FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987 Page: 3
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission Record
opportunity to address the Board on particular matters
of concern, and have done so on a number of
occasions. Some matters are reserved for closed executive
sessions at which the Board members may
discuss such matters as personnel actions and proprietary
rate and tariff information.38
The United Telephone System observes that the NECA
Board meets in public except when "commonly accepted"
circumstances warrant privacy.39 Southwestern Bell contends
that "to the extent possible" Board meetings should
be open to all members. However, in Southwestern's view
"some sensitive issues are appropriately addressed in
17. In response, the petitioner states, inter alia:
The "regional" (NECA Board) meetings are held
under the guise that it brings the Board closer to
the members. That is a sham and a hoax of monumental
proportions. Members of NECA who do
attend these regional meetings are denied attendance
at the real Board Meeting, which is "closed" because
of "sensitive" discussions.41
18. We are not persuaded that we should initiate a
rulemaking proceeding on this matter. As noted by UTS
and NECA, NECA's practice is to meet in public except
when circumstances require that Board meetings be
closed. Moreover, the petitioner has not demonstrated
that NECA's exchange carrier members are incapable of
addressing any of their concerns about the conduct of
NECA Board meetings. Even the Government in the
Sunshine Act, which Beehive suggests that we apply to
meetings of the NECA Board, provides that federal government
agencies may conduct closed meetings to consider
the kinds of sensitive matters that NECA represents
are considered in its closed meetings.42 In the absence of
more specific, substantiated allegations that inappropriate
matters are being considered in closed meetings,43 we
believe that a rulemaking proceeding is unnecessary. We
thus conclude that the petitioner's request should be
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
19. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to
sections 1, 4(i)-(j), 201(b), and 205(a) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, that the petitions for
rulemaking of the Beehive Telephone Company, Inc.
20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That this proceeding
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 C.F.R. 69.602(a)-(e).
2 See id. 69.602(f), (h). Our rules do not impose any other
requirements with respect to the manner in which the NECA
Directors' elections are conducted. See generally id. 69.602
3 Petition at 1-2.
4 ld. at 2-3.
5 On August 9, 1985, we requested comments on the Beehive
proposals (FCC Public Notice No. 6324). Comments were filed
by: ALLTEL Corporation ("ALLTEL"), Bell Atlantic, National
Telephone Cooperative Association and the Organization for
the Protection and Advancement of Small Telephone Companies
("NTCA/OPASTCO"), Southwestern Bell Telephone
Company ("Southwestern"), United Telephone System, Inc.
("United" or "UTS"), United States Telephone Association
("USTA"). Reply Comments were filed by A.W. Brothers and
the Beehive Telephone Co., Inc. ("Beehive").
6 Petition at 2-3.
7 Id. at 2.
10 Supplement at 2.
I Bell Atlantic Comments at 2; ALLTEL Comments at 2.
Accord NCTA/OPASTCO Comments at 2.
12 United Comments at 2.
13 Southwestern Comments at 1.
14 ALLTEL Comments at 1-2; NECA Comments at 1. Accord
Bell Atlantic Comments at 3.
'1 NECA Comments at 1. Accord ALLTEL Comments, Bell
Atlantic Comments, Southwestern Comments, United Comments,
16 Petition at 3.
17 Supplement at 2.
18 Id. at 2.
19 NECA Comments at 2.
21 United Comments at 2.
22 ALLTEL Comments at 2. Accord USTA Comments at 6.
23 Bell Atlantic Comments at 2.
24 Supplement at 2.
25 Supplement at 1.
26 NECA Comments at 2.
27 USTA Comments at 9.
28 See 47 C.F.R. 1.401(c) (1984).
29 Petition at 3, Supplement at 1.
30 NECA Comments at 3; USTA Comments at 3-4.
31 NECA Comments at 3. Accord Southwestern Bell Comments
32 USTA Comments at 11-12.
33 UTS Comments at 3.
34 According to its Reply Comments, Beehive did not intend
to suggest that the votes of individual exchange carriers be
made public. Beehive Reply Comments at 2. Several parties
nevertheless interpreted Beehive's petition, as amended, as requesting
that remedy. NECA, for example, stated "NECA does
not believe that providing company specific voting information
is proper. Since confidentiality is critical in the election process,
it would be inappropriate to release this information to an
individual member company." NECA Comments at 3.
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987, book, January 1987; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1597/m1/10/: accessed October 20, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.