The Public Service Commission of West Virginia (PSC), created in 1913, is one of the state's oldest regulatory agencies. The Commission currently performs three basic functions. First, it responds to complaints about utilities in the state (telecommunications, electricity, natural gas, water, sewage, and waste disposal facilities) and intrastate common carriers (railways, gas pipelines and motor carriers including trucking firms, wrecker services, bus lines, taxi services, and refuse haulers). Second, it establishes rates and operating rules for utilities, landfills, and intrastate common and contract carriers. Finally, it issues certificates of public convenience and necessity for the construction or alteration of utilities'facilities and it certif iesthe operation, or selected changes in the operations, of intrastate common carriers.

This article examines the PSC's handling of clientele complaints. The first part of this article examines the process by which complaints are addressed. The second part discusses clients' perceptions of and satisfaction with the process.

The data used in this article were obtained between August 1989 and April 1990, and consists of PSC records, personal interviews with two commissioners and eighteen staff members, Q sorts administered to PSC staff, and telephone surveys of the Commission's clientele. Data on utility regulatory commissions located in other states was obtained through a telephone survey conducted in July 1990, andf rom documents supplied by these commissions.

Susan Hunter and Richard A. Brisbin, Jr., are Assistant Professors of Political Science at West Virginia University.

PSC Customer Complaint Disposition
Procedures

The PublicService Commission otWestVirginia handles complaints and disputes about all types of common and contract carriers and all public utilities except cable television. When addressing complaints, the PSC attempts to ensure that utilities both understand and obey the regulations governing their industry's treatment of customers. However, this "consumer protection" is largely passive. With the exception of pipeline and motor carriers inspectors, PSC personnel do not search for law violators when they consider complaints. Instead, they focus their efforts on resolving the complaint to the satisfaction of the parties involved. The PSC also attempts to assist customers who are threatened with loss of service, who are receiving what they perceive to be inadequate service, orwho do not understand the law.

The primary responsibility for handling customer service complaints rests with the PSC's Customer Relations Division. However, complaints are handled occasionally by personnel throughout the PSC's divisions. Specifically, the Customer Relations Division is charged with the responsibility for handling citizen inquiries and informal complaints; the Legal Division deals with legal questions and both formal and informal complaints; the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJ) adjudicates formal complaints and advises staff on rules and regulations; and the Utilities, Transportation and Public Service District Divisions (PSD) handle technical questions related to their respective utilities. In addition, the Office of the Executive Secretary manages formal complaints and general informational services; the Administration Division manages PSC records, personnel, and finances; and the Consumer Advocate Division represents public positions in more significant formal complaints and ratemaking processes.

Typically, the PSC's complaint adjustment process begins after it receives a request for information or what the PSC calls an "informal complaint from the public" (Miller and Sarat 1980-81; Silbey 1980-81). Informal complaints are citizen or business calls, letters, or petitions about a dispute within the PSC's authority. Parties seeking a more legalistic resolution to their complaint or who wish to file a "formal complaint" typically will file documents with the PSC's Off ice of the Executive Secretary.

A survey of utility regulatory bodies located in other states revealed that all state public service or utility commissions havethe same basic system for addressing citizen complaints. Although some differences do exist, all states have both formal or adjudicatory processes, all have informal or mediatory systems to adjust complaints, and all but one (Indiana) allow individual citizens rather than groups to file complaints. The survey also indicated that West Virginia, like most other states (37 of 46 responding), accept complaints over the telephone. The nine remaining states require consumers to file a written complaint before taking any action. By accepting consumer complaints over the telephone, West Virginia provides greater access to its complaint adjustment process and enhances the PSC's ability to respond quickly to consumer service problems through informal mediatory action.

