Laserfiche WebLink
<br />officer is a fabrication -there is no evidence in the record to support that <br />finding. <br />The motions for subpoenas were attached to the pre-heazing order and <br />according to the "Certificate of Service" of "Glenda Williams" the motions (along <br />with the pre-hearing order) were served on all of the MLRB members. <br />If the board finds that the objecting parties had sufficient advance notice of the <br />"pre-hearing order" it must also find that the boazd had sufficient advance <br />notice of the motions for subpoenas of the objecting parties. <br />In fact, the motions for subpoenas were presented to the attorney for the boazd, <br />Mark Held, who represented that he had the authority to accept service of <br />process for the boazd. There is nothing in the record which supports any <br />relevance or significance to the finding that the objecting parties "failed to make <br />a sepazate motion." The finding is impertinent and overt evidence of the <br />agency's bias and denial of due process of law to the objecting parties. In <br />addition, the statements by the attorney for the Water Quality Control Division <br />were not made under oath and are not evidence which is competent to support <br />the board's findings. (We would add that the statements the attorney made at <br />the board hearing were not true and Mr. Wuchert testified under oath to the <br />extent they were not true). <br />The boazd acted (or failed to act) in violation of C.R.S. § 24-4-105(5) (2001) <br />which states: <br />Subpoenas SHALL be issued WITHOUT <br />DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE <br />PARTIES by any member, the secretary, or chief <br />administrative officer thereof ... Id. [EMPHASIS <br />ADDED] <br />By failing or refusing to issue the subpoena requested by objecting parties, the <br />board acted contrary to the provisions of C.R.S. § 24-4-105 (2001); the board <br />acted arbitrarily, capriciously, denied the objecting parties their statutory <br />rights, acted contrary to the constitutional rights of the objecting parties, acted <br />in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, and limitations, <br />acted with abuse and clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, and acted in a <br />manner that was unsupported by the admissible evidence on the record when <br />considered as a whole. <br />By taking notice of information presented by DMG staff, the board was not <br />acting on its own experience, technical competence, or specialized knowledge in <br />evaluating the evidence. It was, instead, violating the statutory limitations <br />3 <br />