any "negative effect on the broadcasting of
public affairs material."  Id. at 368.  There were three categories for broadcasters to report in the
Annual Programming Report: "news, public affairs and other."  Since PSAs did not meet the first
two categories, the Commission authorized their being reported (at the option of the licensee) in
the third "other" category.  Id.  What was made clear by this prescribed reporting methodology
was continuation of the policy that PSAs could not be claimed for credit as news or
programming.
78.     As deregulation evolved, the Commission repealed TV programming guidelines
and permitted a laissez faire programming mix at the option of the licensee. Revision of
Programming and Commercialization Policies, Ascertainment Requirements, and Program Log
Requirements for Commercial Television Stations, 98 F.C.C. 2d 1076, 1087 (1984).  But even
with deregulation, the Commission recognized "the continuing obligation of all licensees to
contribute issue   responsive programming."  Id at 1088.  And even though RBI chose to use a
short form of public programming as a matter of its "licensee discretion," it still must be held to
the Commission's policy requiring issue responsive programming.

79.     The record contains composite week analysis reflecting in accord with RBI's
Program/Issues Reports [RBI Exh 8, Tabs C   X], that there was no local news and only a scant
amount of issue programming at WTVE(TV).  In three of the composite weeks, there was no
more than three hours of non-entertainment programming.  At best, the home shopping format
was interrupted only 8% of the time in 1994, for noncommercial programming, the highest
percentage of noncommercial programming in the entire renewal period.  RBI's increased use of
PSAs did not serve as a substitute for news or issue - responsive programming or local news.
RBI's new children's programming and an expansion of religious programming were minimal
improvements that were not shown to be issue responsive.  State legislative reports were more in
the nature of last ditch efforts by WTVE(TV) at the end of the period to give an appearance of
responsive programming.  In actuality, the legislative programming was in the "canned" format
and was not shown to be community issue responsive.
80.     Most of WTVE(TV)'s broadcast day was devoted to the "home shopping" format
with the resulting effect of minimizing issues of concern to the Reading community.  By
comparison, a "substantial" record was found where the evidence showed regularly scheduled
news and public affairs programming, specials and PSAs.  See Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
supra, 8 F.C.C. Rcd at 2376.  In this case, none of RBI's public service programs were offered on
a regularly scheduled basis, its short form public service programming appeared at the end of
each 30 minutes of home shopping, and its flagship programming such as "News To You"
appeared in a variety of time slots with little or no notice given to viewers.  The programming
had such little respect in the community that the local newspaper did not carry program times.
As a result, there was no way for viewers to keep informed through the programming of
WTVE(TV).  RBI has a programming record that for the category of responsive programming,
fails to qualify for the preference.  Cf. Harriscope of Chicago, Inc., 5 F.C.C. Rcd 6383, 6385
("minimal" performance receives no preference).
                      Community Reputation
81.     This criteria is relevant to renewal expectancy only if the programming is found to
be substantial.  Metroplex Communications, Inc., 4 F.C.C. Rcd 8149, 8153 (Review Bd. 1989),
aff'd, 5 F.C.C. Rcd 5610 (1990) (public witness testimony cannot create a basis for renewal
expectance).  But as a contingency, the evidence will be considered here.

82.     At best, RBI's reputation was mixed.  To its credit, the Red Cross, the March of
Dimes, and a local Children's Rights group were complimentary of the PSAs.  Representatives of
local government and police were also complimentary of responsive PSAs.  A member of the
Pennsylvania House of Representatives praised the Station's willingness to devote airtime to
PSAs and to the presentation of prepared political statements of state representatives and state
senators.  But there was also criticism from others for the absence of local news.  The Mayor of
Reading was reticent about the Station's performance.  One terminated employee testified about
complaints that he received from members of the community about the lack of local newscasting
from WTVE(TV).  The nature of the positive evidence was one of gratitude for carrying PSA
spots.  Such qualified evidence is necessarily given lesser weight than positive testimony of
programming that is found by viewers to be especially useful for the community.  In that regard,
the significant weakness found in the public witnesses on behalf of RBI was that none was a
regular viewer of Station WTVE(TV).  By comparison, the adverse testimony of Mr. Loos that
there was no coverage of local emergencies and of Mr. Baldinger that there was no local news
during the renewal period offset RBI's positive testimony.
                       Community Outreach
83.     Recognition is given for efforts at community outreach.  RBI assisted organizations
such as the Red Cross, the March of Dimes, the Children's Rights of Pennsylvania, the Burn
Prevention Foundation, and the Switchback Gravity Railroad Foundation, primarily through the
airing of helpful PSAs.  Station staff members also held career days for school children to
encourage interest and careers in the fields of broadcasting.  These activities merit some
recognition.  But they do not meet the efforts that the Commission found noteworthy in Fox
Television Stations, Inc, supra, 8 F.C. C. Rcd at 2416-2418 and Seattle Public Schools, supra, 4
F.C.C. Rcd at 638.  This evidence proffered by RBI of its record on community outreach is not
sufficient to gain a renewal preference.
                      Record of Compliance
84.     Compliance with the Communications Act and the Commission's Rules is a sine
que non to qualify for a renewal expectancy preference.  Metroplex Communications, Inc., 4
F.C.C. Rcd, supra at 8153 (licensee's record must reflect compliance with the strictures
governing broadcasters' conduct).  The Commission has an exacting standard:
          [L]icensee misconduct may provide a more meaningful basis for
          preferring an untested challenger over a proven incumbent.
          Licensee misconduct pertinent to broadcast service may raise
          questions both as to the licensee's continued compliance with
          Commission rules and its dedication to serving the community.

Cowles Broadcasting, Inc., supra, 86 F.C.C. 2d at 1017.  RBI falls short of the Commission's
norm of "continued compliance."  Because of the predictive nature of future compliance, there is
no room to vacillate.  Even if RBI's minimal programming qualified for a finding of "substantial
service," RBI's intended or reckless noncompliance rebuts the preference.  Id.  The record
contains substantial and credible evidence establishing that there were violations by RBI of the
Act and the Rules during the renewal period.
             Failures To File Timely And Accurately
85.     RBI was inaccurate in reporting its ownership.  RBI also transferred control to
Mr. Parker before receiving authorization from the Commission and omitted material
information from the transfer application.  Finally, RBI lacked candor through the multiple
delicts of its agent Parker and particularly when he responded in a misleading manner to a
specific inquiry by Commission staff.  RBI also failed to file with the Commission, prescribed
documents that are required under specific Commission rules.
                      Reporting Violations
86.     Section 73.3613(b)(3) requires:
Filing of contracts:
     Each licensee ... of a commercial ... TV... station shall file with the F.C.C. copies
     of the following ... documents... within 30 days of execution thereof:
          Ownership or control: Contracts, instruments or documents
          relating to the present or future ownership or control of the
          licensee... shall include but are not limited to the following:
          Any agreement providing for the ownership or voting rights of
          the licensee's stock  .