The survey also revealed that West Virginia is one of twenty states that have toll-free numbers available to further facilitate the complaint adjustment process. However, the survey also revealed that West Virginia is not one of the nineteen states that have begun to professionalize their informal complaint adjustment process by enhancing the training of their personnel; is not one of the nineteen states that publish and distribute brochures to help citizens understand the variety of procedures available for the adjustment of their complaints; and is not one of the few states, most notably Pennsylvania, that publish detailed reports with extensive quantitative data on the responsiveness of public utilities to customer complaints.

informal Complaint Dispositions: The
Customer Relations Division

When citizens or businesses have a complaint about a utility or carrier, their first contact with the PSC is normally by telephone, often through the Commission's toll-free telephone service. Complaint calls on the toll-free number go directly to customer relations specialists. Complainant contacts also occur by telephone calls to a staff member

known to the complainant, by letter and, rarely, through a personal visit to the Commission. Inquiries and informal complaints also are forwarded directly to the PSC's commissioners from the Governor's Office, federal and state legislators, and other state agencies. The commissioners normally route these complaints to personnel in one of the PSC's divisions. A small numberof complaints are received by the receptionist in the Office of the Executive Secretary. She determines if a potential complaint or informational request exists, then routes it to the Customer Relations Division or, if its lines are busy or the complainant requests a specific individual, to another division. All calls about motorcarriers and other tran spo rtatio n services are directed to the Transportation Division.

Personnel in the Customer Relations Division answer inquiries about PSC activities and address informal complaints. Except in emergency situations, complainants are asked to put their complaint in writing. When a letter describing the complaint arrives at the Customer Relations Division it is considered "filed" as an informal complaint. Staff then log the complaint into a computerized data base, complete a complaint form on the case, and begin action to process it. They contact the customer only if they cannot understand the nature of the complaint from the letter. Normally, a copy of the letter and the complaint form on the dispute is sent to the utility with an appropriate computergenerated form letter or memorandum about the utility's responsibility to respond to the complaint in ten days. The utility normally returns a written response to the letter. In most cases, they indicate that they have addressed and resolved the dispute, sometimes even before the PSC's letterwas received. Emergency problems, especiallythose outages, terminations, or disasters which threaten public health or safety, result in immediate telephone calls to the utility. All case activity is documented in a computerized case file. Any special legal explanations or questions are addressed by the Director or are referred to the Legal Division.

The Customer Relations Division's staff provide considerable advice to the parties to a dispute, probably in the hope that information will result in a settlement. They inform customers about Commission duties, rules, and policies. They also advise them about the probable outcome of their dispute, other avenues of potential relief, and the nature of the formal complaint process. Sometimes, they will also inform personnel in the PSC's Public Service Districts (PSDs) about their duties under the law. Occasionally, customers lodging an informal complaint will request an onsite investigation. On-site investigations are rarely done. When it is decided that an on-site investigation is warranted, a Customer Relations Division staff member is usually accompanied by an engineer or technician from another division. Face-to-face mediation almost never occurs.

In 1988, the Customer Relations Division reported handling 11,865 "matters". These included 9,026 telephone calls and 2,408 written informal complaints. The primary reason why many telephone calls do not become written informal complaints is that they are about service outages which the utility addresses before the customer sends the Customer Relations Division a letter.

Of the 2,408 written informal complaints received by the Customer Relations Division in 1988,24.8% concerned the initiation of service, 24.5% concerned the termination of service, and 22.3% were billing disputes. Most of the remainder (17.8%) were written questions the Division called "jurisdictional questions." These were assorted inquiries and issues that were not withi n the PSC'sjurisdiction andwere referred directlyto other agencies orwere issues that were not regulated by government (for additional statistical data on operations, see W. Va. PSC, 1985,1986, 1987,1988,1989).

In 1990 the Customer Relations Division consisted of four staff members with no education beyond high school, an occasional college intern and the director, who was an attorney with several years of experience in public utility law. Because of civil service classification procedures, the employees of the Customer Relations Division, two of whom were initially hired as secretaries, are paid even less than most other professional state employees. Also, they are not generally accorded much professional respect within the PSC.

The Customer Relations Division's four full time staff members have received no training on interpersonal skills or mediation processes, except that obtained in-service through weekly meetings with the director. Inanattemptto offer legally correct advice to complainants, the Division maintains afileof Commission and administrative law judge decisions for reference purposes and keeps in close contact with the administrative law judges to learn about changes in the PSC's rules made through the internal adjudicatory process. Information on rules changes is circulated to staff by the divisional director.

