Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Wings Communications, Inc., Station WELE (AM), Ormond Beach, FL

Download Options

Released: May 15, 2014

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-660

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In re Applications of
)
)

Wings Communications, Inc.

)
FRN: 0010576544
)
Facility ID No. 72937
Licensee of Station WELE(AM)
)
Ormond Beach, Florida
)
)

For Renewal of License
)
File Nos. BR-20040316AFO
)
BR-20110929AMR
Wings Communications, Inc., Assignor
)
)

and
)
)

Goliath Radio, LLC, Assignee
)
File No. BAL-20091117ACZ
)
and
)
)

Wings Communications, Inc., Assignor
)
)

and
)
)

File No. BAL-20131018AAY
Bethune-Cookman University, Assignee
)
)

For Assignment of License
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: May 15, 2014

Released: May 15, 2014
By the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
The Media Bureau (“Bureau”) has before it: (1) the two captioned applications filed by
Wings Communications, Inc. (“Licensee”) for renewal of its license (the “2004 Renewal Application”
and “2011 Renewal Application,” respectively) for station WELE(AM), Ormond Beach, Florida (the
“Station”); three informal objections (“Objections”)1 to the 2004 Renewal Application (“Station”); and

1 The objections were filed by Paul Tanner on March 17, 2009; Barbara and Murray Steinberg on January 5, 2010,
and Thomas L. Vetter on January 8, 2010. The Steinbergs styled their pleading a Petition to Deny. However, it was
a procedurally defective late filing. See 47 U.S.C. § 73.3516(e)(1) (Petition to deny filing period for late-filed
license renewal applications begins when Commission places such application on public notice). Because the public
notice was issued March 22, 2004, the Steinbergs should have filed by June 22, 2004, in order to be timely.
(Broadcast Applications, Public Notice, Report No. 25697 (Mar. 22, 2004)). We treat the Petition as an Informal
Objection under Section 73.3587 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. § 73.3587.

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-660

(3) two separate applications for Commission consent to the assignment of the Station’s license (“First
Assignment Application” and “Second Assignment Application”).2 For the reasons set forth below, we
dismiss in part and deny in part the Objections, dismiss the First Assignment Application, and grant the
2004 and 2011 Renewal Applications, and the Second Assignment Application, with conditions.

II.

BACKGROUND

2.
Overview. As will be explained more fully below, the Station has had an exceptionally
troubled history in the last several years. F. Douglas Wilhite (“Wilhite”), the sole shareholder of the
Licensee, was convicted in 2010 of two felonies (child abuse and neglect of a child causing great bodily
harm). The Licensee went into bankruptcy in 2011 and emerged from bankruptcy in 2012. The Licensee
also faced a litany of complaints of consumer fraud, leading to a civil penalty for violations of the Florida
Sellers of Travel Act in 2010. In light of Wilhite’s criminal record, we cannot make a determination that
Wilhite and the Licensee are qualified to hold, or assign, the Station’s license. However, compelling
public interest determinations support actions that will allow a donation of the Station’s license and
related assets to Bethune-Cookman University (the “University”). Wilhite will derive no financial benefit
from the donation. Our action here will result in Wilhite’s full withdrawal from broadcasting and will
ensure that the Station may operate in the public interest under the University’s control. Accordingly, we
will follow Commission precedent that finds that such public interest considerations support a grant of an
assignment application where a character issue is resolved against a licensee or is pending.
3.
2004 Renewal Application. The Station’s 2004 Renewal Application remains pending.3
On March 17, 2009, Paul Tanner (“Tanner”) filed an informal objection against the 2004 Renewal
Application. He asked the Commission to deny that application, claiming that Wilhite and his family
misled Tanner about the travel packages the Station promoted.4 As a supplement, he included a letter
dated October 6, 2008, that he reportedly mailed to Licensee. In it, he lists five terms of a seven-night
timeshare travel package that Licensee misleadingly or inaccurately advertised, both on and off the air.
Tanner alleges that Licensee or its representatives stated that: (1) there were no fees other than the
redemption fee, but he incurred a $135 service fee; (2) there were no restrictions to enter the timeshare,
but he was required to submit to a “time share presentation;” (3) the only bar to travel was during
holidays, but he could only travel during off season and “shoulder season;” (4) there was no bar to travel
with family members, but he discovered flights were not to be used together by members of the same
family; (5) there were no additional fees for the flights, but there was a $50 per person fee plus a $60
redemption fee.5 As a result, Tanner asked his credit card company to suspend the travel package charge,
calling Licensee’s advertising practices “at best deceptive and … more likely criminal.”6
4.
On January 5, 2010, Murray and Barbara Steinberg filed a pleading titled “Petition to
Deny” against the 2004 Renewal Application, asking the Commission to deny that application. The
Steinbergs alleged “unethical and unscrupulous” management practices at the Station in connection with

2 The 2011 Renewal Application is timely and uncontested.
3 The application should have been filed by October 1, 2003, but was not filed until March 16, 2004, after the
Station’s license had expired. Licensee provided no explanation for the untimeliness of the application, nor did it
file a request for special temporary authority to continue Station operations after the license expiration.
4 Tanner Objection at 1. Senator Bill Nelson wrote the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau on Mr. Tanner’s behalf.
In a response to Senator Nelson on February 23, 2009, the Enforcement Bureau stated that the claim did not violate
any of the Commission’s Rules but pledged to consider the objection in the Station’s license renewal proceeding and
referred Mr. Tanner’s complaint to the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection Division of
Marketing Practices. (Ref. EB-IHD-MT).
5 Tanner Objection at Attachment 1.
6 Id.
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-660

its travel show.7 The petition includes a copy of a civil complaint (“Complaint”) that the Steinbergs and
four other individuals, including objector Thomas L. Vetter (“Vetter”), initiated in the United States
District Court. It alleged that Licensee, Wilhite, and others had conspired to commit fraud and swindle
and had violated the racketeer influenced corrupt organization act (“RICO”).8 Specifically, the
allegations included: (1) fraudulently yet explicitly stating that there were no additional fees and/or
restrictions; (2) intentionally failing to disclose additional fees and/or restrictions; (3) failing to schedule
trips advertised on the Station; (4) advertising free airfare to any U.S. destination without disclosing
additional fees, taxes, and/or restrictions on times and/or places; (5) selling travel packages as “all
inclusive” but omitting material facts about availability and additional fees and taxes; (6) selling more
items than were available or selling items without permission of owners (e.g., restaurants, lodges,
transportation companies).9
5.
In a letter dated January 8, 2010, Vetter also sought denial of the 2004 Renewal
Application. He claimed Licensee, through the Station’s travel show, engaged in “fraudulent practices”
and alleged that Wilhite, despite promising to do so, has not furnished more than $4,000 of the “vacation
vouchers, plane-hotel packages and other restaurant coupons” that Vetter purchased from Licensee.10
6.
On March 24, 2010, the Steinbergs filed with the Commission reports from the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Investigations (“Florida Consumer
Bureau”) indicating that it had fined Licensee $4,000 for violating four Florida statutes pertaining to those
who sell travel packages.11 The Florida Consumer Bureau reported that Station listeners filed 129
complaints against Licensee and the numbers “continued to rise.”12 It found that that Licensee had
consistently failed to refund travel packages and other offers (e.g., gift cards) for charges both authorized
and unauthorized by listeners,13 and failed to inform customers of the travel package cancellation and
refund terms as required by Florida law.14 The Steinbergs filed the additional documentation to give the

