2007-09-21 TIBBETSON - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

parties be able to object or comment on those before we proceed. Because my understanding, I guess now under the contested case procedure, is that the parties should have that and make their objections or comments of record before we actually vote, and so, not after the fact. That’s my lesson from the D-Bar case. GRAHAM: All right. Commissioner Iwashita, let me try to state in a concise form what I think is before us from what you’ve suggested. Maybe there’s two parts to it: One part is I think you are suggesting that even if we don’t affirmatively vote to deny, if we fail to have the votes to approve today, your sense is that the application will thereby be denied; and the second part of what you’re saying is that if that should occur, is there other background and supporting material that we should have before us today before that occurs. Is that correct? IWASHITA: No. GRAHAM: Okay. IWASHITA: I’m just concerned, and maybe we should have an agreement on, with the parties, on how this proceeds in terms of compliance with the contested case procedure, because you know, that whole D-Bar case, I mean the law is, you know, what the judge cited. And to me it’s better to make sure that there are no technical kinds of problems, essentially, that we ran into in that case. And so, you know, this case has gone up and come back down once. And I just don’t want that to happen again just on a technical thing here.And you know, that’s what we are talking about is what rules that we are following. And the main one is the contested case statutory procedure that we want to make sure that, you know, the parties have the full opportunity to present the case and objections and so forth. And so I just want to make sure that maybe if the parties’ representatives can say that they have had enough opportunity to set off their whole position and they don’t require proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law at this time in order to proceed further, then fine, so that, you know, still on the record we have an agreement that the contested case procedure has been complied with. If not, then we ought to fix it, or make sure it is otherwise complied with. GRAHAM: All right, I’ll pass directly to Mr. Torigoe here for his understanding of your comments and how we should proceed. TORIGOE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, regarding the timing, I think Commissioner Iwashita properly reminded me once that under Rule 4 there is a 90-day timeframe actually that applies. So I think we still have some time to make a decision, you know, if we can’t come up with a decision today. Number two, with respect to the requirements of 91-11, in this case we already allowed the parties to file proposed findings and conclusions and decisions, and to have exceptions; and I think the parties pretty much agree that that takes care of the 91-11 issue. If there is anybody who disagrees with that, I’d like to hear right now. But I think that’s, that pretty thoroughly has dealt with that. GRAHAM: Is that acceptable interpretation by the parties? Does any of the parties have anything they wish to say further on that? Thank you. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair, I want a clear record, not nodding of the heads. EXHIBIT A 8