Informal Complaint Disposition: Other PSC
Divisions

As noted previously, some of the complaint calls and inquiries received by the PSC do not go to its Customer Relations Division. Calls asking for a particular person, asking a legal question, or asking a technical question are referred to the appropriate division. Although personnel in the PSC's Public Service District and Utilities Divisions often keep personal records of their activity in respondingto complaints, the information is not normally logged into the Customer Relations Division's central computer file of informal complaints. Therefore, it isdiff icuitto describewhether the kindsof informal complaints addressed by these divisions differ from the informal complaints processed by the Customer Relations Division. It is also diff icult to determine if the results of mediatory activities differ among the divisions.

The PSC's Transportation Division also receives and aGts on citizen complaints. Most of these complaints are received by the Transportation Division's Motor Carrier Section after initial referral by the receptionist. The procedures used by the personnel in the Motor Carrier Section are very similar to those used by the Customer Relations Division. Complaints must be made in writing except for those alleging safety violations by a carrier, such as the operation of a dangerous vehicle or the improper transport of hazardous materials. These are normally acted on immediately, especially if referred to them from the Governor's Office of Emergency Services or by another state agency. Information on the complaint is logged into a computerfile. However, this information is not made part of the general data base on informal complaints kept by the Customer Relations Division. Approximately 40% of the complaints received by the Motor Carrier Section are from citizens alleging that they have been overcharged for a service, especially by a towing service or taxi service. Another40%of the complaints are from citizens complaining about the quality of service by passenger carriers or trash haulers. A smaller portion of complainants are carriers allegingthat anothercarrier has infringed on their monopoly in a certified service area assigned to them by the Commission.

Once a letter on the complaint is received and verified, it is forwarded to one of the Motor Carrier Section's inspectors. These inspectors almost always visit the complainant and the carrier to discuss and gather information and evidence about the complaint. Although the inspectors normally do not get the parties together in a face-to-face setting to discuss the dispute, theydo serve as mediators by conveying information between the parties, suggesting ways to resolve the dispute, and encouraging the parties to talk to each other. Staff inspectors report that almost all informal complaints are resolved through this mediatory effort. The few disputes which are converted into formal complaints are mostly aboutconfusion inthe PSC's descriptions of certified areas of operation. Any legal advice needed by the inspectors comes from their supervisors who are attorneys.

Formal Complaint Processes

When an informal complaint is being reviewed and the issues raise unanswerable legal questions, involve severe harm or potential harm to citizens, or cannot be readily resolved through the intervention and mediation of the Customer Relations Division, the Legal Division, or other staff, it is often recommended that the citizen file a formal complaint. Formal complaints are also very frequently filed without initial informal consideration, especially in disputes among utilities or carriers. But, partly because of the existence of the informal process, the PSC considers only about 200 formal complaints a year.

Filing a formal complaint is an easy process. Staff members in any division can inform citizens about the process and then direct them to the Off ice of the Executive Secretary for assistance. Although a citizen may be asked to fill out a formal complaint form, the Executive Secretary also accepts letters from citizens as the equivalent of the form. The Executive Secretary and staff then complete the form, numberthe complaint, andfile ordocket it. Subsequent activity on the formal complaint is recorded into a computerized docket and an individual case file.

The day a formal complaint is filed and docketed, the utility is mailed a copy of the complaint under a cover letter. The utility must file a formal response within 10 days. Inthe interim, the Executive Secretary sends a copy of the complaint to the Legal Division and to any other appropriate divisions. Personnel in these divisions reviewthe complaint, consult with appropriate staff within their divisions and among the involved divisions, and meet to prepare a Joint Staff Memorandum concerning the dispute. Within thirty days, the Joint Staff Memorandum isto be sentto the parties and to the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJ). However, historically, the PSC's personnel has been lax in meeting these deadlines and in monitoring progress on formal complaints.

The AU Division reviews the Joint Staff Memorandum, considers briefs from the parties, and issues an order to resolve the dispute. On request, or in serious cases, the ALJ Division will hold a hearing on the matter before an order is issued. The ALJ Division's order is final unless exceptions are taken and filed by the parties with the PSC. All ALJ Division decisions are reviewed and all opinions and orders are edited by the Chief AU. These review sessions allow the Chief Administrative Law Judge to standardize decisions (since the chief edits the Digest of West Virginia Public Utilities Decisions) and to acquaint new AUs with utilities law and the PSC's unpublished rules, orders, and practices.

