Opinion ID: 3159610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: BLNR proceedings

Text: 1. Conservation District Use Application and Permit On September 2, 2010, UHH submitted to the Department of Land and Natural Resources a Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) for the TMT. UHH submitted the application on behalf of TMT Observatory Corporation, a private non-profit corporation, which proposed the TMT in partnership with the University of California, the California Institute of Technology, and the Association of Canadian Universities for Research in Astronomy; the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan was 2 Appellants also argue that their due process rights under the United States Constitution have been violated, that BLNR’s findings and conclusions did not satisfy HAR § 13-5-30(c), the permit lacked an adequate underlying management plan, and BLNR failed to meet its obligations to protect and preserve customary and traditional Native Hawaiian rights. Due to the disposition of this case on a threshold issue, this court does not address Appellants’ additional arguments. See United Pub. Workers, AFSCME Local 646 AFL-CIO v. Hanneman, 106 Hawai#i 359, 360, 105 P.3d 236, 237 (2005) (declining to address other issues where appeal disposed on a preliminary issue). 6  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  noted to be a “collaborator and potential partner,” and the National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and India’s Department of Science and Technology were noted to be “observers and potential partners.” The application proposed an astronomy observatory and ancillary facilities and access roads on a site of roughly five acres on the upper slopes of Mauna Kea. The proposed site was within the astronomy precinct of the Mauna Kea Science Reserve, which is within the Conservation District Resource subzone. The CDUA stated that as of mid-2010, thirteen astronomical facilities were operational on Mauna Kea. It explained that observatories were attracted to Mauna Kea “principally because of the superb viewing conditions that its high-altitude/mid-oceanic location provides,” and noted the “intellectual and physical support infrastructure that has developed around the [astronomy] complex.” The CDUA added that these factors “have helped Hawai#i become one of the most important centers for astronomical research in the world.” The proposed observatory consisted of a telescope thirty meters in diameter, attached instruments to record data, an enclosing dome, an attached building to house support and maintenance facilities, and parking. The CDUA also proposed a TMT Access Way, consisting of an improved road and underground 7  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  utilities improvements to connect the TMT with other existing roads and utilities, and temporary use of an existing four-acre staging area for materials during construction. The CDUA also proposed to upgrade existing underground electrical wiring, electrical transformers, and related equipment within a nearby substation. On December 2 and 3, 2010, BLNR held public hearings on the CDUA in Hilo and Kailua-Kona, respectively. Approximately 200 individuals attended the hearings, 84 of whom testified, and a number of individuals and groups provided written comments before and after these hearings. A range of opinions were expressed in support of and against the CDUA, and at least 6 individuals or groups requested a contested case hearing verbally, in writing, or both. In the weeks that followed, Samuel Lemmo, Administrator of the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, and Michael Cain, Staff Planner for the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, completed a staff report for BLNR that summarized the CDUA and public comments, including the requests for a contested case hearing, and recommended that BLNR approve the CDUA and issue a Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP). The staff report also recommended twenty-one conditions for the permit. Other than noting that requests for a contested case hearing had been 8  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  received, Lemmo and Cain did not at that time recommend that BLNR hold a contested case hearing. On February 17, 2011, BLNR advised UHH, Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Deborah Ward (Chairperson of Sierra Club, Hawai#i Chapter), Miwa Tamanaha (Executive Director of KAHEA), Fred D. Stone, and Clarence Kukauakahi Ching that BLNR would “consider” the application at its regularly-scheduled meeting on February 25, 2011, and would also consider a request for decision-making by the Board (a) on its own motion hold [sic] a contested case hearing or grant requests by Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Fred Stone, KAHEA Environmental Alliance, Kukauakahi (Clarence Ching), and Sierra Club for a contested case hearing, and (b) appoint a hearings officer and delegate to the Chairperson the authority to select said