2020-08-20 Leeward Exh C (AMEND REZ 2004-024 & AMEND REZ 2004-025)

Home

VAN PERNIS: Nobody saw what you are talking about this email but the Commissioners and the staff. CARR SMITH: It became a part of the package, and then it becomes public record, so. VAN PERNIS: That was the choice of the staff and the counsel. CARR SMITH: Right, well, but it is a fact. So I have some comments. Having said that, the email in my opinion shouldn't have been sent to us, but, but the decision was made to send it, and I respect that. But I feel like this was testimony, and from a commissioner, I feel that this type of testimony should be made at a meeting as opposed to outside of a meeting. When Mr. Van Pernis decided to share why he sought the bankruptcy information in the February meeting, I think it became clear that there was a personal issue here, and it seemed that that caused you to continue, based on your behavior in that meeting and the subsequent June meeting, that your mind was made up and you wanted us to understand where you were coming from. That raises a lot of concerns for me about fairness and impartiality. In your email, you are trying to convince us that we need to vote this down. You talked about the application, the applicant not being the applicant, I think that's inappropriate. It's not your responsibility to conduct your own investigations, and that talks to Mr. Rapoza's situation as well. It's not up to you to conduct your own investigation. The Rules stateI'm not done, Mark, hold on the Rules state that if we are going to be investigating things, we decide as a board, as a group, that, you know, you go out and do this, you go out and do that. And that wasn't the case; you took that upon yourself. The part about the traffic study, I don't think that you are an expert in traffic studies, so I don't think it was appropriate for you to push that subject home hard like you did. And I just,just the fact that you are trying to tell us how to vote on this makes me really uncomfortable; it doesn't seem ethical to me. And all of that puts aside the fact that I don't like applicants being treated poorly. That's not why we are here. And I, like Max said, I hope this doesn't happen again. And I, so I continue to question whether you can be fair and impartial. VAN PERNIS: Fair and impartial, and which I point out that I believe it was Mr. Vitousek who raised the issue who the real applicant was and it was difficult to discuss the matter without knowing who the true applicant was. And this matter was also raised by Mr. Fuke. Secondly, you yourself in one of the proceedings here indicated how you were going to vote and why, in one of the earlier proceedings today - - - members, too, as well. I think our job is to tell people what we think and try to convince them to go one way or other- - - isolation - - - everybody guess at the last minute CARR SMITH: I think our job is to — 6 EXHIBIT C