Board work group examines delays: scheduling, information exchanges and 'good cause' for continuances

County officials and attorneys told the State Board of Equalization on Sept. 16 that inconsistencies in how parties exchange evidence and how appeals are scheduled are major drivers of continuances and delays, and that clearer guidance and procedural rules could reduce backlogs.

Most speakers said AABs have limited authority to compel discovery and that current statutory mechanisms do not give AABs the same enforcement tools courts possess. Santa Clara Deputy County Counsel Bhavita Madvani and LA County counsel Thomas Parker both described the multiple statutory pathways (for example, Revenue & Taxation Code sections 408, 441 and 1606 were referenced in testimony) that control information flow between assessor and taxpayer but noted the AAB’s limited enforcement role.

"There is very little direct enforcement capability for AABs," Parker said. "Pre‑hearing conferences can encourage parties to exchange information, but there is no explicit authority like civil discovery to force compliance." Parker and others recommended stronger guidance on how and when parties should exchange their valuation evidence so hearings are productive or so issues can settle before the hearing.

Good‑cause standards: speakers recommended BOE guidance that explains what ‘good cause’ for a continuance is — and what it is not — using practical examples. San Diego Assistant Clerk Anne Moore said board members without legal training often default to granting continuances rather than risk denying a request; that tendency, she said, leads to repeated postponements.

Chris O’Neil, an experienced property tax attorney, urged adoption of “large‑case” procedural rules or pre‑trial conferences for complex matters that require more than a few hours. He compared AAB practice to superior court trial calendars: judges set firm multi‑day trial dates when needed and expect parties to be ready. O’Neil said explicit large‑case procedures — for example a written pre‑hearing submission schedule, exhibit marking deadlines and a block of consecutive hearing days — would reduce serial continuances and make calendaring predictable.

Tom Parker and other presenters said Revenue & Taxation Code section 1606 authorizes a mutual exchange process (often called a 1606 exchange) that, when used properly, can provide a 30‑day window for parties to disclose evidence and avoid surprises at hearing. Several speakers warned, however, that statutory exchanges can be weaponized if used to demand excessive documents or delay hearings.

Practical scheduling ideas included: requiring parties to confirm attendance in advance for scheduled hearing slots, offering remote or hybrid status conferences to identify readiness early, and creating county‑level policies that factor assessor readiness into scheduling while preserving the clerk’s authority to set calendars. Speakers urged BOE to consolidate best practices into updated guidance and consider model large‑case rules that counties could adopt locally.

Ending: the work group asked BOE staff to draft recommendations on clarifying good‑cause criteria, model large‑case rules and best practices for early information exchange; those proposals will be compiled into a written report for the Board’s consideration.