IX. Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with § 311(g)(1), and Rule 77.7. In its comments, Citizens asserts that the draft decision is incomplete because it does not address allegations that the Commission is trying to avoid the financial controls contained in the appropriation and budget process. The ALJ's draft decision correctly chose to overlook these comments because they were based on incorrect assumptions, they were mostly unsubstantiated, and because they were only designed to paint the Commission in a bad light.

Citizens, however, continues to make these claims, and so we address them briefly here. Citizens claims that its reimbursement for the audit will not be accounted for in the Commission's appropriated budget. Nothing in the record indicates that this will be the case, and Citizens in no way substantiates this claim. In fact, materials attached to Citizens' Opening Brief shows the Legislature included in the Commission's appropriated budget amounts to cover items that would be reimbursed. (Exhibit A to Opening Brief of Citizens Telecommunications Company, July 8, 2003.) Similarly, § 431, relied upon by Citizens, sets up a scheme under which the Commission's budget consists of items paid for from the "annual fee" and items "to be paid from special accounts or funds pursuant to § 402, reimbursement, federal funds, and any other revenues, and the amount of unencumbered funds from the preceding year." (§ 431 (emphasis added).) So Citizens does not continue to misunderstand the nature of our order, we will modify Ordering Paragraph 2 to make this point abundantly clear.