CSA
Summary
Read the report at California State Auditor ↗
Deaf and Disabled
Telecommunications
Program:
Insufficient Monitoring of Surcharge
Revenues Combined With Imprudent Use
of Public Funds Leave Less Money Available
for Program Services
July 2002
2001-123
rotiduA
etatS
ainrofilaC
S
T
I
D
U
A
E
T
A
T
S
F
O
U
A
E
R
U
B
The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free.
Additional copies are $3 each, payable by check or money order.
You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits
at the following address:
California State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 445-0255 or TDD (916) 445-0255 x 216
OR
This report may also be available
on the World Wide Web
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/
The California State Auditor is pleased to announce
the availability of an online subscription service.
For information on how to subscribe, please contact
David Madrigal at (916) 445-0255, ext. 201, or
visit our Web site at www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa
Alternate format reports available upon request.
Permission is granted to reproduce reports.
� � �
��������� ���� ������
������������� �������������������
������������ �����������������������
July 11, 2002 2001-123
The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Bureau of State Audits presents its audit report
concerning the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program’s (DDTP) accounting for surcharge
revenues and expenditures.
This report concludes that neither the DDTP nor the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) are
fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure that telephone companies (carriers) are collecting and remitting
required surcharges on intrastate telecommunication charges. Specifically, the DDTP does not adequately
review or record the payments it receives and does not notify carriers who are late in remitting. Also,
the CPUC does not always demonstrate consistent oversight over the revenue functions performed by
the DDTP and does not enforce interest payment penalties for carriers who remit late. As a result, the
DDTP is likely not receiving all of the money it is owed.
Finally, the DDTP does not always further the mission of the program when expending public funds.
Also, the salaries and benefits of DDTP employees appear generous when compared with state employees
in similar positions. Although DDTP employees are not employees of the State, the DDTP is a publicly
funded entity. These practices potentially leave less money available for program services.
Respectfully submitted,
ELAINE M. HOWLE
State Auditor
�������������������
�������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������� ������������������
CONTENTS
Summary 1
Introduction 5
Chapter 1
Insufficient Monitoring of Surcharge
Remittances May Have Resulted in
Large Amounts of Uncollected Revenue 17
Chapter 2
Imprudent Use of Public Funds,
in Addition to Generous Salaries,
Leaves Less Money Available for
Program Services 29
Chapter 3
Recommendations to Improve
Program Administration 45
Appendix A
Remittance Frequency of Carriers for 2000 51
Appendix B
Remittance Frequency of Carriers for 2001 61
Responses to the Audit
California Public Utilities Commission and the
Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program 71
California State Auditor’s
Comments on the Response
From the California Public Utilities
Commission and the Deaf and Disabled
Telecommunications Program 87
1
SUMMARY
RESULTS IN BRIEF
The Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program
Audit Highlights . . . (DDTP)—a quasi-governmental entity subject to the
oversight of the California Public Utilities Commission
Our review of the Deaf and
(CPUC)—is responsible for providing telecommunications
Disabled Telecommunications
services to the deaf and disabled communities of California.
Program (DDTP) concludes
that: Specifically, the DDTP fulfills its legislative mandate by provid-
ing specialized telecommunications equipment to certified deaf,
þ Neither the DDTP nor the
hearing impaired, and disabled individuals. In addition, the
California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) is DDTP administers the California Relay Service, connecting
fulfilling its responsibilities individuals who are deaf or hearing impaired with those who
to ensure that telephone
have normal hearing through the use of trained operators
companies (carriers)
who relay the conversation. The DDTP is financed through a
are remitting required
surcharges, possibly surcharge that appears on all consumers’ telephone bills. This
resulting in hundreds surcharge applies to most calls made within the State. After
of thousands of dollars
telecommunications companies (carriers) collect money from
going uncollected.
the customer, they are required to remit the funds to the Deaf
þ Only about 32 percent of Equipment Acquisition Fund Trust (DEAF Trust) through the
certified carriers remitted
fund’s trustee, the Bank of America.
surcharge payments over
the last two years.
Neither the DDTP nor the CPUC is fulfilling its responsibilities
þ Some of the DDTP’s to ensure that carriers are collecting and remitting required
expenditures are
surcharges on intrastate telecommunications charges, possibly
for unreasonable or
resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars going uncollected.
unnecessary items.
For example, neither the DDTP nor the CPUC knows which
þ The salaries of select of the almost 1,500 carriers certified by the CPUC to operate
DDTP employees average
in California are providing services subject to surcharge.
24 percent higher than
those of comparable state Roughly 32 percent of the certified carriers have submitted the
positions. payments over the last two years. In addition, the DDTP does
not maintain accurate records of carrier payments, making it
þ Most DDTP contracts we
difficult to identify delinquent carriers. Further, these carriers
reviewed comply with
the Public Contract Code frequently remit surcharges past their due date and usually do
and contain adequate not pay appropriate late-payment penalties. The DDTP does not
standards for contractors
report late payments to the CPUC, which can assess penalties
to adhere to.
and revoke carriers’ certifications. In addition, carriers often
do not submit payments as frequently as required and do not
always consistently apply the surcharge rate to the various
types of intrastate service charges. This could be due to unclear
instructions from the CPUC. The lack of proper monitoring and
1
oversight also create the potential for many errors and can mean
the DDTP is not receiving all it is owed, hampering its ability to
carry out its mission.
Moreover, the DDTP does not always further its mission when
expending public funds. In part, this is because the DDTP
does not always ensure that the public funds it spends are for
reasonable or necessary items. For example, it previously did
not have adequately defined policies and procedures for credit
card use, resulting in frivolous expenditures on flowers and
other items of a personal nature. In addition, it has expended
funds on items typically not allowed in state service, such as
employees’ moving expenses and rent. The DDTP implemented
new policies on nonallowable expenses after we brought many
of these imprudent expenditures to its attention. In addition, its
employees have repaid many of these expenditures.
Furthermore, salaries and benefits of some DDTP employees
appear very generous when compared with those of similar state
employees. Although DDTP employees are not state employees,
the DDTP is a publicly funded entity. Thus, we used state civil
service employees as a benchmark in our comparison. In fact,
our salary comparison of 12 DDTP employees shows that the
maximum step of the salary ranges of these employees averages
24 percent higher than those of comparable state positions, with
one salary as high as 48 percent above a similar classification in
state service.
The DDTP also gives many of its employees fringe benefits,
including paid parking and use of leased vehicles. In the past,
the DDTP has failed to report these taxable benefits to the
proper taxation authorities. After we brought our concerns to
the DDTP’s attention, it made efforts to report parking benefits,
although we believe it can strengthen its internal controls to
prevent the personal use of leased vehicles.
Finally, most DDTP contracts that we reviewed comply with
the Public Contract Code and contain adequate benchmarks and
standards for contractors. However, some of its contracts con-
tain no performance measures or provisions for the collection of
monetary penalties should a contractor fail to comply. Although
the DDTP is beginning to implement performance requirements
for some of these contracts, the initial lack of provisions to col-
lect penalties may have cost the DDTP thousands of dollars in
noncompliance fees, or monetary damages it would have been
entitled to if the contractor failed to meet established standards.
2 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The administration of the DDTP is being reconfigured. It has not
yet been determined who will be responsible for the day-to-day
provision of program services, so we are making several recom-
mendations. Because the DDTP’s current structure will remain
intact for another year, we recommend that it take the following
actions to better track carrier remittance practices and payments
and to ensure that the DEAF Trust is receiving all the money it
is owed:
• Work with the CPUC to develop and maintain a reliable
record of active carriers that are providing services subject to
the surcharge.
• Track the payment history of each carrier and monitor these
records to identify delinquent carriers.
• Regularly notify delinquent carriers and the CPUC of all past-
due amounts.
The CPUC ultimately will be responsible for ensuring that it col-
lects all surcharges. To ensure that it does so, the CPUC will have
to do the following:
• Develop and maintain a reliable record of active carriers that
are providing services subject to the surcharge.
• Rewrite its transmittal instructions in explicit detail, ensuring
consistency among carriers.
• Enforce late-payment penalties.
• Conduct periodic audits of DDTP surcharge remittances.
To ensure the prudent use of public funds in furtherance of the
program’s mission, the DDTP should:
• Adhere to its newly revised internal control procedures that
define allowable expenses.
• Obtain the CPUC’s approval for employee salaries.
• Develop additional procedures to prevent the potential for
personal car use among employees with DDTP-leased vehicles.
2 3
Finally, whether or not the CPUC contracts out for all or some
of the day-to-day provision of program services, to ensure that
program funds are spent prudently and in accordance with its
mission, the CPUC should do the following:
• Include specific provisions in its contracts that require con-
tractors to comply with state laws, regulations, and policies
related to reimbursable expenses.
• Include specific performance standards in its contracts and
monitor whether the contractors are meeting those standards.
• Include provisions in its contracts that will allow it to collect
damages from nonperforming contractors.
AGENCY COMMENTS
The CPUC and the DDTP agree with our recommendations.
However, the DDTP disagreed with how we characterized some
of its imprudent expenditures. In addition, the DDTP took
exception to our comparison of the salaries and benefits of
DDTP employees with comparable state positions. However,
it outlined what it will do or has done to implement each of
our recommendations. Finally, the CPUC plans to adopt all
of our recommendations and detailed how it would implement
each one.
4 5
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In 1979, legislation was enacted requiring the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to design and
implement a program providing telecommunications
equipment to individuals who are deaf or hearing impaired.
This program—now known as the Deaf and Disabled
Telecommunications Program (DDTP)—currently fulfills
three mandated functions, each arising from a separate piece
of legislation. These three pieces of legislation have been
incorporated into Section 2881 of the Public Utilities Code, but
the functions continue to be identified and distinguished by
their bill number, summarized below.
Senate Bill 597
Senate Bill 597 (SB 597), enacted as Chapter 1142, Statutes of
1979, provides for the distribution of telecommunication devices
for the deaf (TDDs) to certified deaf telephone subscribers at
no cost. Additional legislation extended the provision of TDDs
to any school or organization representing deaf or severely
hearing-impaired individuals, as well as to any state agency
having significant contact with the public. The essential piece of
equipment provided through SB 597 is the text teletype machine
(TTY)—a device with keyboard and visual display, allowing
written telecommunication between parties. Other equipment
distributed under this bill may include telephones with large
visual displays or signal devices.
Senate Bill 244
Senate Bill 244, enacted as Chapter 741, Statutes of 1983,
mandated the development of a dual-party relay system to
connect individuals who are deaf or hearing impaired with
individuals who have normal hearing. The resulting California
Relay Service (relay service) provides TTY users 24-hour contact
with any other telephone subscriber in the State. Trained
operators are available to relay conversation between people
who type or read their telephone communications using a
TTY and people who use the common telephone handset to
hear and speak. In such a call, the operator types or reads aloud
what the other party is communicating.
4 5
AT&T Communications of California (AT&T), California’s first
relay provider, began operations on January 1, 1987. Currently,
MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. is the primary relay
provider, handling approximately 70 percent of all relay service
calls, with Sprint Communications Company, L.P., serving as
secondary provider, handling the remaining 30 percent. The
DDTP—the entity that administers the program1—reports that
callers made almost 7 million calls through the relay service in
2001. The relay service also provides a service known as Speech-
to-Speech (STS), providing trained operators who speak for users
with speech disabilities or who otherwise have trouble being
understood on the telephone. This service was added on a trial
basis starting in 1996 and became permanent in 1999. The DDTP
reports that callers made almost 67,000 STS calls through the relay
service in 2001.
Senate Bill 60
Because of Senate Bill 60 (SB 60), enacted as Chapter 585,
Statutes of 1985, other certified individuals with hearing, vision,
mobility, speech, and other cognitive disabilities receive special-
ized telephone equipment. Some examples of the equipment
distributed under this bill include speaker and remote control
telephones, automatic dialers, big-button phones, telephone
headsets, and call alert signalers. According to the DDTP, more
than 494,000 pieces of equipment provided under SB 597 and
SB 60 are currently in service.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
The CPUC regulates privately owned “public utilities,” such as
gas, electric, telephone, and railroad corporations. For example,
it is responsible for certifying telephone companies (carriers)
that apply to provide telecommunications services in California.
The CPUC’s primary objective is to ensure adequate facilities and
services for the public at reasonable rates by establishing service
standards and safety rules and authorizing utility rate changes.
In 1989, the CPUC formally established the DDTP to oversee
the provision of the services mandated by the three Senate bills.
Previously, the Deaf Equipment Acquisition Fund Trust (DEAF
Trust) Administrative Committee—established by the CPUC in
1 Throughout this report, we use “program” when referring to the mandated functions
and services and “DDTP” when referring to the entity that administers and carries out
these functions and services.
6 7
1981—oversaw the services. The
The Seven Universal Service Programs
program is one of seven universal
Overseen by the CPUC
service programs that the CPUC
Universal Lifeline Telephone Service: Subsidizes basic
administers, seeking to expand
telephone service for low-income persons.
access to basic telephone services.
California High Cost Fund A: Subsidizes basic telephone
service provided by 17 small local telephone companies
servicing high-cost, predominantly rural areas in the State. The CPUC finances six of these
California High Cost Fund B: Subsidizes basic service in programs, including the DDTP,
high-cost areas of the service territories of four large through surcharges on all tele-
local telephone companies, including Pacific Bell, Verizon
phone customers’ monthly bills.
California Inc., Roseville Telephone Company, and Citizens
Telecommunications of California. The Public Policy Payphone
California Teleconnect Fund: Subsidizes telephone service Program (pay phone program)
for various entities, including schools, libraries, community- is financed by a portion of the
based organizations, and city- and county-owned hospitals
monthly surcharge applied to all
and clinics.
pay phone access lines in the State.
Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program: Provides
telecommunications equipment and services to individuals The surcharge that finances the
who are certified deaf, hearing impaired, or otherwise disabled. DDTP usually appears on consumer
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf Placement phone bills as “CA Relay Service
Interim Committee Program: Provides for publicly available
and Communications Devices
telecommunications devices capable of servicing the needs of
the deaf or hearing impaired in existing buildings, structures, Fund” or something similar, and
facilities, and public accommodations. is currently 0.48 percent of most
Public Policy Payphone Program: Provides public pay intrastate billings.
phones at locations where there would otherwise not be
one and where having one is in the interest of public health,
safety, and welfare. Certified carriers are required
to remit the revenue they receive
from the DDTP surcharge into the
DEAF Trust, with Bank of America
serving as trustee. The CPUC’s transmittal instructions mandate
the reporting and remitting of surcharges using a form known as
the Combined California Public Utility Commission Telephone
Surcharge Transmittal form (transmittal). All carriers are required
to use transmittals to report the revenue collected for six of the
seven universal service programs, even if the amount is zero. Pay
phone program surcharges are reported separately.
From January 1, 2001, through August 31, 2001, the surcharge
for the DDTP was zero. This is because the statute for the program
was not amended in 2000, and the surcharge expired. However,
legislative authorization for the surcharge was restored, as was a
surcharge rate of 0.48 percent, as of September 1, 2001. As shown
in Table 1 on the following page, the combined surcharges for the
six universal service programs paid through consumers’ monthly
bills amount to 4 percent of certain billed services, supporting more
than $1 billion in expenditures for these programs.
6 7
TABLE 1
Surcharge Rates for the Seven Universal Service Programs
Overseen by the CPUC
Surcharge Rate Program Budget for
Universal Service Program (as of May 2002) Fiscal Year 2002–03
Universal Lifeline Telephone
Service Program 1.45% $ 284,447,000
California High Cost
Fund A 0.30 53,077,950
California High Cost
Fund B 1.47 535,018,000
California Teleconnect Fund 0.30 159,349,000
Deaf and Disabled
Telecommunications
Program 0.48 49,714,600*
Telecommunications Devices for the
Deaf Placement Interim Committee
Program (TPIC) 0.0† 310,667
Public Policy Payphone Program ‡ 151,667
Totals 4.0% $1,082,068,884
Source: Various California Public Utilities Commission resolutions.
* This is the approved budget amount for calendar year 2001.
† As of December 1, 2001, the TPIC surcharge was reduced from 0.1 percent to zero.
‡ This program is funded by a portion of the monthly surcharge applied on all pay phone
access lines in the State. Although the surcharge rate in the past was 8 cents per pay
telephone line per month, it is currently zero.
The Telecommunications Division (division) within the
CPUC acts as the liaison between the DDTP and the CPUC.
The division reviews DDTP-recommended appointments to
the three working committees that guide the DDTP’s activities
and makes recommendations to the CPUC’s executive
director. The CPUC’s executive director approves or denies
these recommendations. The division also reviews and makes
recommendations concerning CPUC approval of the annual
budget for the DDTP. In addition, the division reviews large
contracts entered into by the DDTP for telecommunications
services. The CPUC’s legal division also advises the DDTP on
legal matters as needed. Finally, the CPUC’s executive director
designates one person to serve on the DDTP’s administrative
committee, as his or her representative.
8 9
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
From the inception of the program in 1981 until the late 1990s,
various local telephone companies provided the bulk of the
mandated services on its behalf, including equipment procure-
ment and distribution, and outreach. However, in 1998, in
response to deregulation of the telephone industry, the CPUC
directed the DDTP to take over operational responsibility for
essential program services from the telephone companies. The
aim was to streamline all functions, to cut costs, and to focus on
ensuring that the program reached all eligible consumers. This
transition was completed in 2000, with the DDTP administering
contracts for a centralized call center and a central equipment
distribution center.
The DDTP is a quasi-governmental entity, subject to CPUC
oversight. In addition, as discussed later, DDTP employees are
not State of California employees. As of June 1, 2002, the DDTP
employed 58 individuals, and its 2001 approved budget was
$49.7 million.
The DDTP directs all services mandated by Senate Bills 597,
244, and 60 on behalf of the CPUC. This responsibility includes
administering the distribution of equipment as required by
Senate Bills 597 and 60—currently referred to as the California
Telephone Access Program—as well as the relay service. Its
functions include strategic planning, administration, and
financial management. Other DDTP responsibilities include
obtaining equipment, managing telecommunications
contracts, handling public relations and consumer outreach, and
reporting. Three committees, each of which focuses on specific
activities, guide it.
Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program
Administrative Committee
The Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program Adminis-
trative Committee (administrative committee) is the DDTP’s
lead committee. It recommends policies to the CPUC, includ-
ing the DDTP’s annual budget, and approves expenditures. Its
deliberations guide the DDTP’s strategic planning. It approves
contracts with vendors and reviews vendor performance. Other
responsibilities of this committee include:
• Recommending surcharge rate changes to the CPUC.
• Determining an investment policy for the assets of the DEAF
Trust.
8 9
• Overseeing the activities of its advisory committees.
• Ensuring that the financial statements are audited annually.
The administrative committee—composed of up to 12 represen-
tatives appointed by the executive director of the CPUC—meets
once a month and on an as-needed basis beyond that. Voting
members include seven representatives from consumer groups
representing the hard-of-hearing, deaf, and disabled communi-
ties. The five nonvoting members represent carriers and other
telecommunication vendors (3), the primary relay service
provider (1), and the CPUC (1).
California Relay Service Advisory Committee
The California Relay Service Advisory Committee advises the
administrative committee on all matters pertaining to the
quality of the relay service, including policy, programs,
procedures, financial aspects, and public awareness. It is
composed of up to 11 representatives appointed by the CPUC’s
executive director. Voting members include six representatives
from consumer groups. The five nonvoting members represent
carriers and other telecommunication vendors (3), the primary
relay service provider (1), and the CPUC (1).
Equipment Program Advisory Committee
The Equipment Program Advisory Committee advises the
administrative committee on equipment technology, new
products, equipment distribution, service quality, and policies.
It is composed of up to 10 representatives appointed by the
executive director of the CPUC. Voting members include five
representatives from consumer groups. The remaining five
nonvoting members represent carriers and other telecommuni-
cation vendors (3), the primary relay service provider (1), and
the CPUC (1). Figure 1 illustrates the relationships among the
CPUC, the DDTP, its various committees, and the services and
products it provides.
10 11
FIGURE 1
Administrative Structure of the DDTP
California Public Utilities Commission
Advisory Administration Advisory
California Relay Service Deaf and Disabled Equipment Program
Advisory Committee Telecommunications Program Advisory Committee
Administrative Committee
Deaf and Disabled
Telecommunications Program
Products
Services
California Telephone
California Relay Service
Access Program—equipment
(Senate Bill 244) Speech-to-
distributed under
Speech Service
Senate Bills 60 and 597
Source: DDTP 2000 Annual Report.
SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC
Individuals are eligible for program equipment and services if
they (1) reside in California, (2) have access to phone service at
their residence, and (3) have a certified disability. All disabilities
must be certified by a physician or authorized agent. The
centralized call center in Stockton—which operates under a
contract with the DDTP—is the single point of contact for
consumers who want to learn about the equipment available.
Call center employees are available to answer questions, provide
information, and initiate orders for equipment.
