The start of witness testimony in the Thirty Meter Telescope contested case was delayed until Thursday. ADVERTISING The start of witness testimony in the Thirty Meter Telescope contested case was delayed until Thursday. Most recently scheduled to start today, and
The start of witness testimony in the Thirty Meter Telescope contested case was delayed until Thursday.
Most recently scheduled to start today, and initially slated for Oct. 11, the date was pushed back again by hearings officer Riki May Amano during a final pre-conference hearing Monday in order to give all parties 48 hours notice of the witnesses and exhibitions being presented by attorneys for the University of Hawaii at Hilo.
The change was made in response to an Oct. 10 notice filed by attorney Richard Wurdeman, who was representing six of the petitioners, stating he was withdrawing from the case because of scheduling conflicts.
Five of the six petitioners — Kealoha Pisciotta of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Clarence Ching, the Flores-Case ohana, Deborah Ward and Paul Neves — now will represent themselves, pro se, during the hearing. Wurdeman had been representing the group free of charge.
Honolulu attorneys Yuklin Aluli and Dexter Kaiama will represent KAHEA: The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance.
All six of Wurdeman’s former clients were original petitioners in the 2011 contested case regarding the TMT, and represented themselves.
Pisciotta said during Monday’s pre-conference hearing that she and the other petitioners were “as ready as we can be at this time,” but requested an additional two days notice to prepare.
Attorneys for UH-Hilo filed a statement of position last Thursday addressing Wurdeman’s withdrawal, calling the action an example of a “pattern of disruption that is prejudicing the ability of all other parties to have an orderly and fair process.”
The UH attorney statement suggested Wurdeman had not obtained consent from his clients prior to withdrawing.
Much of Monday’s pre-conference hearing was spent determining whether the petitioners felt comfortable representing themselves and if they had known about Wurdeman’s withdrawal before it happened.
“I’m not sure of the exact date, but we did consent,” said Kalani Flores of the Flores-Case ohana. He said he was not comfortable moving forward on an immediate timeline because there were still motions in the case file that had not been addressed.
“We are very capable to represent as pro se, but we cannot do it scheduled as such,” Flores said, referring to the original Oct. 18 start date.
Amano, a retired judge, said she would be requesting each party to give the same 48 hours notice of witnesses and exhibitions prior to their testimony. The evidentiary hearings will be the start of witness testimony.
There are about two dozen parties in the contested case, most of whom are representing themselves. Besides KAHEA and UH-Hilo, TMT International Observatory and Perpetuating Unique Educational Opportunities Inc. have legal counsel.
Some parties had questions about the most recent minute order for the case, written by the state Board of Land and Natural Resources. The document was an affirmation “to make sure the record was clear” that the conservation district use permit issued by the board in 2011 for the TMT site was void.
The contested case, a quasi-judicial hearing, will help determine whether UH-Hilo is issued another permit after the state Supreme Court ruled the BLNR violated due process rights of project opponents for approving the $1.4 billion project before the last contested case.
Amano said that the minute order “speaks for itself” and that she could not interpret it.
Testimony for the contested case hearing will begin at 9 a.m. Thursday (Oct. 20) in the Crown Room of the Hilo Naniloa Hotel. It is scheduled to continue Oct. 24, Oct. 25-27, Oct. 31, Nov. 2, Nov. 21-23 and Nov. 28.
The delay reduces that time frame by two days.
Email Ivy Ashe at iashe@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