The PSC's commissioners may hear complaints without them going before an Administrative Law Judge. However, this is a rare event, conf ined to complaints where rulings will have a substantial economic impact on either the utilities or the public.

When parties file exceptions to ALJ Division decisions, the three PSC commissioners act as an appellate tribunal and review the case with the assistance of their law clerks. The adviceof clerks canbe valuable sinceonlythe Chairman of the Commission must be an attorney and none of the commissioners have to be experienced in public utilities

law. The commissioners usually consider only the staff's written records, the ALJ Division's action, and the briefs of the parties when they review a case. Oral argument is rare and is confined to cases with significant legal implications concerning the PSC's powers. The commissioners then issue a final order which can include civil penalties, fines, criminal penalties, or the imposition of receivership on a utility (W. Va., Code, 1986, § 24-2-8; § 24-4-1 -6; § 24A-7-1 5; §24B-4-6). These penalties do not preclude damage suits against the utility or carrier by the complainant (W. Va. Code, 1986, §24-4-7).

Other Sources of Customer Complaints and their Disposition

When the PSC enters into ratemaking for private utilities aff ecting more than twenty members of the public, statutory provisions require a public notice by the utility and a thirtyday period forcomments and complaints on the notice to be filed with the Commission. These notice, comment, and hearing procedures permit citizens to make both general and specif ic complaints against utilities and carriers. These complaints, togetherwith a list of informal complaints about a utility or carrier compiled by the Customer Relations Division, are included in the records considered by Administrative Law Judges during certification or ratemaking. The PSC also conducts a yearly meeting with managerial personnel of the state's larger utility companies. These meetings sometimes produce complaints by utilities about other regulated enterprises. The commissioners often refer these complaints to staff for informal adjustment or recommend that the regulated party file a formal complaint.

Clientele Evaluations of PSC Procedures

Four telephone surveys were conducted from November 1989 through March 1990 to evaluate the public's perceptions of the PSC's complaint adjustment processes. The surveys were designed specifically to determine the attitudes of the PSC's clientele concerningthe dispositionof informal complaints by the Customer Relations Division andthe disposition of disputes throughthe formal complaint process.

Research Design

Although the four surveys contained many identical questions, they were constructed to obtain specific information f rom four sets of PSC clientele: individuals who filed formal complaints in 1988; businesses which filed formal complaints in 1988; parties (almost all individuals) who filed informal complaints in early 1989 with the PSC's Customer Relations Division; and parties (almost all utility companies) named as respondents to complaints filed in 1988 and 1989. Because many of the PSC's divisions do not record their actions on informal complaints in the central file maintained by Customer Relations Division they could not be included in the survey.

The survey included all of the PSC's formal complaint casesfor1988. The informal cases used in the survey were randomly selected bythe Directorof the Customer Relations Division. Atotal of 201 caseswith both a plaintiff (consumer) and a defendant (utility or carrier) were examined. One hundred forty-seven cases were informal complaints and 54 were formal complaints. Surveys were completed with 180 citizens. Only one individual was a defendant. Thirtythree of the citizen complaints were formal and 147 were informal. Two hundred twenty-two businesses responded to the survey. Twenty-two of these were plaintiffs and 200 were defendants. Seventy-five of the businesses were involved in formal complaints.

Complaints concerning water problems were the most common (25.9%) represented in our sample, but the distribution of complaints was fairly even across various categories of utilities. However, perceptions of the process differed among the types of utilities involved. As Table 1 indicates, respondentswere most satisfied with the outcome on electricity complaints, but they found the process to be fairest with regard to telephone and gas complaints. Overall, respondents appeared to be most satisfied with the process and outcome with their gas utility complaints. They were least satisfied with the process and outcome of their complaints concerning rural waterutilities which are handled by the PSC's Public Service Division.

Perceptions Regarding Outcomes

Plaintiff respondents were asked whether they received "everything, most, some or none" of what they wanted f rorn the PSC's complaint adjustment process. Of the 165 respondents answering the question, 42% believed they received all they wanted f romthe process, but 39% believed they received nothing they had wanted.

