According to its response, after the Commission received the order to show cause, it learned that the services of counsel were available. Apparently, the Commission thought it previously had requested authorization to receive legal representation and, when no authorization was forthcoming, it concluded that the town would not provide representation. The Commission asserts that its review of the prehearing conference order and the ruling on the applicant's motion to dismiss, in which I ordered the filing of the more definite statement, was delayed because of the procedure the volunteer Commission uses to review and discuss correspondence. A part-time administrative assistant copies the correspondence and distributes it to the Commission members. It is addressed at the end of the next meeting.
Unfinished business is continued until the following meeting two or three weeks later.
The Commission states that it could not participate in the prehearing conference because it did not have counsel and the individual members were not able to attend. Now that it has legal representation, the Commission declares that it intends to fully prosecute its appeal. The Commission fails to show sufficient cause to continue its appeal. While the Commission now indicates an intent to prosecute its appeal in the future, its explanation for its past failures is inadequate. Failure to attend a mandatory prehearing conference is a serious default, particularly by a petitioner.