My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-03-09_REVISION - C1981041
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981041
>
2017-03-09_REVISION - C1981041
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2017 12:40:21 PM
Creation date
3/29/2017 12:24:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981041
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/9/2017
Doc Name
Requests for Hearing before MLRB
From
Scott Schultz
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR69
Email Name
JHB
JRS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
involved in this matter." See Fontanari Demand at 12.1 However, as discussed above, any <br />hearing concerning the Proposed Decision and the objections of Fontanari and Carey are to the <br />Board, not to DRMS or a DRMS hearing officer. See C.R.S. § 34-33-116(4). Colorado law is <br />clear that the Board is a legally distinct and separate entity from DRMS. See Cold Springs <br />Ranch, 765 P.2d at 1036-37. <br />The Board currently consists of the following individuals: (1) Karen Utterback-Normann, <br />(2) Randy Fischer, (3) Jill Van Noord, (4) Bob Randall, (5) Forrest Luke, (6) John Singletary, <br />and (7) Tom Brubaker. See http://mining.state.co.us/Board/mlrb/Pages/default.aspx. Neither <br />Fontanari nor Carey have presented any evidence that the Board, or any of its members, cannot <br />act with integrity, honesty, and impartiality, or that they hold some institutional or personal bias <br />against either Fontanari or Carey.2 See Pueblo v. Fire & Police Pension Assn, 827 P.2d 597, <br />602 (Colo. App. 1992) (Those serving in a quasi-judicial capacity are presumed to have acted <br />with integrity, honesty, and impartiality. And, the burden of rebutting such a presumption is on <br />the one who challenges the quasi-judicial decision); and Churchill v. Univ. of Colorado at <br />Boulder, 285 P.3d 986, 1006 (Colo. 2012) (A basis for finding that an administrative decision <br />was arbitrary and capricious is if the administrative decision—makers held some institutional <br />bias or personal grudge against the affected party). Therefore, the alleged basis for Fontanari's, <br />and presumably Carey's, demand for a hearing before an ALJ, when examined, is non-existent. <br />1 SCC disputes any and all allegations by Carey or Fontanari that either DRMS staff or SCC have acted prejudicially <br />to the legal rights and interests of either Fontanari or Carey, or that they have acted in any manner that was unlawful, <br />extra jursidictional, arbitrary, capricious, or with the purpose of visiting injury or prejudice on either Carey or <br />Fontanari. <br />2 Fontanari and Carey have further failed to submit an affidavit of personal bias with respect to any members of the <br />Board in compliance with C.R.S. § 24-4-105. For that reason alone the request may also be denied. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.