Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hearing Logistics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Guam EPA board debates whether to attend Palisades hearing amid open‑meeting and recusal concerns
Summary
Board members discussed whether to attend a Palisades hearing that may take place in July, noting open‑meeting notice requirements if multiple directors attend, the administrative role of the hearing officer, and at least one potential recusal by a director who disclosed a prior relationship with an involved party.
Board members discussed the logistics of a proposed Palisades hearing during the Guam Environmental Protection Agency meeting on May 21, focusing on whether directors should attend the hearing in person, how to provide appropriate public notice, and the effect of possible recusals on quorum.
Members reviewed the legal distinction between a hearing officer conducting evidence and the board's role in accepting or rejecting findings. Several directors said they preferred to attend to review evidence, while others noted attending in numbers greater than one would trigger open‑meeting requirements and the need for a public notice and agenda. The hearing officer had requested a resolution stating which directors "intend to be present" at the hearing; board counsel and staff said the wording can be adjusted because no date is yet set.
One director disclosed a long‑standing personal relationship with an individual associated with the development in question and said that disclosure should be in the record; board members discussed whether a recusal would affect quorum or require alternative arrangements. The board agreed to defer final decisions on designation language and to revisit the matter when a hearing date is set.
No formal vote on the Palisades resolution was taken on May 21; the topic remains on the agenda for a future meeting once dates and hearing‑officer availability are confirmed.
