Court Opinion

ID: 9564515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:02:02.328174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:28.116593
License: Public Domain

ALMA WILSON, Justice,
with whom WATT, Justice, joins, dissenting:
Southwestern Bell Company (SWB) contends that it is entitled to a stay of the effectiveness of three rules or regulations of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) pursuant to art. IX, § 21, Okla. Const.1 SWB does not challenge the rule-making process — neither the validity of the adopting order nor the gubernatorial and legislative approval. SWB does not challenge all the regulations adopted by the order which it asks this Court to stay. SWB challenges only those regulations requiring it to modernize and upgrade the central offices in some sixty sparsely populated areas of this State, even though during the last ten years, SWB has thrice been ordered to upgrade and modernize the central offices serving these small towns and rural areas.2 In light of the exhaustive administrative hearings already had to determine the need for modernizing and upgrading the central offices throughout the State and the inordinate delays in bringing the administrative orders for modernization and upgrading to finality, I would grant *1125a stay for six month only.3 A time limit on the stay will accommodate SWB in prosecuting this cause and it will allow this Court to give precedence to issues raised pursuant to art. IX, § 21.4 Accordingly,-1 respectfully dissent to today’s ruling.
THE RULEMAKING PROCEEDINGS AND APPEAL.
The OCC exercised its rulemaking powers and adopted regulations delineating services to be provided by all local exchange telephone service providers in this state, pursuant to the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (APA).5 Only three of the several regulations adopted by Order No. 380024 are challenged herein: Rule 165:55-13-10, setting minimum standards of service; Ride 165:55-13-13, requiring network development service; and Rule 165:55-13-14, requiring lifeline service. The regulations were submitted to the Governor and the Legislature. The Governor and the Legislature have approved the regulations and, in accordance with the APA, today the regulations are final and effective and have the binding force of law.
The chronology of the rulemaking process is as follows.6 On August 12, 1993, the OCC issued a notice of inquiry relating to minimum standards for telecommunications services. The notice advised that comments would be received through October 15, 1993. Technical conferences with the various local exchange companies were held. On December 10, 1993, the OGC published notice of proposed rulemaking. The rule impact statement was made available to the public. More technical conferences with various telecommunications providers were held. A public hearing was originally set for January 27, 1994, but was continued until February 3, 1994. At the public hearing, the OCC heard comments from the rural telephone cooperatives, SWB, GTE, AT & T and representatives from various communities, including Beggs, Cordell, Fairview, Hobart, Konawa, Marlow, Pauls Valley, City of Pink, Rainbow Valley and Tecumseh. On February 8,1994, the OCC adopted the proposed regulations, including the three challenged herein, by Order No. 380024. On February 18, 1994, the regulations were submitted to the Governor, the Senate and the House of Representatives for consideration and approval or rejection. On April 4, 1994, the Governor approved the challenged regulations. On April 13, 1994, the Legislature approved the challenged regulations by its failure to disapprove, whereupon the regulations were deemed finally *1126adopted.7 On June 13, 1994, the regulations became effective.
On March 2, 1994, after the challenged regulations were submitted to the Governor and the Legislature, SWB initiated this cause. On May 4, 1994, after the challenged regulations were deemed finally adopted but prior to their effective date, the OCC denied SWB’s motion to suspend effectiveness of Order No. 380024. On May 16, 1994, SWB filed a Motion to Stay Pending Appeal requesting this Court to stay the effectiveness of the rulemaking order, OCC Order No. 380024.
THE PUBLIC HEARING EVIDENCE.
Concluding that the mandatory provisions of art. IX, § 21, Okla. Const, entitles SWB to the requested stay, the majority opinion directs the OCC to determine the amount of bond which SWB must post, explaining: “The decision on the amount of a bond calls for an adjudicative inquiry into the circumstances, i.e., the nature of the order being stayed and the proper amount for the protection of the competing interests.” If the majority opinion contemplates that the sixty small towns and rural areas with obsolete central offices are “competing interests,” then determination of the amount of monetary protection against the harm which may be suffered is an impossibility and can only be conjecture.
The transcript of the public hearing is replete with the pleas from witnesses, who appeared before the OCC as representatives of our smaller communities, for upgrading of their telephone services. The OCC was advised of fire departments that can not received emergency calls reporting fires because of multi-party lines; chambers of commerce that cannot keep, much less attract, businesses because of the inadequacy of forty and fifty year old central offices; health providers who desperately need modern telephone services to deliver health care services in rural areas. Legislators appeared at the public hearing, submitted petitions for upgraded telephone services from their constituency and encouraged the OCC to adopt the proposed regulations. SWB and the other local exchange telephone service providers appeared. The OCC was advised that the rural telephone cooperatives are already in compliance with the proposed regulations because they have invested in the upgrading throughout the last decade, with exception for two coops that have time schedules approved by the OCC for completion of the upgrade over the next year or so. General Telephone Company advised the OCC that it has thirty-eight central offices that are not modernized; that it has no objection to the proposed regulations; but it will request an exception to the time schedule and request funding through the ratemaking process. SWB objected to the proposed regulations, but simultaneously admitted that it had some sixty central offices that needed modernization. SWB submitted that its principal reasons for objecting to the regulations are that the OCC is dictating technology rather than services and the OCC must provide for funding before it can require the improvement.
