19950112_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
January 12, 1995 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance at this time were Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson.  Also in attendance were staff members Don Howell, Lori Mann, Scott woodbury, Joe Cusick, Jim Long, Belinda Anderson, Syd Lansing, Don Oliason and Myrna Walters.  John Souba and Mary Hobson attended representing U S West.  Also present was Woody Richards, Attorney at Law.
Items from the January 12, 1995 Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows.
1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated January 12, 1995.
Approved.
2.  Belinda Anderson's January 9, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Century Telephone's Switched Data Service Tariff filed 12-19-94 to be effective 1-20-95.
Approved.
3.  Belinda Anderson's January 10. 1995 Deciison Memorandum re:  U S West North's Tariff No. 94-14-N filed 12-16-94 to be effective 2-1-95 that unbundles Message Delivery Service (MDS).
Approved.
4.  Lori Mann's January 10, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Proposed PTI business office closure in Grandview; Case No. GEM-T-94-1.
Commissioner Miller said he assumes the company has a presence in field personnel, technical people, linemen.  There is an area supervisor - do we want a business office presence?  We didn't get an overwhelming consumer demand for that.  Had 5 comments.
Commissioner Nelson said if you say there is no business presence required, why do we have U S West have payment centers open?
Commissioner Miler said there is a rule that they have to have adequate services.
Commissioner Nelson said it is a difficult question.  They are not the smallest phone company in the state - difference is other phone companies are locally-owned and locally-operated.
Commissioner Smith asked - there is no place where people can pay their bills in person?
Joe Cusick said that was true.
-2-
Commissioner Smith suggested saying they can close if arrangement is made with a local business to take payments.
Commissioner Nelson commented that the agency arrangement U S West has is unsatisfactory.  He was in Payless and noticed the box for payment.  It was covered with other materials.  Also noted that after February 1 they won't be the payment place.
Commissioner smith said it seemed to her that people were helped more by having an area supervisor than by having a person in the office from 1 to 5.
Joe Cusick said the area manager lives in Mountain Home and that is part of the problem.
Commissioner Miller said it almost sounds like the supervisor must sometimes sit in that office on Monday afternoons and closing of that wouldn't attack the physical facilities need.  Assume that would still be there.
**Conley Ward, Attorney at Law and Ray Hendershot of GVNW were in attendance at this time.
Also in attendance from staff were Eileen Benner and Dave Schunke.
Commissioner Nelson commented he thought some present in the state was necessary (by this company).
Commissioner Smith asked if the Commission didn't let some other phone company do this?
Bev Barker replied she thought it was WWP.
Commissioner Smith said they would have to make a commitment and then be able to meet with the customer.
**Gary Richardson was in attendance at this time.
Commissioner Nelson said they are not in compliance now so is there a change we could make that would be more in spirit of having a presence in the state?
Commissioner Miller asked - or we can just say this person should be available on this limited schedule?
Bev Barker suggested letting the company see the customer comments.
Commissioner Smith said - have them devise a plan for customers to be able to meet with someone.  Say they are available butg not -3-
have the office open at times specific.
Joe Cusick asked about a payment center.
Commissioner Smith suggested if the customer has payment problems, contact the company area person.
After discussion, decision was:  give company 14 days to file a response.
5.  Lori Mann's January 11, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Case Complaint regarding the Service Area Bopundary beween Potlatch Telephone and GTE; Case Nos. GTE-T-94-5; POT-T-94-1.
Commissioner Nelson said we have conflicting testimony in this case.  Think there were some mistakes made.  Don't know that the customer was exactly above board.  Once the service was in it was not just a small boundary change.  After the Communications Act, Potlatch had exclusive right.  They have a legal argument we can't take it away form them.
Commissioner Miller read from the Telecommunications Act.  One way of saying was whether the subjective position of the customer is enough grounds to modify the certificate.  If customer can come in and say I want A Telephone Company even though B has the certificate, then having the certificate means nothing.
Commissioner Nelson said if we could have made the decision before the line was installed, it would have been easier.
Commissioner Smith asked where we were now?  Potlatch can't force these epople to take phone service.
Commissioner Miller said the Statute speaks to exclusive certificate  Policy in favor of exclusive franchises is in the Statute and has to be acknowledged.  On the other hand, consumer choice is also a good policy.  
Bev Barker said it is unique that both companies built lines.
Commissioner smith said it seemed like we have been fairly flexible.
Commissioner Nelson said it didn't appear the GTE customer service department acted in bad faith.  They made some investment in doing that.
Commissioner Miller asked about Potlatch's records.  There must be a service order document.  Suggested saying on border-straddling cases, 500 yards on either side of the border, customer choice should be the predeteriment factor or could say it shouldn't be.
-4-
Commissioner Smith commented she didn't want to take away GTE service to the Cases.
Commissioner Miller asked about Potlatch's investment - the $4900 is from the last place to the Cases.
Commissioner Nelson said he was not prepared to say Potlatch acted in bad faith either.
Commissioner Miller said he would grant relief for Potlatch.
6.  Don Howell's Upper Valley Motion.
Lori Mann said Mr. Barton suggested that the latest testimony be let in and allow more time.
Commissioner Miller said one way to do this procedurally would be to clal this man and present his testimony and then rule whether it will be part of the testimony.  If we got to that point, could say in advance that unless something radical happens to change our minds, would have serious questions about letting this in.  It is not filed at the present time.
Secondly it is a big stretch to say we invited testimony on the intent of the Telecommunications Act.  Did say we would have to review.  It is a much different thing than saying we want testimony pertaining to the Act.  If we were applying anything close to rules of evidence, Barton has a real uphill battle to get this in.  Let it be offered and a formal ruling can be made.
Commissioner Nelson said he would rule on Sisson.  Don't know if you can preclude a witness from being put on the stand...whether the questions asked are in the circumstancew..what has come up in rebuttal should not include non-rebuttal matters.  Said his suggestion here is he diesn't see how you can enter an order now saying you can't even call these people - will have to address it when it comes up.
Commissioner Smith said she thought there was a way to do that.  Think it would work well.
7.  Scott Woodbury's January 10, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. WWP-E-94-8  Amended Application Revised Electric Schedule 51 Line Extensions, Conversions and Relocations.
Decision was to send it out on modified procedure.
8.  David Schunke's January 10, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Pacificorp's 1994 Resource Management Report (RMR).
After brief discussion on how to respond to the filing - held item.
-5-
Meeting was adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 18th day of January, 1995.
Myrna J. Walters,
Commission Secretary
011295.min