May 12, 1998



Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission
PO Box 47250
Olympia, WA 98504-7250

Re:  Response to Docket # UT-970301, Draft of Pay Telephone Rule Changes

Dear Commission Members:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Washington Utilities & 
Transportation Commission=s (WUTC=s) proposed rules regarding pay phones.  We 
believe that the changes to defined terms in WAC 480-120-021 are helpful, and 
that the reorganization of WAC 480-120-138 is positive.  We commend Commission 
staff for specifying, in WAC 480-120-138(6), the purpose and types of potential 
restrictions on pay phones.

As we commented in our letters of July 25th and October 3rd, 1997, The City of 
Seattle has been examining how we might restrict or eliminate individual pay 
phones that are known to be used in connection with drug trafficking and other 
illegal activities in some of our neighborhoods.  These public safety concerns 
continue to be foremost in our analysis of the current set of proposed rule 
changes.  Our specific comments relate to WAC 480-120-138 (6)  Restrictions, 
because it is in the public interest that this rule be written so as to assure 
that prompt relief can be provided when restriction of specific pay phone 
activities is needed for public safety reasons.  

While the May 1, 1998 draft rule appears to be an attempt to clarify and 
simplify the process of restricting pay phone operations, we are concerned that 
the draft rules do not give appropriate weight to governmental and community 
public safety concerns. We continue to believe, as stated in our letter of 
October 3, 1997, that local jurisdictions are in the best position to 
understand the connections between particular pay phones and illicit activities 
in their communities, and that the WUTC rules should clarify the authority of 
local governments to enforce such regulations.  Further, we believe that by 
proposing to make the Commission the sole arbiter of pay phone restrictions for 
public safety purposes, the Commission may be over-stepping its legal authority 
and treading on the police powers of local jurisdictions.

Both the content of proposed WAC 480-120-138(6) and conversations with 
Commission staff lead us to believe that the Commission feels that it must be 
involved in each decision to restrict the operation of a pay phone.  Since it 
is the desire of the City to try to find a rule-making proposal that meets both 
the City=s interest and that of the Commission, we would offer an alternative 
to our preferred recommendation stated above.  This proposal preserves the 
Commission=s role, clarifies the procedure set forth in the draft rule, and 
balances the interests of the pay phone service provider, Commission and local 
jurisdiction.

The interest of the local jurisdiction is clear.  Where the pay phone can be 
reasonably shown to be a locus of illegal activity, the local government 
generally would prefer to be able to quickly and simply reduce the threat to 
public safety through operational restrictions, rather than to have the removal 
of the pay phone as its only remedy.  It appears that the Commission views its 
interest as assuring that a single governmental entity is charged with that 
decision-making responsibility, so that reasonable precedence can be 
established, and the providers are not bombarded with a multitude of 
jurisdictions ordering restrictions.  The providers have an interest in having 
reasonable due process protection to assure that restrictions are not 
excessively burdensome and do not inhibit their financial interests.

The language of the proposed rule is very unclear as to process, but purports 
to permit limitations on pay phones Aupon request of local governing 
jurisdictions....@  The petition, however, must be signed by both the pay phone 
service provider (psp) and an official of the local governing body.  As 
drafted, the petition gives a de facto veto to the psp over the public safety 
interest of the local jurisdiction.  Discussion with staff appeared to support 
that perception.  Procedurally, it appears that the lack of psp endorsement 
would prevent the request of a local jurisdiction from ever being heard by the 
Commission.  Given that any restriction probably would be contrary to the 
financial interest of the psp, it would appear that the only reason that a psp 
would agree to support the position would be if they had an interest in 
placating the local government, or were under threat to require removal of the 
pay phone. This apparent grant of de facto veto power to the psp is inimical to 
the overall public interest.

We propose an alternative to both WAC 480-120-138(6) and the petition, as 
drafted.  A local government (lg) would complete the petition and identify the 
psp in the petition.  The lg would send a copy to the psp, and would send, with 
proof of delivery to the psp, a copy of the petition to the Commission.  The 
Commission would post notice of the petition with its open meeting agenda 
materials and on its Website.  The psp or any other interested party would have 
the right to object to the proposed restrictions within 30 days of the posted 
notice.  In the absence of  objection, the Commission would order the 
restriction, with an additional 30 days to implement the restriction.  If an 
objection were filed, the matter would be set on an open meeting agenda for 
action.  This proposal would retain the Commission=s exclusive authority in the 
matter, but grant procedural deference to the local governing jurisdiction=s 
judgment of the public safety imperative of the restriction.

The following language is suggested to implement our proposal:

WAC 480-120-138 (6)  Restrictions
 Y
 A psp shallmay limit the operational capabilities of pay phones only when 
directed authorized by the Commission.  The Commission may directauthorize such 
limitations upon request of local governing jurisdictions (or other 
governmental agencies) in their efforts to prevent or limit criminal or illicit 
activities, and shall defer to the request of local government in the absence 
of objection to the request.  Restrictions may include, but are not limited to, 
blocking of incoming calls, limiting touch tone capabilities and coin 
restriction during certain hours.  

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue, and welcome any 
questions you might have.  Please feel free to call Matt Lampe at 206/684-0504 
if there is additional information we might provide.

Sincerely,



Dwight D. Dively

cc:   Mayor Paul Schell
 Councilmember Tina Podlodowski
        Cliff Traisman, OIR
        Matt Lampe, ESD
        Arlene Ragozin, Law