Laserfiche WebLink
25. This Court must know what a decision means before the duty becomes <br /> this Court's to say whether it was right or wrong. Rife, 81 Haw. at 87, 912 P.2d at 584. <br /> The Decision and Order of the BOA does not Comply with HRS § 91-12 <br /> 26. The Decision and Order of the BOA does not comply with HRS § 91-12 <br /> because the BOA did not make reasonably clear findings of fact sufficient to support its <br /> decision to affirm the Declaratory Order. See Kauai Elec., 60 Haw. at 183, 590 P.2d at <br /> 537. <br /> 27. FOF 1-9 summarize the procedural history before the Director and BOA. <br /> While these findings of fact are an important part of a decision and order, they do not <br /> allow the Court to "track the steps by which the [BOA] reached its decision" to affirm the <br /> Declaratory Order. Los Banos v. Hawai'i Lab. Rels. Bd., 145 Haw. 297, 452 P.3d 765 <br /> (Ct. App. 2019) ("[A] reviewing court should ensure that the agency's findings and <br /> conclusions are sufficiently clear to allow the reviewing court to track the steps by which <br /> the agency reached its decision."). <br /> 28. FOF 10, which is the only other finding of fact in the Decision and Order, is <br /> a finding of"ultimate fact," but it is not supported by any "basic facts" or references to <br /> evidence in the record. HELCO, 60 Haw. at 642, 594 P.2d at 623 ("[i]n order that <br /> [courts] be informed of the factual basis upon which the [agency] relies, the [agency]'s <br /> findings of Ultimate facts must be supported by findings of Basic facts which in turn are <br /> required to be supported by the evidence in the record."). <br /> 29. FOF 10 is also vague, ambiguous, and not "reasonably clear" as to what <br /> the BOA is actually finding in light of the specific issues Oceanside raised in its appeal <br /> to the BOA, which did not only concern the Declaratory Order lacking "the level of clarity <br /> 25 <br />