Consumers also may visit one of five walk-in service centers,
currently in Sacramento, Riverside, Fresno, Santa Ana, and
San Diego, with a service center in Oakland scheduled to open
in August 2002. Service centers offer consumers a place to
learn about the specialized telephone equipment and receive
10 11
training in how to use it. Consumers also can return equipment
needing repair to a service center. In addition, people who
need assistance in installing and learning to use specialized
telephone equipment in their residences can be helped by a
DDTP field advisor, of which there are 12 statewide. If needed,
field advisors also help consumers select equipment and
provide training to ensure that consumers can communicate
by telephone as independently as possible. According to
the DDTP, each field advisor typically helps as many as
25 individuals or families per week.
When an order is placed, the centralized equipment distribution
center in San Jose—also under contract to the DDTP—delivers
the telephone equipment. The distribution center maintains
the majority of the DDTP’s equipment inventory. In addition,
the DDTP currently employs 10 outreach specialists, stationed
throughout the State, who inform the public about the program
through presentations, exhibits, conventions, support group
meetings, and other events. The DDTP’s state headquarters,
located in Oakland, houses additional staff that perform
management, accounting, human resources, and other
administrative functions.
TRANSFER OF THE DEAF TRUST FUND TO
THE STATE TREASURY
As we described earlier, the CPUC administers several universal
service programs, including the DDTP, most of which are funded
by a surcharge on monthly telephone bills. Before SB 669,
enacted as Chapter 677, Statutes of 1999, surcharge revenues
were remitted to and maintained in trust funds or checking
accounts within commercial banks, such as Bank of America and
Union Bank. However, this law required that the funds collected
for these programs, including the DDTP, become a part of the
State Treasury. By transferring the funds to the State Treasury,
the new law entrusts the funds to the State’s budgeting process.
When these funds became subject to the State’s budget process,
the CPUC assumed responsibility for maintaining accounting
records, receiving surcharge remittances, and depositing them in
the State Treasury. In essence, the CPUC collects the surcharge
revenues and transfers them to the State Controller for deposit
in the designated universal service program funds created under
12 13
this law. These functions, because they have a clear match with
state civil service classifications, are now performed by CPUC
employees. This is true for all programs except the DDTP.
The CPUC has not yet implemented this law with respect to
the DDTP because the transition has proved to be more complex
than with the other programs. According to the CPUC, a
significant number of the DDTP’s employees—primarily field
advisors, customer advisors, and outreach specialists—are
deaf or disabled or possess specialized skills, knowledge, or
experience needed to deliver services to the deaf and disabled
community. These attributes are not among the CPUC’s current
civil service classifications. Moreover, because the DDTP is a
quasi-governmental entity, subject to CPUC oversight, and
not a separate legal entity, it is not under contract with the
CPUC. According to the CPUC, the State Controller may not
pay employees of an entity that is not a state agency unless
those employees are working for an organization under
contract to a state agency—in this case, the CPUC. Once the
surcharge revenues become a part of the State Treasury, the
DDTP’s employees cannot legally be paid, essentially resulting
in the DDTP ceasing to exist. If this were the case, disruption of
program services would likely result.
The CPUC submitted a transition plan to the Legislature in
May 2001 describing three possible options for administering
and operating the program in compliance with this law. These
options were to (1) have DDTP staff functions transferred to civil
servants assigned to the CPUC, (2) seek appropriate authority to
enter into a formal contract with the administrative committee
for the provision of services, and (3) seek authority to transfer
the program to another state agency such as the Department of
Developmental Services. In the fall of 2001, the CPUC informed
the administrative committee that the CPUC’s president would
support the second option. The CPUC, in conjunction with
the Legislature, developed emergency legislation that would
extend the deadline for transfer. The governor recently signed
this bill, Assembly Bill 1734, Chapter 61, Statutes of 2002,
extending the deadline to July 1, 2003, for funds in the
DEAF Trust to revert to the newly created Deaf and Disabled
Telecommunications Program Administrative Committee
Fund within the State Treasury. In addition, the new law
authorizes the CPUC to enter into contracts for the provision
of program services.
12 13
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (audit committee)
requested the Bureau of State Audits to conduct an audit of
the DDTP. Specifically, the audit committee requested an
examination of the CPUC’s and DDTP’s accounting controls
to determine whether they are sufficient to ensure the proper
accounting of program revenues and expenditures. We also
were asked to assess the DDTP’s procedures for ensuring that
its contracting practices comply with the Public Contract Code
and its methods for ensuring that the scope of its contracted
work is sufficient, meets the needs of its customers, and is cost-
effective. Finally, there were concerns that decisions regarding
the program were being made in “closed door” sessions without
public review and that there may be a conflict of interest
between a high-level DDTP employee and Sprint.
To determine whether the DDTP is adhering to necessary
accounting policies and procedures and furthering the mission
of the program when expending public funds, we performed a
variety of expenditure testing. For example, we reviewed
36 payments to individuals and companies to determine
whether they were made for legitimate purposes in furtherance
of the program’s mission.
In addition, we tested a sample of travel expense claims to
determine whether DDTP employees were keeping within
prescribed limits. We also tested a sample of credit card invoices
to identify potential imprudent expenditures, or those not
furthering the mission of the program. In further testing of the
validity of expenditures, we performed a two-year reconcilia-
tion of the DDTP’s checking account and analyzed the makeup
of expenditures, notably the percentage of administrative costs.
Our reconciliation uncovered no problems.
To determine whether the DDTP and the CPUC are fulfilling
their responsibilities regarding the collection of surcharge
revenue, we evaluated the responsibilities of each entity. We
did this by interviewing appropriate staff, studying laws and
regulations, and reviewing applicable internal control poli-
cies and procedures. We then examined the sufficiency of the
requirements and analyzed the extent to which each entity
is fulfilling its responsibilities. To identify the frequency with
which telephone companies submit the required surcharge, we
14 15
acquired the Surcharge Transaction History report for 2000
and 2001. We manipulated this report in various ways to
distinguish between large and small carriers, to identify
carriers that were delinquent, and to analyze the effect of missed
payments. In addition, we reviewed more than 100 surcharge
transmittal forms, selected some late payments, and analyzed
the potential effects of missed interest penalties.
To evaluate the sufficiency of the CPUC’s instructions to carriers
regarding the submitting of surcharge revenues, we interviewed
staff and studied laws and regulations to gain a firm under-
standing of what the CPUC requires. We then asked selected
telephone companies how they understood and interpreted the
requirements. We also reviewed a sample of telephone bills paid
by our own staff to evaluate how different carriers apply the sur-
charge and how consistently the companies apply the surcharge.
To gain an understanding of the contracting practices that the
DDTP is required to follow, we studied the Public Contract
Code and State Contracting Manual. We then selected a sample
of large DDTP contracts to evaluate whether its contracting
practices comply with applicable state laws and guidelines.
To determine whether the DDTP is enforcing the terms of its
contracts with vendors, we identified provisions in our sample
of contracts to which the collection of monetary penalties
may apply and determined whether the DDTP had collected
all the monetary penalties it was owed. To evaluate whether
the DDTP’s contracts are meeting the needs of its customers
sufficiently, we reviewed our sample of contracts to determine
whether appropriate benchmarks and performance standards
were required of vendors. We then evaluated the reasonableness
of these standards and examined whether the DDTP is enforcing
compliance with these standards.
Because DDTP employees are not state employees but are paid
with public funds, we decided to evaluate the compensation
packages of certain DDTP employees and assess their reasonable-
ness as compared with compensation paid to equivalent State
of California employees. To evaluate the reasonableness of
salaries, benefits, and other forms of compensation, we
examined the DDTP’s employee handbook, salary ranges, and
payroll history reports. We then compared job descriptions
and salaries of DDTP staff with those of comparable state
14 15
civil service positions. We also assessed the reasonableness
of employees’ retirement benefits. In addition, we tested the
DDTP’s payments for its fleet of leased vehicles to ensure
that all cars are accounted for properly. We also tested the
reasonableness of the mileage use of the leased vehicles.
Finally, we determined the extent to which the DDTP is
reporting taxable fringe benefits, such as parking and personal
use of the leased vehicles.
To determine whether decisions regarding the program were
being made in “closed door” sessions without public review, we
read and evaluated the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Bagley-
Keene Act), identifying applicable provisions. Next, we reviewed
all meeting minutes—both open and closed door—that took
place during the contract negotiations for the relay service,
involving MCI WorldCom and Sprint. We then evaluated
whether provisions of the law were adhered to strictly. We
determined that the DDTP did an adequate job of documenting
all its meetings and of complying with the Bagley-Keene Act.
Finally, to ascertain whether a conflict of interest existed
between a DDTP employee and Sprint, we interviewed appro-
priate staff at the DDTP and CPUC and reviewed documents
related to the contract negotiations. We concluded that no
such conflict existed.
16 17
CHAPTER 1
Insufficient Monitoring of Surcharge
Remittances May Have Resulted in
Large Amounts of Uncollected Revenue
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Neither the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications
Program (DDTP)2 nor the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) is fulfilling its responsibilities
to ensure that telecommunications companies (carriers) are
collecting and remitting required surcharges on intrastate
telecommunications charges, possibly resulting in large sums
of revenue going uncollected. These surcharges pay for vital
services mandated under the program, such as providing much-
needed telecommunications equipment to deaf and disabled
individuals. Of the nearly 1,500 carriers that are certified by
the CPUC, roughly 32 percent have submitted payments over
the last two years. Although it is possible that some of the
certified carriers do not provide services that are subject to the
surcharge, neither the DDTP nor the CPUC has a firm grasp on
which carriers should be collecting and remitting surcharges. In
addition, these carriers sometimes remit surcharges past their
due date and usually do not pay assessed interest penalties.
Moreover, neither the DDTP nor the CPUC have systems in
place to ensure that all carriers that are collecting the surcharges
from their customers are remitting those surcharges to the Deaf
Equipment Acquisition Fund Trust (DEAF Trust).
Furthermore, many carriers, although required to remit
surcharges on a monthly or semiannual basis, remit irregularly
without penalty. In addition, carriers do not always consistently
apply the surcharge rate to the various types of intrastate service
charges. Also, the DDTP does not monitor the timeliness of
carrier remittances to identify carriers that are remitting late.
As a result, the DDTP does not notify the CPUC, which has the
authority and responsibility to levy late-payment penalties on
the carriers.
2 Throughout this report, we use “program” when referring to the mandated functions
and services and “DDTP” when referring to the entity that administers and carries out
these functions and services.
16 17
MANY CARRIERS DO NOT REMIT SURCHARGES OR
REMIT THEM LATE
Although the DDTP and the CPUC share responsibility for
ensuring that all mandated surcharges are remitted to the DEAF
Trust, neither entity has a firm grasp on which carriers should
be collecting and remitting these surcharges. In the absence
of proper controls, many carriers do not remit surcharges or
remit them late, meaning the DDTP probably is not receiving
all the funds it should. Moreover, carriers may be collecting the
surcharges from their customers but not remitting them to the
DEAF Trust.
All licensed and certified telecommunications carriers that
provide intrastate services are required by state law to assess a
surcharge on their customers. The carriers then remit the money
to the DEAF Trust. As of June 2002, these surcharges are 0.48
percent of most intrastate billings—meaning calls made within
California. These surcharges pay for the operations of the DDTP,
as well as for program services and equipment. Carriers must
send their payments electronically or by mail, along with a
transmittal form, to the Bank of America, which is the trustee
of the DEAF Trust. If the carrier submits a payment electroni-
cally, the form automatically is sent to the CPUC. Otherwise the
carrier is required to send a copy of the transmittal form to the
CPUC. After the Bank of America verifies the transmittal form and
deposits the money into the DEAF Trust, it sends a printed copy
of the form to the DDTP. Figure 2 illustrates this flow of funds.
As of April 2002, the CPUC’s list of active carriers totaled 1,483.
According to the CPUC, these are carriers that currently are cer-
tified to operate and/or provide telecommunications services in
California. However, the CPUC is not sure how many or which
of these carriers are actively providing intrastate services that are
subject to the surcharge. With some exceptions, all calls within
the State of California are intrastate calls, and to the extent that
carriers bill their customers for those calls, the surcharge should
be applied to the charged amounts.3 It is possible that not all
the 1,483 carriers are currently providing intrastate services
subject to the surcharges. However, only 469 (31.6 percent) of
these carriers submitted a payment for at least one reporting
period covering either 2000 or 2001. Specifically, 408 carriers, or
27.5 percent of those certified, submitted a payment for at least
one reporting period in 2000, and only 361, or 24.4 percent,
submitted a payment for at least one reporting period in 2001.
3 The exceptions can be seen in the box on page 27.
18 19
FIGURE 2
Flow of Surcharge Revenues From the Consumer to the DDTP
Consumer—pays telephone bill,
including surcharge amounts
Carrier—receives payments
Bank of America—records
CPUC—receives either from consumers; sends monthly
deposit in the DEAF
electronic or hard copy of transmittal form to the CPUC
Trust and forwards a
transmittal form from and the Bank of America;
copy of the transmittal
the carrier sends surcharge remittance to
form to the DDTP
the Bank of America
DDTP—directs payments
from the DEAF Trust for
program services
These numbers illustrate that at least 68 percent of the carriers
on the CPUC’s active list did not remit surcharge revenue for
2000 or 2001. The CPUC could provide no definitive reason for
why these carriers did not remit during the past two years. Some
options include (1) they do not provide services that are subject
to surcharge, (2) they stopped operating before January 2000
or did not begin operating until after December 2001, (3) they
do not collect the surcharge from their customers, or (4) they
simply do not remit the surcharges they collect. No one, includ-
ing the CPUC, knows for sure what the reason is. In any event,
it is likely that some, if not many, of these carriers should be
submitting surcharge revenue.
Moreover, of the approximately 32 percent of carriers that did
submit at least one payment for either or both of the past two
years, many did not pay as frequently as they should have. As
we discuss later, carriers are required to make payments monthly
or semiannually, the latter only if they qualify. As Table 2 on the
following page shows, only 161, or 39 percent, of the 408 carri-
ers that submitted at least one payment for 2000 paid as fre-
quently as required. Appendices A and B detail the carriers that
submitted at least one payment for 2000 and 2001, respectively,
as well as the frequency with which each submitted.
18 19
TABLE 2
Less Than Half of Carriers That Submitted Payments for 2000
Submitted Them as Frequently as Required*
Frequency of Submission for 2000 Number of Carriers
Monthly 153
Semiannually 8
9 to 11 times 119
6 to 8 times 45
2 to 5 times 55
1 time 28
Total 408
Source: Surcharge Transaction History for 2000.
* Only those carriers submitting monthly or semiannually are in compliance.
It is possible that some of the carriers were not registered until
later in that two-year period or lost their certification earlier in
the period, indicating a potential reason for nonpayment during
some of the months. To test this theory, we identified 30 carriers
that made one or more payments for 2001 but none for 2000, to
see if perhaps they were not certified until 2001. Of these 30, we
found that 23 were certified before or during 2000, most likely
indicating that they should have made payments for that year.
Conversely, we identified 30 carriers that made one or more
payments for 2000 but not for 2001, to see if perhaps they had
lost their certification before 2001. Of these 30, we found that
24 are certified and listed as active by the CPUC, indicating
that they most likely should have made payments for 2001. One
can conclude from this that many carriers do not submit
as frequently as required.
THE CPUC AND THE DDTP LACK ADEQUATE CONTROLS
TO ENSURE THAT CARRIERS COLLECT AND REMIT ALL
AMOUNTS DUE
The DDTP must rely on the CPUC to provide accurate informa-
tion regarding which carriers are providing intrastate services
that are subject to the surcharge and the frequency with which
each carrier is required to submit. However, the DDTP says the
CPUC does not provide this information. In addition, the DDTP
should recognize when carriers that have been remitting are no
20 21
longer doing so. It also should verify that the carriers are charg-
ing the appropriate surcharge rate and, when applicable, are
The DDTP does little to submitting the appropriate late-payment penalty. When the
track the payment history DDTP discovers that carriers are not complying, it should notify
of carriers, likely resulting the CPUC, which has enforcement authority, including the abil-
in uncollected revenue. ity to assess late-payment penalties and/or to revoke carriers’
ability to operate in California. However, the DDTP does little to
track the payment history of carriers and does not identify those
that submit late, likely resulting in uncollected revenue.
The CPUC Does Not Identify All Carriers That Should Be
Collecting and Remitting Surcharges or How Often They
Should Do So
The CPUC requires carriers to report and remit surcharges on a
monthly basis. Carriers also have the option to make payments
semiannually on a cumulative basis covering a six-month period
if their average intrastate billings subject to surcharge are equal
to or less than $10,000 per month. Carriers electing to submit
semiannually must inform the CPUC that they qualify. Those
paying at intervals other than monthly or semiannually are
out of compliance. As of June 2000, the CPUC had a list of
34 carriers that had elected to file semiannually. However, the
CPUC has not shared this information with the DDTP, claiming
the DDTP has not requested such information.
The DDTP Does Not Adequately Review or Record the
Payments It Receives
According to its internal control procedures, the DDTP is
responsible for reviewing incoming transmittal forms, which
detail remittances, and for maintaining an accurate record of
payments so it can recognize which carriers have not remitted as
frequently as required. According to its procedures, the DDTP is
also to notify the CPUC when carriers have not remitted within
the specified period. Although the DDTP receives transmittal
forms, it does little more than a cursory spot check of those
forms before filing them away. In fact, we observed that for the
first several months of 2002, the DDTP had not even opened the
package of transmittal forms sent from the Bank of America.
In addition to not reviewing transmittal forms adequately, the
DDTP does not maintain an accurate record of payments or a
payment history of carriers. According to the DDTP’s internal
control procedures, it is required to enter all surcharge receipts
into a database, to assist in tracking carrier payments as well as
20 21
in reconciling bank records. As a result of legislation, the
legal authority to assess surcharges on intrastate services was
suspended from January through August 2001. Before the
eight-month suspension, DDTP staff reviewed transmittal forms
and entered data from the forms into a database. During the
suspension of the surcharge, the practice of entering informa-
tion on remittals into the database was discontinued. After the
Legislature reinstated the surcharge in September 2001, the
DDTP never reestablished the practice, instead paying little, if
any, attention to the incoming transmittal forms.
Because the DDTP has not adequately monitored the payment
history of carriers, it has been remiss in identifying both small
The DDTP has been and large carriers that have missed payments, potentially
remiss in identifying resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars of uncollected
carriers that have missed funds. Granted, most carriers certified by the CPUC are relatively
payments, potentially small, generating minor amounts of revenue. However, the
resulting in hundreds amounts are significant when taken cumulatively. For example,
of thousands of dollars we estimate the program should have received from small
of uncollected funds. carriers in 2000 an additional $310,000 in surcharges alone,
not counting any late-payment penalties that might have
been assessed. Even larger carriers—which typically submit as
required—sometimes miss payments, in which case hundreds
of thousands of dollars may be lost without proper monitoring.
For example, the DDTP did not recognize that one large carrier
missed submitting a payment for June 2000. As of April 2002,
the carrier still had not submitted the payment. If the payment
were similar to what this carrier paid in the six months after
June 2000, the DDTP should have received approximately
$200,000 for June.
As Table 3 illustrates, the 20 carriers that submitted the most
revenue for the year 2001 accounted for approximately
$30.4 million (88 percent) of the $34.4 million in surcharge
revenue paid for that year. In addition, the 20 carriers that
submitted the most revenue for the year 2000 accounted for
approximately $38.7 million (89 percent) of the $43.4 million
in revenue submitted for that year. It is essential that the DDTP
and the CPUC monitor the payments of these larger carriers,
because missing even one payment from some of them could
represent a significant loss of revenue.
22 23
TABLE 3
Surcharge Revenue Received From the 20 Largest Carriers Remitting for 2000 and 2001
20 Largest Carriers Remitting for 2001 20 Largest Carriers Remitting for 2000
CPCN* Name of Carrier Amount CPCN* Name of Carrier Amount
1001 Pacific Bell Telephone Company $8,946,496 1001 Pacific Bell Telephone Company $13,188,741
3060 Cingular Wireless 3,026,156 1002 Verizon California Inc. 4,076,230
1002 Verizon California Inc. 2,664,531 3060 Cingular Wireless 2,997,905
5002 AT&T Communications of California 1,917,211 5002 AT&T Communications of California 2,629,680
3066 Nextel of California, Inc. 1,868,520 3003 Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership 2,423,117
3003 Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership 1,783,437 3009 AB Cellular Holding, LLC 2,133,321
3009 AB Cellular Holding, LLC 1,605,883 3066 Nextel of California, Inc. 1,911,919
5011 MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc. 1,288,884 5011 MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc. 1,813,864
3007 Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company 1,275,998 3007 Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company 1,169,657
3002 GTE Mobilnet of CA, Ltd. Ptnrshp. 1,180,411 3064 Cox Communications PCS, L.P. 1,020,436
3064 Cox Communications PCS, L.P. 1,165,463 3002 GTE Mobilnet of CA, Ltd. Ptnrshp. 835,329
3062 WirelessCo., L.P. 811,344 3010 AT&T Wireless Services of CA, Inc. 710,153
3010 AT&T Wireless Services of CA, Inc. 761,508 3062 WirelessCo., L.P. 696,779
3001 Cellco Partnership 388,328 5494 Verizon Select Services, Inc. 616,245
4236 Choice Communications 355,881 5378 MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. 553,921
5378 MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. 348,117 5112 Sprint Communications Company, L.P. 509,002
3004 Sacramento Valley Ltd. Partnership 309,052 3001 Cellco Partnership 489,993
5112 Sprint Communications Company, L.P. 291,316 3004 Sacramento Valley Ltd. Partnership 396,718
5732 Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. 212,607 5172 Metropolitan Fiber Systems of CA, Inc. 276,160
3029 Verizon Wireless, LLC 199,753 4236 Choice Communications 271,691
Total of 20 largest carriers $30,400,896 Total of 20 largest carriers $38,720,861
Total 2001 revenue remitted Total 2000 revenue remitted
by all carriers $34,434,800 by all carriers $43,399,615
Largest carriers percentage of total 88.3% Largest carriers percentage of total 89.2%
Source: Surcharge Transaction History of 2000 and 2001.
* Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
The DDTP also does not always review carriers’ transmittal
forms to ensure that the carriers are applying the correct
surcharge rate. Since January 2000, the surcharge rate has
changed three times, ranging from zero percent during the
period from January through August 2001 to 0.481 percent from
September 2001 through November 2001. The rate currently in
effect is 0.48 percent. Although the DDTP claims that it performs
spot reviews of transmittal forms for accuracy, this is not enough
to ensure that carriers are applying the correct surcharge rate.
The DDTP should develop and review a payment history of
carriers so it can look for trends, including major decreases in
the revenue submitted. Without such procedures, erroneous or
missing payments can go undetected.
22 23
For example, we discovered that one large carrier’s payment
for September 2001 was almost $200,000 less than payments it
made for subsequent months. When prompted by us, the DDTP
researched the matter and discovered that the carrier’s smaller
payment for September was actually a payment for prior period
adjustments, not a regular surcharge payment. By researching
this matter, the DDTP learned that the carrier had not made a
regular payment for September, claiming that it was unaware
that the surcharge had been reinstated as of September 2001.
The carrier subsequently corrected this error by remitting a
payment of $170,890.
To ensure that carriers are applying the correct surcharge rate,
the CPUC sends letters to all carriers informing them of the
changes to the surcharge rate. It provided us with a copy of the
letter it sent to all carriers notifying them of the new surcharge
rate. Although we could not determine whether all the carriers
had actually received the letter, the carrier discussed above had
received it.
In addition, 165 carriers remitted surcharge revenue for
January through August 2001, when the surcharge had expired
The DDTP collected and the carriers were not required to remit. According to
$1.8 million in surcharge our calculations, the DDTP collected $1,817,336 of surcharge
revenues during a time revenues from these carriers for this eight-month period. As of
when carriers were not June 2002, these funds are still in the DEAF Trust and have not
required to remit. been returned to the proper carriers. According to the DDTP,
the CPUC recently requested a detailed listing of all surcharges
remitted during this period, but the CPUC has yet to create a
plan on how or whether to reimburse the funds to the carriers or
the customers.
Finally, because the DDTP does not maintain accurate records
based on the transmittal records it receives, it is unable to
investigate any potential discrepancies between the information
recorded on the transmittal forms and that in the DEAF Trust
statements provided by the Bank of America. As we mentioned
earlier, before January 2001, DDTP staff created a database with
data from the transmittal forms. The database supposedly was
used to reconcile the transmittal information to the DEAF Trust
statement every month. However, the DDTP has discontinued
this practice since the reinstatement of the surcharge. It claims
that software flaws in the Access program make the database
unreliable. Failing to reconcile the transmittal forms to the
trustee’s bank statement, the DDTP must rely solely on the
24 25
remittance receipts posted by the bank, leaving potential errors
unspotted. The DDTP informed us that it recently implemented
a system to validate deposits made by the Bank of America.
The DDTP Does Not Identify Late Payments or Report
Them to the CPUC
According to its own policies and procedures, the DDTP is to
send out past-due notices to all local carriers on a monthly
basis and at least quarterly to all other telecommunications
providers—such as long distance or paging carriers—when they
have failed to remit as expected. The DDTP is also to contact the
CPUC’s Public Programs Branch chief concerning all delinquent
surcharges. However, the DDTP does not carry out any of the
aforementioned procedures.
The CPUC transmittal form instructions state that surcharge
revenue remitted after the 40th day following the close of the
reporting period is past due and will incur a penalty equal to
an annual rate of 10 percent. We observed that many carriers
submit surcharge payments on or near the due date, causing
many of them to become delinquent by the time the trustee
receives them. Although it is true that the CPUC has ultimate
enforcement power, the DDTP neither tracks which carriers
are late in submitting payments nor confirms that the carri-
ers are remitting the appropriate late-payment penalty. As a
result, large amounts of revenue in the form of late-payment
penalties go uncollected, and the DDTP has missed out on
thousands of dollars of revenue that could be used to provide
services to the deaf and disabled communities.
Some large carriers submit payments late, failing to remit the
One carrier submitted two interest penalty in the process. For example, the DDTP did not
surcharge remittances, recognize that a large carrier had failed to submit surcharge
totaling more than remittances for September and October 2001, even though it
$400,000 each, 142 and submitted them for November and December 2001. Based on
111 days late, respectively, the amounts the carrier submitted during those two months, we
but did not submit any estimated the DDTP had missed out on payments of approximately
late interest penalties, $444,000 each for September and October. On April 2, 2002,
which should have been the carrier remitted $439,500 for September and $454,850 for
almost $31,000. October 2001, or 142 and 111 days late, respectively. However, the
carrier did not submit any late-payment penalties, which should
have been almost $31,000.
24 25
The DDTP does not have an updated system to send out past-
due notices automatically. According to the DDTP, it believes
that it is unable to determine which carriers should remit
surcharge revenue because it claims that limited information
exists as to when carriers began or stopped providing services
subject to the surcharge. However, we determined that the date
most carriers were certified by the CPUC is readily available on
the CPUC’s Web site. In addition, the DDTP asserts that the
CPUC’s record of carriers is unreliable due to repeated carrier
name changes that appear on the DEAF Trust statements from
the bank. However, the trust statements show the carriers’
assigned certification numbers. For the most part, the DDTP
should be able to rely on those numbers. Although the
reporting of delinquent carriers is required by its own
policies, the DDTP does not monitor carrier remittances, and
delinquency goes unreported.
In another example, a large carrier finally remitted, in April 2002,
$191,000 for payments it missed for September and October 2001.
Another large carrier Because the DDTP failed to identify this delinquency and notify
submitted two payments the CPUC, these payments were submitted approximately
totaling $191,000 four months late. In addition, this carrier’s late payments did
approximately four months not include interest penalties, which we calculated should have
late, but did not submit the been more than $6,600. We were able to identify exceptions
more than $6,600 due in such as these by reconstructing information available at the
late interest penalties. DDTP. If the DDTP maintained accurate records of payments,
it would be able to conduct these types of analyses easily and
quickly identify which carriers are out of compliance. This
would allow it to notify both the carriers and the CPUC, which
has the necessary enforcement powers.
THE CPUC COULD IMPROVE ITS OVERSIGHT OF THE
DDTP AND THE PROGRAM
The CPUC, despite being the governing body over the program
and the DDTP, does not always demonstrate consistent oversight
over the revenue collection functions performed by the DDTP.
In addition, while the DDTP has responsibility for identify-
ing when carriers do not collect and remit surcharges correctly,
the CPUC has responsibility for enforcement of the program’s
requirements, including revenue collection. For example, as we
discussed earlier, the CPUC does not know with any certainty
which of the 1,483 carriers on its April 2002 list of active
26 27
carriers provide intrastate services that are subject to surcharges.
In fact, more than 1,000 of these carriers submitted no surcharge
revenues for 2000 or 2001.
In addition, the CPUC does not ensure that carriers are
following its instructions regarding the collection and
remittance of surcharge revenues. As a result, there is a great deal
of inconsistency and inefficiency in the surcharge process. For
example, we reviewed a limited number of invoices submitted
by 10 carriers to their customers and found that the carriers did
not consistently apply the surcharges to the different types of
intrastate service charges. This may be occurring because the
guidance provided on the remittance form and on the CPUC’s
Web site is not detailed enough. The CPUC tells carriers that
they should, with some exceptions, apply the surcharges to all
intrastate charges, but the definition of intrastate charges is
unclear. For example, the instructions are unclear as to whether
carriers should apply the surcharge to telephone
charges tied to length or volume of intrastate calls
According to the CPUC’s transmittal
only or if they should apply it to all or a proportion
form instructions, carriers must assess
of monthly service fees as well.
the surcharges on all their billings for
intrastate telecommunications services
except for the following: Moreover, we found that at least one local carrier
did not apply the surcharges to intrastate calls that
• Discounted services under the Universal
Lifeline Telephone Service program. it billed on behalf of one long-distance carrier. This
• Charges to other carriers for resale occurred even though the local carrier did apply
purposes. the surcharge properly to the intrastate services it
• Public phone coin in box and telephone had provided.
debit cards.
• Contracts effective before September In addition, carriers apply different methods when
15, 1994.
reporting and paying late-payment penalties. From
• Usage charges to coin-operated pay
our observation of hundreds of transmittal forms,
telephones.
we noticed that carriers that remit revenue late
• Sale and/or lease of customer premises
generally do not pay the appropriate penalties.
equipment.
In a sample of 25 late payments remitted for
• Directory advertising.
2000 and 2001, $68,000 in interest penalties
• One-way radio paging.
had accrued but had not been paid as of April
2002. Over the period, $3 million had been
delinquent from these 25 late payments for an
average of 76 days. Moreover, we found that the few carriers
that do submit late-payment penalties use a couple of different
methods. Some prorated the annual 10 percent interest penalty
on a daily basis to the number of days delinquent, while
some paid a full 10 percent on the surcharge amount due,
regardless of how many days the payment was late. Prorating
the annual 10 percent interest penalty on a daily basis is the
26 27
correct method, indicating that some carriers overpaid interest
penalties. Delinquent carriers and inconsistencies in reporting
have gone unnoticed because the CPUC has not enforced
transmittal guidelines strictly. Further, this lack of oversight may
have allowed carriers to withhold significant amounts of money
from the DEAF Trust without penalty.
One way the CPUC could obtain some assurance that carriers
are reporting correctly would be to conduct remittance audits.
The CPUC conducts periodic remittance review audits of various
carrier practices and procedures for some of its universal service
programs, but it does not do so for the DDTP. It claims that
Although the CPUC once funds from the DEAF Trust are incorporated into the State
conducts periodic Treasury, the CPUC’s Telecommunications Division plans to
remittance audits for perform annual remittance reviews of surcharges remitted to the
some of its universal DDTP. The CPUC’s audits of other programs include examining
service programs, it does the accuracy of surcharge revenues remitted by carriers as well
not do so for the DDTP. as claims and payments received from the programs. The DDTP
does not conduct or participate in such audits. Although the
DDTP claims it does unofficial “spot reviews” of transmittal
forms to ensure transmittal accuracy, these reviews pale in
comparison to the highly detailed audit procedures set forth in
the CPUC’s remittance audits. The CPUC’s Telecommunications
Division believes that, based on position descriptions for
DDTP accounting staff, it is the responsibility of the DDTP’s
accounting department to conduct annual remittance reviews.
However, the last such review by the DDTP occurred in 1997,
and none has taken place since. Unchecked carrier practices and
procedures create the potential for errors that would hamper
the DDTP’s ability to carry out its mission. Since the receipt
of surcharges is vital to the operation of the DDTP, carrier
procedures for collecting and submitting surcharge revenue
must be reviewed universally to ensure that they are being
followed properly.
28 29
CHAPTER 2
Imprudent Use of Public Funds,
in Addition to Generous Salaries,
Leaves Less Money Available for
Program Services
CHAPTER SUMMARY
The Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program
(DDTP),4 charged with providing telecommunications
equipment and services to deaf and disabled individuals,
does not always further this mission when expending public
funds. Specifically, in our limited review of credit card purchases
and expense reimbursements, we found that the DDTP has
expended hundreds of dollars unrelated to the services man-
dated for the program. In part, this is because the DDTP has not
adequately defined policies and procedures for credit card use.
Some frivolous credit card purchases approved by management
included flowers, gifts for employees, staff luncheons, and party
decorations, adding up to more than $1,000. In addition, the
DDTP has reimbursed its employees for expenses totaling more
than $12,000 typically not seen in the public sector, such as
moving and rent expenses for newly hired employees. Although
these imprudent expenditures represent only a small portion
of the DDTP’s budget, such use of public funds can undermine
citizens’ confidence in government. After we brought these
concerns to the attention of management, the DDTP initiated
corrective action by strengthening its policies and procedures
regarding allowable expenditures. Also, employees have repaid
the DDTP for many of these expenditures.
The salaries and benefits of DDTP employees appear generous
when compared with those of state employees in similar posi-
tions. Although DDTP employees are not state employees, their
salaries are paid with taxpayer funds. The DDTP claims that it
based employee salaries on information from a salary survey
conducted by outside consultants. However, the salaries of
4 Throughout this report, we use “program” when referring to the mandated functions
and services and “DDTP” when referring to the entity that administers and carries out
these functions and services.
28 29
selected DDTP employees average 21 percent higher than the
recommendations in the salary survey. In addition, our own
analysis shows that the maximum step of some DDTP salary
ranges, on average, are approximately 24 percent higher than
those for comparable positions in state civil service. Finally,
although some DDTP employees receive taxable fringe benefits
such as parking and use of leased vehicles, the DDTP neither
identified nor reported these benefits to the taxation authorities
until we brought it to the DDTP’s attention.
All DDTP contracts that we reviewed comply with the Public
Contract Code, but only some contain adequate benchmarks
and standards for contractors. In two warehouse contracts,
the original contract contained no measurable benchmarks or
standards for the contractor to follow and no provisions for
the collection of monetary penalties should the contractor fail
to comply. The DDTP has not been entirely satisfied with the
services provided by these contractors. Although the DDTP is
beginning to implement performance requirements for these
contracts, the initial lack of provisions for collecting monetary
penalties may have cost the DDTP thousands of dollars it
would have been entitled to if the contractor failed to meet
established standards.
THE DDTP DOES NOT ALWAYS FURTHER THE PROGRAM’S
MISSION WHEN EXPENDING PUBLIC FUNDS
The DDTP sometimes spends public funds on items that are
unrelated to program services or that do not further the pro-
gram’s mission. Specifically, the DDTP tends to spend excessive
amounts on food for training sessions, committee meetings, and
other events. In addition, many program employees have DDTP
credit cards, sometimes charging imprudent expenditures such
as gifts and meals. Also, the DDTP has in the past reimbursed
employees for expenses typically not permitted in public service,
such as moving expenses and temporary rent payments. As a
result, less money is available for the individuals it serves.
However, the DDTP has initiated corrective action by adopting
new policies on allowable expenditures.
Some Expenditures Have Been Unnecessary or Excessive
The DDTP lacked a
clear policy concerning The DDTP has not always ensured that the public funds it
expenses that are not spends are for reasonable or necessary items or those furthering
allowable. the program’s mission to provide telecommunications services
to deaf and disabled individuals. The main reason for this was a
30 31
lack of clear policy concerning expenses that are not allowable.
During our review of expenditures, we discovered several that
were unnecessary, excessive, or in conflict with stated policies
and procedures or state laws and regulations.
For example, we reviewed an invoice in which the DDTP paid
the Hilton in Long Beach almost $13,000 for two consecutive
The DDTP spent days of committee meetings in November 2000. Nearly $3,700—
between three and or 28 percent of the total bill—was for breakfast and lunch of
four times the established committee members and DDTP staff over the two-day period.
per diem limits for Specifically, one day the DDTP spent $502 on continental break-
meals during some fasts for 20 individuals, more than $25 per person. A few hours
committee meetings. later, the same 20 individuals incurred $647 in lunch expenses,
equal to $32 per person, including tax, tip, and service fee. These
amounts are three to four times the per diem limits set by the
DDTP’s own policies and procedures, as well as state guidelines.
On a separate occurrence, the DDTP paid the Oakland Airport
Hilton more than $3,200 for meals provided to committee
members and DDTP employees for two days of committee meet-
ings in January 2000. Specifically, on one day the DDTP spent
$2,035 to feed 73 DDTP employees and committee members
buffet lunches, equaling almost $28 per person. The next day,
the DDTP spent $644 on lunch for 25 individuals, or $26 per
person. Furthermore, the DDTP spent more than $800 for three
of its employees—who work at DDTP headquarters in downtown
Oakland—to stay at the Oakland Hilton, less than eight miles
from the DDTP’s office. The DDTP has stated that it complies
with state policies, but the California Code of Regulations states
that lodging or per diem expenses for employees are not allowed
at any location within 25 miles of department headquarters.
Excessive expenditures of public funds such as these constitute
waste and inefficiency. However, since we brought these exam-
ples to the DDTP’s attention, it has implemented a new policy
that employee lodging is no longer allowable when the DDTP
event is less than 50 miles from the employee’s regular work
location. In addition, the DDTP stated that it budgets every year
for committee meeting meals, the CPUC has approved these
budgeted expenses each year, and the DDTP has never exceeded
its approved budget. However, the DDTP’s new policy specifies
that employee meal expenses no longer are allowable except in
conjunction with employee travel.
30 31
We also observed that the DDTP paid more than $8,700 to a
catering business for the cost of catered food at various training
events, meetings, and celebrations during a 15-month period
in 2000 and 2001. One payment was for breakfast, lunch, and
cake to feed 400 people—a one-year anniversary open house,
at the request of the administrative committee, for employees
of the company with which the DDTP contracts to operate its
call center, their families, and members of the community. Call
center employees are the initial points of contact for people
wanting to learn more about equipment or the services the
program provides. We question the prudence of the DDTP
spending taxpayer funds to sponsor such an event for its
contracted help. After we brought this to the DDTP’s attention,
it claimed the open house was planned as a joint event,
sponsored by the call center vendor and the DDTP. However,
the DDTP said the vendor withdrew its sponsorship, leaving
the DDTP to pay for the entire event. Nonetheless, the DDTP
implemented a new policy that it no longer will conduct or pay
for events such as these for vendors or at vendors’ facilities.
The DDTP Recently Has Strengthened Its Policies and
Procedures Concerning the Use of Credit Cards
A prior lack of firm policies and procedures governing the use
of DDTP credit cards allowed employees to incur imprudent
expenditures. Neither the DDTP’s employee handbook nor its
internal control procedures clearly specified what purchases
were considered valid for business purposes. Guidance on this
matter from the CPUC consisted of a letter sent to the DDTP in
1998 reminding its staff that the program is funded by public
money and should be held accountable for using these funds in
furtherance of the program’s mission.
As of April 2002, 24 employees had DDTP-issued credit cards with
credit limits ranging from $1,000 to $3,000. Most upper-level
staff, including department managers and DDTP supervisors
as well as outreach specialists, have cards. DDTP management
During a 7-month period, needs to ensure that purchases made with those cards are
employees charged prudent and that proper support and evidence are provided
nearly $400 to their to document purchases.
DDTP-issued credit cards
to purchase flowers for While reviewing credit card purchases totaling almost $57,000 over
fellow employees and a seven-month period—from July 2001 through January 2002—
committee members. we noted many questionable purchases. We selected 24 purchases
totaling $7,380 because the vendor name sounded unusual for
public sector, business-related purchases and found that $1,135
32 33
(15 percent) of the cost of these purchases did not further
the program’s mission. For example, we found eight separate
purchases for flowers, ranging from $28 to $66 per purchase and
totaling almost $400. In each case, the flowers were delivered
to fellow employees or committee members to offer sympathy,
congratulations, or get-well wishes. We also identified one purchase
of gifts for other employees and another for break room appliances
for DDTP employees totaling more than $75. For example, the
DDTP purchased Starbucks gift certificates as motivational prizes
for some employees. Employees should use their own money, not
public money, to pay for these types of expenses.
Among the 24 purchases, we noted several others for unneces-
sary items. For example, a high-ranking employee charged
$157 to host a special luncheon for eight other high-rank-
A high-ranking employee ing employees, expressing appreciation for their hard work
charged $157 to host and dedication to the program. In addition, we found that on
a special luncheon for three separate occasions, employees spent a total of $253 for
eight other high-ranking items labeled as party decorations and prizes. Finally, we noticed
employees, expressing three additional purchases for cake as well as a $250 purchase for
appreciation for their friendship pins that appear to have been some sort of gift. These
hard work and dedication expenses do not further the program’s mission. These examples
to the program. were ones occurring only over the seven-month period we
reviewed. This would indicate there might be others. It would
seem reasonable that managers should use their own money if
they decide it is in their best interest to provide such things as
food, gifts, and flowers to the DDTP’s employees or vendors.
Granted, each purchase we discussed above is relatively
insignificant when compared with the DDTP’s approximately
$50 million annual budget. Although expenses such as these are
common in the private sector, such use of public funds constitutes
waste, contributing to less money available for program services.
We discussed this issue with DDTP management and provided
copies of the imprudent expenditures for further management
review. As a result of our discussion, the DDTP has implemented
new policies disallowing these types of expenditures, including
flowers, gifts, food, and expenses for celebratory events. In
addition, the expenditures in the examples detailed above and
others have been repaid to the DDTP.
