20100401Decision Memo.pdf

-',
DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KEMPTON
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER REDFORD
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
WORKING FILE
FROM:DANIEL KLEIN
DATE:APRIL 1,2010
RE:FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JOHN BREWSTER
On February 4,2010, the Commission received a "formal" complaint (attached) from
John Brewster against Verizon Nortwest, Incorporated. Mr. Brewster would like to be able to
use his own contractor to place facilities for his line extension.. Mr. Brewster was unsatisfied .
with the outcome of the informal procedures to resolve his complaint and has filed this formal
complaint.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Brewster is trying to obtain a line extension to his residence outside of Harison,
Idaho. The Complainant and the Company have agreed on a route and configuration for the line
extension. Mr. Brewster hired a contractor, Ditch Technologies, Inc., to trench and place conduit
for the line extension. Mr. Brewster has received several quotes from Verizon for the remaining
work that needs to be completed. The latest quote was for $38,133.78 (attached). Mr. Brewster
feels this amount is too high, and asked his contractor, Ditch Technologies, to submit a bid to do
the labor required for the job. Ditch Technologies submitted a bid of $5,037.50 for just the labor
and $14,387.50 for the total job including labor and materials (attched). Due to the large
discrepancy between the Company's bid and the contrctor's bid, Mr. Brewster would like his
contrctor to do the work.
Mr. Brewster filed an informal complaint with the Commission on December 18,2009, in
regard to his dispute with Verizon. Commission Staf contacted Verizon about allowing Mr.
Brewster to use his contractor to place facilties and complete the line extension work. Verizon
DECISION MEMORANDUM - 1 -APRIL 1,2010
,
,
restated its position that it does not allow private paries to place distribution cables as there is a
binding contract with its single source provider as well as a labor contrct to tae into
consideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Mr. Brewster was not satisfied with the outcome of the informal complaint.
Consequently, he fied a formal complaint. See Rules 23, 25 and 54, IDAPA 31.01.01.023, .024
and .054. Staff recommends tht the Commission issue a summons to Verizon Northwest,
Incorporated and direct the Company to fie a response to the complaint.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to accept Mr. Brewster's formal complaint? Does the
Commission wish to issue a Summons to Verizon?
Q~~
Daniel Klein
udmemoslBrewster complaint dec memo
DECISION MEMORANDUM - 2-APRIL 1,2010
BATI 'FISHE:R PUSCH &-.AÍDERMN LLP
Ccf/.. s foi: ge.;/ :
. . tJ-LIJfri'~íG-/
I
¡AïTORt.EYS",AI\D COU!'5ElORS ...j lA\V
John R. Hammond, Jr.EmaiL jrMùbattsher.com
Febru 3, 2010
Vi~i Hand Deliyery
. Re: -Requestfør Forma Complaint
.c ;£.
:: ~ ~.iJ'L:~ . ":--'. r-.~ ': rn~~ i: ("
tpê. \. ~l-.-- . ç- ",
~~\. ~. .~~
~;':'", S:.r.~ ...- ~ ~
oz
. J ean Jewell
Commssion Secreta
Idaho Public Utiities -CommisSion
