Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Board of Land and Natural Resources. ( 2015 )

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCAP-14-0000873
02-DEC-2015
12:58 PM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
---o0o---
MAUNA KEA ANAINA HOU; CLARENCE KUKAUAKAHI CHING; FLORES-CASE
#OHANA; DEBORAH J. WARD; PAUL K. NEVES; and KAHEA: THE HAWAIIAN
ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE, a domestic non-profit corporation,
Appellants-Appellants,
vs.
BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI#I;
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI#I;
SUZANNE D. CASE, in her official capacity as Chair of the Board
of Land and Natural Resources and Director of the Department of
Land and Natural Resources; and UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI#I AT HILO,
Appellees-Appellees.
SCAP-14-0000873
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CAAP-14-0000873; CIV. NO. 13-1-0349)
DECEMBER 2, 2015
RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, AND McKENNA, JJ.,
WITH POLLACK, J., CONCURRING SEPARATELY,
WITH WHOM WILSON, J., JOINS,
AND WITH WHOM McKENNA, J., JOINS AS TO PART IV
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
OPINION OF THE COURT BY RECKTENWALD, C.J.
This case requires us to determine whether the
procedure followed by the Board of Land and Natural Resources
(Board or BLNR) in issuing a permit to construct an observatory
in a conservation district1 comported with due process.
Specifically, the University of Hawai#i at Hilo (UHH)
applied for approval from the Board to construct the Thirty Meter
Telescope (TMT) on Mauna Kea on the island of Hawai#i. The Board
held two public hearings on the application, at which more than
80 people spoke. Proponents asserted that the “next generation”
large telescope would facilitate cutting-edge scientific research
that could not be conducted as effectively anywhere else.
Opponents included Native Hawaiians who stated that the summit
area was sacred in Native Hawaiian culture and that the
construction of the eighteen-and-one-half-story high observatory
would be a desecration.
1
Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 183C-1 (1994), containing the
findings and purpose of Conservation Districts, provides:
The legislature finds that lands within the state land
use conservation district contain important natural
resources essential to the preservation of the State’s
fragile natural ecosystems and the sustainability of
the State’s water supply. It is therefore, the intent
of the legislature to conserve, protect, and preserve
the important natural resources of the State through
appropriate management and use to promote their
long-term sustainability and the public health, safety
and welfare.
2
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
The Board scheduled UHH’s application for action at a
public board meeting in February 2011. Various opponents of the
application spoke at the meeting and requested that the Board
delay action on the permit until it could conduct a contested
case hearing, at which evidence concerning the application could
be presented under oath and subject to cross-examination.
Despite those objections, the Board voted to approve
the permit at the meeting, subject to a number of conditions. It
also took two further steps that are relevant here. First,
acting on its own motion, it directed that a contested case
hearing be conducted. Second, it included a condition in the
permit that no construction could be undertaken until the
contested case hearing was resolved.
Subsequently, the Chair of the Board appointed a
hearing officer to conduct the hearing, which took place over the
course of seven days in 2011. In 2012, the hearing officer
recommended that the permit be approved, subject to essentially
the same conditions as originally imposed by the Board. The
Board adopted that recommendation in 2013, and the Circuit Court
of the Third Circuit affirmed the Board’s action. Appellants,
who oppose the issuance of the permit and who include several of
the people who requested that the Board not act on the
application until after the contested case hearing was held,
3
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
appealed to this court.
The question we must answer is whether the approval of
the permit before the contested case hearing was held violated
the Hawai#i Constitution’s guarantee of due process, which
provides that, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law . . . .” Haw. Const. art. I,
§ 5. We hold that it did.
A “fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement
of due process.” Sifagaloa v. Bd. of Tr. of Emp. Ret. Sys., 74
Haw. 181, 189, 840 P.2d 367, 371 (1992) (quoting In re Murchison,
349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955)). While the specifics of that guarantee
can vary depending on the circumstances, in the instant case the
Appellants were entitled to a contested case hearing and had
unequivocally requested one before the Board voted on the permit
at its February 2011 meeting. A contested case hearing is
similar in many respects to a trial before a judge: the parties
have the right to present evidence, testimony is taken under
oath, and witnesses are subject to cross-examination. It
provides a high level of procedural fairness and protections to
ensure that decisions are made based on a factual record that is
developed through a rigorous adversarial process.
By voting on the permit before the contested case
hearing was held, the Board denied the Appellants their due
4
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
process right to be heard at “a meaningful time and in a
meaningful manner.” Sandy Beach Def. Fund v. City & Cnty. of
Honolulu, 70 Haw. 361, 378, 773 P.2d 250, 261 (1989). The Board
was on record in support of the project, and the permit itself
was issued before evidence was taken and subject to adversarial
testing before a neutral hearing officer. While UHH and the
Board argue that the February 2011 decision was “preliminary” and
subject to revision, the fact remains that the Board issued the
permit prior to holding the contested case hearing. This
procedure was improper, and was inconsistent with the statutory
definition of a contested case as “a proceeding in which the
legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are
required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency
hearing.” HRS § 91-1(5) (emphasis added).
Such a procedure lacked both the reality and appearance
of justice. As this court noted in Sifagaloa:
The Supreme Court teaches us . . . that justice can
“perform its high function in the best way [only if it
satisfies] the ‘appearance of justice.’” For in a
popular government, “‘justice must not only be done
but must manifestly be seen to be done . . . .’”
74 Haw. at 189-90, 840 P.2d at 371 (quoting Offutt v. United
States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954), and Murchison, 349 U.S. at 136).
The process followed by the Board here did not meet
these standards. Quite simply, the Board put the cart before the
5
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
horse when it issued the permit before the request for a
contested case hearing was resolved and the hearing was held.
Accordingly, the permit cannot stand.2 We therefore vacate the
judgment of the circuit court and the permit issued by the Board,
and remand so that a contested case hearing can be conducted
before the Board or a new hearing officer, or for other
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. BACKGROUND
A. BLNR proceedings
1. Conservation District Use Application and Permit
On September 2, 2010, UHH submitted to the Department
of Land and Natural Resources a Conservation District Use
Application (CDUA) for the TMT. UHH submitted the application on
behalf of TMT Observatory Corporation, a private non-profit
corporation, which proposed the TMT in partnership with the
University of California, the California Institute of Technology,
and the Association of Canadian Universities for Research in
Astronomy; the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan was
2
Appellants also argue that their due process rights under the
United States Constitution have been violated, that BLNR’s findings and
conclusions did not satisfy HAR § 13-5-30(c), the permit lacked an adequate
underlying management plan, and BLNR failed to meet its obligations to protect
and preserve customary and traditional Native Hawaiian rights. Due to the
disposition of this case on a threshold issue, this court does not address
Appellants’ additional arguments. See United Pub. Workers, AFSCME Local 646
AFL-CIO v. Hanneman, 106 Hawai#i 359, 360, 105 P.3d 236, 237 (2005) (declining
to address other issues where appeal disposed on a preliminary issue).
6
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
noted to be a “collaborator and potential partner,” and the
National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of
Sciences and India’s Department of Science and Technology were
noted to be “observers and potential partners.”
The application proposed an astronomy observatory and
ancillary facilities and access roads on a site of roughly five
acres on the upper slopes of Mauna Kea. The proposed site was
within the astronomy precinct of the Mauna Kea Science Reserve,
which is within the Conservation District Resource subzone. The
CDUA stated that as of mid-2010, thirteen astronomical facilities
were operational on Mauna Kea. It explained that observatories
were attracted to Mauna Kea “principally because of the superb
viewing conditions that its high-altitude/mid-oceanic location
provides,” and noted the “intellectual and physical support
infrastructure that has developed around the [astronomy]
complex.” The CDUA added that these factors “have helped Hawai#i
become one of the most important centers for astronomical
research in the world.”
The proposed observatory consisted of a telescope
thirty meters in diameter, attached instruments to record data,
an enclosing dome, an attached building to house support and
maintenance facilities, and parking. The CDUA also proposed a
TMT Access Way, consisting of an improved road and underground
7
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
utilities improvements to connect the TMT with other existing
roads and utilities, and temporary use of an existing four-acre
staging area for materials during construction. The CDUA also
proposed to upgrade existing underground electrical wiring,
electrical transformers, and related equipment within a nearby
substation.
On December 2 and 3, 2010, BLNR held public hearings on
the CDUA in Hilo and Kailua-Kona, respectively. Approximately
200 individuals attended the hearings, 84 of whom testified, and
a number of individuals and groups provided written comments
before and after these hearings. A range of opinions were
expressed in support of and against the CDUA, and at least 6
individuals or groups requested a contested case hearing
verbally, in writing, or both.
In the weeks that followed, Samuel Lemmo, Administrator
of the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, and Michael
Cain, Staff Planner for the Office of Conservation and Coastal
Lands, completed a staff report for BLNR that summarized the CDUA
and public comments, including the requests for a contested case
hearing, and recommended that BLNR approve the CDUA and issue a
Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP). The staff report also
recommended twenty-one conditions for the permit. Other than
noting that requests for a contested case hearing had been
8
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
received, Lemmo and Cain did not at that time recommend that BLNR
hold a contested case hearing.