          Management consultant agreements with independent contractors;
          ... station management contracts with any persons, whether or not
          officers, directors, or regular employees, which provide for both a
          percentage of profits and a sharing in losses; or any similar
          agreements.
87.     Section 73.3615(a) requires:
Ownership Reports:
     Ownership Reports shall provide the following information [for a corporation] as
     of a date not more than 60 days prior to the filing of the Report:
          The name, residence, citizenship, and stockholding of every
          officer, director ....
          And in the case of all licensees:
               A list of all contracts still in effect required to be
               filed with the F.C.C. by  73.3613 showing
               the date of execution and expiration of each
               contract; ---.
The evidence establishes, and RBI admits, that the MSA was not filed within thirty days of its
execution in violation of 73.3613.  Nor did RBI list the MSA in its ownership reports until
1997, eight years after the MSA's execution, a gross violation of 73.3615.  In addition, RBI did
not correctly list its directors in its 1992 ownership report and it wrongfully certified in its 1993
         filing that its 1992 report had been correct.
88.     With respect to ownership reports, Mr. Parker, as RBI's president, certified
recklessly to the accuracy of each noted document.  Mr. Parker knew that he was providing
ownership information to the Commission.  He also knew that the information must be accurate.
RBI asserts that Mr. Parker just did not pay attention to the accuracy of the information that he
was providing.  If failure to pay attention is accepted as an excuse, it could be used anytime a
licensee is questioned about a deficient disclosure.  In this case, that "excuse" is not acceptable
because it is not supported by any fair view of the relevant evidence.
89.     The Parker/RBI MSA was executed in May 1989, which a bankruptcy court
approved in August 1990.  Yet the MSA was not reported with an acceptable degree of candor
until seven years later in 1997.  There were many opportunities to set the record straight with
the Commission between 1989 and 1997.  But Mr. Parker chose to leave the Commission in the
dark as to who was calling the shots at Station WTVE(TV).
90.     In October 1991, a year after the MSA received court approval, Mr. Parker caused
the issuance of a sufficient number of shares of RBI stock to effect a transfer of control in his
favor.  To secure this control, he caused a block of control stock to be voted in favor of a new
slate of directors which included himself.  Shortly after the election of those directors, the
application for RBI's transfer was filed without disclosing any of those critical corporate
decisions to the Commission. Nor were they disclosed while the Commission was considering a
transfer application to bring RBI out of bankruptcy.  One result of Parker's deficient disclosure
was to hide from the Commission the fact that Mr. Parker was gaining control of RBI's
management.  If while the transfer application was being considered the Commission had been
presented with complete facts about Mr. Parker, a decision to consider the application might have
been deferred until the significance of Parker's history with the Commission was assessed.  The
willingness on the part of RBI, through Parker, to hold back significant information on the truth
about control while the Commission was considering a license transfer shows a motive to obtain
the transfer before the Commission learned the facts about Parker's background.  The willful
withholding of such material corporate information also showed indifference or a reckless and
wanton disregard of a licensee's obligation to be forthcoming with the Commission.  RKO
General, Inc. v. F.C.C., 670 F. 2d 215, 225 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 927 and 457
U.S. 1119 (1982).
91.     There also is sufficient evidence indicating that Mr. Parker as prospective president
and director of RBI understood that the MSA, a document required to be filed under 73.3613,
had not been filed and that as a result erroneous information had been deliberately or recklessly
provided to the Commission while it was considering a transfer application that it was being
asked to approve.  As a matter of law and as a matter of fact, those reporting violations were
willful.  Such willful transgressions or acts of indifferent disregard of truthfulness in filing
detract from the renewal expectancy.  Cowles Broadcasting, Inc. supra, 86 F.C.C. 2d at 1017.
                Unauthorized Transfer Of Control
92.     The evidence shows an unauthorized transfer of control.  RBI's November 1991
transfer application and amendments thereto willfully or recklessly omitted material facts,
namely, the MSA, the actual issuance of stock, and the subsequent election of new officers and
directors.  Those violations and failures to be fully informative to the Commission, particularly
when coupled with an intentional failure to respond candidly to a staff inquiry, eliminates any
hope of renewal expectancy.  Fox Television Stations Inc., supra, 8 F.C.C. Rcd at 2390.
93.     Section3l0(d)of the Act provides:
          No construction permit or station license, or any rights thereunder,
          shall be transferred, assigned, or disposed of in any manner,
          voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, or by transfer of
          control of any corporation holding such permit or license, to any
          person except upon application to the Commission and upon
          finding by the Commission that the public interest, convenience,
          and necessity will be served thereby.
Commission licensees first must seek and obtain the Commission's consent before transferring
control of Commission licenses.  Thus, prior to any consummation of a transfer of control of a
license, the parties to the transfer must file a full and complete application with the Commission.
The Commission then must grant the application before consummation of the transaction may
take place.  See, e.g., American Music Radio, 10 F.C.C. Rcd 8769 (1995).
94.     A transfer of control includes a transaction in which a name remains the same, but
control of the licensee-entity is transferred from one person or entity or group of persons-or
entities to another.  Control includes any act which vests in a new entity or individual the "right
to determine the manner or means of operating the licensee and determining the policy that the
licensee will pursue." WHDH, Inc., 17 F.C.C. 2d 856, 863 (1969), aff'd sub nom.  Greater Boston
Television Corp. v. F.C.C., 444 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923 (1971).
Full disclosure is required for a transfer of control even where as here, a corporation in
bankruptcy transfers a license to a newly formed corporation using the same name.  In this case,
Mr. Parker had full managerial, operational and budgetary control under the MSA.
95.     In October 1991, control of RBI passed from the shareholders who had taken RBI
into bankruptcy to a new group of shareholders, appointed and led by Mr. Parker to effect his
control as president of RBI.  Parker's control took place prior to the filing of a transfer
application which occurred in November 1991.  And the change took place well before
Commission approval which occurred in February 1992.  RBI, under the direction and control of
Mr. Parker, improperly issued its stock so that control of RBI was transferred to Partel/Parker
without the Commission being adequately informed that Mr. Parker was back in business in
control of another licensee.
96.     It is instructive to observe the ways that the Commission was misinformed.  The
November 1991 transfer application indicated that stock had not yet been issued when in fact it
had been issued.  The application erroneously reported that 50,000 shares of RBI voting stock
was currently outstanding which was not the case.  It further reported erroneously that
"consummation" of a previously granted short-form application (the August application) had not
occurred.  In fact, the opposite was true in all these respects.  The referenced 50,000 shares had
been cancelled on September 17, 1991; new stock had been issued four weeks later on
October 15, 1991; and the new stockholders met and voted in new directors on October 30, 1991.
