district where the with this court held that public participation is required in those hearings and anything that has the effect of all minimizing or discouraging  here officer wave the rules you know i've been hearing officer in commission control facilities citing proceedings and all the tendency is for the e u officer to waive rules but that doesn't negate against ordinances to do to adapt routes as they are not inconsistent with the up the requirements of a public hearing set we're in section thirty nine point two clearly the county's ordinances answer to that question so you're  b in a case like slaves is said you can be limited to school questioning you can limit the duration of questioning so obviously reasonable restrictions are connected to the subject matter and even read are always workers but the rules and procedures that they hear enough for solo if that is the case then when i receive them appears to be inaccurate because it really isn't the contents of the ordinance that we're supposed we don't find anything wrong with the rule as it is now i think that statement is subject to the normal review whether the mere existence of such a rule can render proceedings all off here as a matter of law is up to ere was no attorney for us that's correct and i don't recall maybe you can tell me did the rules up we prohibit an attorney being present because of its potential to discourage home participation and because of the house and expressed by the legislature and this more particularly in previous cases saying public participation is the most important aspect communications between policy makers any potential future employer can't even where the petitioner has not yet formally participated in the case and the mere fact that policymakers observed that the question that stayed away from the series goes through well i think there are two ways to demonstrate that your honor first i think what you could do would be to present an individual who says i would have wanted to participate but for the fact that any other person off the street who want to participate here i think for that reason the example you use which is the individual comes from wisconsin or perhaps from sun up from someone from any other park that is distant from a distant land somewhere else in the state it seems that there must be the community must be able to manage its proceedings and provide some structure to it and it's reasonable to say if you don't have an interest beyond the specific property interest associated with being right next to the proposed facility that you don't have an inherent right to cross examination now my comment is absolutely correct the rules are typically waived because there is not an overflowing number of individuals who wants to cross examine think in many respects more strict policy which is to say that the specific rationale for a finding under the section thirty nine point two factors cannot be information that is determined before the yes certain background information or  where these sorts of general outlines and broad contours of the proposed facility are certainly discussed in the heart of i think any sort of financial negotiation for between a community and a waste management company  i think what's critical here is that the what my colleague here has suggested that there should be no difference between the pre filing any post file contact i think that's wrong for two reasons the first reason is a practical reason which is that prior petitioners argument is to accept the proposition that either there can be no contact between an applicant and the ultimate decision maker before filing which i think we know can't be the case because presumed as a matter of the wall to make proper decisions make reasonable decisions and to base their decisions on the evidence that is presented to them an absence specific evidence to overcome that presumption in the just left off and that is that there is a presumption that a lot to the fishers cody or members are capable of making it impartial and informed judgment and that  not intend the proceeding to file and make a public comment with a very nice and indeed there were ninety nine such public comments that were received by the year in office i was twenty i do not believe that there's any question that these are not ex parte communications we have to look at what occurred and then the every single one of the individuals who attended that to talk under decisions and that is in the context of the host agreement before the final and i don't believe that there's any evidence whatsoever in fact even the people who testified county board member she testified said this was only one of the many different sources of funding that they were being that were being considered for purposes of the trail house expansion the issuance of bonds could have taken place raising the additional tax revenue and in fact  in this context i believed it as a matter of equity in the us the the hoff pretty much establishes what the concept of the fundamental fairness means it means allowing individuals in a community and within the statute itself those individuals are defined as people who have lived through the nose provisions of section thirty nine to people who have an interest because of the fact that they are continuous to or live close to the proper me question to appear participated cross examine witnesses et present evidence or cross examine witnesses and so therefore it is it's the parent i believe on the face of the stations and those notice provisions that this or this which basically first of all if if the proceeding must be termed to be fundamentally unfair what you must remember is this that even with the county board of emperors that might be excluded as a result of undue influence if that's what the court determined or whatever the vote to prove was still ninety eight even taking into account the seven individuals that make structure for this entire review in this process and that becomes important because throughout much of the petitioners are under the assumption has been made then the full participatory  protection agency for permit before we have this these provisions of the at warburg occur as evidence if they go to the agency make the request that process would be reviewed and ultimately the agency made terminations frequently with minimal with any input person that any one who has any in any point denied the full opportunity to meaningfully participate and to participate as a party at this hearing there's absolutely no question about death the record is absolutely clear that the guard and the fact that because as i just pointed out and gave these individuals the very right the petitions are complaining about but assuming there were such people who had such an interest it's hard to imagine a situation which they wouldn't in some point become aware of the fact that there was a human it thank you very much case were enough was enough i think what happened in this case these worse than what happened there because in this case the editing is responsible for a large part of the problem and it's not just in her actions of maker has that concern all of a sudden the decision is sliding over into being legislative and that's what we're trying to prevent from happening you know it's interesting that after  regional facilities of peace one building now and that's why historical all participants participants in these proceedings have been come one come all that has always been kids who rules are