Opinion ID: 2536666
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The findings relating to the operation of Button's catamaran

Text: Two of the manager's factual findings and one finding made in the first instance by the assembly concerned operation of Button's catamaran during the summer of 2004:(1) on one occasion, Button asked a customer to drive Button's catamaran and pose as a potential buyer to circumvent Coast Guard safety regulations; (2) in August [Chilkat Cruises fast ferry Captain Mark] Mitcheltree witnessed Button captaining his ocean tour with an overloaded boat; and (3) Button admitted that on numerous occasions he used a customer as a crew member to overload his catamaran and circumvent Coast Guard safety regulations. Button argues that all three findings were unsupported by substantial evidence. Button argues that the first finding was unsupported by substantial evidence because the manager relied on inadmissible hearsay, a letter from the customer, Daniel Downing. Downing's letter was properly considered because hearsay is admissible at administrative hearings [20] and because it served to supplement or explain direct evidence. Downing's letter stated that on the morning of a trip he had booked with Button, Downing was told by Button that he did not have a captain for the trip and was asked by Button to run the boat, taking two other clients along with him. The letter further stated that Button told Downing that if he ran the boat under the idea that [he] was `test driving it as a prospective buyer' then [Button] could go around the Coast Guard since they watch him so closely. Downing declined. Button admitted at the hearing that he had asked Downing if he wanted to captain the boat and that Downing had declined. Button did not deny at the hearing Downing's allegation Button told Downing to pose as a potential buyer to circumvent Coast Guard regulations that require the boat to be captained by a licensed operator [21] and that limit the number of passengers. [22] Downing's letter served to supplement and explain Button's own admissions and was therefore properly considered. Together, Button's testimony and the letter are substantial evidence supporting the finding that Button asked Downing to pose as a potential buyer in order to circumvent Coast Guard safety regulations. Button argues that the second finding was unsupported by substantial evidence because he contends that he was not captaining the boat and that the boat was not overloaded. Substantial evidence did not support the findings of overloading. There was some evidence permitting the manager to find that Button was captaining the boat. [23] But there was no evidence the boat was overloaded on that occasion. There was instead evidence Button had five passengers on board that day. [24] This evidence established that Button's boat was not overloaded, [25] and there was no contrary evidence. The finding that Button captained an overloaded boat was therefore unsupported by substantial evidence. It appears that the numerous occasions component of the third finding was made by the assembly independent of the manager's findings of fact. We review the assembly's finding applying the same substantial evidence standard that we apply to the manager's findings. Button argues that because he admitted to using a passenger as a crew member one time only, the assembly's finding that he admitted he did so on numerous occasions was not supported by substantial evidence. Button did admit at the hearing that he had asked a passenger to pose as a crew member on one occasion, in order to circumvent Coast Guard regulations. The manager's finding that Button used a passenger as `crew' so he could overload his boat was therefore supported by substantial evidence. But there was no evidence Button admitted to doing so on more than one occasion. Substantial evidence therefore did not support the numerous occasions part of the third finding.