There was no significant difference in the perceptions of the outcome of the complaint adjustment process among respondents by their income, age and education. There was also no significant difference in the perception of the process'outcome between respondents who had filed informal complaints and those who had gone through the formal complaint process. The only significant difference observed was by respondent gender. Half of the women surveyed, compared to only 35% of the men, believed that they received everything they had wanted f romthe PSC's complaint adjustment process.Women were also more likely to be satisfied with the outcome of the complaint adjustment process than were men (60% to 40%).

Not surprisingly, the survey also revealed that respondents who believed they received everything that they wanted from the complaint adjustment process were more likely to believe that they were treated with respect by PSC employees (68%) than were respondents who received nothing they had wanted (12%). The survey also revealed that most of the respondents who believed that they had received nothing from the process (77%) believed that the PSC's rules favored utilities, compared to only 9% of those who received everything they had wanted. In addition, most of the respondents who believed that they had received nothing from the process (72%) believed that the PSC's employees strongly favored the utilities, compared to only 11 % of those who received everything that they wanted from the process.

Whether respondents filed a formal or an informal complaint did not appear to affect their perceptions of either PSC employees or of the process itself (see Table 3). No significant differences were detected in their perceptions of the way they were treated by PSC employees, the outcome of the process, their satisfaction with the outcome, or the perceived bias of PSC employees, The only significant difference found was the respondents' perception of the bias in PSC rules. Respondents who had filed formal complaints were much more likely than those who had filed informal complaints to believe that the rules favored consumers (43% versus 27%).

Utilities seemed to believe they were treated with greater respect by PSC employees than did consumers on both formal and informal complaints. They were also more likely to perceive the outcome as fair than were consumers. Although no utilities believed that PSC rules favor utilities, 61 % believed that the employees in the Customer Relations Division favored them.

Demographic Characteristics and
Respondent Values

Of some interest is the use of the formal complaint process by particular groups in the population. There was no relationship between age and the decision to use the informal process, but a significant relationship did exist with education. Respondents with less than a high school degree were much less likelyto file a formal complaint than those with a high school degree or with some college education. In addition, only 18 of the respondents filing an informal complaint had less than a high school degree while 42 had at least some college education. This indicates that poorly educated citizens are unlikely to use the PSC's complaint process at all, and they are extremely unlikely to go through the formal complaint process.

One explanationthat may helpto explainwhy individuals with less than a high school diploma are less likely than others to file formal complaints is that they tend to have fewer political contacts than those with more education. As a result, the poorly educated tend to make their initial contactwith the PSC's Customer Relations Division. Better educated respondents tended to attempt to resolve their complaints through contacts in other PSC divisions.

Educational level also was related to respondents' perceptions of the PSC. Although there were no significant differences among educational groups concerning how theyweretreated by PSC personnel, therewere significant differences concerning their perceptions of the fairness of the outcome, the bias of the PSC's employees and its rules, and whether they received most or all of what they had wanted from the process. Specifically, only 48% of respondents with less than a high school diploma believed that the outcome of the complaint adjustment process was fair compared to 72% of respondents who had a college degree. In addition, 39% of the respondents with less than a high school diploma believed that the PSC's employees were biased infavorof utilities compared to only 17% of the respondents who had a college degree. Moreover, 63% of the respondents with less than a high school diploma believed that the PSC's rules were biased toward utilities, compared to only 37% of respondents with a college diploma. Finally, only 33% of respondents with less than a high school education felt that they had received most or all of what they had wanted from the complaint adjustment process compared to 71 % of those who had a college degree.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The PSC's Customer Relations Division is satisfactorily resolving a high percentage of the complaints they receive. Only 21 % of the informal complaints in the research sample later filed a formal complaint. This indicates that 79% of the respondents contacting the Customer Relations Division saw no need to proceed further with their complaint. In addition, satisfaction with both the outcome and treatment by PSC personnel was as high with those using the Customer Relations Division as it was with those utilizing the formal complaint process. Moreover, the Customer Relations Division's personnel appear to be effectively dealing with the complaints of less educated respondents even though this particular group appears to distrust the PSC's motivations.

