2006-11-22_Answering_Brief_re_Calvert

Home

the Board. The Board's rules required that objections be made in writing. This failure to follow rules in making objections to the FOF means that Appellant cannot now object to them. Appellant also for the first time on appeal argues that the automatic approval section of HRS Chapter 91 does not apply because the process was"otherwise provided by law." This issue was not preserved to the Board therefore it was not presented for appeal and should not be considered by the court. 1. Failure to Follow Rules A failure to follow the rules promulgated by the administrative agency results in denial of consideration of issues by a circuit court. In the case of Hui Kakoo Aina Hoopulapula v. Board of Land and Natural Resources, 112 Haw. 28, 149 P.2d 1230 (2006) a member of the public failed to file a request for a contested case which was a requirement of the agency before which he was appearing. The court determined that this failure was fatal to his attempt to appeal the decision of the agency and an appeal from a contested case hearing. In this case, Appellant's failure to follow the rules of the Board in filing objections to the Board's findings means that this court should not consider the objections now. Following a hearing before the Board, a proposed FOF, COL and Decision and Order was prepared at the direction of the Board. Those FOF was served on Appellant. Appellant made no objections to any of the findings therein. Yet in his opening brief, Appellant now objects to FOF 26 and FOF 27 as clearly erroneous as being case of law and not FOF. Appellant also objects to FOF 26 as erroneous by not completely quoting a matter of law cited. The Board provides a procedure for the Board's rendering its decision and order. Under Section 3-18 of the County of Hawaii Board of Appeals Rule of Practice and Procedure, Issuance of Decision and Order, a proposed decision and order which shall include proposed 6