2005-09-02 TMALASEKO2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

YUEN:If he were making a claim for that. My understanding is he has not ever claimed that the geothermal conditions hurt his crop. At least he has never made that claim against the Fund. Theres a list of 30 claims that have been made over time by Mr. Malasek, and none of them is for damage to his crops per se. And this claim here is not for damage to his crops per se. Its actually that he could have continued his farm but having sold his property to the Fund he is no longer going to earn money from his farm, and he wants income for the interim work he establishes for an equivalent kind of farm. OLSON:Point of information if I may. GALDONES:Yes, Mr. Olson. OLSON:The fact of the matter is that during the incident that we talked about earlierwiththecausticsoda,Mr.Malasekdidtrytofileaclaimfordamagetohiscrops.The Planning Department at the time rejected it because these rules did not exist at the time. The rule-making had not been completed; and, in fact, if you will look to see when the rule-making came into effect, youll find out that a lot of the people attempted to make claims to a process that while it was in the permit had not been formulated by the Planning Department for the Planning Commission to do. So you cant submit a claim for a process that doesnt exist. And thats the way they left a lot of people hanging. GALDONES:Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA:I have a question. In this proceeding I note that Wood & Tait or representative of Wood & Tait, Mr. Wood, is not present to, you know, for us to be able to ask questions based on the report. And I was wondering why the adjuster is not here. Is there a reason why the adjuster is not here? HAYASHI:As far as the adjuster, we did not inform him of the meeting. However, if the Commission wanted Mr. Wood here then if you had indicated that to us then we would have asked him to be in attendance today. IWASHITA:Thank you. The reason I had brought that up is, you know, in going through the rule again, Rule 14, again, to me there is emphasis on this process, initiating and focusing on; and ultimately if this body does nothing, everything the adjuster does is what controls. There is a great emphasis in my opinion under the rule, you know, in reliance upon the adjuster and the work the adjuster does in terms of whether or not a claim is made; and therefore, I would suggest there is a deference under the rule to the work that the adjuster does. One of the problems I have with where we are in this process, this body, is that suggestions are being made by staff that certain information is incomplete or incorrect, and those kinds of suggestions are being made. If those concerns were there, you know, I would see those concerns arose after the report was submitted. In my view of how the rule is written, because the adjuster is empowered to make the report and the recommendations, that any concerns such as this should be addressed back to the adjuster, so that the adjuster can take them into consideration and do 10