[Trees-executive] Fwd: IPCUTSOT legal committee meeting

[John Sullivan]

I agree with Jim that we should please stick to plain-text
emails.  But I do have a secret decoder ring for my Unix system
that usually manages to decode DOC files from the evil Micros**t
empire.  So I attach below, for Jim's benefit and perhaps others',
a copy of those legal committee minutes.

-John
------------------------------------------------------------
>From trees-executive-admin at lists.groogroo.com  Fri Mar 23 15:01:13 2001
Subject: [Trees-executive] Fwd: IPCUTSOT legal committee meeting

IP Customers United to Save Our Trees

Legal Committee

3-20-01 (completed 3-23-01) 

Minutes

Attending:

Matt Kuenning, David Tewksbury, Melanie Traxler, Mary Pat Traxler, David
Kopacz, Tim Tufte, John McMahon 

Meeting begins: 7:35pm

Much of the meeting's events were rendered moot when IP agreed to
retract their tariff proposal.  Thus, I will do some editing and
highlight only those elements that seem relevant for the future.  

1) Status of ICC hearings and interveners (speaking of moot): John
reported on his contacts with Rick Winkel and efforts to be included in
the meetings Rutherford has been holding.  As part of that report, he
distributed a list of reasons why IPCITSOT opposed the original tariff. 
This list may be useful for the executive committee as it formulates a
policy for upcoming negotiations with IP.  

2) Expert testimony: We spent over an hour on this topic, but with any
luck it is behind us now.  The short version is that we constructed a
list of desirable witnesses categories (e.g., arborists, electric
company linemen (sic), etc.) and general points we think they may make. 

3) Easements (and related stuff): 

a) Matt reported what more he had learned about easements and tariffs.  

b) John noted that Winkel and Berns were responsive to the argument that
the tariff gave IP a wider easement at no cost to IP.  

c) The group discussed the concept of home rule (city ordinances can
sometimes overrule state-level regulation) and how that related to our
situation.  As an example of the concept, there was the city of
Bolingbrook, IL.  A sewer utility argued that a city ordinance could not
force it to do something that was not mandated on the state level.  The
Illinois Supreme Court sided with the city, saying it was a local
matter.  However, we must recognize that many matters are state-level,
and so home rule applies to only some issues.  

d) Someone noted that the ICC was expected a court challenge to the
tariff concept, but it expected it to win. 

e) Matt said he would continue looking into this.  

4) Petition: We discussed the mechanics and progress of the
petition/affidavit.  We considered the value of an online version of the
petition but decided it was probably not worth the effort.  John noted
that Bloomington/Normal seemed to be doing rather well getting their
portion of the signatures.  

5) New business: John asked for volunteers to help him at the ICC
hearings; that needs appears to have gone away.  

6) Next meeting: March 28, Tim Tufte's house: 1006 W. White St., Champaign 

Meeting ended at about 9:10pm