32 33
The DDTP Has Made Other Expenditures Typically Not Found
in Public Service
Yet another example of imprudent expenditures of public funds
involved the payment of moving costs and temporary lodging
for two former DDTP employees. In addition, the DDTP failed
to fulfill its duty to report these payments as taxable income
for these two employees. We discovered that in 1999 the DDTP
paid $8,214 to an employee to cover the costs of relocating
the employee and spouse from Texas to California. These costs
included a separate house-hunting trip as well as all travel,
meals, and lodging expenses. This employee voluntarily left
the DDTP after only 11 months. California law states that if
for reasons not approved by the state department concerned,
an employee does not stay employed for a period of two
years, he or she shall reimburse the state entity for the full or
proportionate amount of the moving and travel expenses. In
another example, in 1999 the DDTP paid for an employee’s
temporary lodging in an apartment for three months at
$1,560 per month, or $4,680, while the employee attempted
to locate permanent housing.
Although state law does not necessarily prohibit expenses such
as these, such payments are typically not seen in the public
The DDTP did not seek sector among general employees. Although DDTP employ-
the CPUC’s approval for ees are not state employees, they are paid with public funds.
temporary lodging and The California Government Code states that if payments such
moving expenses totaling as moving expenses are made, they shall be certified by the
over $12,000 it paid to appointing power as being expenditures necessary to recruit
two former employees. qualified persons. Because the Legislature envisioned that the
CPUC would exercise oversight of the expense reimbursements
of its advisory committees, it is reasonable to assume that the
CPUC should exercise oversight over DDTP employee reimburse-
ments in a similar manner. However, the DDTP did not seek
authorization or approval from the CPUC for these payments,
nor did it seek CPUC approval for not recovering the expenses
from the employee who left the DDTP after 11 months. It stated
that it offered to reimburse these employees for some relocation
expenses because these candidates were the most qualified for
the positions and would bring needed expertise to the DDTP
during a period when it was absorbing operations performed by
the local telephone companies.
Moreover, the State Controller’s Office requires that certain
nonqualified moving expenses—such as house-hunting trips
and temporary living expenses—as well as all qualified moving
expenses (when certain tests are met) be reported as taxable
34 35
income on the employee’s W-2 form. Based on these criteria,
we determined that the DDTP should have reported $8,214 and
$4,680 of taxable income, respectively, on the W-2 forms for the
two employees described above. The DDTP did not do this. It is
essential that the DDTP adhere to applicable laws and regula-
tions that govern the reporting of taxable income.
EMPLOYEE SALARIES AND BENEFITS ARE GENEROUS
WHEN COMPARED WITH STATE EMPLOYEE SALARIES
AND BENEFITS
The salaries and benefits of DDTP employees appear generous
when compared with those of similar state employees. Although
DDTP employees are not state employees, their salaries and
benefits are paid with public funds. A salary comparison of
12 DDTP employees shows that the maximum step of salary
ranges of these employees are, on average, 24 percent higher
than those of comparable state positions, with one salary
being 48 percent above a similar classification in civil service.
Although the CPUC approves the DDTP’s overall salary
budget, it does not approve individual salaries. Finally, some of
the benefits received by employees, including health and life
insurance, are significantly better than those of state employees.
The Salary Ranges of Many Upper-Level Positions Are
Considerably Higher Than Comparable Public Sector Ranges
All 12 DDTP positions for which we reviewed salaries had
salary ranges that are significantly higher than comparable
All 12 positions we state positions, in many cases 20 to 30 percent higher. We
reviewed have a chose to study the salary ranges of the executive and deputy
maximum salary that director, all department managers, the system administrator,
is higher than that and accounting staff. We then compared the minimum
of comparable state and maximum annual salary of these employees with
positions, ranging those of state classifications performing similar duties and
from 6 to 48 percent responsibilities based on position descriptions.
higher and averaging
24 percent higher. Of the 12 DDTP positions we reviewed, 11 have a minimum
salary that is higher than that of similar state classifications—
10 to 47 percent higher, in fact. Also, all 12 positions have a
maximum salary that is higher than that of comparable state
positions, ranging from 6 to 48 percent higher and averaging
24 percent higher. For example, the salary range of the DDTP’s
deputy director is $80,000 to $97,000 annually, while the salary
range of the comparable state position is $63,000 to $69,000.
34 35
Also, the salary ranges for three of the DDTP’s department
managers are from $66,000 to $81,000 annually, compared with
$54,000 to $65,000 for comparable state managers.
The DDTP claims that it based its salary schedule on information
provided in a compensation study performed by outside
consultants in June 2000. The consultants’ analysis, though
more in-depth, was similar to ours. It performed extensive
research into job classification and description information from
all aspects of the public sector—including federal, state, county,
and city governments, as well as nonprofit organizations.
The consultant then developed a salary comparison chart
comparing DDTP salary ranges for 32 DDTP classifications
with that of the job that it concluded most closely matched
the duties and responsibilities of the DDTP position. Although
most of the salary ranges the consultant identified as the best
match were different from ours, the differences were relatively
small. When compared with the consultants’ salary survey, the
minimum and maximum salary for all 12 DDTP employees
we reviewed averaged 21 percent higher, with most ranging
from 10 to 30 percent higher and the highest being 54 percent
higher. Thus, using either comparison, Figure 3 shows that the
12 DDTP salary ranges are considerably higher than those of
comparable public sector classifications.
The CPUC approved the DDTP’s 2001 salary budget in
September 2001. In doing so, it also adopted a 10 percent
pay adjustment factor for DDTP employees, applied to all
classifications, to provide a monetary offset to compensate
employees for “the disparate levels of salary, benefit and terms
and conditions of employment” for DDTP staff compared with
state employees. It is obvious from Figure 3 that for at least
the 12 employees we reviewed, the actual disparity goes in the
opposite direction. The salaries of DDTP employees were already
higher in 2000 than those of comparable State employees,
and this 10 percent adjustment has increased the disparity. In
addition, as we discuss next, the benefits received by DDTP
employees are in many cases better than those received by
state employees.
36 37
FIGURE 3
12 DDTP Employee Salaries Are Consistently Higher Than Other Comparable Positions
(In Thousands)
�������������������
�����������������������������
����������������������������
�������������������������������
���
����
���
���
��� ���
���
��� �� ��
�� ��
��
��
��
��
��
�� �� ��
��
�� �� �� �� ��
�� �� �� �� �� ��
�� �� �� �� �� ��
�� �� �� ��
��
�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��
�� �� �� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
���� ����� ������ �� �� � ��� ������ � � � � ���� � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� �� � � � � � � �� ������� �� ����� ��� � � ��� � � � �� � � ��� � � ������� ��
Sources: DDTP 2001 Salary Schedule, DDTP Compensation Study by Pacific Gateway Group.
Many of the DDTP’s Employee Benefits Are Equal to or Better
Than Those Received by State Employees
Some benefits currently received by DDTP employees are at
least equal to or better than those received by comparable state
employees. Specifically, health and life insurance benefits are
generous compared with employees of the State.
36 37
With respect to health insurance, DDTP employees are not
required to pay any out-of-pocket costs for health care premi-
DDTP employees may ums. This includes coverage from either health maintenance
receive HMO or PPO organizations (HMOs) or preferred provider organizations
coverage for any number (PPOs). Although the State pays a large majority of the premi-
of dependents at no cost ums for its employees, in most cases employees are required
to the employee. to pay the uncovered portion of the premiums, which—for
coverage from the two largest HMO providers—ranges from
approximately $28 to $78 per month, depending on the number
of family members. The out-of-pocket costs for the two PPO
providers are even higher, from $67 to $694 per month, again
depending on the number of dependents. DDTP employees may
receive coverage from either type of plan and for any number of
dependents at no personal cost whatsoever. In fact, the DDTP
pays a monthly premium of $803 for one of its employees to
receive coverage from a PPO.
In addition, the DDTP provides generous life insurance coverage
for all its employees. The coverage amount is equal to two times
the employee’s annual salary, which for DDTP staff would range
between $48,000 and $206,000, from the lowest-paid to the
highest-paid employee. DDTP employees do not have to pay
any of the life insurance monthly premiums. In contrast,
only a small number of state employees—managerial and
supervisory—receive life insurance benefits, ranging from
$25,000 to $50,000 of coverage. Any additional coverage is
at the employee’s expense.
ALTHOUGH THE DDTP NOW PROPERLY REPORTS SOME
FRINGE BENEFITS, IT NEEDS ADDITIONAL CONTROLS
TO PREVENT PERSONAL USE OF VEHICLES
Previously, the DDTP failed to report to the proper taxation
authorities taxable fringe benefits received by some of its
employees. These benefits include paid parking and what
appears to be personal use of leased vehicles. When we informed
DDTP management of this, it began to initiate corrective action,
including reporting parking benefits as additional income to
the employee. The DDTP’s external auditor has suggested the
potential personal use of leased vehicles by DDTP employees
is a “de minimus” (insignificant) fringe benefit and should be
38 39
excluded from income, in part because of the good internal
control system in place to eliminate the personal use of leased
cars. However, we believe the DDTP can do more to strengthen
its controls to prevent or identify and report personal use of
leased vehicles.
The DDTP Has Initiated Corrective Action to Report Taxable
Fringe Benefits
The DDTP has been paying parking benefits to some employees
for more than three years. Until we brought it to the DDTP’s
For 2001, the DDTP attention, it had not reported this taxable fringe benefit to
paid parking fees for taxation authorities. Currently, the DDTP pays monthly parking
eight employees totaling fees for seven of its employees to park in reserved spaces and for
almost $24,000, but it one other employee to park in an unreserved space at a parking
did not report the taxable garage near the DDTP’s headquarters. The parking is provided
portion of this fringe to upper-level staff, department managers, and an executive
benefit on the employees’ assistant. The parking fee ranges from $185 to $225 per month,
W-2 forms. with the majority of the rates at $225. For 2001, the DDTP paid
almost $24,000 for these parking benefits. According to the
Internal Revenue Code, the DDTP should have been reporting
income for this qualified taxable fringe benefit in excess of the
maximum allowable exclusion amount for each employee.
This income should appear on the employee’s W-2 form. For
2001, the exclusion amount was $180 per month. Thus, for the
employees receiving the full $225 benefit, the DDTP should
have reported an additional $45 of taxable income each month,
or $540 for the year for each employee who received the benefit
for all 12 months.
We brought this to the attention of the DDTP’s management,
who took the issue to its external auditors. They determined
that based on the value received by the employee, amended
W-2s for 2001 should be issued to the appropriate employees.
According to the DDTP’s executive director, it has recently done
this. In addition, the executive director stated that the DDTP
has contacted its payroll processing service and obtained the
proper coding for this type of entry to be included in the
employee’s paycheck as fringe income. The monthly parking
fringe benefit was to be included in the first payroll run for
May 2002 and was to also include a year-to-date entry back
to January 2002.
38 39
The DDTP Can Improve Its Internal Controls to Track
Potential Personal Use of Leased Vehicles
The DDTP has never reported to taxation authorities the value of
personal use of leased vehicles that may have been provided to
some DDTP employees as taxable income. Although the DDTP’s
external auditor concludes that such benefits are insignificant
and should be excluded from income, the DDTP can strengthen
its internal controls to prevent or record and report employees’
personal use of leased vehicles. As of March 2002, the DDTP
provided leased vehicles to 22 employees—12 field advisors
and 10 outreach specialists. The field advisors cover large areas
of the State, helping people install and learn to use specialized
telephone equipment in their residences. The outreach special-
ists also travel their respective areas informing the public about
program services through various events. We do not question
the employees’ need for vehicles, but we question whether
enough controls are in place to prevent personal use of these
leased vehicles.
When questioned as to whether the DDTP tracks or reports
the value of personal use of these leased vehicles to taxation
authorities, management took the matter up with its external
auditors. The auditors assumed, based on what DDTP staff told
them, that the DDTP has a good enough internal control system
to eliminate the personal use of leased vehicles. We do not agree.
For example, the auditors stated, based on conversations with
DDTP staff, that each employee is required to maintain a daily
logbook or similar record of miles driven for business purposes.
We determined that the employees do not maintain daily mile-
age logbooks. Rather, when fueling their vehicles, employees are
required to record their current mileage electronically. Supervi-
sors have access to this mileage information on a monthly basis,
rather than daily. Total miles traveled by an employee
can be compared with the distance between the client
One employee drove location, the DDTP office, and the employee’s residence, but
her DDTP-leased vehicle we were unable to determine that DDTP supervisors routinely
more than required to analyze this information to determine whether vehicle use is
go back and forth every for business only. We tested one employee’s car usage over a
day from her residence one-month period, calculating the miles driven between the
to her work sites. employee’s residence and each site visited that month. We then
compared this amount with the actual mileage the employee
drove based on the fuel card statement. According to our calcu-
lations, the vehicle was driven 245 more miles than required to
go back and forth every day from the employee’s residence to
all the sites the employee visited during the month. These extra
40 41
miles represented 12 percent of the total miles driven. Although
we did not determine the exact extent of personal mileage, it
appears that some is very likely in this case.
The DDTP’s employee manual does have written rules and
regulations for the use of leased vehicles, clearly stating that
cars should not be driven for personal use. In addition, accord-
ing to what DDTP staff told its external auditor, supervisors
perform surprise visits to check up on their employees regularly,
although we were unable to determine the extent to which the
supervisors check for personal use. In any event, we believe it
would be prudent for the DDTP to label all its leased vehicles
and designate them as “DDTP business use only.”
Labeling vehicles in this fashion, similar to the way the
State marks its vehicles, is a good way to remind employees
of their accountability to the public to maintain proper use
of the assets funded by taxpayers. In addition, it would be
prudent and require little effort for employees who have
leased vehicles to maintain daily mileage logs. Supervisors
then should perform occasional tests using this daily record
to determine the potential amount of personal vehicle use
and initiate corrective action, if needed.
The auditors also stated that if there is occasional use of
these vehicles not directly related to the business, it would
be classified as a “de minimus” fringe benefit, or a benefit
whose value is so small that it would make accounting for it
unreasonably or administratively impracticable, taking into
account the frequency with which similar fringe benefits
are provided to other employees. We do not necessarily
disagree with the auditor’s conclusion, but the DDTP will not
know whether such use is significant or insignificant until it
implements controls to identify personal use.
ALTHOUGH DDTP CONTRACTS COMPLY WITH
STATE REGULATIONS, SOME LACK SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The DDTP has not always established performance measures for
its contractors or included provisions in its contracts to allow
it to collect damages from nonperforming contractors. Of the
seven contracts we reviewed, four lacked specific standards, as
well as provisions to collect monetary penalties for noncompli-
ance. This lack of provisions may have caused the DDTP to miss
40 41
collecting funds from vendors who did not deliver the services
as specified in the contract. However, the DDTP recently has
taken steps to include appropriate performance measures in two
of these contracts as well as penalties when standards are not
met. Despite the lack of these important elements in some of
its contracts, the DDTP has done an adequate job of complying
with state laws and regulations related to contracting practices,
such as competitive bidding and evaluation.
DDTP Contracts Comply With State Laws and Regulations
The DDTP contracts that we reviewed comply with applicable
provisions of the Public Contract Code. Since its centralization
of program services in 2000, the DDTP has contracted with a
range of vendors to assist it in providing these services. Some of
these contracts include ones to administer the California Relay
For all seven contracts Service (relay service), customer call center, and equipment
we tested, the DDTP distribution warehouse, as well as ones for equipment purchase
adequately followed and repair. We reviewed seven of the largest contracts
requirements related for a variety of services and tested these contracts against
to advertising, seeking applicable provisions of the Public Contract Code and State
competitive bids and Contracting Manual. We found that for all seven contracts we
evaluating contracts, tested, the DDTP adequately followed requirements related to
and avoiding conflicts advertising the bid or proposal, seeking competitive bids and
of interest. evaluating contracts, and avoiding conflicts of interest. We also
noted that, for most of its contracts, the DDTP hires qualified
consultants to perform the majority of the work related to
contract preparation, including developing the invitation
for bid or request for proposal, managing the bidders’
conference, developing evaluation criteria, and reviewing bids
for compliance. In many cases, these consultants have a great
deal of experience in bid initiation and contract preparation
and are very familiar with state laws and regulations governing
contracting practices.
Some DDTP Contracts Have Adequate Standards and
Provisions for Collecting Damages
The DDTP has worked to collect monetary penalties from MCI
WorldCom (MCI) and Sprint over the last several years for
noncompliance with certain service standards. In fact, the DDTP
has collected more than $622,000 in noncompliance fees from
these two companies since the beginning of the contract in
late 1996. The DDTP’s contracts with these companies include
standards such as (1) as a daily average, no more than 1 percent
of relay service calls shall receive a busy signal, and (2) as a daily
42 43
average, calls shall be answered within seven seconds. If MCI or
Sprint fails to meet these standards, the DDTP assesses damages,
Since 1996, the DDTP usually at a rate of up to $2,000 per day, plus incremental
has collected from its two amounts if the contractors are not compliant over extended
relay service providers periods. The DDTP’s relay service manager reviews monthly
more than $622,000 invoices from MCI and Sprint that detail many statistics,
in monetary penalties such as call volume, speed of answer, length of call, and
for noncompliance with so on, and identifies instances of noncompliance. After
certain service standards. proper approval by the California Relay Service Advisory
Committee and the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications
Program Administrative Committee, the penalties are assessed.
Establishing standards such as these is very important because
it not only gives contractors a benchmark to adhere to, but
also gives the DDTP a means by which to measure contractor
effectiveness. In addition, the DDTP recently has implemented
a new set of standards and monetary penalty provisions for its
call center contractor, including frequency of call blockage and
answer time standards.
The remaining four contracts that we reviewed, however, lacked
adequate benchmarks or standards to measure contractor perfor-
mance. In addition, these contracts did not contain provisions
for monetary penalties for nonperformance. The fact that the
DDTP has not been fully satisfied with the services provided by
a few of these contractors exacerbates this deficiency. Although
the DDTP is beginning to implement new performance mea-
surements for these contracts, the initial lack of measures and
penalty provisions may have cost the DDTP thousands of dollars
in noncompliance fees.
For example, the DDTP’s two contracts for its equipment
distribution warehouse—one for the warehouse facility and
one for warehouse labor—lack definitive performance measures.
Since these contracts went into effect in June 2000, the DDTP
has expressed dissatisfaction with some of the service provided,
including discrepancies in inventory practices, some outstanding
work orders, and sub-par daily order accuracy rates. Had the
DDTP established appropriate service levels, performance
measures, and provisions to collect for noncompliance in
the original contract, the vendors might have performed at
acceptable levels or the DDTP might have collected penalties
for their failure to do so. Establishing standards and performance
measures as well as properly enforcing such measures are
important administrative controls that enhance contract
management as well as maintaining vendor accountability.
42 43
The DDTP, however, recently has begun to implement steps
to improve the quality of service provided by its warehouse
It is vital that the DDTP contractors. Specifically, the equipment department manager
strictly hold its contractors has developed a service level agreement that details various
to performance standards performance standards, such as daily order fulfillment, accuracy,
by collecting penalties and inventory control, all with penalty provisions should the
when applicable. contractor fail to meet these standards. We strongly recommend
that the DDTP take similar steps for its contracts lacking such
performance measures. Moreover, it remains vital that the DDTP
strictly hold its contractors to the new standards by collecting
penalties when applicable.
44 45
CHAPTER 3
Recommendations to Improve
Program Administration
As described in the Introduction, the administration of the
Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program (pro-
gram)5 is being reconfigured. Because it has not yet been
determined who will be responsible for the day-to-day provision
of program services, we are making several recommendations.
Proposed Changes to Program Administration
Currently, telecommunications companies (carriers) are required
to submit surcharge revenues for the program to the Deaf
Equipment Acquisition Fund Trust (DEAF Trust), maintained
by the Bank of America. However, Senate Bill 669, enacted
as Chapter 677, Statutes of 1999, directed that all surcharge
revenues collected by the California Public Utilities
Commission’s (CPUC) universal service programs—including
the DDTP—become part of the State of California Treasury.
The intent of the legislation was to have the CPUC assume
responsibility for surcharge revenues and operate the funds
within the state system of budget controls and oversight.
In doing so, the CPUC would oversee the process by which
carriers remit surcharge revenues, ensuring that the funds are
deposited properly into the newly created Deaf and Disabled
Telecommunications Program Administrative Committee Fund
in the State Treasury.
This legislation required the CPUC to report to the governor
and the Legislature regarding a transition plan for the programs
whose funds would be established in the State Treasury. The
CPUC submitted a report to the Legislature in May 2001
detailing its plan to transition the funds of its universal service
programs, including the DDTP, into the State Treasury to be
entrusted to the state budgeting process. In this report, the
CPUC concluded that transitioning its other universal service
programs would engender little controversy, as the work
5 Throughout this report, we use “program” when referring to the mandated functions
and services and “DDTP” when referring to the entity that administers and carriers out
these functions and services.
44 45
performed by these programs had a clear match with state civil
service classifications. However, the same could not be said for
the DDTP. The most controversial issue was the appropriate
manner of transitioning the duties of a relatively large number
of DDTP staff, none of whom are state employees. Many of the
DDTP’s employees—primarily field advisors, customer advisors,
and outreach specialists—are deaf or disabled, or possess other
specialized skills or experience needed to deliver services to
the deaf and disabled communities. However, no comparable
civil service classifications existed at the CPUC. DDTP staff
were and currently are employees of the DDTP’s administrative
committee, and there is no contractual relationship between the
DDTP and the CPUC. State law prohibits the State Controller
from paying employees of any entity that is not a state agency
unless those employees are working for a state organization
under contract.