472 W. 'Yashington,oP.O.Box 83-720
. BGise, Idao 83720-0074 .
Dear Jean:
Ou fu, B~tt Fisher PUSch &.A1derm LLP ha been retaied to' assistJohn Brewst
, of Harson, Idaho:in obtàig a line extëiision to Íi~ residence (the'''Project'') so th he can
receive telecommuncation servÍces from Verizon Nortwest, hicorporated. ('.-enon"). . _ -
'. Mr. Brewster and Verion disagree over a few matters which ha Stallea the completion of the.
. Project. On December i7~ 2009 our fi fùed an informal complait with the Commssion in
rêgÇld to these. disagreements. The"è~ommssiôn Staff.has'attempted totesolve ths matter but.
unç:rttely was uible to get pares to'compro~se at ths tie. Accordigly, our client,'
. respectfully request that mirfinIl' s letter of Deeember.I 7; 2009 bè processed for fuer .
p'roceedigs as a Formal Co~plait llder the Cmi.mìssion's Rules of Procedure. .
Please contat me l,f you have any q:uestions.
. Síncerely,
...;
. ..
JR:dm
Attchment 1
John Brewster Formal Complaint
Decision Memorandum
04/01110 Page I of5
T 208.331. ÒOO . F 208.331.2400 .. P.O.Box B08 Boise; id 83701 . Suite 500, us .!1ank Plaza 1Q1 S. Capito.i SIv.d. Boise, id 83i02- -
)~J'5
. s'(pI"
BATT FISHER PUSCH & ALDERMA L'LP
.' .-T-TORÑEYS':\ND COUNSELORS AT lAW
John R. Hammond, Jr.Email: jrh(ãbattfsher.com
Dec'ember 17, 20n9
ViàU.S. Mail
Jean Jewell
Coinission Secreta
Idaho ~Public Utilities Comrssion
472 W. Wáshington, P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-'0074 .
Re: . Informal Complaint.
..~S . ~-;-- 0-:::jS7J, .~~E. ("~.\..\. ..,~f).o cP
rJ~ ~
'0.2:. ..7:~?_ .-;
ft' ç-- ...C)
-;:~. ...
-: . .
rnoa.rt...~~..
~.~.~--
. Dear Jean:
. Our fij3.att Fisher Pusch & Alderan LLP has been reted to asist Joln Brewster
of Hatson, Idaho in obtaing aJine extenion to his residencè (the "Project") so thåthe èan
receive telecommuncation services from Veriorr Nortwest, Incorporåted ("Verizon").' .
Mr. Brewstér and Verion disagree over a few matters whiçh has staled the. completion of the
Project. Although Verzon is a Title 62 telecommurlÍcation c~er; Mr. Brewster asserts that the
Idahé Publi~ Utilities C'òlTissioD. Sta (the ~¿Sta') can review the disputes betweei; the pares
'puruant to the statutory authority grântêdto Idao Public Utilities Coinission (the
"Commssion") in'IdO;ho Code §§ 62-6Q4(3)(b), 62-616.& 61-538. See also IDAPA".
31.91.01.021. Mr. Brewster respectfully requests the Staff s ("~ta') assistace in resolving the
èlsp.utes he haS with Verzon so that .the Project can be completed The disputes iivolve the
aio~t ofVerizon's'cost estiate 'tò complete cert portons of work for the Project and
whether or-not Mr. Brewster can use the contractor of his choice to perform cert taks toward
the tomp1etion of the Project. . .. . . ,
. The line extension that is necessar to provide telecommuncation s'eice to
. Mi. arewster's residence is lengty (over 7,900 feet). . Due to the'iengt and the estimated costto
cnmplete the Proje~t, Verizon' s Price List would require Mr. Brewster to pay for all cósts afer
V-eon applies a Three Thousand and Noll 00 Dollar ($3,000.00) allowance.1 Mr. Brewster
