Title: _

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

* * * * *

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

* * * * * 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DIVERSITY FOR
COMMUNICATIONS IN THE DIGITAL AGE

* * * * *

JANUARY 26, 2004

* * * * *

The Advisory Committee met at the Commission meeting
room at FCC headquarters, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
at 2:00 p.m.

	FAC MEMBERS PRESENT:

		JENNY ALONZO
		DECKER ANSTROM
		ANDREW BARRETT
		ANTHONY GEE
		BENITA FITZGERALD-MOSLEY
		PRISCILLA HILL-ARDOIN
		STEVE HILLARD
		DAVID HONIG
		JAMIE HOWARD
		JULIA JOHNSON
		GINGER LEW
		VONYA MCCANN
		FRANCISCO MONTERO
		HENRY RIVERA
		RILEY TEMPLE
		LAUREN TYLER
		TERDEMA USSERY
		ALEX WALLAU
		KELVIN WESTBROOK
		JIM WINSTON
		ROSCOE YOUNG II

	FAC EXPERTS PRESENT:

		MARK DEVER
		MICHELLE FARQUHAR
		GRIFFIN JOHNSON
		MARVA JOHNSON
		
	FCC OFFICIALS PRESENT:

		CHAIRMAN POWELL
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY
		COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN
	
	FCC STAFF PRESENT:

		JAMILA-BESS JOHNSON
		ERIN BOONE
		KYLE DIXON
		SHERILLE ISMAIL
		RICHARD LEE
		JANE MAGO
		MAUREEN MCLAUGHLIN

	PRESENTATION BY:

		DAVID STEWARD

This transcript produced from tape(s) provided
by the Federal Communications Commission.

A-G-E-N-D-A

WELCOME                                            4

PRESENTATION
David Steward, Chairman and CEO of
   Worldwide Technologies                         25

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAREER ADVANCEMENT
   Jenny Alonzo                                   60

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEW TECHNOLOGIES
   Riley Temple                                   71

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL ISSUES
   Ginger Lew                                     85

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSACTIONAL TRANSPARENCY
   Steve Hillard                                 112

