|
where, you don't wanna make a pre judgement or fore judgement as they say here. You
<br /> shouldn't be leaning to one side, you should be listening to everything and then after the whole
<br /> record has been created, reflecting on the entirety of that record everything that's been presented,
<br /> the public testimony, the applicants, what they have presented, and the discussion that you guys
<br /> have and then a decision should be made. Not before that happens, right? Not before you've
<br /> received all the information that has been put forth before you. So, I know that's a lot of words to
<br /> look at, but I think in a nutshell, that's pretty much what it is, is that when you guys walk into
<br /> this, if you can—if you don't feel like you can walk into this impartially then you should recuse
<br /> yourself in that sense. On the other side of that, if we're talking conflict of interest, that's a
<br /> whole different thing. That involves having financial, possible financial benefit to you or a
<br /> family member. So, those are very separate issues. If you guys wanted to include language like
<br /> that, I haven't found anything beyond the Board of Ethics, which is where most people would go
<br /> if you're a County officer to, to see if you have a conflict of interest. That's within their
<br /> jurisdiction. So, I hope that kind of, kind of sheds light on the disqualification or possible recusal
<br /> of members or commissioners. And if you guys have any questions, I'm here to answer them.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Alright, thank you. Could you drop down the presentation please? Thank you.
<br /> Great, that was helpful, and the extra definitions were helpful as well. I had asked for this
<br /> because I do feel like the commission should have a rule on this so that we have something, a
<br /> guideline to go by. How do the other commissioners feel? Mr. Van Pernis?
<br /> VAN PERNIS: Because of a, an attempt to disqualify me in an earlier proceeding, as a lawyer I
<br /> did a lot of research on this and I spoke with Ms. Hall. First of all, we all have bias', Mr.
<br /> Vitousek, regarding archaeological features, Max regarding employment and local people taking
<br /> jobs, myself regarding extensions of judicial conditions. This is a bias. It sounds as if the accused
<br /> person, if they state I can wait till I hear all the evidence is described, that's all it takes to defeat
<br /> any sort of attempt at disqualifying somebody from prejudice or bias. I'm not comfortable with
<br /> the definition of bias obtained from the legal dictionary. I know that the case law that is referred
<br /> to in there is all over a hundred years old. There's nothing current, and if somebody can be
<br /> disqualified for a bias after they say I can be objective, and listens to all the evidence first, I think
<br /> that's all it takes to defeat an attempt to disqualify.
<br /> The other thing I'm concerned about is what if the alleged prejudice or bias appears at the
<br /> hearing itself? For instance, somebody discloses one thing or another that might raise a question
<br /> of bias or prejudice that occurs in this commission. So, when you say when somebody's got to
<br /> file something beforehand, five days or whatever,what happens if the alleged bias or prejudice
<br /> appears during the hearing, or arises during the hearing? I think the orders that were shown as, or
<br /> the rules that were shown as examples don't really cover everything and apply to the Planning
<br /> Commission. For instance, some of these orders may apply to a bias or prejudice against a person
<br /> appearing before that board, rather than an issue or an application. So, I think a little more time
<br /> and discernment are needed on this issue.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Thank you. Commissioners, any other commissioners have comments about
<br /> this or want to weigh in so that we know how you feel? Go ahead Max.
<br /> 3
<br /> EXHIBIT C
<br />
|