April 18, 2012
Mapleton Communications' KXDZ-FM/San Luis Obispo gets a $10,000 forfeiture order from the FCC Enforcement Bureau over missing issues/programs lists in its public inspection file.
The station's main studio was inspected in February 2010 by an agent from the bureau's Los Angeles office, who found that issues/programs lists were missing for parts of 2007, 2008, and 2009. A $10,000 notice of apparent liability went to KXDZ in November 2010. Mapleton responded with a request that the forfeiture be reduced or canceled, saying it wasn't responsible for public files from before it owned the station, and that the fine was too high compared to forfeitures in similar circumstances.
The bureau rejected those arguments, saying a transfer of control doesn't in itself affect liability, and also discounting Mapleton's argument that other stations missing seven or fewer issues/programs lists were fined only $4,000, noting that "each case presents a unique set of considerations and facts," and pointing out that other stations have gotten larger fines for fewer missing lists.
(4/20/2012 7:14:02 PM)
Well, this one is interesting when you read the actual document from the FCC. (Available at: http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-608A1.html)
The contention is that the change of ownership occured on Nov. 4, 2009, but the 4th quarter of 2009 was among those missing. Last time I checked the fourth quarter ends on Dec. 31. which would be after the date of closing. Furthermore, at the time of the inspection the Market Mgr. was alleged to have said something to the effect (quoting from the document, not a direct quote of the manager): "indicated that the period for which the issues/programs lists were missing appeared to coincide with the departure of the station employee who had previously maintained the lists." Make your own judgement about that remark. Mine is: "So what?"
Then they came back and said the regulations don't require something that they do. When you tell the FCC what the rules are you had better be right.
So I'd call this "asking for it."
(4/20/2012 1:23:27 PM)
The FCC seems to be really inconsistent with how they react to these types of violations.
I've seen stations with much bigger public file problems who do not get fined, so there might be more to this story.
(4/20/2012 7:16:50 AM)
The article is too short to give us the full details, such as when the current ownership group took control. However, if it is true that the missing reports are from a time period prior to this group owning the station, I would hope they would challenge the fine in court. The FCC becomes nothing more than a bully who demands your lunch money if they force an ownership group to pay a fine for something they had no control over.
Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend
View the original article here
