2007-01-19 tibbetson - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GRAHAM: Thank you. I don’t know of any particular order that I need to follow as far as taking your comments, but -. Okay. Mr. Krueger, could you identify yourself and give your address for the record, and then go ahead and speak to the matter that’s before us today, if you would? KRUEGER: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dennis Krueger. I’m representing Daniel Ibbetson, the applicant. My address is 75-5722 Kuakini Highway, Suite 208, Kailua- Kona. Mr. Chairman, I heard the comments by Mr. Torigoe earlier, and that is my understanding as well with regard to this matter. Mr. Matsukawa and I have spoken, and believe we spoke to Mr. Torigoe as well. Because we are proceeding with mediation on another related matter, we’d like to try and see if we can do a global resolution of all issues, which would also include the matters before the Commission. In that light, I believe, we would like to ask the Commission to put off any further action on this pending the outcome of the mediation. At this point we don’t have a date for the mediation, but I would recommend, and Mr. Matsukawa can speak to this as well, that it be put off probably for at least sixty days. That would be my recommendation. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Krueger. Any questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Good Morning, Mr. Krueger. KRUEGER: Good morning. IWASHITA: The concern I have is -. You know, I love mediation; I think that’s the best way to go about trying to resolve disputes. And personally I would like to help foster that process. My concern is -, that I see from the Commission side is that there is this Order, there is a potential for an appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals to this Order. And so I guess as I view it, you know, that Judge Strance has issued an Order with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I don’t -. If I’m correct and if in fact this does not comply with Rule 54(b), and the Jenkins v. Cades Schutte decision for a separate judgment, which would be the final appealable order, then I don’t think the Commission has a concern with the thirty days clock running in terms of filing the Notice of Appeal. If that’s not correct and the thirty days have started, then that is a concern that I have. So the reason I bring it up is, you know, I guess I’d like your input and if it’s not -. If we agree that, you know, obviously nobody can bind the Court on how it applies its rules and decision, but if we agree that there is no separate Rule 54(b) Final Judgment, as required by the Jenkins v. Cades Schutte decision, then I would feel comfortable with going ahead with the continuance for the sixty days that you are suggesting. GRAHAM: Thank you. Mr. Krueger? KRUEGER: Commissioner Iwashita, I have in front of me the -, I don’t know if you have the same document, this one is the Order Reversing Decision of the Planning Commission and Remanding Case to Agency for Further Proceedings. There is in fact another document, which was signed by the Court, which would amount to a Final Judgment, and that was entered by the Judge approximately I would say a week or so ago. So there is a separate document that I believe would constitute a Final Judgment under Jenkins. So I think that 30-day timeframe is running, and obviously the Commission would need to talk to Counsel about whether or not they EXHIBIT D 3