On July 28, 2001, the governor signed Assembly Bill 219—filed
as Chapter 109—into legislation, which amended portions of
the Public Utilities Code and set July 1, 2002, as a deadline for
any funds remaining in the DEAF Trust to be reverted to the
General Fund in the State Treasury. Because DDTP employees
are not state employees and thus cannot be paid with funds
from the State Treasury, the DDTP essentially would become
defunct as of July 1, 2002. In an effort not to disrupt program
services, the CPUC’s legal staff, in conjunction with the
Legislature, developed Assembly Bill 1734, which has become
law under Chapter 61, Statutes of 2002. This bill amends the
Public Utilities Code to extend the deadline to July 1, 2003, for
the transfer of funds in the DEAF Trust to the appropriate fund
within the State Treasury. The legislation also concludes that the
telecommunications services and equipment provided to deaf,
disabled, and hearing-impaired individuals and their families
are of such a highly specialized and technical nature that the
necessary expert knowledge, ability, and experience are not
available within the current state civil service system. Thus, it
authorizes the CPUC to enter into contracts for the provision of
telecommunications services and equipment in a manner that
protects and enhances the current infrastructure and delivery
of services while maintaining long-term continuity of program
administration. To do so, the CPUC may contract with entities
or persons that have the necessary expert knowledge, ability,
and experience to provide, manage, or operate the program’s
current services.
46 47
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE COLLECTION
OF SURCHARGES
Because the DDTP’s current structure has been extended until
July 1, 2003, we recommend that it take the following actions
in order to track carrier remittance practices and payments
better and to ensure that the DEAF Trust is receiving all the
funds it is owed:
• Work with the CPUC to develop and maintain a reliable record
of carriers that are providing services subject to the surcharge.
• Track the payment history of each carrier and monitor these
records to identify delinquent carriers.
• Regularly notify delinquent carriers and the CPUC of all
past-due amounts.
The CPUC ultimately will be responsible for ensuring that it
collects all surcharges. To ensure that it does so, the CPUC will
have to do the following:
• Develop and maintain a reliable record of active carriers that
are providing services subject to the surcharge.
• Rewrite its transmittal form instructions in explicit detail,
ensuring consistency among carriers.
• Track the payment history of each carrier and monitor
these records to identify carriers that are not remitting
surcharges as required.
• Enforce late-payment penalties.
• Require all active carriers that do not submit surcharge
revenues to certify that they do not provide services subject
to the surcharge.
• Conduct periodic remittance audits of DDTP surcharge
revenues.
46 47
RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENSURE PRUDENT USE
OF PROGRAM FUNDS
We recommend that the DDTP do the following to ensure
the prudent use of public funds in furtherance of the pro-
gram’s mission:
• Adhere to its newly revised internal control procedures that
define allowable expenses.
• Follow its new procedure to report parking fringe benefits as
taxable income on employees’ W-2 forms.
• Develop additional procedures to prevent personal use of cars
among employees with DDTP-leased vehicles. For example,
the DDTP should label all its leased vehicles and require
employees to maintain daily log records of miles driven.
When personal use occurs, the DDTP should report it as a
taxable fringe benefit to the proper taxation authorities.
• Ensure that all future contracts have established performance
standards as well as provisions to collect damages from non-
performing contractors.
Whether the CPUC contracts out for all or some of the day-to-
day provision of program services, to ensure that program funds
are expended prudently and in accordance with the program’s
mission, the CPUC should:
• Include specific provisions in its contracts that require
contractors to comply with state laws, regulations, and poli-
cies related to reimbursable expenses.
• Include specific performance standards in its contracts and
monitor whether the contractors are meeting those standards.
• Include provisions in its contracts that will allow it to collect
damages from nonperforming contractors.
48 49
We conducted this review under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by
Section 8543 et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted
government auditing standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit
scope section of this report.
Respectfully submitted,
ELAINE M. HOWLE
State Auditor
Date: July 11, 2002
Staff: Ann K. Campbell, CFE, Audit Principal
Robert A. Hughes
Leighton A. Burrey
Pamela M. Immordino
48 49
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
50 51
APPENDIX A
Remittance Frequency of Carriers
for 2000
This appendix shows the 408 carriers who remitted at least
one payment for 2000. It is sorted in numerical order
by the carrier’s certificate of public convenience and
necessity (CPCN) number. An ‘X’ represents that the carrier
made a payment for that month. A blank represents a non-
payment for that month.
50 51
TABLE A.1
Surcharge Transaction History 2000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
1000 Ducor Telephone Company X
1001 Pacific Bell Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X X
1002 Verizon California Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
1004 Calaveras Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X
1006 Cal-Ore Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X
1007 Ducor Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X
1008 Evans Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X
1009 Foresthill Telephone Company, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
1010 Happy Valley Telephone Co. X X X X X X X X X X
1011 Hornitos Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X
1012 Kerman Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X
1013 Pinnacles Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X X
1014 The Ponderosa Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X
1015 Roseville Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X
1016 Sierra Telephone Company, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
1017 The Siskiyou Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X
1019 The Volcano Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X X
1020 Verizon West Coast Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
1021 Winterhaven Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X
1022 Centurytel of Eastern Oregon, Inc. X X X X X X X
1023 Citizens Telecoms. Co. of Tuolumne X X X X X X X X X X
1024 Citizens Telecoms. Co. of CA, Inc. X X X X X X X X X
1025 Citizens Telecoms. Co. of Golden State X X X X X X X X X X
2004 Cal-Autofone X X
2029 Madera Radio Dispatch X X X X X X X X X X X
2048 Radio Electronic Products Corp. X X
2101 Fresno Mobile Radio Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
2147 Access Paging Company, Inc. X X X X X X X
2151 Regionet Wireless License, LLC X X X X X X X X X X X
2696 Comcast Telecommunications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
3001 Cellco Partnership X X X X X X X X X X X
3002 GTE Mobilnet of CA, Ltd. Ptnrshp. X X X X X X X X X X X X
3003 Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership X X X X X X X X X X X X
3004 Sacramento Valley Ltd. Partnership X X X X X X X X X X X
3005 Fresno MSA Ltd. Partnership X X X X X X X X X X X
3007 Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X X
3009 AB Cellular Holding, LLC X X X X X X X X X X X X
3010 AT&T Wireless Services of CA, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
3011 GTE Mobilnet of Santa Barbara Limited
Partnership X X X X X X X X X X X
3013 Yuba City Cellular Telephone Co. X X X X X X X X X X X
3014 Visalia Cellular Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X
3015 Santa Barbara Cellular X X X X X X X X X X X
3016 Napa Cellular Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X
3017 Bakersfield Cellular LLC X X X X X X X X X X X X
3018 Salinas Cellular Telephone Company X X X X X X X X X X X
3019 Santa Cruz Cellular Telephone, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
52 53
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
3020 Redding Cellular Partnership X X X X X X X X X X X X
3021 Cagal Cellular Comms. Corp. X X X X X X X X X X X X
3024 Mountain Cellular X X X X X X X X X X X X
3025 WWC License L.L.C. X X X X X
3027 Centennial Communications X X X X X X X X X X X
3028 California RSA No. 3 Ltd. Partnership X X X X X X X X X X X
3029 Verizon Wireless, LLC X X X X X X X X X
3032 Modoc RSA Limited Partnership X X X X X X X X X X X X
3033 Nevada County Cellular Corporation X X X X X X X X X X X X
3036 Cal-One Cellular L.P. X X X X X X X X X X X X
3037 Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
3038 California RSA No. 4 Ltd. Partnership X X X X X X X X X X X X
3043 U.S. Cellular X X X X X X X X X X X
3044 SLO Cellular Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
3047 Dobson Cellular of Imperial, Inc. X
3048 GTE Mobilnet of San Diego, Inc. X X X X X X X X X
3050 Price Communications Cellular Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
3060 Cingular Wireless X X X X X X X X X X X X
3062 WirelessCo, L.P. X X X X X X X X X X X X
3064 Cox Communications PCS, L.P. X X X X X X X X X X X X
3066 Nextel of California, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
3067 Central Wireless Partnership X X X X X X X X X X X X
3071 West Coast PCS, LLC X X X X X X X X X X X
3891 Concert Comm Sales, LLC X
4003 Call America, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
4004 Cellular Service, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
4025 Motorola Cellular Service, Inc. X X X
4038 Nova Cellular West, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
4042 My Store, Inc. X X X X
4043 Robo Wireless Accounting X X X X X X X X X X X
4048 The Phone Company Franchising Corp. X X X X X X X X X X X X
4049 Nationwide Cellular Svc. Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
4055 Southern California Telephone Co. X X X X X X X X X X X
4062 Prime/Matrix, Inc. X X X
4075 General Mobile Cellular X X X X
4077 Action Cellular Rent-a-Phone X X X X X X X X X X X
4081 Wireless Communication Interactive Inc. X X X X X
4087 Digital Cellular Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
4088 Personal Cellular Services X X X X X X X X X X X X
4093 Atlantic Cellular X X X X X X X X X X
4111 Pay-Less Cellular Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
4117 World Wide Cellular Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
4162 Prime/Matrix, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
4213 Los Angeles Wireless, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
4216 America One Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X
4236 Choice Communications X X X X X X X X X X X X
4260 Everything Wireless, L.L.C. X X X X X X X X X X X X
4269 AT&T Wireless Data, Inc. X X X X X X
4277 Fisher Wireless Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
4295 Highway Master Corp X X X X X X X X X
4300 TRAQ Wireless, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
4305 Pacific Wireless Technologies, Inc. X X X
52 53
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
5002 AT&T Communications of California X X X X X X X X X X X X
5005 Global Crossing Telecommunications Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5011 MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5047 Extelcom, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5055 GST Call America X X X X X X X
5056 Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5109 Bay Area Teleport X X X X X X X X X X X
5112 Sprint Communications Company, L.P. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5113 American Comms. Enter. (Futurtek) X X X X X X X X
5130 Teleconnect Company X X X X X X X X X X X X
5145 GTE Mobilnet of Santa Barbara X
5164 Telecommunications Int’l. (ZCZC LA) X X X X X X X X X
5168 Intellicall Operator Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5172 Metropolitan Fiber Systems of CA, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5173 Incomnet Communications Corporation X X X X X X X X X X X X
5186 USLD Communications Corp X X X X X X X X X X X X
5196 Excel Telecommunications X X X X X X X X X X X X
5208 Coast International, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5216 Insinc Corporation X X X X X X X X X X X X
5223 Phoenix Network, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5226 One Call Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5227 Matrix Telecom, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5229 Affinity Network Incorporated X X X X X X X
5230 Teltrust Communications Services, Inc. X X X
5231 US Telecom, Inc. X X X X X X
5233 Working Assets Funding Service, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5234 US Telecom Dba Sprint Services X X X X X
5238 Inter-tel NetSolutions, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5242 Mail.com Business Messaging Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5244 Ameritel/Amerivision Comms Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5247 Stenocall (Lubbock Radio Paging Svc.) X
5248 Arrival Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5249 Affinity Corporation X X X X X X X X X X X X
5251 NOS Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5253 MCI Metro Access Transmission Services X X X X X X X X X X X X
5256 Shared Communications Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5259 World Wide Communications Inc. X X X X X X
5266 Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5268 Norstan Network Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5270 Qwest Communications Corporation X X X X X X X X X X X X
5275 Trans National Comms. Inc X X X X X X X X
5276 Convergent Communications X X X X
5279 Saladin Westco X X X X X X X X X X X X
5280 Network Plus Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
5287 US Wats, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5289 Tel-Save, Inc. X X X X
5298 Linq Up America (Los Angeles), Inc. X
5303 Worldtel Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5314 Linkatel of California, L.P. X X X X X X X X X X X
5319 Hertz Technologies, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5327 International Exchange Comm., Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
5329 National Accounts Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
54 55
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
5335 Qwest Communications Corp X X X X X X X X X X X
5341 National Comtel Network Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5357 Buehner-Fry, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
5358 Time Warner Telecom of CA, L.P. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5359 Lightyear Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5364 Business Discount Plan Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5370 Premiere Communications Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5371 GST Pacific Lightwave, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5372 Nationwide Cellular Service Inc. X X
5373 GST Net, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5376 RSL Com USA, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5377 Electric Lightwave Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5378 MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5381 The Furst Group, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
5384 Vartec Telecom Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
5385 Dialink Corporation X X X X X X X X X X X X
5389 TCG San Diego X X X X X X X X X X X
5393 Broadwing Telecommunications Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5402 Equalnet Corporation X X
5403 TTI National, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5406 ICG Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5419 Brooks Fiber Comms. of Sacramento X X X X X X X X X X X X
5420 Brooks Fiber Comms. of San Jose X X X X X X X X X X X X
5426 BLT Technologies, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5427 IDT America, Corp. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5429 Citizens Telecommunications Company X X X X X X X X X X X X
5431 USV Telemanagement, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5433 Access Network Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X
5434 Nosva, Limited Partnership X X X X X X X X X X X X
5438 Inacom Communications Inc. X X X
5440 AS Telecommunications, Inc. X X
5441 Integrated Teleservices Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5442 Q.H. Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
5443 San Carlos Telecom Inc. X X X X X
5448 LDM Systems X X X X X X X X X
5454 TCG San Francisco X X X X X X X X X X X X
5456 Communications Brokers & Consultants X X X X X X X X X X X X
5458 Fiberlink Communications Corp X X X X X X X X X X X X
5462 TCG Los Angeles X X X X X X X X X X X X
5464 Home Owners Long Distance, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5469 GST Telecom California, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5472 Cybernet Communications Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5477 Genesis Communications Int’l Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5484 T-Netix, Inc. X
5485 USLD Communications Inc. X X X X X X
5488 Wiebe Telecommunications, Inc. X X X X X
5491 Alliance Net, Inc. X X X X X
5494 Verizon Select Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5509 Fibertel Inc. X X
5513 Primus Telecommunications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5519 Worldnet Communications Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5526 eMeritus Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
54 55
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
5528 Federal Transtel, Inc. X
5531 Winstar Wireless Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5532 Computer Telephone Corp. X X X X X X X
5534 CCI Communications Specialists Inc. X X
5535 Talk.com Holding Corp. X X X X X X X X X X X
5544 Brooks Fiber Comms. of Bakersfield X X X X X X X X X X X X
5545 Brooks Fiber Comms. of Fresno, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5546 Brooks Fiber Comms. of Stockton, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5549 AT&T Broadband Phone of CA X X X X X X X X X X
5553 Nextlink of California, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5560 Business Telecom, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
5586 Time Warner Connect X X X X X X X X X X X X
5594 Network Enhanced Technologies, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5602 Easton Telecom Services Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5607 California Catalog & Technology, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5608 American Telco, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5617 Integrated Telemanagement Services X X X X X X X X X X X
5619 Qwest Interprise America, Inc. X X
5621 Comdata Telecommunications Svcs. Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5624 Atlas Communication, Ltd. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5630 Yestel, Inc. X X X X X X X
5632 North American Communications Control X X X X X X X X X X X X
5633 TCAST Communications, Inc. X
5635 Touch 1 Communications Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5639 Business Options Inc. X X X X X X X
5641 Preferred Carrier Services, Inc. X X
5646 Advanced Telecommunication Network, Inc. X X X X X X X
5655 Global Crossing Telemanagement Inc X X X X X X X X X X X X
5658 Nynex Long Distance X X X X X X
5670 Corporate Services Telcom Sprint X X X X X X X X X X X
5671 Lightyear Telecommunications LLC X X X X X X X X X X X X
5673 PNG Telecommunications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5674 Norlight, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5679 Viatel Services, Inc. X X X X
5683 Intercontinental Communications Group, Inc. X
5684 Cox California Telcom II, LLC X X X X X X X X X X X X
5685 Global Crossing Local Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5686 A.R.C. Networks, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5689 GTE Mobilnet of San Diego Inc. X X
5696 Least Cost Routing, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
5701 BT North America Inc. X X X X X X X X
5702 Firstworld Anaheim X X X X X X X X X X X
5707 Cincinnati Bell Long Distance, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5712 McLeod USA Telecommunications Svs Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5713 Intermedia Communications Inc. X X X X X X X X
5717 PT-1 Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
5721 U.S. Telepacific Corp. X X X X X X X X X X
5724 I-Link Communications Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5725 Empire One Telecommunications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5731 Sasscom, Inc. X X X X X
5732 Bell Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5735 Dial Long Distance, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
56 57
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
5739 Caprock Communications Corp. X X X X X X
5740 World Network Communications Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5744 Cimco Communications Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5748 Telscape USA, Inc. X X X X X X X X
5760 ITC Deltacom Communications Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5765 Claricom Networks Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5773 U.S. Republic Communications, Inc. X X X X
5776 Custom Network Solutions, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5777 American Long Lines, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5785 RSL Com Prime Call, Inc. X X X X X X
5786 Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5791 Association Administrators, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5793 Diversified Solutions, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5797 Optel (California) Telecomm, Inc. X X
5798 U S West Long Distance, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
5803 Teligent Services, LLC X X X X X X X X X X X X
5809 TGEC Communications Co., LLC X X X
5817 Roseville Long Distance X X X X X X X X X X X
5818 Integrated Communications
Consultants, Inc. X X X X X X X X X
5831 Omniplex Communications Group, LLC X X X X X X X X X X X X
5832 Intouch America, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5837 Long Distance of Michigan, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5838 Premysis Liquid Crystal Display (TLMGT) X X X X X X X X X X X X
5839 Opentel Communications Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5841 Speer Virtual Media, Ltd. X X X
5842 Stormtel, Inc. X X X X X
5844 Real Telephone Company X
5845 Efficy Group, Inc. X X X X X X X X
5851 Univance Telecommunications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5852 RCN Long Distance X
5853 Cypress Telecommunications Corp. X X X X X X X X X X X
5859 Mpower Communications Corp X X X X X X X X X X X
5867 EZ Phone X X X X X X X X X X X
5869 Star*Value X
5873 International Thinklink Corporation X X X X X X X X X X X X
5874 Convergent Comm. Services, Inc. X
5880 Direct Net Telecommunications X
5881 Foxtel, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5882 Access Point, Inc. X X
5888 USBG, Inc. X X X X X X
5892 Freedomstarr Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5896 Network One (CRG International) X X X X X X X X X X X
5912 New Century Telecom, Inc. X X X X X X X
5922 Focal Communications Co. of Calif. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5928 Tri-M Communications Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5934 Allegiance Telecom of California, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5935 Quantumshift X X X X X X X X X X X X
5938 Savecom International USA, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
5941 Level 3 Communications, LLC X X X X X X X X X X X X
5942 NTT America, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5943 Comm South Companies X X X X X X X X X
5952 Infotech Telecomms. and Network Inc. X
56 57
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
5953 Net.World X X X X X X X X X X X
5955 Airnex Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5974 Calls For Less X
5979 Buyers United International, Inc. X X X X X
5982 Star Direct Telecom, Inc. X X X X X X X X X
5983 Public Interest Network Services Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5988 Telecarrier Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X
5989 NXLD Company X X X X X X X X X X X X
5993 Communication Network Services, L.L.C. X X X X X X X X X X
5996 PNV.net, Inc. X X X X X X X X X
6003 Omnicall, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
6008 Choctaw Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
6010 American Farm Bureau Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
6016 RCN Telecom Services of California Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
6019 New York Telcorp (Telcorp, Ltd.) X X X X X X X X X X X X
6022 Impulse Communication, Inc. X X
6026 Global Uni-Tel Communications X X X X X X X X X X X
6027 Z-Tel Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
6029 Single Billing Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
6039 Clearworld Communications Corp. X X X X X X X X X X X
6047 U.S. Republic Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X
6050 Connect America, Inc. X X X
6056 Wholesale Telecom, Inc. X X X X X X X X X
6060 Rhondacom, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
6061 Big Planet, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
6062 Corecomm of California X X X X X
6063 Net Stream, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
6065 01 Communications X X X X X X X X X X X X
6067 Network Billing Systems, CLC X X
6078 USC Telecom, Inc. X X X X X X X
6083 Advanced Telcom Group, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
6089 Pannon Telecom, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
6092 California Network Management X X X X X X X
6093 Globalcom Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
6097 Paetec Communications X X X X X X X X X X X
6102 Highspeed Communications of CA, LLC X X
6104 Access One, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
6106 Network International, LLC X X X X X X X X X
6111 Net2000 Communications Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
6117 Telecomm Cooperative Network, Inc. X X X
6129 Onestar Long Distance, Inc. X
6132 Compass Telecommunications, Inc. X X
6137 Glyphics Communications, Inc. X X X X
6142 GTC Telecom X X X X X X X X X X X X
6144 Gates Communications X X X X X X X X X X
6146 Williams Communications, LLC X X X X X X X X X X X X
6161 U.S. Telestar Communications Group X X
6165 United States Advanced Network, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
6169 DSL.net Communications, LLC X X X X X X X X X X X X
6180 RDST, Inc. X
6184 Seren Innovations, Inc. X X X X X X X X
6185 Telscape (Pointe Local Exchange Co) X X X X X X X X
58 59
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
6188 Media.net Communications, Inc. X X X X
6211 International Exchange Networks, Ltd. X X X X X X X X X X X X
6223 Affordable Voice Communications Inc. X X X X X X
6225 Quick-Tel, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
6226 New Edge Networks, Inc. X X
6231 Communications Express, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
6232 Adelphia Telecommunications, Inc. X X
6234 Telseon Carrier Services, Inc. X
6237 Universal Access, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
6242 Accessline LD Services, Inc. X X X X X X X
6251 Single Billing Services, Inc. X
6255 Telemanagement Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
6256 P.D.S., Inc. X X X X
6265 Trans National International Inc. X X X X X
6269 Mediatel Corporation X X X X
6276 DPI Teleconnect, LLC X X X X
6279 Competitive Communications, Inc. X X X X X X
6290 United Communications Hub, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
6291 Hotel Connect Management, Inc. X X X
6303 Net Lojix Telecom, Inc. X X X X X
6305 Essential.com, Inc. X X
6326 Broadband Office Communications, Inc. X X X X X X
6329 Northwestern Digital Company X X X X X X X
6332 EZTel Network Services, Inc. X X
6342 ACN Communications Services, Inc. X X X X X X
6346 SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. X X X X X X X
6347 Promisevision Technology Inc. X X X X X X X
6355 Telstra Incorporated X X X X X X X X X
6370 Touch America, Inc. X
6373 EAS Communication, Inc. X X X X X X
6375 Cybertel Communications Inc. X X X X X X X
6383 USA Digital Communications, Inc. X
6396 Big Zoo.com Corporation X X
6418 Zone Telecom, Inc. X X
6424 Norstar Communications, Inc. X X X
6479 Radiant Telecom, Inc. X X
6486 Congee Communications Corp. X X
6508 Xtension Services, Inc. X
6599 Pacific Telecom Management Group, Inc. X
6729 Competitive Communications, Inc. X
6917 Discount Network Services X
7171 Pt 1 Communications X X
Destia Communications Services X X X X
Equality, Inc. X X X X X X X
Evercom Systems, Inc. X X X X X X X X
Gateway Technology, Inc. X
Genesys Conferencing X X X X X X X X
Hbs Billing Services Co. X X
Integretel, Inc. X X X X X X
Netifice Communications X X X
Source: Surcharge Transaction History for 2000.
