Former 3rd Circuit Court Judge Riki May Amano is facing another hurdle to her overseeing the Thirty Meter Telescope’s next contested case hearing — the University of Hawaii at Hilo.
Former 3rd Circuit Court Judge Riki May Amano is facing another hurdle to her overseeing the Thirty Meter Telescope’s next contested case hearing — the University of Hawaii at Hilo.
Less than three weeks after the state Board of Land and Natural Resources confirmed her appointment as hearings officer despite the objections of TMT opponents, UH-Hilo filed a statement Wednesday requesting with “great reluctance” that she be replaced.
The request was included in the university’s response to the motion telescope opponents made asking for a new hearings officer.
While noting Amano is “eminently qualified” and that it disagrees with objections to her selection, the university nonetheless said a new hearings officer should be chosen to avoid additional delays or legal challenges that it expects to be raised.
UH-Hilo, which is the applicant for TMT’s permit for construction on Mauna Kea, said it is making the request after learning Amano is serving as a mediator in a separate matter involving UH-Manoa, which could be used to raise additional questions about conflicts of interest and add to delays.
“Based on the Supreme Court’s directives, it is possible that Petitioners’ ‘appearance of justice’ arguments could be adopted on appeal which would result in crippling delays to the permit approval process,” UH-Hilo wrote.
Previously, Richard Wurdeman, the attorney representing the contested case petitioners, objected to Amano’s appointment because of her having a family membership at the ‘Imiloa Astronomy Center, located on the UH-Hilo campus. He said that created at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Additionally, he also questioned the decision by the board to defer selection authority to Chairwoman Suzanne Case and said the board should have taken formal action to restart the contested case process.
BLNR is restarting the quasi-judicial hearing after the state Supreme Court ruled it violated due process by voting to approve the permit before the first hearing was conducted.
UH-Hilo says it still thinks the petitioners’ complaints about the process lack merit and accused project opponents of using stall tactics.
It’s not clear how the Land Board will respond, but the request almost certainly will complicate the process.
Amano couldn’t be reached for comment by press time Wednesday.
Wurdeman said the petitioners are not dropping complaints over the process whether or not a new hearings officer is selected.
“They started the process wrong,” he said. “They call it delays — we want to call it following the law.”
The contested case involves the original six petitioners, mostly Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners opposed to construction of the large telescope on what they say is sacred ground, and the applicant, UH-Hilo.
The telescope’s nonprofit organization and other Native Hawaiians for and against the telescope also are seeking to participate in the process this time around.
The Land Board will use the hearings officer’s recommendation to decide whether to grant the permit again.
Email Tom Callis at tcallis@hawaiitribune-herald.com.