HomeMy WebLinkAbout19950809Decision Memo.doc DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER NELSON
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
MYRNA WALTERS
TONYA CLARK
STEPHANIE MILLER
DAVE SCHUNKE
WELDON STUTZMAN
JOE CUSICK
BEVERLY BARKER
EILEEN BENNER
GARY RICHARDSON
WORKING FILE
FROM: DON HOWELL
DATE: AUGUST 9, 1995
RE: FORMAL PETITION TO REOPEN TROY BUSINESS OFFICE,
CASE NO. TRO-T-95-1
On May 18, 1995, the Commission received a Petition signed by approximately 300 people requesting that the Troy Telephone business office located in Troy, Idaho be reopened. The Petition stated that it is very inconvenient for quick response for maintenance men, the inconvenience for new telephone services, on a less personal level and losing another business on main street. In a decision memo dated July 18, 1995, the Staff investigated the Petition and made a report to the Commission. The previous decision memo noted that Troy Telephone (owned by TDS Telecom) notified the Commission in January 1995 that it intended to close its Troy office. TDS consolidated its business office functions at its Kendrick office, approximately 12 miles from Troy. The Kendrick office is open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Troy Telephone also maintains a drop-off at its old office and established a payment agent at the Key Bank in Troy. In addition, the Company also has contracted with Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance Company in Troy to exchange telephone sets when necessary.
The Staffs previous memo also examined the number of consumer complaints lodged against Troy Telephone since January 1, 1995. Since the first of the year, there have been six complaints filed against Troy Telephone, all of them relating to requests for extended area service. The Staffs survey of other small local exchange companies in the state revealed that none of the companies currently have more than one business office location in Idaho.
At the July 20, 1995 decision meeting, the Commission indicated it was inclined to deny the Petition. Because I was scheduled to be in Moscow the following week, the Commission suggested that I meet with the Petitioners in an attempt to resolve the informal complaint.
THE TROY MEETING
On July 26, 1995, I met with five of the Petitioners in Troy. Troy Telephone manager, Doug Paynter, and the resident maintenance technician were also present. The attendees did not voice any complaints about the quality of service or about the availability of payment agents (although some did not like Key Bank). During the meeting, Doug Paynter indicated that Troy Telephone does have a repair technician residing in Troy and anticipates stationing such an employee in Troy in the future. The Company can also dispatch three other technicians from the Kendrick office.
Mr. Paynter indicated that no jobs were eliminated but merely transferred to the Kendrick office. Although there may not be a savings in personnel costs, he indicated the Companys desire to lease the Troy office to two business occupants and rent out a third space as an apartment. Until the Petition is resolved, the Company cannot move forward with its plans to lease the former Troy office. The petitioners generally indicated that the Company should have an office in Troy since Troy was a growing community. In particular, there are two subdivisions currently being planned for approximately 40 and 75 lots each.
I advised the group that the Commission had informally denied their Complaint but they were entitled to seek a formal response to their Petition. The participants indicated they desired to seek a formal ruling from the Commission.
PROCEDURES
The Commissions Rules of Procedure encourage the use of informal proceedings to settle or determine cases. Pursuant to Rule 22, the Staff has processed the Petition on an informal basis by collecting information and presenting it to the Commission. The Commissions Rules further provide that any person participating in an informal proceeding must be given an opportunity for a subsequent formal proceeding before the Commission. See Rule 23, IDAPA 31.01.01.023. Formal proceedings may be conducted by hearing or modified procedure. Based on Staffs review of the Petition, it recommends that the Commission consider this Petition formally under modified procedure.
COMMISSION DECISION
How does the Commission wish to process this formal proceeding: modified procedure or convene a hearing. If a hearing is used, does the Commission wish to meet formally, send a single Commissioner, or appoint a hearing officer?
Donald L. Howell, II
JR\M-TROY.DH
DECISION MEMORANDUM -1-