|
Staff had something to time you with. And, Mikahala, why don't we begin with you and your
<br />stated objections. Now this is not to go over in great detail what you've already presented in
<br />written form, this is simply to strengthen what you have written and if you can, not to repeat
<br />what had been presented to us. And then following that, I am going to ask the Applicant to go
<br />ahead and argue for five minutes, and the same thing would apply to you, Mr. Vitousek. You
<br />can indicate when you are ready. And, yes, and as Mr. Torigoe has reminded me, the other
<br />parties will also have a chance to give some input. Mikahala, one minute. Phyllis, you ready?
<br />Thank you.
<br />M.ROY:Thank you, Madam Chair. Public hearing at a contested pub
<br />provide that the public hear the Applicant's testimony and pre-hearing conference between and
<br />among the parties cannot controvert the public's right to hear testimony. At the pre-hearing
<br />conference held in Waimea, had I understood from a legal standpoint that the agreement that I
<br />kindly agreed to in kindness, not in consciousness of legal proceedings, I heard the request for -,
<br />to move the proceedings along, would written testimony be admitted. I had no idea that this
<br />meant that this material would not be read and given orally for the public's consumption at the
<br />public hearing. In subsequent examination of this process, I am aware that the public hearing
<br />process, contested or otherwise, is an opportunity for the public to hear all presented testimony,
<br />and it is, in fact, for the public. We move forward to offer our input as Intervenors, but that isn't
<br />like what I'd like to say at this time.
<br />I am not an attorney, and I did not understand that Attorney Vitousek's offer to produce written
<br />testimony meant that there would be no oral testimony, and that I would not be able to cross-
<br />examine fully, and that once the written testimony was accepted, all challenge to its content,
<br />truth, veracity, and exposure to the parties and public, were waived. Oral tradition requires that
<br />the process be oral, and this is similar to the common law concept that -, which was proper.
<br />Public knowledge and conduct was handed down orally.
<br />I move that the Applicant's testimony and that of his witness be oral and public. In the
<br />alternative, I move that this witness, that his witnesses be produced for extensive cross-
<br />examination at this time.
<br />GIFFIN:Officers, any questions of the Intervenor? None? Mr. Vitousek.
<br />VITOUSEK:Yeah, thank you. I think as Ms. Roy points out, there was a pre-hearing
<br />conference that was held, and the procedure in terms of submission of written testimony was
<br />discussed at the pre-hearing conference, and it was agreed among all the parties that all parties
<br />would have the opportunity to submit written testimony by a specified date and that, you know,
<br />that was just, that was the procedure that was agreed upon, which is provided for under the
<br />Planning Commission rules. Planning Commission Rule 4 relative to contested case hearings
<br />has several references to use of written testimony and a specific provision that says that written
<br />testimony may be submitted and may -, doesn't need to be read into evidence if the parties so
<br />agree.
<br />And so, you know, the -, I mean the real point of all -. I mean, you know, from the perspective
<br />of a lawyer, right, it's unusual that you offer written testimony in advance, because what that
<br />7
<br />
<br />
|