Court Opinion

ID: 7821882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:57:29.080087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:45.487526
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justicé, dissenting. I disagree with the opinion in this case because I feel the PSC has not handled the case as it should have. The controversy had become a personal matter between PSC staff members and Stancil Glasgow. The needs and wishes of the people in the area served by Redfield Telephone Company should have been uppermost in the minds of all parties involved including PSC personnel and Stancil Glasgow. When Glasgow failed to comply with the first order of the PSC, he should have been brought to task instead of ignored. It appears to me that the staff at the PSC deliberately gave him enough rope to hang himself and he obliged. However, the telephone customers have been left hanging alongside Mr. Glasgow. The General Assembly did not specifically give the PSC the right to revoke a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity. However, it did expressly give the right to the PSC to grant a certificate as well as to enforce its orders. In the absence of a grant of power the PSC does not have the authority to revoke the certificate. I agree with the dissent of Commissioner Downie which is contained in the record. The harshness of the order of revocation amounts to a taking of property without due process of law in my opinion. At the same time it adds to the woes of the intervenors or customers and would-be customers of telephone service in the Redfield area. The purpose of allowing Redfield to apply for the loan was to bring the service up to date. The company had held the charges of its service to customers to probably the lowest in the state. Redfield was no doubt in error by skimping on its services in order to keep the charges low. I do not intend to condone the action of Mr. Glasgow in ignoring the valid orders of the PSC. As Commissioner Downie stated, the objective of the PSC should be to insure good telephone service to all who want it at the lowest possible cost. In an effort to comply with this objective and the orders of the PSC, Redfield obtained the services of a reputable engineering firm and in fact replaced Glasgow as head of the company. At the hearing Mr. Glasgow stated: It is our intention to implement every suggestion made by the Public Service Commission’s staff in their recent report. In fact, we are doing more than was suggested. As I stated earlier, I have been so busy running the business myself, there were times I did not have the time to think of what was taking place in the community .... It seems to me that when Redfield had completed all of the plans to update the services and comply with the orders of the PSC, the revocation order was entered. As a result, the Redfield Telephone Company had been practically shut down and the users and potential users of telephone service in the area are in worse shape than ever. There is no proposed schedule for implementing good services to the customers in the area. Likely the franchise will be awarded to another company which may take years to update and provide reasonable services and the customers will end up paying a heavier cost than they would have if corrective measures had been undertaken prior to the revocation of the Certificate of Necessity. The cost of money to Redfield through the REA loan is no doubt much less than the cost of money borrowed by a large corporation on today’s money market. It will be the customers who will be forced to pay this additional cost. In my opinion, the PSC should have filed an action in the courts and obtained a judicial determination of the matter of revocation. However, by taking the action themselves the power of the court was diminished inasmuch as the standard for review in the court is much less stringent than the burden would have been for an original hearing in the court. Although appellee contends it considered the REA loan and its effects on the customers and the company, it is clear from the record that such is not the case. If the loan was to be fully considered, why did the PSC not reopen the case to hear the details and effects of the loan? I submit it had become a personal matter and the customers will suffer and pay for such action. The PSC should not spare any effort, even if it has to swallow its pride sometime, in obtaining good telephone service at the lowest possible cost.