2017-04-10 Joint Meeting Exh A (Amend Commission Rules)

Home

MATSUKAWA: Thank you, Members of the Commission. My name is Michael Matsukawa. I’ve participated in numerous contested cases in the past, so I prepared written testimony for you earlier. UNGER: Please state your area of residence, please. MATSUKAWA: Oh, I live in Ka‘awaloa, South Kona. UNGER: Thank you. MATSUKAWA: I think you’ve already felt the gist of the public’s view on Rule 4, which is why most of them are here. Essentially, when the board acts in a quasi-judicial manner doing these trial-type cases, the board is not really a full judicial body like a court, but it has some features of a court proceeding – cross-examination, findings of fact, rights of appeal. But, it also has a level of informality because you are closest to the people. And, so the agencies throughout the State each have their unique style and practice. Our practice has been in place for quite a while in terms of Rule 4. When you look at the Public Utilities Commission, they are more formal, they are very specific, they are economic, economic decisions are made, and so they have a very strict process, which has all public testimony up front, but they allow written testimony along the way. Kauai has the same process that you have, the Kauai Planning Commission. They publish notice. They also break to have public testimony during the trial-type hearings. And, when you think about it, there’s a certain logic to it because a case evolves. The prior testifier said, yes, sometimes a case is filed, an application is made, but some people don’t know about it. As it evolves to the more formal process, they learn about it. They want to come forward and provide their input. I think you should allow them to do so. In closing, you know, there was a very well-known Supreme Court Justice, Edward Nakamura. He had a big case to deal with in Hawai‘i Kai, and the issue was whether the public had a right to say anything about a rezoning, and there was a question about what the Charter said and what the Charter didn’t say. And he reminded the people that when you take something away from the people, you need to have a good explanation. So far, we haven’t heard one, nor did the staff present something ahead of time so people could thoroughly understand if the policy reason advanced for the change is valid. Until that’s done, I think you should just keep things as they are. Thank you. MCINNIS: My name is Mac McInnis. I reside here in Kona, in Kona Orchards Subdivision. I’m here to speak against the deletion of Section 4.5 Notice of Contested Case Hearing, against Section 4-20 Public Testimony, and the modification of Section 4-24 Issuance of Decisions and Orders, which has been modified by deleting findings of fact. Councilwoman Karen Eoff Bill 281 was introduced in September 2014. Section 1, Findings and Purpose references, and I quote, “public involvement, and procedural guidelines for approval must be implemented in the decision-making process.” Emphasis is placed on public involvement. 19 EXHIBIT A