hearings officer to conduct all hearings for one (1) contested case hearing. On February 25, 2011, BLNR’s Chair began BLNR’s regularly-scheduled public board meeting by asking members of the public to limit their testimonies to no more than five minutes each. Lemmo then gave a presentation explaining the recommendation for approval of the application and issuance of a permit. A summary of that presentation, as reflected in the meeting minutes, spans nearly five pages single-spaced. He verbally supplemented the staff report with several additional recommended conditions, including the condition that: “If a 9  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  contested case proceeding is initiated no construction shall occur until a final decision is rendered by the Board in favor of the applicant or the proceeding is otherwise dismissed.” After Lemmo spoke, forty-one individuals testified either for or against the application, which included several more requests for a contested case hearing and objections to BLNR issuing a permit before holding a contested case hearing. For example, Marti Townsend, Program Director of KAHEA: The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance (KAHEA), testified to her belief that before a contested case hearing was held, BLNR could only “defer or deny” issuance of a permit: She referred to written testimony she submitted earlier pointing out a diagram that explains how the contested case process is supposed to work. There is no arrow from the Board making the decision to contested case decision and back and that’s because the contested case hearing process is not a motion for reconsideration. It’s not saying hey Board you made a mistake and you need to consider this information and re-vote. It’s a process for you to collect information because in these kinds of meetings we only have five minutes to speak we don’t get to cross examine witnesses. The actual facts don’t get to you, at least not in the way that it should so you can make an informed decision. Today your only options for decision making are to defer the permit until the completion of the contested case or to deny the permit. Clarence Kukauakahi Ching stated that “BLNR is not ready to grant an unconditional CDUP at this time and shouldn’t be. A conditional CDUP might work in the interim.” Kealoha Pisciotta, President of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, 10  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  explained to BLNR: [W]e’ve asked for a contested case hearing . . . . The procedural problem here is that a contested case hearing has to go before a permit approval. . . . [T]he reason is because contested case hearings is [sic] to make sure citizens like us that don’t have standing don’t have to go into court. The contested case hearing is a process whereby you’re allowed to present facts and information to the decision makers (the Board) via the hearing process so you can make an informed decision. But, if you make your decision before like if it is approved today then you grant the contested case hearing. [sic] There is no point . . . . What I am asking you guys is to consider that we don’t put process “B” before process “A”? It is equivalent to a Judge ruling before he has the evidence so I don’t know why it’s gone on like this, but we’ve had this problem before. . . . Jonathan Osorio, a University of Hawai#i at Mânoa Professor of Hawaiian Studies and board member of KAHEA, also objected to issuing a permit before a contested case hearing. Professor Osorio explained that although he was not a religious practitioner, he was deeply concerned as a historian of how telescopes have “proliferated” on Mauna Kea, and was also concerned by what he believed was an insufficient amount of revenues received from this type of project. Professor Osorio compared BLNR to konohiki3 and ali#i,4 who were faced with decisions to allocate resources, including “how they were used to 3 Konohiki is defined as “Headman of an ahupua#a land division under the chief[.]” Mary Kawena Pukui & Samuel H. Elbert, Hawaiian Dictionary 166 (rev. ed. 1986). 4 Ali#i is defined as “Chief, chiefess, officer, ruler, monarch, peer, headman, noble, aristocrat, king, queen, commander[.]” Pukui & Elbert, Hawaiian Dictionary, at 20. 11  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  develop.” He cautioned: You have a difficult decision to make here. It may very well be that what we need to do is look at this and give a contested case hearing a chance to present more information, more facts and more people having access to give these kinds of testimonies before you can make a decision. We definitely do not believe that you should make a decision today. BLNR member Robert Pacheco asked Lemmo to respond to these comments that a contested case hearing must occur before BLNR decided. Lemmo responded: [W]e have old rules Chapter 13-1, Rules of Practice and Procedure which have a section on the conduct of the contested case hearings. Under these old rules which are no longer in effect