Before the OCC, SWB and the other telephone communication providers in this State have clearly admitted the need for modernization and upgrading of central offices. The OCC has attempted to accomplish the needed modernization and upgrading through its rulemaking, ratemaking and adjudicatory orders. I would not generate further delay in bringing those orders to finality. I would direct the OCC to conduct an evidentiary hearing, upon ten days notice, giving SWB an opportunity to show cause why the amount of the bond should not be thirty million dollars adjusted for interest and inflation since 1986 and to show cause why the information gathered in the public hearing had on February 3, 1994, should not be admitted as evidence to support the ordered modernization and upgrading in PUD-260. Such orders are consistent with the requirements of art. IX, § 18, Okla. Const, and will advance the modernization and upgrading issue toward final resolution.
ARTICLE IX, § 21, OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION AND THE OKLAHOMA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT.
SWB contends it is entitled to a stay because the OCC’s failure to suspend Order *1127No. 380024, adopting the challenged regulations, is directly contrary to the art. IX, § 21, Okla. Const. The OCC responds that the mandatory stay provisions in art. IX, § 21 have been altered by amendments to the APA and the effectiveness of duly adopted and approved agency regulations is not subject to stay.8
Article IX, § 21 of the Oklahoma Constitution mandates that the OCC suspend the effectiveness of its order upon 1) notice of an appeal from the order and 2) request of the appellant.9 By a series of amendments to the APA, the Legislature expressed its intent to amend art. IX, § 21. In 1987, effective July 1,1988, the Legislature placed the OCC under Article I [rulemaking proceedings], but not Article II [individual proceedings], of the APA.10 In the same measure, the 1987 Legislature added § 306 declaring that rules and regulations adopted and promulgated in accordance with the APA “are presumed valid until declared otherwise by a district court or the Supreme Court” and authorizing declaratory judgment actions in the district court to challenge the validity or applicability of a rule.11 It also added § 308.2 declaring that duly adopted and promulgated rules shall be valid and binding on persons they affect “unless a court of competent jurisdiction determines otherwise.”12 During the next legislative session, § 250.4 was amended, adding the language in subsection (A)(2),13 which expressly provides that incon*1128sistencies between the APA and art. IX, § 21 are to be considered as alterations of art. IX, § 21 and expressly excepts the OCC from § 306 but not from § 308.2.
Reading § 250.4 together with § 308.2,14 it is obvious that the Legislature intended that the OCC will adopt and promulgate rules within the confines of the APA and that duly adopted rules of the OCC shall be valid and binding on the persons they affect unless otherwise determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. Further reading §§ 250.4 and 308.2 together with § 306, it is equally obvious that the Legislature intended that challenges to duly adopted rules of the OCC will be brought in the Supreme Court rather than the district court and that the duly adopted rules will be valid and binding unless the Supreme Court determines otherwise. And, the only meaning to be gleaned from reading §§ 250.4, 306 and 308.2 together with art. IX, § 21, is that a person affected by a valid and binding regulation of the OCC, who challenges the regulation in the Supreme Court, is not entitled to a stay unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise.15
The Oklahoma Constitution, art. IX, § 35 permits the Legislature to alter §§ 18 through 34 of art. IX.16 Heretofore, the Legislature has altered the provisions of art. IX with direct additions to and/or deletions from the language of those constitutional sections.17 It has also altered the provisions of art. IX with declaration that the entire act is an amendment to and alteration of Section 18 through Section 34 of article IX without direct change to the constitutional language, similar to the 1988 legislation involved herein, but with a clear expression of intent in the title to the measure.18
OTHER RELATED APPEALS.
SWB also urges that the challenged regulations, requiring it to upgrade or modernize services, should be stayed pending appeal to *1129be consistent with this Court’s stay orders issued in pending appeal No. 80,333 from 1984 ratemaking order. According to SWB, the substance of the challenged regulations is at issue in appeal No. 80,333.19 Although not argued by SWT3, the substance of the challenged regulations is also at issue in PUD-260 remanded to the OCC in State ex rel. Henry v. Southwestern Bell, supra.
This argument approaches the absurd. Were we to recognize similarity of issues as a basis for a stay, we would effectively halt the OCC’s constitutional duties and powers to continuously supervise, regulate and control public utilities in the performance of their public duties and their charges therefor.20 Additionally, I find tacit approval of the OCC’s continuing regulation of the telecommunication providers, in this Court’s remand in State ex rel. Henry v. Southwestern Bell, supra.
CONCLUSION
An overview of the multiple appeals by SWB from OCC orders pending before this Court warrants cautious, deliberate consideration of SWB’s stay request herein. SWfB, as a public utility, is charged with a public duty to indiscriminately provide adequate telephone communication services throughout its designated area.21 The record in this cause establishes a recognized and serious need for the modernization and upgrading that has been ordered. There is no substantive basis for SWT3 to continue avoiding the needed upgrade in the services in many small communities in Oklahoma. Further, SWB’s argument that it will be monetarily deprived if the modernization and upgrading occurs before the OCC provides for funding is hollow. SWB, currently holding more than a half a billion dollars of ratepayers, is protected multi-fold. Accordingly, this Court should limit the time within which SWTB can further delay fulfillment of its public duty. Six months is more than sufficient to litigate this cause to finality.