58 59
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
60 61
APPENDIX B
Remittance Frequency of Carriers
for 2001
This appendix shows the 361 carriers who remitted at least
one payment for 2001. Carriers were required to remit
payments only for September through December 2001, or
the months after the surcharge rate was reinstated. It is sorted
in numerical order by the carrier’s certificate of public conve-
nience and necessity (CPCN) number. An ‘X’ represents that
the carrier made a payment for that month. A blank repre-
sents a nonpayment for that month.
60 61
TABLE B.1
Surcharge Transaction History 2001
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
1001 Pacific Bell Telephone Company X X X X
1002 Verizon California Inc. X X X X X X
1004 Calaveras Telephone Company X X X X
1006 Cal-Ore Telephone Company X X X X
1007 Ducor Telephone Company X X X X
1008 Evans Telephone Company X
1009 Foresthill Telephone Company, Inc. X X X X X
1010 Happy Valley Telephone Co. X X X X X X X X X X
1011 Hornitos Telephone Company X X X X X X
1012 Kerman Telephone Company X X X X
1013 Pinnacles Telephone Company X X X X X X
1014 The Ponderosa Telephone Company X X X X
1015 Roseville Telephone Company X X X X X X
1016 Sierra Telephone Company, Inc. X X X X
1017 The Siskiyou Telephone Company X X X X X X
1019 The Volcano Telephone Company X X X X X
1020 Verizon West Coast Inc. X X X X X X X X
1021 Winterhaven Telephone Company X X X X X
1022 Centurytel of Eastern Oregon, Inc. X X X X X X X X
1023 Citizens Telecoms. Co. of Tuolumne X X X
1024 Citizens Telecoms. Co. of CA, Inc. X X X
1025 Citizens Telecoms. Co. of Golden
State X X X
2004 Cal-Autofone X X
2029 Madera Radio Dispatch X X X X X X
2048 Radio Electronic Products Corp. X X
2101 Fresno Mobile Radio Inc. X X X X
2151 Regionet Wireless License, LLC X X X X X X X X X
3001 Cellco Partnership X X X X
3002 GTE Mobilnet of CA, Ltd. Ptnrshp. X X X X X X X X
3003 Los Angeles SMSA Limited
Partnership X X X X
3004 Sacramento Valley Ltd. Partnership X X X X
3005 Fresno MSA Ltd. Partnership X X X X X X X X
3007 Bay Area Cellular Telephone
Company X X X X X X X
3009 AB Cellular Holding, LLC X X X X
3010 AT&T Wireless Services of CA, Inc. X X X X
3011 GTE Mobilnet of Santa Barbara
Limited Partnership X X X X X X X X
3013 Yuba City Cellular Telephone Co. X X X X
3014 Visalia Cellular Telephone Company X X X X
3015 Santa Barbara Cellular X X X X
3016 Napa Cellular Telephone Company X X X X X X X
3017 Bakersfield Cellular LLC X X X X
3018 Salinas Cellular Telephone Company X X X X X X X
3019 Santa Cruz Cellular Telephone, Inc. X X X X
3020 Redding Cellular Partnership X X X X
62 63
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
3021 Cagal Cellular Comms. Corp. X X X X X X X
3024 Mountain Cellular X X X X X
3025 WWC License L.L.C. X X X X X
3028 California RSA No. 3 Ltd. Partnership X X X X X
3029 Verizon Wireless, LLC X X X X X X X
3032 Modoc RSA Limited Partnership X X X
3033 Nevada County Cellular Corporation X X X X
3036 Cal-One Cellular L.P. X X X X
3037 Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. X X X X
3038 California RSA No. 4 Ltd. Partnership X X X X X X X
3043 U.S. Cellular X X X X X X X X X X
3044 SLO Cellular Inc. X X X X
3048 GTE Mobilnet of San Diego, Inc. X X X X
3050 Price Communications Cellular Inc. X X X X X X X X
3060 Cingular Wireless X X X X
3062 WirelessCo, L.P. X X X X X X
3064 Cox Communications PCS, L.P. X X X X X
3066 Nextel of California, Inc. X X X X X
3071 West Coast PCS, LLC X X X X X
3074 AT&T Wireless PCS, LLC X X X X
3075 Edge Wireless, LLC X X X X X
3076 Cricket Communications, Inc. X X
3891 Concert Comm Sales, LLC X X X X X X X
4003 Call America, Inc. X X X X X X
4004 Cellular Service, Inc. X X X X X X
4038 Nova Cellular West, Inc. X X X X
4043 Robo Wireless Accounting X X X X X X
4049 Nationwide Cellular Svc. Inc. X X X X
4055 Southern California Telephone Co. X X X X X X
4077 Action Cellular Rent-a-Phone X X X X
4087 Digital Cellular Inc. X X X X X
4093 Atlantic Cellular X X X X X X X X X X X
4111 Pay-Less Cellular Inc. X X X X X
4117 World Wide Cellular, Inc. X
4162 Prime/Matrix, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
4236 Choice Communications X X X X
4260 Everything Wireless, L.L.C. X X X X X
4269 AT&T Wireless Data, Inc. X X X
4277 Fisher Wireless Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
4295 HighwayMaster Corp X X X
4305 Pacific Wireless Technologies, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
4925 Track Communications, Inc. X
5002 AT&T Communications of California X X X X X X X
5005 Global Crossing Telecommunications Inc. X X X X X
5011 MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc. X X X X
5047 Extelcom, Inc. X X X X
5056 Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. X X X X
5109 Bay Area Teleport X X X X X
5112 Sprint Communications Company, L.P. X X X X X
62 63
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
5130 Teleconnect Company X X X X
5164 Telecommunications Int’l. (ZCZC LA) X X X X
5168 Intellicall Operator Services, Inc. X X X X X
5172 Metropolitan Fiber Systems of CA, Inc. X X X X
5173 Incomnet Communications Corporation X X X X
5186 USLD Communications Corp X X X X
5196 Excel Telecommunications X X X X
5208 Coast International, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5216 Insinc Corporation X X X X X
5223 Phoenix Network, Inc. X X X X
5226 One Call Communications, Inc. X X X X
5227 Matrix Telecom, Inc. X X X X
5229 Affinity Network Incorporated X X X X
5231 US Telecom, Inc. X X X X X X
5233 Working Assets Funding Service, Inc. X X X X
5234 US Telecom Dba Sprint Services X
5238 Inter-tel NetSolutions, Inc. X X X X
5242 Mail.com Business Messaging Services, Inc. X X X
5244 Ameritel/Amerivision Comms Inc. X X X X X
5248 Arrival Communications, Inc. X X X
5249 Affinity Corporation X
5251 NOS Communications, Inc. X X X X
5253 MCI Metro Access Transmission Services X X X X
5254 Comtech Mobile Telephone Company X X X X
5256 Shared Communications Services, Inc. X X X X X
5266 Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. X X X X
5268 Norstan Network Services, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5270 Qwest Communications Corporation X X X
5279 Saladin Westco X X
5280 Network Plus Inc. X X X X X
5287 US Wats, Inc. X X X X X
5303 Worldtel Services, Inc. X X X X
5314 Linkatel of California, L.P. X X X X X
5319 Hertz Technologies, Inc. X X X
5329 National Accounts Inc. X X X X
5334 GE Business Productivity Solutions, Inc. X X X X
5335 Qwest Communications Corp X X X X
5341 National Comtel Network Inc. X X X X
5357 Buehner-Fry, Inc. X X X X
5358 Time Warner Telecom of CA, L.P. X X X X X X X X X X
5359 Lightyear Communications, Inc. X X X X
5364 Business Discount Plan Inc. X X X
5370 Premiere Communications Inc. X X X X X
5376 RSL Com USA, Inc. X X X X
5377 Electric Lightwave Inc. X X X X
5378 MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. X X X X X
5384 Vartec Telecom Inc. X X X X X X
5385 Dialink Corporation X X X X
64 65
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
5393 Broadwing Telecommunications Inc. X X X X X
5401 TTI Telecommunications Inc. X X X X
5403 TTI National, Inc. X X X X
5406 ICG Communications, Inc. X X
5419 Brooks Fiber Comms. of Sacramento X X X X
5420 Brooks Fiber Comms. of San Jose X X X X
5426 BLT Technologies, Inc. X X
5427 IDT America, Corp. X
5429 Citizens Telecommunications Company X X X
5431 USV Telemanagement, Inc. X X
5433 Access Network Services, Inc. X X X X
5434 Nosva, Limited Partnership X X X X
5437 Tele*Star Communications X
5440 AS Telecommunications, Inc. X
5441 Integrated Teleservices Inc. X X X X
5456 Communications Brokers & Consultants X X X X X X X X X X X X
5457 Communications Brokers & Consultants X
5458 Fiberlink Communications Corp X X X X
5477 Genesis Communications Int’l Inc. X X X X
5481 Corecomm California, Inc. X X X
5485 USLD Communications Inc. X X X X
5491 Alliance Net, Inc. X X X
5494 Verizon Select Services, Inc. X X X X X
5499 Tremcom International X X X X
5513 Primus Telecommunications, Inc. X X X X
5519 Worldnet Communications Services, Inc. X X X X X
5526 eMeritus Communications, Inc. X X X X
5532 Computer Telephone Corp. X
5535 Talk.com Holding Corp. X X X X
5544 Brooks Fiber Comms. of Bakersfield X X X X
5545 Brooks Fiber Comms. of Fresno, Inc. X X X X
5546 Brooks Fiber Comms. of Stockton, Inc. X X X X
5549 AT&T Broadband Phone of CA X X X X X X X X X X
5553 Nextlink of California, Inc. X X X X
5560 Business Telecom, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X X
5586 Time Warner Connect X X X X X X X X X X X
5602 Easton Telecom Services Inc. X X X
5607 California Catalog & Technology, Inc. X X X X
5608 American Telco, Inc. X X X X
5617 Integrated Telemanagement Services X X X X X
5621 Comdata Telecommunications Svcs. Inc. X X X X
5624 Atlas Communication, Ltd. X X X X X
5630 Yestel, Inc. X
5632 North American Communications Control X X X X X
5635 Touch 1 Communications Inc. X X X X X X X
5655 Global Crossing Telemanagement Inc X X X X
5658 Nynex Long Distance X X X X X
5670 Corporate Services Telcom Sprint X X X X
64 65
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
5671 Lightyear Telecommunications LLC X X X X X
5673 PNG Telecommunications, Inc. X X X X X X
5674 Norlight, Inc. X X X X
5684 Cox California Telcom II, LLC X X X X X X
5685 Global Crossing Local Services, Inc. X X X X
5686 A.R.C. Networks, Inc. X X X X
5696 Least Cost Routing, Inc. X X X X
5699 Zenex Long Distance, Inc. X X X X
5701 BT North America Inc. X X X X
5712 McLeod USA Telecommunications
Services Inc. X X X
5713 Intermedia Communications Inc. X X X X
5721 U.S. Telepacific Corp. X X X X
5724 I-Link Communications Inc. X X X X
5725 Empire One Telecommunications, Inc. X X X X X X
5732 Bell Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc. X X X X X X
5735 Dial Long Distance, Inc. X X X
5739 Caprock Communications Corp. X X X
5740 World Network Communications Inc. X X X X
5744 Cimco Communications Inc. X X X X
5748 Telscape USA, Inc. X X
5757 Dancris Telecom, LLC X
5760 ITC Deltacom Communications Inc. X X X X X
5765 Claricom Networks Inc. X X X X X
5776 Custom Network Solutions, Inc. X X X X X
5777 American Long Lines, Inc. X X X X X X
5786 Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. X X X X X X
5791 Association Administrators, Inc. X X X X
5793 Diversified Solutions, Inc. X X X X
5797 Optel (California) Telecomm, Inc. X
5803 Teligent Services, LLC X X
5814 Volcano Long Distance X X X X
5817 Roseville Long Distance X X X X X
5830 Comcast Business Communications, Inc. X X X X X X
5832 Intouch America, Inc. X X
5837 Long Distance of Michigan, Inc. X X X X
5838 Premysis Liquid Crystal Display (TLMGT) X X X X X X X
5839 Opentel Communications Inc. X X X X
5840 Bellsouth Long Distance, Inc. Corp. X
5844 Real Telephone Company X
5851 Univance Telecommunications, Inc. X X X X X
5853 Cypress Telecommunications Corp. X X X X X
5859 Mpower Communications Corp. X X X X X
5867 EZ Phone X X X
5874 Convergent Comm. Services, Inc. X
5881 Foxtel, Inc. X X X X X
5882 Access Point, Inc. X X X X
5889 United Services Telephone, LLC X X X X
66 67
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
5892 Freedomstarr Communications, Inc. X X X X
5896 Network One (CRG International) X X X X
5912 New Century Telecom, Inc. X X X
5922 Focal Communications Co. of Calif. X X X X
5928 Tri-M Communications Inc. X X X X
5933 Interactive Services Network, Inc. X
5934 Allegiance Telecom of California, Inc. X X X X
5935 Quantumshift X X X X X
5938 Savecom International USA, Inc. X X X X X
5941 Level 3 Communications, LLC X X X X X
5942 NTT America, Inc. X
5943 Comm South Companies X X
5952 Infotech Telecomms. and Network Inc. X
5953 Net.World X X X X
5955 Airnex Communications, Inc. X X X X X
5969 Unity Communications (Network One Inc.) X
5972 In Touch Communications, Inc. X
5979 Buyers United International, Inc. X X X X X X X
5982 Star Direct Telecom, Inc. X
5983 Public Interest Network Services Inc. X X X X X
5984 KDD America, Inc. X X X X X
5989 NXLD Company X X X X
6008 Choctaw Communications, Inc. X X X X
6010 American Farm Bureau Inc. X X X X X
6016 RCN Telecom Services of California Inc. X X X X
6019 New York Telcorp (Telcorp, Ltd.) X X X X X
6026 Global Uni-Tel Communications X X X X
6027 Z-Tel Communications, Inc. X X X X
6029 Single Billing Services, Inc. X X X X
6039 Clearworld Communications Corp. X X X X
6047 U.S. Republic Communications, Inc. X X X X
6050 Connect America, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X
6056 Wholesale Telecom, Inc. X X X X
6060 Rhondacom, Inc. X X
6061 Big Planet, Inc. X X X X
6062 Corecomm of California X X
6067 Network Billing Systems, CLC X X
6074 Dedicated Communications Corp. X
6083 Advanced Telcom Group, Inc. X X X X
6089 Pannon Telecom, Inc. X
6092 California Network Management X X X X
6093 Globalcom Inc. X X X X
6097 Paetec Communications X X X X
6102 Highspeed Communications of CA, LLC X X X X X X
6104 Access One, Inc. X X X
6111 Net2000 Communications Services, Inc. X X X X X X
6117 Telecommunications Cooperative
Network, Inc. X X X X X X
66 67
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
6126 Direct One, Inc. X X X
6129 Onestar Long Distance, Inc. X X
6138 Christian Telecom Network, LLC X
6142 GTC Telecom X X X X
6144 Gates Communications X X X X X
6146 Williams Communications, LLC X X X X X X X
6165 United States Advanced Network, Inc. X X X X X X
6180 RDST, Inc. X
6184 Seren Innovations, Inc. X X X X
6185 Telscape (Pointe Local Exchange Co) X X X X X X X
6188 Media.net Communications, Inc. X X X X
6196 PT-1 Long Distance, Inc. X X X X
6208 Ciera Network Systems, Inc. X X X X X X
6211 International Exchange Networks, Ltd. X X X X
6223 Affordable Voice Communications Inc. X X X X
6225 Quick-Tel, Inc. X X X X X X
6231 Communications Express, Inc. X X X X X
6232 Adelphia Telecommunications, Inc. X X X X X X X
6237 Universal Access, Inc. X X X X
6242 Accessline LD Services, Inc. X X X X X
6248 Adelphia Business Solutions Operations, Inc. X X X X
6265 Trans National Communications
International Inc. X X X X
6273 Enhanced Communications Group, LLC X X X X X
6276 DPI Teleconnect, LLC X X X X X
6279 Competitive Communications, Inc. X X X X X X X X X X X
6284 Openpop.com, Inc. X X X X
6290 United Communications Hub, Inc. X X X X X
6299 Western Integrated Networks of CA
Operating, LLC X
6303 Net Lojix Telecom, Inc. X X X X
6305 Essential.com, Inc. X X
6306 Concert Communications Sales, LLC X
6309 W2Com International, LLC X
6329 Northwestern Digital Company X X X X
6332 EZTel Network Services, Inc. X
6333 Total Call International, Inc. X X X
6342 ACN Communications Services, Inc. X X X X
6347 Promisevision Technology, Inc. X X X X
6354 American Fiber Network, Inc. X X X X
6355 Telstra Incorporated X X X X X
6367 Telecents Communications, Inc. X X X X
6370 Touch America, Inc. X X X X
6396 Big Zoo.com Corporation X X X X
6418 Zone Telecom, Inc. X X X X
6419 Futur Telecom America, Inc. X X X X
6421 Eureka Telecom, LLC X X X X
6424 Norstar Communications, Inc. X X X X
68 69
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CPCN Carrier 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
6435 Go Solo Technologies, Inc. X X X
6438 Jirehcom, Inc. X X X X
6454 Verizon Advanced Data, Inc. X
6455 United States Telesis, Inc. X
6460 Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications
Services, Inc. X X X X
6462 Telecom New Zealand Communications
(USA) Limited X X
6479 Radiant Telecom, Inc. X
6485 Sonix4U, Inc. X X X X
6495 Closecall America, Inc. X
6504 Siskiyou Long Distance Company X X X X X
6508 Xtension Services, Inc. X X X X
6509 Caltel Long Distance X X X X
6513 Local Telecom Holdings X X X
6517 Cal-Ore Long Distance X X X X
6521 Toledo Area Telecommunications
Services, Inc. X X X
6535 Pioneer Telecom, Inc. X X X X
6536 Telstar International, Inc. X
6549 Reduced Rate Long Distance X X X
6569 ACC Telecommunications, LLC X X
6589 Telscape Communications, Inc. X
6642 Easton Telecom Services, LLC X
6647 C.F. Communications, LLC X
Destia Communications Services X
Evercom Systems, Inc. X X X X X X
Gateway Technology, Inc. X
Genesys Conferencing X X X X X
Genuity Solutions, Inc. X X X X X X
Genuity Telecom, Inc. X X X X X X X
Integretel, Inc. X X X X X
Merchant Wired Dba Mw X X
Moving Bytes, Inc. X X
Netifice Communications X X X X X
Source: Surcharge Transaction History for 2001.
68 69
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
70 71
Agency’s comments provided as text only.
Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco , California 94102-3298
July 2, 2002
Elaine M. Howle*
State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Howle,
The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has reviewed the draft report, “Deaf
and Disabled Telecommunications Program: Insufficient Monitoring of Surcharge Revenues
Combined With Imprudent Use of Public Funds Leave Less Money Available for Program
Services,” received on June 26, 2002. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the report.