and have been replaced, an entity could ask for a contested case hearing at the required public hearing for the project which occurred long before this came before this body. The practice had developed of having a contested case when somebody asked for a contested case at the public hearing for the CDUP which is long before a decision is made. The rules were changed about five or six years ago which essentially seemed to now allow the Board to make a decision even with a pending request for a contested case hearing before you. Should a contested case hearing be required or held after that you go through that process and it would come back to you (the Board) again and you would rule on that. BLNR then voted unanimously to approve the application and issue a permit. BLNR adopted the conditions recommended in the staff report and the additional conditions that Lemmo recommended at the meeting, including the condition that, “If a contested case proceeding is initiated, no construction shall occur until a final decision is rendered by the Board in favor of the applicant or the proceeding is otherwise dismissed.” Pisciotta then asked whether, in the event a contested 12  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  case hearing occurred and the hearing officer disagreed with issuance of the permit, BLNR would “rescind the permit that they just approved[,]” and questioned how BLNR would prevent construction. BLNR minutes reflect the following response: Chair Aila said that with regards to the [construction] one of the conditions of the CDUP that they just approved is that no construction can begin until the contested case hearing is adjudicated. Mr. Lemmo said final decision making has been made. Chair Aila said there are no bulldozers up there. There is a difference of opinion on how those rules are applied. Ms. Pisciotta agreed which will be figured out by the court. Still the purpose is to allow the decision makers to make an informed decision and you can’t make an informed decision unless you have all the information at hand that is why we are suppose [sic] to have contested hearings before we have decision making because a contested case hearing is not a motion for reconsideration. Member Pacheco said this body makes decisions all the time that can go into contested case hearing and comes back to us right away. (Emphasis added). Subsequently, at this same meeting, BLNR voted unanimously to hold a contested case hearing. A few days later, in correspondence dated March 3, 2011, regarding “Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP) HA3568,” BLNR formally advised UHH that “on February 25, 2011, the Board of Land and Natural Resources approved Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP) HA-3568 for the Thirty Meter Telescope at the Mauna Kea Science Reserve,” subject to conditions. BLNR included the same conditions that were approved at the February 25, 2011 meeting. 13  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Pertinent conditions included: 5. Before proceeding with any work authorized by the Board, the applicant shall submit four copies of the construction and grading plans and specifications to the Chairperson or his authorized representative for approval for consistency with the conditions of the permit and the declarations set forth in the permit application. Three of the copies will be returned to the applicant. Plan approval by the Chairperson does not constitute approval required from other agencies; 6. All representations relative to mitigation set forth in the Environmental Impact Statement and Conservation District Use Application are incorporated as conditions of the permit; 7. All mitigation measures and management actions contained in the Historic Preservation Mitigation Plan, Construction Plan, Historical & Archaeological Site Plan, Maintenance Plan, and Anthropod Monitoring Plan, are incorporated as conditions of this permit; . . . 9. The TMT Management Plan is approved, including all specific management actions articulated in the TMT Management Plan including, Cultural Resources Management, Natural Resources Management, Education & Outreach, Astronomical Resources, Permitting and Enforcement, Infrastructure and Maintenance, Construction Guidelines, Site Recycling, Decommissioning, Demolition & Restoration, Future Land Uses, and Monitoring, Evaluation & Updates. These management actions and their associated mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions of this permit; 10. The following additional conditions shall be implemented by OMKM and TMT: . . . C Working with OMKM to develop and implement a habitat restoration study; . . . C Providing $1 million annually, adjusted for inflation, for “Community Benefits Package” which will commence with construction and continue through the term of the sublease. The package will be administered via The Hawai#i Island New Knowledge (THINK) Fund Board of Advisors; and C Partnering with other institutions to implement a Workforce Pipeline Program, headed by at least one full-time position through the Community Outreach office, to prepare local residents for jobs in science, engineering, and technical fields; . . . C The applicant will present a plan for handling 14  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  recreational parking during construction to the OCCL for review and approval prior to beginning construction; . . . C The Archaeological Monitoring Plan will be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Division for review and approval prior to the onset of construction; . . . 