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Good afternoon.  I’m Julia Johnson, Chair of the Diversity Federal Advisory Committee, and I wanted to officially call this meeting to order.  
		If we could, we wanted to quickly, before we start our business, go around the room and very quickly do introductions.  I will then go through a few logistical issues and we will begin immediately with our welcoming remarks.  So with that, Ginger?
		MS. LEW:  My name is Ginger Lew, Telecommunications Development Fund.
		MS. MCCANN:  Vonya McCann, Sprint.
		MR. MONTERO:  Francisco Montero, Fletcher, Heald and Hildreth.
		MR. RIVERA:  Henry Rivera of Vinson and Elkins.
		MR. TEMPLE:  Riley Temple, Halprin, Temple.
		MR. WALLAU:  Alex Wallau, ABC Television.
		MS. FITZGERALD-MOSLEY:  Benita Fitzgerald-Mosley, Women in Cable and Telecommunications.
		MR. STEWARD:  David Steward, Worldwide Technologies.
		MR. HONIG:  David Honig, MMPC.
		MR. HILLARD:  Steve Hillard, Council Tree Communications.
		MS. HILL-ARDOIN:  Priscilla Hill-Ardoin, SBC.
		MR. DEVER:  I’m Mark Dever representing FACA. 
		MS. ALONZO:  Jenny Alonzo, National Association, Multiethnicity in Communications.
		COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN:  Jonathan Adelstein -- I know these guys.  Jonathan Adelstein, FCC.
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  Kathleen Abernathy, FCC.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Mike Powell, FCC.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you, again.  A few logistical issues.  Oh, Jane, yes.  We can’t forget Jane and Maureen.
		MS. MAGO:  I’m Jane Mago.  I’m the Designated Federal Officer.
		MS. MCLAUGHLIN:  Maureen McLaughlin.  She’s the Alternate Designated Federal Officer.  Thank you, everybody, for coming through the snow.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  That’s a good transition into -- if you’ve noticed, several of our members are missing today.  They will be participating via conference call.  I think we have someone who’s going to open up the line.  
		They can participate in an interactive way.  Most of them have stated, though, that they don’t listen and they have individuals here who sit on different subcommittees, who will speak on their behalf.  But if necessary, and if we hear someone with questions, we’ll try to entertain those questions also.  		We have a full agenda of basically committee reports.  I wanted to thank everyone for their active participation and the work that you’ve done over the holidays.  We’ve only been together for three or four months, but in that time, everyone’s taken their responsibilities quite seriously. 
		We are thankful to have the privilege and the opportunity to add a group, deal with issues of diversity in the digital age.
		Our next meeting will be May 10^th.  At that meeting, I’m trying to deal with questions that we’ve received, as to whether or not we would have action items going forward today, the committees are busy working on action plans, resolutions, and other activities that will be presented both through the committee process and also through our process of conference calls.
		At today’s meeting, I think most of the presentations will be just that, teeing up issues to see if there’s any redundancy, any issues where committees can share research, share knowledge, and we will kind of direct ourselves in the most meaningful way for the entire group.
		Also, there was a question as to comments that Commissioners had made at the last meeting with respect to did we intend to hold all of our meetings here in D.C., or did we intend to do any outreach?  The group -- as a group, we have decided that we will hold several meetings here, but we will do our field visits.
		The efforts in that regard will be to better understand what works, what does not, talk about best practices, talk to real practitioners, other practitioners outside of this group and the subject matter experts as to what the barriers might be, and ways in which the FCC, as well as this committee, could be helpful.  
		We will take those comments and that information as we forge and present our recommendations to the full FCC.
		With that, I don’t want to take up too much time.  I did want to make sure we try to stay on track.  Mr. Steward will be speaking.  We understand that he, as well as many others, even sitting around the table, you’re trying to catch planes to get out of here in a timely -- to make sure you can get home tonight.
		So we’re very, very mindful of that.  I want to thank all of the subcommittee chairs and the committee members for all of the work that you’ve put in thus far, and I look forward to recommendations and dialogue today.
		With that, the person who’s been most excited about the work that we’ve done to date, and the task that we have before us, Chairman Powell will speak, with introductory remarks.  We also will hear from our other Commissioners.  
		We’ve had the opportunity as subcommittee chairs to meet with the Commissioners, to better understand each -- from each and every one of them their expectations, their thoughts, and also receive information and data from them as to how we can move forward in the most effective and efficient way.
		They’ve all been so incredibly responsive.  Commissioner Abernathy and Commissioner Adelstein are here to share more of their thoughts with us, and we look forward to hearing from them, too.  
		But the Chairman has had this committee at a special place in his heart and, as also, at the front of his pin.  Whenever we call, whenever we have questions, whenever we have needs, he’s been willing to work with us to try to address those.  
		I want to thank him for his support, and because of that, I feel sure and certain and I’m comfortable in saying that our work will not be vain, but that our work will be a model of success that will lead to more opportunities for women, minorities and others as we move forward.  With that, Mr. Chairman.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Well, thank you Julia.  I’m going to hire you to permanently introduce me at every event I go to.  It’s very generous of you.  I want to thank all of you for your participation and your perseverance and commitment to get here, in what in Washington is a tragic snowstorm.
		I just returned from Davos, Switzerland, where it snowed a foot and a half and nobody even noticed.  But I think the perseverance and determination you show in getting to the meeting or getting to the phone to be with us today is the kind that we’ll need, in order for our aspirations about diversity to turn into product and action, and I want to highlight that.  
		This is the second full meeting of the Federal Advisory Committee on Diversity in the Digital Age.  I wanted to say a thing about the name of the FACA, because it seemed to me that we thought a lot about why it’s diversity in the digital age.  
		Because as we’ve talked extensively about policy and the direction this nation and the globe is moving, in terms of information technology in the information age, that all questions seem to me are being returned to first principles, to think about how to make the next era more fruitful and production for us as a nation than the last era was.  All policies need rethinking and recalibration in light of that.
		I had the benefit not long ago to take a tour for a week up and down the coast in California, through Silicon Valley, the places we’ve all wrung our hands about, the loss and the boom collapse, and the energy and the optimism of that.  
		Because there’s a recognition that the transformation in the digital age means one thing fundamentally.  It means opportunity.  What diversity should mean in the digital age is opportunity.  
		You know, when I’m really preaching and I give my speech, I say you know, my ancestors were picking cotton during the agricultural age, and they were in segregated facilities in the industrial age.  This is the first economic revolution in which genuine, real and fruitful and deep-meaning opportunity are presented to us.
		So if we’re guided by that fact, that as you sit at the dawn of an information age, what will diverse opportunity be, I think it will give us the challenge to really reach for the stars, and not just in increments but in bold and visionary steps.
		So I’m very, very excited about that, at every level.  In every industry, I think sometimes we have a tendency to get really unduly focused on one sector or another sector.  
		Our children are really going to have a whole range of things.  Virtually everything in our economy is going to have something to do with technology and communications.
		So our commitment to their future, as individual citizens, and their opportunities as employees and owners and contributors to our economy really hangs in the balance as to whether we as policymakers can get this right.  
		This committee to me is a recognition that we can’t get it right without help.  Diversity often means admitting you don’t own all the answers.  Diversity also means a willingness to reach out beyond your own comfort level and your own platform, your own understanding, to people who have insights and experiences that can be aggregated and brought to bear forcefully for solutions, and that’s really what this committee is about.
		I look around this room, I’ve been here six years and I see people who have demonstrated commitment, not only rhetoric but in practice, to the goals and aspirations that we’re trying to achieve.  So I’m incredibly encouraged that we have the people that we need and the leadership that we need to be successful.
		So while some of these questions will be the day-to-day questions about regulatory policies of the Commission, I think we should be saddened if that’s where the question rests, because the real opportunities for diversity are going to be far beyond our visionary horizon.  They’re going to be much further into the future, with the recognition of what technology and digital change mean for all of us.
		So I’m sorry I didn’t read the talking points, Jane.  I’m going to do that.  But I just really wanted to do that, because as my professional experiences expose me more and more to the opportunity presented by the changes we read about in the paper, I’m more convinced than ever that we have one of the richest opportunities to think about diversity right from the beginning, as opposed to how it is so often treated near the end.  This group, I hope, will be a leader, an inspirational leader in that effort.
		So I pledge the support of the Commission, our resources, our time and our effort, and thank you for doing so equally.  I wish you luck, and I look forward to hearing the subcommittee presentations today, from those who’ve really taken on the additional burden of leading the practical work to a solution.  So thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, Jane.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you.  Commissioner Abernathy?
		MR. WINSTON:  Hello?
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Hello?
		MR. WINSTON:  Hey, this is Jim Winston.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Hey Jim.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Hi Jim.  You’re on the line and you’re in the meeting.
		MR. WINSTON:  Okay, great.  
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you very much.
		MR. WINSTON:  All right, thank you.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Commissioner Abernathy?
		COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:  Thank you.  Thanks again, everyone, for coming today and to those of you who I didn’t have an opportunity to personally say hello to, we do appreciate your time and your efforts, and your dedication.
		I’m pleased that I’m able to be here today.  Luckily for me, the snow resulted in a cancellation of something I was supposed to be doing, so I get to be here and listen and learn from everything you’re doing.  
		I just wanted to tell you, I’ve been talking with some of the subcommittees and with Julia that I’m so pleased that you’re going beyond sort of what we already have done in the past, which hasn’t been enough, to say “Okay, how do we take ourselves to the future?”  
		What we’ve done in the past worked for the past, but what we’re trying to do is deal with the next generation; not ourselves, but the kids, and those opportunities.  So you’re looking at things like training and mentoring and financing, and issues that go beyond what we have traditionally focused on.  
		That, I think, is really where the future is, because when I look at my family, which wasn’t discriminated against but came here very poor.  I don’t think anyone who was really rich came to the U.S., because they had it pretty good.  
		So I think most of the people who came here came here because you wouldn’t do this, you wouldn’t leave everything you know, if you had a really good life there.
		So worked on the railroad, drank a lot, good, hard-working people.  But what they knew is that if they worked hard and gave their kids an opportunity for an education, then their children’s lives would be so different.  Every generation has done that, unless and until our society doesn’t give them that opportunity.
		I think that’s really what this is all about, is that all of us have to know that because we’re where we are, we now have an opportunity to make sure that others.  Now I venture to say most of us haven’t come from, you know real necessarily privileged backgrounds.  We’ve had opportunities that weren’t denied us.  
		I think that’s really what we’re talking about here.  How do we take everything that we’ve known, where we’ve seen success, where mentoring has worked, where financial opportunities have worked, where training has worked, and how do we take all of that and focus it more effectively.
		That’s what I’m very, very excited about, because frankly for me, I wouldn’t be here if there hadn’t been key people along the way who helped me and who were interested, and who gave me opportunities.  So thanks again for all your work.  We are here to listen and learn, and facilitate wherever possible.  So thanks again.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you.  Commissioner Adelstein?
		COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN:  Well, thank you.  I really appreciate all you making it out here, especially with the snow.  I, being from South Dakota, can relate to the Davos people more than the Washington people.  I’m not afraid of a couple of inches here, but neither are you, because these challenges are so big.
		I noticed since I was here in September, some of us have been very productive.  Some of us more productive than others, especially our chairman and myself, who have had children since we last met.  Congratulations to you.  Oh yes, and you too.
		(Laughter)
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Something I didn’t know about.
		COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN:  We’re creating our own little mini-diversity there.  We’ve got to make sure they have opportunities when they get to be, you know, when they grow up, because you sure face a big challenge.  We talked about it last time, and I’ve been following very closely your activities.  
		I’ve had Anne Perkins follow all of your subcommittee meetings and Johanna Mikes has made it to some -- or Johanna Shelton, I should say, speaking of being productive, monitoring the subcommittees and seeing what’s going on, and I hear a lot about your enthusiasm and how much effort you’re putting into this process.  
		I know all of us on the Commission really appreciate it, because we’re looking forward to hearing from you.  We want to make sure that you have all the resources you need.  
		I was pleased to hear Julia’s comments about how satisfied you are.  If there’s anything we can do, anything I can do, you just let us know, because we want to make sure you have everything you need to get the important work that you have before you done.  
		I said last summer I was here that I hope to be optimistic, even in the face of big challenges.  I remain that way, seeing how much of an effort you’ve made and how much progress you’ve made over these last few months.  My advice, I guess, is just to keep thinking with a broad, open mind.  We need to think outside the boundaries, because what’s been done up to this point clearly isn’t working.  
		We still see minority ownership at the lowest point since we’ve been keeping the statistics.  We need some fresh ideas; we need new approaches; we need to jump-start what’s happening now.  
		So we really want you to think with an open mind.  We’re already hearing some good, new ideas, I think, what we’ve heard so far.  
		I encouraged you all, last September, to engage in a lot of outreach, and I see you’re doing that.  You have people like Roscoe Young and Marva Johnson and other members of the New Technologies Subcommittee are reaching out to people that are off of the FCC’s normal radar screen, people like Tom Wilkins, I’m talking about, and other minorities that are trying to make it out there in industry.
		They give us some real insight into what it is the FCC can do.  I’m especially looking forward to hearing that subcommittee’s meetings in March.  I want to hear about them.  You’re going out on the road, and you’re doing the subcommittee outreach that we’re all so hopeful about.
		I know that a lot of the other subcommittees are reaching out as well.  Commissioners Andy Barrett and Rivera last Tuesday studied finance issues all day long.  My compliments to you for keeping at it all day.  I heard it was a very productive session, and we heard new ideas about how to get over the hurdle of finding capital.  
		That’s been the issue, you identified I think, in the mid-80's, as the biggest issue facing minorities trying to get into this business.  It remains possibly the biggest primary hurdle today.  So getting those deals done is -- what it takes to get those deals done is what you’re trying to work on.  
		So it reminds me of health care costs.  I remember when I came to Congress, these old books about health care costs from the early 70's, saying that there’s a crisis in the cost of health care in 1972 hearings in the Senate.  
		I got there in the late 80's and the issue was still health care costs, and guess what?  Still is right now.  We heard about it just recently.
		Some issues just don’t go away, but we’ve got to think of new, creative ways to get over them.  At another forum, I guess at that same forum, you heard from Professor Leonard Baines (phonetic), who talked about the history of this, that broadcast licenses were often given out without a minority enhancement.  People had to get them the old-fashioned way.  
		Whoever had the most money at the table won out, despite what the preferences might have been.  We’ve got to make sure that current FCC processes don’t build on that history of discriminatory, or insensitive, or ineffective practices.  
		I hear that other subcommittees are making progress as well.  For example, the Transactional Subcommittee has been working hard to address the need for tax credits, and looking at other possible legislative or regulatory solutions, to get the assistance that people need.  Career Advancement is properly focused on measures to further minority employment opportunities.  
		I think overall the committee’s functioning well.  It’s moving in the right direction.  I’d just like to fill out some themes for you to think about as you move forward.  
		First, it seems that you don’t have the kind of relevant data that we need.  We hear this again and again from your subcommittees, that you don’t have what you need to understand and fully address these issues.
		A number of subcommittees, my staff tell me, do not -- have a lack of data or a lack of resources that they need to obtain the necessary data about what the situation is out there and how to address it.  
		One good example, Professor Alan Hammond (phonetic) on Tuesday commented that accessing programming playlists would help in knowing what impact minority ownership really has on what gets broadcast.
		So we need to prioritize the data, and figure out what we need most, and figure out then how to get it, and let us know how we can help you do that.
		A second issue is the legal support that you need, as you get deeper and deeper analyzing these proposals.  I understand that some pro bono solutions have been found, but I want to continue to work with you on this and monitor this, and make sure you have what you need and that’s working out.
		A third consideration is what role the Commission plays with regard to minority ownership, and whether or not the FCC should serve as some type of advisor for small businesses, and identify problems and opportunities.  How much of a role do we have?  
		Just navigating the waters of the FCC can be difficult for anybody.  You know, you need these high-priced lawyers to figure out what we’re up to, some kind of priesthood, that you need to have all this expertise.
		But it shouldn’t be that way, and we should be helping out.  I mean, some people that particularly speak Spanish may not even be able to access that easily.  So what role can ARPO (phonetic) take to proactively assist people?  What more can we do than we’re doing now?  We want to hear from you about that.
		A fourth issue is more understanding of the timing and the end game for the Commission.  This is especially important as we strive to think outside of the box.  For example, as the Chairman noted, as we’re moving to the digital age and multi-channel digital television role, what new ideas do we need to bring to bear there?
		So I know you have a big mission and sometimes frustrating, because like I say, you keep confronting these same issues over and over again.  But I just want you to know how much we’re concerned about what it is you’re doing.  
		You heard from all of us here today, and I know our colleagues who couldn’t make it here today for snow or whatever reason, feel the same way, that we want to support you any way we can, and we want to see you succeed.  I think that you’re on the right track towards getting there.  So thank you again for being with us.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you all for your comments and your active participation.  I know that on the conference calls that we’ve been holding, every subcommittee they’ve addressed and discussed that each FCC Commissioner has taken an active role and involvement in what we’re doing.  So thank you again for your comments.
		Again Commissioner, we took notes, as we did the last time, and we will be responsive to all of the issues raised, and thank you for your support.  Member Honig?
		MR. HONIG:  Commissioners and Chairman Powell, I know all of us, and I’m just speaking as a member, appreciate the encouragement and optimistic expressions that you’ve presented us with today.  
