Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARAI: We do have the ability to hire a hearings officer. I cannot guess as to the length of the <br />hearing itself. We’ve had recent hearings that have gone from as little as $20,000 for a particular <br />session up to a 40, $40,000. All I can say at this point is if the Commission elects or refers this <br />contested case proceeding to a hearings officer we will get a hearings officer for you. So don’t <br />let that be, weigh on your judgment. <br />AU: Ivan? <br />TORIGOE: Yeah. One of the factors that may weigh into the kind of contested case that <br />happens is the extent to which the parties might be agreeable to using some of the existing <br />record, rather than, you know, doing everything all over again. So I wonder if we could ask the <br />parties if they would be agreeable to doing that, to the extent that is practical. <br />AU: Yes. If all parties are agreeable to use the existing record as a basis for the contested case <br />proceedings. <br />HONG: Speaking on behalf of CBESS, I mean, I don’t believe that I’m trying to extend or, I <br />don’t want to overcharge my clients, obviously. And I’m not going to try and build, increase the <br />bills on behalf of my client. To the extent that I can use part of the record, I obviously want to <br />use part of the record. But I know that what is absent from the record is our ability to challenge <br />the credibility of some of the allegations made, and what the accuracy of those allegations are <br />that were made. So insofar as that is concerned, I’m not going to agree to anything that would, <br />to have unsubstantiated testimony that was given at a public hearing used against my client <br />without me having the opportunity to cross-examine that individual. So yes and no. And <br />obviously I don’t want to have to spend any more time in a contested case than I have to. So I’m <br />going to try and, on my client’s behalf, make it as efficient as possible. <br />AU: Ms. Morris? <br />MORRIS: Thank you. I would likewise want this to be acted upon in as efficient a manner as <br />possible. Time means money for my client. There is an application that’s being prepared to the <br />USDA for low interest loans so that facilities could be built should the special permit application <br />be approved. So, so, a drawn out process would not be to the benefit of my client. So I would <br />agree to the extent possible to move this along as quickly as possible, and without waiving my <br />client’s rights and interests. Whatever can be used, provided on the record previously, would be <br />to the advantage in moving this along as efficiently as possible. <br />What I’d also kind of like to express a concern is that I know with respect to pro se persons who <br />are not represented by counsel, courts are generally very liberal in allowing latitude to that <br />because they’re not represented by counsel. What I would, however, urge that whoever is <br />presiding over the contested case that there not be undue delay associated with a pro se party. <br />So, again, if I could just ask that this matter be moved along as quickly as possible without <br />compromising my client’s due process rights. <br />ISHIBASHI: I have a question. <br />AU: Commissioner Ishibashi. <br />22 <br /> <br /> <br />