2026-6-26 APPELLANTS OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ORDER_v1.pdf

Home

to deny a continuation of the May 15, 2026 hearing, because Rohr's case was purportedly frivolous and [implying that using unlawful procedure in violation of BOA Rule 3-12(d) can be defended] by blaming Rohr for the fact that the case had been continued for more than a year. See, DCC Campbell's email, attached as Exhibit F. At bottom, the proposed Order fails to satisfy the requirements of HRS § 91- 12. "The purpose of the statutory requirement that the agency set forth separately its findings of fact and conclusions of law is to assure reasoned decision making by the agency and enable judicial review of agency decisions. Application of Hawaii Elec. Light Co., Inc., 60 Haw. 625, 641, 594 P.2d 612, 623 (1979. In order for the parties and courts to "be informed of the factual basis upon which the [agency] relies, the [agency] findings of Ultimate facts must be supported by findings of Basic facts which in turn are required to be supported by the evidence in the record." Id. "The parties and the court should not be left to guess, with respect to any material question of fact, or to any group of minor matters that may have cumulative significance, the precise finding of the agency." Application of Hawaiian Tel. Co., 54 Haw. 663, 668, 513 P.2d 1376, 1379 ( 1973). It is as if the Director's Proposed Order was drafted to confuse the Board members, not enlighten them to what they are voting to agree on. II. Rohr's Specific Objections. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S FINDINGS OF FACT ROHR' S OBJECTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS A. Procedural History 4