15. The applicant understands and agrees that this permit does not convey any vested rights or exclusive privilege; 16. In issuing this permit, the Department and Board have relied on the information and data that the applicant has provided in connection with this permit application. If, subsequent to the issuance of this permit, such information and data prove to be false, incomplete or inaccurate, this permit may be modified, suspended or revoked, in whole or in part, and/or the Department may, in addition, institute appropriate legal proceedings; . . . 20. No construction work shall be initiated until the applicant demonstrates compliance with all pre- construction conditions and mitigation measures outlined in this report. Once this condition has been satisfied, the Department will issue notice to proceed with construction; 21. If a contested case proceeding is initiated, no construction shall occur until a final decision is rendered by the Board in favor of the applicant or the proceeding is otherwise dismissed; . . . 25. Failure to comply with any of these conditions shall render this Conservation District Use Permit null and void. This correspondence further asked UHH to acknowledge receipt of “this approval,” and advised that BLNR had decided to hold a contested case hearing. 2. Contested Case Hearing Beginning in August 2011, a hearing officer appointed by BLNR’s Chair presided over a contested case hearing, during which voluminous written direct testimony was admitted, and 15  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  twenty-six witnesses, under oath, testified and were crossexamined. The following is a brief summary of the issues raised by the evidence and arguments presented. Perry White, the principal author of UHH’s application, testified that in crafting the application, he relied upon the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) that had been approved by the Governor in 2010 and the Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan and its four sub-plans, the Natural Resources Management Plan, the Cultural Resources Management Plan, the Decommissioning Plan, and the Public Access Plan. White further testified to the reasons he believed that TMT satisfied HAR § 13-5-30(c),5 which contains criteria for BLNR’s approval of a 5 HAR § 13-5-30(c) provides: In evaluating the merits of a proposed land use, the department or board shall apply the following criteria: (1) The proposed land use is consistent with the purpose of the conservation district; (2) The proposed land use is consistent with the objectives of the subzone of the land on which the use will occur; (3) The proposed land use complies with provisions and guidelines contained in chapter 205A, HRS, entitled “Coastal Zone Management”, where applicable; (4) The proposed land use will not cause substantial adverse impact to existing natural resources within the surrounding area, community, or region; (5) The proposed land use, including buildings, structures, and facilities, shall be compatible with the locality and surrounding areas, appropriate to the physical conditions and capabilities of the specific parcel or parcels; (6) The existing physical and environmental aspects of the land, such as natural beauty and open space (continued...) 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  permit, and in particular, how he believed that the TMT project would not cause “substantial adverse impact.” White also testified regarding future decommissioning of Mauna Kea observatories, including TMT. Dr. Gary Sanders, the TMT Project Manager, testified that TMT’s design was developed in consultation with the Office of Mauna Kea Management. He testified extensively regarding measures intended to mitigate the impact of TMT, including a reflective exterior dome that fit tightly around the telescope to minimize visual impact. Dr. Sanders also testified that TMT was designed for a service lifetime of fifty years, while acknowledging that UH’s lease of the land from the State expired in 2033. Dr. Sanders also responded to questions regarding whether TMT would cause a permanent alteration or disturbance to the natural landscape at the TMT site, acknowledging that “there will likely be some permanent alteration.” James Hayes, of an engineering firm contracted to prepare the FEIS, testified regarding the anticipated visual 5 (...continued) characteristics, will be preserved or improved upon, whichever is applicable; (7) Subdivision of land will not be utilized