Mr. William Prasifka:

The office had the position before I joined it - and I fully buy into it - that there would be certain circumstances and certain types of complaints in which an oral hearing is necessary. That has never been the source of contention. The difficulty arises ex post facto, after a decision has been made, one can always look back and invalidate that decision on the ground that an oral hearing was not necessary.
I receive letters from people whose complaints were adjudicated years ago, long before I appeared on the scene, wanting to know why they did not get an oral hearing. We know that every time we get an appeal, one of the issues will be, "Did we or did we not hold an oral hearing?".