		I just wanted to take the liberty to ask one question, which I’ll -- which you should take, I hope, as a friendly question.  We will be empanelled for two years or possibly more, and we are volunteers.  During the time that any advisory committee is convened, inevitably and unavoidably, issues that may affect or fall within its scope of influence or jurisdiction will arise in the normal course, in the triennials, the biennials, and other forms.  
		Is it -- what is your policy or what is your preference, as far as when those things arise in the normal course, whether either the Commission or individual bureaus ought to be soliciting the committee’s advice and input during that process, or even perhaps before these issues arise in a public way?
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Well, the committee is just that.  It’s an advisory committee to the Commission on questions of diversity.  It serves both as a resource for the Commission and its constituent elements.  
		In addition, it has an opportunity, as a separately-chartered and independent organization, to make its views expressed to the Commission in the context of proceedings, both as a group or on an individual basis. So I don’t see any problem with that at all.
		Now the suggestion, however, which may be implicit in your question, that somehow it is unsatisfactory if every single regulatory question that might involve diversity isn’t first run through the Council, I don’t know if that’s what’s you’re suggesting.  That may be.
		MR. HONIG:  Not quite.  Maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough.  Inevitably, there will be some questions that go right to the heart of diversity.  Not implicitly but explicitly, and since we’re here, I’m just suggesting perhaps as the best way to make efficient use of our time and expertise and so on, and sometimes we may be exploring that issue anyway, but not be aware that it’s being ramped up within a bureau.
		It might be a good idea to just make it the Commission’s practice, if not policy, to reach out to us and ask our input.  And understanding that sometimes these things are time-sensitive and it will be necessary for us to jump.  But that might be an additional way in which we could be helpful to the Commission.
		SPEAKER:  I would agree with that.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Mr. Honig and other members, we’re going to -- we have a time slotted for a Q&A towards the end.  Mr. Honig, I’ve allowed you that privilege, but we do need to try to stay on schedule.  If it’s the will of the group, I wanted to go ahead and move forward, and have Mr. Steward make his presentation.
		Before doing that, I just want to spend a few minutes bragging, about the man that’s seated before us today.  Worldwide Technologies was founded by Mr. Steward in 1990.  Oh, by the way, I also wanted to recognize his wife.  She’s here.  
		And it was founded in 1990, with four employees, in a 4,000 square-foot office space, to distribute computer software and hardware.  Today, there are over 400 employees.  The company has close to a billion dollars in sales.  They are one of the leading electronic procurement and logistics companies in the United States.
		His honors, as well as the company’s honors, have been many.  In 2001, WWT was ranked 14^th in St. Louis Business Journal for privately-held companies.  In 2000, it was named Black Enterprise Magazine’s number one African-American owned business in the United States, making it the first technology company to receive such honors.
		In 2000, he earned national honors for Federal Computer Week and Washington Technology as a top minority technology vendor.  He was recently recognized by Ebony magazine as one of the top 100 most influential black Americans.  The honors go on and on and on.  But most importantly, the effort, the commitment, and what he has created, not only for himself but for the others that come after him, and the ones that are within his company. 
		In addition to leading this company and its effort, he and his wife, he’s also found time to write a book, titled Doing Business by the Good Book.  Another model of success and lessons learned on success, straight from the Bible.  This man and all of his interest, all of his commitment and all of his efforts has created something just tremendous.
		We thought that we would bring him forward, because one of the things that the Chairman had asked of us is to focus on best practices; what works, how does it work, and how can we replicate.  To the extent that there are barriers, talk to those who’ve succeeded and better understand how they overcame those barriers, and if there are still barriers to be addressed today.
		We are here to listen and to learn from you.  I wanted to thank Priscilla Hill-Ardoin for helping us find him and bring him, at a time when there are storms and the economy is somewhat upside down, and to give us the honor of having him present to us today.  With that, Mr. Steward.
		MR. STEWARD:  Madam Chairman, thank you so much for the opportunity to be able to speak before this Advisory Commission.  Chairman Powell, thank you for receiving me earlier today in your office as well.  We had a very interesting dialogue and conversation there as well.  And Priscilla, thank you for the honor of being here and asking me to come, and talk a little bit about one of my favorite subjects, and that’s this business called Worldwide Technology.
		Also, I’d like to acknowledge, again, my wife of 27 years, who decided to weather the storm with me, to come here to Washington, D.C.  We weren’t quite sure whether we were going to make it or not, with our plane being a little delayed and their having to do some deicing and so forth.  But we weathered it, and were able to get here and get here on time.  So thank you for coming with me.
		I thought it would be important that you kind of get a sense and a feel for my background, because I thought that would be helpful in giving you a sense and a feel for, I guess, the personality, the kind of environment that I kind of grew up in.  
		It gives you a kind of a background, a kind of a sketch, and then kind of evolve that to some of the business, other businesses I’ve owned over the years, and then talk a little bit about Worldwide Technology in more detail because, you know, it’s not where you end up.  I mean, today is what you see Worldwide as being, but the business actually started years ago.  
		Actually, it started when I was growing up in a small town of Clinton, Missouri, and with my parents being ‑‑ my dad especially being somewhat of an entrepreneur as well.  Not the kind of entrepreneur that we’re talking about today, but the one that we would call someone who hustled for a living.
		He had a number of jobs, from janitorial jobs to barkeeper to a night watchman to hauling trash, was just the kind of a way we lived, how he made a living.  In addition, that we lived on a semi-farm.  We grew up in a small town called Clinton, Missouri, which is only 6,000 people, and we lived on the edge of town, on the other side of the tracks.
		During those days, it was a time where segregation was prevalent.  However, I was one of the first persons of color to go to the integrated school in 1957, going directly from home tot eh first grade, as opposed to having the opportunity to go through kindergarten.
		We were challenged in the town.  We were going through a very, very transitional period, where both sides were beginning the process of learning about one another, being incorporated with one another.  
		At the same time, there were still some challenges in the community as well, relative to the movie theater, where you had the persons of color sitting in a balcony, to the public swimming pool, where you had segregation or actually we weren’t allowed to go to the swimming pool there or any other restaurant in the community as well.  So there were still those elements that were there, and challenges that we all faced in our community.  
		I had the privilege of going to Central Missouri State University, acquiring a Bachelor’s degree and B.S. in Business Administration, with an emphasis in Industrial Organization.  I had the opportunity also to play college basketball there as well.  
		Moved onto to St. Louis; initially worked for a company called Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, that’s now merged with the Union Pacific Railroad Company, in Sales and Marketing.  Went through a very extensive training program with them, and lived in New Orleans, Milwaukee, Houston and L.A.  So I had great exposure there.  
		Then had an opportunity to work for a company called Federal Express, which most of you have heard of, an extremely successful company and at the same time I had the opportunity to be able to get experience in Sales and Marketing in that company.
		Decided that I had this entrepreneurial spirit, something that had been burning inside of me.  My wife said that she would support me totally on my endeavors.  However, she didn’t know what was really getting into.  Between the time that I initially engaged and got the first business started and growing and happening, I had been through seven businesses since that time.
		So it hasn’t been easy.  There have been challenges along the way.  I can say that the initial businesses I got in evolved me, and was a learning experience for me with relationships; a learning experience of how business is done; a relationship to how access was very, very important to me and to the other diversity companies, how vitally important that is, to able to be effective in getting the kind of traction you need in business.
		Let me tell you a little bit about the first kind of business, so you can get a perspective of how this business, how Worldwide Technology evolved.  I was in the audit business, where we actually were auditing and analyzing, reviewing freight invoices for overcharges assessed against the various carriers.
		So we would actually audit a company’s freight bills, for example, a General Motors or a Ford or Chrysler or SBC and others, and we would get them money back from the various carriers, whether it was a railroad or truck line or air freight carrier.  We would take a percentage of the amount of money we were able to find.
		We were pretty good at it, and we developed that into a much broader opportunity by actually becoming an ICC-licensed property broker, where we actually were brokering truckload movement across the country as well.  
		We were able to visibly see what was happening across the country, relative to transportation, and how companies, private and commercial fleets were moving their product in and out of the various points of (inaudible) across the country, and we were seeing that there are empty miles that were pretty prevalent in the bump traffic end of the business.  
		As a result of that, we were able to match up our clients with those carriers.  We were able to obviously take an override on those, which was the first time that had ever been done in the tank truck end of the business.
		As a result of that, we recognized that we were seeing that there were just as many challenges with undercharges with the railroads, as there were overcharges with our clients.  So as a result, we set up a separate company that did nothing but analyze and audit freight invoices for the railroads, for undercharges.  
		It had never been done before.  I challenged the Union Pacific initially.  It was the initial engagement that we had, for us to an audit.  We would do the audit for nothing. 
		As a result of that, we were able to get the commitment from the large -- one of the largest railroads west of the Mississippi, the Union Pacific.  The statute of limitations happens to be three years, where we could do the audit.  So we have $15 billion worth of information coming to us in 1987.  How do you do an audit of all that kind of information?
		So we would not receive the information in truckloads.  So we decided in 1987 to build one of the largest LAN systems in the Midwest.  We’ve only hung the -‑ it was only 45 (inaudible).  The file server that we had, that we built around, was a file server that was 660 megabytes.  The machines were 8088 machines.
		We had a gateway that was tied to the railroads themselves.  We had a converter box that would take the ASCII file from the railroads, and actually convert it and to download it into our LAN system that we had built.  
		Then we began to build a software application in triple C++ to build an application that allow us to be able to do the audit, 35 to 40 times faster than the railroads could do it themselves, and then be able to send the data back to them.
		So we were using Intranet, Internet, Extranet applications when we didn’t know what it was, to manage the information.  So as a result of that, this light bulb comes on.  I wasn’t in the transportation business, audit business.  I was in the business of using technology to change how and the way that we did business.
		So in 1990 evolved this company called Worldwide Technology, and that’s what we’re going to talk about today.  I thought that was important that you understood the evolution of all that, because my background is not in technology.  It’s not in telecommunications; it is in transportation, but we recognized that technology made a huge difference in the how and the way that we did business.  Worldwide Technology, we decided that’s what we were going to launch.  
		Our very first client actually ended up being SBC.  They gave us an opportunity and presented an opportunity where, you know, we weren’t in a business that we had grew up in, and they gave us an opportunity to prove our capabilities of being able to deliver some technology to the marketplace, to them, for their infrastructure.
		As you can see, at Worldwide Technology you see today we’re a company that last year did almost $1.2 billion in business.  We did that with a 400 and almost 500 people.  Actually, we have 556 people in our organization.  You wonder, how do you do that?  I say “very carefully.”  
		You have the infrastructure, which we will talk a little bit about.  We have an order process system, a back office system that is second to no one.  We believe that our definition on how we have utilized our business process engineers and reengineered how and the way that we do business, our back office.  
		Our enterprise resource planning system that we’ve implemented as well, is second to no one.  It allows us to be able to scale, to be able to bring some efficiencies in the supply chain that didn’t exist prior to us being there.
		As you can see, we’re a premier evaluated reseller.  We do some engineering and integration services, as well.  We do provide some procurement and logistics services, and we have an IT consulting arm that does nothing but implementation of back office ERP and do business process reengineering.  Supply chain services, we were able to provide as well, and we do some light manufacturing in the organization as well.
		The company has been extremely profitable over the years.  We just put in place a $130 million line of credit, and I was looking at it the other day.  We put in -- actually it’s $145 million, because I had to sign a personal guarantee for it, and I never would have believed this young boy from Clinton, Missouri would be signing for a $145 million line of credit.   But that’s as a result of partnership through relationships and the success and growth that we have experienced over the years.
		We’re ISO-9000 certified, and we also were part of the Quest (phonetic) Forum as well.  We’re TL 9000- certified as well, which is a much more stringent process to go through.  We’ve been certified with that.  We are the first person of color, diversity company, to have acquired that status. 
		We have logistical centers that are across the country.  In fact, we have over a million square feet of office and warehouse space across the country, to accommodate the business that we do.  And to give you a sense and a feel for the facilities, and they’re mirrored from as far north as Detroit, to as far south as San Antonio, Texas, to far west as Livermore, California, and as far east as here in Washington, D.C. area.  We have a pretty substantial presence and facility as a result of the business that we do on the Federal side of our business. 
		And to take a look at Worldwide Technology overall, there’s a Worldwide Holding Company, and then there’s Worldwide Technology, and then there’s a company called TelcoBuy.com, which is vertically focused on the telecommunication industry.  
		At Worldwide Technology and that vertical focus, we have primarily we’re focused on the financial industry, in delivering IT products and services in that industry, as well as we -- the Federal government.  We do quite a bit of business in the Federal government as well, in delivering products and services to our Federal government, and primarily in DOD.  
		We were able to -- we were one of the most successful SBA small businesses and the 8(a) program that we grew up on as well.  We today do about $300 million in that sector.  We also are heavily involved in the telecommunications space, where we also have an EF&I team, as well as we have strategic alliances with some of the biggest OEMs in the country.  You’ll see that in the next slide.
		People talk a little bit about the supply chain, and how complex it really is.  If you take a look at that slide, you get a sense and a feel of how people are trying to communicate with one another, the inefficiencies in the way they are communicating with one another, and the problems and challenges and so forth they face as well.  
		We believe that defining and redefining the supply chain is vitally important for the future of any of the vertical markets that we’re involved in, whether it’s telecommunications, or whether it’s involved in the financial marketplace that we’re dealing with, or the automotive space that we’re in as well.
		As you can see, with that complex kind of ‑‑ you find all kinds of inefficiencies, and all kinds of problems and issues, in trying to work through this very complex supply chain.  What our company was very successful at doing a number of years ago, that was putting in a back office system that we believe is second to no one.  
		We had an opportunity to be able to redefine the supply chain and the various programmatic opportunities that we’ve had, and be able to bring some real inefficiencies and drive down costs, and increase the visibility, and at the same time, bring some clarity to the supply chain, in a way that had never been brought to it before.  
		It allows us to be able to really define what the supply chain is.  That’s where the opportunity is.  One of my favorite scriptures is my “People perish for the lack of vision.”  If you can see this opportunity, I think this is an unprecedented opportunity for minority and diversity companies to take advantage of, and to realize, because I believe that small business and diversity companies have the -- not only have the creativity, but also have the entrepreneurial spirit to allows them to be able to turn quicker, faster, more efficiently, better than the larger companies.
		We actually have the ability to be able to turn on a dime, in order to prepare to put these kind of very complicated systems together.  But it takes, in my mind, it takes the right people and right slots in the organization.  I’ve learned over the years that the most important thing to -- that in business, people aren’t your greatest asset, but the right people are.   Putting the right people in the right slots in the organization are vitally important.
		My mother said that, I think equally as well, but she said it in a little different way.  Don’t have any preconceived ideals of how your blessing’s going to come.  It comes in all different sizes and shapes and colors, and that blessing may just pass you right by if you don’t recognize the true value and get past some of the misconceptions that we might have about how that’s going to come.
		So if you take a look at the streamlined complex, the supply chain that we were talking about earlier, and we’re talking about being able to aggregate the OEMs, the minor suppliers, and be able to integrate ourselves deep and broad within those, and be supplier-neutral in how we are deploying that as well.
		Then we take a very complicated procurement process, an order process, and we have it streamlined in such a way they’ll be able to drive down the costs of any kind of inefficiencies that we’re talking about, and bring some real visibility and value in the supply chain to the customer.
		That’s what the customer is looking for, us to be able to bring value to that.  We believe that if we’re able to define what that supply chain is, we have an unprecedented opportunity to not only define it but we have an opportunity to dominate in the areas that we provide this kind of service, because we believe that no one else will be able to do it the way we can, with that kind of entrepreneurial, creative approach that we take.
		To kind of give you an idea of the breadth of relationships and contacts that we’ve built over the years, as well as, I think, is important, these relationships weren’t built overnight.  It took, time, effort, energy to build the kind of partnerships.  
		At the end of the day, what happens is that people do business with people they like and they trust, and those relationships aren’t built overnight.  It took a lot of dinners and lunches and events that we went to and extended ourselves at.  
		In addition, some of these people
		(Tape change)
		MR. STEWARD:  (tape picks up) inside their comfort zone, to do business with us as well.  We have a number of customers who have done that, a number of partners who have done that as well.  That outside the comfort zone, decide that “Well, we’re going to take a risk on a company that has been not initially proven, that they can provide all the services that they say they can, but with a little risk, maybe they can.”  
		One of the things, obligations we know that we have is that each and every day we earn our stripes.  We’re only as good as the last deal that we did, and one of the reasons that I talk a lot about the way and how we do business, it is vitally we do business with integrity, we’re a vendor that can be trusted with the technology, and that we do what we say we’re going to do and we do it each and every time above and beyond what the customer and the partnership is expecting.
		As a result of that, what happens is that people tend to do a lot more business with us as a result of that.  They want to build even more partnerships and broader relationships with us, and want to get us even more engaged in broader opportunities.  They realize that we’re going to also invest in that relationship as well.
		We’re going to bring new technology; we’re going to bring new ways of doing business; we’re going to bring our entrepreneurial spirit; we’re going to bring also the ability to be able to bring creativity to that relationship that gets them to think a little differently about their supply chain, and how we can bring and drive down costs, and bring efficiency, and be better as a partnership to that customer, than they would be without us.