The Commission appreciates the Bureau’s in-depth review of the DDTP staff’s operations and
management of the Commission’s programs. The report comes at an opportune time, as the
state prepares for the DDTP’s revenues to flow through the General Fund and the Commission
contemplates corresponding changes in program administration.
The Commission’s response to the report addresses both the recommendations to the DDTP
as well as the recommendations to the Commission. The Commission regards the DDTP as
an extension of the agency itself, though the Commission has not delegated governmental
authority to the DDTP. The DDTP staff are not state employees, but the Commission has
extended to DDTP employees the indemnification which attaches to state employees, and
requires the DDTP to comply with state contracting rules and open meeting laws. The
Commission annually reviews and approves the DDTP proposed budget, DDTP contract
proposals and final contracts, and DDTP requests to add, augment, or change services the
program provides. The Commission also responds to DDTP requests for budget augmentation,
which result from changes to a contract or to services provided.
The Commission views the Bureau’s report as an opportunity for the Commission to improve
its oversight of the DDTP and its operations. As we state below, the Commission intends to
implement all of the Bureau’s recommendations. On the basis of the Bureau’s findings, the
Commission is considering immediate changes to the way the DDTP is managed. Future
contracts for the DDTP and its services will provide a vehicle for more explicit controls over the
DDTP operations and spending.
I acknowledge and accept the results of the audit. The Commission will be implementing your
recommendations as described below:
* California State Auditor’s comments begin on page 87.
70 71
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DDTP TO IMPROVE COLLECTION OF SURCHARGES
The audit report discussed three recommendations to the DDTP for improving the collection of
surcharges:
• Work with the Commission to develop and maintain a reliable record of carriers
providing services.
• Track and monitor payment history of carriers.
• Regularly notify delinquent carriers and the Commission of all past due amounts.
The Commission currently has procedures in place to address these recommendations. On
October 1, 2001, funds for the California High Cost Fund A (CHCF-A), California High Cost
Fund B (CHCF-B), California Teleconnect Fund (CTF) and the Universal Lifeline Telephone
Service (ULTS) public programs were transferred from commercial trust funds to accounts
in the state treasury. The Commission became responsible for tracking and monitoring the
collection and remittance of surcharges for these public programs. The Commission maintains
a database of carriers and their surcharge remittances for the CHCF-A, CHCF-B, CTF and the
ULTS public programs. Over the past year, the Commission has been reviewing the carriers’
remittances for the CHCF-B and CTF programs and has been successful in collecting over a
million dollars in overdue surcharge remittances for these funds.
Because the funds in the DEAF Trust will be transferred to the state treasury in less than a
year, the Commission plans to transition the remittance review responsibility from the DDTP
staff to Commission staff within the next 90 to 180 days. By transitioning these responsibilities,
the Bureau’s recommendations regarding the tracking of payments and notification of
delinquent carriers will be addressed and the recommendation regarding working with the
Commission will be nullified.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSION TO IMPROVE COLLECTION OF
SURCHARGES
The audit report discussed six recommendations to the Commission for improving the
collection of surcharges:
• Develop and maintain a reliable record of carriers that are providing services
subject to the surcharge.
• Rewrite its transmittal form instructions in explicit detail, ensuring consistency
among carriers.
• Track the payment history of each carrier and monitor these records to identify
carriers that are not remitting surcharges as required.
• Enforce late-payment penalties.
• Require all active carriers that do not submit surcharge revenues to certify that they
do not provide services subject to the surcharge.
• Conduct periodic remittance audits of DDTP surcharge revenues.
The Commission plans to adopt all of the Bureau’s recommendation. Specifically, the
Commission will review and update its current database of active carriers. In addition, the
72 73
Commission will undertake a formal proceeding to consider periodic certification renewal
requirements.
The Commission will rewrite its transmittal form instructions in explicit detail. The updated
instructions will be posted on the Commission’s web site.
The Commission will work with the Bank of America to set up a lock box account so as to
obtain daily deposit statements from the DEAF Trust. The Commission will compare the daily
deposits with the required remittance amounts to ensure that carriers are remitting the correct
amount to the DEAF Trust. The Commission successfully uses these procedures currently to
review remittances for its other public programs.
The Commission will send a letter to all carriers reminding them of late payment penalties. In
addition, the Commission will take responsibility for sending delinquent carriers a late payment
letter and following up with those carriers who do not include appropriate penalty fees in their
payments. Further, the Commission is in the process of automating its remittance database
for its other public programs to routinely create reminder letters to send to carriers who are
delinquent in remitting surcharges.
The Commission will undertake a formal proceeding to consider certification requirements and
associated enforcement penalties in order to enforce the requirement that all active carriers
that do not submit surcharge revenues must certify that they do not provide services subject to
the surcharge.
The 2002-2003 DDTP budget includes funding for a compliance and financial audit, which will
include an audit of past and future surcharge remittances.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DDTP TO ENSURE PRUDENT USE OF PROGRAM FUNDS
The audit report discussed four recommendations to the DDTP to ensure prudent use of
program funds:
• Adhere to its newly revised internal control procedures defining allowable expenses.
• Follow its new procedure to report parking fringe benefits as taxable income on
employees W-2 forms.
• Develop additional procedures to prevent personal use of cars among employees
with DDTP-leased vehicles.
• Ensure that all future contracts have established performance standards as well as
provisions to collect damages from non-performing contractors.
To ensure the DDTP’s compliance with these recommendations, the Commission will oversee
program expenses and direct the DDTP staff to apply procedures to ensure prudent use of
program funds consistent with the audit.
72 73
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSION TO ENSURE PRUDENT USE OF PROGRAM
FUNDS
The audit report discussed three recommendations to the Commission to ensure prudent use
of program funds:
• Include specific provisions in its contracts that require contractors to comply with
state laws, regulations, and policies related to reimbursable expenses.
• Include specific performance standards in its contracts and monitor whether the
contractors are meeting those standards.
• Include provisions in its contracts that will allow it to collect damages from non-
performing contractors.
The Commission plans to adopt all of the Bureau’s recommendation. The Commission will
work with its contracts office and the Department of General Services to ensure compliance
with state contracting guidelines throughout the life of each contract. A contract manager will
be assigned to monitor the performance of each contractor. Current contracts for other public
programs include time schedules with requirements for a monthly status report. Contractors
are expected to comply with the time schedule. Since October 2001, the Commission has
successfully and compliantly completed several contracts for services for its other public
programs.
RESPONSE FROM DDTP TO DRAFT AUDIT
The Bureau provided a copy of the draft audit to the DDTP, which has prepared a response
and forwarded that response to the Commission. We have reviewed the DDTP’s response, and
append it to this letter. Like the Commission, the DDTP indicates that the program will institute
or has already instituted changes in policy addressing the concerns raised by the audit. At the
same time, the Commission must clarify a few points included in the DDTP’s response.
The DDTP mentions at least twice that the program received “no surcharge revenue for
8 months in 2001”. (DDTP Response, p. 3.) This is true, but the DDTP nevertheless had
access to budgeted funds. The surcharge was statutorily authorized and the relevant statute
contained a sunset provision, effective December 31, 2000. A bill enacted by the Legislature
to extend the sunset date was vetoed by the Governor because of other provisions, and
as a consequence, the Commission had to instruct all telephone utilities not to collect the
surcharge until statutory authorization was restored, which occurred in September 2001. In
the meantime, the program operated on reserves from the prior budget year and a $15 million
loan, approved by the legislature, from the California High-Cost Fund-B. Because of the loss
of authority to assess the surcharge, the Commission delayed approval of a final DDTP budget
pending signing of the new law.
The DDTP also ascribes in part to “changes in lease review and approval procedures required
by the CPUC”, its inability to “restore the level of service to consumers statewide that was
previously in place with the local telephone companies”. (DDTP Response, p. 3.) It is true that
the Commission adopted new lease review standards that we did in an attempt to have the
DDTP comply with Department of General Services contract rules as part of the anticipated
transition of DEAF Trust Funds into the state treasury.
74 75
In discussing its internal control procedures pertaining to carrier surcharge remittances,
the DDTP also mentions a November 1998 letter submitted to the Commission’s
Telecommunications Division seeking guidance on how to treat such remittances. (DDTP
Response, p. 4.) Our best collective recollection is that Telecommunications Division staff
responded to the DDTP’s letter verbally, instructing the program to work with the Bank of
America to resolve issues of carrier payment, and the DDTP acknowledges in its letter that it
did just that. As we note in our response above, the Commission is implementing a number of
changes to the carrier payment review and enforcement procedures that will solve concerns
raised by the audit.
Finally, the DDTP sets forth a chart showing the disparity between the amount of revenue
derived from the surcharge and the authorized program expense level for the period 1997
through 2001. (DDTP Response, p. 6.) The DDTP has correctly noted that its authorized
expense level is consistently less than the amount of surcharge revenue collected. This is
so because the Commission annually adjusts the surcharge level, and in that process, takes
into consideration any remaining balance from the previous year. For example, a $20 million
overcollection in one year would result in a surcharge level reduction for the next year roughly
equal to that amount.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond in writing to the audit draft report.
Sincerely,
(Signed by: Wesley M. Franklin)
Wesley M. Franklin
Executive Director
Attachment
74 75
ATTACHMENT
July 2, 2002
Elaine M. Howle
State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA. 95814
Dear Ms. Howle:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your report, “Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications
Program: Insufficient Monitoring of Surcharge Revenues Combined With Imprudent Use of Public
Funds Leave Less Money Available for Program Services.” We recognize the extensive time and
effort expended by the Bureau of State Audits (BSA) in developing this report. Through the DDTP’s
contact with your audit team over the course of the audit, we are aware that you assigned up to four
individuals to work on this report over the course of over 150 days, at an originally-estimated cost to
the State of $110,600. We appreciate that the Joint Legislative Audit Committee sees the Deaf and
Disabled Telecommunications Program as a critical enough program to warrant this extensive review.
The majority of the recommendations contained in the audit report pertaining to the DDTP have
already been implemented before this report was received, and the remainder are in the process of
being addressed.
A major premise of your report is that “imprudent use” of public funds has made less money
available for the vital services provided by the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program
(DDTP). In this response, we will point out that your report identifies $24,574 of expenses
incurred by the DDTP, and paid by ratepayers, over a four-year period of time, which you
deemed to be “imprudent,” based primarily on the fact that some of these types of expenses
are “typically not seen in the public sector.” During that same period of time, the DDTP’s
1
authorized expense budgets totaled $208 million. The amount of “imprudent” expenditures
identified in your report equates to .012% of the DDTP’s total authorized expenditures for the
period studied. Additionally, we point out that none of these “imprudent” expenditures, or any
other DDTP expenditures, were deemed unlawful.
Services Provided to the Public
The DDTP provides specialized telecommunications equipment and services to deaf and
disabled consumers in California to enable them to use their basic telephone service. Through
the DDTP, equipment is provided to consumers who have impairments of hearing, vision,
mobility, speech, and cognition. Our equipment distribution program operates under the name
of the California Telephone Access Program (CTAP). Our centralized customer contact center
receives between 17,000 and 18,000 calls per month from consumers statewide who wish
to learn more about the equipment and services offered through our program or to request
equipment. As a result of these contacts, our centralized distribution center ships between
6,000 and 8,000 units of telecommunications equipment each month to people who need this
specialized equipment to be able to use their telephone service. The specialized equipment
includes amplified phones, cordless phones, speakerphones, large button phones, artificial
larynxes, TTYs and Braille TTYs. An average of 1,300 customers are served each month
76 77
at our service centers, located statewide, and by our Field Advisors, who visit consumers in
their homes to help set up and train consumers on the use of their equipment. Each month,
consumers place about 600,000 calls through the California Relay Service and Speech-to-
Speech Service. All of this monthly activity is generated primarily by our Outreach Specialists,
who reach 9,000 to 11,000 people per month through presentations to consumer, educational,
business and civic groups, exhibits and booths, and trainings and meetings with consumer
organizations.
This broad statewide program is recognized nationally for its extensive network of services
and equipment provided to consumers and its practice of active consumer involvement in
all policies and programs. Former FCC Chairman William E. Kennard called the DDTP “a
model for the nation.” No other state offers the range of specialized equipment available here
in California nor utilizes the expertise and experience of three consumer-controlled advisory
committees, as we do here in California, to guide its comparable program.
Consumers as well continually compliment the DDTP and our highly skilled and specialized
staff for the improvement our equipment and services can make in their daily lives. Below are
some comments we have received from consumers who utilize equipment or services of the
DDTP.
“Thank you for such a fine program and for the smooth transition to an updated
phone. My experience at the CTAP Services Center rates an A+.”
“(Your employee) is most courteous and explained every detail in language a 95-
year-old can understand. The phone is wonderful and once again I hear clearly. The first
time the phone rang, I almost jumped out of my chair! I am most grateful and extend my
heartfelt thanks to the CTAP Service Center.”
“First, I would like to thank you for the phone equipment. I am completely delighted
and grateful for the use of a tool that helps me in my life, in making it more tolerable.
Second, I would like you to know how very compassionate and comforting, as well as
enlightening, (your employee) was. His complete explanation and demonstration of the use
of my new phone was perfect. How nice for me to have had someone with understanding
and sensitivity to my situation. Sensitivity is a rare commodity these days, and I really
appreciate it.”
“I was so impressed by the immediate and cordial attention my father and I
received. My father was truly happy that his hearing problem was totally addressed and
explained. All features of the telephones were explained to him very respectfully. He is so
happy about the knowledge and attention he was given. I also have to thank the service
representative who made my dad happy. This will have a major impact on his quality of life.”
Program Administration
The audit report notes that from the program’s inception in 1981 until the late 1990s, various
local telephone companies provided the bulk of the mandated services on its behalf, including
equipment procurement, distribution, and outreach. In 1998, however, the CPUC directed
the DDTP to take over operational responsibility for key program services from the telephone
companies. The audit report further states that this transition was completed in 2000, with the
DDTP administering contracts for a centralized call center and a central equipment distribution
76 77
center. The DDTP points out that this transition from local telephone company operations to
similar DDTP operations will not be fully complete until August of 2002, when the DDTP opens
its 6th Service Center, replacing all six of the centers previously operated by the local telephone
companies. Due to a combination of factors including no surcharge revenue for 8 months
2
in 2001, no approved operating budget for 9 months in 2001, and changes in lease review
and approval procedures required by the CPUC, the DDTP has not been able to restore the
level of service to consumers statewide that was previously in place with the local telephone
companies. We are pleased to now be able to offer this statewide presence to consumers.
Surcharge Remittances
Surcharge revenues are remitted directly by the carriers to the Bank of America. After the
bank processes and reports these revenues, the DDTP begins its accounting process and
analysis. The BSA audit team conducted a fairly extensive review of the surcharge remittance
process required by the CPUC of all certificated telecommunications carries in California.
These surcharge revenues fund the DDTP’s equipment and services to consumers. The
DDTP agrees with the BSA that this surcharge remittance process needs to be clearly defined
for carriers and consistently enforced to ensure that not only the DDTP, but all of the public
purpose programs benefiting from these revenues receive the amounts authorized by law.
One issue raised in the audit report concerns the number of carriers that presently do not
remit surcharge revenues to the DDTP or remit them late. BSA states that the CPUC’s list
3
of active carriers totals 1,483, but only 469 of these carriers submitted a payment for at least
one reporting period covering either 2000 or 2001. The DDTP questions whether all 1,483 of
these carriers are truly “active.” From our experience in working with this list, we have found
duplications on this list in cases where several companies have merged, but are all still on the
list as individual entities. Also, we have found companies on this list who have gone out of
business. BSA states that it identified two groups of 30 carriers each on this list and conducted
a check to determine whether the companies were actually in business during the periods they
did not remit surcharge revenues. The BSA’s check found that 20% to 23% of the companies
were not certified during the applicable periods, therefore no surcharge revenue was owed.
We expect that similar circumstances apply to some of the other “active” carriers on the
CPUC’s list.
BSA also conducted a check of the largest carriers in California and determined that these
carriers generally remit the required surcharge revenue accurately and on time. The revenue
from these largest carriers amounts to almost 90% of the total remitted. This finding conforms
to the DDTP’s experience in tracking surcharge revenue. The DDTP’s external financial
auditors conduct an audit of remitted revenues annually, and their findings indicate that 90%
to 95% of the total revenue is received from the largest 30 carriers. The DDTP currently
prepares a monthly report of surcharge payments received by carriers, based on data we
receive from the Bank of America. We are able to match the surcharge revenue reported by
the carrier (per the transmittal form copy we receive from Bank of America) to the surcharge
revenue reported on our bank statement. We are also able to note carriers not remitting any
revenue in a particular month. Going forward, the DDTP will send a monthly report to the
CPUC, indicating which carriers did not remit revenue in the prior month. We will not be able to
determine, however, if any of these carriers have gone out of business or lost their certification,
if that information is not updated on the CPUC’s carrier list, therefore we will rely on the CPUC
to make that determination.
78 79
The BSA audit report correctly states that the DDTP’s internal control procedures require us to
4
notify the CPUC when carriers do not remit within a specified time. We can do this. The DDTP
cannot, however, serve as an enforcer of the carriers’ mandated requirements, because this is
clearly not within the scope of the program’s administrative committee. The Charter of the Deaf
and Disabled Telecommunications Program Administrative Committee (DDTPAC) states: The
DDTPAC “shall not have the authority to direct the utilities to take or to refrain from taking any
action in connection with the programs. The members of the Committee in the performance
of their duties and in the actions taken by the committee shall at all times be subject to the
direction, control, and approval of the Commission.”
In pursuit of direction from the CPUC regarding the DDTP’s specific responsibilities for the
tracking and reconciling of surcharge remittances, the DDTP has sought clarification from
the CPUC on this issue. Below is an excerpt from a letter sent from the DDTP to the CPUC’s
Telecommunications Division in November of 1998, during the time the CPUC was instituting
its new electronic filing system with the carriers for surcharge revenues.
“Several questions were raised at the meeting (of October 6, 1998) about the DDTP’s
ongoing responsibility to track and reconcile surcharge remittances under this new
system and process (the electronic filing system). In the past, copies of surcharge
transmittal forms were sent to the DDTP office (directly by the carriers). The DDTP
compared the amounts reported on the transmittal forms to the amounts actually remitted
by the carriers, as documented in our bank statement, and attempted to reconcile any
differences. Occasionally carriers report one amount and remit a different amount. The
reconciliation process is the only way that such inconsistencies can be discovered.
Since the DDTP is no longer receiving copies of the transmittal forms directly from the
carriers, this reconciliation process is now complicated. As a consequence, the DDTP
would like clarification on its responsibilities for tracking and reconciling surcharge
information under this new system. Does the CPUC expect the DDTP to reconcile
surcharge transmittals with surcharge remittances? Does the CPUC expect the DDTP
to contact carriers to attempt to correct problems when discrepancies are found? Is it the
DDTP’s responsibility to inform carriers when discrepancies are found? Is it the DDTP’s
responsibility to reconcile adjustments reported on the transmittal form by the carriers?
Since the electronic form does not require carriers to explain any adjustments made, is
it the DDTP’s responsibility to determine if adjustments are remittances for prior periods,
for changes in the surcharge rate, or adjustments for some other factor? Is it the DDTP’s
responsibility to contact carriers who have missed months for remittances or missed
transmittals?
I know these questions seem numerous, but the DDTP must clarify its responsibilities with
regard to the collection and reporting of surcharge revenues.”
5
In the absence of any written response from the CPUC to these questions, the DDTP worked
with Bank of America to receive copies of the transmittal forms which are sent by the carriers
to the bank. In the past, we received these forms monthly, but we now receive them throughout
the month in batches, making the revenue tracking much easier.
The BSA audit report states that “large amounts of revenue in the form of late-payment
penalties go uncollected, and the DDTP has missed out on thousands of dollars of revenue
that could be used to provide services to the deaf and disabled communities.” This statement
78 79
infers that if the program had access to greater revenue, then as a consequence, more
equipment and services could be provided to the community. This is not necessarily a logical
6
consequence. For the past five years, the DDTP has had access to millions of dollars more
in surcharge revenue than the program has been authorized to use. Even in years when the
DDTP’s unencumbered fund balance from the prior year combined with surcharge revenues
for the current year was adequate to fund broader equipment distribution and more extensive
outreach, the DDTP’s requested expense level was reduced by the CPUC. The following chart
illustrates this fact.
Available DDTP Requested CPUC Approved
Revenue Expense Level Expense Level
2001 $53.1 M* $69.5 M $49.7 M
2000 $70.9 M $67.0 M $57.4 M
1999 $69.3 M $56.9 M $52.2 M
1998 $77.3 M $50.8 M $48.7 M
1997 $74.5 M $37.9 M $37.6 M
(*Throughout most of 2001, the DDTP had no surcharge revenue due to the expiration of
the surcharge, and the program ultimately received a $15 M loan from the CPUC to cover
its expenses during the period in which no surcharge revenues were received. Once the
surcharge was restored, the DDTP began receiving revenues for its operating expenses, and
the loan was paid back several months earlier than expected.)
