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

Home

HO: Because, I mean, that’s the only thing you can actually prove; you can’t prove whether their ancestors did or not, I mean, that would be very difficult for them to prove, but they can prove whether they practice now, today. CLARKSON: Well, at the very least the “d” should be removed, and to make it more consistent with language that appears later, I would remove everything after the 1778 and just refer to native Hawaiians, descendants of Native Hawaiians, because this practicing part is — HO: Well, see, it’s — CLARKSON: — sometimes it’s included and sometimes it isn’t. HO: Sorry. Yeah, there should be uniformity, I agree with that. But this is more in relation to granting rights, like, just like native Hawaiians can go into Volcano National Park, for example, if they are practicing, they’re collecting for their hula hālau or something like that. But it’s linked to that practice, not just because they’re Hawaiian, but linked to the fact that they are practicing their cultural or religious or, you know, subsistence things. Not just free for all, like you can just go onto the land because of that, but it actually has to be connected to a purpose. CLARKSON: Then let’s leave it in and see where else it might need to be included. JACKSON: Okay. All right. The next change we’re proposing is to clarify that the Commission does not have to incorporate its decision, in its decision, a ruling upon each of the parties’ proposed findings and facts. So, what this is referring to is typically the parties will each provide proposed findings of facts at the end of the contested case hearing to the hearings officer, and this is just – I’m sorry, not to the hearings officer, to the Commission, once it comes back to the Commission. This is just saying that the Commission does not have address every point of fact when they create their findings; they can just address essentially the findings that they agree with. Is that correct, Malia? Yeah. HO: Yeah, this is, you basically adopt what you guys want to adopt and leave the rest behind. You have that authority to do that, and that way you don’t have to, you know, justify every single piece; if you don’t want to, if you don’t like that piece, you can just leave it behind and continue on. CARR SMITH: So this is a scenario where the Planning Commission opts to not be the — HO: The hearings officer ‒‒ CARR SMITH: Right — HO: Yeah, so this is where you ‒‒ CARR SMITH: — for the contested case, and then it comes back. But wouldn’t the contested case — 8 EXHIBIT A