		As a result of that, the customer gets very excited about the relationship as well, and as a result of that, obviously the vendor looks to us, relative to being their partner, moving forward with their business with a particular customer, because we’re bringing real value.
		As you can see, the evolution of the supply chain and some of the things that we have done over the years as well, how we’ve improved and developed our business is a part, a part of our company’s history.  
		As you can see, the back office systems are a big part of that as well.  How we’ve invested heavily back into the technology that we talk about, whether it’s XML technology, EDI, and how we’ve integrated ourselves deep and broad in our supplier base, with our suppliers and also with our customers, is a big part of that as well.
		I know very few companies -- they’re very small -- that can compete with the kinds of infrastructure that we’ve put in place, that we spent a lot of money, effort and energy to put these systems in place.  Without question, our suppliers are benefiting from it and so are our -- have our customers. 
		As you see, the robust back office infrastructure as well that we’ve put in place, we do walk the talk.  We use the technology that we talk about, and we’ve been doing that for a number of years as well, and we have a development team and back office team that is second to no one.
		A number of awards that we’ve received over the years have been numerous, and you’ve talked a little bit about that.  As a result of the work that we’ve done at Dell Computer, as you can see, and some at the SBC, as well as Cisco, and being honored by the National Minority Supplier Development Council as well, was a big part of last year’s successes.  
		Then taking a look at some of the things that we’ve done with the GSA, with our Federal government in the Federal space, a Partner in Excellence award that we received from them, just kind of gives you a sense and the breadth of how people are feeling about the way and how we do business.
		One of the things that we’ve emphasized with the culture of our organization, which I think has been vitally important to the success of the organization as well, is that integrity, and trust, and loyalty and commitment are a vital part of how we do business.
		One of the things that I have been focused a lot of time, effort and energy on is that I invest an awful lot of time in serving, and showing integrity and loyalty, commitment within the organization.  As a result, what culminates in the culture of the organization is a sense of integrity.
		As you see, even pocketed throughout our organization, we have -- trust and integrity and loyalty and commitment are all pocketed through the organization, to remind people how vitally important it is to the long-term growth in our business.  
		The ability to be able to change, our ability to be able to make a difference.  If you don’t have a passion for the business, you need to do something else, is a part of that as well.  
		So I try to ‑‑ I do everything I possibly can to lead by example.  As a result, it culminates in the culture of the organization.  I believe as a result of that, people begin to serve one another better.  
		As a result of that in serving one another better, we tend to put our customers and our suppliers first, and we also, that little word of “integrity” in that relationship and building that trusting relationship with them, tends to come out foremost in building the kinds of relationships that we want with our supplier base and our customers.
		So it gives you a sense and a feel for the awards that we have received.  Can you go a little further?  Okay.  Supplier diversity.  One of the things that we’re very passionate about, and even in our own organization, simply because we’re a diverse company as well, is that we’ve put a lot of time, effort and energy.
		There was a blue ribbon panel that was commissioned by SBC, and I happen to be one of those members as well.  We came up with a number of recommendations and so forth for -- to enhance the supply chain.  
		One of the things that is vitally important to us at Worldwide is that we walk the talk as well.  We’re encouraged also by suppliers and people that we work with, that we also put together a -- we think we can do diversity and inclusiveness of other kinds of companies of color, in the supply chain, probably a little better, because we understand the challenges they face. 
		Whether it’s advice relative to building relationships; whether it’s advice relative to capital and the resources necessary; whether it’s regarding the vision relative to the technology that can be utilized, in order to make their company and provide a better value proposition for the customer, is a part of that as well.
		We also have allowed a number of the partners that we have as well the opportunity to be able to utilize even our infrastructure, to be able to get better engaged as well.  
		If we have to be the front end, and we integrate our systems into place, and they’re able to take advantage of our back office systems in order to make their business proposition work, and in conjunction to do business, we’ve had an opportunity to do that.
		As a result of that, we’re very proud to say that we won the Phoenix award from the National Minority Supplier Development Council a couple of years ago.  We do more business with other minority businesses than any other minority business.  
		So we’re very proud of that, and our passion and commitment to diversity in our business as well.  We think that we’re a living example of what can happen, and how that can continue to grow for all of us.
		But if you take a look at the inherent value to the telecom supply chain, we think that lower-cost structure, we think that the lower return on investment hurdles and local presence, and the flexibility and creativity, as I talked about earlier, is vitally important.  
		And our ability to be able to customize, I think, is something that diversity companies are able to provide, that companies of size have a difficult time doing.
		A new challenge is required.  I think focus on improving our value proposition beyond the below-margin and basic distribution services offering, which most companies are involved in, and improved governances, and strategies for long-term profitability obviously is a big part of what we look at as we’re advising these companies as well.
		Growth and diversification, I think, are a big part of it as well.  We’re not just in the telecom sector, as I was talking about earlier.  We had the pleasure of being able to diversify our portfolio in such a way that as the telecom sector did have a downturn, that we had other business that we were doing, and doing well in, that mitigate the kind of challenges that most companies were having as the downturn took place.
		In our task force recommendations, it gives you a sense and a feel for what we recognize as being some real issues or real ways to, I think, improve the diversity companies.  As you can see, implement effective sourcing for supplier diversity was a part of that.  
		Enhanced risk mitigation; activities in the supply chain; management practices; our deploy process; quality and control were a part of that as well.  We were part of the Quest Forum, as well, to begin the process of really getting companies to understand that quality process and how that process works, and how you incorporate it into your business.
		Improved access in capital and finance management was a part of that as well.  Capital has always been a challenge, because of relationships and because of access.  It was a challenge for us for many, many years as well.  
		Again, at the end of the day, people want to do business with people they like and they trust, and the kind of business that we’re talking about in the telecom sector.  Not a lot of people understand this business, and not a lot of people are willing to take the risk as well with their capital, in this kind of business as well.  However, there are, you know, other kinds of options out there for those companies as well.
		And then, of course, to accelerate supplier diversity participation to the industry overall, collaborating with one another, and understanding the importance of diversity and the supply chain as well, and the value that those companies bring.
		One of the things I thought was important is that we’re concerned about the next generation, and trying to provide at least an example.  One of the things that we were -- did not have the privilege of is having a Worldwide Technology or some of the other larger companies out there as an example, or at least something, someone to look to as a model.
		So I hope that you look to us regarding advice, regarding counsel, regarding help, regarding support, relative to the task force mission, and we’re here to support it in any way we possibly can.  We’re hopeful that this is helpful and at least gives you some insight into what is possible, relative to diversity companies.  
		This is a culmination of 20 years of being in business.  I’ve stepped in just about every pothole you could possibly step in.  I have also, as I reflect back on my career as well, and as I began to evolve into this business called Worldwide Technology even for that matter, my wife tended to say “Oh, another business?”  
		Because I had a number of failures out there as well, from getting my car repossessed, to them turning off my water, to my losing my home, and a whole host of issues that have happened.  Not everybody will want to go through that challenge.  However, but we have to convey the opportunity, because the opportunity for the next generation to realize a dream is real.
		I think there’s a window of opportunity right now, low cost of entry, to utilize technology in a way that’s never been used before, and redefining the supply chain, that allows companies to realize a real value in seeing these companies come into the supply chain and make a huge difference in the way and how they do business, and really redefine the company’s future as a result of that.
		So I thank you for the opportunity to be able to share this brief story with you.  I’ve tried to collapse 20 years in this little-bitty presentation that I’ve given.  But I appreciate you listening, and giving me the opportunity to be able to testify before you. 
		(Applause)
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  David, I want to thank you and commend you.  You know, in addition to learning about your terrific business, part of what we are trying to do is study such opportunities and models of success.  
		I just wanted to go over quickly my notes from what I heard that you said, which I think presents an opportunity for this committee to understand the kinds of things we want to be addressing.
		At first, I thought it was interesting you talked about the, sort of the formative experiences that led you where you were.  You learned hustle from your parents; you learned the importance of knowing about one another.  We heard a lot about training.  I suppose you learned some teamwork playing basketball.
		I think it’s always important, when we focus on our youth, to focus on those values.  But more importantly when you started talking about business, I thought you said a few, really critical things for us to think about. 
		Seeing the opportunity to do something different, I thought, was what I heard right away, which is you might start off thinking you’re doing something else, but staying eagle-eyed about the opportunity to do something different or better is where the real wealth and opportunity come from in an entrepreneurial society.
		I also thought you made a point about secondary opportunity; that is, you may be in a successful business, but you stayed alert to the possibility to move from the railroad business to the technology business.  
		I think sometimes we need to figure out ways to model, how to see secondary opportunities.  And more importantly, relevant to our task, how technology or communications systems can present secondary opportunities that might not at first be apparent, I think were important.
		You talked about the importance of any business better be ready to turn on a dime.  I think there’s an importance about flexibility there as well, that you know, if we’re going to have successful companies of any type, and when we teach companies, you know, our diverse population, about how to succeed, the importance of being able to adjust quickly seemed important in your history.
		You said it better when you said “Don’t ever have a preconceived notion of success.”  You can’t make the world bend to your will.  You have to go out and serve the world in a way that it’s ready to embrace, and I think that’s interesting.
		You talked about the importance of relationships and contacts.  Networking is something I’ve heard talked about a lot about this.  I’ve never heard it put so well.  
		People want to do business with people they trust and they like, and trying to make sure that those we’re trying to help have that opportunity to network and build those relationships, so that they run into an SBC, or a government contract or something that gives them that first opportunity and that first access to capital seems a common story.
		And that every day you have to earn your stripes.  You’re only as good as the last deal you struck.  Then near the end, you so repeatedly emphasized ethics and integrity.  I’m always disheartened by -- the newspapers are filled every day with companies and people who fell apart on this prong.  So if you’re committed to long-term success, it seems to me you do need to be committed to those values.
		Practice what you preach; lead by example; and just raw perseverance.  Your wife’s weathered more than today’s storm, and clearly that’s commendable.  But I just wanted to go through that real quickly to say, you know, when I listen to a presentation like that, you can hear the elements that I think provide a lesson to those who are trying to succeed, but more importantly giving us ideas about things we might focus on, such as, you know, seeing opportunities to do something different.  
		What are the lists of those opportunities where there are underserved business segments that perhaps there’s real entrepreneurial activity in?  Thank you, Madam Chairman.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  I think we have a question from committee members.
		MR. WALLAU:  I just want to answer the Chairman, that I heard certain things and I’m probably not as positive a person as the Chairman.  One thing that struck me, Mr. Steward, was the greatest impediment for me and the business that I run, is actually one that you raised as a positive, which is people want to deal with people they know and they trust.
		What happens every time I push diversity through the ABC Television Network, people go to the people they know and trust, and that’s -- they have to take that risk that you talked about, to go to places where they don’t have a known commodity, where they don’t have the people that they normally trust.
		So knowledge and trust is, I agree with you, critical, and it actually is a major factor, an impediment to getting diversity drilled deep, all the way from suppliers to -- of everything from office suppliers to television shows.  People just tend to go to -- and that’s the biggest obstacle that there is in diversity.  
		You’ve got to, I mean, a small part of the telecommunications industry I’m involved in, you know, they have millions of dollars invested in a television pilot.  Are they going to hand it direct to some kid who’s a person of color, who’s unproven, or you going to go with that same old person who’s going to do the kind of nice B minus job?  See, there aren’t too many superstars, so you tend to just sort of play it safe.
		And the idea of risk-taking, the idea of we’re not going to get what we want to get in any kind of diversity issues unless we’re willing to take some risk, with significant parts of our businesses, and with people who we don’t know real well, and we haven’t had enough experience to build up trust with.
		That really is key to getting this done.
		MR. STEWARD:  Let me suggest something to you, because I think this is vitally important to know, is that to mitigate some of that risk, what customers have done and I’ve seen it done consistently -- SBC is very good at this -- and that is encouraging a partnership with larger companies. 
		Because there are certain things that larger companies don’t do as well, and that smaller companies are capable of doing.  Like, for example, in redefining and being entrepreneurial and redefining the supply chain, an application to do that, and doing some business process reengineering of the supply chain.
		Larger companies have a stumble with that, and stumble with turning quickly to accommodate a need of a customer.  As a result of that, larger companies are recognizing that smaller companies can do that better, and probably be much more creative about how we approach it and do it differently than probably has ever been done.  They’re really wanting to take the risk.
		So as a result of that, comes kind of a huge opportunity, not only for a diversity company, but a huge opportunity for the supplier partner to also differentiate himself into the customer, which allows him, you know, more opportunity, more incremental opportunity, in things that he would not do well anyway.  The customer, he gets more value than ever before.  So there are ways of doing it, in a way that allows everybody to win, and win in a huge way. 
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you.  Any other questions?  I think I -- Steve?
		MR. HILLARD:  Madam Chairman?  
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Uh-huh.
		MR. HILLARD:  Mr. Steward, a couple of things.  One is I thought that there was a lesson in some of your early observations as you began, that were kind of a lesson for the committee, which is really something I think we’ve been talking about, which is to establish, really challenge ourselves, and then really create the necessity that comes from stepping up to that challenge, to create some real solutions.  
		I thought that was great, and I had a question, too, which is in your experience, maybe you’ve got an observation.  It’s a topic that the committee and our subcommittee is looking at, is how do you -- in your experience, how do you look out and find particular transaction opportunities?  
		Is there in the course -- clearly, in the course of the development of your companies, you moved from one area to another, or seen opportunities within a given business zone.  Any observations that you could share with us?
		MR. STEWARD:  You know, it’s interesting that you make that, because it does couple onto what I just said a few moments ago, is that people do business with people they like and they trust.  Over the years, we’ve been able to build a level of trust and confidence, and not only that, but a reputation of providing real value to our business partners.
		So, instead of Worldwide being that company that only has 500 people, you don’t do the kind of business that we do and the size of deals that we’re involved and engaged in with the small sales force that we have.  Our business partners will bring us into deals, because they know without question that we’re going to bring value to that partnership, and we’re going to invest in the partnership relationship.  
		We do business with integrity, and we do business with the trust that, you know, instead of us having, you know, the 40 sales people we have spread across the country, we have thousands of sales people out there selling our partnership, our business proposition together, which allows us to be able to be engaged in a lot of deals we would have never seen.  
		That’s in the automotive sector; that’s in the telecommunications sector; that’s also in the Federal sector that we’re involved in as well.  I mean, from the IT partners that we have to the telecommunications that we have, Alphatel (phonetic), Fujitsu and Tellamps (phonetic) and the like, and Cisco and the like, are interested in this relationship, because of the additional value we can bring that they simply are not a business they’re involved in, and that we can hugely make a difference in the way and how they do business.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you very much.  We’re going to ‑‑ you’ve done an outstanding job, and I see several members have questions.  We are running a bit off schedule.  If we could hold questions, that would be great, and if you can’t stay with us, Priscilla’s got your number.
		Because the dialogue and us better understanding what the barriers might be, how we can address those and replicate your success with others, is something that we’re certainly interested in.  We appreciate the wisdom that you’ve brought to us today, and we will follow up with you.  With that, thank you again.
		MR. STEWARD:  Thank you.
		(Applause)
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  If it’s the pleasure of the group, we’re going to continue and go right into our subcommittee reports, with the first subcommittee report being Career Advancement.  Jenny Alonzo.
		MS. ALONZO:  Thank you, Julia.  Is this on?  Okay, the committee has a packet, which is titled “Career Advancement Subcommittee.”  So if you can please refer to that, and I am going to walk everyone through our summary, and our general overview.  You need more?  Here’s -- you have it?  Okay, alrightee.  We have some extras, so -- okay. 
		All right.  In December 2003, the Federal Communications Commission Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age’s Subcommittee on Career Advancement, requested information from a broad range of industry, trade associations and foundations across the country.
		The intention of the request was to compile input eliminating the experiences of such organizations and/or their members companies, in order to identify workforce identity best practices, that would be worthy of widespread acceptance throughout the broadcast, telecommunications, cable, satellite, Internet and broadband industries.
		Specifically, the Career Advancement Subcommittee sought information regarding diversity efforts, programs and policies in the following categories:  employment diversity, diverse contracting initiatives, evaluation procedures and incentives, the role of the FEO in promoting diversity, and the Role of Diversity Committee in promoting diversity.
		An overview of the responses to the Subcommittee’s letter request received to date is attached.
		Our general overview.  Requests for information on best practices were sent to a total of 30 trade associations and four foundations.  The full list of organizations is listed in Exhibit A, and an example of the letter submitted to trade associations and foundations are shown in Exhibits B and C, respectively.