. The pertinent part of art. IX, § 21 provides:
Upon the giving of notice of appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission, the Commission, if requested, shall suspend the effectiveness of the order complained of until the final disposition of the order appealed, and fix the amount of suspending or supersedeas bond....

. In addition to the directives set out in the regulations challenged herein, similar directives have been spelled out in a ratemaking proceeding in 1984 and a proceeding to consider the affects of federal income tax changes. In the 1984 ratemaking proceeding PUD-662, the OCC ordered SWB to modernize and to refund 561 million dollars to ratepayers. The ratemaking order is pending before this Court in Appeal No. 80,333. In the 1986 proceeding PUD-260, initiated by the Director of the Public Utility Section to consider the affect of the federal 1986 Tax Reform Act on Oklahoma’s public utilities, in-eluding SWB, the OCC determined that the reductions in tax rates caused SWB to have an accumulated $30,677,167 cash surplus and ordered that the thirty million dollars be used for upgrading services to eliminate multi-party line areas and modernize central offices, rather than ordering refunds to ratepayers. On appeal, this Court reversed the order for upgrading and modernization for lack of supporting evidence and remanded for further proceedings. State ex rel. Henry v. Southwestern Bell, 825 P.2d 1305 (Okla.1991). These cases remain pending before this Court and the OCC, in large part due to the tactics of SWB, of which this Court should take judicial notice. Within the last month, a former member of the OCC was convicted on a federal charge for receiving valuable consideration from SWB in return for his vote to order SWB to upgrade and modernize rather than refund the thirty million dollars to ratepayers. And, both the 1984 ratemaking proceeding and the 1986 proceeding have been seriously delayed by SWB’s request for recusal of another member of the OCC due to involvement in the federal investigation which resulted in the federal criminal charge.

