FCC Board of Trustees extends president's contract
Cheek's presidency at Frederick Community College was extended for four years, from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2029.
Prior to voting on Cheek's employment, the Board of Trustees called for a closed session, under the Maryland Open Meetings Act, to discuss the terms of Cheek's contract.
The board then returned to public session to approve the extension of Cheek's contract and to ratify her amended employment agreement, respectively.
Both items were approved unanimously.
'I feel like I have a pretty extraordinary team,' Cheek told the board following their vote. 'I cannot do anything without the right people in the right seats.'
Cheek began her tenure as president of FCC in July 2022. She was selected as the college's 11th president in February 2022 after a six-month national search process.
Prior to becoming president of FCC, Cheek served as president of St. Cloud Technical & Community College in Minnesota from 2018 to 2022 and previously held administrative positions at Sinclair Community College in Ohio for 12 years.
'I enjoy the people that I work with,' Cheek said at the conclusion of the Board of Trustees' meeting on Wednesday. 'I look forward to leading and learning with them.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
a day ago
- Atlantic
Welcome to the Mafia Presidency
Theoretically, it's illegal for the president to accept or solicit bribes. The plain language of the statute is perfectly clear: It is a crime for a public official to seek or receive 'anything of value' in return for 'being influenced in the performance of any official ac t.' The prohibition applies whether the public official seeks or receives the bribe personally or on behalf of 'any other person or entity.' As I said: theoretically. On Tuesday, the media-and-entertainment conglomerate Paramount announced a $16 million payment to President Donald Trump's future presidential library. The payment settled a lawsuit that Trump had filed against the Paramount-owned broadcaster CBS because he was unhappy with the way the network had edited an election-season interview with then–Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump's lawsuit was about as meritless as a lawsuit can be, for reasons I'll explain shortly. If CBS were a freestanding news organization, it would have fought the case and won. But like the Disney-owned network ABC, which also paid off Trump for an almost equally frivolous lawsuit, CBS belongs to a parent corporation with regulatory business before Trump-appointed agencies. Paramount is pursuing an $8 billion merger that requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission. In November 2024, then-incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr warned that merger approval would depend on satisfying Trump's claims against CBS. Carr told the Fox News interviewer Dana Perino, 'I'm pretty confident that that news-distortion complaint over the 60 Minutes transcript is something that is likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of that transaction.' 'News-distortion complaint?' What's that? Nearly a century ago, in 1927, Congress empowered a new Federal Radio Commission to police the accuracy of news broadcasts. In the preceding decades, the airwaves had become a chaos of transmissions interfering with one another. The right to use any particular frequency was a valuable concession from the federal government, the owner on the public's behalf of the nation's airwaves. Congress felt that it could impose conditions in return for such concessions. One condition was a duty to meet public-interest standards in broadcast content, which included giving equal time to opposing political candidates in an election. In 1934, the Federal Radio Commission evolved into the Federal Communications Commission. As television technology spread, so did the FCC's ambition to police the new medium, resulting in 1949 with its power to compel the fairness doctrine on ' all discussion of issues of importance to the public.' The fact that opinions can differ about what counts as 'accuracy' and what counts as 'distortion' rapidly became obvious. Government efforts to police the boundary between fair reporting and unfair scurrility create conflicts with First Amendment rights. For print media, the courts have been very clear: Editing, even arguably unfair editing, is protected free speech, subject only to the laws of defamation. In the 1960s and '70s, the FCC groped its way toward a similar rule for broadcast media. Interestingly, some of the crucial milestones involved CBS News. In the early days of color television, CBS News pioneered the use of aggressive editing to tell powerful stories in dramatic ways. In 1971, for example, CBS broadcast a documentary, The Selling of the Pentagon, that accused the Department of Defense of manipulating public opinion. To amplify the argument, the producers cut and reassembled questions and answers. Some of the affected individuals filed complaints against CBS, and the matter was taken up by members of Congress. Yet the FCC declined to get involved in the case on free-speech grounds. Before the end of the first Nixon administration, the FCC had generated a series