A true and accurate transfer application would have disclosed those facts.  The application also
could have offered the explanation provided by Mr. Parker at the hearing, if it was true, that RBI
felt it could not fully consummate the transaction and emerge from bankruptcy until it had
satisfied secured creditors.  But whether or not true, any deference to creditors had nothing to do
with timely disclosing material facts to the Commission about control.  The ultimate travesty was
holding back from disclosing to the Commission until 1997, the fact and effect of the MSA.
                   Exculpatory Circumstances
97.     The Bureau would offset Mr. Parker's reporting errors with his removing RBI from a
debtor-in-possession status.  The Bureau observes that the November 1991 application disclosed
the basic parameters of the transaction inasmuch as all of RBI's "proposed"
shareholders were listed.  A "consummation" of the short form grant could not occur because of
an intervening garnishment of Dr. Aurandt's stock.  But even under that scenario, the Bureau
concedes that Mr. Parker would have had a motive to conceal the issuance of the stock.  That
being the case, the Bureau would count the lapses in disclosure against renewal expectancy but
not against RBI's basic qualifications.  While the Bureau does not believe that RBI's premature
transfer of control and related failures to disclose are fatal to its license, the Bureau contends that
the scope of RBI's non-disclosures significantly detracts from any renewal expectancy.  But a
finding of RBI's disqualification is not needed to resolve this case.  Certainly, it would be unfair
to charge RBI with the disclosure machinations of Mr. Parker who had succeeded in snatching
control from an unwilling board of directors.  It is evident that in 1991, there was intense
corporate infighting over control and by October 1991, Mr. Parker had won.
                        Diversification
98.     RBI fails to attain a renewal expectancy because of WTVE(TV)'s minimal
performance during the renewal period and RBI's failures to comply with the communications
laws.  Therefore, diversification of control of media of mass communications has become
relevant to the outcome. Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast Hearings, 1 F.C.C. 2d 393,
394 (1965).  See also Bible Broadcasting Network, Inc., 7 F.C.C. Rcd 4578, 4579 (1992).  Here,
Adams holds the advantage.  Only one of its principals, Mr. Umans, has an interest in a medium
of mass communications.  He has pledged to divest himself of that interest in the event Adams
prevails.  By comparison, Mr. Parker, RBI's president, a director, and its largest shareholder,
holds the licenses to two full-power television stations through 100% ownership of corporate
licensees.  RBI knew of Mr. Parker's holdings when it entered into the MSA and RBI must be
aligned with Mr. Parker's objective qualifications for purposes of diversification.  Accordingly,
Adams is awarded a significant diversification preference.  Pueblo Radio Broadcasting Service, 5
F.C.C. Rcd 4829 (Rev. Bd. 1990).
Comparative Coverage
99.     Because RBI cannot be counted on to build a transmitter with the permit it holds,
Adams gains a very slight preference for proposing to serve 33% more people than WTVE(TV)
currently serves.  Simon Geller, 90 F.C.C. 2d 250, 276 (1982) (slight preference to applicant
with four times greater coverage to well-served areas); Global Information Technologies, Inc.,
8 F.C.C. Rcd 4024, 4031 (Rev. Bd. 1993) (slight preference for 30% differential in overall
population service); Christian Broadcasting of the Midlands, Inc., 99 F.C.C. 2d 578, 583 (Rev.
Bd. 1984) (slight preference for 24% coverage differential to well-served areas).
              Local Residence And Civic Activities
100.    RBI is owned by a majority of shareholders who reside or have resided within the
city limits of Reading or within the predicted Grade B contour of WTVE(TV).  RBI is entitled to
a preference for local ownership.  Edward F. and Pamela J. Levine, 8 F.C.C. Rcd 8401 (1993).
Past participation by an owner in local civic affairs is considered a part of the local residence
affiliation which indicates an interest in the community's welfare.  Policy Statement on
Comparative Broadcast Hearings, F.C.C. 2d 393, 396 (1965).  Several of the stockholders have
been involved in local civic activities in Reading or within the Grade B service area.  Quarterly
lists of issues and programs show that RBI also has participated in community activities.  Adams,
on the other hand, claims no credit for local civic activities.  Accordingly, RBI also is entitled to
a preference for civic involvement.  Gloria Bell Byrd, 8 F.C.C. RCD 7124 (1993). Because RBI
has failed to meet the criteria for a renewal preference, there should be lesser credit awarded for
local residence or local civic involvement.  It would be inconsistent to award RBI for sporadic
civic involvement when it had fallen down on its primary duty to provide comparative credit for
local residence and civic activities in view of its far greater failure as a broadcaster.  Therefore,
RBI receives only a marginal credit.
                               II
                Misrepresentation/Lack Of Candor
101.    The Phase II issue was added to resolve substantial questions concerning failures
on the part of Mr. Parker to disclose in his filings with the Commission "the actual nature and
scope of his previously adjudicated misconduct." Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 99M-
61, released October 15, 1999.  A finding and conclusion of a misrepresentation requires reliable
evidence that false or materially misleading statements were made with an intent to deceive.  Fox
River Broadcasting Inc., 93 F.C.C. 2d 127, 129 (1983) ("Fox River").  Lack of candor, a more
subtle form of misrepresentation, involves concealment, evasion or some other failure to be fully
informative, but also carried out with an intent to deceive.  Fox River, supra.  The affirmative
duty of candor, which has particular significance for a licensee, requires an applicant before the
Commission to be "fully forthcoming as to all facts and information relevant" to its application.
Swan Creek Communications, Inc. v. F.C.C., 39 F.3d 1217, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1994).  What is
relevant is that which may be of "decisional significance." RKO General, Inc. v. F.C.C., 670 F.2d
215, 229 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 927 and 457 U.S. 1119 (1982).  An intent to
deceive can be found by direct evidence or when the evidence supports a reasonable inference.
California Public Broadcasting Forum v. F.C.C., 752 F.2d 670, 679 (D.C. Cir. 1985).  Such an
inference arises from a false statement of fact coupled with proof that the party making it had
knowledge of its falsity.  David Ortiz Radio Corp. v. F.C.C., 941 F.2d 1253, 1260 (D.C. Cir.
1991).  Intent can also be inferred from motive.  Joseph Bahr, 10 F.C.C. Rcd 32, 33 (Rev. Bd.
1994).  Finally, indifference and wanton disregard for accuracy are equivalent to an affirmative
and deliberate intent to deceive.  RKO General, Inc. v. F.C.C. , supra, and Golden Broadcasting
Systems, Inc., 68 F.C.C. 2d 1099, 1106 (1978).
