19950328_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
March 28, 1995 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance at this time were Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Ralph Nelson and Dennis S. Hansen.  Also in attendance were staff members Don Howell, Gary Richardson, Scott Woodbury, Joe Cusick, Jim Long, Eileen Benner, Syd Lansing, Belinda Anderson, Tonya Clark, Lori Mann and Myrna Walters, and Jim Wozniak of U S West.
Items from the March 28, 1995 Published Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows.
1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated March 28, 1995.
Commission President Smith asked if there were any questions or comments on the RCD Agenda?
Commissioner Nelson said it looked fine to him.
Commissioner Hansen moved approved - other commissioners concurred.
2.  Scott Woodbury's March 8, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. GNR-T-94-4  AMERICOM, INC.  IPUC vs. TEL-SAVE, INC.
Commissioner Smith went over the decision memo in review.  Said Scott Woodbury, hearing examiner on these cases, recommends on Tel-Save that the Commission dismiss the complaint because they are now in compliance.
Scott said they are now exempt.  They are operating but they are a reseller.
Answer to question 1 - Shall Tel-Save, Inc. complaint be dismissed - was yes.
Americom - Commissioner Smith read staff recommendation on Americom.
Scott Woodbury said there is no evidence they have conducted business in Idaho.
Commissioner Nelson commented it didn't appear any action was worth the cost.
Commissioner Hansen had no questions.
Americom's price lists will be returned.
Commissioner Smith asked about rule change - should USF rules be tightened up to require periodic filing with the USF Administrator even if MTS/WATS services are not being provided?
Scott Woodbury commented he saw this as a way to tighten up requirements.  It appears difficult to substantiate whether they are doing business or not.
Commissioner Smith said her preference was still to not mess with the rules until it becomes a real problem.
Commissioner Nelson asked - if push came to shove, could we subpoena the LEC for the records regarding payment of access charges?
Belinda Anderson explained.
Commissioner Nelson said - lets not change the rules at this time.
Other commissioners agreed.
3.  Jim Long's March 23, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE Advice 95-03 Requesting an Increase in the ITAP Surcharge.
Jim Long comments the company has a significant number of participants this year.  He is working with Health & Welfare - they do theirs by county.
Approved filing.
4.  Jim Long's March 23, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Century Telephone of Idaho, Inc., Advice 95-1  Requesting a Reduction in the ITAP Charge.
Approved.
5.  Joe Cusick's March 24, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  U S West Communications' Compliance with IDAPA 31.41.01.503.03  Rule requiring that 90% of all out-of-service troubles be cleared within 24 hours.
Commissioner Smith asked about the timing? - Was the 1993 date correct?
Joe Cusick responded - dates in the memo are correct.
Commissioner Smith asked what the staff was actually asking here - do we want to undertake any enforcement action because U S West didn't comply with a rule?
Joe Cusick said that was what was being asked.
Commissioner Nelson commented - you have looked at the other 15 LECs and they are in substantial compliance.  Staff is saying U S West is out of compliance since August?  All of 1994 for U S West South?
Joe Cusick said it was calculated the same way we have calculated the other companies.  Since October they would be out of compliance even using company standards.
Jim Wozniak of U S West then commented.  Said there is not a great deal of debate over how you calculate.  Company had calculated in a certain way when the rule was initiated.  that information has been shared with staff informally.  In 1994 was when discussion of calculation occurred.  Have disagreement on the calculation denominator.  That will vary the results.  Company does not feel strongly one way or another.  Do think the rule is ambiguous.  Company was moving along thinking it was not compliance and there wasn't really an issue until October 1994.  Since the staff has been digging into this with earnest, the company has spent a tremendous amount of time, looking at compliance.  There is a meeting scheduled on April 11, with Commissioners and staff.  He has personally been involved in all similar meetings.  There are many factors.  There have been some handoffs recently.  The ball has been dropped.  Asked the commission's indulgence to have the meeting on the 11th to explain what the company has done to get back to compliance.  Would like to bring this back into compliance within 90 days.  Think the motivation is there - would like some clarification regarding extenuating circumstances in the formula.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought 5 to 9 points was substantial.
Jim Wozniak commented it is worth asking that question of the Commission.
Commissioner Hansen said he realizes there has been a lot of information that has been studied and compared.  On this issue, think we are probably going to have to look at several different alternatives.  Think there is definitely a problem out there to be taken care of.  But would like a little more time to review the performance and look at possible alternatives before we set directions for staff.  You may say this goes clear back to 1993, is not in a position to look at the direction we need to take in this matter.  Would recommend that we hold this for a short period of time and look at alternatives that we may want to choose to try to solve this problem.
Commissioner Nelson said he felt staff has done quite a bit of work on this.  Had a memo earlier in the month outlining a lot of these issues.  His preference at this time would be to have staff pursue a consent agreement with the company but he guessed he could go along with a short delay.
Commissioner Smith said she would like to have the benefit of having the meeting on the 11th.  So she would suggest putting this back on the agenda for the 13th.  this problem came to light the last quarter of 1994 and prior to that did not think staff or company was aware it was that much of a problem and now they are aware.  Want to hear about turning it around and if company can turn it around in a short period of time, sanctions aren't warranted but if they can't, maybe it serves to be noticed for a consent agreement or show cause.  Purpose in doing that would be to make sure that the companies take rules seriously.  They are for assuring customers of quality of service, etc.  On the other hand it is not clear that they flagrantly ignored the rule.  Those are the circumstances that would be appropriate to impose sanctions on.
Commissioner Nelson asked how soon after the end of the month the figures are available?
Jim Wozniak said within 30 days.  Further commented that he did applaud the staff's work in trying to clarify calculation and doing the calculation of other companies.  View this as a litmus test.  Barbara Wilson has been personally involved.  Think the company can turn this around.  Clarification on the calculation will be appreciated.
**Matter will be revisited at April 13 decision meeting.
Commissioner Smith announced that the next decision meeting will be Thursday, March 6, rather than Monday, March 3, in order to accommodate other commitments of the commissioners.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 29th day of March, 1995.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
032895.min