		Six responses were received from the following organizations, most of which are cable-oriented:  The American Cable Association, the M.L. Bowen Foundation for Minority Interest in Media, National Association or Multiethnicity in Communications, National Cable and Telecommunications Association, United States Telecom Association, Women in Cable and Telecommunications, and the WIC (phonetic) Foundation.
		Additionally, AWRT responded to our request.  However, the subcommittee has not had the opportunity to review, but will do so for subsequent meetings.  The American Cable Association responded in support of the Subcommittee’s initiative, but was unable to supply the required information in the timeframe requests.
		The USTA supplied only very limited information, noting that the FCC Diversity Committee’s inquiry would be better directed to our larger telecommunication companies, some of which are their members.  
		The remaining four organizations who responded, the M.L. Bowen Foundation, NAMIC, NCTA and WIC, all supplied relevant information that will be summarized in the following pages.  The responses from the M.L. Bowen Foundation and NAMIC provided an insight into diversity practices on a non-profit level, from foundations that provide recruitment and training for support of their respective industries.
		The information provided by the WIC Foundation highlights the best companies for women in cable, as measured by the number of women and women of color, managers and executives, commendation and pay equity, advancement opportunities and resource for work life support.
		The information supplied by the NCTA offers a general summary of the cable industry practices.  The NCTA response was the most comprehensive, addressing employment diversity, diverse contracting opportunities, evaluation procedures and incentives, role of the CEO in promoting diversity, and the role of the Diversity Committee in promoting diversity.  
		However, more data is urgently needed.  It would be highly valuable if the separate telecommunication companies themselves would provide input on specific practices in their own organizations, for use in ultimately compiling a comprehensive best practices document.  Companies in the various FCC-regulated industries should be encouraged to share their particular experiences to enhance the credibility, effectiveness and influence of this project survey by the FCC’s Advisory Committee.
		The Subcommittee intends to proceed with a follow-up to its best practices request within the corporate sector.  Attached is a summary of the responses provided by the organizations and above.
		Next steps for the Subcommittee:  We will be reaching out to corporate sector directly, and via trade organizations again, to gather additional information on best practices programs within their respective companies.  Companies’ findings and subcommittee’s recommendations on the best of the best practices will be presented to the full committee, and subsequently to the Commission.
		Timeline.  We’re talking about a second round of letters going out the week of February 9^th.  Responses will be requested for return by March 9^th.  Draft summary will be distributed to the full committee by April 12^th, and the Subcommittee will present a draft set of best practices during full committee meeting in May 2004, back here at the FCC headquarters.
		This draft set is intended to be a living document, as we gather field learnings during the planned FACA road show in the summer of 2004.  
		At this point, I would like to open it up to the other Subcommittee members.  If there is anything that you would like to add or enhance on this overview.
		MR. WALLAU:  Well, I think that’s exactly (inaudible).  Indeed, I am a little adamant (inaudible) to respond, and I think all the broadcasting companies would respond.  I personally would get your request.  But we’re used to complying with these type of requests, when they come from outside entities, primarily associations involved with how to diversify broadcasting, obviously specifically.
		You should know that in the broadcasting sector that’s listed here, the NAB, as you probably know, all the networks have withdrawn from the NAB for reasons of the conflict between the non-owned affiliates and the networks.  So I think if you went to the networks and to the major broadcasting, at least in my part of the business, this businesses -- these numbers of businesses that we’re talking about, the companies would comply with some pretty national information that would be helpful just to understand the present.  You should also hear from them about the initiatives they have in place, which are substantial.  Some are working, some are not, and we can be helpful in figuring that out together.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  That would be great.
		MR. WALLAU:  But I think going through the rest of these companies is essential, and I think you’d be -- I hope you’d be heartened by the response you’d get.
		MS. ALONZO:  Any other comments from the committee members, Subcommittee members or the committee as a whole?
		SPEAKER:  I would just add one challenge of creativity, also, is in what way can either the committee or the Commission sort of lend, in some validating way, sort of its imprimatur to the successful practices, and in some ways challenge companies with less successful practices, to either adopt, or some sort of initiative.
		You know, I don’t know if any of this works or is even legal.  But, you know, I’ve thought of everything from something as simple as the good housekeeping seal of approval or an FCC feature of Best Practices, or something that associates the government’s approval or sort of validation of those things.
		You know, I’ve seen in diversity programs this works pretty well in other areas.  You know, whether you’re one of Fortune’s Top 50 companies for diversity, people really work very hard to be on that list, or those who care about it.  It’s a pretty significant motivator, as I understand it inside companies.
		So be thinking creatively.  What could the FCC potentially do with that information, that might give it that kind of ongoing validation, that companies would actually desire, sort of vie for being perceived as, you know, healthy employment environments for diversity.
		MS. ALONZO:  Mr. Honig?
		MR. HONIG:  Did the Subcommittee chair want to address the question of baseline data?   
		MS. ALONZO:  We actually figured that we would table this and address it off-line.  There was a concern that there’s an NPRM for data from companies, smaller companies in the telecom arena, to get rid of the mandatory request for data.  We figured we would take that off-line.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you.  Any other questions?
		SPEAKER:  Well, just so it isn’t a total blow-off, I do think this sort of raises an important thing to stay cognizant of.  There’s a very different set of equities with legal compulsion to report data to the United States Government, than there is from what you also do voluntarily.
		Both are probably necessary.  But I don’t think -- I think they should be complimentary to each other, because I think there are things you can get from some sources and not from others as well.  We will always have certain kinds of limitations, everything from the Paperwork Reduction Act, approval by OMB, the legal rights to compel.  
		You know, we’re a state actor.  That’s one of my frustrations in the diversity arena, is we’re always subject to sort of the constitutional scrutiny associated with these things, that often puts limits that we might not otherwise impose.
		So I would only say that, you know, I think I know what we’re talking about.  It’s fair, but I don’t think that that should mean that this committee doesn’t have an opportunity to get good data through its own processes as well.  That’s actually one of the reasons we hoped, we put this group together.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you.  Any other comments or questions of the Chair?  Ms. Alonzo?  Seeing none, excellent report.  We look forward to the additional work.  And again, to kind of reiterate, we drafted and submitted this information to companies right before Christmas, so we understood it would be --
		MS. ALONZO:  Right.  Christmas is a bad time.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Yes.  It would be a work in process.  Now to kind of hone it in and go directly to the companies themselves will provide us probably with even more rich information to build from.
		MS. ALONZO:  Right, and really everyone we reached out to, no one was reluctant.  Everyone was like “We’d love to help you out,” but timing for some was kind of difficult.  But overall, everybody was very interested in serving. 
		SPEAKER:  I did want to make one comment, as far as (inaudible) information as far as the best companies list that you were referring to.  We did do a survey such as that this past year for the first time in the cable industry, and we called it the “Parr Initiative,” Women in Cable and Telecommunications, say for pay equity, advancement opportunities and resource for work life.
		What we found is that, upon doing the survey last year, compiling the results and partnering with Working Mother Media, who does the annual 100 best companies list for working mothers, that we got the credibility and the expertise from Working Mother that had done those kinds of surveys in lists before.
		Then we were able to do our own list in the cable industry for the best companies for women in cable from that.  We had the results on November 3^rd at our gala that week, honored the very best operator and the very best programmer in the cable industry.
		What we found from that a lot of companies were clamoring after that, to say “How can we be honored at this event?  How can we get on this list?”  It really does cause a lot of warm competition, but also people to look inside of their own companies, to look at their results from the survey as we gave them scorecards back to show them how they did.  
		It was all confidential, so it’s not like we’re outing people.  We just honored the best companies.  It really was a very positive thing for the industry, a very positive thing for the companies that participated, because those that didn’t do well, nobody knew it.  But the ones that did do well, everybody knew about it.
		It seems to me now an incentive for companies, after having seen how well it worked, wanting to get on that list this year.  So I would hope that would be something we could try to do, either a CO or a list or something, and again, understand the legal ramifications that I did see firsthand in the last 12 months, how well that can work.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you.  Thank you, Jenny.  With that, we’ll go to New Technologies.  Mr. Riley Temple will be presenting.  The Subcommittee chair, Roscoe Young, is participating via the telephone, as his plane was not able to get him in today.  So Roscoe, we know you’re there in spirit, and you’re in good hands with Riley.
		MR. YOUNG:  I’m alive and well.  Thank you very much, Julie.
		MR. TEMPLE:  Thank you, Roscoe.  Thank you, Julia.
		MR. YOUNG:  Riley.
		MR. TEMPLE:  I am pinch-hitting here for Roscoe.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Riley, I think you need to come to the microphone.
		MR. TEMPLE:  I’m pinch-hitting here for Roscoe, and also the engine that drives our Subcommittee, who is Marva Johnson, who was not able to be here as well.  The Technology Subcommittee has been meeting over the course of time, and I wanted to outline for you some of the objectives and our progress report to date.
		We also have some preliminary recommendations which we will not present today, but which are summarized briefly in this report in front of you, and we will be developing white papers on it for your consideration at some later time.
		Our objective is to assess what ownership and career advancement opportunities are available in new and emerging technologies, and the convergence of these technologies, and to develop recommendations for facilitating opportunities for minorities and women in new industries as they form.
		There are several critical success factors.  One is to draw the linkage between technology opportunities and financing opportunities, and identify the opportunities that drive technology and advancement in investment interest, and managing the quick success expectations; that is, focusing on opportunities for sustainable success, and not get-rich-quick type schemes.
		We’re doing this in a phased approached.  Phase 1, we’re looking at opportunities that exist right now, i.e., low-hanging fruit, and you’ll see examples of that at the end of this packet, and which we can talk about if we have the time at the end of this presentation.
		Phase 2 will focus on technology-drive development opportunities and focus on incentive-based and regulatory policy, i.e., not regulation-based opportunities, with target recommendations to be made some time mid- to late 2004.
		In Phase 3, what does the long-term future hold?  We’re looking at the commercial sector, Petri dish research and development opportunities for minorities and women, and working with incumbents like Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, GTE, to identify opportunities to outsource development in delivery of technological solution for their business needs.
		Interestingly enough, we will probably spend some time with Worldwide Technology after listening to that.  
		In education, driving the advancement of scholarships and research opportunities at the graduate level.  For example, Emory University has a New Ventures program at its business school in regulation, focusing on establishing long-term regulatory programs and policies to drive and foster nascent technology, with target recommendations to be made in ‘05.
		We wanted to also today to present a general progress report.  We did or conducted post mortem focus groups.  We looked at minority companies who have made an effort to get into the business and have either stumbled and failed, and we wanted to look at and get some feedback on their hurdles, best practices and opportunities.
		They included Essential Integration (phonetic), Globenet and the Wilkins Group.  We also looked at retail service providers, and we have some recommendations as a result of having looked at those retail service providers, which include Northpoint, Broadwave, UrbanCom (phonetic) and Savoy. 
		Our identified initial recommendations in general, and in the broadcast sector, follow.  We have some initial assessments and in the interest of time, perhaps I shouldn’t go through these, but I would recommend them for everybody’s review and comment.  I would appreciate your comments in getting back to us.
		They focus on media, communications and telecommunications, and specifically, in one case, I want to follow up on the need for further data gathering, which makes it -- which is difficult in the telecom arena particularly.
		Also, I would have you look at, beginning on page 8, our findings from the post mortems.  What worked and what didn’t; the -- for example, if you look what didn’t work in terms of the auction policies with respect to Northwave and Urban, bidding credits and what those entities referred to as “overregulation.”  On the broadcast side, the hurdles with respect to financing, discrimination and regulatory policy, and also lack of industry experience.
		Now in terms of our low-hanging fruit recommendations on page 12, in which no rule changes or legislation are required, which is why they’re determined to be low-hanging fruit.  We would like to recommend the expansion of the working relationship between the FCC and the SBA, as well as the FCC and other government entities, such as NTIA in the Department of Commerce, to increase awareness of emerging technology opportunities for minority and small businesses.  
		We also recommend the sponsorship of an SBA-FCC conference on minority small businesses and emerging technologies, such as wireless, voiceover IP and broadband and others, for a potential conference in the fall of this year.
		Spectrum allocation.  We recommend that the FCC establish a database, and work with outside groups to establish an information clearinghouse of updated license sales, spectrum leasing and other communications-related opportunities for minorities and small businesses. 
		In the engineering area, the creation of a medium-powered AM and FM radio stations; relax the community of license and transmitter site rules to allow suburban facilities to move closer to their audiences, and to allow interference agreements between licenses of or for a licensee with itself.
		In our next steps, we will finalize these recommendations and submit white papers on them for your consideration.  We are going to work with the Access Subcommittee to establish a minority supplier program, or to recommend the establishment of a minority supplier program, identifying opportunities to leverage resources or the ASABA Group (phonetic), for example, and enlist the support of top tier players. 
		We will refine regulatory and legislative-based recommendations, and leverage the resources of the organizations listed, to reach, to look at the research minority publishers, and to focus in on private sector initiatives.  Finally, to explore opportunities to resuscitate the Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act. 
		Roscoe or Marva, do you have any other comments?  
		MS. JOHNSON:  Roscoe, did you want to make any comments?
		MR. YOUNG:  No.  I think, Riley, you’ve covered the point to the talking note that we have for the day.  Marva, feel free to chime in.
		MS. JOHNSON:  I didn’t have any other comments.  I did want to thank everybody on the committee, because the committee has put forth a lot of hard work in coming up with some initial investment.  
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  (inaudible)
		SPEAKER:  If I could just -- (inaudible) because I just thumbed through this thing quickly, but the thing that strikes me as either potentially wrong or limiting is somehow the question of broadcast versus telecommunication.  It would be purposely provocative.  It would suggest -- I would even go so far as to suggest those aren’t the two areas I would list as the new emerging technologies.
		What worries me is that, you know, I see some of the assessments of telecom, for example.  It’s almost premised on the big telcos or something, as if the opportunity in telecommunications is an opportunity to compete with incumbent telephone services which has, of course, all of the hurdles that I see listed.
		I would love to see sort of an edgier expansion, if you would of -- I love the framework personally, but I would love to see sort of an expansion into, you know, perhaps software, hardware industries; new and emerging technologies; wireless services, WiFi and related services, powerline and related services.
		I think the real exciting part of
		(Tape change)
		SPEAKER:  (tape picks up) quite a bit further removed from traditional broadcasting and telecom.
		MR. TEMPLE:  Yes, I think what you have in front of you is our initial assessment of where we are today.  This doesn’t include, you know, the future and forward look.  If you look at our phased-in -- our Phases 2 and 3, in which we will begin to focus on those other areas.  
		We first looked at low-hanging fruit in order to get the engine moving, to see what we could, what kind of analysis we could do, to come up with initial recommendations, and this is the analysis of where they are right now, and those recommendations are a reflection of this kind of analysis essentially.  So it’s just the first step.
		SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MR. TEMPLE:  Okay.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Any other comments?
		SPEAKER:  When David Steward was speaking earlier, he mentioned the fact that when Worldwide Technologies -- well, probably in launching all of his businesses, but particularly that one, that he didn’t really have examples of other companies like his or like what he was trying to put together, at least not people of color that were heading up those companies that he could emulate.
		I’m, you know, coming from a more professional development background.  But I’m thinking from a business development perspective, that having an opportunity to have businesses be able to connect CEOs, or people who are trying to put businesses together, finding mentors in that realm, as opposed to we’re always, in our professional development, thinking about mentors to help us with our career path.
		But in these emerging technologies, that these are things that haven’t been done before, and if they are being done before, by a very, you know, small number of companies or people that are doing that, and really to find an opportunity to get those people together, to be able to talk.  
		What an opportunity that would be, to help move those technologies along, as well as helping those companies develop.  So I didn’t know where that kind of landed among these four subcommittees, but this one seemed the most likely, and I’m on it.  So that’s why I brought it up.
		MR. TEMPLE:  Actually, I think it does land squarely within our subcommittee jurisdiction, and particularly when we look at what’s in the supply chain.  That’s clearly where a lot of the opportunity is available, and Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, in the other technologies as well, the supply chain opportunities are clearly there, which is where we will be looking.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  You know, just to expand on your point, you know on the plane ride back, I was looking through some magazines and was almost embarrassed when I was reading about a number of individuals who were being featured on the covers of magazines at this conference, who were minorities, and I had no idea.
		Like the CEO of Semantec (phonetic), that owns Norton Antivirus software, is an African-American.  I had no idea.  That Rod Atkins, who is the senior vice president at IBM running the entire Pervasive Computing Department.  Who knew these folks?  
		You know, and I think that one of the challenges, if we’re looking for mentors who’ve done it and done it right, they are more than I think we have been able to see.  I think one of our challenges is really to get educated about who’s out there and what they’re doing, and try to tap into their line of mentorship and at least experiences.
		Because I think, you know, reading the article about each of them, it was a primer in how to succeed in high tech businesses that I thought was real interesting.
		SPEAKER:  (inaudible)
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Yes ma’am, I did.
		MR. WALLAU:  Mr. Chairman, I think that’s equally important for the majority of people in business, to see if there are success stories out there, if not more important.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Yes.
