2010-12-15 TFOULKexhibitD - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

intervention. The Commission’s rules are designed to provide a certain process and procedure that’s also designed to assure certain timeliness of how proceedings flow. Tied with the request for standing, and let me first say that I have, well, tied with the request for standing was also a request for a continuance of the hearing related to the request for standing. And so that’s another reason why we feel that it’s really not appropriate from a timeliness standpoint. The Commission’s rules are pretty clear that it’s supposed to be done prior to the very first public hearing on this matter, which was heard,I believe, in June of this year. Well, now, six months later, we still haven’t gotten to a contested case hearing portion. Part of what the Crumrine’s counsel was saying is, look, we don’t have any desire to change the exhibits or have any desire to change the witnesses. If that’s so, then we can still continue, we can still have the Crumrine’s counsel advocate the issues that the Kanuhas wish to do. I don’t have a problem with that because these are the issues that are involved in this case. And I did want to say that I do have the utmost respect for Jerome Kanuha and his family and the clan. But the procedural rules are the procedural rules, and that’s why we are saying it’s really not appropriate. I don’t think we need an offer of proof or testimony about whether or not they would have had standing, had they timely filed –that’s not the issue. The issue is timeliness. Thank you. P. OLSON: Mr. Chair, I would like to call Jerome and lay my record. If not, give an offer of proof. We have a right to hearing on this. And we can argue after the offer of proof is made or after my witness is called. And I disagree with the recitation of the law from Mr. Yeh. HOUSEL: (After a quick consultation with Mr. Gonzalez,) on the procedural issue, Mr. Yeh, you are right, the procedural issue, the submission is late, okay; however, per the rules of the Planning Commission that is 4-6(e), it allows the Commission to join as a party any other person subject to service or process if complete relief cannot be accorded – I won’t read the rest of it. Could you give us your opinion on that? YEH: Yes. The issue is whether or not complete relief can be afforded. There have been probably now three opportunities for members of the public to testify including Mr. Kanuha who testified at the last hearing. So those opportunities are still being, I think, afforded to the parties. He can also testify,if called as a witness, by the intervenors – Idon’t have a problem with that, either. So I think from a real practical standpoint the interests are not being impaired or impeded at this juncture. HOUSEL: Could I ask the other parties also, Mr. Ghalamfarsa, what your position is on this? GHALAMFARSA: I really believe just to give the opportunity to Mr. Kanuha, that’s the least that can be done. I mean I’m not really completely familiar with all the technicality of it, but just to spend another half an hour or one hour, it’s too important to deny that. It’s really too important to deny that. It’s just like a simple technical matter. HOUSEL: Okay. Could I ask the Planning Director your position? SELF: The Planning Director believes that it’s really up to the discretion of the Planning Commission and their interpretation of the rules; however, whatever decision you make in this situation, you need to keep that in mind for future cases like this because you’ll be setting a precedent today for future cases. That’s the only thing we want to have you keep in mind. 17 EXHIBIT D