Home Page > Utility Regulation > Telecommunications > Competitive Interests Forum > Competitive Topics Forum 06/18/02
Telephone Competitive Topics Forum
6/18/02
The meeting opened at 10:30 a.m. Richard Tudor asked the Process Committee for an
update.
Michelle Robinson of Verizon explained minor changes made to the Expedited Resolution
Process and that there had been further discussion regarding "Buy In". She said
they had met with the PSC General Counsel and that he had three questions:
- Can the prehearing officer deny a motion to dismiss - so that it would not need
to go to agenda?
- Can the process for day 21 be clarified?
- Is too much time allowed for interveners to file testimony?
Martha Brown asked if staff would file any testimony at the same time as the interveners.
Michelle said she thought that would be a good time if staff were to file testimony.
Richard Tudor asked for clarification of day 21, where both Motion to Dismiss and
Answer to the complaint were to be filed the same day. Tracy Hatch stated that the
Answer should be filed whether there was a Motion to Dismiss or not.
It was agreed that in Day 1 of the Docket Schedule, the line: "Copy served by hand,
electronically or by fax to parties and staff, as well as all parties requesting
notice pursuant to the collaborative process." should be revised to something like:
"Copy served by hand, electronically or by fax to parties and staff, and as a matter
of courtesy, Commission staff will notify Collaborative participants on the e-mail
list".
Regarding Day 48, it was agreed this provision should additionally state that the
Prehearing Officer has the discretion to deny a Motion to Dismiss without going
to Agenda.
Regarding Day 71, Prehearing Statements, it was agreed that this could be moved
closer to Day 101, Prehearing Conference - say to Day 90.
Regarding Day 115 it is stated that: "The hearing will be recessed for a period
of time announced from the bench during which time staff will meet to craft an oral
recommendation." It was discussed that the Commissioners might want something in
writing as well, either briefs or a recommendation. It is also stated that: "Hearing
is reconvened for presentation of oral recommendation and bench decision." It was
felt that "possible bench decision" might be better. Greg Shafer suggested to leave
it as it is.
In the document "Florida Collaborative Process Team Ideas", under II. Options if
Issue Resolved, Item B, Martha suggested that this could be shown on the P.C. website.
Jay Bradbury, of AT&T suggested that a point e) be added under IV. Website regarding
linkage to ILEC websites of any CLEC notification letters.
There was discussion regarding clarification on when impasse is reached. It was
decided that the team should go back and talk about possible ways to define the
term.
The team will revise the document and get together with Beth Keating and Beth Salak
to get their input and then present it to the Chairman at a Collaborative meeting
especially for that purpose.
Stan Greer of BellSouth explained the Issues Tables done by the Issues Committee.
Once understood, all agreed that the system used was good and thanked the Issues
Committee for their hard work.
Discussion began as to which issues should be discussed at the next meeting. The
following was decided:
Issues In Monitor Status. Status updates will
be furnished by the following:
- 94, 79 - ITC
- 22 - Jay Bradbury
- 58/64/64A/60/61/172/14/13-A, B, C, D/178/185 Nancy Sims (related to current activity
in Georgia)
Specific examples to be provided:
Issues to be discussed at the next meeting:
- 7 - Up for discussion
- 5 - Up for discussion. Stan Greer will draft his understanding of "Self Help"
- 24- Up for discussion. Stan Greer wants specifics.
The next meeting is to be held on July 18 (or July 17 as an alternative), 2002 at
10:30 a.m.