2024-09-20 Appellant's Objection to Record on Appeal

Home

Comes now Appellant I`o Processing Company Inc.'s ("Appellant" or"I`o Processing") by and through their attorneys, Carlsmith Ball LLP, and objects to the Record on Appeal, filed by Appellee Department of Public Works ("DPW") on September 13, 2024. Board of Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedures Rule 3-13(h), titled Record on Appeal,provides: "In all appeals of Director decisions before the Board, the entire record or file from the Director shall be submitted to the Board and other parties." By its plain language, Rule 3-13 requires DPW to submit its "entire record or file" as the record on appeal. DPW indisputably has not submitted its "entire record or file" on I`o Processing's application for an agricultural exemption. DPW has submitted only three documents: (1) I`o Processing's Declarations of Compliance for an agricultural exemption under HRS § 46-88; (2) an email chain where the latest email is dated January 13, 2023; and(3) an email chain where the latest email is dated February 10, 2023. I`o Processing appreciates DPW's efforts to get a record on appeal filed and has no doubt that DPW did its best to choose documents showing its position. However, I`o Processing objects to the record as incomplete and not consisting of DPW's "entire file", including, without limitation, as follows: • No Policies or Procedures: DPW submits an email, dated January 9, 2023, in which Mr. Joel Fitzgerald, on behalf of DPW, informs I`o Processing "Please allow 1 to 2 months for response . . . We are currently revising policies and procedures regarding the declarations and I have a few issues I require department acknowledgment/clarification." ROA, Doc. 2,p.4. However, DPW's record on appeal does not contain any policies and procedures regarding the declarations, nor any revised policies and procedures. DPW's policies and procedures are part of the file and should be included in the record on appeal. 4894-5780-8783.1.071717-00001 2