On February 17, 2011, BLNR advised UHH, Mauna Kea
Anaina Hou, Deborah Ward (Chairperson of Sierra Club, Hawai#i
Chapter), Miwa Tamanaha (Executive Director of KAHEA), Fred D.
Stone, and Clarence Kukauakahi Ching that BLNR would “consider”
the application at its regularly-scheduled meeting on
February 25, 2011, and would also consider
a request for decision-making by the Board (a) on its
own motion hold [sic] a contested case hearing or
grant requests by Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Fred Stone,
KAHEA Environmental Alliance, Kukauakahi (Clarence
Ching), and Sierra Club for a contested case hearing,
and (b) appoint a hearings officer and delegate to the
Chairperson the authority to select said hearings
officer to conduct all hearings for one (1) contested
case hearing.
On February 25, 2011, BLNR’s Chair began BLNR’s
regularly-scheduled public board meeting by asking members of the
public to limit their testimonies to no more than five minutes
each.
Lemmo then gave a presentation explaining the
recommendation for approval of the application and issuance of a
permit. A summary of that presentation, as reflected in the
meeting minutes, spans nearly five pages single-spaced. He
verbally supplemented the staff report with several additional
recommended conditions, including the condition that: “If a
9
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
contested case proceeding is initiated no construction shall
occur until a final decision is rendered by the Board in favor of
the applicant or the proceeding is otherwise dismissed.”
After Lemmo spoke, forty-one individuals testified
either for or against the application, which included several
more requests for a contested case hearing and objections to BLNR
issuing a permit before holding a contested case hearing. For
example, Marti Townsend, Program Director of KAHEA: The Hawaiian
Environmental Alliance (KAHEA), testified to her belief that
before a contested case hearing was held, BLNR could only “defer
or deny” issuance of a permit:
She referred to written testimony she submitted
earlier pointing out a diagram that explains how the
contested case process is supposed to work. There is
no arrow from the Board making the decision to
contested case decision and back and that’s because
the contested case hearing process is not a motion for
reconsideration. It’s not saying hey Board you made a
mistake and you need to consider this information and
re-vote. It’s a process for you to collect
information because in these kinds of meetings we only
have five minutes to speak we don’t get to cross
examine witnesses. The actual facts don’t get to you,
at least not in the way that it should so you can make
an informed decision. Today your only options for
decision making are to defer the permit until the
completion of the contested case or to deny the
permit.
Clarence Kukauakahi Ching stated that “BLNR is not
ready to grant an unconditional CDUP at this time and shouldn’t
be. A conditional CDUP might work in the interim.”
Kealoha Pisciotta, President of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou,
10
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
explained to BLNR:
[W]e’ve asked for a contested case hearing . . . .
The procedural problem here is that a contested case
hearing has to go before a permit approval. . . .
[T]he reason is because contested case hearings is
[sic] to make sure citizens like us that don’t have
standing don’t have to go into court. The contested
case hearing is a process whereby you’re allowed to
present facts and information to the decision makers
(the Board) via the hearing process so you can make an
informed decision. But, if you make your decision
before like if it is approved today then you grant the
contested case hearing. [sic] There is no point
. . . . What I am asking you guys is to consider that
we don’t put process “B” before process “A”? It is
equivalent to a Judge ruling before he has the
evidence so I don’t know why it’s gone on like this,
but we’ve had this problem before. . . .
Jonathan Osorio, a University of Hawai#i at Mânoa
Professor of Hawaiian Studies and board member of KAHEA, also
objected to issuing a permit before a contested case hearing.
Professor Osorio explained that although he was not a religious
practitioner, he was deeply concerned as a historian of how
telescopes have “proliferated” on Mauna Kea, and was also
concerned by what he believed was an insufficient amount of
revenues received from this type of project. Professor Osorio
compared BLNR to konohiki3 and ali#i,4 who were faced with
decisions to allocate resources, including “how they were used to
3
Konohiki is defined as “Headman of an ahupua#a land division under
the chief[.]” Mary Kawena Pukui & Samuel H. Elbert, Hawaiian Dictionary 166
(rev. ed. 1986).
4
Ali#i is defined as “Chief, chiefess, officer, ruler, monarch,
peer, headman, noble, aristocrat, king, queen, commander[.]” Pukui & Elbert,
Hawaiian Dictionary, at 20.
11
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
develop.” He cautioned:
You have a difficult decision to make here. It may
very well be that what we need to do is look at this
and give a contested case hearing a chance to present
more information, more facts and more people having
access to give these kinds of testimonies before you
can make a decision. We definitely do not believe
that you should make a decision today.
BLNR member Robert Pacheco asked Lemmo to respond to
these comments that a contested case hearing must occur before
BLNR decided. Lemmo responded:
[W]e have old rules Chapter 13-1, Rules of Practice
and Procedure which have a section on the conduct of
the contested case hearings. Under these old rules
which are no longer in effect and have been replaced,
an entity could ask for a contested case hearing at
the required public hearing for the project which
occurred long before this came before this body. The
practice had developed of having a contested case when
somebody asked for a contested case at the public
hearing for the CDUP which is long before a decision
is made. The rules were changed about five or six
years ago which essentially seemed to now allow the
Board to make a decision even with a pending request
for a contested case hearing before you. Should a
contested case hearing be required or held after that
you go through that process and it would come back to
you (the Board) again and you would rule on that.
BLNR then voted unanimously to approve the application
and issue a permit. BLNR adopted the conditions recommended in
the staff report and the additional conditions that Lemmo
recommended at the meeting, including the condition that, “If a
contested case proceeding is initiated, no construction shall
occur until a final decision is rendered by the Board in favor of
the applicant or the proceeding is otherwise dismissed.”
Pisciotta then asked whether, in the event a contested
12
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
case hearing occurred and the hearing officer disagreed with
issuance of the permit, BLNR would “rescind the permit that they
just approved[,]” and questioned how BLNR would prevent
construction. BLNR minutes reflect the following response:
Chair Aila said that with regards to the
[construction] one of the conditions of the CDUP that
they just approved is that no construction can begin
until the contested case hearing is adjudicated. Mr.
Lemmo said final decision making has been made. Chair
Aila said there are no bulldozers up there. There is
a difference of opinion on how those rules are
applied. Ms. Pisciotta agreed which will be figured
out by the court. Still the purpose is to allow the
decision makers to make an informed decision and you
can’t make an informed decision unless you have all
the information at hand that is why we are suppose
[sic] to have contested hearings before we have
decision making because a contested case hearing is
not a motion for reconsideration. Member Pacheco said
this body makes decisions all the time that can go
into contested case hearing and comes back to us right
away.
(Emphasis added).
Subsequently, at this same meeting, BLNR voted
unanimously to hold a contested case hearing.
A few days later, in correspondence dated March 3,
2011, regarding “Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP) HA-
3568,” BLNR formally advised UHH that “on February 25, 2011, the
Board of Land and Natural Resources approved Conservation
District Use Permit (CDUP) HA-3568 for the Thirty Meter Telescope
at the Mauna Kea Science Reserve,” subject to conditions. BLNR
included the same conditions that were approved at the
February 25, 2011 meeting.
13
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Pertinent conditions included:
5. Before proceeding with any work authorized by the
Board, the applicant shall submit four copies of the
construction and grading plans and specifications to
the Chairperson or his authorized representative for
approval for consistency with the conditions of the
permit and the declarations set forth in the permit
application. Three of the copies will be returned to
the applicant. Plan approval by the Chairperson does
not constitute approval required from other agencies;
6. All representations relative to mitigation set
forth in the Environmental Impact Statement and
Conservation District Use Application are incorporated
as conditions of the permit;
7. All mitigation measures and management actions
contained in the Historic Preservation Mitigation
Plan, Construction Plan, Historical & Archaeological
Site Plan, Maintenance Plan, and Anthropod Monitoring
Plan, are incorporated as conditions of this permit;
. . .
9. The TMT Management Plan is approved, including all
specific management actions articulated in the TMT
Management Plan including, Cultural Resources
Management, Natural Resources Management, Education &
Outreach, Astronomical Resources, Permitting and
Enforcement, Infrastructure and Maintenance,
Construction Guidelines, Site Recycling,
Decommissioning, Demolition & Restoration, Future Land
Uses, and Monitoring, Evaluation & Updates. These
management actions and their associated mitigation
measures are incorporated as conditions of this
permit;
10. The following additional conditions shall be
implemented by OMKM and TMT:
. . .
C Working with OMKM to develop and implement a
habitat restoration study;
. . .
C Providing $1 million annually, adjusted for
inflation, for “Community Benefits Package”
which will commence with construction and
continue through the term of the sublease. The
package will be administered via The Hawai#i
Island New Knowledge (THINK) Fund Board of
Advisors; and
C Partnering with other institutions to implement
a Workforce Pipeline Program, headed by at least
one full-time position through the Community
Outreach office, to prepare local residents for
jobs in science, engineering, and technical
fields;
. . .
