My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003-12-04 TDOUTOR
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003
>
2003-12-04 TDOUTOR
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 4:07:44 PM
Creation date
6/14/2011 4:07:43 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
KUBOTA:WasnÓt part of the motion that was made requesting that it be put <br />on the agenda with notification at our next meeting or whatever that was added on, and <br />he agreed to it, the maker of the motion agreed to it? <br />OÓTOOLE:Yeah. So that would be notice just from publication. If you went <br />under this rule, he would have to notify surrounding property ow <br />and they could come in, they could ask to intervene as they did in the original issuance. <br />That is not going to be there if you go this way. And Mr. Tsukazaki is saying, yes, that <br />heÓs not going to notify anybody, doesnÓt have to, and that itÓs just the Commission doing <br />what it feels it should do. So IÓm just asking you to consider is that really what you want <br />to do when you have a specific rule that has certain protections in place? You know, you <br />did have a Contested Case before. ThereÓs no reason to think that those people would <br />still not be interested if you change the issues or the conditions. <br />TSUKAZAKI:Mr. Chairman, may I have a, speak? <br />GALDONES:Mr. Tsukazaki? <br />TSUKAZAKI:My view is that the Contested Case proceeding has, you <br />starting a new one. YouÓre basically going back to the time that the action was taken and <br />youÓre making a decision whether or not to amend that action that was taken at the end of <br />the Contested Case. ThereÓs only one party in that proceeding, and Mr. Krueger <br />represents them. So I donÓt share the view that this is a whole new proceeding where you <br />start serving everybody again. I donÓt share that. <br />GALDONES:I understand. Commissioners? Hearing no further question, no <br />further discussion, Norman? <br />KUBOTA:Wait, one more question. <br />GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? <br />KUBOTA:One more question. Hierarchy was mentioned as to whether we <br />follow Roberts Rules or 6-8 of our PC Rules. I would like to ask the Corp. Counsel not, <br />well, I donÓt how to put this. But theyÓre both avenues for recourse but they present a <br />different facet or a different procedure involvement. Does following one over the other <br />have any significance or any weight? Does one rule higher than the other? Hierarchy <br />was mentioned earlier in our discussion and Ms. Springer mentioned that weÓre following <br />the lowest. Is there a lowest/highest in ruling and procedures that are available to clients? <br />OÓTOOLE:Well, I donÓt know if I would put it that way. But your rules are <br />specific to you in your proceedings. They were adopted after public hearings, pursuant <br />to, you know, statutory authority to adopt your rules. Your rules do then reference <br />Roberts Rules and says parliamentary procedure to be utilized in the conduct of its own <br />12 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.