		MR. WALLAU:  Because when Riley was reading on page 9 about discrimination, discrimination (inaudible) and I’m not racist.  But then you can also be discriminate -- you can discriminate based upon experience, that the (inaudible) to being a minority is whatever failure happens to a minority happens to all members of that minority.  
		So if it’s -- you know, a white person fails well, you know, that happened to that specific person.  But if there’s a failure of a black, any minority company, it is ascribed by the majority viewing it to be the failure of that entire group.
		So I have one bad experience; I therefore am much more reluctant to have other experiences with any kind of people I do business with, if I’m that closed-minded.  So that the more that we can publicize the people who are holding the reins of power, that there are successful people, and I didn’t know that about the leader of the Semantec.  
		That’s a big fact.  I mean, that’s an amazing thing to me.  I meet with these (inaudible) to the story, and the more we get those stories out, I think the more we’ll open people’s minds up to the possibility of doing business in those areas.  So I think it’s an education -- well, it’s mentoring.  Of course, people of color it’s also educating white people.
		(Laughter)
		SPEAKER:  So we can get the (inaudible).
		SPEAKER:  You know what might be useful, as a product or a takeaway, is whether we couldn’t -- a symbol or a clip, sort of a reading set of materials that we’re regularly updating, and we could circulate under the auspices of the committee as experiences, you know, diversity success stories.
		Because these things often have long featured articles.  Each one of the ones I had read, you know, beginning to end, everything that had happened, because they’re interesting and compelling stories.  So maybe that’s something we could figure out a way to do.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Maybe a link from the website.
		MR. WALLAU:  Yes, I was thinking like that.  Yes.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Any other questions?  Ginger?
		MS. LEW:  I think another area where the issue of visibility has an impact is in the new emerging technologies and those entrepreneurs that are coming out of our business schools and our engineering schools, who are looking at WiFi, who are looking at powerline management, who are looking at more efficient semiconductor chips for, you know, your cellphones, etcetera.
		One of the big challenges a lot of these young, and they usually tend to be younger entrepreneurs, is that they don’t have -- they, too, don’t have mentors.  So they don’t have people who’ve made it, other people of color who have made it in those fields, who can sort of pave the way.
		I think another area where it creates a hurdle for them is that they don’t know or have access to majority CEOs of large companies, because at the end of the day, they end up selling to a Nokia or a Qualcomm, or whoever it might be.  
		So it creates this interesting hurdle for some of the new, younger entrepreneurs that are coming out of school, and we should think about how we can, number one, identify some of those leaders, and number two, how we can help them overcome of those hurdles.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Good point.  Any final comments?  Thank you, Mr. Temple.  Excellent report, and I do recall on one of your meetings, via conference call, Mr. Wilkins, I believe, one of the entrepreneurs, he spoke to the same issue, too.  He said “You know, the trade show in and of itself isn’t enough.  But if you can -- you know, I need to know the CEO and he needs to know me, and I have a wonderful story to tell.”  
		So he kind of challenged us to come up with something systemic, something real that would allow that to occur.  He didn’t know what it was, but some forum, some mechanism to make sure that they would.  So you all are on the right track in teeing up that issue, and bringing forward a real entrepreneur, who could speak from experience, to help us focus and address.  Thank you.
		SPEAKER:  Or find a forum to get them all together.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Exactly, uh-huh.
		SPEAKER:  Can I just mention, before we move on to the next subcommittee, that for those of you on the phone, who didn’t have access to the PowerPoint presentation on this, we will make sure that this is available on the website, so you can go back and look at the pages that Riley was summarizing or us.  
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you.  With that, we’ll move on to Access to Capital.  I believe, Jenny, were you going to -- what?
		SPEAKER:  Ginger.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Oh, Ginger is -- is Commissioner Barrett on the phone lines?  Commissioner Barrett?
		SPEAKER:  I think that we would have heard him by now. 
		(Laughter)
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  I guess he’s not on, so with that, Ginger?
		MS. LEW:  I would like to acknowledge the other members on the Subcommittee.  Lauren Tyler, who was the chair of the Subcommittee, from Quetzal/JP Morgan, and Anthony Gee from Carthage.  Lauren, are you on the call?  I know she was trying to make it.
		MS. TYLER:  I am on the call, Ginger.
		MS. LEW:  Thank you.  Well, I’d like to acknowledge the great work you did in pulling together the Subcommittee, and inviting our panelists to appear on January 20^th.  Thank you.  
		MS. TYLER:  It was a pleasure.
		MS. LEW:  We had the pleasure of inviting three members from the private equity funds.  Ed Shirley, from Fairview Capital; Duane McKnight from Sincom (phonetic), and Anita Stephens (phonetic) from Opportunity Capital Partners.  
		The panelists were asked to look at three broad issues.  Number one, to provide an overview of the history of private equity; two, to discuss areas where ethnic entrepreneurs have had successful entries and exits and challenges; and three, identify the general challenges in the marketplace.
		Mr. Shirley of Fairview Capital provided an overview of the historic performance of private equity funds that invest in ethnically diverse companies.  He is a former board member of the National Association of Investment Companies, which is a trade association of investment firms led by people of color.  I also serve on that board as well.
		Mr. Shirley reported on a recent study that was funded by NAIC and the Kaufman Foundation (phonetic).  The study looked at the historic financial performance of its member funds.  There has been, in the past, a perception, an erroneous perception, by general private equity funds, that private equity funds led by people of color underperform and do not provide the types of returns that majority funds do.
		The Kaufman-backed study reported that DC-backed minority funds outperformed the S&P 500, providing a 20 percent rate of return for the period that was under study.  The study also found that such funds invested primarily in broadcast, and not broadband opportunities.  A summary of this report is attached to this submission.
		The panelists then went on to talk about four broad areas.  Number one, access to talented entrepreneurs.  Mr. Shirley and Mr. McKnight reported that there was in fact a broad pool of talented entrepreneurs.  While in the past, the pool of well-known and established communications entrepreneurs was relatively small, there is also an emerging, new generation of talented entrepreneurs who are seeking capital.
		Access to talented investment professionals.  Mr. Shirley again reported that there are more ethnically diverse investment professionals than ever before, working in both minority and general investment funds.  I will go back to each of these points in just a moment.  
		With respect to access to capital, all the panelists cited the lack of access to capital as a major impediment to ethnically diverse entrepreneurs being able to launch new companies, and/or grow existing companies.  Interestingly enough, consolidation of broadcast properties has created successful exit opportunities for some of these well-known entrepreneurs, yet consolidation of broadcast companies has also resulted in a significant appreciation of certain broadcast property values, sometimes making the acquisition of new broadcast properties beyond the scope of minority entrepreneurs.
		General investment funds were not viewed by ethnically diverse entrepreneurs as being accessible or available, and several reasons were cited.  First, Ms. Stephens stated that general equity or senior lending companies did not view investments in smaller broadcast deals as being attractive.
		Many of the properties available for purchase are in second and third tier markets.  Thus, general equity firms have concerns about future appreciation and current cash flows from smaller properties.
		Second, there is a general lack of familiarity of investing in ethnically diverse broadcast investments.  Third, Ms. Stephens reported that ethnically diverse entrepreneurs lack access to the network of general investment funds.  
		Fourth, the investment opportunities may be too small to reach the investment thresholds of larger funds.  Fifth, a number of lenders making loans to communications companies have left the marketplace, thus shrinking the pool of debt lenders that are available.
		One of the other challenges that was discussed was that with ethnically diverse funds having limited funds, in fact, NAIC recently announced that its member funds currently have about $5 billion under management, entrepreneurs seeking to purchase higher value properties in the top 100 markets do not have access to sufficient capital to pay for these newly-appreciated properties.
		Access to opportunity.  All panelists identified this as the major, if not the most significant barrier to entry.  That, in turn, creates a significant competitive disadvantage.  Ethnically diverse entrepreneurs are not in the loop to hear about attractive properties.  Without knowing what properties there are, their ability to participate in such deals is severely limited.  As Mr. McKnight said, “If they are not at the table, then they can’t play.”
		When asked why entrepreneurs don’t hear about such opportunities, Mr. Shirley stated that there was a perception that ethnically diverse entrepreneurs don’t have access to capital, and therefore don’t have the money to participate.  So therefore, they are not told about these opportunities.  It is an interesting cycle which perpetuates itself.  
		Of all the issues that were discussed during the sub panel meeting, the lack of access to opportunity was seen as the greatest hurdle.  It was interesting to note that in Mr. Shirley’s comments, he made a statement that “My people perish for lack of vision.  They also can perish for lack of opportunity.”
		Other issues that were identified and discussed, overregulation.  Ms. Stephens and Mr. McKnight urged the FCC to be cautious about adopting policies which may overregulate minority or small business communities.  
		One example that was cited by both venture capitalists was requiring 51 percent minority ownership of broadcast properties, in order to be considered a minority ownership property.  Panelists indicated that the 51 percent threshold created significant problems, from an investor’s perspective, as it relates to valuations and subsequent exits.  
		Another panelist mentioned a problem that entrepreneurs have with respect to debt financing, as the secondary markets have a reluctance to accept loans that are securitized against sales and cash flows.  
		Some of the recommendations made by our panelists include reinstatement of the small business tax certificate; institution of the comparative bid component to the spectrum auction; establishing set-asides for small businesses in the spectrum auction; educating banking regulators.
		In terms of next steps, the Subcommittee plans to follow up with the panelists, to flush out their recommendations, in order to submit them in a fuller way to the full committee.  We’d also like to pursue having discussions with the National Association of Investment Companies, to comment and work on this, any further suggestions they may have.  
		We should also reach out to the Tweego (phonetic) Foundation, which is a foundation designed to encourage more people of color to go into the investment community, to find out about some of the hurdles that they’ve identified.  
		Finally, in terms of the first two topics that were talked about, the access to talented investment professionals.  I think I mentioned the Tweego Foundation.  But we need to dig a little bit deeper into this issue about access to talented entrepreneurs.  
		I think one of the issues that we’ve run into in recent time is that again, while we’ve had some very promising entrepreneurs come out of business school and engineering schools who are people of color, they may not have mentors who can help them, in terms of developing a software company or hardware company or whatever the technology is that they may be working on.
		They may be very fine technologists, but they have very little experience in the business world.  At the end of the day, no matter how good the technology, you’ve got to be able to package it and sell it and make a business out of it.  
		And so I think this is an area that our committee should look at a little bit more, because it does have a very significant impact and link to whether or not these entrepreneurs can qualify and get access to private equity capital.  That concludes the report.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you.  Any questions?
		MR. WALLAU:  I think that you’re looking at it mostly with the broadcast respect, because I know that’s (inaudible), the broadcast respect (inaudible) of the committee.  It might be helpful or useful to identify -- as I was listening to the presentation, it occurred to me that a lot of the things that were said are true of everyone who is an entrepreneur, like Hispanic, Asian, whatever.
		There are start-up problems.  They’re just part of the business.  That’s just the capitalist part of the problem for a lot of people (inaudible) who try to go into business, and the big companies always have advantage, and they’re always going to be talking to each other at a big table, and a lot of people don’t see that.
		It just might be useful -- I know I’m not suggesting that in solving the problem of limited diversity and microscopic diversity, in the industries that we’re talking about, that we shouldn’t address the problems faced by everyone entering into these businesses.  But it also might be helpful just to try to figure out is there something specific to people of color getting into these businesses, other than simple discrimination.  Is there something -- it may be just discrimination.
		And therefore, having identified something specific about, that you were trying to include in these businesses, we might be able to come up with solutions and speak for those specific issues, rather than the global issues that affects everyone trying to get, all entrepreneurs trying to get into businesses, like you were talking about.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Any comments or reactions?
		SPEAKER:  Ginger, just a follow-up comment.  You’re absolutely right, that many of the topics that were discussed are common to any entrepreneur.  But I think one of the biggest challenges is identifying financial resources.
		I mean with all due respect, someone coming out of -- an African-American engineer coming out of Stanford, for example, may or may not be able to find a way to get an introduction to some majority venture funds in Silicon Valley or in New York or in Texas or wherever that entrepreneur plans to establish their business. 
		They may be able to get introductions to some of the NAIC member funds, and I think the NAIC groups do a very good job in terms of conducting the outreach, in order to identify these promising entrepreneurs.  
		But when you’re talking about an organization whose funds manage a total of $5 billion, and compare that to how much money that’s gone into, say, telecom investments in just any one year, there’s a huge discrepancy there.  
		So issues of access to capital continue, of the majority funds, or general private equity funds, is an issue.  
		SPEAKER:  (inaudible) because that sort of trickles up also, because on the --
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Could you get closer to the microphone?
		SPEAKER:  In the senior lender panel that was held that day, it was noted that frequently, the senior lenders are brought in through a network of contacts that flow up out of the equity investors.  So to the extent that the pool of equity investors is smaller, and their networks are more limited, that likewise makes it more difficult for senior lenders to come in to the financing picture, which makes the cost of money more expensive and makes the deal more difficult to put together.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Any other comments, Mr. Chairman?
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  I don’t know.  I find it intriguing, but I think Alex does make a point that we should think about, because, you know, in my limited experience with money people, they’re ruthlessly arms merchants.  You know, and unabashedly so.  I think that if we talk about access to capital, in some of kind of high, abstract way, most of the ones I know who will confide say “This is business.  You’re just telling me about the problems of entering a business.  Go away.” 
		I mean, I think it would help if we couldn’t either identify that there’s systematic persistence that can’t be explained otherwise; it could be discriminatory or implicitly discriminatory, or false perceptions, you know, about somebody’s ability just because of their status.
		Or there’s sort of an affirmative side, which is that there’s something important, in terms of sort of social good, about actually actively trying to encourage greater opportunity for the value of society.  But you know, my arms merchants go “Yes, that’s great.  Sign me up but don’t call me.”  That would require, I think, real horsepower at a national level as well, from leaders at higher pay grades than mine.
		But I do think that for six years I’ve heard access to capital, and I always had the same reaction.  Well, how much of this is -- it’s hard to be an entrepreneur, and how much of this is systematic, permanent racism?  I’ve come to the conclusion it isn’t me you’re trying to convince, which is the problem.  It’s people who don’t have to play in your world at all, and there’s nothing you can do to compel them. 
		You know, so we either need to -- we need to get deeper and have better arguments and more sophisticated arguments about this, I think, if we hope to be effective.  And then the last comment I would say is I also think there’s a whole community we have to ‑‑ and Ginger’s done some of this -- we have to expand out to.  
		I mean, the FCC, this committee, even a lot of the industries, you know, there’s a whole banking finance universe out there that I think is where we really need to get into, because FCC has no money.  It’s not going to have, nobody’s going to give us any money, you know.  
		I’m somewhat skeptical about what policies would actually -- that we would do, which would dramatically, or at least in some order of magnitude, increase the flows of money.  I think there’s a whole finance world out there, that part of the networking or the expansion of our relationships would really benefit us.
		MR. WALLAU:  (inaudible) I note (inaudible) has nothing to do with diversifying the owners of broadcast stations, is that (inaudible) access to capital, lending companies do not view investments in smaller broadcast deals as being attractive.  
		That’s absolutely right.  That’s regardless -- that’s just the way lending institutions look at small 100+ markets, in terms of cash flow, in terms of returns.  I mean, it’s just -- they’re not looked at as good investments.
		So it’s hard, unless you’re aggregating a whole lot of them, it’s hard to go in and get a lending institution to get excited about operating a small station.  You know, the Disney Company doesn’t have a lack of access to capital markets, but the Disney Company hasn’t invested in any small markets.  It doesn’t make sense.  I don’t think it’s good business.
		But that’s the place where an entrepreneur would start, with a small station, and build themselves up.  So you’ve got this disconnect between lending institutions that think they’re bad business decisions and not a lot of growth opportunities, and therefore want to save their money to allocate it to the different types of investment propositions, and entrepreneurs, who have to start there, just because they can’t start in a major market.
		So it’s just -- it is important to understand, I think, where the issues are, just part of the overall economy, I mean driven by just economics and where it’s driven by other things, these are positive.  Now I think the Chairman’s right.  If you do want to go out and say -- he’s right about it on both hands, on both statements he made.
		The sharks who are in the investment community, the money people won’t share.  But they’re ‑‑ you actually might have an appealing proposition to other entities that might have -- we need to identify if there are people who would want to be involved in that kind of a proposition, just because it’s the right thing to do.  
		I mean, all of the companies, you know, that you oversee are involved in some way in doing some of those, whether it’s a broadcast station trying to do some kind of public service work through use of its broadcast time.  Everybody’s involved in some way, some falling short, some overreaching, in terms of serving the public interest.  So this might be another way to try to drive that proposition.
		SPEAKER:  You may be right, that this is a uniquely -- I’m not certain of this yet.  I don’t think we got to this point in the panels we have, but you may be right, that it’s a uniquely -- a minority problem as much as an entrepreneurial hurdle, that all entrepreneurs are going to face. 
		But to the extent that most minority entrants into the market are going to come into small markets, you know, these panelists were saying over and over again that with small market deals or small deals, you know, under $15 million, under $10 million, it gets very difficult, because there is no cash flow.  So they’re really starting from scratch.
		And I think you’re also right that we’re getting into a whole new finance world, because the themes that came up over and over again was you have to educate -- you have to get out to these small, local and regional banks and banking associations, and educate them on how to do telecommunications deals and broadcast deals and wireless deals, but it scares them.  They don’t know how to go about it.
		And also it was -- because that’s where these entrepreneurs need to go.  They can’t go to the large, national banks.  They’re looking for the $25 million and up deals.  You’re going to have to educate the small regional groups.