C The applicant will present a plan for handling
14
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
recreational parking during construction to the
OCCL for review and approval prior to beginning
construction;
. . .
C The Archaeological Monitoring Plan will be
submitted to the State Historic Preservation
Division for review and approval prior to the
onset of construction;
. . .
15. The applicant understands and agrees that this
permit does not convey any vested rights or exclusive
privilege;
16. In issuing this permit, the Department and Board
have relied on the information and data that the
applicant has provided in connection with this permit
application. If, subsequent to the issuance of this
permit, such information and data prove to be false,
incomplete or inaccurate, this permit may be modified,
suspended or revoked, in whole or in part, and/or the
Department may, in addition, institute appropriate
legal proceedings;
. . .
20. No construction work shall be initiated until the
applicant demonstrates compliance with all pre-
construction conditions and mitigation measures
outlined in this report. Once this condition has been
satisfied, the Department will issue notice to proceed
with construction;
21. If a contested case proceeding is initiated, no
construction shall occur until a final decision is
rendered by the Board in favor of the applicant or the
proceeding is otherwise dismissed;
. . .
25. Failure to comply with any of these conditions
shall render this Conservation District Use Permit
null and void.
This correspondence further asked UHH to acknowledge
receipt of “this approval,” and advised that BLNR had decided to
hold a contested case hearing.
2. Contested Case Hearing
Beginning in August 2011, a hearing officer appointed
by BLNR’s Chair presided over a contested case hearing, during
which voluminous written direct testimony was admitted, and
15
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
twenty-six witnesses, under oath, testified and were cross-
examined. The following is a brief summary of the issues raised
by the evidence and arguments presented.
Perry White, the principal author of UHH’s application,
testified that in crafting the application, he relied upon the
final environmental impact statement (FEIS) that had been
approved by the Governor in 2010 and the Mauna Kea Comprehensive
Management Plan and its four sub-plans, the Natural Resources
Management Plan, the Cultural Resources Management Plan, the
Decommissioning Plan, and the Public Access Plan. White further
testified to the reasons he believed that TMT satisfied HAR §
13-5-30(c),5 which contains criteria for BLNR’s approval of a
5
HAR § 13-5-30(c) provides:
In evaluating the merits of a proposed land use, the
department or board shall apply the following
criteria:
(1) The proposed land use is consistent with the
purpose of the conservation district;
(2) The proposed land use is consistent with the
objectives of the subzone of the land on which the use
will occur;
(3) The proposed land use complies with provisions and
guidelines contained in chapter 205A, HRS, entitled
“Coastal Zone Management”, where applicable;
(4) The proposed land use will not cause substantial
adverse impact to existing natural resources within
the surrounding area, community, or region;
(5) The proposed land use, including buildings,
structures, and facilities, shall be compatible with
the locality and surrounding areas, appropriate to the
physical conditions and capabilities of the specific
parcel or parcels;
(6) The existing physical and environmental aspects of
the land, such as natural beauty and open space
(continued...)
16
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
permit, and in particular, how he believed that the TMT project
would not cause “substantial adverse impact.” White also
testified regarding future decommissioning of Mauna Kea
observatories, including TMT.
Dr. Gary Sanders, the TMT Project Manager, testified
that TMT’s design was developed in consultation with the Office
of Mauna Kea Management. He testified extensively regarding
measures intended to mitigate the impact of TMT, including a
reflective exterior dome that fit tightly around the telescope to
minimize visual impact. Dr. Sanders also testified that TMT was
designed for a service lifetime of fifty years, while
acknowledging that UH’s lease of the land from the State expired
in 2033. Dr. Sanders also responded to questions regarding
whether TMT would cause a permanent alteration or disturbance to
the natural landscape at the TMT site, acknowledging that “there
will likely be some permanent alteration.”
James Hayes, of an engineering firm contracted to
prepare the FEIS, testified regarding the anticipated visual
5
(...continued)
characteristics, will be preserved or improved upon,
whichever is applicable;
(7) Subdivision of land will not be utilized to
increase the intensity of land uses in the
conservation district; and
(8) The proposed land use will not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
17
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
impact, level of “cumulative impact” in light of existing
telescopes on Mauna Kea, and several mitigation measures
incorporated in the design of TMT. More specifically, Hayes
testified that TMT would add only a “limited increment to the
level of cumulative impact that currently exists on Mauna Kea,
but it will not tip the balance of any assessed impact from a
level that is currently less than significant to a significant
level.” Indeed, the FEIS stated, “From a cumulative perspective,
the impact of past and present actions on cultural,
archaeological, and historic resources is substantial,
significant, and adverse; these impacts would continue to be
substantial, significant, and adverse with . . . [TMT] and other
reasonably foreseeable actions.” Hayes further testified that
placing TMT on a recycled telescope site was considered but
ultimately deemed “not feasible.”
Wallace Ishibashi, Jr., a member of the Kealoha
Poli#ahu family, a lineage traditionally recognized as
descendants of Poli#ahu, a snow goddess of Mauna Kea, testified
that upon asking Poli#ahu whether TMT was “compatible with the
sacred landscape,” he was informed that “it was okay.”
Ishibashi further testified in writing that due to his experience
learning from navigator Nainoa Thompson and from his grandfather
about the stars and the moon and the importance of the study of
18
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
the heavens to ancient Hawaiians, he supported the TMT because he
believed that it would help his grandchildren “learn more about
ourselves, our God, and what’s out there beyond the stars that we
can see with only our eyes.” He compared TMT’s advanced search
for knowledge and understanding to a search for the aumakua or
ancestral origins of the universe, and expressed disagreement
with those who “oppose[d] things like the TMT on Mauna Kea just
because it’s a modern thing, as Hawaiians have always been a
creative and adaptive people.”
Kealoha Pisciotta explained in her opening statement
that in Native Hawaiian cosmology, Mauna Kea is an origins place.
“[I]t’s where the heaven and the earth come together, where all
life forms originated from. . . . It is a temple, but one not
made by man but for man, so that man could learn the ways of the
heavens and the laws of this earth, which mean how do we live
with each other; how do we live in relationship to the earth; how
do we live in relationship to the heaven.”
Dr. J. Kehaulani Kauanui, a Professor of Anthropology
and American Studies at Wesleyan University, testified that
telescope development on Mauna Kea had “proliferate[d]” beyond
levels anticipated in the general lease from the State and the
1983 Master Plan for Mauna Kea. Professor Kauanui added that TMT
constituted 21st century colonialism, and that observatories on
19
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Mauna Kea “literally supplant our indigenous temple of worship,”
and are a “desecration.”
Marti Townsend, Program Director of KAHEA: The Hawaiian
Environmental Alliance, testified that TMT would negatively
affect the viewplanes of cultural practitioners, and that
telescopes on Mauna Kea negatively affected cultural practices
and the environment. Townsend further testified that the
mitigation measures proposed did not address “substantial adverse
impacts” identified in the FEIS and CDUA because the majority of
the measures were only indirect, speculative, and beneficial to
“particular groups.”
In closing, Appellants and UHH presented arguments,
among other things, regarding whether Appellants’ due process
rights had been violated. Pisciotta argued:
I have to note here that in this case BLNR approved
the TMT CDUA prior to conducting a contested case
hearing, which we believe violated our due process
rights, potentially shifting the burden of proof, and
thereby forcing us to have to change BLNR’s mind,
rather than BLNR listening with an open mind to hear
all evidence.
UHH responded as follows:
Let me start with the claim that somehow the
Applicant has relied on the approval of the CDUA for
the CDUP for the permit in February. Again, we never
relied on that. In fact, we agreed–-we accepted the
condition where there would be no action taken on it.
In fact, we never raised that as an issue in terms of
certain things that we accepted.
And we didn’t shift–-the burden of proof did not
shift. The University agreed and has continued to
agree to accept the burden of proof of the eight
20
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
criteria for the issuance of a CDUP which we believe
the record has clearly shown, and the evidence that
was submitted clearly supports the issuance of a CDUP.
On November 30, 2012, the hearing officer issued his
124-page findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and
order, which stated that “the CDUA is GRANTED, and a Conservation
District Use Permit is issued,” subject to conditions. Other
than omission of the condition that if a contested case hearing
be held, then construction shall be stayed, all conditions in the
hearing officer’s order were virtually the same as those in
BLNR’s March 3, 2011 letter nearly twenty-one months earlier. As
germane to the issue before this court, the hearing officer
concluded that BLNR’s approval of the permit prior to the
contested case hearing was consistent with HAR § 13-1-28(b)
(2009).6 Appellants objected to this and other findings and
conclusions before BLNR. Voluminous briefings were filed and
BLNR held a hearing.
On April 12, 2013, BLNR issued its 126-page findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order (BLNR’s
FOFs/COLs/D&O), stating that “the CDUA is GRANTED, and a
Conservation District Use Permit is issued,” subject to
conditions. In appearance and substance, BLNR’s FOFs/COLs/D&O is
6
HAR § 13-1-28(b) provides: “The contested case hearing shall be
held after any public hearing which by law is required to be held on the same
subject matter.”
21
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
substantially the same as the hearing officer’s findings,
conclusions, and decision and order.
BLNR addressed Appellants’ procedural argument by
characterizing the February 25, 2011 decision as a “preliminary
ruling” that complied with the Department of Land and Natural
Resources’ (DLNR) Rules of Practice and Procedure, including HAR
§ 13-1-28(b). BLNR concluded that there was no due process
violation because (1) the February 25, 2011 meeting was a
“preliminary approval” and not a “final agency action,” (2) the
“preliminary approval” was conditioned upon the outcome of the
contested case hearing and thus gave Appellants an opportunity to
be heard, and (3) the prescribed sequence in the procedural rule
was followed because public hearings preceded the contested case
hearing:
[COL] 225. In a preliminary ruling by the BLNR, the
CDUP was granted and the following condition was
simultaneously imposed by the BLNR: “If a contested
case proceeding is initiated, no construction shall
occur until a final decision is rendered by the Board
in favor of the applicant or the proceeding is
otherwise dismissed.” Immediately thereafter, on its
own motion, the BLNR voted to direct that a contested
case be held, and provided a date for interested
parties to petition to participate in the contested
case. The condition quoted above is formalized as
Condition 21 in the BLNR’s March 3, 2011 letter to the
University. Thus, the BLNR retained responsibility to
review and accept, reject, or modify the Hearing
Officer’s proposed findings and conditions. By
immediately ordering that a contested case be held and
prohibiting construction until, if ever, it rendered
its “final decision” in favor of the applicant
following the conclusion of the contested case
proceeding, the BLNR demonstrated that its February
25, 2011 vote and subsequent March 3, 2011 letter
22
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
constituted a preliminary ruling and did not reflect
any final agency action.
. . .
[COL] 228. In their brief in the contested case
proceeding, [Appellants] did not argue that the
contested case hearing should have been held before
the BLNR voted on the CDUA. They did, however,
mention that issue, at least in passing, during
closing arguments. [Appellants’] position is not
supported by the DLNR’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, which specifically provide for a contested
case hearing to occur after the public hearing on the
matter, and not before. Thus, Haw. Admin. R. § 13-1-
28(b) states: “The contested case hearing shall be
held after any public hearing which by law is required
to be held on the same subject matter.” (Emphasis
added [sic].)[7] The order of proceedings here
complied with that rule.
[COL] 229. In any event, [Appellants] cannot
plausibly claim that they have been deprived of due
process or, indeed, that they have suffered any harm
at all by the order of proceedings. The condition
imposed by the BLNR and quoted above mandated that no
work be done on the TMT Project until the contested
case has concluded and the BLNR has finally resolved
the matter in UHH’s favor. That condition has been
honored. The Hearing Officer was promptly appointed,
and the contested case was held in due course. The
Project remains in abeyance pending the outcome of
this process. The BLNR must still vote on this
matter. The BLNR has at all times retained the
authority to review and accept, reject, or modify the
Hearing Officer’s proposed findings and conclusions,
and until the BLNR has voted again, there has been no
final agency action on this application. For all
practical purposes, [Appellants] are exactly where
they would have been if the process had not followed
the BLNR’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, but
instead had occurred in the manner they desired.
(Internal exhibit citation omitted).
B. Appeal and secondary appeal
Appellants appealed BLNR’s FOFs/COLs/D&O to the circuit
court, continuing to argue that BLNR’s approval of the CDUA and
7
This portion of BLNR’s FOFs/COLs/D&O contains no emphasis.
23
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
issuance of the CDUP before a contested case hearing was
inconsistent with Appellants’ rights to due process and pertinent
statutes and rules.
On May 5, 2014, the circuit court entered a decision
and order affirming BLNR’s FOFs/COLs/D&O, and entered final
judgment.8 The circuit court reasoned that “BLNR granted a
contested case hearing essentially simultaneously with the
preliminary grant of the CDUP[,]” and that the 2011 “preliminary
grant” “depended upon a final grant of the permit after a
contested case hearing.” In addition, the circuit court reasoned
that the “preliminary grant” in 2011 “did not have such a legal
consequence” that a contested case hearing was required to have
preceded it, and Appellants were not prejudiced because a
contested case hearing was held and construction had been stayed.
Appellants appealed and sought transfer to this court, which we
granted.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In this secondary appeal, this court applies the
standards of HRS § 91-14(g) to determine whether the circuit
court decision was right or wrong. Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa
Temple of Hawai#i v. Sullivan, 87 Hawai#i 217, 229, 953 P.3d 1315,
8
The Honorable Greg K. Nakamura presided.
24
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
1327 (1998). HRS § 91-14(g) (Supp. 2015) provides:
Upon review of the record the court may affirm the
decision of the agency or remand the case with
instructions for further proceedings; or it may
reverse or modify the decision and order if the
substantial rights of the petitioners may have been
prejudiced because the administrative findings,
conclusions, decisions, or orders are:
(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory
provisions; or
(2) In excess of the statutory authority or
jurisdiction of the agency; or
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or
(4) Affected by other error of law; or
(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence on the whole
record; or
(6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by
abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of
discretion.
Further, “[u]nder HRS § 91–14(g), conclusions of law
are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions
regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3);
findings of fact are reviewable under subsection (5); and an
agency’s exercise of discretion is reviewable under subsection
(6).” Bragg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 81 Hawai#i 302,
305, 916 P.2d 1203, 1206 (1996).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Due process of law
The Hawai#i Constitution provides, “No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law
. . . .” Haw. Const. art. I, § 5. Due process “calls for such
procedural protections as the particular situation demands.”
25
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Sandy Beach Def. Fund, 70 Haw. at 378, 773 P.2d at 261 (citations
and internal quotations omitted). The requirements of due
process are flexible and depend on many factors, but “there are
certain fundamentals of just procedure which are the same for
every type of tribunal and every type of proceeding[,]” including
those before administrative agencies. Sifagaloa, 74 Haw. at 189,
840 P.2d at 371 (quoting Sussel v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu Civil
Serv. Comm’n, 71 Haw. 101, 107, 784 P.2d 867, 870 (1989)).
The basic elements of procedural due process are notice
and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a
meaningful manner. Sandy Beach Def. Fund, 70 Haw. at 378, 773
P.2d at 261; In re Guardianship of Carlsmith, 113 Hawai#i 236,
240, 151 P.3d 717, 721 (2007) (due process “afford[s] [interested
parties] an opportunity to present their objections”). However,
while “a fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of
due process,” Sifagaloa, 74 Haw. at 189, 840 P.2d at 371 (quoting
Murchison, 349 U.S. at 136 (internal quotation marks omitted)),
giving a person “a day in court” does not alone mean that a
process is fair, State v. Brown, 70 Haw. 459, 463, 776 P.2d 1182,
1185 (1989).
Fundamentally, in the justice system, “justice can
perform its high function in the best way only if it satisfies
the appearance of justice.” Sifagaloa, 74 Haw. at 189, 840 P.2d
26
 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
at 371 (quoting Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954))
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted; emphasis added).
In the administration of justice by a court of law, no
principle is better recognized as absolutely essential
than that every case, be it criminal or civil, and the
parties involved therein are entitled to the “cold
neutrality of an impartial judge.” . . . In the words
of Mr. Justice Cardozo, . . . “But justice, though due
to the accused, is due to the accuser also. The
concept of fairness must not be strained till it is
narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance
true.”
Peters v. Jamieson, 48 Haw. 247, 262-63, 397 P.2d 575, 585 (1964)
(quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 122 (1934)).
This means that the manner in which the justice system
operates must be fair and must also appear to be fair.
Sifagaloa, 74 Haw. at 190, 840 P.2d at 371 (“[J]ustice must not
only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done[.]”)
(quotations omitted). Indeed, this “stringent rule may sometimes
bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do
their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between
contending parties.” Murchison, 349 U.S. at 136. These
principles of the justice system--mandated by the United States
and Hawai#i Constitutions, statutes, administrative rules, and
decisions by the courts--are manifested in procedural
protections.
In an adjudicatory proceeding before an administrative
agency, due process of law generally prohibits decisionmakers
27
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
from being biased, and more specifically, prohibits
decisionmakers from prejudging matters and the appearance of
having prejudged matters. See Sussel, 71 Haw. at 109, 784 P.2d
at 871 (concluding that where an adjudicator’s actions while
presiding over a matter gave rise to an appearance of
impropriety, the circuit court erred in not enjoining the
adjudicator from deciding the case); Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S.
35, 47 (1975) (“Not only is a biased decisionmaker
constitutionally unacceptable, but ‘our system of law has always
endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.’”)
(quoting Murchison, 349 U.S. at 136); see also Cinderella Career
& Finishing Schs., Inc. v. FTC, 425 F.2d 583, 591 (D.C. Cir.
1970) (holding that the standard for evaluating the existence of
improper prejudgment in an adjudicative context is whether “a
disinterested observer may conclude that (the agency) has in some
measure adjudged the facts as well as the law of a particular
case in advance of hearing it”).9
“Indeed, if there exists any reasonable doubt about the
adjudicator’s impartiality at the outset of a case, provision of
the most elaborate procedural safeguards will not avail to create
9
UHH argues that the Cinderella standard is “obsolete and generally
rejected.” As explained in Section C, UHH is incorrect. The Cinderella
standard continues to be widely accepted across the country, and moreover, is
consistent with Hawai#i Supreme Court decisions.