. has aleady paid a requied, initial.egieering fee of Nine. Hundred and Noll 00 pollar
:($900.00) 'to Verizon. M;. Brewster als~ 'hired Ditch -Technologies, Inc., an. Idaho corpoi:ation.
. ("Ditch Technolo-gies") at his own cost to constrct a. trench aid place conduit for the lengt of. . . ..' . . .
l. Verion's P~ice List pro'vides th "te Company wil provide lie extensions up t~ $3;OOO.regardless ofthe'leIgt:
of the ~xtension. .The customer shl pay 100% of all costs over $3,OÒO. Pnce List, at Secon 4, òrgil Sheet 68.. .' - I. .
Attachment i
.John Brewster Formal Complaint
Decision Memoradum
04/0 ILL 0 Page 2 of 5
T 208.331.1000 . F 208.331.400 . P.O.Box 1308 Boise, Id 83701 . Sùite 500, US B-ank Plaza 101 S. CapitoLBlvd. Boise, Id 83702. .
I
Jea Jewell
December 17, 2009 .
Page 2 of4
. the Project? Copper wie ~tistbe ptilled thQugh'ths conduit f~r the Project so that yerizon's
system canconneèt to. Mr. Brewster's residence. Additionally,'due to the lengt òfthe lie ,
. extension, fifteen (15) pedestas' must be placed along the -lengt of the conduit an,l beatihed- .tò thè .in copper wire. " .. .
~\ .'
In two'separate letters' from YerizoIi, each dated Janua 9, 2009,.the Company prØvided
Mr. Brewster with two èifferentcost èstiatçs for the project. Ths corresondence has beeÍ
attached heieto as Exhibit A.. The fist Verzon estiate for the project anticipated it would
costTwentywSix Thousand Thle.Hundred Sevent-y';Ntìle 'and 77/100 Dollar (~26,379,T!)to.
pull 17 ,000 fe~t of copper wire in aD underground.conduit that h.d aleady-been placed by'Mr.
-. Brewster's contractor,_ Ditçh Téèhnolögies,.Inc. Additionally, Verion s-qted that pulling the..
. wie would also Include'the placement of load caSes, telephonic equipment and pedestal
'teriin~s to 'P~ovidç telephone service to Mr; Brewster's, residence.' Tle second'estiate'
projected. that it wou1d'cost Fort Eight Thousand Seven Hundrd Eighty-Six and 72(100 Dollars'
($48,,786.1-2) to plow 17,000'£00t of copper wie into the grund to establishteiephone serce..
Plowing wire into the grooodis not an option at tts location as there is nearly two.miles of rock
along ths' route that would have made using thš methqd- extremely cost prohibitive.. '. ',' .... , . , . .. .' I
, " Afer i~ceivig these es~t~s Chr~ Jasper of Ditch Technologies ~.óntactedRIiselI. .
JoyIer'ofthe Verzon.engirieerig offce and asked how niùch it would cost, includig thé.
. placement of load coils, to pul thecopper\Ve) ,900 feet .to. .the gate on.Mr.. Brewste: s propert: .
Mr..1oyiet ôta11y.reptesented to Me. Jasper that the cost estiate woUld be dose to Twelve.
. Thousand and No/I 00 Dollars ($12,000.00) rather than the higher estiàtes preViously. provided.
. Relyig on Mr. Joyner's oral estite and the cost savigS itwotidprovidè Mr. Brewster
4ecided to use ths the roughly Foureen Thousand àid No/lOO Dollars ($i4,00Q:.OO) difference .
to instal fiber opti~ cable in the conduit from the gate to his residence that would provide better
- ~ùice qualty for telecòmmunè¡itions serice andbejter video. quäity for the securty system on .his property. .' . .
, .
Afer much discussion~.the Pares 'agreed to change the route 'ofthe copper wire which
