ALJ/SRT/k47 DRAFT Item 3

12/21/2000

Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ THOMAS (Mailed 11/21/2000)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking into Implementation of Senate Bill 669, Regarding the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program.

Rulemaking 00-05-001 (Filed May 4, 2000)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE

OPINION 2

I. Summary 2

A. Committees 3

1. Voting 3

2. Other Committee representation 3

B. Staffing/Program Operations 4

C. Fiscal Matters 5

D. Other Matters 6

II. Background 6

A. The DDTP 6

B. SB 669 10

III. The Record 12

A. Formal Comments 12

1. DDTP Committee Comments 13

2. CAD Comments 14

3. Deaf/Hard of Hearing Coalition Comments 15

4. GTE/Pacific Bell Comments 15

5. Wayne Baker Comments 17

B. Public Hearings 17

C. Other Public Comment 21

D. Workshop 22

1. Committees 23

2. Staffing/Program Operations 26

3. Fiscal Matters 28

IV. Discussion 29

A. Summary 29

B. Committee Structure 30

1. DDTPAC 31

2. CRSAC 31

3. EPAC 32

C. Commission Staffing 33

D. Revolving Fund and Electronic Funds Transfer System 34

E. No Net Loss of Program Funds 36

F. Additional Issues 36

V. Conclusion 38

VI. Comments on Draft Decision 38

Findings of Fact 38

Conclusions of Law 41

ORDER 42

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

OPINION

I. Summary

This decision provides guidance for implementing the portion of Senate Bill 669 relating to California's Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program (DDTP). SB 669, passed by the California Legislature in 1999, makes four basic changes to the DDTP:

· It codifies the existing governance structure whereby the DDTP is supported by an advisory committee, known as the DDTP Administrative Committee (DDTPAC);

· It requires this Commission to ensure that the DDTPAC has adequate support and resources to "carry out" DDTP activities;

· It requires the Commission to ensure that the DDTPAC achieves appropriate representation by the consumers of telecommunications services for the deaf and disabled; and

· It moves funds for the program from a bank trust fund to the State Treasury and provides that appropriations for the program shall occur through the annual State budget process.

We initiated this rulemaking in order to implement SB 669. Our key aim has been to develop a process to ensure that the transition does not interrupt services to deaf and disabled communities. We believe this decision provides solutions that achieve the intent of the law without doing violence to the essential and often intangible qualities that make the program a success.

We take the following steps to implement the statute, recognizing that many of the details of implementation will require consultation between Commission staff and DDTP staff and additional work by both:

A. Committees

1. Voting

a. Telephone companies and California Relay Service (CRS) representatives will no longer hold a voting role on any DDTP Committee.¹ Due to recent efforts to centralize DDTP functions, the carriers no longer provide the same DDTP functions they once did. Thus, the historical basis for allowing the carriers a voting role on the Committees no longer exists. However, because telephone company and CRS representatives provide valuable information to the DDTP about technology and equipment, we retain non-voting company slots on the Committees.

b. Commission staff no longer will hold a voting role on any DDTP Committee. Because the Commission votes on the DDTP's budget and other material matters affecting the program, we feel we retain adequate oversight of the Committees without this second area of voting. We retain Commission staff on the Committees as ex oficio members due to staff's considerable expertise in the day-to-day workings of the program.

2. Other Committee representation

a. Speech-to-Speech representative. Currently, there is no designated slot on any DDTP Committee for a Speech-to-Speech consumer or representative of Speech-to-Speech consumers. Speech-to-Speech is an integral aspect of the DDTP - affording telephone access to thousands of speech-disabled Californians. We designate one slot on the DDTPAC for such a representative.

b. Disabled community representative. We designate one additional slot on the DDTPAC for a representative of the disabled community.

B. Staffing/Program Operations

1. We make limited changes to DDTP staffing. There was strong consensus during the course of the proceeding that the consumer focus of the current program should not change in favor of a greater role for the Commission or other governmental entity. We heard over and over again that removing consumer control of the program would lead to fewer innovations in services because government moves slowly and is less responsive to consumer input than a community based organization such as the current DDTP.2 Moreover, we were told, deaf and disabled consumers are far more aware of the needs of their own communities.

2. Changes. We recommend additions to the Commission staff to accommodate the movement of DDTP funds to the State Treasury. This movement will necessitate additional Commission involvement in such functions as creation of accounts in the State accounting system, establishment of lock box functions for receipt of remittance payments, posting of remittances to the proper accounts, review of claims for payment from the funds, and scheduling of payments from the program funds by the State Controller.

We anticipate that Commission staff will perform these functions for all of the "public purpose" programs affected by SB 669.³ Currently, we estimate a need for 13 additional full time positions at the Commission to handle accounting functions for all of these programs. Because most of the new functions SB 669 creates are currently performed by a bank trustee, we anticipate little or no decrease in DDTP staffing.

C. Fiscal Matters

The transfer of funds from the DDTP trust fund to the State Treasury creates some risk of disruption of program services. To mitigate this risk, we suggest the following measures:

1 Establishment of a revolving fund residing in the DDTP for payment of small for-profit and non-profit vendors. We understand several state agencies funded entirely by the State Treasury - among others, the Employment Development Department, Caltrans and the Department of General Services - all have revolving funds,

2. Implementation of an electronic funds transfer system to the extent feasible for payment of DDTP expenses, and

3. Study of other agencies with significant outside vendor involvement for information on how they work with the State Treasury to assure prompt payment. Suggested agencies include the Superior Courts of California (which rely, as does the DDTP, on a large corps of contract reporters and interpreters), the Department of Rehabilitation, and the Department of Developmental Disabilities.

D. Other Matters

Finally, we address a few recurring themes that consumers brought to our attention during this proceeding. We heard several times that consumers - especially those in Southern California - do not feel they are adequately informed of the DDTP services. Moreover, several commenters noted that the DDTP does not always use the latest and best equipment available. We make suggestions in both of these areas to improve program functioning.