|
objections raised by the intervenors, I don’t think we can, I’m not comfortable, you know, by just
<br />relying on the Rule that says, well, you didn’t file something called an exception so, you know,
<br />you can’t raise objections and we can ignore that. I, personally, I don’t think we should ignore
<br />it; I think we should make a full and complete record about, you know, these objections that have
<br />been previously raised. Now they have filed court papers on it, and I think we should make a
<br />proper record to satisfy ourselves that it has been addressed and the intervenors have been given
<br />a proper opportunity to raise them, and then we make a decision procedurally. Otherwise, you
<br />know, if you don’t do that, then that’s arguably a basis, you know, for the Court to come back
<br />and say, well, you didn’t do that right, you know, you’ve got to deal with it, send it back to us
<br />and make us do it right. So, that is the concern that I have just, you know -.
<br />ALAMEDA: Okay, I hear you. Mr. Torigoe, is it the Commission’s role to
<br />determine whether or not the hearing was fair and partial?
<br />IWASHITA: Mr. Chair, that’s not what I’m saying, I’m sorry.
<br />ALAMEDA: Oh, no, I understand what you were saying, but I’m curious. Go
<br />ahead.
<br />IWASHITA: Let me try to be clearer on what I’m saying. I’m saying that we should
<br />make a clear record that these concerns that have been raised before today by the intervenor and
<br />not just in court but, you know, there has been, I don’t know how long ago it was, but a similar
<br />document filed with the Department, that those concerns are addressed. And whether it’s, you
<br />know, we decide that, well, that’s not something, you know, we’ll take the record and we are
<br />going to make our own decision. So, you know, maybe there was an apparent impropriety, but it
<br />doesn’t really matter. We are not going to, that’s not going to sway us.We have a record. We
<br />are going to make a decision based on the record, right, separate and apart from what the
<br />hearings officer has decided. That’s fine. We can do that, right? But a clear record like that
<br />needs to be made, okay, I don’t think we should just sort of. On the record right now, it appears
<br />like we are, you know, it may be argued that the Commission is ignoring these objections raised
<br />by the intervenor, and I don’t think that we should ignore that. I think they should be expressly
<br />addressed.
<br />ALAMEDA: Right, right. Mr. Torigoe, what’s the proper way to, because, what if,
<br />I’m just playing devil’s advocate, what if every intervenor comes in and not happy with the
<br />decision and they say it’s unfair and bias, how do we respond to something like that?
<br />TORIGOE: Well, I think it’s if, well, you have the entire record before you and so
<br />you have the opportunity, if you so choose, to review it and, you know, for to make sure that it’s
<br />procedurally fair in your eyes, and so you have the discretion to go into that. There has not been
<br />a specific request directed to the Commission. I think the previous request was really directed to
<br />Ms. Song as the hearings officer basically to recuse herself, which she denied, and currently
<br />there is a request before the Third Circuit Court. So that question has not been placed squarely
<br />before you, but again, that doesn’t mean you don’t have, you know, the discretion to look at the
<br />record, knowing that those issues are raised. So, you know, that’s something that you can look
<br />at. It is obviously going to take some effort to do that, if you feel that is what you want to do at
<br />this point.
<br /> EXHIBIT B
<br />12
<br />
<br />
|