June 30, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

23 of 70 sheets Page 89 to 92 of 175 08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM 89 is that the person who questions the objector witness is1 to be their attorney. I don't think it means that's the2 only way an objector can present evidence.3 MS. McGOVERN: Well, I'm going to say, I4 will just reiterate what Dr. Bagoff said, what is the5 difference between public comment, like what you're6 proposing right now, versus, you had represented earlier7 that you had witnesses that you wanted to put forth as8 representatives of We Care to provide factual testimony.9 And --10 MR. AFRAN: That is correct, in part. Yes.11 MS. McGOVERN: Okay. So there's -- we're12 back and forth here. I don't know, I'm going to leave13 it to the Chairman to decide how the meeting is going to14 go forward, but that is a concern.15 MR. AFRAN: I think that -- well, I don't16 know why it's that much of a concern. Nobody's ever17 been poisoned by hearing words. If it's objectionable18 well then the chair will make a ruling. I mean, I don't19 see why it's that necessary to raise it right now before20 he said one word. I would say that I don't think21 there's any rule that says an objector representative of22 an organized objector, an organization or objector, has23 to be questioned only line by line rather than stating24 the position of the objector organization. I'm not25 90 aware of any rule or case that even says that. And what1 you cited with respect doesn't -- it's not exclusive.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We're getting into3 legalese, so in order to pull ourselves up and to make4 it clear, we're going to ask -- the Chair asks Mr. Afran5 to ask a question of Mr. Tractenberg, Mr. Tractenberg6 can answer the question and we'll go slowly. If we find7 that he is testifying -- he is not testifying and8 providing I know, I saw, I want, let me show you, that9 is factual, that is more public comment. We'll rule on10 it in that fashion and Mr. Plocker has the opportunity11 of providing his comment along the way.12 MR. AFRAN: I have to disagree that there's13 somehow a distinction between public comment and a14 commentary by an objector witness during the objector15 case. Public comment is for people who are not16 objectors and have an interest in the case. That17 doesn't mean an objector representative can't give their18 own narrative of the position of the objector group. I19 think you're establishing a false

objectors and have an interest in the case. That17 doesn't mean an objector representative can't give their18 own narrative of the position of the objector group. I19 think you're establishing a false distinction.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, the objector group21 has been heard from and in many ways by your experts.22 MR. AFRAN: That's correct, but not23 entirely.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Is there information that25 91 you say that Mr. Tractenberg has that has not been1 brought forth by any of the experts that would impact2 the boards decision?3 MR. AFRAN: I am sure he has information4 that could impact the boards decision. But also Ms.5 McGovern just got through telling us that the board6 should consider the motivation of an objector. Now7 you're telling me when the objector representative8 explains the reasons why the objector group is here9 somehow that's public comment. Now, it can't be both10 ways. Can't take a position that the board can inquire11 into the motivation of an objector and then say the12 objector representative can't explain his motivation.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Motivation is, whatever14 his motivation we'll find that out shortly, but we have15 to be careful not to have public comment, because then16 public comment becomes testimony, and we do not --17 MR. AFRAN: Public comment is testimony,18 that is the whole point. At this phase the public is19 questioning witnesses, as you've made a point repeatedly20 on and the public, later in public comment, gives its21 own information or viewpoints. So public comment is a22 form of testimony as opposed to the questions that are23 being posed to witnesses now which is in the nature of24 cross examination by the public. You have made the25 92 point and made the distinction.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, the distinction is2 public comment is at the end of all these meetings and3 testimony is during the proceedings, usually by experts.4 So --5 MR. AFRAN: No, that is -- no, there is no6 law or rule that says commentary during the proceeding7 is only by experts. There have been many instances when8 objectors speak factually or speak of their reasons and9 concerns and they are not limited to being members of10 the public. In fact the opposite applies. My officers11 can't speak during public comment. Now, you can't have12 it both ways. You can't say the officers of We Care13 have a motivation and it should be reviewed by the

ct the opposite applies. My officers11 can't speak during public comment. Now, you can't have12 it both ways. You can't say the officers of We Care13 have a motivation and it should be reviewed by the board14 but can't explain their motivation in the narrative and15 you can't say at the same time they can't speak during16 your public comment and at the same time say they can't17 speak during the case.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Hold on a second, Mr.19 Afran.20 Okay. Let's hear Mr. Tractenberg --21 MS. McGOVERN: I just --22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm sorry.23 Ms. McGovern, on the record.24 MS. McGOVERN: I'm going to cite the statute25