Decision 00-04-003 April 6, 2000
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion Into the Operations, Marketing and Sales Practices of GTE California to Determine Whether the Commission Was Misled or Supplied Incomplete Information in Connection With Assessing the Extent of Abusive Marketing by GTE California's Foreign Language Assistance Center, Whether Any Rules, Regulations or Statutes Enforced By the Commission Have Been Violated by GTE California; and to Review Whether Previously Ordered Redress to Consumers and Other Corrective Measures for Prior Marketing Abuses Were Adequate. |
Investigation 98-02-025 (Filed February 19, 1998) |
O P I N I O N
This decision grants the Greenlining Institute and Latino Issues Forum (Intervenors) an award of $97,454.91 in compensation for contributions to Decision (D.) 98-12-084. In D.98-12-084, the Commission approved an all-party settlement agreement in Investigation (I.) 98-02-025. The investigation was opened to determine whether GTE California Incorporated (GTEC), or its general counsel or regulatory affairs director, misled or supplied incomplete information in connection with abusive marketing practices at GTEC's Foreign Language Assistance Center in 1992. The all-party settlement agreement which we approved provides for a civil payment by GTEC of $13 million.
This decision also grants the Intervenors' Motion to File Confidential Material Under Seal. The material that is to remain under seal under the
conditions described below contains hourly billing rate information for legal services of attorneys who have appeared before the Commission in the past.
1. Background
The abusive marketing practices at GTEC's Foreign Language Assistance Center were addressed in Resolution (Res.) T-15404, and remedies including customer refunds were ordered. However, documents subsequently came to light that provided probable cause to believe that the marketing abuses disclosed by GTEC in 1992 may have occurred over a longer period of time than previously believed, and may have involved upper level management. There was reason to believe, therefore, that the remedies ordered in 1993 might be inadequate. The Commission opened this investigation to explore these issues, and to determine whether a breach of Rule 1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, or of other rules, had occurred.
The following five parties participated in this proceeding by conducting discovery and attending three prehearing conferences (PHCs): the Commission's Consumer Services Division (CSD); the Greenlining Institute and Latino Issues Forum (Intervenors, participating jointly); individually named respondents Okel and Payne; and respondent GTEC.
On September 9, 1998, the five parties jointly filed a motion to approve a proposed settlement agreement. They indicated that they had reached an agreement whereby GTEC would make a civil payment of $13 million. This amount included the $3.2 million penalty imposed by the Commission in 1993, and paid by GTEC to nonprofit community groups in the affected service territory.
In D.98-12-084 the Commission concluded that the proposed settlement was reasonable in light of the record, and that it was in the public interest. The proposed settlement was modified, however, to revise certain administrative terms and to establish a mechanism whereby the parties and Commission staff might later develop administrative and operative details of the $4.85 million Telecommunications Consumer Protection Fund (Fund). The proposed settlement agreement was also modified to clarify the purpose of the Fund and avoid any confusion between the Fund in this proceeding and the prior resolution. The Commission granted the joint motion for approval of the proposed settlement agreement, upon the condition that the parties ratify the Commission's modifications. A signed All-Party Ratification of D.98-12-084 was filed on January 22, 1999.
Intervenors filed a Request for Award of Intervenor Compensation (Request) on February 11, 1999. At the same time Intervenors filed a Motion to File Confidential Material Under Seal. This motion was accompanied by confidential material submitted under seal. GTEC filed a Response to Request for Award on March 11, 1999. The purpose of the response is to protest certain of the hourly rates requested as well as the application of a multiplier to the calculation of the compensation award. Intervenors filed a Reply to GTEC's Response on March 25, 1999. On April 28, 1999, Intervenors filed an Errata to Request for Award, correcting specified typographical errors and omissions.