of precedents that more or less nullified the agency's Calvin Coolidge–era status as a monitor of broadcast accuracy and a potential censor. The whole issue soon became moot, because the FCC had no jurisdiction over cable television or the internet. As Americans drew more of their information from sources outside the FCC's domain, the very idea of content regulation by the agency came to seem absurd to all parties, including the FCC itself. Who would think of invoking a doctrine that originated in 1927 to police speech in the 21st century? Then came Trump and the loyalty-above-law appointees of his second term. Evident from the Trump legal filing against CBS is that not even the president's own lawyers took his complaint seriously. Three whopping clues give away the game about the filing's farcicality. The first is where the lawsuit was brought: the Amarillo division of the U.S. district court for the northern district of Texas. CBS is not domiciled in Amarillo. Neither is Trump or Harris or any person significantly connected with the 60 Minutes segment. What is located in Amarillo is America's premier pick for right-wing forum-shopping, a practice criticized not only by liberal counterparties but also, at least implicitly, by The Wall Street Journal and National Review. Amarillo is the court where a partisan-conservative plaintiff goes with a case that would be summarily thrown out elsewhere. The next clue is the language of the filing, which reads like direct dictation from the president: As President Trump stated, and as made crystal clear in the video he referenced and attached, 'A giant Fake News Scam by 60 Minutes & CBS. Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better. A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE. Election interference. She is a Moron, and the Fake News Media wants to hide that fact. AN UNPRECEDENTED SCANDAL!!! The Dems got them to do this and should be forced to concede the election? WOW!' See President Donald J. Trump, TRUTH SOCIAL (Oct. 10, 2024). And so on, through 65 paragraphs of irrelevant name-calling and Trump-quoting obsequiousness. The final clue lies in the carelessness of the complaint's quoted sources, two of which actually argue against the Trump claim. A cited law-review article concluded that 'the reinvented news distortion doctrine would undermine the very democratic norms marshaled in its defense.' Similarly, an FCC decision referenced found against taking action (in another case involving CBS)—explicitly on free-speech grounds: 'In this democracy, no government agency can authenticate the news, or should try to do so.' One has to wonder whether Trump's lawyers even read the texts they cited. The complaint's flimsy legal basis—including Trump's claim of standing under a Texas consumer-protection law—indicates its pure-nuisance quality. And yet, Paramount paid $16 million to settle a case that it could almost certainly have won for a fraction of the price. U.S. law forbids both accepting a bribe and soliciting a bribe, yet they're not exactly the same offense. There is an important difference between a police officer who takes money to let a criminal escape and a police officer who uses the threat of arrest to extort money from an innocent citizen. Paramount did not come up with the idea to pay Trump $16 million; Trump decided to squeeze Paramount for the money. What's going on here is extortion—and it does not get any less extortionate for being laundered through Trump's hypothetical future library. A systematic pattern has emerged: shakedowns of law firms, business corporations, and media companies for the enrichment of Trump, his family, and his political allies. Every time targets yield, they create an incentive for Trump to repeat the shakedown on another victim.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Elizabeth Warren Calls for Bribery Investigation Into Paramount-Trump Settlement as Blowback Widens
Wednesday morning brought blowback to the settlement between Paramount Global and President Trump from Democratic lawmakers and regulators. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said that she is demanding an investigation into the settlement, and said that she 'will soon introduce new legislation to rein in corruption through presidential library donations.' More from The Hollywood Reporter Inside CBS News, Staffers Voice Disgust, Anger, Relief and Anxiety After Trump Settlement Paramount and Trump in "Advanced" Settlement Talks As Merger Deadline Nears "BET Is Not Immune" From Paramount Job Cuts, CEO Scott Mills Says in Unveiling "Streamlining" 'With Paramount folding to Donald Trump at the same time the company needs his administration's approval for its billion-dollar merger, this could be bribery in plain sight,' Warren said in a statement. 'Paramount has refused to provide answers to a congressional inquiry, so I'm calling for a full investigation into whether or not any anti-bribery laws were broken.' In addition, Democratic FCC commissioner Anna Gomez released a statement requesting that the broadcast regulator, chaired by Brendan Carr, bring the pending Paramount-Skydance transaction to a full-commission vote. 'This moment marks a dangerous precedent for the First Amendment, and it should alarm anyone who values a free and independent press,' Gomez said. 