Guam EPA board weighs remand order in Case No. 25-0585, debates 60‑day timeline and potential counsel conflict

The Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) board on June 9 continued deliberations over a proposed order to remand Coffin Daffer v. Guam PA (Case No. 25-0585), debating whether to adopt a 60-day deadline for GEPA to complete remand proceedings and raising questions about possible conflicts involving an attorney who has previously served in government.

Stacy, the administrative hearing officer, presented the proposed order and said it set specific deadlines: remand to GEPA; completion of remand proceedings within 60 days unless extended for good cause; notice to the appellant within seven days of the evaluation; and issuance of a license within seven days after completion if the appellant meets the requirements. The board asked whether those timelines could be revised; Stacy said she could amend the order on the record to state ‘60 days from today’s date.’

The timing debate centered on competing concerns: appellant counsel, identified in the record as Leven Kamacho, said the application had been pending since March and that his client has been unable to work without a license. “It’s been almost a year now I think since this was submitted,” Kamacho said, urging a quicker resolution and describing claimed pecuniary harm. He told the board he believed an outer limit would be fair but stressed the urgency for his client.

Board members also discussed a question raised by Heather about whether Kamacho or his firm had previously advised GEPA during his service as Attorney General of Guam and whether that prior involvement would create an ethical conflict for him now. Heather asked whether anyone had examined whether his firm’s prior representation of GEPA was “even proper” for this matter because the order turns on GEPA’s policies and prior practices. One participant said they did not see a colorable conflict based on the hearing record, which focused on public policies and procedures in the record; Stacy and other participants said the specific conflict issue was not raised in the underlying hearing record.

Kamacho responded to the concerns in part by stating that he had “not been in the AD’s office for four years now,” that he “was never involved personally” in licensing matters, and that he “would not have taken this case if there was a conflict.” Board members said it was important to identify any potential conflicts in the future but, based on what was before them, they did not see a disqualifying conflict on the record.

GEPA staff told the board that adopting the recommendations and order would require “reasonable time” for GEPA to implement written procedures and a standard operating procedure, adopt a policy statement, and then apply those procedures to the appellant. The staff representative said the timelines in the original draft were achievable but emphasized implementation steps and the need to adopt procedures before applying them.

The board also requested a clerical correction to the draft order’s heading (to indicate the matter is before the Guam EPA board of directors rather than the Superior Court of Guam). The hearing officer said she would make the amendment on page five to set the 60-day deadline from the date the board adopts the order.

What happens next: the board indicated it could adopt the order with the amended 60-day remand deadline and related short notice periods, but the transcript does not record a formal vote or final adoption. The record shows the board discussed amending the timeline on the record and heard competing statements about implementation feasibility and the appellant’s hardship; the potential ethical concern involving prior representation was raised and addressed in discussion but not resubmitted as a formal disqualification motion in the transcript.