|
further investigation or whatever needs to be done in order to address those concerns. That was
<br />not done as far as I can see in this case. And so the bottom line to me is that, you know, having
<br />the public hearing to hear this matter is part of our process, but it really, the way this has
<br />developed doesnt provide us any significant additional information. Essentially all Im hearing
<br />is, for lack of a better term right now, speculation really about what if this, what if that, how
<br />come, why not this, why not that. And thats really all it is; and its not really, if you look at the
<br />way the rule is written, those things really dont come up in this procedure. Im focusing now
<br />on, this is Rule 14-8(e), which says, Compensation shall be granted or denied by an affirmative
<br />vote of the majority of the entire voting membership of the Planning Commission (five of the
<br />nine members), and this is the language that is of interest to me now, or by default, or by
<br />default by the Planning Commission choosing not to consider the claims adjusters
<br />recommendation. In other words, we can today choose not to consider the claims adjusters
<br />recommendation. And the net effect of that would be basically this body saying we defer to the
<br />adjuster and what the adjuster did. Because, you know, frankly, the adjuster knows more than
<br />anybodyheretoday.Theadjusterdidallthework,staffdidnotdothework.Theadjustertalked
<br />to all the people the adjuster felt was necessary as required under the rules. The adjuster came
<br />up with the report and the recommendation. And were being asked to question or disagree with
<br />the adjusters recommendation based upon frankly I dont know what, other than suggestions
<br />that the adjuster is wrong and the adjuster should not have decided that this is a compensable
<br />claim under Rule 14-6(c). You know, and thats an argument.
<br />I understand the concern because Mr. Malasek did sell the property and that is, you know,
<br />obviously raised a question, well, how can you still have a claim if you sold the property. You
<br />know, but, as I stated at the last hearing this rule is not clearly written, shall we say, to put it in a,
<br />as positive a light as I can say. So there is room for argument here. And the adjuster, knowing
<br />the rule, having followed the rule, you know, basically says there is an adverse impact, has
<br />defined what that is, and put a range of numbers on it. And I find it difficult on the record that
<br />has been presented to us to try and challenge what the adjuster has come up with. So my
<br />deference is, right now, to follow 14-8(e) and have this body chose not, to consider the claims
<br />adjusters recommendation, make it clear on the record deference is being given to the adjuster
<br />and let it stand that way.
<br />GALDONES:Commissioners, any further discussions? Commissioner Springer.
<br />SPRINGER:Could you clarify for me if I heard the Commissioner correctly, and I
<br />dont have the rule in front of me, if we do not have a vote of five today, if the vote is split
<br />similarly to the way that it was previously, what happens? Does automatically the adjusters, is
<br />the adjusters report accepted or do we hear it again?
<br />GALDONES:We should yield to Mr. Torigoe.
<br />SPRINGER:Thank you.
<br />TORIGOE:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under your Rule 14-10(a), end of that says
<br />that , If the Planning Commission does not make a decision on the claims adjusters
<br />11
<br />
<br />
|