. The mandatory provision of art. IX, § 21, Okla. Const, requiring the OCC to suspend the effectiveness of its order on appeal does not prevent this Court from exercising its superintending powers over all inferior courts, agencies, commissions and boards created by law. Okla. Const., art. VII, § 4. In this appeal, SWB challenges some, but not all, of the regulations adopted by OCC Order No. 380024. That is, SWB seeks relief from three regulations rather than the entire order. I would treat the petition in error as an application to assume original jurisdiction and petition for declaratory and extraordinary relief raising constitutional issues. An original action in this Court for redress of harm caused by a regulation of the OCC would be consistent with the provisions of the provisions of Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act, infra. In exercising its original jurisdiction, this Court is free to control the litigation with time restrictions.

. Article IX, § 21 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides, in part:
All such appeals, affecting rates, charges, practices, rules or regulations of any public utility, or of any public service corporation, receiver or trustee engaged in the public utility business, shall have precedence upon the docket of the Supreme Court, irrespective of its place in session, next after habeas corpus cases, to the end that a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be afforded to such parties.
A six month time period would also be sufficient to accomplish any legislative correction of the attempted amendments to Article IX made by the 1988 legislative session, as discussed infra., as the Legislature may determine.

. 75 O.S.1991, §§ 250, et. seq. The several amendments to the APA subsequent to the 1991 recodification are not applicable herein.

. Order No. 380024 sets forth the chronology prior to its adoption. The remainder of the rulemaking process is published in the Oklahoma Register, the state’s official publication for agency rules. The Oklahoma Register is maintained by the Administrative Rules Section of the Office of the Secretary of State. 75 O.S.1991, § 250.9.

. 75 O.S.1991, § 308.1.

. SWB points out that this Court has already rejected the argument that art. IX, § 21 has been altered by the APA, in Public Service Company of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma Corporation Commission, No. 81,518, a pending appeal. This Court’s order directing the OCC to comply with Art. IX, § 21 and determine "whether a bond is required in this particular circumstance and to fix the amount of the bond, if appropriate” in the PSO case has no precedential value herein. Accordingly, were I writing for the majority, I would expressly reject this meritless position taken by SWB.

. See footnote 1, supra., for the pertinent provisions of art. IX, § 21, Okla. Const.

. 1987 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch. 207, § 12, 75 O.S.Supp.1987, § 250.4, which provided, in part:
A. 1. Except as is otherwise specifically provided in this subsection, each agency is required to comply with Article I of the Administrative Procedures Act.
2. The Corporation Commission shall comply with Section 18 of Article 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution. In addition, the Corporation Commission shall comply with the filing and transmittal requirements of Sections 251 and 254, the publication requirements of Section 255 and the provisions of Section 302 of Title 75 of the Oklahoma Statutes.
Effective July 1, 1988, the Corporation Commission shall be required to comply with all provisions of Article I of the Administrative Procedures Act.
B. As specified, the following agencies or classes of agency activities are not required to comply with the provisions of Article II of the Administrative Procedures Act:
4. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission;

. 1987 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch. 207, § 17. Subsection (C) of § 306 places the burden of proof upon the adopting agency to show 1) its authority to adopt the rule, 2) the rule is consistent with statutory law, 3) the rule is not contrary to the constitution; and 4) the rule was adopted in accordance with the APA.

. 1987 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch. 207, § 23. Section 308.2 was subsequently amended adding a new subsection (B) which authorizes the commencement of a proceeding to challenge a rule for non-compliance with the provisions of the APA within two years from the effective date of the rule. 1991 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch. 326, § 11. The applicable text of § 308.2. Title 74 O.S.1991, § 308.2(C) reads:
C. Rules shall be valid and binding on persons they affect, and shall have the force of law unless amended or revised or unless a court of competent jurisdiction determines otherwise. Except as otherwise provided by law, rules shall be prima facie evidence of the proper interpretation of the matter to which they refer.
[Emphasis added.]

. 1988 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch. 292, § 2. The 1988 version is recodified at 75 O.S.1991, § 250.4(A)(2) and was not affected by the amendments to that section by 1993 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch. 330, § 30. The 1988 version of § 250.4(A)(2) reads:
A. 1. Except as is otherwise specifically provided in this subsection, each agency is required to comply with Article I of the Administrative Procedures Act.
2. Effective July 1, 1988, the Corporation Commission shall be required to comply with the provisions of Article I of the Administrative Procedures Act except for subsections A, B, C and F of Section 303 of this title and Section 306 of this title. To the extent of any conflict or inconsistency with Article I of the Administrative Procedures Act, pursuant to *1128Section 35 of Article IX of the Oklahoma Constitution, it is expressly declared that Article I of the Administrative Procedures Act is an amendment to and alteration of Sections 18 through 34 of Article IX of the Oklahoma Constitution.
[Emphasis added.]

. Statutes dealing with same subject should be read together to determine intent of a particular section. TWA v. McKinley, 749 P.2d 108 (Okla.1988).

. Such a reading would be consistent with Bray v. Cap Corp., 571 P.2d 1224, 1227 (Okla.1977) and Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. State, 27 Okla. 329, 117 P. 328, (1910). Rejecting appellant’s claim that the OCC must stay its order in Bray, this Court determined that appeals from forced pooling orders are governed by statute and not by the provisions of art. IX, § 21. In the Atchi-son Railway case, administrative orders requiring information to be filed were held not subject to appeal and supersedeas under art. IX, § 21. See also, Garrison v. State, 420 P.2d 474, 477, (Okla.1966) wherein we said:
There is no evidence either in this record or in the legislative history of the Act to indicate that the Legislature, by amending § 651 intended to amend Art. 9, §§ 20 and 22 and make the mandatory provisions of § 651 applicable to appeals from the Corporation Commission. It must be assumed that the Legislature was aware of our prior decisions holding that § 651 did not apply to appeals from the Commission. Had the Legislature intended to change existing law, we are of the opinion it would have expressly so stated.

. Article IX, § 35 of the Oklahoma Constitution reads:
After the second Monday in January, nineteen hundred and nine, the Legislature may, by law, from time to time, alter, amend, revise, or repeal sections eighteen through thirty-four, inclusive of this article, or any of them, or any amendments thereof; Provided, That no amendment made under authority of this section shall contravene the provisions of any part of this Constitution other than the sections last above referred to or any such amendments thereof.
[Emphasis added.]

. 1941 Okla. Sess. Laws, p. 544, amending §§ 20, 21, 22, 24 and 34, art. IX, Olda. Const.; and, 1985 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch. 302, § 1, amending § 18, art. IX, Okla. Const.

. 1953 Okla. Sess. Laws, p. 484, captioned "Constitutional Amendment" "Constitution of the State of Oklahoma” "Article IX — Corporations” enacting the Rural Telephone Cooperative Act. I agree with the concurring opinion herein — the provisions of art. IX, § 21 cannot be amended by legislative implication nor by judicial rules of construction. Our rules of constitutional construction do not permit the alteration of the constitution by statutory reference and implication. As discussed in the concurring opinion, the 1988 Legislature, choosing not to directly amend the language of art. IX, the bill title should have clearly identified the measure as *1129a constitutional amendment as was done in the 1953 Rural Telephone Cooperative Act.

.Upon SWB's request in the 1984 ratemaking proceeding [PUD-662], the OCC suspended its orders that SWB refund in excess of five hundred million dollars to ratepayers, but refused to suspend its orders for network modernization. On November 9, 1992, this Court temporarily suspended and stayed the OCC orders [Order No. 367868, the ratemaking order, and Order No. 368282, the order staying the refund orders and refusing to stay the network modernization orders] and suspended the effectiveness of those orders upon SWB depositing $561,000,000.00 in an interest-bearing escrow account and submitting financial statements to the OCC as it may require pursuant to its art. 9, § 21 authority.

. Okla. Const., art. IX, § 18. Notwithstanding the similarity of issues, this Court refused to grant a stay because SWB did not seek a stay before the OCC in appeal No. 79,531. In that appeal, SWB sought a stay of the OCC orders relating to wide area calling plans (WACP). Like network upgrading, expansion of wide area calling plans (WACP) is involved in the 1984 rate-making proceeding [PUD-662] and a separate proceeding [PUD-1177] to consider expansion of WACP around Oklahoma City, Tulsa and Law-ton. Were I writing for the majority, I would expressly reject this meritless position taken by SWB.

. Okla. Const., art. IX, § 18; Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company v. Sun Oil Company, 554 P.2d *113114 (Okla.1976); Fretz v. City of Edmond, 168 P. 800 (1917).