Common use of STAFF’S POSITION Clause in Contracts

STAFF’S POSITION. Staff contends that the 11-State Plan is against the public interest because it does not provide for Tier 2 payments to be made to the State. Staff’s concern is not alleviated by Ameritech’s statement that even for CLECs under the 11-State Plan, Ameritech would still continue to make Tier 2 payments to the state because the Remedy Plan Order requires Ameritech to make payments for all CLECs doing business in Illinois. Under that premise, Staff claims that Petitioners are required to operate under the various provisions of the Illinois Remedy Plan unless they specifically agree to the provision(s) of another remedy plan. Staff also maintains that the 11-State Plan is ambiguous with regard to its relationship with state law. Ameritech’s description of how the 11-State Plan would operate is of little value, Staff suggests, since it does not find applicable in this situation the well settled principle that a court can cure defective draftsmanship in an action for damages by supplying missing words through extrinsic evidence. Staff claims that such an action would be a material change in the contract and would allow the Agreement to effectively execute an “end run” around what the Commission intended to be put in place in Illinois. Moreover, Staff contends that Ameritech’s explanation of the 11-State Plan’s operation is in conflict with Section 2.1 of the 11-State Plan. Section 2.1, Staff argues, prohibits Ameritech from interpreting the Agreement in exactly the manner that Ameritech does so. Section 2.1 of the 11-State Plan, according to Staff, states that the payments under this plan “shall be the sole and exclusive remedy of CLEC” and shall be in lieu of any other damages CLEC might otherwise seek. Staff finds this language contradictory to what the Commission has approved in the Illinois Remedy Plan since Staff believes that it would preclude any Tier 2 payments.