7 January 5, 2010, Steinberg Objection at 1. On February 26, 2010, May 6, 2010, and May 26, 2010, the Steinbergs
supplemented their informal objection. The first supplement expands upon the Steinbergs’ arguments against the
First Assignment Application. The second supplement updates the Commission on the court’s decision regarding
felony charges against Wilhite. The final supplement includes a copy of the final court order regarding those felony
charges against Wilhite and responds to an amendment filed by the proposed assignee in the First Assignment
Application. As discussed below, the First Assignment Application will be dismissed as requested by the proposed
assignee.
8 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68.
9 Complaint at 21-22. According to court records, this case settled at mediation on June 1, 2010. See “Notice of
Settlement” filed on June 9, 2010 (amended June 21, 2010, with certification of service).
10 Vetter Objection at 1-2.
11 Investigation of Wings Communications, Inc., d/b/a WELE Radio d/b/a Premier Vacations, Case # 0809-35660,
Mar. 11, 2010, at Section VII: Exhibit 6 (dated Mar. 11, 2010; received Mar. 24, 2010) (“Florida Consumer Bureau
Report”). Specifically, it referenced 131 complaints against Licensee, approximately half of which were resolved
with refunds or the like. The statutory violations included: Licensee’s failure to disclose its second office in its
license application; failure to include its license in contracts with travelers; failure to include the required
cancelation disclosures; and failure to honor the terms of the contracts by refusing to issue refunds within the 30-day
refund period. Id. at Section IV: Statutes Violated.
12 Id. at 4.
13 Id. The Report cites Mr. Stanley Dorfman as an example of a consumer seeking a refund. He claims his credit
card was charged $320.95 for a package that he did not order. Three months later, he received a full refund. Id. at
3.
14 According to the Florida Consumer Bureau Report, Licensee claimed that it sent the refund disclosure terms,
though not in the manner required by Florida statute. The Report also noted that Licensee had refunded about half
of the money claimed by listeners and expressed desire to refund more but was near bankruptcy. Id. at 3.
3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-660

Commission a “better understanding of the situation.”15
7.
Wilhite Felony Convictions. In October, 2009, Wilhite was charged in the Criminal
Division of the Seventh Circuit Court, Volusia County, Florida, with neglect of a child causing great
bodily harm, a second degree felony, and child abuse, a third degree felony. Wilhite pled nolo contendere
to the charges and on May 5, 2010, was found guilty. The judge sentenced Wilhite to two years of
community control and 13 years of probation for the former violation and, for the latter, three years of
probation and two years of community control, to be served concurrently.16
8.
First Assignment Application. On November 17, 2009, Licensee filed the First
Assignment Application, requesting Commission consent to assign the Station license to Goliath Radio,
LLC (“Goliath”). It generated several objections and petitions to deny,17 but on October 17, 2013,
Goliath asked to withdraw this application.18
9.
2011 Renewal Application. On September 29, 2011, Licensee filed the 2011 Renewal
Application. The application is uncontested. In it, Licensee admitted it had not placed all items in the
Station’s public inspection file at the appropriate times during the previous license term, as required by
the Rules, but that it had brought the files up to date and has continued to maintain it.19 Shortly thereafter,
on November 27, 2011, Licensee filed a short form transfer of control application indicating that Wilhite
and his wife had voluntarily filed for bankruptcy.20 That transfer of control application was not
consummated because it was granted shortly before the bankruptcy case was closed on November 14,
2012.21
10.
Second Assignment Application. On October 18, 2013, Licensee filed the Second
Assignment Application, seeking consent to assign the Station license to the University for no
consideration.22 This application also is uncontested. In an amendment to the Second Assignment
Application filed on January 17, 2014, Licensee states, “Neither Donor nor Donor’s sole shareholder, Mr.

