8/14/2019 UCA Letter

1/2

30333843

601 South Figueroa Street

Suite 2500

Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704

213.623.9300

213.623.9924 fax

www.sonnenschein.com

Brussels Charlotte Chicago Dallas Kansas City Los Angeles New York Phoenix St. Louis

San Francisco Short Hills, N.J. Silicon Valley Washington, D.C. West Palm Beach Zurich

Christopher E. Prince213.892.5049

cprince@sonnenschein.com

February 19, 2009

VIA E-MAIL

California Public Utilities Commission505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

Re: A.06-12-005 and associated applications; Revised Alternate Decision of

Commissioner Chong

Dear Commissioners:

United Community Associations, Inc. joins in the Los Angeles Unified School Districts

request for an all parties meeting. UCA shares the LAUSDs concern about the direction that

this proceeding has taken. As a threshold matter, the entire evidentiary process was, in our view,tainted by serious discovery-related misconduct on the part of Expo (specifically, Expos secret

withholding of documents based on undisclosed and frivolous assertions of privilege). Thismisconduct was compounded when UCA was denied the opportunity to conduct any pre-hearing

discovery beyond written document requests and was further denied the opportunity to review

critical documents that were improperly withheld.

Although the evidentiary hearing was flawed in that respect, it did conform to certain

basic standards of fairness: all parties had the opportunity to be heard on the issues, and allparties had the opportunity to hear the arguments presented to the decisionmakers. Since the

Assigned Commissioner issued his proposed decision, however, both the appearance and reality

of fairness have all but disappeared:

Expo has made ex parte contact with a Commissioner without giving the appropriate 3-day advance notice to all parties;

UCAs requests for equal time with Commissioners who have granted requests forex parte communication have been ignored; and

An Alternate Decision was issued and revised apparently based on evidence that was

excluded from the evidentiary hearing, thus violating Public Utilities Code Section 1701(3)(e).

Beyond the outright violations of CPUC rules and governing statutes, an air of politics

has descended over this proceeding. The sheer number of ex parte contacts by Expo is highly

8/14/2019 UCA Letter

2/2

California Public Utilities CommissionFebruary 19, 2009

Page 2

30333843

unusual as are the significant changes to both the proposed and alternate decisions. Given that

this decision is not even the final word on these applications, the level and amount ofmaneuvering is both perplexing and troubling. UCA urges the Commission to move this process

back out into the open. Granting LAUSDs request for an all parties meeting would be a good

first step in that direction.

Sincerely,

Christopher E. Prince

CVP/jam