Because other PSC divisions do not keep records on their activities related to informal complaints, an evaluation of their effectiveness and the level of theirclient satisfaction is currently impossible. Although some complaints involve technical issues that should be forwarded to the PSC's technical divisions for resolution, all complaints should be routed to the Consumer Relations Division for entry into a central, computerized file. If this were done, all calls or inquiries could then be compared to the central file. Callsor complaints that are duplicated could then be sent to the staff member who handled the initial contact. This procedure would prevent complainants from engaging in "forum shopping" or repeatedly calling various divisions within the PSC until they receive the response they desire. It would also allow comparative evaluations of all of the PSC divisions' informal complaint procedures.

Informal complaint procedures appear to be a very effective method for resolving complaints directed toward state agencies. For this reason, it is recommended that the PSCtakethe following four steps to improve these services: (1) establish training programs on interpersonal skills and mediation procedures for all relevant staff; (2) upgrade the Civil Service status of the Customer Relations Division personnel; (3) assign additional staff to the Customer Relations Division, based on the number of cases handled per year; and (4) seek legislative support for increased funding of the commission's personnel. Better staff training, coupled with the routing of clients to personnel trained specif ically to handle their particular type of complaint, is likely to increase employee morale, improve commission efficiency, and lead to higher citizen satisfaction with the PSC's complaint adjustment process.

Finally, because the PSC has a limited number of inspectors, citizen complaints are a critical instrument for the location of improper or illegal behavior by regulated firms. Therefore, the PSG should attempt to maximize the public's knowledge of and access to its customer complaint adjustment process. To accomplish this, the PSC should focus greater resources on customer education. Specifically, the PSC should draw upon the customer education activities undertaken by public service commissions in other states. For example, some states regularly issue press releases and require utilities to include flyers in their customer's bills that explain customer's rights underthe law and how to access their state's customer complaint adjustment process if they believe that their rights have been violated. Also, many public service commissions in other states issue brochures to inform customers of their rights and how to register a complaint if they believe that their rights have been violated.

Addendum: Operational Changes By The
Commission in 1990

In the summer of 1990, afterthe presentation of the draft version of this article to the PSC's Commissioners, revisions were made in the PSC's complaint adjustment operations. Although the Chairman of the PSC was asked to provide information concerning these changes, no information was forthcoming. It was determined from independ~nt sources that the following changes in the PSC's complaint adjustment operations have occurred.

First, the commissioners functionally demoted the status of the Customer Relations Division. The Division was directed to handle only routine calls and to refer all technical questions that did not have an obvious answer that could be found in the PSC's rules and regulations to the staff of other divisions. Customers making technical or legal inquiries were to be asked to make their request in writing, and technical division staff were to respond within five days (W.Va.,PSC, 1990b). Copies of all inquiries and correspondence were to be filed with the Customer Relations Division. However, the new procedures did not meet staff acceptance in the technical divisions and were abandoned in practice. In addition, the Customer Relations Division was left with less formal authority as most of its consumer education activities were redirected to staff in otherdivisions. Together, these actions move awayfromour recommendation of having a more professional and centralized complaint adjustment process.

Second, apparently more complaints are now being addressed directly by the PSC's commissioners and the administrative assistant to the Chairman without reference to the Customer Relations Division. Thus, the commissioners have moved away from our recommendation of having most of the informal complaints managed by the Customer Relations Division. Instead, they are moving toward a more decentralized and ad hoc complaint management scheme. This scheme leads to two situations that our recommendations sought to avoid. First, adequate records of complaints are not being stored in a central, computerized file. This precludes oversight of the PSC's response to any specific group of complainants. Second, addressing complaints in this fashion potentially conveys the impression of special treatment for complainants who have some familiarity with the Commission or the commissioners.

Athird procedural change has been an effort to increase the speed of formal complaint disposition through the imposition of firm deadlines. Under the new procedures, initial Staff Memoranda are to be prepared within twenty days after the complaint has been filed. The memoranda are to be advisory rather than a thorough consideration of all technical and legal aspects of the complaint. Then, within twenty-one days, the commissioners decide if they or the ALJ Division will handle the complaint.

If the commissioners choose to consider a complaint, a finalJointStaff Memorandum is due fifty days afterthe filing. After receipt of the Memorandum, the commissioners can issue a Final Order or proceed to a hearing which must occurwithin 150 days of the filing. If ahearing isheld, a Final Order is due within seven months after the initial filing.