to increase the intensity of land uses in the conservation district; and (8) The proposed land use will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 17  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  impact, level of “cumulative impact” in light of existing telescopes on Mauna Kea, and several mitigation measures incorporated in the design of TMT. More specifically, Hayes testified that TMT would add only a “limited increment to the level of cumulative impact that currently exists on Mauna Kea, but it will not tip the balance of any assessed impact from a level that is currently less than significant to a significant level.” Indeed, the FEIS stated, “From a cumulative perspective, the impact of past and present actions on cultural, archaeological, and historic resources is substantial, significant, and adverse; these impacts would continue to be substantial, significant, and adverse with . . . [TMT] and other reasonably foreseeable actions.” Hayes further testified that placing TMT on a recycled telescope site was considered but ultimately deemed “not feasible.” Wallace Ishibashi, Jr., a member of the Kealoha Poli#ahu family, a lineage traditionally recognized as descendants of Poli#ahu, a snow goddess of Mauna Kea, testified that upon asking Poli#ahu whether TMT was “compatible with the sacred landscape,” he was informed that “it was okay.” Ishibashi further testified in writing that due to his experience learning from navigator Nainoa Thompson and from his grandfather about the stars and the moon and the importance of the study of 18  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  the heavens to ancient Hawaiians, he supported the TMT because he believed that it would help his grandchildren “learn more about ourselves, our God, and what’s out there beyond the stars that we can see with only our eyes.” He compared TMT’s advanced search for knowledge and understanding to a search for the aumakua or ancestral origins of the universe, and expressed disagreement with those who “oppose[d] things like the TMT on Mauna Kea just because it’s a modern thing, as Hawaiians have always been a creative and adaptive people.” Kealoha Pisciotta explained in her opening statement that in Native Hawaiian cosmology, Mauna Kea is an origins place. “[I]t’s where the heaven and the earth come together, where all life forms originated from. . . . It is a temple, but one not made by man but for man, so that man could learn the ways of the heavens and the laws of this earth, which mean how do we live with each other; how do we live in relationship to the earth; how do we live in relationship to the heaven.” Dr. J. Kehaulani Kauanui, a Professor of Anthropology and American Studies at Wesleyan University, testified that telescope development on Mauna Kea had “proliferate[d]” beyond levels anticipated in the general lease from the State and the 1983 Master Plan for Mauna Kea. Professor Kauanui added that TMT constituted 21st century colonialism, and that observatories on 19  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Mauna Kea “literally supplant our indigenous temple of worship,” and are a “desecration.” Marti Townsend, Program Director of KAHEA: The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance, testified that TMT would negatively affect the viewplanes of cultural practitioners, and that telescopes on Mauna Kea negatively affected cultural practices and the environment. Townsend further testified that the mitigation measures proposed did not address “substantial adverse impacts” identified in the FEIS and CDUA because the majority of the measures were only indirect, speculative, and beneficial to “particular groups.” In closing, Appellants and UHH presented arguments, among other things, regarding whether Appellants’ due process rights had been violated. Pisciotta argued: I have to note here that in this case BLNR approved the TMT CDUA prior to conducting a contested case hearing, which we believe violated our due process rights, potentially shifting the burden of proof, and thereby forcing us to have to change BLNR’s mind, rather than BLNR listening with an open mind to hear all evidence. UHH responded as follows: Let me start with the claim that somehow the Applicant has relied on the approval of the CDUA for the CDUP for the permit in February. Again, we never relied on that. In fact, we agreed–-we accepted the condition where there would be no action taken on it. In fact, we never raised that as an issue in terms of certain things that we accepted. And we didn’t shift–-the burden of proof did not shift. The University agreed and has continued to agree to accept the burden of proof of the eight 20  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  criteria for the issuance of a CDUP which we believe the record has clearly shown, and the evidence that was submitted clearly supports the issuance of a CDUP. On November 30, 2012, the hearing officer issued his 124-page findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order, which stated