reduèed the lengt. to 7,900 feet. 'On May 28,2009, VerizoIi p,róvÍded another: estiate for the
còsts to compl~è the Project for the chaged route, :which has been atached hereto as Exhibit B. .
In ths estiinat~, VerQn proj ects' that it woùld cost Nineteen Thousand OIeHundred Seventeen
, and.851100Dollars ($19,111.85) to p~l1 copper wire 7,900 fèet.and.place fifteenpedesta .
terminals along its lengt, an amount much more tha:Mr. Joyner's oral repiesentatíon discussed. . - ,~ ". '-
2 Pursuant to Veri~n's Price List the conduit is liel~ th~ pr~per efMr. ikwster if ths i~e ~xt~DsioD is - ;
. . completed; See Secton 4, 0rgiSheet7 ("Where the Company detemieii tht imdeground conduit is to pe _
used for the Stice coriection, the applìcant/customer will provide tle condu and wi oWn anci ma~taRi athisler
. expen the conduit and undergiund support strctue.").. .' .
Attachment i
. . John Brewster Formal Complaint
Decision Memoradum
04/01110 Page30f5
~,l '.. .
\,
Jean Jewell
December ,17,2009
~age 3 of4
above. Verzon alsò 'estitedthat it would cost Three ThousaÌd Thee Hu:dred Th- Three .
. and 62/1 QO Dollar ($3,333,62) for splicing labor.~ The sum of Verizon's estite for complètig.
.the above matters is TwentY-Two Thousaid Four Hwdrd Fift-:One and 47/100pollars .($22;451.47)~' . . .
. Concered with the amount of this estiate; Mr. Brewster ~btai~ed from Ditch
Technolog¡és(Chrs Jasper). Ch Jaseris. à licensed Idaho contractor (RCE 28440) who hàs
performed'ths tye of work for Verizon and Qwest Corporation on many. occasions in the past.
Ditch Te.chno1ogies estimated the co~t to pull 7,900 feet òf copper wire .for the Projectwouldbe
, Thee, Thousand Nine llundred Fifty and No/l 00 Dollar ($3,950.0Q.). Additionay, 'Ditch ,.
'.Tec1mo10gies estiated'that it would cost Six Hundred Thrty-Sevei and 50/1 00 Dollar
($637.50) to place fifteen (15) pedesta terins and Four Hundrd Fift ard NQ/lOO,DoHars
: ($450.00) forall splicing labor. Ths bid ha.alsçi -been attèhed to. ths.coi;espondence as-
Exhibit c.. The dierence beteen Verizo's bid and Ditch TeCMQlogies'bid for the same .
matter is Seven~een Tho,uand FQur Hundred TIee and. 97/100 Dollars ($17,413 .97).. It is
UIclear at ths tie why VeIion~abid. for ths same work is so much higher ana attempts have.
b~eii made to obtai informtion to exlai ,ths difference. A1thòugh Verzon has always wiling'
to discuss ths matter, to date, ;M:Brewstèr ha. not been provided with a suitable explantion or
information toexplaf.ths difference.'.: ,. " '. -
_ OnAugust.20,2Q09, Verlon'provided àniipdated hid.forthè Project which ag~
changed the. projeCted èost. hi ths bid, attached hereto as Exhibit,D, Vemon estiàtes thát it
Willcost Twenty-FouiThousand Two Hundred Fift-Five ard2i/ioQ Delhirs ($24,255.21).to
pu118700feetof copper wir. VeIzon alo estimates that all work in relation to the pedestas
Will cost Two Thousand 'Eight Hundred Seventy- Thee and 5.6/1 00 Dollars. ($2,813 .5.6) and that.
splicing 'labor wi cost One Thousad Thee HUndred Fort-Four'and 75/1 00 Dol1ar ~ -
. .'($1,344. -- 5). The total projectd cost to còmplete these tasks as estimåted by Vemon is Twenty-