28
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
[an] appearance of justice.” Sussel, 71 Haw. at 108, 784 P.2d at
870 (quoting M. Redish & L. Marshall, Adjudicatory Independence
and the Values of Procedural Due Process, 95 Yale L.J. 455, 483-
84 (1986)); see Sifagaloa, 74 Haw. at 190, 840 P.2d at 371
(same); see also Cinderella, 425 F.2d at 590 (disapproving of
circumstances “which give the appearance that [a decisionmaker]
has already prejudged the case and that the ultimate
determination of the merits will move in predestined grooves”).
It is abundantly clear that “[f]ew situations more severely
threaten trust in the judicial process than the perception that a
litigant never had a chance” due to “some identifiable potential
bias.” Redish & Marshall, Adjudicatory Independence, 95 Yale
L.J. at 483 (emphasis in original); see Williams-Yulee v. Florida
Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656, 1666 (2015) (stating that “public perception
of judicial integrity” is a governmental interest of “the highest
order”) (quotations omitted).
Thus, this court must determine whether Appellants were
given an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a
meaningful manner when--despite their pending requests for a
contested case hearing and specific requests to not issue a
permit before such hearing--BLNR issued the permit before
resolving those requests and conducting a contested case hearing.
“A contested case is an agency hearing that 1) is
29
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
required by law and 2) determines the rights, duties, or
privileges of specific parties.” Pele Def. Fund v. Puna
Geothermal Venture, 77 Hawai#i 64, 67, 881 P.2d 1210, 1213
(1994); see HRS § 91-1(5). An agency hearing that is required by
law “may be required by (1) agency rule, (2) statute, or (3)
constitutional due process.” Kaniakapupu v. Land Use Comm’n, 111
Hawai#i 124, 132, 139 P.3d 712, 720 (2006).
It is undisputed that Appellants were entitled to a
contested case hearing. BLNR recognized as much when it voted
unanimously to hold a contested case hearing after approving the
permit. Indeed, a contested case hearing was required as a
matter of constitutional due process. The right to exercise
Native Hawaiian customs and traditions is explicitly protected by
article XII, section 7 of the Hawai#i Constitution:
The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights,
customarily and traditionally exercised for
subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and
possessed by ahupua#a tenants who are descendants of
native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands
prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to
regulate such rights.
Appellants have argued throughout this case that the
project will have significant negative effects on their Native
Hawaiian cultural practices on Mauna Kea. For example, Appellant
Neves testified that “[TMT] development in my sacred temple of
religious practice will seriously interfere with my ability to
30
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
adore Mauna Kea.” And in a jointly submitted letter, Appellant
Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Appellant Clarence Kukauakahi Ching, The
Royal Order of Kamehameha, and Sierra Club wrote, “Mauna Kea is
considered the Temple of the Supreme Being[,] the home of Na Akua
(the Divine Deities), Na #Aumakua (the Divine Ancestors), and the
meeting place of Papa (Earth Mother) and Wakea (sky Father).”
Given the substantial interests of Native Hawaiians in
pursuing their cultural practices on Mauna Kea, the risk of an
erroneous deprivation absent the protections provided by a
contested case hearing, and the lack of undue burden on the
government in affording Appellants a contested case hearing, a
contested case hearing was “required by law” regardless of
whether BLNR had voted to approve one on its own motion at the
February 25, 2011 meeting.10 See Sandy Beach Def. Fund, 70 Haw.
at 378, 773 P.2d at 261.
Once a contested case hearing is mandated, due process
requires that the parties be given a meaningful opportunity to be
heard. See Application of Hawai#i Elec. Light Co., 67 Haw. 425,
430, 690 P.2d 274, 278 (1984). In this case, BLNR’s decision to
vote on the permit prior to the contested case hearing denied
Appellants a meaningful opportunity to be heard in both reality
10
Moreover, Appellees never disputed Appellants’ standing to assert
article XII, section 7 rights and to file this appeal.
31
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
and appearance.
A contested case hearing affords parties extensive
procedural protections similar to those afforded parties in a
civil bench trial before a judge. These protections include the
opportunity to issue subpoenas for witnesses to testify under
oath or produce documents, to cross-examine witnesses under oath,
and to present evidence by submitting documents and testimony
under oath in support of their positions. See HAR §§ 13-1-32(c),
(g); 13-1-33(a), (b); 13-1-35. Moreover, a contested case
hearing affords parties the opportunity to obtain and utilize the
assistance of counsel, comment on how a site visit by the hearing
officer should be conducted, review the written decision of the
hearing officer, and challenge the hearing officer’s decision
both in writing and verbally at a hearing before BLNR.
These procedures are designed to ensure that the record
is fully developed and subjected to adversarial testing before a
decision is made. Yet that purpose is frustrated if, as was the
case here, the decisionmaker rules on the merits before the
factual record is even developed. Such a process does not
satisfy the appearance of justice, since it suggests that the
taking of evidence is an afterthought and that proceedings were
merely “mov[ing] in predestined grooves.” Cinderella, 425 F.2d
at 590; see Sandy Beach Def. Fund, 70 Haw. at 378, 773 P.2d at
32
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
261. In this case, the procedural protections that were afforded
during the contested case process simply cannot remedy the fact
that the decisionmaker appeared to have already decided and
prejudged the matter at the outset. Decisionmakers cannot decide
matters on the merits before taking evidence.
Such a process threatens the reality of justice as
well. As well-intentioned as the hearing officer may be, he or
she knows BLNR’s position on the permit before the first witness
is sworn in. See Murchison, 349 U.S. at 136 (explaining that the
“stringent rule [to avoid the appearance of prejudgment] may
sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who
would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally
between contending parties”). BLNR members were of course aware
of the prior vote when the hearing officer’s recommendation came
before them.
BLNR’s procedure in this case was also inconsistent
with the statutory definition of a contested case hearing. HRS
§ 91-1(5) defines a contested case as “a proceeding in which the
legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are
required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency
hearing.” (Emphasis added). Plainly, BLNR should not have voted
on the permit when it did.
In sum, BLNR put the cart before the horse when it
33
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
approved the permit before the contested case hearing was held.
Once the permit was granted, Appellants were denied the most
basic element of procedural due process–-an opportunity to be
heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Our
Constitution demands more.
B. BLNR’s February 25, 2011 decision was a determination on the
merits
BLNR and UHH argue that the February 25, 2011 vote was
merely preliminary and tentative pending a contested case hearing
and repeat vote by BLNR. To be clear, BLNR’s approval of the
permit-–“preliminary” or not-–before the contested case hearing
was held violated Hawaii’s constitutional guarantee of due
process. Regardless, the record indicates that BLNR issued a
permit on that day that was operative and determined UHH’s rights
and responsibilities, although with some aspects stayed pending
further action.
BLNR’s letter to UHH on March 3, 2011 stated that “on
February 25, 2011, the Board of Land and Natural Resources
approved Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP) HA-3568 for the
Thirty Meter Telescope at the Mauna Kea Science Reserve,” subject
to conditions. The permit contained 25 conditions for TMT, and
Condition 10 contained 18 bullet points of apparent sub-
conditions. As noted below, many of the conditions denominated
34
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
the permit as “the” permit, and not merely a “preliminary”
permit. Specifically, conditions stated: that representations
in the environmental impact statement and CDUA “are incorporated
as conditions of the permit[,]” (Condition 6); mitigation
measures and management actions contained in other plans
submitted with the CDUA “are incorporated as conditions of this
permit[,]” (Condition 7); the TMT Management Plan, which was
submitted with the CDUA, “is approved,” and it and related plans
“are incorporated as conditions of this permit[,]” (Condition 9);
UHH understood and agreed that “this permit” did not convey
vested rights[,] (Condition 15); “[i]n issuing this permit,” DLNR
and BLNR relied upon the CDUA, and “[i]f, subsequent to the
issuance of this permit, such information and data prove to be
false, incomplete or inaccurate, this permit may be modified . .
. .[,]” (Condition 16); and failure to comply with “any of these
conditions shall render this Conservation District Use Permit
null and void[,]” (Condition 25). Thus, “the permit” was
effective as of February 25, 2011, and contained conditions that
detailed when and how the permit holder could act. Quite simply,
“the permit” was issued as of that date.
BLNR and UHH argue that despite the 2011 permit’s
repeated statement that it is “the permit,” the 2011 permit was
only preliminary because construction was stayed pursuant to the
35
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
condition that, “If a contested case proceeding is initiated, no
construction shall occur until a final decision is rendered by
the Board in favor of the applicant or the proceeding is
otherwise dismissed[,]” (Condition 21). However, construction
was stayed due to a number of conditions, not only Condition 21.
