Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 01 20 Outline for Quasi-Judicial BoardY/ CArtline- Definition of Quasi judicial Board a. oriented to past events b. investigates, declares, applies or enforces rules based on existing facts Responsibilities- a. due process requirements are heightened . b. particular parties, especially afflicted landowners and residents are entitled to notice c. ex-pane communications, (lobbying), are prohibited d. discovery and evidentiary Hiles may apply e. testimony needs to be under oath; witnesses may be subject to cross-examination f. decision must be based on evidence, not on opinion a. Due process- Procedural due process allows each person the right to be heard and to cross-examine witnesses. Prior notice must be given in accordance with I62 (FS) . Parties must be given to opporiunity to be heazd Parties must be allowed to present evidence. Parties are informed of all the facts upon which the Board acts. b. Those parties who maybe a$ected by the outcome of a decision must be given notice c. ex-parts communication- In Jennings vs. Wade, the court said that ex-parts communication is W be avoided They acknowledged that such communication often occurs unsolicited, and this alone does not mandate an automatic appeal. But, with proof from the aggrieved party's proof that the communication merely occurred, it's effect is presumed to be pre judicial, unless proved otherwise by competent evidence. Farther, any written correspondence received that may be ex-pane communication should be acknowledged during the public hearing and made part of the public record Such written communicadan should only be viewed as substantive evidence (evidence used to base a de- cision) if the writer is sworn and present for cross-examination. Making the written correspondence pert of the public record does not mean that it's to make a decision. Telephone conversation should be avoided is the same manner as personal conversations with individuals. Sometimes such phone calls do occur burl, stopping such conversation and writing a memo stating date, time and content of such phone call and imroducing the memo into the public record should help to forestall any attempt to prove prejudice. d Logs indicating merely support or opposition of a cause, petitions, presence of large members of supporters or opposers to a cause, and the like aze not W be viewed as evidence and their acceptaix;e to the public record at all is questionable. Decisions are to be based parely on proper evidence only, and allowing the above type of testimony to be admitted as information only may still sway the decision of the Board members. It is advised that such testimony not be allowed in the Code Enforcement Board "Forum". (Public opinions may be voiced at other hearings-i.e. Clty Commission meetings) If information from a site visitor other historical knowledge to the decision maker is considered in making a decision, that information must be disclosed ~ the beginning of the bearing. It has been deemed inappropriate for individual board members to drive by a site because such information that they gather from such a visit maybe used to make a decision and that irtformattion was not presented at the public hearing, Some Boards have opted for not even receiving the address of a violation before the hearing so that such claim cannot be made that a site visit occurred Testimony of evidence to be considered in making an opinion must be based on fact, In other words, opinions don't count as evidence and a decision should not be based upon such testimony. Again, because merely hearing such testimony is very likely to sway a Board member's decision . it is advised that this type of testimony not be allowed in the Code Enforcement Board Hearing. r' Voting Requirements Under present Fla, law, a member of adecision-making body generally must vote on an issue if they are present at the hearing. The only conflict of interest is when the member is voting on an issue that wouM inure his private gain, or have an imerest in the private gain, or inure the private gain ~ a relative or business associate. (see FS 112.314). Simply because a member is a friend of the respondent or neighbor or knows the situation is not a reason to abstair- from voting. It has been generally held that a member may vote even if he was not present to hear the evidence, (a new Boazd member, or in a continuing case where the Board member was presecrt at the original hearing.) However, unless the Board member has examined the evidence of the previous hearing, or unless such evidence was presented at the following hearing in a cumulative manner, a member should not vote. In Conclusion- It is important to remember that quasiyudicial hearings are not intended to and not required to be held tot he same degree of formality as a full judicial hearing. However, certain minimum restrictions related to ex-pane discussions and procedural requirements aze applied 'The importance is in establishing compliatsce with the Code of Ordinances on all quasiytbdicial matters which aze presented to the Code Enforcement Board, accomplished via evidentiary roles.