Northwestern Indiana Telephone Company - Page 60

                                               - 60 -                                                  
                  In evaluating what NITCO's reasonable business needs were                            
            during the years in issue, we have been faced with a lack of                               
            forthrightness on petitioners' part.  For instance, Mr. Mussman                            
            testified that, during 1987 through 1989, NITCO planned to                                 
            replace its Alcatel switches, because the French manufacturer had                          
            decided to abandon the U.S. market and stop conducting future                              
            research and development efforts with respect to upgrading the                             
            switches.  He claimed that NITCO learned of the French                                     
            manufacturer's decision shortly after NITCO had purchased and                              
            installed its Alcatel switches.  Yet, when questioned by                                   
            respondent's counsel on cross-examination about NITCO's contrary                           
            representations concerning the switches to the IURC's engineering                          
            staff in late 1990, Mr. Mussman maintained that the statements in                          
            the August 1990 letter issued to NITCO by Alcatel's U.S.                                   
            representative were untrue.  Mr. Mussman, however, offered no                              
            convincing explanation why, if NITCO knew the statements made                              
            were untrue, NITCO then had provided a copy of the letter to the                           
            IURC's staff.13                                                                            
                  On the record presented, it is questionable whether during                           


            13In another instance, Mr. Mussman testified that                                          
            architectural plans of new principal office facilities for NITCO                           
            were drawn up in 1989.  On cross-examination, however, he claimed                          
            that the plans were not provided to respondent during pretrial                             
            discovery, because the plans were his personal property and did                            
            not belong to NITCO.  He further offered no convincing                                     
            explanation with respect to why petitioners had failed to produce                          
            the alleged plans and information concerning the alleged                                   
            architect who drew them in response to respondent's pretrial                               
            discovery requests.                                                                        




Page:  Previous  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011