Eight Thousand FÇ)ur Hundred Seventy-Three'mid S2i100 DollaÍ ($28,473.52). The dierence
betwee this bid.and. that provìded by Ditch Technologies is Tweity- Thee Thousand Four
Hundred Thy-Six and. 02/1 00 Dollars ($23,436:02). ' . . .. "'.
_ _ '. _,_i;u~ to tl~, si~fi~~tAifferenceir tle bidsbètwee. Ditch T~chnol9gjes _~.y erz()n?
Mr. Brewster has requested thatVerion allow him to use Ditch Technologies to pull the copper'
wie and place the pedestais for ths lie extension. Verizon has inonnéd Mr.' Brewster that it
canot do ths claig tht'its Prce List prohibits ti¿. . Furer, Ve.rion has assèrèd that it is
concered about potential discriation issues.'ìfit allows Mr, Brewster to use his own - .
conttactor. After reVieWig Venzon's Price List Mr. Brewster does not believe that it woÚld
prevent the use of'Ditch:Technológies as thecoptractor who coulG contract directly with Verzon
to pull the copper Wi and place the necessiì. pedestiis.' .,. -" . -' '.
, .
Attchment 1
John Brewster Formal Complaint
Decision Memorandum
04/01/10 Page 4 of 5
.'
I
Jean Jewell . .
. Deember )7,2009'
Page4'of4
. I
.' Due. to the lengt óf ths line extension it i~ reasonable that 'th~ untial,conQitions pdrtion'
ofYerizon's line extension Price woulçl be applicable. Section 4, Origial Sheet 67of~e Pricelist.provides that: . . . .
(aJ depare from the rate and special.conditions 'specified in.ths schedule may
'be matie. on beha1f of the Company when a lie extension involves unusual ~r
disproportionately large constrction expendltus as comp-ared wit the usual
. tyes of plant con~trction:. . Such depare may require a specific ruling by the
Idaho Public Utilities Commssion. '.
Based on ths language, 'it appe~ &it Verizon's Price LIst provides foi'a iIeansofhad1ing'line .
'ext~nsions like the' one nècessar for Mr. Brewstér~s Project and would provide the Company .
'with flexlbilitY in how to complete such matters. . For example, employing ths langla.ge~
Verizon could receive gudÌmce.or authority from the Commission or gudance from the.Staff'
o that would ~iiòw itto contract with Ditch Techn.ologies to Complete a porton of ths Project. '
Such guidance or decision could help' to insú1ate Verizon from potential discriination Claims ii,the' futle. . '.. .
. .B~ed o~ the çontent ofVeii(lr'~ Pr~.Iist~ th~qu~ifcatioIis ~fDitchTechnologies,
the disparty between the bidsprovideçl by Yerzon 'andbitch Technologies, and the fact tht .
Ditch Technologies haS already placed the conduitfar ths line ext~ion, Mr. 'Brewster. 0
reSpectfuy-requests that Staf cIscuss with.the p'ares the possibility ofDitch'T~cbi0iogies
being allowed by Verizonto P€?rfQrm thetask$ identifed in that còmpany's bid discussed ,above
. for the Project, either contracting with him ordirectly with Verion, if neces~ar. .m the
altemative Mr. Brewster respectfly requests that th Sta revew .the bids. of both pares to 0 .
help determine an eqritàb1e çost estimte for the completion of the tasks identified herei.'. .
. '
0'
Sinerly,.~
Jo
'JR:dm
Enclosure
cc: John Brewster
Attchment I
John Brewster Formal Complaint. .
. Decision Memorandum
04/0 III 0 Page 5 of5
,
..
P2
9
Ø
:
P
l
E

