3. Protest
On October 20, 2011, the Greenlining Institute (Greenlining) filed a protest to the Application. In its protest, Greenlining states that it has insufficient information to form an opinion on the Applicants' assertion that the reorganization will not result in adverse consequences. Greenlining asserts that the proposed reorganization misses the opportunity for greater positive outcomes by failing to address the impact of the transfer on the Applicants' supplier diversity efforts and reporting structure in conformance with the Commission's General Order (GO) 156.12 Greenlining recommends that the Commission withhold approval of the transaction unless the Applicants more directly comport with GO 156.13
Greenlining admits that as a provider of cable, broadband and wireless service in California, the Applicants are not subject to the reporting requirements of GO 156.14 Greenlining argues that the California Legislature encourages cable and satellite providers to voluntarily adopt supplier diversity plans.15 Greenlining acknowledges that Applicants have a supplier diversity program through their parent company, Cox Communications, Inc. and that they are "on the right track and...committed to supplier diversity."16 However, Greenlining asserts, the Applicants differ from the GO 156 standards in a few critical ways largely centered on measurement and reporting.17
On October 31, 2011, Applicants filed a reply to the Greenlining protest. Applicants argue that there is no legal basis for the protest because, as Greenlining admits, GO 156 does not apply to the unregulated Cox entities.18 The Applicants argue that, after the reorganization, they will remain subsidiaries of CoxCom, LLC and Cox Communications, Inc. Applicants point out that the proposed transaction will not cause any change in their officers or operations; in their legal ownership or actual control nor in the Commission's regulatory oversight.19 The only change that will result from the reorganization is that Cox CA will become a direct parent of Cox.20
On February 21, 2012, the assigned Commissioner issued a Scoping Memo and Ruling denying the Greenlining protest finding that it was outside of the scope of the proceeding.21
12 Greenlining Protest at 1.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 2.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Reply to Protest at 1.
19 Id at 3.
20 Id.
21 The Commission nevertheless encourages Cox to develop a third-party certification process for their diverse suppliers, and to isolate its California-specific diverse procurement spend.
