My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005-11-18 TPARKERSCHOOL
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2005
>
2005-11-18 TPARKERSCHOOL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 1:36:13 PM
Creation date
6/14/2011 1:36:02 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
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
rely on counsel to give us some guidance here. So, I want to make sure that everybody has <br />proper opportunity and also this is handled properly. <br />WATANABE:Yeah. <br />TORIGOE:Thank you Mr. Chairman. I see Mr. Vitousek has some remarks maybe <br />you could allow to? <br />VITOUSEK:Yeah, I share Ms. Leithead-Todds concerns but I think if counsel for <br />intervenor would characterize his presentation as argument instead of testimony I think it, thats <br />what were here for is argument. And most of what I looked at what he submitted although its <br />called testimony, most of it is argument and most of it refers to exhibits already in the record. <br />And so I just you know I tried to suggest to Mr. Woodell that he, that he characterize it as <br />argument and not evidence and that way it would be exactly what were supposed to be doing <br />today.So,thatsmystatement. <br />LEITHEAD-TODD:Mr.GaldonesI-. <br />VITOUSEK:Sorry,Ishouldalsopointoutthattheresaspecificdisciplinaryrulethat <br />prevents an attorney from being a witness on behalf of their client. You know theres this <br />specific rule that says if youre acting in a proceeding as an advocate for a party you are not to be <br />a witness on behalf of the party because it confuses the roles of witness and advocate. <br />LEITHEAD-TODD:Mr. Galdones the other I guess question I have is before we proceed <br />further is because your plan was to have us talk about the hearings officers recommendations <br />and exceptions first and then allow public testimony and I note from the list of people that have <br />signed up for public testimony that some of them were witness, were supposed to have been <br />witnesses at the contested case hearing who were unavailable that day. If they are going to speak <br />as public witnesses and their testimony or their address to the Commission becomes part of the <br />record I think in all fairness to both the department as well as the applicant we should be given <br />opportunities if youre going to ask questions of them that we should also be given that <br />opportunity because it essentially is by way of public testimony introducing new evidence. <br />GALDONES:Thank you. Counsel? <br />TORIGOE:Thank you Mr. Chairman. <br />GALDONES:Oh excuse me- Mr. Woodell? <br />WOODELL:Could I say something? You know I actually did this as kind of a hedge <br />because if I was going to be disqualified I have in my briefcase withdrawal of counsel and then I <br />could testify as a public witness. So, you know I mean I, I would be happy to reclassify my <br />testimony as argument because this is what its going to do is raising the issues that we raise <br />when we excepted to the Hearing Officers findings. <br />GALDONES:Mr. Torigoe? Thank you. Mr. Torigoe? <br />EXHIBIT A <br />15 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.