2017-01-05 Hearing Transcript - Jan Malasek GAF Claim

Home

It's just a very brief overview of what was in the Background Report. I'm happy to answer any general questions about the record or what was in this report, but any specific guidance or interpretation of the rules, I would defer to Corporation Counsel. With that, I'm happy to answer any general questions. HENKEL: Are there any questions? I have one. The slide you have up right now says that the previous action was assessed against the rules in place at the time, Rule 14? KAY: Correct. HENKEL: In what way? KAY: So, Rule 14 which at the time, Rule 14 had authority over the claims against the Geothermal Asset Fund. That rule has since been changed to Rule 12, but because this is a review of that claim back in 2004, my understanding is that you would be using Rule 14 to kind of guide your discussion and decision making. Does that answer your question? HENKEL: Yeah, it does. I just, you know, and we have Rule 14 here, and I just, I don't see how KAY: Right, so that— HENKEL: —their action is in violation of Rule 14 because, because Mr. Malasek was certainly impacted. KAY: Sure. It's not a, it's not a function of a violation. It's just that his claim at that time was assessed against Rule 14. HENKEL: I—okay, it's the language, it's semantics, I guess. Okay. KAY: Okay. HENKEL: Okay. Is there any other discussion? For clarification, this is a, an attempt to reconsider the request. KAY: That's my understanding. The language that is on the agenda and what, what was used is a review of that original request. HENKEL: And, I asked Corp. Counsel earlier, and I guess with that would be involved is Mr. Malasek would agendize a request or his past request to be reconsidered at a future date. KAY: I'm going to defer that back to Corporation Counsel in terms of what that guidance is. HO: We should go to executive session. EXHIBIT D 3