102.    Because of the regulatory need of a licensing agency to rely on licensees'
representations, when a licensee is found to have intentionally misled the Commission whether
through misrepresentation or lack of candor, that party may no longer be qualified to hold a
Commission license.  Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, 102
F.C.C. 2d 1179, 1210-11, 1231-32 (1986) ("Character Qualifications"); Center for the Study and
Application of Black Economic Development, 10 F.C.C. Rcd 2836, 2837 (Review Bd. 1995)
(fundamental purpose for character inquiry is to make predictive judgment for honesty and future
compliance).  Deceptions take many forms. And whether the deception involves misrepresenta-
tion or lack of candor through affirmatively false statements or through evasion or failures to be
fully honest and forthcoming, there must be an intent to deceive or mislead the Commission in
order for the deceptive disclosure to be disqualifying.  See Fox River, supra.  Thus, it is well
established that only an intentional misrepresentation or lack of candor can result in an adverse
character finding. Fox River, supra.
103.    The most relevant character traits in dealing with the Commission have always
been "truthfulness" and "reliability."  The Commission's main concern is with respect to
licensing someone who will be forthright in dealing with the Commission and respectful of
compliance with the law.  Character Qualifications at 1209.  In transfer application questions
calling for disclosures of "fraud" by yes or no answers, the nature of the "fraud" to be disclosed
is equated with deceit. Character Qualifications at 1196; Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
453 (1979); Black's Law Dictionary 594, 903 (5th Ed 1979).  See also Leflore Broadcasting Co.,
Inc. v. F.C.C., 636 F. 2d 454, 461   62 (D.C. Cir. 1980).  Cf. United States v. Nill, 518 F. 2d 793
(7th Cir. 1975) (fraud connotes perjury, falsification, concealment, misrepresentation).  The
Commission may treat even an insignificant misrepresentation as disqualifying.  See Leflore
Broadcasting Co., Inc v. F.C.C. , supra.  Certainly, the nature of the violation, the circumstances
surrounding it, and other pertinent considerations such as repetitiveness are relevant as to future
reliability.  Therefore, all of the facts and circumstances of Mr. Parker's false or misleading
disclosures or disclosures that were lacking in candor will be considered. Character
Qualifications, 1210-11 and n. 76 and n.77.
                           Question 4
               False And Misleading "No" Answers
104.    Applying those principles to Mr. Parker's multiple filings, the checking of a "no"
to a direct question asking about "adverse final action taken" related to "fraud" results in a
disqualification for intentional misrepresentation or lack of candor.  Mr. Parker admits to having
substantial experience in broadcast regulation compliance.  He has made many filings with the
Commission in connection with applications for licenses and license transfers. (RBI Exh. 46
at 1-2.)  From 1989 to 1992, Mr. Parker was responsible for making disclosures to the
Commission regarding five applications for the transfer of TV station licenses, and one
amendment to an application for transfer of an international radio broadcast license.  In each
instance, Mr. Parker was responsible for providing truthfully complete information as it was
called for by each form utilized.  It would be unreasonable to require the staff to trace for truth
and accuracy each and every checked answer in every transfer form that is filed at the
Commission.  This case presents a clinical illustration of how licensing regulation is
fundamentally premised upon the Commission's reliance on the truth, accuracy, completeness
and candor of representations made by those owning and/or controlling licensees.  See Leflore
Broadcasting Company, Inc. v. F.C.C. supra, 636 F. 2d at 461.
                                
105.    An intent to deceive by providing false answers to direct questions can be inferred
from this "special nature of the obligation of honesty that a licensee owes to the F.C.C.."  Id.  The
gravamen here is that in each of five transfer forms, Mr. Parker answered "no" to specific
questions as to whether an adverse finding was made by any administrative body relating to
"fraud."  Mr. Parker consistently answered "no" to the questions on the transfer application
forms asking about "fraud.  The "no" responses made repetitively by Parker with respect to the
five transfer applications were false and misleading.  A fair assessment of the evidence dictates
that conclusion.  A preponderance of the evidence establishes Review Board findings of
"transpicuous sham" and "attempted fraud" and a Commission decision that Mr. Parker was a
principal in "an effort to deceive" the Commission.  Clearly, in order to be truthful with the
Commission, Mr. Parker had to check off the "yes" answers to the question of whether he had
been the subject of "an adverse finding" by an "administrative body."  To make matters worse,
the false and misleading "no" answers were not even mentioned in Mr. Parker's prepared written
testimony.  (RBI Exh. 46.)  To escape responsibility, Mr. Parker slanted his testimony to protest
that neither proceeding "raised a character issue as to [his] qualifications to hold Commission
licenses" and that the San Bernardino proceeding "did not present an issue as to [his]
qualifications."  (RBI Exh. 46 at 3, 7.)
106.    Mr. Parker's self serving explanations in RBI's case in chief about "character
issues" and "qualifications" amount to smokescreens that offer no credible defense for giving
"no" answers to highly focused questions asking about "adverse findings."  Mr. Parker even
persisted in cross examination when he was pointed to Question 4 and asked "whether an adverse
finding has been made" to which he twice answered "no."  (Tr. 1944.)  The answer, if given
truthfully, clearly calls for a "yes" because Mr. Parker was a party to each of the five transfers
and knew that both the Mt. Baker and the San Bernardino decisions had made unequivocal
"adverse findings" as to himself and to the parties to those proceedings that he controlled.  Under
the circumstances, Mr. Parker, as a principal of RBI, must be found to have violated the
requirement for absolute candor of licensees.  Catoctin Broadcasting Corp. of New York, 2
F.C.C. Rcd 2126 (Review Bd 1987), aff'd, 4 F.C.C. Rcd 2553 (1989) (further citation history
omitted).  Also evident is the clear motive for Mr. Parker to falsify his answers to Question 4
because the Commission can refuse to renew a license where the applicant has made a knowing
misrepresentation or lack of candor of the kind found in Mr. Baker and in San Bernardino.
Leflore Broadcasting Company, Inc. v. F.C.C., supra, 636 F. 2d at 461.  The courts recognize that
the Commission would be derelict if it did not hold licensees such as RBI to a "high standard of
punctilio." Id.  Mr. Parker has disregarded this standard of "punctilio" with his "no" answers to
Question 4 in five applications which constitute a series of multiple misrepresentations in
disclosure exacerbated by misleading written testimony and live hearing testimony.
                           Question 7
                      Adequate Answers But
One Misleading Amendment
107.    Acts of willful misrepresentation raise a "core concern of truthfulness." Character
Qualifications, supra at 1209.  The narrative descriptions of the Mt. Baker and San Bernardino
proceedings made or obtained by Mr. Parker in each of the application exhibits were incomplete.
But in view of the questions asked, the narrative disclosures are not found to be willfully
misleading.  Parker answered "yes" to Question 7(a) and (b) which were literally correct answers.
He then gave "exhibit 3" narratives for the follow-up questions on name, dates, nature of interest,
and locations in Question 7(e).  However, the information provided in an amendment in response
to a broader staff inquiry for more information was deliberately inadequate and Mr. Parker
intended thereby to mislead the Commission staff.