'Approving this transaction behind closed doors would be a shameful outcome that denies the American people the transparency and accountability they deserve, especially when press freedom is at stake.' The settlement between Paramount and Trump will see the media giant pay $16 million ($15 million to a future presidential library and $1 million in legal fees), but it will not include an apology. That said, the settlement does require that 60 Minutes release any future transcripts with presidential candidates. Paramount had said previously that 'this lawsuit is completely separate from, and unrelated to, the Skydance transaction and the FCC approval process. We will abide by the legal process to defend our case.' Still, the pending license transfer at the FCC has raised alarm bells, with Democratic members of Congress and outside groups suggesting that if the FCC approves the deal after a settlement, Paramount executives could be exposed to anti-bribery laws. The Paramount settlement is similar in scale to a settlement from Disney over an ABC News broadcast. Inside CBS News, staffers expressed anxiety and relief at the settlement, angry at the precedent it sets, but relieved that they can move on without it hanging over their work. Best of The Hollywood Reporter How the Warner Brothers Got Their Film Business Started Meet the World Builders: Hollywood's Top Physical Production Executives of 2023 Men in Blazers, Hollywood's Favorite Soccer Podcast, Aims for a Global Empire
Fox News
3 days ago
- Fox News
Dominating 'space economy' a key priority for Trump's FCC chief
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Brendan Carr, delivered his first major speech in his new role with the Trump administration, announcing six priorities he plans to focus on during his tenure, including pushing the United States to dominate the "space economy." "Continuing to move vertically from the ground to the airwaves. Next up is space," Carr said during a speech in South Dakota Wednesday afternoon. "The Build America agenda will expand America's space economy. The Final Frontier is home to an emerging constellation of satellites that have become an essential part of America's economic and geopolitical strategy. So I want to see U.S. companies dominate in orbit. "Our efforts on this front will be driven by a few key guiding principles: speed, simplicity, security and satellite spectrum abundance," Carr continued. Carr served as an FCC commissioner since 2017, before Trump tapped him to serve as the agency's chair as of Trump's inauguration in January. Carr traveled to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on Wednesday to deliver his speech at the headquarters of a telecommunications infrastructure construction company called VIKOR. The speech was dubbed the "Build America Agenda" and outlined six priorities the Federal Communications Commission will tackle under Carr's leadership. On the topic of dominating the space economy, Carr said the FCC is already making progress. The FCC is "clearing backlogs of applications for satellite systems," he said. "And this type of acceleration is certainly needed. In fact, if you look back over the past couple of years, it actually took a faster amount of time for America's innovators and entrepreneurs to build and launch satellite constellations, than it would take for federal agencies in Washington to process the paperwork necessary to approve those launches. But that ends here." "The Build America agenda will inject rocket fuel into our licensing process by standardizing our reviews through more objective metrics, protecting America's orbital advantage for years to come," he said. Carr outlined that the other five priorities include: unleashing high-speed infrastructure builds, restoring America's leadership in wireless, cutting red tape and modernizing FCC operations, advancing national security and public safety and strengthening America's workforce. The FCC chief remarked that the FCC still has rules on the books related to the use of telegraphs and "rabbit ear broadcast TV receivers" and that his leadership will clear the agency of outdated guidance and focus on the future. "The FCC right now still has rules on the books regulating telegraph service, rabbit ear broadcast TV receivers and phone booths," he said. "Starting next month, that will change, and doing so in eliminating those outdated rules, the FCC will move directly to delete 40 rules or requirements, and over 7,000 words from the Code of Federal Regulations. A good step forward." Carr said that he and President Donald Trump are focused on keeping America as a tech leader, including broadening its 5G capabilities and beating China in the artificial intelligence race. "One of the very first actions that I took when I became chairman of the FCC was to establish a new council on National Security within the agency," he said. "Our Build Agenda will ensure that the U.S. extends its lead over China in the race for critical technologies. Whether it's 5G, 6G or AI, we're going to do so by making sure that U.S. businesses and the standards they set continue to be the gold standard for businesses all across the world."