L
O
A
D

C
A
E
/
R
E
P
E
T
E
R

H
O
U
S
I
N
G
.
i p
o
o
l
vB
l
.
l
l
d
75
4
7
B (
$
P
L
I

S
P
L
TH
I
S

U
N
I
T

C
C
I
!
R
S

T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R

P
l
,
¡.$
1
2.S
B
2.5
8
24
2
2
1
0
.
.
.
18
3
.
0
3
18
3
.
0
3
1"
.
0
3
P6
1
A
:
P
L
A
C
f

P
e
D
e
S
T
A
L
.

T
H
I
S

U
N
I
T

C
O
V
E
R
S
,
P
O
'
va
u
l
l
'
76
4
0
A (
f
i
L
A
)

P
L
A
TH
E

P
l
,
C
£
M
E
t
T

O
F

A
I

A
I
E

G
R
O
U
N
15
24
.
1
6
24
.
1
6
21
.
1
6
24
2
2
1
0
.
.
.
14
9
8
.
2
99
.
8
8
".
s
8
S0
2
A
:
S
T
A
G
H
T

S
P
U
C
I
I
-
S
O

P
A
S
.

S
0
2
A
.
S
O
Z
D
15
0
0
1
du
n
.
77
8
8
B(
S
P
L
)

S
P
L
CO
V
E
R
S

1
H
I
!

P
e
k
M
A
N
E
!
N
T

C
O
N
N
E
C
T
'"
i8
.
l
l
8
1'.
9
8
lU
i
.
24
2
2
1
0
.
.
.
U4
4
.
7
S
..
.
.
4.
8
9
Sl9
A
:
S
I
I
.
U
P

P
E
D
I
S
T
A
L
.

T
H
I
S

U
N
I
T

I
N
C
L
U
D
E
S
i
5
0
0
2
v8
u
l
l
d
78
8
8
B
(
S
P
L
)

s
n
.
PR
E
P
A
R
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

T
H
!
!

S
H
!
A
T
H

I
N
i.
19
.
3
8
19
.
3
6
19
.
3
6
24
2
Z
1
0
.
.
.
13
7
4
.
5
5
'5
.
0
1
8S
.
9
1
P4
3
E
:
'
L

c
;
P
E
R

I
N

C
O
N
D
U
I
T

"
1
.
5

.

T
H
I
S

U
N
I
T
..
.
ic
,
"
15
6
4
A (
P
L
A
)

P
L
A
CO
V
E
R
S

T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N

A
N
D

P
,.
.
.
28
"
.
4
28
4
.
4
28
'
,
4
24
2
2
1
0
..
.
.
.
CA
S
U
!

A
N
T
A
.
2
!
i

R
L
L
E
D

2
~
2
5

N
O

e
r
87
0
0
87
0
28
0
8
2
5
'0
.
87
24
2
"
.
2
1
2.
2
3
2.2
3
2
P
0
0
4
vB
u
B
d
";.
,
,
A
(
P
L
A

P
L
A
LO
A
D

7
7
0

2
5
P
I
t

S
S
M
H

S
f

1
5
F
T
1
3.7
7
3.7
7
3.7
'
24
2
2
1
0
20
4
0
1
.
8
9
CO
i
l

L
O
A
D

7
1
0

2
5
P
F
l
8
8
M
H

S
P

1
5
F
T
i
1
24
0
1
8
9
.
40
4
.
8
5
40
4
.
8
5
40
.
8
5
TO
T
A
L

M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S

A
N
D

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
I
P
U
C
I
N
G

L
A
B
O
R

$
-3
ie
G
S
PL
A
HR
S

X

7
5
.
0
0
0
11
11
o
Z
4
2
Z
1
0
..
IC
G
S
75
.
0
0
.
,.
,.
D
2
4
2
2
1
0
'5
0
ie
G
S
x 7
5
.
o
D
.
.
.
24
2
2
1
D
..
.
ie
G
S
HR
S

K

7
5
.
,.
,.
o
2
4
1
D
75
.
IC
G
S
)(
7
5
.
0
0
.
.
.
o
2
4
2
:
1
0
3.
.
lC
'
X 75
.
0
0

.
3
o
Z
4
Z
Z
1
D
22
IC
G
S
M 7
5
.
0
0
.
"
"
o
2
4
.
2
1
1
J
Z6
2
S
TO
T
A
L

D
I
R
E
C
T

I
N
P
U
D

D
O
L
L
A
R
S

F
R
O
M

I
C
G
S
.
W
E
B

S
11
9
2
.
5
Mis
c
.
V
e
r
b
:
o
n

N
o
r
U
W
e
s
t

C
o
r
p
r
a
t
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

d
o
l
l
a
r
s

$
~
TO
T
A
L

E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
D

C
O
S
T

T
O

C
U
S
T
O
M
E
R

$
~
.~l~
E
as

.
g
Ê
1
ä
æ
s
N
t

E
..

t
i

~
i:

~

"
'
UU
i
:
O
i;

.
.

0
-
..

i
:

.
-

-
.
(.

