2021-08-25 EMC minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Counsel Hall said the Commission would have to base it on the facts presented. If a homeowner admits to dumping just one or two bags, the Commission could decide that it seems a little harsh to impose $1,000 per day for two bags. But if it were someone who had been dumping for months, it might be different. It also comes by a case-by-casebasis and also is based on your full understanding of the facts, and what you believewould be a fair penalty. Commissioner Cardwell agreed and said that makes sense. Counsel Hall continued: When you conduct these contested case hearings, there will be a Presiding Officer. That officer could be the Chair, somebody else chosen from the Commission, or if the Commission chooses so, they could also have DEM hire a hearings officer to hear the case and recommend the findings to the Commission if they saw fit. Whenever you see “the Board may allow,” it typically means the Presiding Officer, but the Board also still has input. He or she could speak to whomever is running the meeting and say yeah, we want to give an opening statement, to weigh in. Basically, opening statements are a good way to get bearings and to see what is going on. You would be provided with the order and the appellant’s case in writing, basically up front. And then that time the Commission could request more briefings if they want, or a briefing on a specific issue, if you feel like you need more information prior to a hearing, that’s also available to you. But initially when we just open up the hearing, it’s a good thing to usually have opening statements to let everybody say their part and then get into the actual evidence production. The order of presentation would basically, the Appellant/Applicant be the person to whom an order has been issued, and would present first as the person bearing the burden of proof. So they would present their witnesses and evidence first, and then most likely the intervenor and the Director. Most likely those two, if you had an Intervenor and DEM, those two could decide in which order you would like to come in, but the Appellant is always first. All of this is in HRS Chapter 91, if you want to look at where these laws come from. Each party should be allowed cross-examination. And you will also have the right to question witnesses. After each party has questioned a witness, if there is still a question that have that you feel a party has not answered, the Commissioners will also have a chance to ask a question if you need clarification, or if you feel that a question was not addressed properly, you will have that opportunity. Then there will be rebuttal witnesses, if anybody so chooses. If some kind of evidence comes up and people feel that this is not true and I have a witness that can verify that, or whatever that witness said is incorrect, the parties will be allowed to question that. And after that would be closing arguments. Counsel suggests that with all of these things such as opening arguments and closing arguments, something that would be helpful is having a time limit, because sometimes it can take a really long time. And most representatives are used to having some sort of time limit, some reasonable amount of time to tell the Commission what the last points are before the Commission goes into deliberations and decisions. 18