Specifically, various conditions explained that construction
could not begin immediately because: UHH was required to submit
construction and grading plans and specifications for approval
and consistency with the “conditions of the permit and the
declarations set forth in the permit application[,]” (Condition
5); UHH needed to submit for review and approval plans for
handling recreational parking during construction and monitoring
archaeological sites[,] (Condition 10); and UHH was required to
“demonstrate[] compliance with all pre-construction conditions
and mitigation measures outlined in this report. Once this
condition has been satisfied, the Department will issue notice to
proceed with construction[,]” (Condition 20). Indeed, these
conditions preventing immediate construction in 2011 were
repeated in the document that UHH and BLNR characterize as the
operable permit--BLNR’s FOFs/COLs/D&O in 2013. Thus, a stay on
construction beginning immediately did not render the 2011 permit
anything less than an operative permit that was issued on the
merits of the CDUA.
36
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Further, at least one condition--the annual funding for
a community benefits package, (Condition 10)--was to “commence
with construction.” That this condition would commence with
construction also suggests that even without construction, the
application had been approved and a permit had been issued. If
there was no operative permit until construction could begin,
then it would not be reasonable or necessary to explain that
funding the community benefits package need not begin until
construction begins, meanwhile authorizing other aspects to
commence immediately.11
Indeed, the February 2011 permit authorized at least
some aspects of TMT to commence immediately. For example, one
condition stated: “The following additional conditions shall be
implemented by OMKM [the Office of Mauna Kea Management] and TMT:
. . . Working with OMKM to develop and implement a habitat
restoration study; . . . Partnering with other institutions to
implement a Workforce Pipeline Program, headed by at least one
full-time position through the Community Outreach office, to
prepare local residents for jobs in science, engineering, and
technical fields[,]” (Condition 10). The permit did not stay
these conditions, which are unrelated to construction. That the
11
It is also notable that in 2011 and 2013 the permit was given the
same number (HA-3568). This further suggests that the 2011 permit was indeed
an operative permit.
37
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
permit authorized aspects of TMT to commence immediately
underscores that the effect and apparent intention of issuing the
permit was a determination on the merits of the CDUA. The
circuit court erred in concluding that the 2011 permit “did not
have such a legal consequence” that a contested case was required
to have preceded it.
Despite the above, BLNR and UHH also contend that the
2011 permit was only preliminary because a few minutes after BLNR
issued the permit, BLNR decided to hold a contested case hearing.
But, simply stated, sequence matters. Here, BLNR issued the
permit despite pending requests for a contested case hearing and
a right to such a hearing under the applicable rules and the
Hawai#i Constitution, and only then decided to hold the hearing.
This sequence plainly gives rise to the appearance of prejudgment
and did not provide Appellants with a meaningful opportunity to
be heard.
Further, the conditions enunciated in BLNR’s
FOFs/COLs/D&O in 2013 are virtually the same as those in the 2011
permit. This similarity is significant because BLNR appears to
suggest that in 2011, BLNR anticipated serious consideration of
evidence presented during the contested case hearing. But the
similarity between the 2011 permit and the 2013 decision gives
the appearance that less than full consideration was given to the
38
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
voluminous legal and factual arguments and materials presented in
the contested case hearing. Such similarity “give[s] the
appearance that [BLNR] ha[d] already prejudged the case and that
the ultimate determination of the merits [had] move[d] in
predestined grooves.” Cinderella, 425 F.2d at 590.
In sum, the 2011 permit was a determination on the
merits, even though Appellants were entitled to a contested case
hearing. This gives rise to an appearance of prejudgment.
C. UHH’s and BLNR’s arguments in defense of issuing the 2011
permit before the contested case hearing was held are
unpersuasive
UHH and BLNR make several arguments in defense of BLNR
issuing the permit before a contested case hearing. However,
none of those arguments are persuasive. Rather, the
circumstances of this case give rise to the reality and
appearance of impropriety, and thereby violate the Due Process
Clause of article I, section 5 of the Hawai#i Constitution.
UHH begins by distinguishing this case from Kilakila #O
Haleakalâ v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res., 131 Hawai#i 193, 317
P.3d 27 (2013). UHH characterizes Kilakila as a case of
“whether, where a formal contested case has been requested, an
agency may nonetheless make a rights-determinative ‘final
decision’ before ruling on the contested case request.” UHH
argues that because BLNR’s 2011 decision was not “final,” i.e.,
39
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
not “final agency action,” Kilakila does not apply to this case.
UHH also suggests that because in the instant case BLNR
“simultaneously” granted a motion to hold a contested case
hearing and issued the permit, this case is distinguishable from
Kilakila, where BLNR did not make a decision on requests for a
contested case hearing until its approval of the CDUA had been
appealed two months later. As explained above, sequence matters.
Here, BLNR issued an operative permit despite pending requests
for a contested case hearing and a right to such a hearing under
the applicable rules and the Hawai#i Constitution, and only then
decided to hold such a hearing. This sequence--whether events
were separated by two minutes or two months--plainly gives rise
to the appearance of prejudgment, and denied Appellants the
opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful
manner.
UHH next argues that because Condition 21 stayed
construction on TMT, this case was unlike Kilakila, where BLNR
approved the CDUA without staying construction. As explained
above, it does not matter whether or not the permit was stayed.
BLNR should not have issued the permit prior to holding a
contested case hearing. Moreover, construction was stayed due to
a number of conditions, and the 2011 permit authorized some
aspects of TMT to commence immediately. A stay on construction
40
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
did not render the 2011 permit anything less than an operative
permit that was issued on the merits.
UHH next argues that Appellant Clarence Kukauakahi
Ching “agreed that BLNR could properly vote and issue a permit”
before a contested case hearing so long as the permit was
conditioned upon construction not proceeding before a contested
case hearing was resolved in favor of UHH and BLNR took a final
vote also in favor of UHH. (Emphasis in original). But this
statement by a private citizen at a public meeting did not
authorize BLNR to act inconsistently with the Hawai#i
Constitution, particularly with regard to the other Appellants.
Relatedly, UHH highlights Appellants’ assertions that
BLNR’s procedural error of issuing the permit before a contested
case hearing “could and should be addressed by the Hearing
Officer in the contested case the BLNR ordered.” (Citing Ex. A-
320 to the contested case hearing, at 11, 21, 31, 42) (Emphasis
omitted). UHH appears to suggest that these assertions
constitute Appellants’ concession that BLNR’s procedural error
could be remedied after-the-fact. But these statements by
Appellants in letters on March 7, 2011, after BLNR had issued the
permit, did not retroactively authorize BLNR to violate
Appellants’ due process rights under the Hawai#i Constitution ten
days earlier.
41
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
UHH also argues that because Appellants made these
statements and participated in the contested case hearing,
Appellants “got what they requested.” This argument misstates
the facts. As described, multiple Appellants strenuously
objected at every opportunity to BLNR issuing the permit before a
contested case hearing because they believed that such sequence
would not allow for adequate and impartial consideration of the
merits. When BLNR did otherwise and issued the permit at the
February 2011 meeting, Appellants continued to challenge that
procedure with letters in March 2011, and in addition,
participated in the contested case hearing on the merits and made
legal arguments to the hearing officer. BLNR’s February 2011
decision effectively forced Appellants to take this approach
after BLNR issued the permit. Accordingly, Appellants’
participation in the contested case hearing does not constitute
consent to suffer the consequences of BLNR’s improper decision in
February 2011, or a waiver of their ability to challenge it
later.
UHH next refers to HRS § 91-14 in support of its
argument that the February 2011 decision was merely
preliminary.12 This statute concerns the scope of courts’
12
HRS § 91-14 provides, in pertinent part:
(continued...)
42
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
jurisdiction for appellate review of specific types of agency
rulings. UHH makes two mistaken characterizations in support of
its argument: first, characterizing the 2011 permit as
“preliminary” as used in this statute, and second, characterizing
Appellants’ position as a direct challenge of the 2011 permit.
Specifically, UHH argues that if the 2011 permit was as
prejudicial as Appellants contend, then it was at least a
“preliminary ruling of the nature that deferral of review . . .
would deprive appellant of adequate relief,” under HRS § 91-14,
so the judicial review that Appellants seek has been waived
because it was not sought “within thirty days after the
preliminary ruling.” See HRS § 91-14(a), (b).
However, UHH’s reliance on this statute is flawed at
the outset because UHH conflates two distinct concepts: the
availability of judicial review at a particular time, and the
12
(...continued)
(a) Any person aggrieved by a final decision and order
in a contested case or by a preliminary ruling of the
nature that deferral of review pending entry of a
subsequent final decision would deprive appellant of
adequate relief is entitled to judicial review thereof
under this chapter; . . . .
(b) Except as otherwise provided herein, proceedings
for review shall be instituted in the circuit court .
. . within thirty days after the preliminary ruling or
within thirty days after service of the certified copy
of the final decision and order of the agency pursuant
to rule of court . . . .
(Emphases added).
43
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
question of whether the procedures followed by BLNR comported
with due process. Essentially, UHH attempts to utilize its
substantive argument as to due process--that the 2011 permit was
only tentative or “preliminary”--to make a procedural argument
regarding the type of preliminary ruling for which a court has
jurisdiction to review BLNR’s actions. These are distinct
concepts, and the way in which UHH relies on HRS § 91-14 is
inapposite to the issue before this court.
