My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004-10-22 TAINALOA
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2004
>
2004-10-22 TAINALOA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 11:14:21 AM
Creation date
6/14/2011 11:14:12 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
SPRINGER:Mr. Chairman, may I make another inquiry of Mr. Torigoe? <br />GALDONES:Proceed. <br />SPRINGER:I looked at, reviewed that section briefly that you just quoted back <br />to us; and I take Ms. Songs objection seriously as I looked literally at the document. I <br />dont see the provision for the Hearings Officer to make oral presentation before us. Can <br />you give me some guidance there? <br />TORIGOE:Right. And it doesnt, well, let me just turn back -. <br />SPRINGER:It doesnt, I dont see anything disallowing it, either. <br />TORIGOE:Thatscorrect;and,then,so,thisbeingaContestedCase <br />proceeding, we do try to do substantial justice and we dont necessarily have the same <br />kind for formality it would follow in a court. But, of course, this is going to be reviewed <br />by a court ultimately if one of the parties feels thats necessary, so we do need to proceed <br />with some caution. The normal practice has been to allow the Hearing Officer to come <br />and to present to you the report and to take questions. I dont think weve ever had a <br />specific objection, such as Ms. Song as raised; but since she has raised it, we need to take <br />it seriously. And, so, that is why my remarks were cautionary that, you know, I think the <br />rules do reflect in what is written a basic preference that the parties have opportunity to <br />respond in writing to the Hearing Officers Report. And, so, to the extent that we open <br />up too much to the Hearing Officer, you know, presenting what may end up looking like <br />argument in support of his conclusions and his report without allowng the parties an <br />opportunity to respond to it in writing, then there will be arguments about this. <br />Now, I think the Chairman is concerned that the Commissioners have an opportunity to <br />make sure that they understand what the Hearing Officer has done; and there is a line that <br />is difficult to draw between, you know, asking the Hearing Officer questions that ensure <br />that you understand what happened and that is consistent with just whats in the record. <br />And the Hearing Officer may have a difficult time not going over that line and starting to <br />justify what he has said, which some of the parties may not agree with. And, so, I would <br />advise you to proceed with caution in your inquiry of the Hearing Officer. <br />SPRINGER:Thank you. <br />GALDONES:Further discussion? Commissioners, so that were clear, <br />considering the objection raised by Ms. Song and the discussion that, or the instructions <br />from counsel, the procedurally correct, Ill use the terminology, procedurally correct <br />thing for us to do is just to accept the reports, make the decision on those reports that are <br />before us this morning. But the Chair was trying to be liberal and trying to be fair with <br />all the Commissioners and allow you folks the opportunity in case you folks did have any <br />questions regarding any of the reports, which is a fine line; and we need to proceed with <br />caution if that is the procedure that we will be adopting. So this is where I will be asking <br />9 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.