Laserfiche WebLink
55. No member of the Appellee Board of Appeals, except for <br /> board member Wiseman, explained the reason for his or her vote 21 and the <br /> transcript does not show the reason for the board's vote. <br /> 56. This Court can notice that the "Rosehill Cases" originated in <br /> an earlier proceeding that had once been before the Appellee Board of Appeals <br /> in 2020 (Part A.16 and A.17, supra; Exhibit 10 to Opening Brief, Dkt. 69, JEFS <br /> page 5) and might have been the subject of discussion in the executive <br /> meeting, especially since the "Rosehill Cases" were at the center of the <br /> Appellees Neal and Zanone's summary judgment motion. In the absence of a <br /> transcript, written findings or other record, however, this Court can only <br /> speculate on the subjects that were discussed and whether the discussion that <br /> took place in the executive meeting fell within the scope of the attorney-client <br /> privilege. <br /> 57. Later, as a part of their objections to the Appellee Board of <br /> Appeals' proposed order, the Appellants Ford, et al. informed the Board of <br /> Appeals that it had no authority to have held the executive meeting and, <br /> further, that it had failed to rule on the Appellants' Ford, et al.'s proposed <br /> findings and conclusions. (Dkt. 32, JEFS page 51, ROA 560-568; Dkt. 33, <br /> JEFS page 1, ROA 569-572; Dkt. 34, JEFS page 1, ROA 600-627; Dkt. 35, <br /> JEFS 1, ROA 626-646; DKT. 36, JEFS 1, ROA 647-659; Dkt. 49, JEFS page <br /> 47, ROA 415-424) <br /> 21 Board member Wiseman stated, "Yeah, I - in reviewing the Summary <br /> Judgment and all the exhibits attached to it, I - I still, I still, <br /> I'm of the position that the director' s - I'm of the position that the <br /> director, that they correctly applied the Hawaii County Code when they <br /> closed the complaint and that it's not their problem to get involved <br /> in private property disputes . . . . .But I still believe that the <br /> Planning Director's decision in this case - was there a motion on <br /> that? Or no -- . . . . "Just to state that summary judgment is proper <br /> when the record indicates there' s no genuine issue as to any material <br /> fact, and therefore moving probably would be entitled to judgment of <br /> law. That' s all I have." (Dkt.32, JEFS page 20, ROA 541-542) <br /> (emphasis added) <br /> 19 <br />