STATE OF MAINE                                                                           

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION                                     Docket No. 2001-223

 

                                                                                                            November 1, 2006

                                                                                                           

 

I.          SUMMARY

 

            We amend our May 23, 2006 Order related to Maine Telecommunication Education Access Fund (MTEAF) spending to allow for two circuit riders and a manager for the Maine School and Library Network (MSLN).

 

II.         BACKGROUND AND DECISION

 

            The Department of Education (DOE) and Maine State Library (MSL), with the assent of the MTEAF Advisory Board, have asked us to amend our May 23, 2006 Order which approved a board-recommended plan for MTEAF spending for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007.

 

            They recommend that the number of circuit riders be reduced from three to two and that the funds saved by this reduction (approximately $79,800) be used to fund a contracted position of MSLN project manager.  Manager duties would include:

• Assessing technology needs of schools and libraries;
• Keeping the MTEAF Advisory Board apprised of developing technologies for schools and libraries;
• Drafting RFPs and serving as contract administrator;
• Providing reports on activities and expenditures to the MTEAF Advisory Board;
• Acting as a liaison with schools and libraries;
• Coordinating with the MTEAF's federal e-rate consultant; and
• Submitting annual plan recommendations to the PUC for approval.

 

The MSL and DOE have determined that two circuit riders can adequately cover all requests for assistance.  Since one of the circuit riders recently accepted another position, this would make the reduction easy to accomplish at this time.

 

            We agree that there has been a need for greater centralized management of the MSLN and MTEAF processes.  The manager will have responsibility for tasks that are currently being done by a variety of people on an ad hoc basis.  We will approve the

creation of the manager position and two circuit riders for this year.  We expect the Board to report back to us its evaluation of these changes when it makes its recommendation for next year's spending.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 1^st day of November, 2006.

 

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION

 

 

_______________________________

Karen Geraghty

Administrative Director

 

 

COMMISSIONERS VOTING FOR: Adams

                                                                        Reishus

                                                                       

 

NOTICE OF RIGHTS TO REVIEW OR APPEAL

 

            5 M.R.S.A. § 9061 requires the Public Utilities Commission to give each party to an adjudicatory proceeding written notice of the party's rights to review or appeal of its decision made at the conclusion of the adjudicatory proceeding.  The methods of review or appeal of PUC decisions at the conclusion of an adjudicatory proceeding are as follows:

 

            1.         Reconsideration of the Commission's Order may be requested under Section 1004 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (65-407 C.M.R.110) within 20 days of the date of the Order by filing a petition with the Commission stating the grounds upon which reconsideration is sought.

 

            2.         Appeal of a final decision of the Commission may be taken to the Law Court by filing, within 21 days of the date of the Order, a Notice of Appeal with the Administrative Director of the Commission, pursuant to 35-A M.R.S.A. § 1320(1)-(4) and the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure.

 

            3.         Additional court review of constitutional issues or issues involving the justness or reasonableness of rates may be had by the filing of an appeal with the Law Court, pursuant to 35-A M.R.S.A. § 1320(5).

 

Note:   The attachment of this Notice to a document does not indicate the Commission's view that the particular document may be subject to review or appeal.  Similarly, the failure of the Commission to attach a copy of this Notice to a document does not indicate the Commission's view that the document is not subject to review or appeal.