Program Expenses
Committee Meeting Expenses
The BSA audit report includes two examples of instances during which the DDTP held
committee meetings at hotels and paid “excessive” amounts for meals for committee members
and staff attending the meetings. The report states that one meeting lunch expense amounted
to $32 per person, and another meeting lunch expense amounted to $26 per person. The
report does not indicate that these amounts include not only the food, but also the 19% service
7
charge from the hotel, the 8.25% tax, and in one case a $50 labor fee charged by the hotel
for the set-up of the room. These charges are not “excessive” compared to similar catered
functions at hotels, including functions held by other State agencies.
A DDTP representative recently attended a meeting of the California Governor’s Committee
for Employment of Disabled Persons held at a hotel in downtown Sacramento. The DDTP
8
representative was invited to give a presentation on some of the DDTP’s services. At this
meeting, the Governor’s Committee served continental breakfast and a catered luncheon.
Although the DDTP does not know exactly the price of the food served at this meeting, the
DDTP does know the range of prices charged by this particular hotel, because the DDTP
has held meetings at the same facility. The Catering Department menu for this hotel lists
continental breakfast, ranging from $11.00 to $15.00. The menu also lists catered lunches
ranging from $18.00 to $22.00. These prices are higher than the State authorized limit of
$6.00 for breakfast and $10.00 for lunch. Obviously the California Governor’s Committee
on the Employment of Disabled Persons identified a need to hold its meeting at a hotel, for
access, capacity, and other accommodation reasons, and an exception was made to allow for
the meeting participants to eat the meals provided by the hotel.
80 81
The DDTP has identified similar needs and reasons to hold meetings at hotels. As the DDTP
reported to BSA, because all DDTP committee meetings are open to the public, we must
locate facilities which are large enough to accommodate the number of public members who
may attend plus committee and staff members who need to attend and which are convenient
and easily accessible to the public. This requirement rules out most offices where committee
members work, which are not large enough or are security buildings not easily accessible
to the public. The DDTP must also locate meeting facilities which are fully ADA compliant in
terms of physical accessibility to accommodate committee members, staff, and members of the
public with disabilities.
The DDTP includes funds in its proposed budget every year for its committee meeting
expenses, including meeting facilities and meeting meals, and it has never exceeded its
authorized budget for committee expenses.
Employee Salaries
As part of its audit process, BSA reviewed salary ranges for 12 DDTP positions. These ranges
are reported in Figure 3 of the report. The ranges indicated in Figure 3 for DDTP salaries
include vertical salary relationship differentials and market differentials which may be applied in
9
necessary situations, but are not included in the base salary range. Thus, for 5 of the positions
included in the analysis, the DDTP’s base salary range is lower than indicated on the BSA
figure.
The BSA report correctly states that the DDTP’s salary schedule is based on information
provided in a compensation study performed by outside consultants in June 2000. This
comprehensive compensation study was performed as ordered by the CPUC in Resolution T-
16379, which authorized the DDTP’s 2000 Budget. The compensation study was to develop a
salary schedule which could be used as the DDTP brought on new employees in its transition
of program operations from the telephone companies to the DDTP itself. Some language
contained in this resolution provides important background information regarding the CPUC’s
plans for setting DDTP salary levels so as to attract experienced individuals who were at that
time performing this same work within the local telephone companies. The following is an
excerpt from that Resolution.
“At this point it is unclear how many utility employees would be interested in coming to the
DDTPTAS. (Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program Trust Administration Staff).
The DDTPTAS notes that many of these employees who have a great deal of seniority
may have salary expectations exceeding the levels proposed by the DDTPTAS for this
program. We believe that the unique interpersonal skills needed to do this type of work
appear to be ideally learned by new staff through the tradition of observing and working
with senior staff. We hope that the DDTPAC will modify its pay schedules to attract these
workers.
We are not adopting a structure and salary schedule in this resolution, but instead set
0
the overall level of wage compensation in the budget resolution. We have reviewed
the DDTPTAS proposed salary schedules and concur with the DDTPAC that they are
reasonable.
80 81
We are, however, requiring the DDTPTAS to undertake a compensation study, we are
concerned by the low salary levels in place or projected for proposed supervisors of DDTP
programs with the larger number of staff.”
The CPUC had communicated to the DDTP that it hoped the DDTP could set its salary levels
to attract employees of the local telephone companies who were already performing this work
at that time. Since 1981, the equipment and services of the DDTP had been provided by the
local telephone companies, and the people delivering those services were employees of those
companies. These employees were receiving compensation packages including salaries,
bonuses, health benefits, retirement benefits, profit-sharing plans, savings plans, stock options
and severance packages consistent with these companies’ internal policies. The DDTP was
now tasked with the responsibility of designing its compensation package to attract these
employees.
For this reason, the DDTP included some salary differentials in its salary schedule, which
could be implemented if necessary to attract experienced employees. One salary differential
incorporated a higher salary range for positions in which compensation offered outside of
typical State salary schedules is extremely competitive due to the nature of the market or the
position. This differential can be applied to IT positions, such as the System Administrator
and to Accounting positions. Another salary differential incorporated a slightly higher salary
range to implement a vertical salary differential. This differential allows supervisors and
managers to earn at least 10% more than their subordinates, in line with the State’s similar
policy for managers and supervisors. This differential was applied to some DDTP positions
in which highly experienced individuals were hired from the local telephone companies into
positions within DDTP departments. The salaries of the supervisors and managers within
the department were set to maintain this vertical salary differential. These differentials are
incorporated in the DDTP’s employee evaluation and compensation process and are approved
by the DDTPAC. The DDTP has budgeted for salaries using its salary schedule, including the
differentials, and has never exceeded its authorized budget.
Through its statements in the budget resolution, the CPUC has recognized that many of
the DDTP positions differ significantly from those in State service, and the Legislature has
recognized this fact as well. AB 1734, signed by the Governor on June 20, 2002, states, “The
telecommunications services and equipment provided to deaf, disabled, and hearing-impaired
individuals and their families, as specified in Sections 2881, 2881.1, and 2881.2 (the sections
of the Public Utilities Code pertaining to the DDTP), are of such a highly specialized and
technical nature that the necessary expert knowledge, ability, and experience are not available
within the current state civil service system.” Accordingly, AB 1734 authorizes the CPUC to
enter into contracts for the provision of these telecommunications services and equipment,
rather than to provide this program through State civil service. Clearly this recognition of the
significant difference between skills and experience required by DDTP employees and that
q
required by civil service employees warrants appropriate compensation differentials. A strict
comparison of DDTP positions and salaries to State positions and salaries is not valid.
Employee Benefits
The BSA audit report also comments on benefits paid to DDTP employees and asserts,
“Some of the benefits currently received by DDTP employees are at least equal to or better
than those received by comparable state employees. Specifically, health and life insurance
82 83
benefits are generous compared with employees of the State.” The audit report comments on
the current cost of health benefits paid by the DDTP as compared to those paid by the State
for civil service employees, but does not compare the lifetime cost of such benefits. The DDTP
pays an average of $350 per month per employee for health benefits. Since these benefits
cease when an employee leaves the DDTP, the average cost to the DDTP over the life of the
employee is $42,000, using an example of an employee who is employed by the DDTP for 10
years. The audit report states that the DDTP’s monthly premium is higher than that paid by the
State for civil service employees. If we assume the State’s monthly premium to be $250 (as
w
an estimate) for the same employee, with 10 years tenure with the State, and collecting retiree
health benefits for an additional 15 years, as an example, the total cost to the State over the life
of that same employee would be $75,000. Clearly the additional benefit to the employee and
the additional cost to the State of providing retiree health benefits skews this entire comparison
and clouds the assertion that the DDTP’s health benefits are “generous compared with
employees of the State.”
The BSA audit report also comments on the DDTP’s “generous life insurance coverage for
all of its employees.” As a definition of “generous,” BSA notes that the death benefit paid by
the DDTP’s life insurance coverage could range from $48,000 to $206,000, depending on the
employee. This type of a death benefit may appear “generous” when compared to State-paid
life insurance coverage for State employees, but some government employees have access to
much higher coverage. President Bush recently signed a bill allowing a $250,000 federal death
e
benefit to be paid to domestic partners of public safety officers’ survivors. This benefit has
previously been available to spouses, children and parents.
The BSA audit report did not comment on the cost of the DDTP’s life insurance coverage, while
r
the cost of the coverage is probably more important than the size of the death benefit. The
DDTP’s coverage costs less than 1% of the employee’s salary monthly to maintain.
The BSA audit report also comments on the use of leased vehicles by some DDTP employees.
The CPUC indicated in Resolution T-16379 that it felt using vehicles leased by the program,
the practice that was previously in place with the local telephone companies, may be more
cost effective than reimbursing employees for mileage accrued on their own vehicles. The BSA
auditors examined mileage driven during a one-month period of time by one DDTP employee
and found that 245 miles were driven over the amount required for that employee to travel from
home or the DDTP Service Center to the scheduled customer sites for that month. The report
fails to note that the employee also attended a meeting in Oakland that month (a round trip
t
of 190 miles) and made stops on occasion at the Service Center during the day (in between
customer visits) to pick up additional equipment. This is mileage that would not be evident on
the employee’s customer visit log, which is the document reviewed by the auditors.
DDTP Contracts
The BSA auditors reviewed seven DDTP contracts as part of their audit process and found that
all contracts comply with applicable provisions of the Public Contract Code. The audit found no
inappropriate decisions made in “closed door” sessions without public review, as was claimed
by some members of the Legislature. The audit also found no conflict of interest between a
DDTP Manager and a program vendor, as was also suggested by the same legislators. The
report states that three of the seven contracts reviewed contain provisions for the DDTP
to collect monetary penalties from the contractors for noncompliance with certain service
standards, but the other four do not. For two of these four contracts, the report also correctly
82 83
notes that the DDTP has now instituted a Service Level Agreement with the vendors, which
does detail performance standards and associated monetary penalties for non-compliance.
The other two of the four contracts noted in the report contain other methods for the DDTP
to save on contract expenses in the event of non-compliance. One of these contracts is a
purchase contract, for the purchase of finished goods in the form of telephone equipment. With
y
this contract, the DDTP takes possession of the equipment before any invoices are paid. If any
of the equipment is received by the DDTP in substandard condition or is not the equipment
ordered, the DDTP does not pay the invoice. Damaged or wrong equipment is returned to the
vendor for full replacement, and once the corrected equipment is received, the invoice is paid.
Therefore, the DDTP is not at risk of paying for non-performance.
The other contract examined by the auditors is a professional services contract for consulting
services. With this contract, 10% of each invoice is withheld until the project is completed.
Also, the consultants invoice the DDTP for hours worked, upon completion of the work. If the
DDTP determines that the number of hours invoiced were not actually worked or the work
required for the project was not performed, payment of the invoice can be withheld and the
10% amounts withheld from each prior invoice can be retained. Here again, the DDTP is not at
significant risk of paying for non-performance.
Audit Recommendations
The DDTP would like to comment on the specific recommendations contained in the audit
report. The following recommendations for the DDTP pertain to the collection of surcharges.
• Work with the CPUC to develop and maintain a reliable record of carriers that are
providing services subject to the surcharge.
The DDTP is anxious to work with the CPUC on this task. Since the CPUC maintains this list
of carriers, the DDTP will share any information it receives with the CPUC regarding the status
of any carriers on the list.
• Track the payment history of each carrier and monitor these records to identify
delinquent carriers.
The DDTP is currently tracking the payment history of each carrier remitting revenues to the
DEAF Trust Fund. BSA has been provided with a sample of this monthly report. The DDTP
will notify the Telecommunications Division of the CPUC of any delinquencies it is able to
determine. The DDTP will also request from the CPUC updated surcharge tracking and
reporting instructions for the remaining 12 months that the DDTP is involved in this process.
• Regularly notify delinquent carriers and the CPUC of all past due amounts.
The DDTP will notify the CPUC monthly of any delinquencies it is able to determine and will
follow the CPUC’s instructions regarding providing notification to the carriers.
The following recommendations for the DDTP pertain to the prudent use of public funds in
furtherance of the program’s mission.
• Adhere to its newly revised internal control procedures that define allowable
expenses.
The DDTP implemented a new policy specifically defining allowable and non-allowable
expenses on May 10, 2002. The DDTP Executive Director has distributed this new policy to all
DDTP supervisors and managers and has obtained the signatures of all of these individuals
84 85
indicating their understanding of and compliance with the policy. This policy has been
implemented throughout the organization.
• Follow its new procedure to report parking fringe benefits as taxable income on
employees’ W-2 forms.
This procedure is in place now. The DDTP’s payroll service reports the taxable amount of
any parking fringe benefits on the monthly payroll stub of each employee affected and on the
payroll reports received by the DDTP every two weeks.
• Develop additional procedures to prevent personal use of cars among
employees with DDTP-leased vehicles. For example, the DDTP should properly
label all of its leased vehicles and require employees to maintain daily log
records of miles drive. When personal use occurs, the DDTP should report it as
a taxable fringe benefit to the proper taxation authorities.
While BSA did not definitively determine any personal use of leased vehicles has taken place,
the DDTP is in the process of implementing some policies to prevent or minimize any possible
personal use. The DDTP has developed a mileage log to be utilized by each employee with
access to a leased vehicle to record daily mileage driven. Mileage will be recorded for each leg
of a trip or each stop in a day’s itinerary. This mileage log will be compared to the employee’s
event sheet or work activity sheet to verify that the mileage was for work-related purposes. The
DDTP also plans to install signage on its leased vehicles, indicating “For Official Use Only.”
The DDTP will follow IRS requirements regarding the reporting of any taxable fringe benefits, if
any are determined.
• Ensure that all future contracts have established performance standards as well
as provisions to collect damages from non-performing contractors.
The DDTP has included strict performance standards and extensive provisions for liquidated
damages in its new CRS contracts currently under development. We will similarly include
appropriate provisions in all other new contracts.
In closing, the DDTP appreciates the BSA’s recommendations, as they will assist in the design
of a new program. The DDTP will be totally re-defined after June 30, 2003. The Legislature
has assigned total direct control of the surcharge and related revenue collection responsibilities
to the CPUC. The remainder of the DDTP’s operations will be performed through contracts
with a qualified entity or entities.
The DDTP looks forward to the inclusion of this response in your final Audit Report.
Sincerely,
(Signed by: Shelley Bergum)
Shelley Bergum
DDTP Executive Director
84 85
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
86 87
COMMENTS
California State Auditor’s Comments
on the Response From the Deaf
and Disabled Telecommunications
Program
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on
the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program’s
(DDTP) response to our audit report. The numbers below
correspond to the numbers we placed in the margin of the
program’s response.
1
We already acknowledge on page 33 of the audit report that
the expenditures we identified as imprudent were relatively
insignificant when compared with the DDTP’s annual budget.
However, they are inappropriate nonetheless. We also stated
that our review of expenditures was rather limited. For example,
the $7,380 of credit card purchases that we identified as not
furthering the program’s mission were found in a sample of
purchases made over a seven-month period from July 2001
through January 2002. We believe it is very likely that similar
purchases occurred in other periods. Moreover, the DDTP’s claim
that these and the other questionable expenditures we identified
represented only “0.12% of the DDTP’s total authorized
expenditures for the period studied” is misleading. The budgets
totaling $208 million were for 1998 through 2001. None of
our review encompassed 1998. Further, as with the credit card
expenditures we tested, we reviewed only small samples of the
other types of expenditures made during limited periods in
1999, 2000, and 2001.
2
The lease review and approval procedures referred to by the
DDTP were not part of our review. The California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) addresses this issue in its response
to the audit on page 74.
3
As we acknowledge on page 18 of the audit report, it is possible
that not all of the 1,483 carriers that the CPUC includes on its
list of active carriers are currently providing intrastate services
subject to the surcharge. We also state that the CPUC could
provide no definitive reason for why 68 percent of these carriers
did not remit for the past two years and that no one knows for
sure what the reason is.
86 87
4
If, as it claims, the DDTP can notify the CPUC when carriers
do not remit within a specified time, it is unclear to us why the
DDTP has not done so in the past. Also, we have not implied
that the DDTP has the ability to enforce carrier compliance.
As we clearly state on pages 21, 25, and 26 of the audit report,
the CPUC has responsibility for enforcement of the program’s
requirements, including revenue collections.
5
Refer to the CPUC’s response to the audit on page 75 for its
explanation of the events discussed here.
6
We agree that the DDTP cannot necessarily spend all surcharge
revenue received from carriers. Collecting all revenue due to the
program has two possible outcomes. First, as the CPUC states in
its audit response on page 75, it annually adjusts the surcharge
level, taking into consideration any remaining DDTP fund bal-
ance from the previous year. Thus, if the DDTP collects more
surcharge revenue than it is budgeted to spend in one year,
consumers could pay lower taxes in future periods as a result of
the CPUC decreasing the surcharge rate. However, if the DDTP
or members of the affected community could make a convincing
argument that program services should be expanded, it could
only happen if funds were available. It is absolutely essential
that the DDTP do everything it can to ensure the program is
getting all of the revenue it is owed so that it can serve its clien-
tele. It is the CPUC’s responsibility to make sure that telephone
customers are not paying more than they should.
7
The DDTP’s argument is irrelevant. Maximum per diem rates are
meant to be sufficient enough to cover all taxes, fees, and tips.
8
The DDTP’s example of an event recently attended by one of its
employees is irrelevant. First, the event was a conference
co-sponsored by the Employment Development Department and
a non-profit organization. It was targeted at business owners,
people with disabilities, human resource professionals, youth
service providers, and the general public. Criteria governing
the cost of meals at state-sponsored conferences involving
outside participants are completely different from the criteria
that govern committee meetings. In addition, attendees at
the conference paid a registration fee that covered lunch, a
reception, and a continental breakfast. The DDTP told us that
some members of the public attended the committee meetings
we discuss in our report and that those individuals reimbursed
88 89
the DDTP for their meals. However, the DDTP did not provide us
with evidence of these reimbursements, even though we asked
for it.
9
For our salary comparison, we used the salary schedule provided
to us by the DDTP. From that schedule, we used salary ranges
currently being used by the DDTP, regardless of whether they
were the base salary ranges or not. We believe we have made
appropriate comparisons.
0
The salaries the DDTP refers to are those that the CPUC reviewed
and declared as reasonable for 2000. Our salary comparison
consisted of individual salary ranges for 2001, none of which the
CPUC specifically approved.
q
The DDTP’s claim that a strict comparison of DDTP positions
and salaries to state positions and salaries is not valid, is in itself,
untrue. We acknowledge that many of the DDTP’s employees
have specialized skills, knowledge, and abilities necessary to
provide services to the deaf and disabled communities. However,
as stated on pages 13 and 46 of the audit report, these positions
are primarily the customer advisors, field advisors, and out-
reach specialists. Our salary comparison did not consist of these
employees. Rather, we compared the salary ranges of DDTP staff
that perform administrative functions to those of state employ-
ees, such as department directors, the system administrator, and
accounting staff that perform similar administrative functions.
Thus, the positions are clearly comparable and our analysis is
completely valid.
w
The DDTP’s reasoning is flawed. There is absolutely no assur-
ance that DDTP employees will remain employed for a certain
number of years nor that state employees will remain with the
State until they retire. Moreover, not all state employees who
retire receive lifetime benefits. In addition, if a state employee
retires and receives retirement health benefits, those benefits are
paid for by the retirement system, not the State’s General Fund.
The retirement system receives its funds through both employer
(the State) and employee contributions and the income the
system makes through investment of members’ accounts. To
say that the State incurs the full cost of retirement health ben-
efits is untrue.
e
The DDTP’s comparison to a federal death benefit is
inappropriate. The DDTP does not employ public safety officers.
As we state on page 38 of the report, although some state
employees receive life insurance and have the potential to
88 89
receive additional coverage, it is at the employee’s expense. The
DDTP’s employees pay nothing to obtain significantly higher
death benefits than what state employees receive.
r
Based on additional analysis, the DDTP pays significantly
more for its employee’s life insurance coverage than the State
does for its employees. Specifically, we calculated the monthly
life insurance premium of each DDTP employee and found
that on average, the DDTP is paying $43 per employee each
month, ranging from $24 to as high as $84 for one employee.
Conversely, the State pays between $6 and $12 per month for
certain employees who receive life insurance benefits.
t
The DDTP’s claim that the employee made a 190-mile round
trip to Oakland during the period we reviewed is inaccurate.
The last mileage information we had from this employee was as
of November 28, 2001, the last time the employee filled the car
with gas that month. Thus, our analysis essentially ended on
that date. The employee attended the meeting in Oakland on
November 29-30, 2001, or just after the date our analysis ended.
Our conclusion that 245 miles were driven over the amount
required for that employee to travel from home or the DDTP
service center to the scheduled customer sites for that month
remains true.
y
It is advantageous that the DDTP does not have to pay the
invoice if the equipment is received in substandard condi-
tion. However, timing issues may arise where the equipment
is needed right away. If the equipment ordered is wrong or
damaged, the DDTP would have to wait for the equipment to
be replaced, potentially resulting in consumers not receiving
equipment as quickly as they should. For this reason, it remains
prudent that the DDTP have a contractual provision that would
allow it to collect monetary damages if the vendor fails to per-
form as required.
90 91
cc: Members of the Legislature
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Milton Marks Commission on California State
Government Organization and Economy
Department of Finance
Attorney General
State Controller
State Treasurer
Legislative Analyst
Senate Office of Research
California Research Bureau
Capitol Press
90 91