                      Negligent Omissions
108.    There was no excuse for the total omission of the San Bernardino proceeding
from the San Francisco and the Los Angeles applications.  Mr. Parker thought it was
Mr. Wadlow's oversight and Mr. Wadlow denied any role in drafting the disclosures in those
two applications.  While the omission is highly disappointing, there is only evidence of poor
recollection and negligence or a combination of both on the part of Mr. Parker.  In a very close
call, the overall evidence of incomplete disclosures in those two applications fails to show
purposeful omission with intent to mislead.  In another context, the element of deliberateness is
lacking in proof and therefore there is no proven disqualifying conduct shown with respect to the
minimal narrative disclosures made by Mr. Parker in the San Francisco, Los Angeles, Norwell,
Reading, Twenty Nine Palms and Dallas applications.  See Schoenbohm  v. F.C.C., 204 F. 3d
243, 247 (D.C. Cir. 2000).  In the allegedly deficient narrative descriptions the alleged delict was
in not providing sufficient detail.  But as noted above, Parker properly checked "yes" to question
7(a) and 7(b).  Those affirmative answers required Parker to take the next step and provide
identifying data (name, interest, call letters, docket number, location).  Parker went beyond that
data and volunteered a narrative which while lacking significant details, was reasonably
responsive to the question.  So it would be improper to find willful acts of intentional deceit in
the Parker narratives that responded to Questions 7(a) and (b) which were correctly answered
"yes."
                  Adequate Allegan Disclosure
109.    The Allegan policy was adopted in a comparative proceeding in which qualifying
issues were added against a competing applicant.  In an attempt to settle the case before deciding
the merits of the added issues, the Commission adopted a policy permitting settlement buyouts
where there are unresolved character issues which can be revisited in a later proceeding, license
renewal, transfer or assignment.  Allegan County Broadcaster, Inc., 83 F.C.C. 2d 371, 373
(1980).  In other words, if there had been an unresolved issue in Mt. Baker as to whether Parker
intended to deceive in his construction plans, the issue would be required to be fully disclosed
under Question 7(d).  Similarly, if there was an unresolved real party-in-interest issue in
San Bernardino, then that issue would need be fully described.  But in both cases, there was
nothing that was unresolved:  In Mt. Baker, Parker was found to have attempted to "deceive
the Commission" and in San Bernardino he was found to have orchestrated a "transpicuous
sham."  Question 7(d) asks only about "unresolved character issues."  There were no unresolved
issues to be disclosed and Parker did not misrepresent by checking off "no" to Question 7(d)
asking for a "yes" or "no" answer on whether there is "any Commission proceeding which left
unresolved character issues against the applicant."
                 False And Misleading Amendment
110.    The Dallas disclosures in an application and particularly in an amendment, are
treated separately because of aggravating circumstances.  The "no" answer to Question 7(d) in
the Dallas application could have prompted the staff to ask Mr. Parker to file an amendment
stating whether basic character issues had been sought or added with respect to any of the
applications listed. (Bureau Exh. 2. at 2.)  The staff's question about added issues was over and
above information called for by Question 7 and was not limited by Allegan.  The amendment that
was filed on October 29, 1992, in response to the staff's query was misleading and lacked candor
in stating only:
This will confirm that no character issues had been added or
requested against those applicants when those applications were
                 dismissed.
(Adams Exh. 55 at 3.)  The Mt. Baker case was not a comparative case and so an added issue
would not have been procedurally necessary.  But the Commission finding of a Parker contrived
"effort to deceive" would have been responsive to the staff's oral request for basic qualifying
information that should have been provided.  However, the more offending aspect of the
amendment was with respect to San Bernardino.  The staff's question was more open-ended and
was directly applicable to San Bernardino wherein a hearing Judge had added a character issue
that directly implicated Parker as the undisclosed real party-in-interest who had engineered the
scheme.  In affirming that determination, the Review Board characterized the ploy as a
"transpicuous sham" and an "attempted fraud."  One would be hard put to craft stronger language
to make the point that a character issue had been added against an entity that was controlled by
Mr. Parker, the undisclosed operative behind the sham.  The aggravation starts with the failure of
Mr. Parker to use an inquiry from the staff to finally come clean with respect to his role in
San Bernardino.  It was insulting under the harsh light that the Review Board had cast on
Mr. Parker to advise the staff in a written formal amendment only that "no character issues had
been added."  One was not only added. It was decided "con brio" against Mr. Parker.  Finally, it
was a degrading tactic to deliberately withhold material adverse information from the attorney
                  retained to make the filing.
              Parker Disclosures Not Involving RBI
111.    Phase II focused on Commission forms which required "yes" or "no" answers and
narrative descriptions about the facts and circumstances related to filings that described the
Mt. Baker and San Bernardino proceedings.  It was a truth finding mission.  There was no
evidence found that Mr. Parker consulted any other officer or director about his disclosures in
Commission filings, including the transfer application taking RBI out of bankruptcy.  Nor is there
any evidence that any other officer or director knew about or had participated in the Parker
disclosures before this proceeding was set for hearing.  Therefore, the record evidence does not
support a separate finding of deceit (or intent to deceive) on the part of the licensed entity.
Mr. Parker, as an individual applicant and as an officer of TIBS and RBI, should have provided
more detail related to the Mt. Baker and San Bernardino proceedings.  But his failure to do so in
responding to Question 7 did not involve deceit attributable to RBI.  On the other hand, when
confronted directly with a staff question as to whether any character issues had been requested or
added in any proceeding where he had been a party to the application, Mr. Parker, as president of
TIBS, misled his attorney and responded in a less than candid fashion.  The processing staff, in
the course of its duty, was asking whether there were any questions about Parker's character that
should be considered before approving the application.  Mr. Parker is experienced and
sophisticated in Commission applications and in making disclosures.  He must be held to be
aware of and responsible for his obligation to be forthright when asked a question by the
Commission staff.  But RBI should not bear the responsibility.
               Parker Testimony Not Involving RBI
112.    On a specific point of candor, the Presiding Judge formed an impression, made
known in open court, that Mr. Parker appeared to believe that merely disclosing the San
Bernardino proceeding's ultimate result was sufficient and that it was up to the staff to look up
the case history and read for themselves what the hearing Judge and the Review Board had found
as to Mr. Parker.  (Tr. 2652.)  Mr. Parker denied the accuracy of that impression but his
explanation was off-the-point.  He offered the circular explanation that when the Commission
staff asked the question, the Dallas amendment provided a sufficient answer.  (Id.)  But the
amendment could only provide a sufficient answer if the staff looked up the San Bernardino case
history.  So there is no reason to change that impression in light of Mr. Parker's wholly
inadequate Dallas amendment and it is concluded here that the impression formed in hearing the
testimony of Mr. Parker was justified.  It also shows an added lack of candor for Mr. Parker to
now deny the effect of what he clearly said under oath.