that “the CDUA is GRANTED, and a Conservation District Use Permit is issued,” subject to conditions. Other than omission of the condition that if a contested case hearing be held, then construction shall be stayed, all conditions in the hearing officer’s order were virtually the same as those in BLNR’s March 3, 2011 letter nearly twenty-one months earlier. As germane to the issue before this court, the hearing officer concluded that BLNR’s approval of the permit prior to the contested case hearing was consistent with HAR § 13-1-28(b) (2009).6 Appellants objected to this and other findings and conclusions before BLNR. Voluminous briefings were filed and BLNR held a hearing. On April 12, 2013, BLNR issued its 126-page findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order (BLNR’s FOFs/COLs/D&O), stating that “the CDUA is GRANTED, and a Conservation District Use Permit is issued,” subject to conditions. In appearance and substance, BLNR’s FOFs/COLs/D&O is 6 HAR § 13-1-28(b) provides: “The contested case hearing shall be held after any public hearing which by law is required to be held on the same subject matter.” 21  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  substantially the same as the hearing officer’s findings, conclusions, and decision and order. BLNR addressed Appellants’ procedural argument by characterizing the February 25, 2011 decision as a “preliminary ruling” that complied with the Department of Land and Natural Resources’ (DLNR) Rules of Practice and Procedure, including HAR § 13-1-28(b). BLNR concluded that there was no due process violation because (1) the February 25, 2011 meeting was a “preliminary approval” and not a “final agency action,” (2) the “preliminary approval” was conditioned upon the outcome of the contested case hearing and thus gave Appellants an opportunity to be heard, and (3) the prescribed sequence in the procedural rule was followed because public hearings preceded the contested case hearing: [COL] 225. In a preliminary ruling by the BLNR, the CDUP was granted and the following condition was simultaneously imposed by the BLNR: “If a contested case proceeding is initiated, no construction shall occur until a final decision is rendered by the Board in favor of the applicant or the proceeding is otherwise dismissed.” Immediately thereafter, on its own motion, the BLNR voted to direct that a contested case be held, and provided a date for interested parties to petition to participate in the contested case. The condition quoted above is formalized as Condition 21 in the BLNR’s March 3, 2011 letter to the University. Thus, the BLNR retained responsibility to review and accept, reject, or modify the Hearing Officer’s proposed findings and conditions. By immediately ordering that a contested case be held and prohibiting construction until, if ever, it rendered its “final decision” in favor of the applicant following the conclusion of the contested case proceeding, the BLNR demonstrated that its February 25, 2011 vote and subsequent March 3, 2011 letter 22  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  constituted a preliminary ruling and did not reflect any final agency action. . . . [COL] 228. In their brief in the contested case proceeding, [Appellants] did not argue that the contested case hearing should have been held before the BLNR voted on the CDUA. They did, however, mention that issue, at least in passing, during closing arguments. [Appellants’] position is not supported by the DLNR’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, which specifically provide for a contested case hearing to occur after the public hearing on the matter, and not before. Thus, Haw. Admin. R. § 13-1- 28(b) states: “The contested case hearing shall be held after any public hearing which by law is required to be held on the same subject matter.” (Emphasis added [sic].)[7] The order of proceedings here complied with that rule. [COL] 229. In any event, [Appellants] cannot plausibly claim that they have been deprived of due process or, indeed, that they have suffered any harm at all by the order of proceedings. The condition imposed by the BLNR and quoted above mandated that no work be done on the TMT Project until the contested case has concluded and the BLNR has finally resolved the matter in UHH’s favor. That condition has been honored. The Hearing Officer was promptly appointed, and the contested case was held in due course. The Project remains in abeyance pending the outcome of this process. The BLNR must still vote on this matter. The BLNR has at all times retained the authority to review and accept, reject, or modify the Hearing Officer’s proposed findings and conclusions, and until the BLNR has voted again, there has been no final agency action on this application. For all practical purposes, [Appellants] are exactly where they would have been if the process had not followed the BLNR’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, but instead had occurred in the manner they desired. (Internal exhibit citation omitted).