|
14
<br /> 1 Matt McDermott: Briefly, but I was quickly looking for that. Even if you do not satisfy the definition of standing, depending on the
<br /> 2 materials you bring forward, factual, non-repetitive, you know, the list of things that have to be adhered to, we will listen to those
<br /> 3 conversations. We will deem you a witness and give that consideration.
<br /> 4
<br /> 5 James Bryan: If I could interject,at least there's been a little confusion.Any witness the board can rely on,no matter who calls the
<br /> 6 witness. I do recommend not letting anybody come up and testify because it probably won't be competent material and substantial
<br /> 7 evidence and that is a huge risk to the validity of the decision. One additional point to that is the difference between evidence which
<br /> 8 includes testimony and documents versus arguments. Arguments is way different and a witness does not give arguments. So if you
<br /> 9 were to do it how we do it,the attorneys swear in,because it's better safe than sorry and everybody sort of just does it. It doesn't cost
<br /> 10 anything to raising your hand swear. But by practice, attorneys do not swear in because attorneys do not testify. They do not give
<br /> 11 evidence. They give arguments and hey would never call a witness to give arguments. That's irrelevant,that's immaterial,that's not
<br /> 12 substantial,that should be objected to and struck down. I think with those two clarifications, I'm sorry for interjecting but, hopefully,
<br /> 13 that clarifies a little bit.
<br /> 14
<br /> 15 Beth Bronson: I do appreciate that, it does play into the comment that I was going to make. I don't want to interrupt anybody else
<br /> 16 because I've taken too much time talking. Does anybody else have a comment that they want to add to this?
<br /> 17
<br /> 18 Matt McDermott: Yes, I saw that you posted your 2024 calendar which I believe is one of the line items here discussing tonight.
<br /> 19
<br /> 20 Beth Bronson: Mr. McDermott, I just want to make sure and to the board,too and to James underlying what we are talking about
<br /> 21 in under NC law and court decision,we cannot consider evidence if they have not established standing, as you said Leon.
<br /> 22
<br /> 23 Leon Meyers: That's what's written in the standing form because it's my understanding of what is the case. James, is that, is that
<br /> 24 correct?
<br /> 25
<br /> 26 Beth Bronson: Maybe I really should just stop there and let's go over this agenda item.
<br /> 27
<br /> 28 Patrick Mallett: Knowing that this is a thing and something that's,there's always room for improvement,we're focusing just on the
<br /> 29 form and the form as it is which is Pages 53, 54. Then we move on to some variations that could be made to that form. For the
<br /> 30 purpose of making, it clear,concise, more informative for all the parties,making it understandable,stripping out as much as possible
<br /> 31 the technical aspects of it and perhaps adding something like a back sheet about and any flow charts, if necessary, some way to
<br /> 32 communicate what this piece of the puzzle is to the applicant and the general public. You see some language in here that's proposed
<br /> 33 and red. Your paper copies are in black and white. Pardon me, but the online version has the red.
<br /> 34
<br /> 35 Leon Meyers: Page 53 and all of these are statement of standing, but the last one that begins on 57 is really an FAQ right?
<br /> 36
<br /> 37 Patrick Mallett: Yes.
<br /> 38
<br /> 39 Leon Meyers: Then what is the difference between what begins on 53 and what begins on 55?
<br /> 40
<br /> 41 Patrick Mallett: Page 53 is the form that you have,that we've formulated very recently and that continues to Page 54.On Page 55
<br /> 42 insert some language here that it's the beginning of existing document,insert that and then insert some references here at the bottom
<br /> 43 on a separate page, but the point being these are the tick marks that fall back for legal standing and then an explanation of that and
<br /> 44 then some more specificity on things like special damages to other partials. The items in red are not included in what our current
<br /> 45 iteration of this form that is entire above and beyond it, this is at staffs collaboration with legal. We feel like this is an appropriate
<br /> 46 thing to use. We have not used this in the past. This is not an absolute state requirement that we have such a form. It's not in the
<br /> 47 UDO that we have such a form, but we think that it's relevant and an important tool. And one of the lessons learned I've learned in
<br /> 48 recent cases is if we have this very complicated process quasi-judicial thing, perhaps this type of thing could be included with the
<br /> 49 case number and notifications and so on my end point taken just like we need to have statements about language translation,
<br /> 50 interpretative services and so on and so forth, so we're trying to improve the process. It's never going to be perfect, and it's never
<br /> 51 going to be suited to every person, shape, thing,or circumstance.
<br /> 52 Leon Meyers: James,you were about to say something?
<br /> 53
<br /> 54 James Bryan: Yes. To clarify,the difference between 53 and 55, 53 is what staff wrote and it tracks all the different possibilities.
<br /> 55 Page 55 is something I drafted, and it simplifies it because while 53 is more accurate because it includes everything, I think the
<br />
|