15 Mar. 24, 2010, Steinberg Objection at 2. This Objection also attached the Business Name History of Licensee,
allegedly indicating that the Licensee, a corporation registered in Georgia, was not in compliance with statutory
requirements because the registered agent, Wilhite, reported a Florida, rather than Georgia address.
16 See State of Florida vs. F. Douglas Wilhite, No. 209-35634CFAES (Seventh Cir. May 5, 2010) (Order of
Community Control/Probation) (unpublished). On June 15, 2011, the court suspended the remaining term of the
house arrest. See File No. BTC-20111227ABF, Exhibit 8.
17 These included: A Petition to Deny by Black Crow Radio, L.L.C. (“Black Crow”) on December 28, 2009; an
Informal Objection by West End Media Group, Inc. on December 17, 2009; an Informal Objection by Murray L.
and Barbara F. Steinberg on January 5, 2010; an Informal Objection by George and Constance Colby on December
28, 2009; a Motion to Strike by Goliath on January 8, 2010; a Reply by Black Crow on January 22, 2010; three
Supplements to Informal Objection filed by the Steinbergs on January 26, 2010, May 6, 2010, and May 26, 2010; a
Reply by Goliath on June 10, 2010; a Motion to Strike by Goliath on July 5, 2011; an Opposition by Black Crow on
July 13, 2011; and the Motion to Withdraw referenced above on October 17, 2013.
18 See “Request for Withdrawal of Application for Consent to Assignment of License” (Oct. 17, 2013).
19 See 2011 Renewal Application, Exhibit 12, and 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526. Licensee attributes the Rule violation to
Wilhite’s legal and subsequent financial problems. Id. at Exhibit 12.
20 See File No. BTC-20111227ABF, Attachment 12.
21 See Order Approving Account, Discharging Trustee, Canceling Bond, and Closing Estate, Case No. 6:11-bk-
17323-KSJ, Nov. 14, 2012; Letter from Howard M. Liberman (counsel to Licensee) to Secretary of FCC (Oct. 19,
2012).
22 See Second Assignment Application, Exhibit 5, Attachment 5, “Contribution Agreement.” There is a separate
contribution agreement between Goliath and the University in which Goliath agreed to donate to the University
certain assets used to operate the Station that are not owned by Licensee. Id. at Exhibit 5.
4

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-660

F. Douglas Wilhite, nor any other person or entity associated with Donor or Donor’s sole shareholder,
shall claim or receive any tax benefit, directly or indirectly, of any kind or amount, as a result of Donor’s
contribution of the Station Assets to Donee.”23 Also, Wilhite signed a declaration stating:
“[n]either Wings nor I, nor any other entity in which Wings or I are involved, will acquire or seek
to acquire any FCC authorization or any interest in any other broadcast station in the future.
Once the donation contemplated by the above-referenced assignment application has taken place,
I will hold no interest in any broadcast station. Although I have no intention to acquire any FCC
authorization or attributable media interest of any type in the future, I agree to henceforth disclose
in any application for an FCC authorization in which I have any interest (a) my criminal record,
(b) my unresolved character issues, (c) the foregoing commitment, and (d) any decision issued in
this matter. The same applies to any entity in which I am involved.”24

III.

DISCUSSION

11.
License Renewal Applications. Informal objections to license renewal applications must
provide properly supported allegations of fact that, if true, would establish a substantial and material
question of fact that grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with Section 309(k) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”).25 Section 309(k) provides that we are to grant the
renewal application if, upon consideration of the application and pleadings, we find that: (1) the station
has served the public interest, convenience, and necessity; (2) there have been no serious violations of the
Act or the Commission’s rules; and (3) there have been no other violations which, taken together,
constitute a pattern of abuse.26 If such a finding cannot be made on the basis of the application and
pleadings, Section 309(k) provides that the license renewal application is to be designated for a trial-type
hearing pursuant to Section 309(k) of the Act.
12.
2004 Renewal Application Pleadings. All objectors claim that those operating the
Station’s travel show unethically, misleadingly and fraudulently promoted and sold travel packages and
failed to disclose material restrictions on travel packages. In the Character Qualifications Policy
Statement
and the preceding Notice of Inquiry, the Commission cautioned against “abuse [of] the
licensing privilege conferred on [broadcasters] through deceptive or fraudulent programming” because it
goes to the essence of the trust placed in a broadcaster to provide quality service oriented to the needs of
its community.27 In that proceeding, the Commission tentatively concluded that “such unethical
broadcasting conduct as fraudulent contests, deceptive advertising, news staging and news distortion”
should continue to be treated as “adverse reflections on an applicant's qualifications to serve the public

