|
And although this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, that is exactly what it is, it's quasi-judicial, it is
<br />not, you know, an actual formal judicial proceeding. These are not judges. You do not have to
<br />have a lawyer, you know, to be represented here. So there is a bit more flexibility allowed under
<br />contested case procedure under Chapter 91 than is normally found in court. And I think the rules
<br />clearly envision that the parties can agree to modify procedures, formal procedures, and also that
<br />the rules of evidence formally do not apply and, again, any oral or documentary evidence may be
<br />received.
<br />I think the record also reflects, as we have been discussing and as I think the written submissions
<br />show, that there was no objection by Ms. Roy at the time that this written testimony was first
<br />offered into the record, and we've had several days of hearings on that basis with ample
<br />substantial time for cross-examination by the parties, and all the parties and the members of the
<br />panel have relied on the admission of this evidence, this written evidence, and have conducted
<br />hearings on that basis. And if members of the public were here and were really interested in, I
<br />think, in observing these proceedings, they would have seen that the direct testimony of the
<br />Applicant was being submitted in writing and anyone who was interested in reviewing that and
<br />providing input to any of the parties was free to review that testimony and to speak to the parties
<br />about it if they felt that there was something that needed to be brought forth.
<br />So -, and I would emphasize again that the fact that evidence has been received into the record
<br />does not, does not mean that the panel is bound to take it as gospel truth. It is something that is
<br />simply there for the panel and the Planning Commission to consider, to weigh along with all of
<br />the other evidence that may be provided, and ultimately come up with a decision. So, basically,
<br />you know, at that -, I don't see that, Madam Chairman, that you are compelled to strike this
<br />testimony at this point. I think it remains a matter that is within your discretion to consider.
<br />GIFFIN:Thank you. One minute. There's another issue that you raised, Intervenor
<br />Roy, that I would like to address, and that is you spoke of weight and how we would, as
<br />members of the Hearing Officers, weight public testimony less than information and testimony
<br />that would be given either by you people or by the Applicant, and I can tell you personally that
<br />not only do we sit here and take copious notes, but personally, myself, before even coming to the
<br />next hearing, the next series of hearings, I read the record thoroughly. And like in this past
<br />instance of the last three days that we met in May, I spent two days just reviewing the record
<br />prior to our first hearing. Not only did I review all of the written testimony, but again, during the
<br />hearing, took copious notes. At the close of the second hearing, know I also spent days
<br />reviewing the record and reviewing my notes against the record so that what I understood to be
<br />presented, either by a public testifier or by you as an Intervenor, or Maile, or Randy, as the
<br />Applicant, whatever, that my records and my recollection were correct. So that isn't -, I heartily
<br />disagree with that in terms of weight, and maybe I can ask Hearings Officer Springer to also
<br />elaborate on that issue of weightedness. Please?
<br />SPRINGER:I concur with the review process, and as recently as this morning, did go
<br />back to the first installment of hearings here just to refresh myself with part of the record that
<br />was further distant from us today. And where there are gaps in the record or inconsistencies, try
<br />to make them whole and complete and understandable as, for examp
<br />No. 16 or 17. So it's -, we're all working to the best of our abilities and appreciate the
<br />11
<br />
<br />
|