Laserfiche WebLink
MR. HENRICKS: But his name has been before you previously? <br /> <br />MR. SITKO: Yes. <br /> <br />MR. HENRICKS: Since you didn’t know him beforehand, do you feel that there’s any <br />way you treated him any differently than you treated anyone else? <br /> <br />MR. SITKO: No, he’s treated identically with anybody else. <br /> <br />MR. HENRICKS: That’s the only question I have. <br /> <br />MR. DILL: All right, and then we’re also still left with that question about the <br />applicability of the petition to a division. Obviously he mentions several of you in the <br />petition, but his actual petition states that he feels he was treated unfairly, in violation of <br />Section 2-83, by the whole division. Any thoughts from the board, any recommendations <br />for action? <br /> <br />MR. HEAUKULANI: Can we defer till the petitioner appears and gives us his side of the <br />story? <br /> <br />MR. BALSIS: I have a thought. When I was reviewing the documents, it appears that the <br />contention of the petitioner is that all of a sudden, at the hearing, new information was <br />provided that he was unaware of and he did not have ample time to review it so that he <br />could in turn make a good appeal. That’s the way I read the documents provided. If the <br />information that was provided to the board, which—he saw the item which I held up <br />earlier, it was only for informational purposes—then there was no information provided <br />to the board or anyone else at that time. However, if that information could be used to <br />either support a decision either way, how do you say it? <br /> <br />MR. DILL: Support or refute? <br /> <br />MR. BALSIS: Thank you. Then it would be that—well, he should have the opportunity to <br />be heard again by the appeals board. That’s my only comment. <br /> <br />MR. HENRICKS: All right, the way I see this over all, looking at it from a judicial point <br />of view, this is a discovery matter. When you ask for discovery in any hearing or judicial <br />situation, it’s incumbent upon the other party to give discovery, but it never rises—when <br />there’s a lack of discovery because of difference of opinion, it never rises to the idea of <br />an ethical violation, though. It’s just a matter of disagreement between parties as to <br />what should be discovered or not discovered. As to recourse, if any person before any <br />board that goes up there receives a document late, all they have to do is ask for a <br />continuance based on the fact that they received that document late. And any board any <br />place will grant you that continuance, because if they don’t, they’re in error. Because if <br />he received that thing at the last minute, he thought it was important to his appeal and he <br />couldn’t go forward because it was given to him late, all he had to do is just “I’m not <br />ready, I want a continuance.” And they would have granted it, or else they would have <br />been in error. So I don’t see this as an ethical violation in any manner, unless—the only <br />time it could become an ethical violation is when you use the words fair and—I think the <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />