Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Eddins: I'm sorry to address your point Mr. Robinson. You know we <br /> submitted our take as far as we understood the petition and that <br /> interpretation and why we thought this petition should be <br /> dismissed was set forth in there and it's also addressing you Mr. <br /> Adams with respect to your inquires. We set that forth because we <br /> thought that in analysis and the way the trial shook out that it <br /> warranted a dismissal at this point and we didn't know really what <br /> was gonna happen here today as far as you know what matters <br /> would be addressed and Chair...Rule 1.8 says that the respondent <br /> may or may not appear as representatives could appear. We have a <br /> petitioner who didn't appear. 1.8 suggest the respondent need not <br /> appear. We set forth our legal analysis here based on what we <br /> view as no evidence presented and un-particularized petition. In <br /> there things were deferred until now...we're not filing documents <br /> or submitting documents when the petitions been stayed til today. <br /> So therefore...we submit what we did in preparation for this <br /> hearing and as Mr. Sing's indicated repeatedly. We didn't know <br /> really what was gonna be going on here today. Now we talk about <br /> informal advisory hearings the way we read the rules is what we <br /> just quoted. We didn't see this as being that type of hearing and if <br /> was if it was a full investigatory hearing...we might be calling half <br /> a dozen County witnesses in addition to supplementing the record <br /> with the trial transcripts. <br /> Mr. Robinson: I just have a problem with the days that folks have been here and <br /> requested a continuance and well you didn't bring this up <br /> then....but why we waited til today to bring this up...I mean you <br /> know you've been here several times before. We went out of our <br /> way to delay to give the Mayor the ability to go have the hearing in <br /> court or the trial whether in court and why this only comes up <br /> today is really bothersome to me. <br /> Mr. Eddins: Well let me add this...is I don't think it's some magnanimous <br /> gesture by this body...is there constitutional implications that this <br /> commission premised this decision on. So it wasn't some sort of a <br /> gesture by this commission...there were certain due process <br /> aspects as to why the matter was deferred and it wasn't just simply <br /> deferred due to publicity. There were other reasons we've set that <br /> forth and it's my recollection at the inception of this. We had <br /> concerns about the lack of particularity with respect to the <br /> allegations in the petition and the evidence that was furnished in <br /> support of the petition. <br /> Mr. Adams: And having been there at the being if I could just make further <br /> comment on that. We actually never even got to that point because <br /> we actually deferred the petition. So we never even got to the <br /> 32 <br />