Prescott eNews

Today, on KYCA, Councilman Bob Luzius was the host for the PM Show, from 4 - 4:45. His guest was Chris Hoy, President of the Citizen's Water Advocacy Group (CWAG). And Luzius plans to return tomorrow, with John Danforth as his guest.

For years, the PM Show has been hosted by former Councilman Steve Blair, but recently, Blair was asked to step aside from the microphone, since he is running once again for a City Council seat.

But, wait! Isn't Councilman Bob Luzius also running for reelection? Why does he get to be on the air, but not Blair?

Well, Luzius filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission, alleging that having Blair on the air gave him an unfair advantage in the election, and he wanted equal time.

Luzius explains his reasoning like this:

But, Luzius wasn't the only candidate to file a complaint against Blair's on-air time. Michael Allen Peters, a former judge in Texas, and running for Prescott City Council for the first time, also filed a complaint with the FCC. Peters explains why:

Blair was asked about the situation, and why he remained on the air. According to Blair, he was following the guidance given to him by the KYCA station management.

This has created quite a hullaballoo, with all kinds of accusations being tossed here and there, even to the point of calling Blair a law-breaker and more; as was was left in the comments sections of the article, Steve Blair to Suspend Radio Show Temporarily. One comment read, "...he is being required to do so by the FCC because he and the radio station have been in violation of federal law! This is a law that both he and the station knew was in effect here (witness his show's suspension during the last campaign) and therefore he has willingly broken the law, which in my reading would make his actions criminal."

So, how big of an issue is this, and should Blair be getting ready for jail bars and handcuffs? Is he really a criminal, or just someone caught up in a misunderstanding? Who is responsible here for this mess?

We contacted the FCC to find out for ourselves. Here's the emailed response from Mark Berlin, of the Policy Division in the Media Bureau:

There is no violation of the law when a candidate for public office who is also an on-air personality stays on the air - but there are repercussions for the station. Regardless of the content of what he says (his exposure on the air is what counts), the opponents would be entitled to equal opportunities. That means an equal amount of time in a similar time slot at no greater cost than the first candidate had. So if the first candidate wasn't paying at all, the opponents would get free time. If the first candidate paid for his time, the opponents would need to pay. There are exceptions to this equal time rule, but they would not apply to an on-air employee in the course of his on-air employment. I might add that voice-overs on commercials count as well - if the candidate's voice is identifiable to the average listener. That means that he identifies himself on the air or his voice is so readily identifiable by a listener that people know who it is.

Although opponents are entitled to equal time, they must request it. Stations are not required to tell opponents of their rights, but candidate air time is supposed to be recorded in the station's political file, and members of the public therefore have constructive notice of the candidate's appearances. Opponents must request equal time within 7 calendar days. Thus, if Candidate A was on every day for the past month, but the opponent doesn't ask for equal time until today, he is only entitled to equal time 7 days back. By waiting so long, he forfeited his right to equal time earlier than that.

Usually a station will take its on-air personality who is a candidate off the air for the duration of his candidacy. Here the station chose to keep him on (based on an incorrect conclusion that the content of his appearances was significant). So now it's stuck with the equal time it owes opponents who requested time. But usually the opponent doesn't end up getting precisely equal time. Let's say that Mr. Blair has a 2-hour show. You take away music, ads not with his voice, news not with his voice, and discussions in which he is not involved. Let's say that you end up with 48 minutes that he's on the air. That means that the opponent is entitled to 48 minutes straight in a similar afternoon period to air what he wants. But most opponents wouldn't know what to talk about for 48 minutes at one time, and the station certainly doesn't want the candidate on for 48 minutes in one stretch, because all of the listeners would switch station. So the station and opponent usually enter into an agreement. Instead of the 48 minutes in one stretch, the opponent will get a lesser amount of time spread out throughout the day, such as 20 one-minute spots. If the station and opponent are OK with it, so is the FCC. If they can't come to an agreement, it's the 48 minutes straight. A station's failure to provide equal opportunities could result in fines. There are some times when equal time isn't possible, however. Let's say that Candidate A buys an ad to air the evening before the election. The opponent would be entitled to equal time, but he might not get his request in quick enough before the election is held. It would be absurd for him to have his equal time after the election, so he just loses out.

Just to highlight a couple of the points Berlin makes:

1. Steve is safe from handcuffs and jail bars - "There is no violation of the law when a candidate for public office who is also an on-air personality stays on the air..."

2. The opponents must request the equal time

3. The equal time must be requested within 7 calendar days

4. The station is not required to tell opponents of their rights

5. A station's failure to provide equal time could result in fines

By the way, write-in candidate Paul Katan also had some questions along this line, but he said he didn't file any complaints with the FCC. Instead, Katan said he wrote out his questions, sent them to Anna Wayman-Trujillo, the Yavapai County Recorder, who forwarded them on to Prescott City Attorney Gary Kidd, who is looking into the matter.

In the meantime, you can probably expect to hear more of Councilman Luzius and other candidates on KYCA at 4 pm in the next few weeks.