2010-12-15 TFOULKexhibitD - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

YEH: Mr. Chairman, final comment,if I can. At this juncture if it really is the Commission’s inclination to admit – I think it’s Jerome Kanuha, Mr. Olson? P. OLSON: Yes. YEH: As a party, we are okay with that. But we really strenuously object to having a continuance of this matter because, if it’s tied to this intervention request, because that’s where the prejudice comes in. HOUSEL: Okay, so would you be, are you saying you would agree to allow Mr. Kanuha as a party? YEH: Correct, if there is no continuance that the Commission is going to grant in relation to that. HOUSEL: I’m not sure there if I can agree with that condition. Mr. Olson. P. OLSON: Quick response. I don’t believe the Planning Commission can take into consideration, you know, the policy implications by doing this today. This case is about today and the Kanuha ‘Ohana’s right, constitutional right and procedural right to intervene. Now, as far as Mr. Yeh’s th objection, I believe, is December 9, he only objected to, I believe it was 6(a), the 7-day rule; there was no objection under the (e) portion. And it’s my position that they have waived that objection, and regardless it is in the discretion of the Commission to add him as a party under the (e) portion. And I would like to have a hearing on that, so I can lay a record for that. HOUSEL: Go ahead. SELF: I would disagree with the statement he just made about precedent because this is essentially the Planning Commission interpreting its own rules; so whatever interpretation you make today does reflect on future hearings like this. And believe me, it will come back to you – it always does. YEH: And again, on the continuance issue, if as the, you know, petitioners have stated that there is not going to be any changes in witnesses or exhibits, then let’s stick with that, if the determination is to allow intervention at this time. HOUSEL: There is a question that I’d like to ask each of the parties, okay, and have your response, please. Is Jerome Kanuha a person subject to service of process regarding this application? P. OLSON: Yes. He is –Jerome – he is in the back. Yes, he is. HOUSEL: Do you have a response to that? I mean, do you agree? YEH: Yes, I have no reason to deny that, I’m not sure what the relevance is but, since he is going to be represented by counsel. HOUSEL: I’d like to ask our corporation counsel to help us understand that, please. GONZALEZ: I was trying to get clarification on your positions on Rule (e) as written, 4-6(e), “The Commission may join as a party any other person subject to service of process if complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or that person has an interest in the matter so that 18 EXHIBIT D