10-23-17 Regular Session Minutes

Home

Mr. Adams: It's a catch 22...it's more than intent...they passed the ordinance.... Mr. Goodenow: Right they did pass the ordinance. Mr. Adams: And so but given the crossing of actions with HRS 91 and 46-1.5 where there is this need...see the ordinance doesn't consider the need for an appellate process. Mr. Goodenow: I see right. Mr. Adams: 91 and 46-1 do. Mr. Goodenow: Right...so...well I don't know if...we're not saying that it's a flawed piece of legislation but.... Mr. Adams: These things happen all the time. Mr. Goodenow: So but really I mean I don't know as far as our efforts we want to do in relation to that I think all we can do is let the Council know...you've passed this but...I mean I don't know how we should proceed. Mr. Adams: I think the way we proceed is we'll setup the rules of practice and procedure which within our authority to setup so that...we'll assume that sanctioning authority is valid and then...you then operating according to your County law...County ordinance right. Mr. Goodenow: True. Mr. Adams: And then at the point where there's a need if there is ever a need for some type of appellate action because someone who is sanctioned said I don't agree or for right of reason they want to...then...typically anything that is a final agency decision based on Chevron goes to the judiciary...so even if it's not included in...so the question then what the judiciary does with it but that's outside of our frame work. Mr. Goodenow: Well my only concern is like you're setting up a process that we know can be challenged successfully...cause someone's gonna say hey I didn't have a clear right to appeal...this thing is facially flawed and.... Mr. Adams: I don't see that we have an option...it's in ordinance...it is part of what they...Council has said we have...they didn't say you don't 11