"
'
-
0:

.
ê

"
5

~
~
0

U

~
-c

-
.

Q

0
07/U6/200S 13: 32 FAX [phone] THE BREWSTER COMPANIES ~ 004/004
PROPOSAL
D,..Jch ~
i.890 Z
~Mt..c9
.. .~-. -
~cJ1~.)o/~/e~, .:~.PRPO NO.
- .
~iu&,:.. ( Pi..SHINO.lAl~t -;.83Bis Øoe) (;5'Cf-Sï. 3 ~OATE L. l "'ni,,'1,
.WORK TO BE PERFORMED Al:
ADDRESS ,
PHONE NO.ARCHITECT
We hereby propoe to funih the materlals and perform th labor n~ssry for the completion of
i
i
i
-1
All material is guaranteed to be as specified. and the above work to be partoimed in accrdance with the drawings and specifications
submited for above work, and completed in a substatlal workanlike maner for the sum of
Doltars ($
with paymen to be made as follows:
R..pelll~ ""mil~
Any ullortiUn rN Cl(lriUcn I,oll nbow spar-lncnlloRI liiln!l axini cg~l~ . .
,,III ~" exeiiiid ony upon wiitLan arde,. ild ",1" bcni& an 6X1l ~liir!le Per
0\l and abov the eahlnie. All iiriiminlS OO~r.iionl upon $i, aicldanl!. or daluys buyand aui ""iri N Th' sa b 'Ihd
ote . iS propo may e Wi rawn
by us ii not accepted wìthin 30.. days.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prices, specifications and oonditions are satisractory and are hereby accepted. You are aullorized to do the work
as specified. Payment will be made as outlned above.
Date_
Signature -: __.
Signature .I.
iiJD8118.. MAUl. IN urJlK'.n PROPOSAL Attachment 3
John Brewster Formal Complaint
Decision Memorandum
04/01110
,
..
.'
TH
O
M
P
S
O

L
A
E
TH
I
S

W
I
R
E

O
f

C
A

O
D
E
S

N
O
T
BE
L
O
N
G

T
O

G
T
E
IT

I
S

L
O
W

O
V
E
R

C
H
A
N
N
E
L
AN
D

G
O
E
S

F
O
R
E
V
E
R
PE
R

R
I
N

M
A
Y

.
M
A
R
C
H

1
C
l
0
ii
"C
f
:t
;
(~t
J
..
JQ
t

"
l
O
t
..
.
.
*
1
5
ØT

I

8
0

1
7
6
CO
E
U
R

D
'
A
L
N
E

R
N
E
R
,¡it
tl
x_N
CO
A

R
I
V
E
R
WIL
D
I
F
E

M
J
1
.
I8
q
.
~
5
i
NO
T
E

A
R
E
A
-
.~lu
e

\
0
=
:
:
"
-
i:

"
0

0
i:

ã
-
æ
l
5

~
-.

!
ü

e

.
.
'
"
..

Q
)
-
¡:

~

~
Q)

e

c
o
i:

0
.
.
.E

i
:

.
-

-
-
o
"
'
.
.
~
C
'
-

0
i:

.
.

0
_
_
-(

~

Ö

~
10
i1
ö
V
b
8.
.
lI
'
FI
L
E
.
c:
l
d
g
n
I
1
1
3
0
I
3
P
O
A
O
A
U
l
w
p
1
.
d
g
n

