South Dakota One Call Notification Board
Enforcement Panel Conference Call
Location: Midcontinent Communications
3901 N. Louise Ave., Sioux Falls S.D.
Monday, June 1, 2015 – 2 p.m. CDT, 1 p.m. MDT
Enforcement Panel Members in attendance: Dan Kaiser; John Ward; Fay Jandreau; Kurt Pfeifle; Erin Hayes. Also attending: Kristen Edwards, Legal Counsel; Executive Director, Larry Janes.
Justin Norris, TrioTel Communications; Kenneth J. Erickson; Joe Muth.
Order of Business:
Larry Janes provided a brief description of the Enforcement Panel process. This is a legal proceeding and that no comments by any of the parties may be taken during this call. A probable cause determination will be made based only on the written documentation received from the parties in the complaints. All parties will be given the opportunity to request a hearing before the full South Dakota One Call Notification Board, if there is disagreement with the recommendation of the Panel. If a hearing is requested, each party must be represented by legal counsel at the hearing. If a hearing is not requested, the Enforcement Panel recommendation will be presented to the South Dakota One Call Board of Directors for acceptance at the next Board Meeting. A final Order will be mailed to each party.
The Enforcement Panel of the South Dakota One Call Board met to consider the following South Dakota One Call Complaints:
OC15-006 In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by Trio Tel Communications (Trio), Salem, South Dakota, Against Twedt Construction (Twedt), Montrose, South Dakota for an Incident occurring on March 5, 2015 at 630 E. Essex Ave., Salem, S.D.
On March 6, 2015 Trio filed a complaint against Twedt, alleging that Twedt cut a fiber optic line without calling South Dakota One (Call). On March 23, 2015, Trio requested withdrawal of the Complaint.
Twedt responded to the complaint on March 25, 2015 by stating they were a subcontractor and there was a miscommunication between the prime contractor and Twedt. Twedt went on to state that they plan to call for locates regardless of the prime contractor’s previous locates or information on location of lines.
Today, shall the Enforcement Panel of the South Dakota One Call Notification Board find that there is probable cause that Twedt violated any statute or rule under the jurisdiction of the Board, and if so shall a civil penalty be assessed? There have been no previous complaints filed against Twedt.
PROBABLE CAUSE DISCUSSION:
Larry Janes stated that the Panel has allowed previous complaints to be withdrawn and has also denied withdrawal of complaints. Dan Kaiser made a motion to dismiss the complaint. Erin Hayes seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.
OC15-007 In the Matter of the Complaint filed by Kenneth J. Erickson (Erickson), Rapid City, South Dakota, Against Joe Muth and Jeremy Muth (Muth), Rapid city, South Dakota, for an Incident Occurring on April 10, 2015 t 4660 Coal Bank Fr., Rapid City, S.D.
On April 20, 2015, (Erickson) filed a complaint against Muth stating that a backhoe operator, name and employer unknown, damaged several communications cables near the property line.
Muth responded to the Complaint on May 27, 2015 by stating that Jeremy Muth is the General Contractor, Select Construction, not the contractor doing the work. A Damage Locate request by Professional Excavating, Inc. was submitted as evidence. There have been no previous complaints filed against Muth.
Today, shall the Enforcement Panel of the South Dakota One Call Notification Board find that there is probable cause that Muth violated any statute or rule under the jurisdiction of the Board, and if so shall a civil penalty be assessed?
PROBABLE CAUSE DISCUSSION:
John Wardmentioned that he had read through the Complaint and the Response several times and felt that, if there was a valid ticket and the line was not marked, then there is no violation. Dan Kaiser stated that there was the statement that the locate was not correct. John Ward made a motion that there is no violation against Muth. Kristen Edwards stated that a complaint could still be filed against the contractor, if filed within 90 days of discovery. After additional discussion, John Ward withdrew his motion. Dan Kaiser made a motion to dismiss the Complaint as filed, against the wrong party. John Ward seconded the motion. Fay Jandreau asked if we could verify the address of the damage against the address of the Complaint. Larry Janes stated we are not allowed to investigate. John Ward stated the damage affected service. There being no further discussion, a roll call vote was taken. Motion carried upon a roll call vote.
Being no further business Larry Janes asked for a motion to adjourn. Fay Jandreau made the motion. John Ward seconded. Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.
Minutes of this meeting were prepared by Larry Janes, Executive Director, South Dakota One Call Notification Board.
Larry L. Janes
South Dakota One Call