If a complaint is assigned to the AW Division, deadlines similar to those for the commissioners apply. A final Joint Staff Memorandum is due fifty days after the filing. After receiptof the Memorandum, theALJ can issue a Final Order or proceed to a hearing which must take place within 150 days of the filing. It a hearing is held, a Recommended Decision is due within seven months after the filing. The commissioners will then consider exceptions and issue a Final Orderwithin nine months of the filing. Exceptionsto all of these deadlines are to come from the commissioners, not the ALJ Division (W.Va., PSC, 1990a).

Although the formal complaint process needs to be speeded up and cases need to be settled more rapidly, the new deadlines do not apply to cases filed prior to June 1, 1990. Unfortunately and unfairly, work on these cases may be postponed as the PSC's personnel concentrate their efforts on complaints filed after June 1, 1990 to meet the new deadlines. Also, the AUs'role in administering certain cases speedily has been decreased. The procedural changes strips them of their authority to issue formal orders in emergencies without initial review by the commissioners. Additionally, because the commissioners must both establish and enforce rules, standards, and practices, their adjudication of selected complaints only increases the appearance of conflictof interest on their part. Ideally, they should function in an appellate capacity.

Fourth, recent hiring decisions by the commissioners have threatened the idea of merit selection and the spirit of the United States Supreme Court decision in Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (1990). Inthis case, the SupremeCourt voided the constitutionality of politicalpatronage practices based on party affiliation and political support, including the promotion, transfer, recall, and hiring decisions involving low-level public employees. Decisions of the commissioners that even remotely imply political or personal favoritism to reward either employees or units undercut the values of merit and professionalism that our recommendations sought to instill in the complaint adjustment process.

For the most part, the recent changes in the PSC's complaint adjustment process tend to denigrate the importance of having a professional customer dispute adjustment processwithin the Commission. Numerous studies on the subject of procedural justice provide empirical evidence that citizens are both more willing to comply with the law and will regard governmental action as more legitimate if the personnel and procedures of allocation, such as dispute adjustment, provide them with representation, and are neutral, honest, consistent, and aff ord representation or involvement in the decision (for a summary, see Lind and Tyler 1988; Tyler 1990). When an agency withdraws from any commitment to a professional scheme of dispute adjustment that affords its clientele the best possible representation, consistency, and quality in its decisions, it abrogates its responsibility to the public and endangers its own legitimacy. Further, by the haphazard consideration, evaluation, and recording of complaints, the Commission might ignore important information about policy problems that deserve its consideration.

REFERENCES

Gormley, William T., Jr. 1983. The Politics of Public Utility Regulation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Lind, E. Allan and Tom R. Tyler. The Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.

Miller, Richard E. and Austin Sarat. 1980-81. "Grievance, Claims, and Disputes: Assessing the Adversary Culture," Law and Society Review. 15; 525-566.

Silbey, Susan. 1980-81. "Case Processing: Consumer ProteGtion in an Attorney General's Office," Law and Society Review. 15:849-881.

Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.

West Virginia. 1986. West Virginia Code Annotated, with 1988 supplements. Charlottesville, VA: Michie Co.

West Virginia, Public Service Commission. 1985. Management Summary Report to the Joint Committee on Government and Finance, West Virginia Legislature. Charleston: Public Service Commission of West Virginia.

1986. Management Summary Report to the Joint Committee on Government and Finance, West Vir

ginia Legislature. Charleston: Public Service Commission of West Virginia.

_. 1987. Management Summary Report to the Joint Committee on Government and Finance, West Virginia Legislature. Charleston: Public Service Commission of West Virginia.

. 1988. Management Summary Report to the Joint Committee on GovemmentandFinance, West Virginia Legislature. Charleston: Public Service Commission of West Virginia.

. 1989. Management Summary Report to the Joint Committee on GovernmentandFinance, WestVirginia Legislature. Charleston: Public Service Commission of West Virginia. Case Disposition.

1990a. Memorandum. May 29, 1990. Sub-

1990b. Memorandum, August 24,1990. Subject: Assistance to Customer Relations.

Case Reference

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 110 S.Ct. 2729 (1990).