|
and remanded on a technical basis that Mr. Vitousek has described, our counsel has
<br />described. I think we all understand that, you know, basically the Court has said you
<br />should have given the applicant the findings of fact and conclusions of law and then had a
<br />further hearing before they were formally made a, before it was made a formal part of the
<br />record, and the decision was entered based on that. Right? And that was the problem, is
<br />that in this case is that the Commission did not provide the applicant with the findings of
<br />fact and conclusions of law, and give the applicant an opportunity to state objections and
<br />so forth on the record, and for the Commission to consider before it finalized its decision
<br />under 91-11. So, you know, and now it’s back to us.
<br />So as far as I’m concerned at minimum, the minimum that we could do is say, okay,
<br />here’s the findings of fact and conclusions of law, you know, and present your objections
<br />at the next hearing on this matter, and then we’ll look at them, and then we’ll vote to
<br />either finalize or maybe we’ll change our mind. But, to me, I believe that that’s, you
<br />know, procedurally that’s how this application stands, is that the Commission has voted
<br />on a motion to deny, that decision has been set aside because of a failure to follow the
<br />procedural requirements of 91-11, and remanded back to us with instructions to comply
<br />with the requirements of 91-11. That does not inherently, you know, so, and there’s a
<br />record, there’s still a record. Right? It’s not like we have no record. Right? We still
<br />have a record; and the vote previously is part of that record.
<br />So, you know, I think that my preference would be that unless there’s some objection
<br />from the Commission Members that the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law
<br />and, you know, which properly reflects the rationale of the Commissioners when we
<br />voted originally on this matter, that that be submitted to the applicant, that this matter be
<br />reagendized for the next meeting, give the applicant an opportunity to make objections on
<br />the record. And then we can proceed from there, whether or not we want to continue
<br />with the adverse action to the application, or if given the objections we want to reconsider
<br />and, you know, give it a favorable recommendation or approval.
<br />GRAHAM: Commissioner Iwashita, if I understand you correctly, the way
<br />you’re differing and what Mr. Vitousek came forward with is I think Mr. Vitousek was
<br />feeling that we would do another vote on the merits of the application and then we could
<br />choose to use these findings of fact at the time of that vote if we voted to deny. And
<br />maybe you’re saying you think it’s inappropriate for us to vote on the merits today but
<br />that today we should just officially pass some findings to the applicant and then do a
<br />merit-based discussion and vote next time?
<br />IWASHITA: I was, let’s try to be clear. To me we’ve already voted, the
<br />Commission already acted. It went up on appeal, it was reversed on a procedural issue
<br />that was raised by the applicant, you know; and the Court says you have to comply with
<br />this procedure. Right? So to the extent now that we’re applying 91-11 and there are
<br />Commissioners present today that did not vote before, right, then maybe we need to have
<br />another vote. But to me it’s not technically correct to say there has been no vote on this
<br />matter. There has been a vote on this matter. So, you know, it’s a matter of how, as far
<br />as I’m concerned if there are Commissioners that want to proceed and have a vote now,
<br /> EXHIBIT B
<br />10
<br />
<br />
|