		Then the other issue that came up was educating the secondary market, which I found very interesting, because usually these loans are bundled, and they’re sold on the secondary market, and they -- and you have to educate the purchasers of these notes on the secondary market, to tell them, you know, that these types of transactions are not as risky or can be structured in a way that they’re worthwhile.
		Then thirdly and lastly was to educate the banking regulators on these transactions.  That came up several times, that the banking regulators, you know, they don’t see inventory.  They see it as a highly leveraged transactions, and they tend to miscategorize these types of -- these loans, to make it more difficult for the money to flow.
		Again, that is a problem that all entrepreneurs are going to run into, not necessarily just minority entrepreneurs.  But certainly to the extent that most entrants, new minority entrants into the markets are looking at these smaller loans, small markets, that it’s choking them off from the capital.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  One thing we should think about, and that’s very thoughtful, Frank.  I never thought about the local lending institutions.  But we all -- whenever I hear this debate, I have never heard it discussed in any field other than broadcasting.  
		So one of the things that occurs to me, I’m sort of just would be more curious, it would illuminate the debate, is what are the lending experiences for minorities in other things in our portfolio?  It would be very telling if they’re all the same.  
		But it might be eye-opening if they varied, because clearly what we’re saying is we have the danger of an uneconomic proposition for anybody.  If that’s where we’re going to try to make the biggest difference, you know, we’re going against -- we may be going sort of fundamentally against, you know, the economic realities.  
		But part of our answer should be, well, okay, we can keep pounding there, but also back to the point of where else might you take that interest, or leverage from it into something else, where perhaps the fruits are greater.  
		But I don’t know.  I’ve never heard anyone talk about, you know, lending to minority Internet companies or lending to minority wireless companies.  A little bit on wireless, I guess, we’ve heard a little bit --
		SPEAKER:  I was about to comment, Mr. Chairman, on the telecom side, because it seem to be a fairly different phenomena than in broadcast, because you’re generally not talking about owning a telephone company.
		I mean, my God who wants to, and it’s so, so very capital-intensive until, you know, you’re talking -- I mean, you show up.  You’ve got $70 billion, and I can tell you, people are going to know who you are, no matter what color you are and you can get at the table to make the deal.
		But that’s not realistic.  So there are services opportunities.  The access to capital issue can still be the same, because it goes back to the risk proposition, I think, that David mentioned and that Alex commented on.
		A real reality is when you’re sitting doing business, leadership primarily what they bring to the table is judgment.  So if I’m going to do business with someone that is large, with someone that’s proven, and I am a just like you, that company, that company and that company has also done business with them, when they go into business and they fail, or the profit margins don’t come out the way that you thought they were going to come out, or it turns out that you lost money on this deal but you got to where you needed to get to at the end of the day, well, that’s business.
		And nobody looks at you really strange.  But if you chose to do that with a new minority company, and you’re taking a chance on the David Steward as his being your first customer, or a new Internet company and it goes down, the risk composition is very different, because as the manager now, as the leader of the company, the organization, the division that decided to make that decision, I all of a sudden have a judgment issue.  This was poor judgment.  
		I mean, both of them failed.  One of them you could accept, because it was more mainstream and more proven.  So I think if there is something that we can do that would increase the credibility of the new people that are moving forward.  I think awards is one way, and I think we should look at awards as something other than just an accolade for the company.  
		But the award gives some integrity and it says that when you made the choice to do business with this person, you weren’t just sitting back here having a bad day and making a bad judgment, that credibly, you were drawn to this for some very logical reasons.  That’s why I think we can kind of cast recognitions in a different way. 
		I also think that, at least on the telecom side, it’s been my experience that many times the company has to be the initial risk taker, and sometimes you have to finance the person, which creates an interesting kind of partnership.  So you infuse that capital.  
		We have had experience where one of the largest African-American owned telecom companies in the country started that way.  Credible, runs a great business, you know, has access on its own.  But when he began, you had to make several millions of dollars of investment in partnership, and that may be another way of filling the void that Ginger talks about, that is absent in the financial community, because the deal’s not big enough for them to really register with or to care about getting into.
		Then I think if we could identify -- I think by doing some of those partnerships, you create success stories, and then you can use those success stories to do some real apples to apples analysis.  I don’t buy the proposition that, you know, businesses that are infused by venture capital companies of color tend to fail.  I mean, you’d have to really -- more often than others.
		You’d have to really convince me that that’s an apples to apples, that you’re talking about the same kind of applicant; that you’re talking about a comparable opportunity; that you’re talking about -- and business people understand that.  So when you can go in and show that this is -- it doesn’t become a special opportunity; it becomes a business opportunity.
		Even though there are risks associated with this, when you break them down, there are going to be risks with people entering this industry in this time, in these economic conditions, with this kind of competition.  So I think we have to learn how to address it from the way that people who are making the decisions and the lending decisions start to -- are prone to think about it.
		But I would just bet that if there’s a market where there are no dollars available, and we can prove that there is opportunity there, and that it is successful opportunity, that there are -- I know it’s been our instance, when we get vendors up and they are well-established, they can go and get access to capital.  
		Of course, the bank certainly doesn’t want us running a telecommunications company and a bank.  So they’d much rather loan money than have us loaning money on a successful venture.  They just have to get to where they can see it proven.
		So I do think that there are some small things that can be done that when you add them together incrementally, they make a compelling business case for doing this, and it translates into language that we are trained to work.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Can I just go -- I have to run.  I just want to make one final.  First of all, that’s extremely insightful and I think a new and creative way to think about it, because I see companies do this all the time.  It’s the effort at getting secured validation.  I mean, I’m watching this, because I see entrepreneurial companies entering our space all over the place.  Voiceover IP companies, you know.  One of the first people they have on the payroll is this communications marketing expert, who kills themselves getting articles written about you, getting you at conferences, getting you on lists.
		I have to say this is not something I normally see associated with a lot of the minority ventures that I know.  What tends to happen, to be blunt, is we get segregated.  Right?  It’s great to be in Ebony, but that’s not going to get the money.  You know, you need to be Fortune and Forbes.  You need to be in the magazines that the people with the money read.
		So it would be interesting, for example, if we could talk Fortune into, right?  Can you write an issue once a year, in which you featured, you know, minority companies in the communications sector, who are having successes?  Every one I’ve ever met in the business world, when that happens to them, tells me the world takes off.
		You know, one article in the right magazine featuring you can really take someone off.  So maybe that’s another way, you know, to talk to the people that we’re trying to reach. 
		I’m going to have to run, but one last thing I wanted to leave you with is, you know, not to forget that what we’re trying to do is be personal ambassadors as well, and we’re going to San Antonio tomorrow for a localism hearing, and one of the things, you know, I’m going to do, with Priscilla’s help, is we’ve put together a diversity day with students, high school and college-age students, to talk about careers in communications.
		So we’re going to spend an hour and a half and some lunch time, just as a coincidence of us being there anyway, and we’re going to keep doing things like that.  I think everyone on this committee should really think about opportunities when they’re traveling or going to things.  Can you add an hour to do something like that?  We’re going to stick our toe in the water with that tomorrow.  So I just wanted to --
		SPEAKER:  Jenny (inaudible).
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Oh, is that right?  Jenny’s going to be there?  You’re going to be at the dinner?
		MS. ALONZO:  Yes.
		CHAIRMAN POWELL:  Terrific.  So thank you, and thank you for being here.  I won’t take any more time.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		(Applause)
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Any final questions there?  Or comments?  Ginger?
		MS. LEW:  I would like to put one issue on the record, because it’s an important one that has an impact for investors.  I alluded to it in my remarks, and that is this issue about the 51 percent ownership question, in order to be treated as a qualified minority owned company.  This goes to the issue of some of the supplier programs that the government has, and some of the services program that the government has.
		If you’re an entrepreneur who’s starting on -- this is all going to be very hypothetical and very, very simplistic.  Okay, so I want to give those two caveats.  Let’s say you’re an entrepreneur who wants to starts a wireless company and sell services to the government, and you have -- you’re not going to put any money into the deal, okay?
		But you need to raise $50 million for equipment, (inaudible) company, whatever it might be.  Let’s make it $25 million, okay?  The 51 percent ownership rules would then mean that this company, post money valuation, in order words, after the money’s been put into the deal, the $25 million has been put into the deal, would now be worth $51 million.  This is with the entrepreneur not having put any money into the investment, okay?
		The entrepreneur needs more money, you know, a year and a half from now, later, and needs to raise another $25 million.  Now in my simple math world, the post-money valuation of that would be somewhere around $76 million or $75 million.  But because the entrepreneur has to maintain 51 percent ownership, the deal now has to be post-money valuation $102 million, okay?  
		As a result of that, it almost makes it impossible for entrepreneurs to get financing, because most investors, I mean, the numbers don’t work in the investment world.  I just want to illustrate that, because that -- people have oftentimes wondered why don’t venture capitalists invest in more minority supplier-owned companies and services, etcetera.
		Because when you do that type of math, the ultimate exit from the investment would mean that you would have to sell this company for a multiple that, you know, comparable companies wouldn’t sell for.  So it becomes a real challenge.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you.
		SPEAKER:  I’m just going to --
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Frank?
		SPEAKER:  What current requirements are there ‑‑ those are SBA?  It’s under the SBA regs?  Okay, all right, all right.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Anything else?  Is that it?
		SPEAKER:  No, that’s all.  That’s helpful.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Okay, thanks Frank.  Our final presentation is by Transactional Transparency.  Steve?
		MR. HILLARD:  Thank you.  I’m batting clean-up, so I’m going to be real brief here.  I think each of you has a handout.  I did want to thank Madam Chairwoman and the FCC representatives, the experts that have helped all the committees, and Chairman Powell and each of the Commissioners.
		I wanted to report in this on the activities of the Transactional Transparency and related outreach subcommittee, a couple of quick intangibles that I think each of the subcommittees has experienced.  But we have definitely had the benefit of active participation, an earnest course of discussion over a number of topics, and I think I’m very pleased by the gravity of the way everyone is taking the challenge of addressing this chronic problem of lack of representative diversity.
		If you look on page 2, kind of posting up the core of what our Subcommittee’s been looking at, and it echoes some of the other considerations of a number of the other subcommittees, is really that a key barrier to achieving diversity is access to deal flow.  Just in a succinct sort of way, and that’s really become one of the key focuses of what this subcommittee is going for, to address.
		We expect to do a fairly extensive program of outreach, having spent a lot of time really assessing within the membership what do we think are some of the core issues to be addressed, and what are some of the mechanisms that may be available.  
		Now our task, and I think the hard work for our Subcommittee is ahead of us, in terms of a lot of outreach, to test and refine and make some practical judgments about some of the ideas we’re going to share with you.
		So if you turn over to the next page, it’s really what are some of the categories of how to address this problem, which we again, has been a theme here today, of access to deal flow, essentially as a companion to access to capital.  The scope of our efforts really I think will, at least as a report today, focus on three categories of potential recommendations.
		An affirmative deal flow enhancement mechanisms, and these, I think, we would take up as a challenge, that the Commission does have the power to ‑‑ it currently exercises it to some extent, but to create real tools that create points of opportunity for diversity transactions.
		Second is an examination of the merits and issues relating to a transactional non-discrimination rule, and we’ll come to each of these with a separate page in a second.  Lastly, to really catalogue and assess and make specific recommendations, for again a theme that I think has been common today, of information, education, clearinghouse, voluntary programs, Good Housekeeping seals and a number of those ideas that I think do have -- make real differences.
		If you’ll look at page, I think it’s page 4, on the affirmative deal flow enhancement mechanisms, the consideration of the Subcommittee is really that the FCC really can create business opportunities that add to or create enhancement of diversity, that these are real tools that can be implemented, expanded, and the array -- again, I think many of these have been covered today -- but everything from spectrum leasing provisions, creation of new licenses, and if you will, bite-sized chunks of opportunities for ownership.  
		We talked a little bit, I think, about radio a little bit ago.  Expansion in policing of auction rules, such as the designated entity program.  I think kind of the philosophy behind this is that these, while they’re somewhat mechanical, really do create the points of interaction and opportunity that create the presence and the partnering ability and the presence that really leads to kind of a long-term staying power that I think, at least I was certainly impressed with, with Mr. Steward’s company today.
		So it’s not -- while these are somewhat mechanical, they’re not the -- they do create the opportunities for a longer-term presence in the industry.  Similarly, I think the Commission does have the power to create affirmative legal incentives that we’ll be addressing, again, to enhance the opportunities for partnering.  Everything from, I think, the tax certificates have been a classic case of that, to expedited processing of certain criteria met, and other regulatory incentives.
		Lastly, to promote voluntary agreements from business associate 
		(Tape change)
		SPEAKER:  (tape picks up) kinds of entities.  I think the crux of this is that there are real concrete programs that, as the Chairman said, can create access to the arms merchants.
		On page 5, another thing that the Subcommittee, I think, has accepted as part of our, a very serious part of our charge, is to examine the potential for a transactional, non-discrimination rule that may, for example, be coupled with a certification process.  We will be spending some significant time considering the merits, how to implement that kind of potential rule, whether it requires a specific certification or some other affirmative act by an FCC licensee. 
		We will clearly be spending some serious time looking at the pragmatics of that, including issues such as how transaction operate, that has an effect on an ongoing business, asset valuation, transactional delay, enforcement challenges, and also considering alternatives to that.  But that is a, what I would call, four-square, one of the key considerations of the Subcommittee.
		Then the last category is really what we would call more of an informational kind of category, to examine a number of mechanisms that have been talked about today, in terms of databases of opportunities, educational programs and I think the idea of programs that in effect create a Good Housekeeping seal for, as an incentive for investment banks, private equity funds, to work with diverse elements, is also something that we’re going to examine.
		I think the crux of it is this is, if you will, a survey of those areas which the Subcommittee has indicated are where we expect to spend the crux of our time, and as I said, Madam Chairwoman, this is really where part of our hard work begins to test each of these, and formulate them into recommendations to come back to the committee with.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you.  Any questions of Steve?  Any other comments from his committee members?  Excellent presentation.  I appreciate it very much.
		Now we need to go back to the financial committee, because there are a couple more presentations to be made.  Commissioner Rivera?
		MR. RIVERA:  Julia, thanks.  Just to -- in deference to the hour, I’m going to be very brief, and I think Frank is also.  But just to give you the context, the Subcommittee empanelled three panels last Tuesday.  We were here six days ago.  Ginger’s was one of them, dealing with the equity markets.  Frank dealt with primarily senior debt.
		The panel that I moderated dealt really with some of the policy areas that the Commission’s going to have to deal with, or the committee’s going to have to deal with, as we move forward and make our recommendations.  So having done this just six days ago, none of us are really in a position to make any recommendations like the other, many of the other panels or presentations.  We will be coming back to the committee with some specific recommendations.
		The panel I moderated had five speakers.  Vince Pepper, a practicing communications lawyer, for those of you who don’t know him.  Lois Wright, who’s vice president and corporate counsel, Inner City Broadcasting and president of Inner City Cable.  Then we had three academics, Phil Napoli (phonetic), who’s the director of the Don McGannon (phonetic) Communications Research Center at Fordham; Al Hammond, who’s a Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law and Director of the Broadband Institute of California; and Leonard Baines (phonetic), who’s a Professor of Law at St. John’s University.  
		Then we had a civil rights lawyer talk to us, and this was Tom Henderson, who’s Deputy Director and Director of Litigation for the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law.  Again, just being very brief here, I would encourage anyone who’s interested to look at the full transcripts.  They are on the website of these presentations, and they were very, very good.
		Vince basically gave us a historical presentation, taking us back to TV-9 and the Court’s mandate to the Commission to begin taking race into consideration when awarding licenses.  Lois Wright talked primarily about consolidation, and how NABOB has made a recommendation to deal with the issue of consolidation in minority ownership.  
		Phil Napoli talked primarily about some research that he did, and he urged the Commission to secure aggregate financial data, ratings data, programming data, and as well as surveying data, from owners, advertisers, and audience members, in order to gain a well-rounded picture of challenges facing minority-owned media outlets, and the contributions of such outlets to the media marketplace and the factors that affect their ability to function.  
		Al Hammond talked.  He was commissioned by the -- by Chairman Kennard (phonetic), to conduct one of the Commission’s Adarand studies.  He proposed that the Commission establish data collection methodologies that are not based on the political outcome you wish to achieve but which fairly seek to ascertain the impact of the Commission’s policies on the broadcast industry as a whole, and minorities in particular.
		Mr. Henderson talked about Adarand and a case called Concrete Works.  He suggests that a remedial justification provides the basis for race-conscious efforts with regard to ownership, as well as aspects of broadcasting and avenues to participation in broadcasting, discrimination in industry, and in opportunities to qualify and participate in broadcasting, are a proper basis for remedial activity.
		He also suggested a second justification under Grutter (phonetic) and Bakke was diversity, as an end in itself.  And finally, Leonard Baines talked about the Commission’s KPMG study.  It was also one of the Commission’s Adarand studies.  It analyzed the effectiveness of the comparative hearing process in producing minority ownership.