23 Id. at Attachment 5, “Amendment to Contribution Agreement.”
24 Id. at Attachment 7.
25 47 U.S.C. § 309(e). See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 n. 10
(1990), aff’d sub nom. Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rehearing denied
(Sep. 10, 1993); Area Christian Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 862, 864 (1989)
(informal objection must contain adequate and specific factual allegations sufficient to warrant the relief requested)
(“Area Christian”).
26 47 U.S.C. § 309(k)(1). The renewal standard was amended to read as described by Section 204(a) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 10 Stat. 56 (1996). See Implementation of Section 204(a)
and 204(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Broadcast License Renewal Procedures)
, Order, 11 FCC Rcd
6363 (1996).
27 Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order, and Policy Statement, Report,
Order, and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1211 (1986) (citing Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In
Broadcast Licensing
, Notice of Inquiry, 87 FCC 2d 836, 847 (1981)), modified, 5 FCC Rcd 3252 (1990), 6 FCC Rcd
3448 (1991), and 7 FCC Rcd 6564 (1992) (“Character Qualifications Policy Statement”).
5

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-660

interest.”28 Here, however, we find the evidence lacking as to allegedly fraudulent programming practices
because none of the Objections include a date, time, a transcript of the broadcasts, a recorded segment,29
or a copy of the disclosed terms.30 Therefore, we find they do not provide the supporting facts necessary
to make a prima facie case for fraudulent advertising.31
13.
The Commission’s Character Qualifications Policy Statement also classifies certain
types of civil and criminal violations as non-FCC misconduct that is relevant to the Commission’s
licensing decisions. The Steinbergs’ transmittal of information regarding the Florida Consumer Bureau’s
decision to fine Licensee for violations of the Florida Sellers of Travel Act raises the question as to
whether these civil violations should be considered relevant here, but we need not reach that question
because Wilhite’s felony convictions, standing alone, raise a substantial and material question of fact as to
whether he and Wings are qualified to hold a Commission license.32
14.
The Character Qualifications Policy Statement indicates that the Commission generally
only considers three types of adjudicated non-FCC misconduct (i.e., misconduct which is not specifically
proscribed by the Act or Rules): (1) fraudulent statements to government agencies; (2) felony convictions;
and (3) mass media related violations of anti-competitive and antitrust statutes.33
15.
We conclude that Wilhite’s convictions for neglect of a child causing great bodily harm,
a second degree felony, and child abuse, a third degree felony, by themselves raise a substantial and
material question of fact as to whether he possesses the requisite qualifications to remain a Commission
licensee.34 Ordinarily, we would designate the 2004 Renewal Application and the 2011 Renewal
Application for an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge to determine if, in light of
Wilhite’s felony convictions, Licensee is qualified to hold a broadcast license.35 However, Licensee
proposes to donate the Station license and related assets to the University for no consideration. For the
reasons discussed below, we will grant the 2004 and 2011 Renewal Applications subject to the specified
conditions set forth below in connection with the Second Assignment Application.
16.
Assignment Applications. We will grant Goliath’s request to dismiss the First Assignment
Application below. With respect to the Second Assignment Application, the Commission’s Jefferson
Radio
policy precludes consideration of license assignment applications where a character issue has been
resolved against the seller or is pending.36 This is because, as the Commission has explained, “there is no

28 Id.
29 See, e.g., Journal Broadcast Corp., Notice of Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 2797, 2798-99 (EB 2010),
appeal denied, Forfeiture Order, 28 FCC Rcd 2259 (EB 2013) (using transcripts of broadcasts to determine whether
licensee violated Section 73.1216 involving contests).
30 Lincoln Dellar, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2582, 2585-86 (MMB 1993) (using objector’s copy
of contest rules to evaluate claim of misleading contest advertising).
31 Area Christian, 60 RR 2d 862, 864.
32 The RICO and fraud claims made in the civil lawsuit against Licensee were not adjudicated, so we will not
consider them here. See Character Qualifications Policy Statement, 5 FCC Rcd at 3252-53.
33 Id. at 3252-53.
34 See Contemporary Media, Inc. v. FCC, 214 F.3d 187 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (upholding the Character Qualifications
Policy Statement
as applied to principal of licensee with multiple felony convictions for sexual assaults on minors).
35 See, e.g., Contemporary Media, Order to Show Cause and Notice of Apparent Liability, 10 FCC Rcd 13685
(1995) and Eddie Floyd, Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for a
Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 11348 (2010) (questioning licensees’ qualifications to remain licensees due to felony
convictions).
36 See Jefferson Radio Corp. v. FCC, 340 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1964).
6

