Opinion ID: 688683
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Necessity of Recusal by Commissioners

Text: 36 Appellants raise a final unfortunate ad hominem attack on the Commission's decision. During the administrative proceedings, one or more commenters suggested Chairman Quello and Commissioner Duggan should recuse themselves from the proceedings. Both declined; Chairman Quello in a statement reviewing the standards for recusal and noting that there was no evidence of prejudgment warranting his recusal; Commissioner Duggan in a statement describing the commenters' suggestion as based on speculation. Both Commissioners spoke correctly. There is no foundation for recusal. Appellants have nonetheless renewed the attack on then-Chairman, now Commissioner, Quello before this court. 37 The evidence of bias on Quello's part is no more than speculation. Appellants state that Murdoch's lawyer told the bankruptcy court that he had received sufficient assurances that the waiver could be obtained from the FCC. The clear implication of this statement, appellants maintain, is that someone at the FCC gave Murdoch these assurances. Even if it followed from the lawyer's statement that someone at the FCC had made an improper statement, we are left to wonder why we should assume it to be Quello. 38 As further evidence of improper contacts between Murdoch and the Commission, appellants point to three newspaper articles suggesting that the FCC supported giving Murdoch a waiver. Specifically, they argue that Chairman Quello should have recused himself because he appeared to have prejudged the issue since he stated that he did not have any objections to a waiver request and that his statements that he offered no assurances to Murdoch's lawyer and merely meant he did not object to the filing of the waiver request are unavailing and illogical. See Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc. v. FTC, 425 F.2d 583, 590-91 (D.C.Cir.1970) (agency chairman should have recused himself in light of his public statements indicating prejudgment of the case). Appellants also urge that when there is a public perception that an agency has already made up its mind, it is important to avoid even a perception of impropriety, especially when dealing with a powerful figure like Murdoch. They misperceive the law of recusal. 39 We review an agency member's decision not to recuse himself from a proceeding under a deferential, abuse of discretion standard. Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. United States Dep't of Transp., 899 F.2d 1230, 1232 (D.C.Cir.1990). In an adjudicatory proceeding, recusal is required only where a disinterested observer may conclude that [the decisionmaker] has in some measure adjudged the facts as well as the law of a particular case in advance of hearing it. Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc., 425 F.2d at 591 (citations omitted). In other words, we will set aside a commission member's decision not to recuse himself from his duties only where he has demonstrably made up [his] mind about important and specific factual questions and [is] impervious to contrary evidence. United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1209 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 3148, 69 L.Ed.2d 997 (1981). At the administrative stage, Commissioner Duggan described the commenters' requests for his recusal as having a vague and flimsy basis. At this stage, the case for the reversal of Commissioner Quello's decision not to recuse has essentially no basis at all. 40 In support of its recusal argument, the Caucus for Media Diversity points to five Joint Appendix references as allegedly establishing that interim Chairman James Quello and others created a public impression that FCC had 'approved' Fox's waiver request before it was even filed. Caucus's Br. at 21. For ease of reference we will use the Joint Appendix pages cited by appellant in support of its proposition: J.A. 467, 496, 499, 502, 505. The first of these is not in any remote sense evidence of Quello's need to recuse or evidence of anything else. It is simply a comment filed by one of appellants in the administrative proceedings alleging that Quello had prejudged the case, principally because an attorney for Murdoch, according to appellants, stated that he had received sufficient assurances that a permanent waiver would be granted. Appellants have given us their position here. The fact that they have said the same thing before is no evidence that it is correct. We are left with four possible J.A. references to support their recusal argument. 41 As to the first of the remaining four, J.A. 496 is a newspaper article from the Metro Section of the March 29, 1993, New York Times. We seriously question whether a New York Times article is admissible evidence of the truthfulness of its contents, see FED.R.EVID. 802 (hearsay not admissible except in circumstances not applicable here) and 801(c) (hearsay defined as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.). Nonetheless, even if it were, the particular article in question says nothing at all about Quello, let alone anything compelling his recusal. The closest it comes is the statement, But officials who once opposed a waiver say they will support one now to save the Post. Given that everyone in the case knew that elected officials including the Governor of New York and at least one of its Senators had come out in favor of saving the paper, there is not only no reason to assume that the article made reference to Quello, there is every reason not to make such an assumption. 42 The third reference, J.A. 499, is a one-paragraph brief from Broadcasting and Cable Magazine of March 29, 1993. Ignoring the hearsay difficulty, this clipping does report that Chairman Quello said he 'would have no objections' to a waiver request. Quello explained in the statement we referenced above that his lack of objection was to the filing of a request, not to whether or not the request would be granted. 43 The fourth reference, J.A. 502, is a clip from The Daily Variety, an entertainment trade paper, from April 19, 1993. While the portion of the article apparently intended for our consideration by appellants does state the FCC sending signals the waiver would be approved, Murdoch's request was thought to be on a fast track, the gist of the article is that Murdoch might have difficulties in getting his waiver approved because the FCC was throwing a wrench into the News Corp. chairman's plans. Thus, if this entertainment press article were taken as evidence of anything, it would be that Chairman Quello had not made his mind up in favor of Murdoch's position. 44 The final reference, J.A. 505, is a short, unsigned article from the March 31, 1993, Daily Variety. The nearest to a pertinent part is a sentence that claims interim FCC Chairman James Quello has hinted the commission will sign off on the deal. It does not say who heard him so hint or how he hinted. Even without the deferential standard which we apply to decisions not to recuse, there would be no way that we could find that Commissioner Quello had acted improperly. It is unfortunate that appellants thought it necessary to mount this ad hominem challenge.