UHH’s argument is also flawed because Appellants are
not seeking to set aside the 2011 permit, rather, they are
seeking to set aside BLNR’s FOFs/COLs/D&O in 2013 based on the
process that led to its adoption. UHH’s position would
effectively require a party to a contested case hearing to appeal
whenever a decisionmaker appears to engage in prejudgment of the
matter at issue. Thus, for example, it would appear to require
an immediate appeal where a decisionmaker makes arguably improper
extrajudicial statements about the merits of a case. See, e.g.,
Cinderella, 425 F.2d at 584. Requiring a party to appeal (or
lose the right to do so) based on such indefinite circumstances
would encourage piecemeal appeals, inconsistent with well
established law. See Mitchell v. State Dep’t of Educ., 77
Hawai#i 305, 308, 884 P.2d 368, 371 (1994) (stating that an end
served by the requirement of a requisite degree of finality of
44
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
agency decisions before appellate review is the avoidance of
piecemeal litigation). Here, it was not until after the
contested case hearing did not lead to adequate relief that
judicial review was appropriate.
Moreover, UHH’s argument is not supported by a plain
reading of this statute. HRS § 91-14(b) provides that a party
wishing to appeal shall appeal “within thirty days after the
preliminary ruling or within thirty days after service of the
certified copy of the final decision and order of the agency[.]”
(Emphasis added). Accordingly, even if the 2011 permit is
characterized as a “preliminary ruling” under this statute,
Appellants’ appeal shortly after the “final decision and order of
the agency” was appropriate. Appellants did not waive a due
process challenge by not immediately appealing after BLNR issued
the 2011 permit.
UHH next defends the procedure here by generally
arguing that it is analogous to other procedures that have been
found to pass muster under due process in Hawai#i and elsewhere.
However, as set forth below, UHH refers to no federal or state
case--and this court finds none--similar to this case, where a
decisionmaker ruled on the merits before hearing the evidence.
UHH contends that Cinderella, 425 F.2d 583, which
prohibits appearance of the decisionmaker’s “prejudgment in some
45
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
measure,” sets a standard that is “obsolete and generally
rejected.” In support, UHH refers this court to Amerada Hess
Pipeline Corp. v. Regulatory Comm’n of Alaska, 176 P.3d 667
(Alaska 2008), for the proposition that Cinderella is generally
rejected, and NEC Corp. v. United States, 151 F.3d 1361 (Fed.
Cir. 1998), for the proposition that the appearance of
“prejudgment in some measure” is permissible so long as the
decisionmaker does not have an “irrevocably closed mind.” In so
arguing, UHH mischaracterizes Cinderella’s continued broad
acceptance across the country under appropriate circumstances and
ignores well established principles throughout Hawai#i case law.
In Cinderella, a member of the Federal Trade Commission
made a public statement on a pending adjudicative matter before
the Commission rendered a decision. The United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia held that where prejudgment
is alleged, the test for disqualification is “whether a
disinterested observer may conclude that (the agency) has in some
measure adjudged the facts as well as the law of a particular
case in advance of hearing it.” 425 F.2d at 591 (internal
quotation marks omitted). The court added that “an
administrative hearing must be attended, not only with every
element of fairness but with the very appearance of complete
fairness[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
46
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Before and after Cinderella, the commitment to an
objective “appearance of fairness” test is consistent throughout
Hawai#i judicial decisions. For instance, in Sifagaloa, 74 Haw.
181, 840 P.2d 367, this court considered whether an employee’s
due process rights were violated. The employee applied for
disability retirement benefits as a member of the State
Employees’ Retirement System (ERS). The ERS Board of Trustees,
upon reviewing a decision submitted by the Medical Board, denied
Sifagaloa’s request for disability retirement benefits. Id. at
186–87, 840 P.2d at 370. The same Board of Trustees adjudicated
his appeal from the Medical Board’s decision and affirmed the
denial. Id. at 187-88, 840 P.2d at 370. On appeal, the employee
asserted that he was denied due process because the Board of
Trustees had conflicting interests to award retirement benefits
and to preserve the retirement fund, and this conflict gave rise
to an appearance of impropriety whereby the Board of Trustees’
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Id. at 188, 840
P.2d at 370–71.
This court observed that the Supreme Court in Withrow
determined that the fundamentals of just procedure require
impartiality of “administrative agencies which adjudicate as well
as courts[,]” and concluded that there is “no reason why an
administrative adjudicator should be allowed to sit with impunity
47
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
in a case where the circumstances fairly give rise to an
appearance of impropriety and reasonably cast suspicion on his
impartiality.” Id. at 189-90, 840 P.2d at 371 (quoting Brown, 70
Haw. at 467 n.3, 776 P.2d at 1188 n.3).
Ultimately, this court concluded that: “[f]airly read,
neither the facts . . . nor the generalized assertions made here
about [the Trustees’] ‘inconsistent’ responsibilities prove an
interest on [their] part in the outcome of the determinations
made [on Sifagaloa’s claim] sufficient . . . to overcome the
‘presumption of honesty and integrity’ that attaches by virtue of
[their] office.” Sifagaloa, 74 Haw. at 193, 840 P.2d at 372
(alterations and ellipses in original). Many other Hawai#i cases
take this approach. See, e.g., In re Sawyer, 41 Haw. 270, 283
(Haw. Terr. 1956) (“A judge owes a duty not to withdraw from a
case––however much his personal feelings may incline him to do
so––where he is not legally disqualified, yet there may be
circumstances that cast suspicion on the fairness of the judge
proceeding in the case so that it may be advisable for a judge
not technically disqualified to withdraw sua sponte.”); Peters,
48 Haw. at 262-63, 397 P.3d at 585; Honolulu Roofing Co. v.
Felix, 49 Haw. 578, 617, 426 P.2d 298, 323 (1967) (quoting
Sawyer); Brown, 70 Haw. at 462-63, 776 P.3d at 1185; Sussel, 71
Haw. at 106, 784 P.2d at 869 (describing Honolulu Roofing’s
48
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
reference to Sawyer as “urg[ing] the circuit court to apply ‘an
appearance of impropriety’ test in the situation at hand and
disqualify the commissioners”); State v. Ross, 89 Hawai#i 371,
377, 974 P.2d 11, 17 (1998) (relying on Brown); In re Estate of
Damon, 119 Hawai#i 500, 508, 199 P.3d 89, 97 (2008) (relying on,
inter alia, Sussel, Brown, Offutt, Murchison, Withrow, and the
Revised Code of Judicial Conduct in discussing the prohibition of
even the appearance of impropriety).
The Cinderella standard also remains in use across the
country. See, e.g., Fogo De Chao (Holdings) Inc. v. United
States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 769 F.3d 1127, 1149 (D.C. Cir.
2014); McClure v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 16, 228 F.3d 1205, 1216
n.8 (10th Cir. 2000); Stivers v. Pierce, 71 F.3d 732, 741, 747
(9th Cir. 1995).
Nevertheless, UHH refers this court to Amerada, where
the Alaska Supreme Court explained its view that the Cinderella
standard “most squarely stands”--notably in the present tense--
“for the proposition that intemperate public remarks by a
decisionmaker create a constitutionally impermissible appearance
of outcome-determinative prejudgment.” Amerada, 176 P.3d at 674,
676. It characterized Cinderella as a “public-foot-in-mouth
case,” and noted that “public intemperance [was] so central” to
the decision that, it “can best be viewed as [a] response[] to
49
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
egregious official obnoxiousness which gratuitously undermines
public trust.” Id. at 674, 676. According to Amerada,
Cinderella did not set an “across-the-board standard[] for all
agency prejudgments of arguably adjudicative facts.” Id. at 676.
Amerada involved allegations that a commission’s decision
concerning the Trans Alaska Pipeline was tainted because one of
the commission’s staff persons previously wrote a master’s thesis
regarding that pipeline system. Id. at 672. The Amerada court
was critical of the Cinderella test, calling it vague, “unduly
abstract and impractical,” and inconsistent with a presumption of
regulatory propriety, and referred to federal cases in support of
its critique. Id. at 675-76. Ultimately, though, the Amerada
court applied the Cinderella standard in evaluating the due
process claim under the United States Constitution: “This
situation does not approach that zone of egregiousness where
federal courts discern a procedural due process violation based
on prejudgment bias relegating adjudication to ‘predestined
grooves.’” Id. at 676 (quoting Cinderella, 425 F.2d at 590).
Although the Alaska Supreme Court and some other
jurisdictions have been critical of Cinderella, Hawai#i courts
continue to embrace the dual requirements of the reality and the
appearance of justice. Accordingly, UHH’s argument that the
Cinderella standard is generally rejected is both incorrect and
50
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
inconsistent with Hawai#i case law. See, e.g., Sawyer, 41 Haw.
at 270; Honolulu Roofing, 49 Haw. at 617, 426 P.2d at 323;
Sussel, 71 Haw. at 106, 784 P.2d at 869; Sifagaloa, 74 Haw. at
191, 840 P.2d at 372.