113.    In contrast with the incomplete Dallas disclosure, there is reliable evidence in this
record through the "Gaulke letter" showing that in a context outside of Commission disclosure,
Mr. Parker has been selectively more sharing of the facts.  (Bureau Exh. 1 at 9-10.)  The evidence
shows that when substantially the same information about prior character findings was requested
and forwarded to Telemundo in connection with a contemplated business transaction, the
disclosure was more extensive and, as a result, was closer to the truth about Mr. Parker and his
previously adjudicated character.  While the letter is not directly relevant to the Phase II issue, it
illustrates the level of knowledge that Parker has with respect to the resolved character issues in
Mt. Baker and San Bernardino and that the focus and scope of his disclosure depends entirely on
his personal interest in making the disclosure.  For purposes of this case, such contrasting
disclosures illustrate how Parker's self-interested disclosures are not to be trusted.  But his lack
of candor for purposes of preserving his self-interest should not be attributed to RBI.
Parker's Exclusive Fault Mitigates Against RBI's Disqualification
114.    There are mitigating circumstances for RBI to remain qualified to hold a license,
provided Parker leaves the scene.  See Character Qualifications, supra at 1210 n. 76
(circumstances and other considerations may attenuate consideration of further reliability and
truthfulness).  The record shows that RBI was in dire financial straits when Mr. Parker appeared
on the scene.  It was the fact of bankruptcy that brought RBI and Parker together.  RBI needed an
experienced manager to bring the enterprise out of bankruptcy.  A factor that resulted in the
court's approval of a Parker crafted reorganization plan included the MSA which gave Parker
operational control and a substantial equitable position through Partel.  It was soon after the
MSA was executed that Mr. Parker challenged RBI's directors, took control, and appointed his
own slate of directors.  As a result, when he was filing misleading applications, including the
transfer application removing RBI from bankruptcy, Mr. Parker was acting alone and without any
input, direction or control from RBI's other officers and directors with regard to disclosure.
115.    It is expected that Mr. Parker will voluntarily remove himself from all vestiges of
control at RBI.  As Mr. Parker testified:
if there is to be a penalty imposed, it should be against me alone,
not against RBI to the detriment of RBI's other stockholders.
                                
(RBI Exh. 46 at 8.)  If Mr. Parker does not honor that pledge, the other directors of RBI might
wish to consider his removal from his position of control because as this record illustrates, he
cannot be trusted to deal openly with this agency.  Commission precedent shows the importance
that would attach to Mr. Parker's removal.  The Commission has acted favorably towards
licensees taking remedial action to remove persons from ownership and control positions who
are responsible for misconduct.  See PCS 2000, L.P., 12 F.C.C. Rcd 1681, 1688   89 (1997)
(disqualification not warranted where applicant expeditiously removed CEO responsible for
misrepresentation); Faulkner Radio, Inc., 88 F.C.C. 2d 612, 618 (1981) (renewal conditioned on
total exclusion of wrongdoer from station operations); and Teleprompter Cable Systems, Inc., 40
F.C.C. 2d 1027 (1973) (no disqualification in case involving criminal misconduct where
applicant took rehabilitative step of hiring new management and board members).  It is
recognized that RBI was a party only to one transfer application and all other applications had no
connection with RBI.  And the Commission finds that character is more relevant "where an
applicant is acquiring, as opposed to transferring."  See Character Qualifications, supra, at 1224
n. 103.  Therefore, RBI's non-involvement is buttressed by the lesser harm of Parker's
misconduct with respect to transfer applications, even though one of the tarnished transfers was
for the purpose of gaining RBI's release from bankruptcy, an isolated event not likely to reoccur.
116.    The Policy Statement on Character Qualifications, supra, 102 F.C.C. 2d at 1217-
18 holds that mitigating factors are relevant and must be considered on a case by case basis to
determine whether the removal of a principal as the sole wrongdoer will suffice without
sanctioning a corporate licensee and its other stockholders.  Here there was the further mitigating
factor of RBI being subjected to the jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court that limited the authority
of the directors.  It was the court which approved the MSA that gave Mr. Parker the control,
thereby giving judicial assurance to the directors that the licensee was in good hands.  Mr. Parker
operated alone on disclosures and he could not be effectively controlled by the board of directors.
That is particularly true with respect to applications having nothing to do with the license of
WTVE(TV) in which Mr. Parker gave false answers to a very specific Question 4.  It also was
Parker alone who gave inadequate disclosures in an amendment about the issues in the Mt. Baker
and San Bernardino proceedings.  Even in the case of the disclosures in connection with the
transfer removing RBI from bankruptcy, there is no evidence that the directors were consulted or
had any control over disclosures made to the Commission for that purpose.  And Mr. Parker
alone gave the testimony lacking in candor in this proceeding.  Since the removal of Mr. Parker
would be a sine qua non to RBI's qualification to hold a Commission license, there is no
predictive value in Mr. Parker's misconduct insofar as RBI's future broadcast conduct is
concerned.  Therefore, RBI, removed from Mr. Parker's influence and control, need not be
disqualified from holding a Commission license.
            Parker's Misconduct Still Attributable
                  To RBI's Renewal Expectancy
117.    But RBI cannot disavow Mr. Parker's conduct for purposes of a renewal
expectancy.  One of the elements for a renewal expectancy is "licensee misconduct."  Cowles
Broadcasting, Inc., 86 F.C.C. 2d 993, 1017 (1981).  When misconduct is not an isolated event
and is not counterbalanced by a showing of substantial broadcast performance, the renewal
expectancy is lost to the renewal applicant.  Central Florida Enterprises, Inc. v. F.C.C., 683 F. 2d
503, 509 (D.C. Cir. 1982) affirming Cowles Broadcasting, Inc., supra.  In this case, RBI's
mediocre programming for the community was not close to substantial.  In addition, RBI,
through Mr. Parker, was subjected to an unauthorized transfer of control which was unreported.
RBI also admitted failures to timely disclose to the Commission the MSA executed in May 1989,
the Form 315 transfer application for Station WTVE(TV), an FCC Form 323 ownership report
filed in 1992, an Annual Ownership Certification Letter for 1993, and an Annual Ownership
Report for 1994.  (RBI Exh. 14.)  Mr. Parker's conduct as RBI's president must be attributed to
RBI in the narrow context of license renewal and therefore, as a result of Mr. Parker's wrong-
doings and the Station's deficient programming, RBI cannot receive a renewal expectancy.
                              III
                        Abuse Of Process
118.    The Phase III issue was added to determine whether there was substantial
evidence showing that Adams filed its application with a purpose of obtaining a payoff.  The
issue was added after the conclusion of Phase I and following the testimony of Mr. Gilbert on the
"background " of the Adams application.  (Tr. 994 to 1136.)  Mr. Gilbert gave as reason for
Adams' filing, his conviction that home shopping programming was inherently flawed in that it
cannot meet the duty owed by a broadcaster to address the public interest needs of a community.