		He also talked about Justice O’Connor’s opinion in Grutter, and contrasted it and compared it to her opinion in Metro Broadcasting.  Again, I urge those of you who are interested to take a look at the copy of the transcript that’s available on the website.
		With that, I’m going to turn it over to Frank.
		SPEAKER:  I’m just going to take a minute.  Again, as Henry pointed out, I mean, we had a day-long session of panels, with the regulatory issues in the morning and then the two lending and investment panels in the afternoon.  Ginger’s panel handled equity investments and mine handled senior debt. 
		The big concern with senior debt is that there has been a significant dry-up in the amount of institutional lenders that are available to entrepreneurs and to minority entrepreneurs, women, but new entrants into the marketplace, to get loans for acquisitions, build-outs, things of that nature.
		It’s the banks, the local banks, that these entrepreneurs have traditionally gone to.  I mean, in the past five or six years or more, perhaps now, there has been a rapid growth in the availability of venture capital, and certainly during the technology boom venture capital was all the rage.
		But traditionally, it’s been the institutional lender at various levels that entrepreneurs have gone to get their business loans, and that money has just completely almost disappeared in the -- for small telecommunications companies.
		We had three speakers.  We had Jerome Fowlkes (phonetic), a director from BIA Capital; we had Tonya Crossley (phonetic), a managing director with the Media Group at Fleet Boston Financial; Cable Williams, managing director of Allied Capital; and Leanne Oliver, who’s very interesting.  She’s a deputy administrator with the Financial Systems Group at the U.S. Small Business Administration.  
		I’ll just, you know, boil it down.  Basically, they observed that there is essentially a gap that has developed in the senior lending community, whereby basically, from the five to say 15 million dollar range -- this is some of the things that I already said to the Chairman earlier -- that it is very, very difficult for new entrants, to get in and get a loan at that level.
		That’s because at the lower level, there isn’t the cash flow available in the businesses to loan upon.  So they’re really just looking at asset value.  You’re looking at a business that has no inventory, and so it’s difficult to loan on that.  
		If you get below $2 million, the SBA, as Leanne Oliver came in, has their loan guarantee program that’s available to them.  It’s fairly limited, but at least there’s something there at the very, very, very low end.  But really, when you get above that, there’s nothing until you get up into the upper strata.
		So Cable Williams pointed out that basically there’s no middle market.  The middle market has just sort of evaporated on senior lending.  So then they try to look at how can we fill that middle market up again.  Again, it was we’re -- you’re going to have difficulty looking at the big national lenders to fill that gap.  We’re really -- who we want to try to bring back into the picture is, are the small institutional lenders, the small regional banks, the state banks, that can fill that in.
		They are scared by the fact that they don’t really understand the industry, whether it’s broadcasting or otherwise.  They really just don’t understand it.  They hear all these things about -- Jerome Fowlkes said, you know, with the inability, for instance, to take a security interest in the license, especially when you don’t have cash flow, you’re just looking at asset value.
		The one and only most valuable asset in the business is your license, and the only thing you can’t take a security interest in.  Thanks a lot, they’re saying.
		So the idea is to educate them on how these loans can be structured, and educate them on how the business operates, so that we can bring them back in and make that money available.
		Then Cable Williams pointed out that these loans are bundled, and they’re sold out on the secondary market.  So you want to start, you want to educate the purchasers.  He’s actually supposed to get me a list of those purchasers of these bundled notes on the secondary market, so that we can start developing a list of targeted institutions that are going to need this type of educating.
		Leanne Oliver from SBA has already sent me a list of the banks, the small banks that she’s dealt with, that have made available the under $2 million loans in the media markets over the past three years. Interesting list. 
		Then the last recommendation was to improve the SBA program, see if there’s any way, and I don’t know whether it’s within the purview if this committee or not, but to see if there’s some way that the SBA can somehow lift its upper limit, because if we can slowly raise their limit, and then try to fill in the middle markets through some of type of an education process or otherwise, basically to try to fill in that middle gap, because when you’re in the five to 15 million dollar range, that’s where most of these new entrepreneurs are coming in at, and that’s where the money is non-existent.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Okay.
		SPEAKER:  Oh, and by the way, I should say that the entire day’s proceedings, as Henry pointed out, not just the transcripts are available.  You can actually see -- they were all videotaped, and you can actually watch them, watch a videotape stream of it.  You know, it’s archived off of the FCC’s website.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Excellent.  Commissioner?
		COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN:  Just two quick comments, Madam Chair.  First is I understand that there were a lot of people on the phone, but it was only one way.  They can hear us and we couldn’t hear them.  So I think Commissioner Barrett was in fact on the line, and is somewhat frustrated by his inability to be heard.
		Secondly, these panels, the members of the Subcommittee worked very hard to bring these panels together, and kudos to them, because they really did bring together a tremendous set of experts.  Particularly hats off to David, who worked very hard, to pull the first panel together.  Thank you.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Thank you.  I have to just echo and compliment, because as I was walking through the halls today, I kept hearing about the day that you all had with respect to how it was broken up and the level of participation.  So we’re anxiously awaiting those written, codified recommendations, that we can incorporate into what we’re going to present to the FCC.  It was obvious to me that the FCC’s interested in them, too.  
		So, thank you again Commissioner and Frank.  I apologize for not understanding how the presentations were to occur.  Any questions of the Commissioner or Frank or Ginger?  No?  Seeing none, then we will go into the public comment and closing remarks.  Any general comments or questions?
		We may finish right on time.  Is that a -- Mr. Honig?
		MR. HONIG:  No.  After the public speaks, I had another matter to raise.  But --
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Okay.  Any public comments?  Seeing none.  Committee member?
		MR. HONIG:  Madam Chair, is it -- did I misunderstand that the other members on the phone can listen, but they can’t speak and be heard?
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  No, they could actually -- they could speak.  But the last time around, when we did the workshop when it was being streamed over the Internet, it wasn’t possible that day.
		SPEAKER:  I don’t think that’s right.  I think that even this time --
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  No.
		MR. LEE:  Julia?
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Roscoe and everybody else?
		MR. LEE:  Hello?
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Oh, there he is.
		SPEAKER:  Oh, they’re here.  Okay.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  All right.
		MR. LEE:  Julia?
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Uh-huh?
		MR. LEE:  This is Richard Lee.  I’ve been listening, and Commissioner Barrett was on, but he couldn’t get through.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  He couldn’t get -- ahh, okay.
		MS. TYLER:  And it’s Lauren Tyler.  I’m not quite sure you were able to hear me either.  I think a couple of people tried to break in at different points, but it was -- we could hear fine, but it was difficult to break in.
		MR. LEE:  Right.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Okay, thank you.  
		MR. LEE:  Just let me add that the presentations from last Tuesday’s Financial Subcommittee will be on the website tomorrow, and we’ve gotten tapes of those presentations, one for each subcommittee.  
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Excellent.  Thank you very much.  Any others on the call with any comments?
		MS. JOHNSON:  Julia, I did have a question.  Will we have access to the presentations given in the room today, on the web as well?
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Yes.  Is that Marva?
		MS. JOHNSON:  Yes.  
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Yes, we will.
		MS. JOHNSON:  Okay, thank you.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Any others?  Any other questions from our telephonic audience?  David?
		MR. HONIG:  Since the members on the phone are able to hear, then I think it is appropriate to go forward with this.  I’m going to circulate a draft and very short resolution on a matter that is somewhat time-sensitive.  It really -- it relates to the distress sale policy, which falls closest to the ambit of the Financial Issues Subcommittee, because it is in fact one of the models for the type of incentive-based programs that the committee is considering.
		This is a policy that’s been in effect since 1978.  It really came out of the first committee like this, that was empanelled in 1977, as most of us know, by Chairman Wiley.  The policy was adopted in ‘78 under the Ferris administration.  It was defended successfully in the Supreme Court by the Commission in 1990 in Metro Broadcasting, where the Commission contended that it satisfied strict scrutiny.  The Court approved it under a lesser standard, and it has not been constitutionally challenged since.
		It is like that, although not for constitutional reasons, the policy may be under review by the Commission at some time in the reasonably near future.  So what I’m trying to is craft a resolution that does not address some of the constitutional or operational aspects of the policy, but rather speaks to it in the sense that we as members of the Commission’s constituency, who stand on the mountaintop and look out over the entire valley of this issue, might want to address it globally.
		Therefore, it is drafted as a sense of the committee resolution, that this is an important policy, that we’ll need to have a variety of initiatives to promote minority ownership, of which this would be one, and that the Commission should preserve and if possible expand upon the distress sale policy.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Okay, thank you.  And I support -- David and I have had an opportunity to talk about this, and he’s actually brought me, as well as many of the members, both on the phone and in the room, up to speed on the issues.  
		For those of us who are generally not as familiar with the industry, the individuals that it does impact.  What we need to determine is whether or not we are prepared to vote this out today.  We have quite a few people in the room today, and I’m not certain as to the quorum.  It would be wonderful if we could, because I’m understanding that he’s saying it is time-sensitive.
		There are members on the phone.  Could we ‑‑ is this something that could logistically be done today?  Or, and you may have to help us, Jane on that, because if it can, that would be wonderful, at least for discussion.  
		MR. WALLAU:  I have two questions.  A, what’s the time sensitivity, and B, this isn’t my business.  I’m not a lawyer; I run a television network.  I would not pass the test on what a distress sale policy is.  So to be asked to vote on it without having anything, any discussion of it, I just -- I find, if the majority wants to do it, the majority rules.  I don’t think it’s the right way to sort of ‑‑ for this committee to set policy.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  It might be.
		SPEAKER:  I think generally there is a question, in my mind, about the process by which resolutions are voted upon, since, you know, my subcommittee had some and we decided not to put them forward today because we weren’t sure of the exact procedure for bringing them forward.
		MS. MAGO:  I think the procedure really should be to put paper before the committee, in a way that you can be able to evaluate it, have a discussion, and then have a vote of that.  What I’m sensing here is that perhaps folks are not ready to think about this one on a quick basis, but there may be an alternative.
		MR. HONIG:  What is the procedure with respect to quorums?  Are there rules that govern --
		MS. MAGO:  There is no specific rule on quorum.
		MR. HONIG:  Let me make this suggestion, and maybe you can take it as an amendment to the motion.  Even though there is no specific rule on quorum, it would still be wise if we had a quorum.  At the same time, because many of us live in various places around the country, and apparently there are some members that are not fully familiar with the policy.  
		Perhaps we could decide today, informally, that within the next two weeks, I’ll volunteer to send a more elaborate discussion of it around, be available to answer questions, with the idea that then, at a certain time, members might be able to fax or e-mail in their votes to a central source, and that would constitute the vote of the committee, as soon as we have a quorum that votes.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Let’s see if that -- can that process work through Jane?
		SPEAKER:  Well, I think someone asked, what is the time-sensitive, what is the timeframe that we’re talking about?
		MS. MAGO:  I don’t think there is a specific timeframe.  I mean, there’s a -- what David referred to is there is a proceeding that there’s been a motion in, that’s here at the Commission.  Right?
		MR. HONIG:  That’s right.
		MS. MAGO:  And that’s an adjudicatory proceeding, and I don’t want to talk about the merits of that, because I think it would be inappropriate for us to do that.  This is on the broadest scale.  There is not a deadline.  
		But I think that the proposal that David makes, that he circulate more information to the members, and perhaps we can try to set up a dialogue through, you know, through electronic means, we are the Federal Communications Commission, to see if we can figure out how to have a conversation among the members, that then could precipitate a vote, and we can figure out how to precisely accommodate that.  
		But I think it requires that there be some opportunity for discussion among the members, not just a one-way street.  Here’s your information, go ahead and vote.  I think that has to be that kind of discussion.  
		I will also say that when the committee deliberates, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act there is a requirement that this be public, so there would be -- you know, the back and forth exchange on this would have to be something that would be a matter of public record.  We could put it on the website or something like that.  It’s a little bit cumbersome to try to figure out how to do this.
		SPEAKER:  Are we under the impression that it would be -- our next meeting would be too late to act on the resolution, in terms of (inaudible) at the Commission?
		MS. MAGO:  I’m not sure of that --
		MR. HONIG:  It probably would be too late to do that.  But this may be a healthy development, though, if we’re able to have a dialogue.  Everyone hits “reply all” and the results are made available in the file for public inspection.  You can simply say where it is, where to go.  That’s a healthy thing, and it allows us to do our work as these whatever matter it is comes up in the interim between when we meet.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Well, Jane has committed to kind of work through the logistics and see if we can come up with -- and ensure that we can come up with a process that works, and that is efficient and effective, and also meets all of the rules and regs that we need to --
		MS. MAGO:  Yes.  We have to make sure we touch all our FACA bases.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Right.
		MR. TEMPLE:  Jane, I just had sort of a -- I don’t want to get too legal eagle here, but you said, I mean, to the extent that there’s an adjudicatory proceeding here, if we pass a resolution -- I’m trying to think.  If we pass a resolution on an issue that is a key issue in an adjudicatory proceeding, I’m assuming; I don’t know, is that -- does the committee run the risk of somehow getting embroiled in this adjudicatory --
		I don’t think that we want to become involved in this adjudicatory proceeding.  But I guess ‑‑ I just want to make sure that we’re not inadvertently becoming involved in a matter here that we should be observing, but not necessarily --
		MS. MAGO:  The committee, on a very broad level.  I mean, what you’re being asked to do is not to involve yourself in the specific details of any case, and that’s why we’re not getting into any of that.  
		But if it becomes the sense of the committee that you want to make a comment to the agency, advice to the agency, that we, I think, what David says, preserve and, if possible, expand the policy, that is a type of general information, general advice that I think is beyond ‑‑ you know, it’s not one proceeding-specific.  His comment on the proceeding is the matter of timing, right?
		MR. HONIG:  Yes.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Okay.
		MR. WALLAU:  I personally am totally open to the idea of endorsing something, if that’s the proper role of the committee.  But in terms of the process, as Riley spoke to, it seems that -- David, I’m sure you’re totally familiar with this, and there’s no doubt in your mind, and you’re fully conversant with all aspects of it, and you see it to be something that you’re recommending that the committee recommend.
		I would love to see us -- I think our responsibility at the committee is do some form of outreach, to try to identify some voices who would speak to this in a way that would inform us better about the possible -- I mean, some views on this, even if they’re negative views, so we could understand if there have been any unintended consequences of the role on our committee, which has a very specific transactional transparency goal, that that’s something that we all endorse, you know, absolutely as a positive thing in concept.  
		The issue is, whether by putting certain requirements on transactions, you create disincentives to the industry and end up doing harm to the overall industry while you were trying to do good, and you end up messing things up.  I have no idea.  
		You know, this sounds benign.  But I just don’t know enough, and I would think that you need to do something beyond even David’s position on it.  I’d look just to hear, try to do some kind of outreach as a part of what we do as a committee, to just kind of identify points of view outside of this room, that might help us make a more informed decision.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Okay.  David, we’re going to take a couple of more comments, and Jane’s taking note as to how we come up with a process that will work, to educate everyone.
		MS. MAGO:  Yes.  The purpose of this is to have an open discussion, where you can have the robust views, and the process, as we will figure it out, will accommodate that, and we’ll try to figure out how we can get that done.
		MR. HONIG:  If I can respond.  I don’t want to identify or talk about, and the resolution, I think, tries not to address the particular adjudication.  There may be other ones.  
		In fact, honestly I don’t know of anyone that has articulated in any proceeding, including that particular one, an objection to the policy.  But it certainly would be constructive if someone knows of someone who has some objection or some concern, to let the committee members hear from that person or present that person or entity’s position.
		As it happens, the parties in the particular case have waived ex parte and both support the policy and MMTC, point of information only, has filed an amicus.  That’s the procedural status. 
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Okay.  Any final comments.
		MR. WALLAU:  I have to go to law school if I’m going to continue coming here.
		(Laughter)
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  Commissioner?
		COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN:  I think that there were originally about seven initiatives that the Commission had adopted, to promote minority ownership.  I think they’re all gone now, except this one, and I think that’s why David suggested that it was the role of this committee, as the Diversity Committee in the Digital Age, to speak to this policy.
		I’m sure, Madam Chairman, that’s one of the reasons that you decided to support this resolution.  I support it also, and I certainly have no qualms about developing a process.  We need to do that Riley, and I think Alex is certainly within his rights and probably obligations to ask to be more informed.
		But I was just trying to give just a little historical perspective, in terms of what this is all about, and what I think David is trying to accomplish here.
		CHAIR JOHNSON:  I think when we develop the process and people receive a more comprehensive background from David, the white papers, you’ll see that it is pretty benign, but yet it’s very powerful with respect to providing opportunities.  
		But we do need to have a process, so that everyone feels comfortable when they’re voting, and Jane has committed to working with the committee.  We’ve heard the comments to get views of those that understand the area, so that you can have a rich document.  
		If you have any questions, I’m certain between Jane and David and others, we’ll try to entertain those, address this as quickly as possible.  If we can do it between the meetings, and as soon as possible we will.  If not, we know the latest would be May, I guess, because we’d have a full committee meeting for discussion, debate and dialogue.  
		I’m hopeful we can come up with a process that could move a little more expeditiously.  Okay.  Any other comments?  Seeing none from the public, then this meeting is adjourned.  Thank you all.
		(Whereupon, the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age was adjourned.)

NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433	WASHINGTON, D.C.  20005-3701	www.nealrgross.com