|
ALAMEDA: Uh, let’s see other thoughts. I don’t know about that. Commissioner
<br />McCall?
<br />MCCALL: I’ll kind of throw in the opposite side. I think that, from what I
<br />understand, though, the objections from Mr. Hardy-Sullivan are not directed to the Commission,
<br />you know. They are directed about potential misconduct, or whatever, but they are not, they are
<br />directed first to the hearings officer and now they are directed to the Court. So, I don’t feel it is
<br />our place to make judgment on that. I feel that our choices, as far as I see, is we at this point can
<br />accept the hearing officer’s report, I mean, accept that the hearing took place, take the
<br />information from the hearings officer’s report and digest it, accept it, whatever we want to do
<br />with that, if we make it clear that our decision is being made based on what came from the
<br />hearings officer. If the judicial system decides that was inappropriate, then of course our
<br />decision is negated because that’s what we are using as our basis. I don’t feel, the other option is
<br />that we start all over from square one. We cannot use this report from the hearings officer, if we
<br />disregard her as, you know, if we say that she had judicial misconduct, we’ve got to start back
<br />from square one with new evidence. So, I feel there are, to me, our best choice is to, you know,
<br />accept this information, make sure that it’s clear, you know. If another party decides that the
<br />hearings officer did things improperly, then you know, then at that point we can negate what
<br />we’ve done.
<br />ALAMEDA: Okay, Ms. Siracusa?
<br />SIRACUSA: Yeah, maybe Mr. Torigoe should let us know. If we accept the, what
<br />are the ramifications of accepting or not accepting the hearing officer’s report? If we accept the
<br />report, does that mean we accept everything in it, that we agree with her conclusions and
<br />recommendations as well?
<br />TORIGOE: Well, your, I’m not sure that our terms are, we are all working on the
<br />same terms at this point.
<br />SIRACUSA: Or, that we are just accepting the information that came out during the
<br />course of the hearing?
<br />TORIGOE: The hearings officer’s report is mostly composed of a Findings of Fact,
<br />Conclusions of Law, and so essentially what you have to do is to come up with a decision that
<br />includes a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and final, you know, decision up or down. So,
<br />the hearings officer’s report basically offers you some boilerplate or some proposed language
<br />that you can use for a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. So
<br />essentially that’s what you have to do, you know, you are not bound to accept any part of this
<br />hearings officer’s report, but you can use the proposed findings to make your own final Findings
<br />of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order.
<br />ALAMEDA: Ms. Siracusa?
<br />SIRACUSA: Then we can pick and choose, we can cut and paste out of that
<br />anyway, whether or not we accept her report. Is that correct?
<br /> EXHIBIT B
<br />14
<br />
<br />
|