My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2024-09-25 Appellant's Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum, Exhibit 1-2
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Future Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2023-000065 I'O PROCESSING (DPW)
>
2024-09-25 Appellant's Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum, Exhibit 1-2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/26/2024 9:57:21 AM
Creation date
9/26/2024 9:53:50 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
and modify DPW's decision, on the following grounds: (1) DPW acted arbitrarily and <br /> capriciously; (2) DPW violated the letter and intent of HRS § 46-88; and (3) DPW's decision <br /> was clearly erroneous in light of the evidence. <br /> E. DPW HAS NOT PRODUCED ALL FILES RELEVANT FOR THE APPEAL. <br /> I`o Processing first requested the record on appeal in July 2024, when it became apparent <br /> that DPW was changing its criterion for approval. DPW eventually produced a record on appeal <br /> on September 13, 2024. I`o Processing has objected to the record as incomplete and not <br /> consisting of DPW's "entire file." The "file"produced by DPW consists of only two email <br /> chains, which is not sufficient for a case that has a complex history spanning multiple years. <br /> In addition, on August 30, 2024, I`o Processing served a public record request under <br /> Hawaii's Uniform Information Practices Act(the "Sunshine Law") seeking DPW's complete file <br /> and emails relating to the denial. DPW has not responded with a production of records within 10 <br /> business days, as required under HRS Chapter 91 and the Office of Information Practice's <br /> administrative rules.3 On September 18, 2024, DPW promised to provide an update, but did not <br /> follow through. On September 24, 2024, DPW promised to provide an update by the"end of the <br /> week." To date, the UIPA request seeking additional records is pending/overdue and I`o <br /> Processing has no idea if or when DPW may comply. <br /> III. LEGAL STANDARD. <br /> The Hawaii Supreme Court has made clear that"a contested case hearing affords parties <br /> extensive procedural protections similar to those afforded parties in a civil bench trial before a <br /> judge . . . [tJhese protections include the opportunity to issue subpoenas for witnesses to testify <br /> under oath or produce documents[.]" Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Bd. of Land& Nat. Res., 136 <br /> Haw. 376, 391, 363 P.3d 224, 239 (2015) (emphasis added). At the same time, Hawaii Revised <br /> 3 See https://oip.hawaii.gov/laws-rules-opinions/rules/quick-guide-to-oips-administrative-rules/. <br /> 9 <br /> 4871-5206-8494.1.071717-00001 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.