UHH next argues that rehearing of a matter by the same
tribunal is a regular occurrence and does not violate due
process. (Citing FTC v. Cement Inst., 333 U.S. 683 (1948)). In
Cement Institute, a party alleged, one year after testimony had
been concluded but “while . . . proceedings were still pending,”
prejudgment by members of the Federal Trade Commission who
investigated the parties, submitted reports on the matters at
issue to Congress and the President in accordance with law,
testified before congressional committees in hearings related to
their reports, and whose reports and testimonies indicated their
opinions that were shaped while preparing the reports. Id. at
700. The Court concluded that the commission was not necessarily
disqualified from the matter before it because (1) the party
could still present evidence and argument before the Commission
rendered its decision, id. at 701, (2) “the fact that the
Commission had entertained such views as the result of its prior
ex parte investigations did not necessarily mean that the minds
of its members were irrevocably closed on the [issues],” id. at
701, (3) congressional purposes would be frustrated if commission
51
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
members could not have testified or reported, id. at 701-02, and
(4) “judges frequently try the same case more than once and
decide identical issues each time[,]” id. at 703.
Cement Institute is different from this case. Unlike
the party in Cement Institute, Appellants were not afforded an
opportunity to present evidence before BLNR rendered its decision
on the merits. As discussed, an “irrevocably closed” mind is not
the applicable standard under Hawai#i law. Rather, Hawai#i law is
consistent with the Cinderella standard. Unlike Cement
Institute, no act of Congress, statute, or even administrative
rule would have been frustrated by BLNR holding a contested case
hearing before deciding whether to issue the permit.
UHH refers to Cement Institute apparently in support of
the notion that BLNR could “vote again” on the application after
voting on it in 2011. But Cement Institute does not provide any
guidance on the issue of whether BLNR’s issuance of the permit
before a contested case hearing gave rise to the appearance of
impropriety.
UHH next refers to Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v.
Donnelly Garment Co., 330 U.S. 219 (1947), for the proposition
that an administrative decisionmaker should not be excluded for
prejudgment from rehearing a case merely because the
decisionmaker previously excluded evidence that was later found
52
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
to have been erroneously excluded. UHH also refers to Morgan v.
Planning Dep’t, Cnty. of Kauai, 104 Hawai#i 173, 86 P.3d 982
(2004), for the related proposition that agencies have “inherent
authority to reconsider [their] own decisions.” (Quoting id. at
185, 86 P.3d at 994). But the issue here is not BLNR rehearing
or reconsidering anything.
UHH next refers to MacKay v. McAlexander, 268 F.2d 35
(9th Cir. 1959), and Pangburn v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 311 F.2d
349 (1st Cir. 1962), for the propositions that an agency
administrator who presides over a proceeding similar to and
related to a prior proceeding, or who has had contact in a prior
hearing with facts at issue in the hearing at bar, or who has
taken a public position on facts, does not inherently violate due
process under the United States Constitution. Simply put, those
propositions refer to different factual circumstances and do not
guide disposition of this case. The due process issue under the
Hawai#i Constitution here concerns the propriety of BLNR issuing
the permit at the outset in 2011, not what it did afterward.
In sum, although UHH defends the procedure here by
generally arguing that it is analogous to other procedures that
have been found to pass muster, no case put forth by UHH is
analogous to the circumstances here.
UHH also defends the position that the hearing officer
53
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
and BLNR adopted in response to Appellants’ argument that the
sequence of issuing the permit before a contested case hearing
was improper. The hearing officer and BLNR, in their respective
findings, conclusions, and orders in 2012 and 2013 stated that
this sequence was authorized by HAR § 13-1-28(b) (2009). This
rule provides: “The contested case hearing shall be held after
any public hearing which by law is required to be held on the
same subject matter.” HAR § 13-1-28(b). Here, the contested
case hearing was indeed held after public hearings. Critically,
however, and contrary to Lemmo’s response to BLNR member
Pacheco’s question on the issue, this rule did not authorize BLNR
to decide the merits and issue the permit before the contested
case hearing, or before the request for a contested case hearing
had been resolved. In any event, due process would prohibit such
a procedure.
It might be argued that the high level of detail over
126 pages of BLNR’s FOFs/COLs/D&O demonstrates transparency that
mitigates, albeit belatedly, an appearance of prejudgment.
Indeed, one benefit of a transparent articulation of the bases
for decisions is the impression that the “processes were in fact
meaningful to the outcome.” Redish & Marshall, Adjudicatory
Independence, 95 Yale L.J. at 486 (internal quotation omitted,
emphasis omitted).
54
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
That said, the similarity between the 2011 permit and
the 2013 decision give the exact opposite impression, because
this similarity exists despite what BLNR received in between:
thousands of pages of written testimonies, exhibits, and factual
and legal arguments, and dozens of hours of verbal testimonies
and more legal arguments. As a result, the virtually
indistinguishable documents of 2011 and 2013 give the impression
that none of the testimonies, arguments, or evidence submitted to
BLNR between the two were seriously considered. BLNR should not
have issued the permit before the request for a contested case
hearing had been resolved. The appearance of prejudgment
continues.
UHH next argues that the remedy Appellants seek--remand
to a new hearing officer for a new contested case hearing--
reveals a flaw in Appellants’ position. Specifically, UHH
contends that even if a new hearing officer holds a new contested
case hearing, the matter would again be presented to BLNR for a
final vote, as it was in 2013, and thus would not resolve
Appellants’ challenge to BLNR’s prejudgment. This argument is
mistaken because Appellants do not challenge BLNR’s ability to be
fair and impartial (i.e., Appellants are not seeking recusal of
any or all members of BLNR). Rather, Appellants contend and this
court agrees that BLNR erred in the way it proceeded in 2011,
55
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
which is not necessarily indicative of how it may proceed upon
remand with a clean slate.13
BLNR argues that when it approved the CDUA and issued
the CDUP at the February 25, 2011 meeting, a request for a
contested case hearing was not perfected, so BLNR did not ignore
a procedurally-compliant request. In support, BLNR refers to HAR
§ 13-1-29 (2009), which generally states that in addition to a
request for a contested case hearing before the close of a board
meeting, a written petition must also be filed soon after the
board meeting.
BLNR generally reads this rule correctly, but the
absence of a perfected request for a contested case hearing did
not authorize BLNR to issue a permit before such contested case
hearing might be granted or occur. This is particularly so
because there was no doubt that a contested case hearing would in
fact be held, given (1) that Appellants were entitled to a
contested case hearing under the applicable administrative rules
and the Hawai#i Constitution; (2) numerous requests for a
contested case hearing as early as the public hearings in
13
Moreover, this court takes judicial notice that none of the
members of BLNR who voted on February 25, 2011 are currently members of BLNR.
See Hawai#i Rules of Evidence Rule 201 (regarding judicial notice); Compare
http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/boards-commissions/blnr/ (listing BLNR members as of
October 20, 2015), with ROA 15, ICA Dkt. 60:4 (listing BLNR members who voted
on February 25, 2011).
56
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
December 2010 and leading up to the February 25, 2011 meeting;
(3) repeated requests during the February 25, 2011 meeting for a
contested case hearing and specific requests to not issue a
permit before such hearing; (4) Lemmo’s apparent conclusion and
recommendation that a contested case hearing should be held; and
(5) BLNR’s apparent agreement with Lemmo by deciding on its own
motion that a contested case hearing should be held.
BLNR also argues that Appellants have not overcome the
presumption that administrative adjudicators perform their duties
with honesty and integrity.14 See Withrow, 421 U.S. at 47.
Under the factual circumstances of this case as described above--
most notably, the appearance of impropriety created by the
process employed by BLNR--this presumption does not warrant
judgment in favor of BLNR. See Murchison, 349 U.S. at 136
(stating that the requirement that proceedings must appear fair
“may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and
who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice
equally between contending parties”).
In short, BLNR acted improperly when it issued the
permit prior to holding a contested case hearing. No case or
14
BLNR also refers this court to cases which generally state that
due process does not require absolute “perfect[]” execution of procedural
protections, and although this is true, this general statement does not
warrant judgment in favor of BLNR under the circumstances of this case.
57
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
argument put forth by UHH or BLNR persuades otherwise.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this court vacates the
circuit court’s May 5, 2014 Decision and Order Affirming Board of
Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii’s Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order Granting Conservation
District Use Permit for the Thirty Meter Telescope at the Mauna
Kea Science Reserve Dated April 12, 2013, and final judgment
thereon. This matter is remanded to the circuit court to further
remand to BLNR for proceedings consistent with this opinion, so
that a contested case hearing can be conducted before the Board
or a new hearing officer, or for other proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
Richard Naiwieha Wurdeman /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
for appellants
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
Ian L. Sandison,
Timothy J. Lui-Kwan, /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
John P. Manaut, and
Arsima A. Muller
for appellee University of
Hawai#i at Hilo
Douglas S. Chin,
William J. Wynhoff, and
Julie H. China
for appellees BLNR, DLNR, and
Suzanne D. Case, in her
official capacity as
Chairperson of the Board
58