950518.docx

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER NELSON
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
MYRNA WALTERS
TONYA CLARK
STEPHANIE MILLER
EILEEN BENNER
BELINDA ANDERSON
BEV BARKER
GARY RICHARDSON
WORKING FILE
FROM:DON HOWELL
DATE:MAY 18, 1995
RE:REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM PAY TELEPHONE RULE 213
On May 10 and again on May 16, 1995, the Chief Deputy of the Canyon County Prosecutor’s Office informally requested an exemption from Pay Telephone Rule 213 which generally requires local exchange companies to disconnect privately-owned pay telephone not in compliance with the Commission’s Pay Telephone Rules.  More specifically, Rule 213 provides for the immediate disconnection of pay telephones when a pay telephone vendor fails to correct a payphone violation once notified by the Staff.  The payphones in question are located in the Canyon County jail.  The Chief Civil Deputy for Canyon County and the Sheriff’s Office were concerned that immediate disconnection of 25 pay telephones might lead to acts of violence in the jail.  Accordingly, he requested that the Commission grant an exception from the enforcement provisions of Rule 213.
BACKGROUND
On April 6, 1995, Belinda Anderson inspected the privately-owned pay telephones located in the Canyon County jail as a result of a consumer complaint.  The complaint alleged that the 1-800 number posted on the phone “did not work” thereby preventing recipients of collect calls from the jail from obtaining rate quotes.  A test call made to the 1-800 number was answered by a voice mail system and the test inquiry by the Commission Staff was not returned.  Pay Telephone Rule 302 provides that each pay telephone located in an institution of confinement must display a toll-free telephone number so that the customers accepting collect calls from prisoners in the Canyon County jail may receive rate information upon request.  IDAPA 31.51.01.302(a).  In addition, the address and telephone number of the Commission and a statement of the Commission’s authority over consumer complaints was also missing.  IDAPA 31.51.01.302(b).
On April 20, 1995, the Staff informed the payphone vendor, correctional communications systems, that its payphones located in the Canyon County jail were not in compliance with Rule 302.  The Staff’s letter notified the vendor that it has “10 days to correct these rule violations or the phones at the Canyon County jail would be disconnected.”  
On May 9, 1995, Staff Analyst Belinda Anderson reinspected the phones at the jail and “found over 25 phones that had not been corrected for violations of [Rule] 302(b).  [Belinda was the 302.a violation corrected?  Belinda says they were never reinspected and she does not believe they were ever fixed.]  
The Commission has specifically adopted Pay Telephone Rule for payphones located in institutions of confinement.  “Institutions of confinement” are those portions of prisons, jails, hospitals, where inmates/patients are physically restrained from leaving the premises.  See Rule 300.01.  The Pay Telephone Rules for institutions of confinement are attached.  Rule 301 specifically adopts Pay Telephone Rule 213.  Rule 213 requires that the Commission Staff notify pay telephone vendors of rule violations.  Once notified, the vendors must remedy the rule violation and bring the telephone into compliance.  If the telephone is not brought into compliance, then the Staff notifies the local exchange company that service to the pay telephone should be terminated.
In this particular case, the payphone violations were not cured and the vendor was notified of the continuing violation on May 10, 1995.
EXEMPTION REQUEST
As previously mentioned, the Canyon County Prosecutor’s Office and the jail have requested that the pay telephones not be disconnected.  The county officials fear that disconnection could lead to acts of civil disruption and threatens the safety of Staff and inmates alike.  Pay Telephone Rule 3 provides that any pay telephone customer “may informally request an exemption from any provision of these rules for a specific person or persons.”  The payphone vendor had indicated that he would promptly label the phones and fix two broken phones.  The Chief Civil Deputy has also advised the Staff that the County is exercising its option to terminate its contract with the payphone vendor upon 60 days’ notice.  Granting the exemption from Pay Telephone Rule 213 will provide the County with sufficient time to change its payphone vendor under the County’s competitive bidding procedures.
Given the particular circumstances surrounding this exemption request, the Staff believes there is sufficient cause to warrant the granting of an exemption to Pay Telephone Rule 213.  Consequently, the Commission Staff recommends that this exemption be granted.
COMMISSION DECISION
Given the facts of this case, does the Commission desire to grant an exemption from its Pay Telephone Rule 213?
Don Howell
vld/M-exempt.dh