2
1
9
1
2
0
1
0

1
2
:
0
1

:
3
0

P
M
HA
R
I
S
O
N
"1
~'"
~Z
'"0S!-l'"ri."
~D"::C rilDN
iå.'""
N
~~0
NÖN..'"."š:
:i
~
~
i:
~
~
..c ....ii
¡=:I :i ..n..r.rr ;¡r-..CIr.
lS ..,.ii õ
IV CD Z ~..z '"..."C .D ii."'"0IV..X 0 niS:x ..:;z ~ ~¡;:x r'"'" ..n:"c '"000w'"."~'" J)=i ~ i IIe.=i ..z ~CI '" i ~
'",.IT C C ln..z :.e.C'..nJ)0 ¡;
J)IV X Z lSU1..."0 :x'"0 :x-e CI r-ITon:;;iJ)It Zr-:I ~n
rr r-~IV ..
."-:o:Ñ x .'"0'":x"!!)(..x
"!
.1:iz
D::niD
(ß..J)..!:
~"..j¡:::!
r ~~
= e:;p..
tl
Attachment 4
John Brewster Formal Complaint
Decision Memorandum
04/01110 Page 2 of6
.,
'"
NO
T
E

A
R
E
A
-
1:
'''l::

e

1
0
~
=
i
.
.
E'
Q

0
o
!
ä
.
.
~
5

~
~
B

5

æ
1:

~

~
Il

I
l

i
:
o
¡:

.
.

0
-
.E

i
:

.
-

.
.
o
e
I
_
""

i
:
'
-

0
i:

o
J

0
.
.
..
S
:
~
~
FI
L
E
:
II
P
J
c:
\
d
g
n
\
1
1
3
0
1
3
P
O
A
O
A
U
\
w
p
3
.
d
g
n

2
/
9
/
2
0
1
0
1
2
:
0
3
:
5
7

P
M
HA
R
I
S
O
N
eW
E

L
A
E
.~l~
S

\
0
eu

:
:

"
"
ê
"
0

0
o
~

~
~
0

g
¡
~
B

5

i
f
ë
~

~
°o
i
:
o
e
.
.

0
-
.i

i
:

.
-

.
.
o
f
I
_
~I

i
:
'
-

0
t:
.
i

0
.
.
~~
ö
;
;
~ic:
ç;
e-
¡Q
ç;
e-
r!
c§
BR
E
W
s
r
R

R
D
.
~
~ .
.

.

~

.
.

.
CO
E
U
R

l
J
A
L
N
E

R
I
V
E
R
VE
R
I
Z
O
N

e
¡
W
N
10
HA
R
I
S
O
N
il
i
.
e.
NO
T
E

A
R
E
A
-
EX
P
O
FI
L
E
.
c:
l
d
g
n
I
1
1
3
0
1
3
P
O
A
O
A
U
l
w
p
4
.
d
g
n

2
/
9
1
2
0
1
0
1
2
:
0
5
:
0
3

P
M
..
..,
~
\~
i
~
~."
Ií1li:
'§
~ô
zo--rn
D:0rn-D
I
'"
~ö'"
~
~
¡¡
!i
DROP/PEO
CII ~ F~ = -e _si = ~:; ~ ül
."
¡=l.
01l'l~
""
'ô
Attachment 4
John Brewster Formal Complaint
Decision Memorandum
04/0 ILL 0 Page 5 of6
NO
T
E

A
R
E
A
-
.~l~
e

\
Q
tI

:
:
.
.
i=

"
Q

0
i:

f
å

\
Q
o
.
.

C
I
r,

0

Q
l
""

~

e

t
i
..

C
I

0
.
i:

~

~
CI

C
I

i
:
o
E;

1
-

0

.
.
ß
i
X

.
-

.
.
(,

r
n

.
.
~
i
:
'
-

0
i:
.
.

(
,
-
-
~.
.

Ö

~
ß
g
.
.
I
N
O
~I
BR
E
W
S
T
E
R
ì.O
V
O
L
T
S
..
.
.
VE
R
I
Z
O
N

a
W
N
10
vv
:
rJ
I
J
J
l
l
I
L
f
.
J
T
J
Ex
P
E
I
FI
L
E
.

W
P
6
c:\
d
g
n
\
1
1
3
0
\
3
P
O
A
O
A
U
\
w
p
G
.
d
g
n

2
/
9
/
2
0
1
0
1
2
:
0
7
:
5
6

P
M
HA
R
l
S
O
N
..