Oct. 16, 2006 — Attorney Maria Tankenson Hodge turned up the heat Monday on the controversy surrounding a secret agreement between the Public Services Commission and the territory's only land-based phone company when she filed a motion requesting that the commission subpoena three key players.
Hodge wants to put Alecia Wells, PSC chairwoman; Jeffrey Moorhead, PSC attorney; and Holland Redfield, vice president of Innovative Communication Corp., parent to the phone company; on the hot seat to answer questions about why they claim no secret agreement was struck, when court documents filed by ICC attorneys and copies of the correspondence tell a different story.
Since last week, when the Source obtained and published a copy of an unsigned letter from Wells to Vitelco President David Sharp, the Source has obtained a signed copy of the letter that assures Sharpe of the full support of the PSC for use of phone company assets to fund a bankruptcy settlement for upstream companies owned by Jeffery Prosser. The letter bearing Wells' signature was faxed Sept. 22 from the St. John ICC plant to ICC on St. Croix, according to the fax numbers and dates on the top of the letter.
Wells, Moorhead and Redfield have all publicly denied the existence of any secret agreement, which has raised questions for Hodge, given evidence to the contrary.
The dispute began on Oct. 5 when the Source reported that the PSC had signed onto an agreement that would allow Prosser to use his profitable phone company to fund a $470 million bankruptcy settlement of several of his other holdings. (See "Prosser Seeking to Involve Vitelco in Bankruptcy Settlement").
Redfield was the first of the three to respond. On Oct. 9, he sent out a news release in which he was quoted as saying, "These stories are totally incorrect and erroneous as no such PSC approval has yet been sought much less has any such approval been given. Indeed, the company has still not completed its plans for such refinancing as part of its global settlement with the RTFC and Greenlight."
Two days later on Oct. 11, both Wells and Moorhead sent communications to the media on the matter. In a letter to the editor, Wells did not deny that she wrote such a letter regarding an agreement. Instead, her submission went on for 10 paragraphs discussing her commitment to public service and extolling the work done by the PSC.
Moorhead, on the other hand, in his terse, two-paragraph news release said, "It is the opinion of the Commission that the allegations are baseless and of questionable motive. The Commission considers this matter closed and plans no further comment on it."
In Monday's motion, Hodge wrote, "This statement suggests that attorney Moorhead has conferred with the PSC in a non-public meeting, thus in violation of the Sunshine Act, and that he undertook to publicly dismiss the allegations in the motion on behalf of the PSC without any public hearing on the merits of the motion."
Hodge went on to say, "Given the publication of what appears to be a letter from the PSC to Vitelco on the very subject of the motion, the involvement of this attorney in any private, undisclosed, secret or otherwise non-public communications with Vitelco or ICC must be examined under oath to determine what improper communications have taken place to secure secret PSC approval of the proposed settlement."
Hodge also quoted the Oct. 7 issue of the St. Croix Avis, which has Wells on the record as saying she didn't "know anything about those documents." The Avis also quoted Wells saying that she wouldnt write something and not sign it.
On the matter of Redfield's testimony, Hodge wrote, "Holland Redfield has issued several contradictory public statements on the matters at issue and clearly has knowledge related to the issues presented."
Therefore Hodge, acting on behalf of Justine Flashman, a ratepayer and V.I. resident, said Redfield's testimony "is necessary to secure a full and complete presentation of the nature and extent of the communication between Vitelco, ICC and the PSC (or some of its members or representatives), to determine the scope of the violations of the Sunshine Act."
The V.I. Code, Hodge noted, permits any individual member of the PSC to issue subpoenas and therefore requires neither a majority vote nor the permission of the chairwoman.
Hodge has requested that all three individuals be asked to show up with any relevant documents or letters, including "any letter sent by Wells to Vitelco, or signed by Wells expressing the support of the commission for the ICC Settlement Agreement."
Back Talk Share your reaction to this news with other Source readers. Please include headline, your name and city and state/country or island where you reside.
