|
<br />AU: Any questions for Mr. Fuke? Okay, thank you, Mr. Fuke. Okay, Fellow Commissioners,
<br />you guys want to -?
<br />HONG: Mr. Chair -?
<br />AU: Okay, Mr. Hong, you can come forward.
<br />HONG: I just wanted to respond to Mr. Fuke’s statements. And, you know, let me just be very
<br />clear. The ends do not justify the means. I don’t care what the context is. Okay, the ends do not
<br />justify the means, if that’s what Mr. Fuke is telling you. The Alegadel case (ALEGADEL)
<br />basically says that where a government commission establishes rules, you have to follow the
<br />rules. And people have an expectation, the public has an expectation, a right, to have those
<br />commissions, boards, and agencies follow the rules. We are asking you for nothing less than to
<br />follow the rules.
<br />Let me clarify, we have not been able to call witnesses. People testified voluntarily. A number
<br />of our witnesses had to leave. We had not had the opportunity, and Mr. Fuke agrees, to cross-
<br />examine witnesses. And why is that important? Because then we can test the accuracy of what
<br />they’re saying, we can challenge their credibility of the individual who is providing testimony.
<br />One of the hallmarks of due process is allowing the other party to ask questions, to test the
<br />credibility, to challenge the allegations made. And we were denied that opportunity, we never
<br />had that opportunity. We were not able to present tests, excuse me, evidence with respect to -.
<br />We submitted documents, but we did not have to, submit evidence that was taken into the record
<br />regarding any of the allegations made or the counter allegations made. And the hearings that we
<br />went through by definition to this point don't meet the definition of a contested case. And there
<br />is no case that Mr. Fuke, or Judge Yoshioka, or anybody can cite that would say that close is
<br />good enough. That is not the case when it comes to government boards, agencies and
<br />commissions. Regardless of where I sit and who I represent every citizen has a right to the
<br />process; and that’s all we’re asking for. And that is not what we have gotten to this point. So in
<br />terms of the remedy that we’re suggesting we feel it’s appropriate. And Mr. Fuke agrees that if
<br />we carry along the line that you guys are on, most likely the court is going to say, you know,
<br />,
<br />chutes and ladder you guys got to come back and there’s got to be a contested case hearing.
<br />Months will have gone by, time is going to be, has gone by, the expense to my client is going to
<br />increase in amount. So instead of doing that, let’s take care of this issue now. The Commission
<br />can decide and make its own recommendations based on the hearings officer’s decision, like in
<br />the Pepe‘ekeō Point case, and then we move on from there. Thank you.
<br />AU: Thank you, Mr. Hong. Okay, Fellow Commissioners, so what we have is we have a
<br />motion on the floor, and the motion is to deny by Commissioner Gonzales and Commissioner
<br />Ishibashi. So we, so, you know, technically we are in the discussion portion of this hearing. So
<br />if we move, as we move forward, you know, I just want to make a comment from a land use
<br />standpoint. Okay, I sympathize with the community. And, you know, they feel bullied and, you
<br />know, they feel that they were treated unfairly. And, you know, the whole situation, we’ve heard
<br />it for the last four hearings already. But from a land use standpoint, you know, we have the State
<br />that approves this special permit, cause the State leased them the land, we have our Planning
<br />Department approving it. So from a land use standpoint it’s appropriate. But we need to do our
<br />job as Commissioners to also listen to the community. And, you know, that’s why we’re chosen
<br />as Commissioners, and that’s our job here. So, you know, I just want to say that as we move
<br />13
<br />
<br />
<br />
|