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-660

authorization to assign” if the seller ultimately is found unqualified.37 The policy’s underlying purpose is
to prevent licensees from evading responsibility for wrongdoing by selling their stations.38 The policy
serves as a deterrent because a licensee would likely suffer an “awesome loss” that would result from
revocation or non-renewal of license.39 This deterrent effect would be undermined if a licensee could
“sell out from under a potential disqualification.”40
17.
In rare circumstances, the Commission has exempted sellers from application of the
Jefferson Radio policy based on compelling public interest considerations.41 We find that granting the
Second Assignment Application, in accordance with the representations made in the amendment to the
Second Assignment Application, advances the public interest, consistent with precedent.42 Grant of the
Second Assignment Application will result in Mr. Wilhite’s full withdrawal from broadcasting43 and will
ensure the Station’s continued public service.44 Additionally, Licensee is donating the Station’s assets for

37 Catherine C. Murphy, Decision, 42 FCC 2d 346, 347 (1973).
38 See, e.g., Harry O’Connor, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 2 FCC 2d 45, 48
(1965) (“O’Connor”) (“The purpose underlying this policy is obvious: A licensee cannot act inconsistently with the
Communications Act or the Commission’s rules and policies, and then, when a question is raised concerning such
improper activity, transfer or assign the license to another; if he could, the only result of the wrongdoing would be a
forced sale.”).
39 See Stereo Broadcasters, Inc. v. FCC, 652 F.2d 1026, 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
40 See Cellular System One of Tulsa, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 102 FCC 2d 86, 89-90 (1985) (“To
permit a licensee to sell out from under a potential disqualification would significantly impair the Commission’s
ability to police and deter licensee misconduct.”), citing Pass Word, Inc., Order to Revoke Licenses, to Terminate
Comparative Proceedings, and to Proceed with Docket 20941, 76 FCC 2d 465, 516 (1980), modified, 86 FCC 2d
437 (1981), aff’d sub nom. Pass Word, Inc. v. FCC, 673 F.2d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
41 See, e.g., WEWC(AM), Callahan, FL, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 17311 (MB 2007) (“WEWC(AM)”) (exempting
convicted felon from Jefferson Radio policy where licensee shareholders received no monetary consideration and
sale proceeds first paid off licensee’s debts to all other innocent creditors, then paid partially the withheld salaries of
licensee employees) erratum issued, 22 FCC Rcd 21522 (MB 2007) (deleting a footnote and reordering
accordingly); Lane Broadcasting Corporation, Letter, 20 FCC Rcd 19373, 19375 (MB 2005) (“Lane”) (exempting
convicted felon from Jefferson Radio policy where proceeds from sale were distributed under strict supervision by
District Attorney to ensure that no shareholder would receive direct benefit from the sale). See also Second
Thursday Corp.
, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC 2d 515 (1970), recon. granted, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 25 FCC 2d 112 (1970) (to harmonize policies of federal bankruptcy law with those of the
Communications Act, a grant without hearing of applications by applicant with qualifications issues may be made if
the individuals charged with misconduct will have no part in the proposed operations and will either derive no
benefit from favorable action on the applications or only a minor benefit which is outweighed by equitable
considerations in favor of innocent creditors); Hertz Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 57 FCC 2d 183, 184-85 (1976) (evidentiary hearing terminated on basis of principal’s disabling illness;
station sale permitted for no profit); and Lois I. Pingree, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 69 FCC 2d 2179, 2183-
84 (1978) (no-profit sale permitted where disability provides mitigation for wrongdoing).
42 Id.
43 See Radio San Juan, Inc., Letter, 45 FCC 2d 375, 376 (1974) (permitting assignment of license despite unresolved
“issues” that ordinarily would necessitate an evidentiary hearing, because licensee represented that it wanted to
expeditiously withdraw from broadcasting); see also Northwestern Indiana Broadcasting Corp., Decision, 65 FCC
2d 66, 70 (1977).
44 See, e.g., Lane, 20 FCC Rcd at 19375; O’Connor, 2 FCC 2d at 49. See also Spanish Int’l Communications Corp.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 3336, 3339-40 (1987), rev’d sub nom. Coalition for the Preservation
of Hispanic Broadcasting v. FCC,
893 F.2d 1349, 1362 (D.C. Cir 1990), vacated and aff’d, 931 F.2d 73 (D.C. Cir)
(en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 907 (1991) (permitting the sale of seven television stations for which renewal
applications had been designated for evidentiary hearing would “expeditiously remove the ‘cloud’ that has
continued…
7

