|
GIFFIN:Who are paid, I might add.
<br />TORIGOE:Right.
<br />DAVID:Right. I understand that. My question is at our other -, at the hearing, at
<br />the public hearing on this matter, I think it was voted that, whether to fan this out to a private
<br />hearings officer or have Commission, Planning Commission members sit as Hearings Officers.
<br />So at the time I think this was decided upon, everyone were Commissioners. And things
<br />st
<br />changed after December 31, and that's my concern. I want to know, for myself, whether th
<br />people sitting up front is going to be, you know, or is authorized to do so for the duration of this
<br />contested case hearing. And that's why I am raising the objection and raising this question.
<br />Whether they decide on it or not, I just want it on the record. Mahalo.
<br />GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe.
<br />TORIGOE:Yes. My understanding is that we did specifically raise that issue at a
<br />meeting and that the Commission did specifically say, or authorize these persons to continue on
<br />beyond the end of their terms as Commissioners as Hearings Officers. And certainly, you know,
<br />maybe this would be a good time to see just, on the record, whether anybody has any objection to
<br />that, because we did do this on the record. And I really don't see any reason, you know, for you
<br />to be concerned about that. I think these, they are committed, they're giving of their own time,
<br />and they will be here for the duration.
<br />DAVID:And like I said before, I was just concerned because my understanding of
<br />the rule is that it is either the term expires on the expiration date, or if extended 90 days, or your
<br />appointment, somebody replaces you. And it didn't say, you know, that, it didn't go further to
<br />say that unless, you know, the Planning Commission decides that they can still serve. That's the
<br />question I have.
<br />GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek.
<br />VITOUSEK:Yeah, just briefly. I think this issue was specifically brought to the
<br />Commission in a duly noticed hearing in this contested case, and I think that the Commission
<br />decided based on the Commission's Rule 4-5(a) that the Hearings Officers were being appointed
<br />by the Commission as Hearings Officers. And so, you know, the capacity that presiding officer
<br />and the Commissioner Togashi, or Hearings Officer Togashi are sitting in is the capacity of
<br />Hearings Officers appointed by the Commission. And there was no objection to that procedure
<br />in that hearing. And so I think that issue has already been decided. Thank you.
<br />GIFFIN:Mikahala.
<br />ROY:Madam Chair, it was also stated at the very close of the mee
<br />people had already spent a good number of hours, if I recall. A case of this magnitude, in my
<br />opinion, really should call forward some of the most procured representatives, of which I don't
<br />contest you are those, mind you. But, for the record, I'm saying that my concern is that, in fact,
<br />that it has been the case. And I can well take the question for the fact that if we begin the
<br />22
<br />
<br />
|