He also testified to discussions with Telemundo's counsel about a possible settlement.  As a
result of that testimony, it became necessary to determine the motive or motives for the Adams
application and the circumstances of the settlement discussions.  See Memorandum Opinion and
Order, FCC 00M-07, released January 20, 2000, appeal denied, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, FCC 00M-19, released March 6, 2000.
119.    The legal test of an "abuse of process" includes the use of a Commission process
to achieve a result that the process was not intended to achieve or to make any use of that process
to subvert the purpose that the process was intended to achieve.  Broadcast Renewal Applicants,
3 F.C.C. Rcd 5179, n.2 (1988).  Section 311(d)(1)(3) of the Act permits the Commission to
approve a settlement agreement "only if it determines that --- (B) no party to the agreement filed
its application for the purpose of reaching or carrying out such agreement."  Thus, an abuse of
process would include the filing of an application for the purpose of achieving a settlement which
would also be a direct violation of 311 of Act.  However, the Commission will not infer
improper purpose without a specific showing of an improper motivation.  WWOR-TV, Inc., 7
F.C.C. Rcd 636 (1992), aff'd sub nom. Garden State Broadcasting Limited Partnership v. F.C.C.,
996 F. 2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1993). It is necessary to evaluate and analyze the relevant evidence
surrounding the application and testimony in order to determine motivation.

120.    Underlying this concern for Adams' motives were the circumstances involving
these same principals and their earlier settlement.  The Adams principals are virtually all the
same principals as those of Monroe, the challenger in Chicago.  The Monroe application was
declared the winner.  But rather than construct and operate a station, the principals opted to take a
cash settlement of approximately $17.5 million.  The Monroe/Adams principals claim that they
would have proceeded to construct and operate in Harriscope but they believed that Monroe
would not have been able to produce similar quality Spanish language programming.  The
settlement order specified that there would be a continuation of Channel 44's "exemplary
Spanish language programming."
121.    Adams consists of experienced business persons and community leaders who
were well aware of the substantial monetary reward that can be achieved as a renewal challenger.
With millions of dollars obtained through a settlement and the continued use of the law firm that
had succeeded for Monroe, the contest for WTVE(TV) might also result in a favorable monetary
settlement.  However, the relevance of that awareness is offset by the fact that in 1989, five years
before Adams filed, the Commission had addressed shenanigans of renewal challengers and
decided to limit settlements to costs and expenses and then only if a challenger remained in the
case through an Initial Decision.  See Formulation of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast
Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal
Process and to the Prevention of Abuses  of the Renewal Process, 4 F.C.C. Rcd 4780, recon.
denied, 5  F.C.C. Rcd  3902 (1990).  Counsel for Adams informed the principals of that policy
change through a memorandum dated August 15, 1991.  (Adams Exh. 62.)  Therefore, with a
policy against settlements in place, the Adams principals realistically could not have filed an
application with a primary intention of obtaining a settlement.  Rather, Adams' motivation for
filing was primarily to obtain a construction permit and build a station in Reading, PA.  The
evidence shows that the Adams principals saw the renewal process as a means to acquire a
valuable television broadcast authorization at less than market value.  In an effort to achieve that
legitimate business goal, the Adams principals were just as prepared to litigate in earnest here as
they were in the decade long Harriscope challenge. (Tr. 2429-30, 2465.)   The mere fact that
this cohesive group of experienced business people did not cobble together a written business
plan does not convince otherwise.
122.    In addition to their business outlook, the Adams principals have evidenced some
concern for programming.  The Commission has in the past carefully examined evidence of a
repeat challenger's concern over programming as evidence of the bona fides of a lawful motive
for a challenge.  See WWOR-TV, supra at 638-639.  In that case, the applicant had at first
testified that a concern for programming was what drove the application.  But when the date of a
key meeting was shown to negate sufficient time to review programming, the challenging
applicant lost all credibility.  Id.  In this case, the record contains unrebutted testimony
establishing that Adams principals had concluded before filing that "home shopping"
programming was not providing locally-originated news programming or other programming that
served a public interest.  (Tr. 2457-58, 2467-68.) In addition, starting in August 1993, almost a
year before filing the challenge, Adams' counsel was providing literature to Mr. Gilbert that was
critical of "home shopping" programming.  (Adams Exhs. 63, 64, 65, 67.)  Mr. Gilbert studied
the literature upon its receipt and before filing the application. (Tr. 2468-71.)
123.    There are other indicia which reject settlement as the overriding motive.  Adams
considered a range of stations that carried home shopping and initially chose to file in California
and later in Boston.  The steps taken to look into the available opportunities were those
expected, including a serious search for antenna sites.  The searches in California and in Boston
would have been a waste of time and money if settlement was the only goal and those
unproductive efforts negate an inference of an intent to file for a settlement in Reading.  Other
credible evidence shows that in addition to site searches, the venture obtained bank financing,
hired an engineer to analyze a suitable site, instructed that engineer that local broadcasting
capability was a prime concern, methodically reviewed the Station's programming, visited the
Reading area and interviewed local persons.  While there was a foul up in the taping of
programming, it did not prevent Adams from undertaking a plausible assessment of familiar
"home shopping" format that was broadcast by Station WTVE(TV).  And while no one of these
indications of interest is conclusive of motive, in the aggregate, these are significant objective
facts that negate an intent to file for settlement.
124.    The most significant circumstance of a settlement motive was the discussion in
the Spring of 1999. Mr. Parker first approached Mr. Gilbert on a settlement proposal which was
summarily rejected as not serious.  Telemundo later contacted Mr. Gilbert through Ms. Swanson
and broached the subject of settlement for credible business reasons.  At that time, Telemundo
had an affiliation agreement with RBI to provide Hispanic programming.  Telemundo's counsel
was aware that there was a serious challenge to RBI's renewal and that there would be a hearing
commencing in May 1999.  Telemundo saw its RBI affiliation to be in jeopardy and therefore
had a business reason to initiate settlement discussions.  Adams took the contact seriously
enough to share in paying for an appraisal of the Station's market value.  But there is no evidence
that there was any activity beyond discussion which was never joined in by RBI.  Telemundo was
probing in order to protect its affiliation status.  Adams would have given consideration to a
serious settlement offer.  With the primary impetus coming from Telemundo, there is no
inference from that fact that Adams had filed to settle.  Nor would settlement in 1999, or later,
effect the convincing item of objective circumstantial evidence which is the Commission policy
effectively banning "greenmail" that was in place when Adams filed.
