- 38 -
3. Other Arguments
Respondent argues that we should disregard petitioner’s
other arguments since he did not raise them in the petition. See
Rule 331(b)(4). We construe the petition broadly, however, see
Rule 31(d), and give petitioner the benefit of the doubt that his
averment that Ms. Boudreau improperly concluded the hearing
encompasses his other arguments. In any event we have made
extensive findings from the record, which we think belie
petitioner’s claims. We address each claim briefly.
Petitioner claims: Ms. Boudreau “did not conduct the
hearing in good faith.” As an example, petitioner recites that
Ms. Boudreau made her initial contact with petitioner by a letter
sent on September 16, 2002, which scheduled a meeting for
September 30, 2002. Petitioner recites: “This action is
assuredly indicative of the Settlement Officer’s predisposition
toward an expedient conclusion of Petitioner’s matter.” We do
not reach that conclusion since, when Mr. Burke telephoned Ms.
Boudreau on September 17, 2002, apparently in response to her
letter, she agreed to move the meeting to October 3, 2002.
Petitioner complains that Ms. Boudreau’s “lack of economic
perspicacity” reflected in her calculations (using national and
local expense standards) “shows that the Hearing was not
conducted in good faith.” We cannot agree with that complaint
since Ms. Boudreau adopted petitioner’s claimed expenses as a
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011