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-660

no consideration, and therefore Mr. Wilhite will reap no benefit from a disposition of the Station’s
license.45 Accordingly, we will make compliance with those representations to be conditions on grant of
the Second Assignment Application. Our actions here approving the assignment of the Station license to
the University for no consideration, along with the other conditions imposed herein, are a sufficient
sanction in this context. Accordingly, we do not impose a forfeiture for the late-filed 2004 Renewal
Application and unauthorized operation, or for the public file violations acknowledged in the 2011
Renewal Application.46

IV.

ORDERING CLAUSES

18.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Informal Objection filed by Paul Tanner on March
19, 2009, and Thomas L. Vetter’s letter objection dated January 8, 2010, ARE DENIED.
19.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Informal Objection filed by Barbara and Murray
Steinberg on March 19, 2009, IS DISMISSED, IN PART, AND IS DENIED IN ALL OTHER
RESPECTS.
20.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the application for consent to the assignment of the
license of Station WELE(AM), Ormond Beach, Florida, from Wings Communications, Inc. to Goliath
Radio, LLC, (File No. BAL-20091117ACZ) IS DISMISSED.
21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to Section 309(k) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, the license renewal applications of Wings Communications, Inc. for Station
WELE(AM), Ormond Beach, Florida (File Nos. BR-20040316AFO, BR-20110929AMR) ARE
GRANTED), subject to the conditions set forth below.
continued from previous page
surrounded the operation of these stations” during the pendency of this proceeding, acknowledging that “service to
the public may deteriorate during an extended period of uncertainty”).
45 See, WEWC(AM) and Lane, supra, note 41.
46 Terry Keith Hammond, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd. 8229 (EB 2009) (finding that where
license was cancelled due to licensee’s felony conviction, imposition of forfeiture was unnecessary); Radio
Moultrie, Inc
., Order of Revocation, 18 FCC Rcd 22950 (EB 2003) (finding that where license was revoked due to
licensee’s unreliable behavior, imposition of forfeiture was unnecessary). The Rules and the Act permit us to issue a
notice of apparent liability for the above-mentioned violations. 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.283; 1.80(b)(4); 73.3526; 73.3539(a)
and 47 U.S.C. §§ 301; 503(b)(1)(B).
8

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-660

22.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the application for consent to the assignment of the
license of Station WELE(AM), Ormond Beach, Florida, from Wings Communications, Inc. to Bethune-
Cookman University (File No. BAL-20131018AAY) IS GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
(1) Mr. Wilhite will not seek or accept any benefit from the assignment, including tax benefits
(e.g., charitable deduction), or relief from debt of any sort; (2) neither Mr. Wilhite or any member
of his immediate family, nor any entity in which any of them hold any interest, shall receive any
consideration, direct or indirect, from Bethune-Cookman University or any party acting on behalf
of Bethune-Cookman University; (3) Mr. Wilhite will disclose in any application for an FCC
authorization in which he has any direct or indirect interest: (a) his criminal record; (b) his
unresolved character issues; (c) the foregoing conditions; and (d) this Memorandum Opinion and
Order in File No. BAL-20131018AAY.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Peter H. Doyle

Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau
9

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.