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
Certainly, Fontanari's Request cites 34-33-118 and Rule 2.07.4, but only as a comparison <br />to the governing Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii). Stated differently, Fontanari's Request merely says "IF <br />Rule 2.07.4 did apply, then that Rule provides the type of clarity on the scope of review which is <br />found lacking in Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)". <br />II. THE PARTIES AGAIN AGREE(!): HEARINGS BEFORE THE MLRB <br />ARE GOVERNED BY C.R.S. 24-4-105, GIVING A RIGHT TO <br />SUBPOENAS AND DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRE -HEARING RIGHTS. <br />Comparing the Request to the Response similarly reveals another startling agreement <br />between the parties. Hearings by the MLRB are governed by the Colorado Administrative <br />Procedures Act (APA) and, specifically, C.R.S. 24-4-105. Indeed, the Response (Pgs. 5) makes <br />the following declaration: <br />...the MLRB should look to Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) and C.R.S. §24-4-105 for <br />answers (to Fontanari's Request See C.R.S. §24-4-105 (addressing powers of <br />subpoena, discovery, examination of witnesses, burdens of proof, evidentiary <br />rules, etc.) Specifically, the hearing should involve a de novo review of evidence <br />presented by the parties at the hearing unless the MLRB requests submission of <br />evidence in writing prior to the hearing. See C.RS. §24-4-105(4), (7).... <br />(Response; Pg. 5) Emphasis Sup 1p ied <br />Again, Fontanari does not disagree with this statement. In fact, its Request clearly stated <br />that it would normally prepare pursuant to C.R.S. §24-4-105. The problem is that the MLRB's <br />Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) does not so state, and the Board's compliance with 24-4-105 is <br />impossible under the present factual circumstances! <br />III. UNDER THE PRESENT FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BOARD <br />CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY COMPLY WITH RULE 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) <br />AND C.R.S. 24-4-105 <br />C.R.S.. 34-33-116 requires a hearing "expeditiously" conducted after the Office of the <br />Division of the Board has rendered its Proposed Decision. Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) says the hearing <br />shall be expeditiously scheduled and states that the hearing will be at the next business meeting <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.