125.    In the final analysis, if Adams was primarily interested in repeating a hefty buyout
by challenging another renewal, would this sophisticated syndicate have targeted a licensee that
was emerging from bankruptcy and obviously short of cash?  If a profitable settlement was its
prime motive, Adams might have attempted a more ingenious "greenmail" against a renewal
applicant having deeper pockets than a financially wounded RBI.  Viewed in a realistic light, a
renewal applicant just coming out of bankruptcy would be a highly likely target to compete with
for a license because of the likelihood of difficulty for such an incumbent to prove a meritorious
renewal expectancy.
                  Adams' Testimonial Veracity
126.    For a finding of an intentional misrepresentation or a lack of candor there must be
substantial and reliable evidence that Adams intentionally distorted a hearing record.  Maria M.
Ochoa, 8 F.C.C. Rcd 3135, 3137 (1993), aff'd Marie M. Ochoa v. F.C.C., 98 F.3d 646 (D.C.
Cir. 1996).  Candor in a hearing is important.  But there will not be a disqualification for
"insignificant misstatements."  Fox River Broadcasting, Inc., 88 F.C.C. 2d 1132 n.15 (Review
Bd. 1982).  It appears that in depositions, filings in this litigation, and in testimony at the hearing,
there were varying accounts given by Mr. Gilbert.  And in certain respects, Mr. Haag and
Mr. Fickinger also gave different testimony than that of Mr. Gilbert.  But none of those
testimonial disparities significantly distorted the record.  Any confusion caused may be attributed
to the fact that this case has a complex hearing record that has been in assemblage since May
1999.  The Commission recognizes that "errors and inconsistencies [in witness positions and
emphasis] are not unusual in cases of this magnitude and complexity."  ABC-ITT Merger Case,
9 F.C.C. 2d 289, 324 (1967).  There has been a careful analysis of the testimony of Adams
principals regarding motive for filing, the Telemundo settlement and programming discussions,
the taping episode, and the temporary lapse of Adams' corporate status.  The testimony of Adams
principals, while not crisp, clear and concise in all respects, has not misrepresented any material
facts, has not misstated any facts of decisional significance, has not distorted the record, has not
been misleading, and has not been lacking in candor.
                      Ultimate Conclusions
127.    Micheal Parker assumed control without authorization and serially caused RBI to
violate the Commission's filing rules.  Because of Mr. Parker's filings on behalf of RBI while in
control of its management and its Station WTVE(TV), and because of the deficiencies found in
WTVE(TV) programming during the renewal period, RBI cannot qualify for a renewal
preference.
128.    Adams did not file its application for purposes of a settlement.  And there are no
substantial questions raised with respect to Mr. Gilbert's testimony.  Therefore, Adams is fully
qualified to hold a license.

129.    In light of RBI's failure to show by a preponderance of evidence that it merits a
renewal expectancy, diversification, signal coverage and local residence/civic activities become
the controlling standards under the "generally phrased standard comparative issue."
130.    Adams has only one principal with one existing media interest which is pledged to
be divested if Adams is declared the winner. Mr. Parker, who is the largest shareholder of RBI
and its president, holds licenses to two full power television stations through his ownership of
their corporate licensees.  Therefore, Adams must be awarded a slight comparative merit for
diversification.  Pueblo Radio Broadcasting Service, 5 F.C.C. Rcd 4829 (Review Bd. 1990).
131.    RBI has failed to show by reliable evidence that it will be able to obtain a new
antenna site and construct a new tower.  Adams, by comparison, has shown a reasonable
likelihood to construct an antenna that will serve 33% more people than Station WTVE(TV)'s
current signal presently serves.  Therefore, Adams is awarded a slight comparative credit for its
projected slightly superior signal coverage.  Compare Global Information Technologies, Inc.,
8 F.C.C. Rcd 4024, 4031 (Review Bd. 1993) (slight preference for 30 % coverage differential )
and Christian Broadcasting of the Midlands, Inc., 99 F.C.C. 2d 578, 583 (Review Bd. 1984)
(slight preference for 24 % coverage differential).
132.    RBI receives slight credit for local residence and related local civic activities.  But
those criteria receive a lesser credit than Adams' diversification and superior signal coverage.
Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast Hearings, supra at 394 (diversification merits
primary significance).  Compare Pueblo Radio Broadcasting Service, 5 F.C.C. Rcd 4829, 4832
(excluding credit for integration, diversification and superior coverage should surpass its local
characteristics and civic affairs).  (Review Bd 1990).  RBI deserves an even lesser credit for local
residence because of its failure to qualify for a renewal preference in that it failed to adequately
service the local issues.  The Commission has emphasized the relevance of local residency as
showing an interest in the welfare of the community.  Edward F. and Pamela J. Levine, supra at
8402.  RBI has shown a disinterest in the welfare of the community by its meager public service
programming and by not qualifying for the preference.
133.    Based on the criteria of diversification and better signal coverage compared
against local residency and civic affairs which are substantially discounted by unmeritorious
programming, Adams is declared the winner.

                       Settlement Option
134.    Both the renewal applicant (without Parker/Partel) and the challenger are found to
be basically qualified to receive a Commission license.  In view of the phasing out of
comparative selection, the Commission has authorized "where the circumstances afford
assurance that the competing applications were not filed for speculative or other improper
purposes," the waiving of limitations on settlement payments to dismissing applicants.
Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, supra at 16006.  This expresses a
policy permitting settlement of the remaining comparative cases.  Id.  The Bureau urges
settlement as being in the public interest.  In light of the findings that RBI, without Parker, is
qualified to own or assign its license and that Adams has not abused the renewal process, the
parties could settle this case while exception(s) to the Initial Decision are being prepared for
submission or are filed and being considered by the Commission.
135.    In deciding this case, Parker is found to be "unqualified" to control RBI's license
because of his unauthorized taking of control, his failures to report timely and accurately, and
particularly because of his false answers to Question 4 denying "fraud," his causing the
misrepresented Dallas amendment to be filed, and his lacking in candor in his hearing testimony.
Mr. Parker also is found to be "disqualified" from benefiting from any settlement that might be
achieved between RBI and Adams.  See SL Communications, Inc. v. F.C.C., 168 F3rd 1354,
1358 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Commission policy was approved which denies the right of settlement to
those who act "mendaciously" before the agency).  As a result, Mr. Parker is not qualified either
to hold any position of control in connection with RBI's license, or to participate in a settlement
between RBI and Adams.
                             ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the renewal application of Reading Broadcasting, Inc. (File No.
BRCT 940407KF) IS DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application of Adams Communications Corporation
(File No. BPCT 940630KG) IS GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Micheal L. Parker IS FOUND NOT QUALIFIED to
hold or control a broadcasting license allotted to Reading Broadcasting, Inc., or to participate in a
settlement between Reading Broadcasting, Inc. and Adams Communications Corporation in
connection with this proceeding, or in a settlement of this proceeding involving any assignee of
either entity.
                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                              Richard L. Sippel
                              Administrative Law Judge