9/24/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DISCUSSION FOLLOWED CONCERNING THIS MATTER, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE TAPE OF THE MEETING WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR COMMISSIONER DEESON TO REVIEW. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED IF THE FIFTH COMMISSIONER SHOULD APPEAR, HE SHOULD HEAR ALL THE TESTIMONY THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED. HE DID NOT THINK HIS MERE PRESENCE AT THE TIME OF VOTING WOULD BE SUFFICIENT, SO IF THE BOARD DOES TABLE THIS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING HIM VOTE, HE THOUGHT THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GO THROUGH ALL THE TESTIMONY AGAIN. ATTORNEY COLLINS BELIEVED THAT AS LONG AS THERE WAS NO OBJECTION FROM THE PARTIES, COMMISSIONER DEESON COULD LISTEN TO THE TAPES AND VOTE, BASED ON THAT; BUT SOMETIMES THE TAPES ARE NOT FULLY REFLECTIVE OF ALL THE INFORMATION, OR THE INFLECTIONS THAT ARE PRESENTED IN THE TESTIMONY. COMMISSIONER LOY FELT THIS SHOULD BE RESCHEDULED ON A DAY OTHER THAN AT A REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMISSION MEETING. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT IF THE INTENT OF THE BOARD IS TO CONTINUE THIS MATTER UNTIL COMMISSIONER DEESON CAN BE PRESENT, HE THOUGHT THERE SHOULD BE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER ON THE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. HE ADDED THAT THE BOARD WILL NOT HAVE TO READVERTISE, AS LONG AS IT IS CONTINUED TO A TIME CERTAIN. REFERRING TO THE PETITIONERS AND THE OPPONENTS WHO ARE PRESENT TODAY, ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT IF ANY OF THEM HAD OPPOSITION, HE WOULD FEEL MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE WITH A FULL PRESENTATION TO SATISFY ANY OBJECTIONS THAT THEY MAY HAVE. HE ADDED THAT IF THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION, THEN HE THOUGHT THAT COMMISSIONER DEESON COULD LISTEN TO THE TAPES, REVIEW ALL THE EVIDENCE, AND HEAR THE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY THAT MAY COME AT THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. THE REASONING IS SIMPLE: IF THE DECISION IS ATTACKED BY EITHER SIDE, ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT WANT IT ATTACKED ON THE BASIS THAT ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ALL OF THE INFORMATION. COMMISSIONER LYONS AGREED THAT YOU DO NOT ALWAYS GET EVERYTHING ON TAPE. 25 L- SEP 2 41980 , . BOOK 44 PAE05